Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Texas Bills Would Bar Warrantless Snooping On Phone Location

timothy posted about a year ago | from the give-me-room-lots-of-room dept.

Cellphones 277

pigrabbitbear writes "The Supreme Court may have approved the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens for just about forever, but the good old state of Texas isn't going to take that lying down. Texas lawmakers don't believe that cell phone location data is fair game for law enforcement, and a couple identical bills filed in Texas's House and Senate would provide sweeping protections for private cell users."

cancel ×

277 comments

Not necessary (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43106847)

This isn't necessary anyway. Not when everyone willingly reports their location to Facebook and Twitter every time they need to brag about every bite of whatever they're eating. Or every bowel movement afterward.

Dammit, Texas! (4, Interesting)

tylikcat (1578365) | about a year ago | (#43106889)

First you're incredibly regressive (say, dealing with reproductive rights) and then you do something pretty cool.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (4, Insightful)

Tailhook (98486) | about a year ago | (#43106975)

That sounds a lot like the sentiments expressed yesterday [slashdot.org] about Kentucky (Rand Paul's state.) Perhaps you people need to rethink the stereotypes you've been trained with.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107087)

I like how you generalized in your criticism of his generalizing.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (4, Informative)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about a year ago | (#43107141)

They're not exactly stereotypes if the states go out of their way to prove it. Arkansas overturning abortion vetoes and Texas holding the rest of the country hostage in regards to putting "Intelligent Design" into everybody's textbooks have actually happened and are not based on prejudices and stereotypes. The South is a very confusing place lately.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (2)

tylikcat (1578365) | about a year ago | (#43107327)

Naming two specific issues is stereotyping?

It's not really that far from how I feel about Rand Paul - I really support his discussion of drones and a number of other civil liberties issues. And disagree with him pretty strongly at least as many.

I'd be pretty happy to work with social conservatives in support of civil liberties... or to at least try to. (I mean, if they can't shut up about my body and my sexual preferences, it's just not going to work.)

Re:Dammit, Texas! (1, Insightful)

Looker_Device (2857489) | about a year ago | (#43107729)

Too bad Republicans only seem to stand up for this sort of thing when a Democrat is in office.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (3, Informative)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43108017)

Perhaps you'd be better off with a cluepon that you could obtain by looking over the voting record of any politician you can think of. Who 'is in office' is irrelevent to how they act, the only thing different is how the media acts and who gets blamed.

What they do never changes, just what they say about others.

Get a clue. Neither your blessed democrats nor those ebil republicaans are your friends or are any different from one another, you're just too blind to notice it.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (-1, Troll)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about a year ago | (#43106997)

These bills are going in along with a new bill that makes sure women stay in the kitchen.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107985)

My wife is a stay-at-home mom and she gets to drink, masturbate, and smoke pot all day. She considers it an honor to have this opportunity when a number of other girls could have gotten it instead.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (4, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#43107095)

Maybe you should consider what freedom actually means instead of attaching labels to individual issues.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (4, Insightful)

StormyWeather (543593) | about a year ago | (#43107139)

I think that I speak for a large amount of the libertarian bent Texans when I say that most of us don't like abortion, but if someone wants to do it themselves we aren't going to get in the middle of it in any fashion other than to make sure that the patient can become fully informed of the development of their unborn child to that point, and be informed of any medical procedure and it's positive and negative effects upon them. Heck getting orthognatic surgery is something that gets more councelling and support than an abortion in many ways. One thing a lot of pro abortion people put on their blinders about is that many women are forced or "strongly coerced" to have abortions by parents, boyfriends, bosses that knocked them up, etc. These women can be led through the process without ever really knowing what is going to happen to them physically and psychologially until it's irreversable. I know a woman that had to have the aboriton process on a fetus that died inside her. She was devestated emotionally for years, and this was something completely out of her control. Not only that she still suffered the post partem but had no baby to bring her happiness. I've also known women that have had abortions pushed by scared and angry boyfriends that regreted it to the point of depression, so there is noone that can convince me that abortion is an emotionally void process that should just be mechanically performed with no councelling at all.

However, if you want us to pay for it, then we will fight it tooth and nail. The govenrment has no place funding chopping up babies any more than it has perusing cell phone records without a warrant. It simply just shouldn't be in the business at all unless there is cause for dire public injury. Also a lot of us are pretty pissed about the conservative overreach of government just as much as the liberal overreach. Personally for example I think the government banning gay marriage is stupid as the day is long. They deserve to be just as miserable as us married folks.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (1)

doubledown00 (2767069) | about a year ago | (#43107529)

What you call a "libertarian ben" I merely call "distrust of law enforcement". Texas to this day is one of the hardest states to get a conviction in because of all the pro-defendant protections built into the system. Texas law on confessions, searches by third parties, warrantless arrests, and search warrants are all *way* stricter than the Federal Constitution requires. I see this cell phone bill as another step in that direction.

And since you mentioned it: Forcing said women to undergo a procedure where she is partially penetrated with a probe for the purpose of making her listen to the heartbeat is *beyond* any merely "informing" someone about a medical procedure. And the Planned Parenthood nonsense going on in this state is further afield of any Libertarian bent.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107747)

Depends on the County you are prosecuted in.

A guy had 4-5 Drunk Driving convictions in Travis County and got probation each time. He comes up to Williamson County and does it again...Life.

Travis County (the Jury) just let off a young woman who was drunk, hit and killed another woman and left her in the ditch. She got Probation. In Williamson Country she would have probably gotten 20 years.

It is a common sentiment around here that if you're going to get caught breaking the law, it's best to do it in Travis Country.

BTW, Travis is where Austin is, a Liberal bastion in TX.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43108135)

Life for DUI? Wow. Nice fucking state you've got there.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107991)

Texas law on confessions, searches by third parties, warrantless arrests, and search warrants are all *way* stricter than the Federal Constitution requires. I see this cell phone bill as another step in that direction.

And yet, it is the state with the most death penalties.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (1)

McGuirk (1189283) | about a year ago | (#43108287)

Well, it's hard to get a conviction, but when we do, we're damned sure about it.

On a more serious note, the only problem I have with the death penalty is the possibility of a false conviction. I don't think that it is necessarily a bad thing to kill someone who is certain to have committed a crime that warrants it. It gets gray with things like mental illness though.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (2, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43108057)

And since you mentioned it:

And since you mentioned it: Forcing said women to undergo a procedure where she is partially penetrated with a probe for the purpose of making her listen to the heartbeat is *beyond* any merely "informing" someone about a medical procedure.

Having seen it done, seriously, shut the fuck up. If thats the part your concerned with you're so disconnected from reality that you shouldn't talk, it just makes you look childish.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107555)

One thing a lot of pro abortion people put on their blinders about is that many women are forced or "strongly coerced" to have abortions by parents, boyfriends, bosses that knocked them up, etc. These women can be led through the process without ever really knowing what is going to happen to them physically and psychologially until it's irreversable.

Yep, you're from Texas. "Women are stupid and powerless." No doubt, you're Texan!

I know a woman that had to have the aboriton process on a fetus that died inside her. She was devestated emotionally for years

Yep, you're from Texas! It's called a "miscarriage," son, and it's nothing like an abortion. She lost a baby that she wanted, you only abort a fetus you DON'T want.

The govenrment has no place funding chopping up babies

You think a blastocyst is a baby? Yep, you're from Texas, all right. You make me think of a certain song by Charlie Daniels... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Dammit, Texas! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107787)

Yeah...that's why we elected Ann Richards...because we are against Women. Then there's Kay Bailey Hutchison.

You are an idiot.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107557)

One of the things the anti-woman people do is put their blinkers on and think this is about being FOR abortion, rather than FOR the woman's right to her own body.

You really need to think what this says about your feelings on what freedom means.

You have no right to demand a woman risk her life.

And when aborted, they are no more babies than your sperm are your kids.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107927)

One of the things the anti-woman people do is put their blinkers on and think this is about being FOR abortion, rather than FOR the woman's right to her own body.

Wow! I don't think that the Abortion issue is really about a woman's rights, it's about answering the questions "When does life begin?"

Once the baby, fetus, or whatever you want to call it is considered "a life" the woman involved is not within her rights to end the life, even if she wants to. Ethical and moral principles demand no less, you do not take the life of another for your personal convenience.

This whole canard of "women's rights" is idiotic rhetoric that is meaningless. I know of no anti-abortion activist who really is all that worried about a woman's right to avoid pregnancy or would abridge a woman the "right to choose" to be pregnant or not. She clearly should have the right to choose all the way up to the point when life begins.

So what really differs here is how you answer the question of when life begins because nobody I know who is pro-life is advocating taking rights away from Women. Once life is started, I have no right to end it with out good reason. Any thing less is not moral or ethical.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (2)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#43107591)

Wow. I actually just agreed with a libertarian on 90% of what they were saying....

They deserve to be just as miserable as us married folks.

Make that 91%

Re:Dammit, Texas! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107593)

If you're not mature enough to make up your own mind and take your own decisions, you're probably not mature enough to bring a child into this world.

Wrong (0)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about a year ago | (#43107693)

Most abortions are done with pills and shots. Hardly "chopping up babies" as you put it. Your anecdotal evidence goes against what statistics say. I agree that the government should not pay for a lot of things but paying for an abortion is a LOT cheaper than the 18 years of welfare, WIC, and food stamps that will ensue.

Re:Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43108227)

So is a bullet to the head or sterilization.

What you're forgetting is another thing though. Abortion is not perfect solution, not even good. First, there's the memories. When that woman sets out to have another baby or sees those around with children of their own, she'll feel a whole lot different about giving life, and abortion.
Second, there's always damage to the body, she can become sterile, or the next pregnancies become high-risk.
Third, women have a time limit until they can decide to have children, in a modern society, that's less than 20 years. We're humans damn it, sentient beings, not rabbits to breed just because there's food available.

The government should look out for it's citizens, not it's bottom line.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107895)

So, you don't want to get involved, except for this list of ways you're going to force yourself between doctors and their patients.

You're not a libertarian, you're a jackass.

nice fit, Texas, but no lollipop (1)

swschrad (312009) | about a year ago | (#43108055)

Federal law trumps state law. this was nothing more than a hissy fit.

Re:Dammit, Texas! (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#43108175)

Wait for it to actually go forward before you forgive them for other boneheaded regressive things the legislature does. A year or two ago, there was some noise about Texas not tolerating TSA invading our privacy, standing up for citizen's rights. They quickly backed down after predictable "Why do you want terrorists to be able to kill American children nonsense."

There was also some question over whether they had the right to do that, but bottom line, when it comes to defending your rights against the government or coporations, democrats and republicans both wave the white flag as soon as they possibly can.

The elusive... (0, Troll)

coinreturn (617535) | about a year ago | (#43106895)

And it's now been found - the elusive Texas brain cell. Formerly as hidden as the Higgs Boson.

Re:The elusive... (4, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | about a year ago | (#43107133)

Actually, Texas has a higher standard for search and seizure protection and has for decades. Ask anyone who works in criminal defense (I used to there), the standard for criminal cases in Texas isn't the US Constitution, it is the Texas Constitution.

Re:The elusive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107273)

But where are they on patent litigation?!

Re:The elusive... (2)

JBMcB (73720) | about a year ago | (#43107635)

Exactly the same as anywhere else in the US, since patents are covered by federal law.

Re:The elusive... (0)

coinreturn (617535) | about a year ago | (#43107501)

Actually, Texas has a higher standard for search and seizure protection and has for decades. Ask anyone who works in criminal defense (I used to there), the standard for criminal cases in Texas isn't the US Constitution, it is the Texas Constitution.

My point is that news about Texas usually illustrates just how stupid their government is. For once, they look progressive.

Re:The elusive... (1)

Intropy (2009018) | about a year ago | (#43107887)

Distrust of government? That's fairly traditional conservatism.

Re:The elusive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107979)

You got that backwords. Progressive usually means ignoring the Constitution, such as McCain Feingold restrictions on free speech, gun control, different rules for different "classes" of people, etc.
This is more Constitutional constructionist, or more like the Tea Party or anti-progressive.

I'm getting tired of "I like it so its progressive, I don't like it so its conservative" crap. Protecting the rights of people is conservative (not GOP), but conservative. Removing people's rights in order to "protect them from themselves" is progressive. Its because people keep trying to redefine everythig that the current crop of trying to use drones to kill US citizens without trial end up being supported by everyone because "those idiot tea party peope are against it so it must be good".

Re:The elusive... (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year ago | (#43108093)

Actually, Texas has a higher standard for search and seizure protection and has for decades. Ask anyone who works in criminal defense (I used to there), the standard for criminal cases in Texas isn't the US Constitution, it is the Texas Constitution.

My point is that news about Texas usually illustrates just how stupid their government is. For once, they look progressive.

As opposed to looking like what? Liberals?

As stupid as the government of Texas may or may not be, seems that Texas is doing pretty well overall since 2008 by keeping Unemployment well under the national average and actually *growing* its economic activity along with its population. Texas has managed to keep its budget in relative balance though the whole downturn as well. This was done by being *conservative* in outlook and generally right of center Republican with active Tea Party involvement at all levels.

If you think this policy is "progressive" then I wonder if you will like it as much when I say it looks pretty darned conservative from the eyes of this Texan.

Re:The elusive... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43107833)

That's why the cops shoot first [policecrimes.com] , to reduce the workload of the public defender.

that would assume Texas' opinions carry weight (1)

swschrad (312009) | about a year ago | (#43108071)

assumption being wrong.

Re:The elusive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43108111)

As a Texan with more than one brain cell I apologize for not being able to keep up the average brain cells per person higher than one. It's all those people with zero that are screwing up the statistics!

Should be Obvious (4, Insightful)

crow (16139) | about a year ago | (#43106903)

All of these questions about what requires a warrant should be obvious. If civilians can do it without any special authorization, then it's fine for law enforcement to do it. If law enforcement expects special access due to their authority, then that special access needs a warrant.

Any exceptions should be clearly stated in law, such as access to criminal and DMV databases.

Re:Should be Obvious (1)

junk (33527) | about a year ago | (#43107135)

+1

Re:Should be Obvious (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43107297)

No, that does not follow. Introduction of new technology the SC has slapped the government's hand in the past. One such was passive IR scanning of a wall. It was deemed intrusion and required a warrant.

Yet you, a private citizen, could do it barring specific legislation.

Re:Should be Obvious (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#43107947)

In what way is it practical for something to require a warrant for law enforcement to do that anyone else could legally do without restriction and freely talk about anyways?

At the very least, if a private citizen were to have done such a thing and noticed something suspicious, then that suspicion alone could very easily be grounds for an actual warrant anyways.

It makes absolutely no sense to me to allow private citizens to legally do something without restriction that law enforcement can't do without a warrant.

Re:Should be Obvious (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43108141)

Wrong. That specific act is covered under other privacy laws. You in fact do not have a right to use electronics to peer into my home citizen, neither do companies such as Google. The fact that common sense and prior public events and peeping tom laws are lost on you doesn't change reality.

Re:Should be Obvious (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43107859)

If civilians can do it without any special authorization, then it's fine for law enforcement to do it.

No, because law enforcement can use that information against you. Requiring a warrant reduces that threat.

Re:Should be Obvious (3, Interesting)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about a year ago | (#43108275)

Law enforcement needs to be held to a higher standard, higher than commercial or private ones. Simple case my son might want to build a quadcopter with a camera on it for a science project. This to me seems something reasonable for people to play with. Allowing police to do the same to gather evidence does not.

This won't jive with the fed_ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43106905)

_eral US search and destroy drone program possibly to be soon implemented across the country.

Re:This won't jive with the fed_ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107321)

Drones could be set up to do seek and destroy with cell phones, lo-jack systems, etc etc couldn't they? As long as they are in range of course.

Texas wasn't attacked on 9/11 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43106987)

It's easy to be brave when it wasn't your ass on the line. Ten gallon hats and crappy school systems do not protect you, son.

Re:Texas wasn't attacked on 9/11 (2)

junk (33527) | about a year ago | (#43107149)

Are you kidding? While I think this has little to do with the discussion, your statement is completely idiotic. The United States was attacked on 9/11. Texas is a small (albeit larger than most) part of the whole. We all got hit.

Re:Texas wasn't attacked on 9/11 (1)

Anon, Not Coward D (2797805) | about a year ago | (#43107179)

So let's innocents pay for the sinners, well thought

Re:Texas wasn't attacked on 9/11 (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43108199)

So let me get this straight, when Texan's were fighting along side all the other service men and women ... you ignore that, but you pick that they didn't actually have an airplane fly into their building?

You're such a douche. Next time you get your ass handed too you, you go deal with it all by your lonesome. Texas and the rest of the world will leave you to solve your own problems.

Lets all move Texas! (1)

Darth Twon (2832799) | about a year ago | (#43107131)

To avoid Big Brother for at least a little longer.

Re:Lets all move *to Texas! (1)

Darth Twon (2832799) | about a year ago | (#43107169)

Typo...

Re: Lets all move *to Texas! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107331)

Oh We are all really dumb conservatives down here. Terrible place don't move here.

Re: Lets all move *to Texas! (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year ago | (#43108121)

Yea, if you are liberal... Don't come here and ruin it for the rest of us... :)

Re:Lets all move Texas! (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about a year ago | (#43107367)

"It's already done... " - Fitz [wikiquote.org]

I miss that series..

But we also don't have strict parking laws either for parking tanks. [youtube.com]

Question for you liberals... (5, Interesting)

Experiment 626 (698257) | about a year ago | (#43107245)

While we're on the topic of warrantless wiretaps, there's something I've been trying to figure out.

Bush starts the warrantless wiretap thing, the reaction from the left is to fume with anger at the horrible abuse of power.

Obama continues it and adds in the whole "assassinate Americans using robotic aircraft" twist, and reaction from the same people is "I support the President on this, though I have mild reservations on a few aspects".

My question is... what the heck is up with that?

Re:Question for you liberals... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107397)

The same thing that's up with conservatives not caring about the deficit and debt until Obama's inauguration: typical political hypocrisy.

Re:Question for you liberals... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43108129)

Way to not answer his question but rather blast it back. Typical.

Re:Question for you liberals... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43108235)

Way to get so worked up at the first part of what I said that you don't bother to read the second. I did answer his question, politically-expedient hypocrisy on the part of liberals. I'm sorry my just-as-valid example of politically-expedient hypocrisy on the part of conservatives upset you too much to notice it.

Re:Question for you liberals... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107405)

It's been said elsewhere that when conservatives get their person in office, they hound them to make sure their representative does what they want, but when liberals are successful they just go home.

Ever to our detriment as well as yours.

Re:Question for you liberals... (4, Insightful)

The Dancing Panda (1321121) | about a year ago | (#43107463)

I hate when people say "you liberals", as if there's a conglomerate out to kill your babies and turn all your sons gay. Different people have different opinions. The things you hear on the radio that "liberals believe" or "conservatives argue" are mostly bullshit. It's like assuming Rush Limbaugh speaks for all conservatives (though...does he? His bullshit gets repeated as fact quite a bit on my FB feed).

Anyway, I'm fairly moderate. Drone strikes should probably be considered acts of war. Attacking Americans on American soil is wrong, we have a police force to arrest those people. Attacking Americans that have joined an enemy in a war zone, and are actively fighting or actively planning to fight our troops (maybe not directly. planning attacks counts), doesn't seem wrong. We don't have a police force to arrest those sorts of people. Bringing them in and putting them on trial is the best possible solution, but it's not really practical, and the military strategy has to account for them some other way.

Whether the war itself is just is another question entirely.

Re:Question for you liberals... (1)

Intropy (2009018) | about a year ago | (#43107951)

Wow. I'm speechless. A post on Slashdot with which I agree 100%. If only I had the mod points.

Re:Question for you liberals... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107803)

While we're on the topic of warrantless wiretaps, there's something I've been trying to figure out.

Bush starts the warrantless wiretap thing, the reaction from the left is to fume with anger at the horrible abuse of power.

Obama continues it and adds in the whole "assassinate Americans using robotic aircraft" twist, and reaction from the same people is "I support the President on this, though I have mild reservations on a few aspects".

My question is... what the heck is up with that?

The people who were complaining about warrantless wiretaps (including me) still don't like it. However, their complaints have been ignored for years. Most people admit defeat at some point and move on to issues where their voice might influence opinion enough to change policy.

Realistically, the people who control the executive branch in the US will be a Democrat or a Republican for the foreseeable future. The Republicans who held elected office (including Bush) were enthusiastic and unapologetic about warrantless wiretaps. The Democrats in office (including Obama) talk about limits, but have not put anything into law. Perhaps they really think it is okay. Perhaps they know that if they write a law, Republicans will call them cheese-eating surrender-monkeys, and blame them for the next terrorist attack. Look at what happened to Susan Rice.

It really doesn't matter if wiretapping is legal. "The constitution is not a suiside pact" has worked as an excuse for any action for over a century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact) . Presidents do what they want when, in their opinion, the country is under some threat.

Re:Question for you liberals... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107949)

Obama is the same as Bush. I'll never know why Republicans hate him so much when he has continued almost every single plan GW Bush set into motion. He's playing by Republican rules, and keeping this massive war profiteering thing going to boot. It's a Republican wet dream and they still hate him.

I'm guessing the only thing stronger than Republican greed is Republican racism, and that's why they hate him.

People like John McCain have damned Obama for policies *identical* to ones that he approved under Bush. The only thing that changed was the President's skin color. Everything else is the same.

You know for damn sure if we had a Republican president right now nobody would have cared about a "Benghazi cover-up" or drone strikes.

I'm a liberal, and I voted for Obama simply because Mitt Romney was a worse choice. Obama was the least-worst choice. By no means do I think he's doing a good job nor do I want him as President, but I know Mitt would have been even worse.

Re:Question for you liberals... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43108043)

I am a liberal. I strongly opposed warrantless wiretapping. I also strongly oppose drone assassination on American soil. I am willing to have a discussion about drone assassination in war zones. I am not willing to believe the Obama administration's assertion that by default, everyone who has ever been killed in a drone strike was a target who constituted an imminent threat. I think there needs to be a more transparent and rigorous review process for drone strikes.

I absolutely oppose armed drones in the air above the US. I oppose blanket surveillance drones in the are above the US.

"We liberals" are not of a single mind, and often disagree with those elected to represent us, regardless of whether or not we voted for them. I voted for Obama, but that does not excuse in my mind those things that he does that I think are wrong. At the same time, I suspect that he's doing less that I think wrong than Romney would have.

Re:Question for you liberals... (2)

MrHanky (141717) | about a year ago | (#43108077)

Yeah, what's up with that? One would expect to hear from the ACLU, which one does [aclu.org] . Perhaps the Huffington Post would have a bunch of murdered children covering their front page, like this [huffingtonpost.com] . One would not, however, expect the Democrats themselves to attack their own presiden, which they don't. That's just not how party politics work.

system capture (1)

swschrad (312009) | about a year ago | (#43108091)

"oh, but I can't show you the data, it's classified." meaning "I can't turn this boat on a dime, and frankly, it would spill my drink if I could."

Re:Question for you liberals... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43108099)

Warrantless wiretapping still leaves a lot of people fuming, regardless of their political affiliation. While justifications do exist, we lack any hard numbers because the programs remain classified. As near as I can tell, the only avid supporters of the wiretapping programs are deeply entrenched in the intelligence community, where the goal is already to gather as much information as possible without getting in trouble. To anyone outside that community, it's a gross invasion of privacy, the scale of which we can only guess at.

Perhaps there are people outside of government who support warrantless wiretapping, but I've never seen them or read comments from them.

Texas Law trumps Fed actions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107251)

If this is a state law then I would expect it would control the state law enforcement agencies. But would it be able to stop the federal law enforcement agencies from doing whatever they wanted?

Re:Texas Law trumps Fed actions? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year ago | (#43107435)

That would depend on whether or not the federal authorities are asking for information from a business with offices in the state of Texas. Depending on how this law is written, it is possible that a business with offices in Texas which provided information to federal law enforcement agencies that did not have a warrant for that information could be found liable for violation of this law. It is also possible that individuals with such a company could be found criminally liable (although I doubt the law is written that way). Of course the question then becomes whether or not the courts would allow the state of Texas to apply penalties in that case. It is also possible that federal courts might choose to rule evidence acquired by federal agencies without a warrant inadmissible in light of this law (which by its existence could be construed to create a presumption of privacy).

US's activities wrt Europe should show you how it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107615)

US's activities wrt Europe should show you how it will work.

The US companies with a presence in the EU cannot hand over to the US government private information. To withold it is a crime in the USA. The companies with a presence in the USA do what the USA demands.

It will be the same with Texas.

and yet they're so far out there on patents (1)

Chirs (87576) | about a year ago | (#43107271)

Interesting that they're big on personal liberty when it comes to this, but yet they're so biased in favour of patent holders in the Eastern District

Re:and yet they're so far out there on patents (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year ago | (#43107357)

Patent law is federal, not state. The state of Texas has no jurisdiction over patents. The "Eastern District" of which you speak is a federal district court populated by judges appointed by the President (whoever was President when they were appointed). I will repeat, Texas law has no impact whatsoever on decisions coming out of the Eastern District of Texas court.

Re:and yet they're so far out there on patents (1)

JBMcB (73720) | about a year ago | (#43107689)

The only reason patent holders use that district is that it hears a very low number of criminal cases, so civil cases have a chance of getting on the docket.

Here's a good overview:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack [thisamericanlife.org]

Re:and yet they're so far out there on patents (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#43107765)

Big on personal liberty except they lead the nation in executions and they have the largest prison population in the US.

Big on personal liberty except for roadside body cavity searches.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/personal-liberty-violation-roadside-body-cavity-search-in-texas/ [freedomoutpost.com]

Then of course there is the little empire of Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio.

Re:and yet they're so far out there on patents (1)

Onos (1103517) | about a year ago | (#43108041)

"Then of course there is the little empire of Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio." If you make comments at least inform yourself on the issues. Texas, Arizona, ah fuck it same thing.

Re:and yet they're so far out there on patents (1)

SLot (82781) | about a year ago | (#43108047)

Joseph M. Arpaio is in Arizona, not Texas

Only for state warrants (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107305)

I'm sure some other poster has stated this already, but this would not apply to federal paperwork. So a 2703(d), Title III or Title 50 (FISA) order would all still be able to get location data legally...

pre-empted by the Feds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107341)

Radio transmitters are regulated by FCC, so the State will just claim "Federal pre-emption" and decline to enforce, or the cell carriers will drag State in to court to argue "jurisdiction".

In any case, DHS (and others) will simply claim to be exempt from State regulation.

Re:pre-empted by the Feds (1)

Intropy (2009018) | about a year ago | (#43108007)

The DHS is exempt from state regulation. The state can't prevent them from asking for the information. It's the carriers who are being barred from providing it.

Texas (5, Interesting)

claytongulick (725397) | about a year ago | (#43107369)

A lot of people are confused about how this sort of law could be passed in Texas, which according to left-wing groupthink is a regressive bible-thumping gun-toting desert filled with rednecks who hate Darwin and force kids to pray in school.

This, of course, is nonsense. Much of the anti-Texas sentiment results from fundamental ideological differences that go to the core of the "left" versus "right" arguments.

Texans, for very valid historical reasons, have a deep seated mistrust of centralized government and authority. This can be seen in pretty much every part of our culture, especially our constitution and court systems. This way of thinking, of course, is a direct attack on everything that those on the "left" believe in. Even worse, the evidence clearly shows that our way of governing and beliefs work very well - from tort reform, to right to work, to zero income tax (just to name a few) we have a state that cherishes individual liberty, resists government interference, and we have one of the best economies in the world to show for it.

The success of Texas is a sore tooth to those on the "left". As a result, they are forced to rely on ad-hominem attacks and mischaracterization in a defensive attempt to protect and justify their beliefs, even though even casual comparisons of the success of cities and states that implement those beliefs shows that they are clearly misguided.

The fact is, disturbing as it may seem to those on the "left", Texas is beautiful, tolerant, friendly and a wonderful place to live. I moved my family here from the east coast seven years ago, and it was one of the best decisions we've ever made.

This law is just another example (among many) of Texas following in its long tradition of codifying individual rights and protecting liberties. Yes, Texas has some black marks in it's history - but show me a state (or country) that doesn't!

There is a reason why people from all over the country are flooding here, and why we gained four seats in the house in 2010. As much vitriol, misrepresentation and flat out lying that those on the "left" do about Texas, the truth is becoming more and more evident to those around the country, that just as once the United States was the place that people fled to in order to escape oppressive government, now Texas has become a safe haven within the U.S. for the same reasons.

Re:Texas (1, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#43107617)

Your message, and the way it disparages the 'left' is in itself a refutation of the idea that Texas is tolerant.

As far as Texas being successful, the fact that its citizens have the highest percentage of minimum wage jobs in the country puts that under great question.

The fact that Texas is tied for last place in the percentage of its children with health care insurance and is fourth in the nation in child poverty again brings into question as to whether it is 'successful'.

The decisions on things like teaching evolution in Texas schools call into question the process by which it is governed. The fact that Texas ranks 50th among the states in percentage of citizens over 25 with a high school diploma illustrates the impact of these decisions.

Re:Texas (1)

AdamStarks (2634757) | about a year ago | (#43107761)

Not to say that you're necessarily wrong, but how many of the statistics for minimum wage jobs, poverty, etc take into account Texas's lower cost of living? Last time I checked, making $20,000 in Austin is roughly equivalent to making $32,000 in Seattle, and $40,000 in San Francisco.

Re:Texas (2)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about a year ago | (#43107939)

Being the state tied for second as having the greatest percentage of illegal immigrants (and second in raw numbers) might have some bearing on those statistics.
PewResearch [pewhispanic.org]

Re:Texas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43108009)

Either what you just said is true, or we might suspect that Texas is a border state with a high number of immigrants seeking a better life in a new world. But no, your explanation sounds more plausible.

Captcha: plunger

Re:Texas (1)

SirAstral (1349985) | about a year ago | (#43108011)

I see what you did there.

Here is the definition of Tolerance.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerance [merriam-webster.com]

Until someone comes and "STOPS YOU" they are at the very least tolerating you. Tolerating does not require someone to "accept" or "not disparage" you in any way.

Speaking of schools, lets review their "Zero Tolerance" policies and the fact that they lean more left than right. The left is the intolerant side if anything which is why that word sits on your minds more frequently than the right. Hypocritical much?

Re:Texas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43108015)

Your message, and the way it disparages the 'left' is in itself a refutation of the idea that Texas is tolerant.

As far as Texas being successful, the fact that its citizens have the highest percentage of minimum wage jobs in the country puts that under great question.

The fact that Texas is tied for last place in the percentage of its children with health care insurance and is fourth in the nation in child poverty again brings into question as to whether it is 'successful'.

The decisions on things like teaching evolution in Texas schools call into question the process by which it is governed. The fact that Texas ranks 50th among the states in percentage of citizens over 25 with a high school diploma illustrates the impact of these decisions.

All of these things you quote aren't really good metrics to go by.

Minimum wage jobs? Better than being unemployed. Texas had 6.2% unemployment compared to california (a liberal paradise) with 9.8%.

health insurance? I personally would rather put the money I'd be paying for health insurance into a savings account. I suspect a lot of individual minded people in texas prefer that as well.

High school diplomas? The more people who have something, the less valuable it is. High schools passing kids just to not deal with them anymore is the reason that a bachelors degree is rapidly becoming the new high school diploma.

Re:Texas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43108193)

Yes, way to bring up some lame cherry picked facts to disparage Texas. Texas is intolerant of your ideology of smearing and lies. Everyone else is welcome!

Re:Texas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107705)

Yet another criticism of generalizing that is full of generalizations.

Re:Texas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43107739)

A minor fix, if I may.

"zero income tax"

While we do not have a State Income Tax, we do have what I consider to be its Ninja Cousin.

The never shrinking nor capped property tax.

Over the long run, I think I would prefer a State Income Tax that was fixed to my income vs
a property tax that can magically increase by 10% every year . . . . for . . . well. . forever.

It sucks to realize that your yearly taxes owed on your home exceed your mortgage payment
by the time you pay the home off 15-30 years in the future. :(

Though, as an afterthought, you folks who live in crazy expensive areas should see what you
can buy for $500k here in Texas. It would probably shock you :D

Re:Texas (1)

Intropy (2009018) | about a year ago | (#43108053)

I miss Dallas.

Re:Texas (1)

acoustix (123925) | about a year ago | (#43108263)

I miss Dallas.

It's on TNT every Monday night.

Re:Texas (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a year ago | (#43108201)

Well put... This Texan agrees. Remember the Alamo!

Another double standard ruling. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about a year ago | (#43107525)

Spying on Texas citizens? A-OK.
Spying on Texas businesses? NO WAY [slashdot.org]

Expand it to wifi and bluetooth as well (1)

detritus. (46421) | about a year ago | (#43108037)

With nationwide public hotspot networks appearing (the payphone hotspots [mashable.com] come to mind) it's trivial with wifi radios to keep tabs on clients making probe requests for networks, and can be far more accurate in pinpointing and tracking a device's location in real time.

NCIS will be crushed (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about a year ago | (#43108155)

But now how will NCIS find their buddies when they visit Texas? That's their favorite way to look up someone

Where the hell... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43108163)

was Texas when the executive drastically expanded its surveillance powers after 9/11? It's different when their guy isn't in office.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...