Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 21:35:58 -0700 Subject: Re: [OT] Re: "Congress mulls prison terms for KaZaA users" From: Philip J. Koenig Organization: The Ekahuna Organization Newsgroups: ba.internet In article , spamfilter0 @navasgroup.com (John Navas) writes... > [POSTED TO ba.internet - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > > In on Sun, 3 Aug 2003 17:19:21 > -0700, Philip J. Koenig wrote: > > >In article , spamfilter0 > >@navasgroup.com (John Navas) writes... > >> > >> In on Sat, 2 Aug 2003 17:43:21 > >> -0700, Philip J. Koenig wrote: > > >> >Surprisingly and relievingly, they actually threw out the dope-growing > >> >conviction that was based on doing infrared scans of someone's house > >> >from the outside, finally on appeal being ruled "unreasonable search > >> >and seizure" because people have a right to expect that when they are > >> >inside their homes what they do is private and not being monitored > >> >unless someone has a search warrant. > >> > > >> >Usually the result does not go so favorably, at least in recent > >> >years, based on my observation. > >> > >> Any cases to back that up, or just gut feel? ;-) > > > >The evidence is in the big collection of court decisions in > >the last 10 yrs or more where previously-held rights were > >taken away. > > You said "inside their homes" so let's stick to that. Usenet debate lesson #19: Otherwise referred to the "let me rephrase what you meant" ploy. This is where the person finds your arguments inarguable, so tries to re-define what you said in order to circumvent the need to debate you. This is often accompanied by creative snipping and reformatting of attributions in order to make it difficult for readers to understand the original context. The solution for this tactic is obvious - point out what a twit they are by trying to change the subject or put words in your mouth. > >Now, a cop has the right to arrest you simply because you ran > >away when he asked you to stop for questioning. ... > > Not "inside their homes." > > >Now, a cop has the right to search individuals in a car simply > >because the car was stopped for a completely unrelated reason > >(ie tail-light violation) even if those individuals are doing > >absolutely nothing to raise any sort of suspicion. ... > > Not "inside their homes." > > >Examples of decisions under Rehnquist's court that have > >reversed previous doctrine pertaining to stopping motorists > >for questionable reasons: > >http://www.bikernet.com/news/specials/trafficstops.asp > > Not "inside their homes." > > >Allegations ... > > ... are not cases. > > >Obnoxious and intrusive random drug-testing of non-athletes at > >schools had been getting pretty popular until recently: > >http://archive.aclu.org/news/2001/w032501a.html > > Not "inside their homes." > > >The "Patriot Act". 'nuff said. > > No. What directly pertains to your allegations? > > >There are various others. > > Any that are actually on point? > > >"The era of the courts as protectors of individual rights may have > >passed": > > > >http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/viewpoints/viewpoint.asp?ObjID=i8dC7s7sfi&Content=182 > > Troubling, but self-serving. But again, not on point. > > "Stay on target, Luke! Stay on target!" > >