A federal appeals court is upholding lifetime G.P.S. monitoring of a convicted felon, in this instance a Wisconsin pedophile who served time for sexually assaulting a boy and a girl. The court upheld the constitutionality of a Wisconsin law that, beginning in 2008, requires convicted pedophiles to wear GPS ankle devices for the rest of their lives.
Opinion:
I can't imagine this not going to the US Supreme Court and, if upheld, steadily being expanded to everyone "for the public good". Though my soul is set ablaze with rage at this, I can't help but think this overall has little impact on the populous in general as we all carry tracking devices willingly for the convenience of contacting loved ones and business associates anywhere. Do you believe there will come a day when everyone's positions will be monitored at all times by law? Do you have an alternative to cellphones that don't track your position?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @01:25AM
What is this "cell phone" you speak of?
Actually, I tried a mobile phone about 10 years ago and it didn't work right -- took it back to Radio Shack and haven't bothered to get another one. On the rare occasion that I need one, it's not too hard to find someone that will help (and I pay them for their trouble).
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday February 04 2016, @02:07AM
I Turn the radios off when not using mine. It makes the battery last longer.
(Score: 1) by Demose on Thursday February 04 2016, @02:23AM
I suppose that if someone were really paranoid they could take a raspberry pi, a screen, a battery, and a cellular module such as https://www.sparkfun.com/products/13120 [sparkfun.com] and connect the power to the module with a switch thus building their a cellphone they could trust so long as the module's power is cut off.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:33AM
Why go to all that trouble for a phone you can trust with the power off? It would be much cheaper and easier to just add a mechanical power switch to a $10 prepaid smartphone. You probably wouldn't even need to mess with the wiring - sandwich a piece of plastic with conductive tape on both sides between phone and battery and you have an interruptable circuit.
Or, you know, just pull the battery when you're not using it.
(Score: 1) by Demose on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:58AM
You seem confused. I meant switch off the power to the module independently of the phone so that you can use the other functions the phone provides without having to worry about being tracked.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Thursday February 04 2016, @04:39AM
Just put it in airplane mode, that shuts off all the transmitters. The only thing to potentially worry about then is the GPS tracking you to upload after you take it out of airplane mode.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @08:41PM
Not true.
Airplane mode still allows the WiFi (and possibly blu-tooth) radios to still work.
Just turning off one radio is still a substantial improvement.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday February 05 2016, @11:53PM
Airplane mode turns all of those off on every phone I've ever seen. The ability to subsequently turn those back on is largely irrelevant. What's more, those connections only work if you've actually connected to something else, and good luck predicting that without actually holding the phone.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Thursday February 04 2016, @06:52AM
But the basic idea is the right track - the phone and the smart should never have been entangled so closely. Get a portable computer (that does NOT use blob-dependent hardware) and a phone (if it's only a phone instead of everything else too surely someone could reconstruct the art of making phones that work?) and either connect them with a short cable or (if you are the trusting type) use bluetooth when you want to use that network for data.
Your computer should be connected to the network when YOU want to use the network, not when the ad companies want to use you.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:07PM
IIUC, it's illegal in the US to sell a phone that doesn't have GPS tracking. *YOU* may not have access, but the phone does.
Of course, this is an obsolete law, as cell phone towers can track you more accurately than can GPS.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 04 2016, @01:39AM
Think of the children!
It's not like this person served his time and is not on parole. I mean if he'd actually served his sentence and been released, continuing to punish him would be incredibly horrible. Oh, wait.
What's more, the court found that since he's being outed on internet, further abusing him with the ankle monitor isn't negatively impacting his privacy:
This is why we can't have anything nice. Not only do we continue to punish those who have, presumably, "paid their debt" to society, we further stigmatize them by branding them with a scarlet "SO" for the rest of their lives. And now, we want to physically track these people until they die.
If such folks really are such a danger to society, we should lock them for life. The truth is that's not really the case, but we want to continue to punish people for certain crimes long after they've finished serving their sentences.
That's not to say that some people might re-offend, but this, IMHO, is way over the line.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Informative) by Marand on Thursday February 04 2016, @02:18AM
This is why we can't have anything nice. Not only do we continue to punish those who have, presumably, "paid their debt" to society, we further stigmatize them by branding them with a scarlet "SO" for the rest of their lives. And now, we want to physically track these people until they die.
If such folks really are such a danger to society, we should lock them for life. The truth is that's not really the case, but we want to continue to punish people for certain crimes long after they've finished serving their sentences.
It's even scarier when you consider how easy it is to end up on one of those lists. 18yo and 17yo have sex? That can get the 18yo on a list depending on the state and what sort of background drama happens with their families. Same with false rape charges; some people use them as a weapon, others use it as a way to bury poor decisions, and it rarely gets questioned.
It's already bad that, when these things happen (however often or rarely they happen; I'm not making claims about how often these happen compared to real offenses), everyone automatically assumes the blamed person is guilty. But then that person becomes basically unemployable, forced to not live in various places, and tracked for life. It's just sad.
The same thing happens when someone gets convicted of any crime, to a point; everyone silenty discriminates against the person the moment they find out about a conviction, regardless of what it was. But when someone gets that "sex offender" branding, that's it; that person becomes sub-human scum. I've known good people that did dumb things when young and never lived it down. I can only imagine how much worse it has to be for the ones branded sex offender.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Thursday February 04 2016, @02:41AM
This sounds like the man was already out of jail when he violated his terms and admitted he nearly molested two young girls. [jsonline.com] He was then returned to prison. So while I'm all for civil rights of ex-offenders, it was this admission and his later civil commitment that triggered the GPS unit, not his conviction. This guy was not the optimal plaintiff.
So he's also a chronic offender. He may have had a better case that his punishment was cruel and unusual, but considering the life-long damage caused by child molestation [asca.org.au] it is not an unreasonable punishment.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:09AM
Right. he violated his probation and was sent back to prison with more time added because of the new offence.
He then violated probation again and completed his sentence. After which, he was further held in custody (civil commitment) even though he had not been convicted of any new crimes.
After his (in my view) illegal (or at the very least unethical) further incarceration -- for past crimes which he'd already served his sentences -- he is now being monitored 24/7 with an ankle bracelet?
Yeah, this guy is a bad guy. But if that's the case, then convict him of a crime or leave him alone. Tracking people for crimes they might commit is disgusting.
Even though this guy may well be a really bad guy, either the law is applied equally to everyone or it's unjust. I don't want to live in an unjust society (yeah, I know, a little late for that -- but I don't have to like it or acquiesce to it).
How about we trump up some child molestation charges on you (or even just public urination, as I mentioned in another comment) and see how you like having to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @04:14AM
IANAL, but believe the law seems to be very clear on this point:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Emphasis added.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday February 04 2016, @04:18AM
Yeah, this guy is a bad guy. But if that's the case, then convict him of a crime or leave him alone. Tracking people for crimes they might commit is disgusting.
Imagine a guy who is a habitual criminal. Such as he (say) kills someone, serves time, steps out of the door of the prison, immediately kills someone else, and is returned to prison to serve another time. Then the loop continues. It is highly likely that, unless stopped, this criminal during his lifetime will kill about ten people. But there is no law (except CA) to place him into prison forever. So what should the society do? Just let him keep killing his victims, in full knowledge that those are sacrifices on the altar of human rights? Who is going to volunteer themselves, or their loved ones, for that altar? Human rights can be given only to humans, but being a human is a bit more demanding than carrying a set of human genes. Can full human rights be given to a boy who was raised by wild animals and, at the age of 20, can only growl and bite? Or to an insane person? Perhaps not. Then the question becomes, can the habitual criminal behavior be equivalent to a mental disorder?
The society has the right and the duty to protect itself. I can imagine a rough world where the judge would sentence a recidivist to death. The value of someone's life is directly linked to the value that the person assigns to lives of others. Can't do the time? Well, here is how you shall proceed, then...
In this case I see the tracking bracelet not as punishment, but as a preventive measure for an apparently mentally sick individual. The hope is that the full awareness of transparency of all his actions will stop him from reoffending - as he has no hope of hiding the crime. It is not related to his previous crime and conviction; it is related to his current medical condition. If he does not like that, the judge can order him involuntarily committed as a socially dangerous lunatic. But he would walk free of the bracelet within the walls of the institution. It's his choice.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday February 04 2016, @04:36AM
In this case I see the tracking bracelet not as punishment, but as a preventive measure for an apparently mentally sick individual.
Ah, not even close.
Tracking bracelets (they are leg mounted devices) are not that accurate, the companies hired to monitor them not that diligent, and the mere knowledge of where the tracking device is has little to do with where the convicted person actually is, and nothing at all to do with who he may be with.
These things are cut off and ditched routinely, and usually they people who do so just abscond and nobody goes after them. One was found in a park near my house, and all indications were it was there for several days, the kid who found it saw it three days in a row before investigating it. He thought it was someone's broken jogging radio.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday February 04 2016, @06:26AM
Well, obviously this is a simple technical matter to correct, if the entire model of those bracelets is meant to be close to what I describe. The catch is, of course, that in the end we will have an exploding collar, for the same reasons... to protect the majority A from the minority B. Today we are fortunate enough that there is a consensus on misdeeds of B. Tomorrow that might be not so clear... especially if even a smaller minority C gains the right to interpret everything and present any given subset of A as B. Then A will rubberstamp nearly anything "for the children", just like they did after 9/11, and just like it is presented after every mass shooting by another insane individual. "We have to do something... this is something... let's do it!" The danger of pure, unconstrained democracy is that 51% of the voters may choose - or be led to choose - to arbitrarily harm interests of the 49%. The Constitution is supposed to limit that... but only if it is adhered to.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @05:22AM
Imagine a guy who is a habitual criminal.
Imagine that we had a constitution. Imagine that you cared more about following it than stopping Bad Guys. Not like that'll ever happen, right? That would require that you have actual principles.
So what should the society do?
This reminds me of police who constantly complain about that pesky fourth amendment getting in their way. Damn! If only these pesky restrictions on our power didn't exist, we could catch more bogeymen! If the law doesn't currently exist, then you have no power or cause to do anything. Make the law, move on, and shut up.
If you're trying to convince me we should ignore our own laws and rules, you're doing a bad job of it.
Human rights can be given only to humans, but being a human is a bit more demanding than carrying a set of human genes.
Ah, yes, dehumanizing people who you don't like; that always ends well for human rights. Even the worst of the worst are entitled to human rights.
You're also scientifically incorrect.
The society has the right and the duty to protect itself.
Individuals have rights, not society. And there is no "duty" given to us by some supreme being.
As for the desire for stability and society that most people in society possess, that is valid, but it shouldn't come at all costs. We should not violate our principles or constitutions to obtain a little bit of society. The ends don't justify the means. As a side note, I guarantee that not tracking someone 24/7 would have little, if any, impact on the stability of society as a whole.
I can imagine a rough world where the judge would sentence a recidivist to death.
I can imagine a world where the death penalty simply doesn't exist.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:03AM
Imagine that we had a constitution.
The Constitution is a law that is accepted by the people. The society has power to change it - or to quietly ignore it, as it sometimes happens. Silence of the masses indicates acceptance of the workaround - probably not because the workaround is better, but because the masses don't care.
If you're trying to convince me we should ignore our own laws and rules, you're doing a bad job of it.
Obsolete laws should be changed instead of being ignored. However the people have no workable mechanism to change them within a reasonable period of time. Right now talks are being conducted about changing the Constitution using the backup mechanism, by the states themselves. This will take a decade, if it will ever happen. Complexity of the laws also places them out of reach of the population. The judges are free to interpret the laws as they see fit, and they are often instructing the jury to forget about the jury nullification - sometimes resorting to direct threats. They like the system as it is.
Ah, yes, dehumanizing people who you don't like
Who said anything about liking? The man has an issue that is recurrent, self-admitted, and is well proven in the court of law (as well as in reality.) He is not fond of his condition because it tortures him if he doesn't do it, and puts him in prison if he does. What do you propose to do with him?
Individuals have rights, not society. And there is no "duty" given to us by some supreme being.
Supreme being is unnecessary. The duty of the society to protect itself comes from the obvious need of self-preservation. If you get sick, do you need orders from a supreme being to go and seek a doctor? Well, you are a small - the smallest - functional model of the society. Imagine a village that is about to be overrun by orcs. Do you expect the villagers to bend their necks before the swords, or perhaps you would expect them to go to the walls? Perhaps you would pick the former.... but such societies are rare because they cannot survive. Even monks in medieval abbeys often took arms to protect their home from invaders.
I can imagine a world where the death penalty simply doesn't exist.
Sure, I can imagine one as well. But what would it be?
What model are you thinking of? Note that the tendency for lawbreaking and general brutishness has significant survival value. Nature has societies that do not have competitive behavior - bees, ants - but those are markedly different from higher animals. Editing the genes of violence out of human genome may be too dangerous. For example, the whole humanity may be eaten by the wolves, and nobody would lift a finger to hurt those adorable beasts. But if those genes are kept, we are stuck with having a certain percentage of people who are in some way predisposed to crime. An even smaller fraction of them will become criminals. The more fortunate ones get legal jobs that happen to coincide with their interests (a gambler becomes an investor, for example; or a power-tripper may become a policeman; or a con man may become a business development guy :-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @11:34AM
The Constitution is a law that is accepted by the people. The society has power to change it - or to quietly ignore it, as it sometimes happens. Silence of the masses indicates acceptance of the workaround - probably not because the workaround is better, but because the masses don't care.
All you've done is explain that the tyranny (or apathy) of the majority exists. Yes, sometimes atrocities like that happen, and it's awful.
Anyway, silence != acceptance. It could just be ignorance, which isn't the same thing. You can't solve a problem you don't even know exists.
Obsolete laws should be changed instead of being ignored. However the people have no workable mechanism to change them within a reasonable period of time.
Then work harder to create one, or reap the seeds you have sown. It's far worse to ignore the highest law of the land and restrictions on government power than it is for some bad guys to do bad things.
Who said anything about liking? The man has an issue that is recurrent, self-admitted, and is well proven in the court of law (as well as in reality.) He is not fond of his condition because it tortures him if he doesn't do it, and puts him in prison if he does. What do you propose to do with him?
Whether it's because you dislike him or not, dehumanizing someone is foolish. You're just incorrect about his species.
But if he is truly dangerous, then either prison or a mental health facility would be better options than violating the constitution. Of course, that can't happen unless this individual does something else, but we can change our future actions.
The duty of the society to protect itself comes from the obvious need of self-preservation.
There is no "duty" or "need". The universe would exist without you or any of us. Your choice of words is simply garbage.
Sure, I can imagine one as well. But what would it be?
Prison. No, that isn't perfect at all, but don't delude yourself into believing we need a perfect solution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @08:28AM
You are so living in some dream world of yours. In your world a person like him can do what ever he likes, because he supposedly has more rights than his victims. You are sentencing his victims to a painful life, because you think he is allowed keep doing it and then pay for his doing by inprisonment. He will not stop. You are a moron.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @11:24AM
You are so living in some dream world of yours.
How so?
In your world a person like him can do what ever he likes
How so?
because he supposedly has more rights than his victims.
No, he doesn't. That makes no sense. He has the same rights.
You are sentencing his victims to a painful life, because you think he is allowed keep doing it and then pay for his doing by inprisonment.
I'm not sentencing his victims to anything. I'm saying the ends (stopping baddies) don't justify the means (violating the constitution, ignoring the law, ignoring limits on government power, etc.). You seem to be saying you want the government to have unlimited power if it means you can stop more bad guys, and that is more terrifying than some bogeymen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:30PM
I said nothing about government getting unlimited power. People like him, who have proven they will not adjust, and break other people's rights in the most sickest ways, have waived their rights. That's what i'm saying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @05:42AM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @05:27AM
If someone is mentally ill, well, then he must be committed to the proper institution. Someone who is dangerous enough to require this sort of tracking must not be returned to the streets.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:19AM
Recidivism should be properly punished then, which I believe it already is
It is not. Prisons are full, and in the last year, IIRC, the governor of CA decided to release thousands [sfgate.com] of "low threat" convicts early. The problem is that they reclassified felonies into misdemeanors, and released based on the new classification. There are mixed opinions about the effect of this release. Some say it was harmless, other say the crime rates increased. But clearly the threat of prison is not as heavy on criminals as before. They know that the promised decades behind the bars will turn out as a couple years, and then they are free on parole.
Murderers, of course, are not as easily released. However smaller crimes are minimally prosecuted. This does not make it safer for you, if your house is broken into twice in last three months, your car is stolen, and you had been mugged in the street three times and your front teeth are knocked out by a "teen" who was "playing the game." Those crimes do not warrant a police response outside of stopping by to take the report. You may live, but your life will be miserable and you will be very, very angry. A society with that level of crime is dead (and that is the case in some cities.)
If someone is mentally ill, well, then he must be committed to the proper institution. Someone who is dangerous enough to require this sort of tracking must not be returned to the streets.
This is not a binary scale - it is an analog scale, all the way from 0.0 to 1.0. We cannot say where in that scale the judge chose to put the slider for this particular individual. Even if this one is dangerous, another one may be less dangerous... and so on, until you eventually say "yes, this one should be released, but with additional hardware to keep tabs on him, for his own good." If you want to release only absolutely safe people... do you know any such person? Have you ever known an absolutely safe person?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:59AM
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday February 04 2016, @10:12AM
Maybe you're putting the wrong people in jail.
The war on drugs is creating plenty of criminals out of people who'd be doctors' patients in other, better ran places. Some of drug-related activities are violent, other are not. But when you rent a car in the USA make sure that there are no plastic bags under the seat - even empty. This is a well known, perhaps intentional, mismanagement of the society. It supplies the prison-industrial complex with a steady stream of relatively harmless convicts. After they complete the sentence they become permanently removed from the job market, as nobody at good places would hire an ex-con. Then they have to earn money using every means possible, which expands and arms the police - and often returns them to the prison, back into the loving embrace of modern slave labor. Everyone wins... except the raw material, that is, that the prisoners are.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 04 2016, @02:55AM
It's even scarier when you consider how easy it is to end up on one of those lists.
In some states (at least 13, IIUC) you can be forced to register as a sex offender for public urination.
Things have gone way too far, IMHO.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:19AM
Wait, why? IF someone's a threat to society, if unmedicated, we can just medicate them. If someone's a threat to society unsupervised, we can supervise them.
I get that it's limiting a person's freedom to monitor them forever. But the idea of house arrest is that some people need to not have the freedom to roam, but can still contribute.
I have no idea if this is one such person, but the idea that there are people out there whose sexual desires make them a permanent threat seem to make sense. And lifelong monitoring seems better than paying to lock them up, or chemical castration or something.
And yes, such a law might be used to unfairly punish, say, public urination. But the fucking slippery slope argument is an argument for vigalnce, and monitoring of the government. Otherwise, all low-level laws or high-level punishments will be forbidden because of the potential interscetion of the two in some horrible future.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday February 04 2016, @05:11AM
It's an argument for vigilance and monitoring of the government. Vigilance that will likely be forgotten about, and monitoring that will either never happen or prove to be totally ineffective.
Otherwise, all low-level laws or high-level punishments will be forbidden because of the potential interscetion of the two in some horrible future.
Maybe many of these laws are necessary, but getting rid of victim-less crimes would certainly help. As for this, I remain entirely unconvinced that 24/7 tracking is in any way necessary or constitutional, even for someone who was previously convicted.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday February 04 2016, @06:08AM
I'm sure it's all about appearing tough on crime. A politician can't afford to vote for "letting sex offenders roam free".
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SecurityGuy on Thursday February 04 2016, @02:42PM
The notion of "paying your debt to society" is outlandish, IMO. Crimes with victims don't create a debt, they create harm, and sometimes it can't ever be undone. We need to dispense with that notion entirely and understand that we put people in jail for exactly two reasons: deterrence and prevention.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 04 2016, @06:30PM
The notion of "paying your debt to society" is outlandish, IMO. Crimes with victims don't create a debt, they create harm, and sometimes it can't ever be undone. We need to dispense with that notion entirely and understand that we put people in jail for exactly two reasons: deterrence and prevention.
I take your point. However, the threat of incarceration is *not* a deterrent, and while it prevent those who are actually in prison from committing crimes against those who are *not* in prison, do you suggest that we just "lock 'em up and throw away the key?'
You can feel however you want about the phrasing "pay one's debt" but unless we're going to keep people in prison *forever* or just line them up against the wall and shoot them dead, once they've completed the sanction imposed by society, they should not be further punished or stigmatized for those prior actions.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by SecurityGuy on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:13PM
It is, actually. There have been studies that show increasing the punishment doesn't add additional deterrence, and that increasing the probability of being incarcerated is a greater deterrent than increasing the punishment. It's simply false that incarceration is not a deterrent at all. It is, as is the social stigma of being arrested, going to jail, etc. http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence%20Briefing%20.pdf [sentencingproject.org] is interesting reading and has links to a number of relevant studies.
I don't advocate putting people in prison forever in most cases. I think when someone proves themselves a predator on the rest of us, we have a right to kick them out of society. I do favor a proportional response, though. Serial killers? Yeah, they can go to jail forever. First time shoplifting? I'm ok with a stern lecture and paying for what they took, maybe a fine, and a metaphorical shot across the bow to remind them we DO have jails if they want to make a habit of it.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:27PM
However, the threat of incarceration is *not* a deterrent...
It is, actually. There have been studies that show increasing the punishment doesn't add additional deterrence, and that increasing the probability of being incarcerated is a greater deterrent than increasing the punishment. It's simply false that incarceration is not a deterrent at all. It is, as is the social stigma of being arrested, going to jail, etc.
From your link:
But, of course you're right and I'm wrong. So let's just call it a win for you, friend. Please let me know where to send the check.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:43PM
Oh, and I forgot to include this [ncjrs.gov]. My apologies.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @02:21AM
Do you have an alternative to cellphones that don't track your position?
Store and forward HAM network using packet radio. Store and forward is even banned on the family band.
Imagine it: You buy your hardware and pick the antenna size and cache, and that's it. You join the mesh and just maintain your hardware, no monthly cellular fees. The bigger your antenna and cache the more you get routed through and the faster your requested data appears.
Get rid of file names. That is the most retarded way to reference stored data. All data should be hashed and referenced by this as it's ID. Then it doesn't matter how many human readable aliases you give the data, it is still the same data, it has automatic deduplication. That's the basic idea behind the cache.
There's no reason for a cell phone to track your location constantly. Turn off and on airplane mode and you'll see that reconnection is instantaneous, even if you've traveled quite a ways. With a mesh network there is no need to store geographic location, just connect to the nearest node. The data doesn't even need a recipient code in each packet, just a time to live and a destination. The return location for the other endpoint can be encoded in the encrypted packet payload and return data could take a different path.
The "problem" is that NSA then could not simply spy by tapping trunk lines. They'd have to put up listening posts everywhere and coordinate the collection in a geometrically more expensive fashion. This is why FCC killed the mesh HAM packet network, and outlaws our use of the airwaves the public owns. Even when we freed up the Analog TV bands the public was not given even a sliver of unlicensed frequency space to play in. If my neighbor forwards me a link to a cute cat video when I watch it, it would be pulled in from her Internet cache, no requests needed further upstream than the immutable cached resource. That means no tracking can be done at the source because my request need not go to the source before determining if the payload is in a cache.
The spy-friendly Internet would have been still born if not for outlawing store and forward packet radio. NASA's interplanetary Internet (Disruption Tolerant Networking) uses store and forward, because it's the future. All intermediary nodes with deduplicating caches is the only way to work around the light speed bandwidth limitations.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:24AM
IN defense of not allocating the portion of spectrum freed up by the removal of the analog stations, a mesh network is not likely to be as powerful/universal as a company putting 4G towers everywhere and investing billions of dollars. Sure, there's no anonymity this way, but it's hard to deny it's far more cost effective to get far better coverage. And people (real people who vote, and are the vast majority) will buy a cellphone, but not a HAM cache/repeater.
However, I'm curious about your description. I get how it works for finding static files. But how does it work for messages targeting a single person? Do all nodes store all messages? Because if so, the NSA can just have one node, no need for trunk lines. Do you ask for messages routed to XYZ. If so, it seems easy to traceback through the nodes (esp. if you have NSA nodes throughout the US) to get an approximate location every time it phoned home. And where would it phoning home to?
(Score: 1) by Arik on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:51AM
Using mesh networking by itself would not actually make it impossible, or even very difficult, to carry out lawful surveillance on your traffic. What it would make much more difficult is *mass* surveillance where they can simply scoop up everything you send at the ISP level in case it might be useful later. ISPs centralize all kinds of things that should not be centralized, for their own convenience primarily but it's also very convenient for snoops.
Individual surveillance based on individual suspicion (the kind the constitution requires for a lawful warrant to be issued) would still be trivial, unless the traffic is encrypted at another level before being broadcast.
"And people (real people who vote, and are the vast majority) will buy a cellphone, but not a HAM cache/repeater."
Defining 'people' so as to exclude those who think seems dangerous. And more than a bit offensive. But dangerous even moreso. It's pure defeatism.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:06AM
I don't think it's defeatism, because I don't believe your mesh system is a superior solution. It seems to have higher upfront costs for individuals, higher coordination costs for the mesh hardware, lower reliability. All of which may be worth it, but I don't see how to get to the benefits you claim. If I want to send you an e-mail/text, in your scenario how does it work?
I say this as someone who tried several times with paper to sketch it out (although years ago). I'm really excited by the idea.
But yes, airways are a limited resource. Even if everything worked perfectly, if only 3% want it, and 97% want the current system, I'm not sure why the 3% (even if I'm part of it) gets to impose its will on the group.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Arik on Thursday February 04 2016, @10:03AM
Essentially the same way as it does now, since it's all IP already. You prepare your payload, chop it into packets, mark the recipient address on each one, and hand it to a router. The router looks at the address and looks up a delivery path (the next router) - possibly more than one - to which the packet is then transmitted, and at which the process repeats until either the packet reaches its final destination or it gets dumped as undeliverable.
That mechanic is not any different. The difference is that now the #2 (or even #1!!!) router in most peoples chains belongs to a big ISP that has a lot of competing interests besides providing internet service, and then invariably directed to one of a handful of major 'backbone' routes. If just a portion of those were taken out tomorrow 'the internet' would grind to a halt for a lot of people - all the packets would start getting dumped as undeliverable. And if instead of damaging the backbone and taking it offline, the attackers quietly plant a bug, a huge number of people are placed under surveillance simultaneously.
With a mesh network you don't have a single point of failure. You can use a backbone when it's available (and if you choose to trust it) and that can certainly improve performance, but your network continues to function even if all the backbones are unavailable for some reason. 'The internet was designed to route around damage' but as the architecture grows more centralized it is less and less possible for it to succeed in this.
"Even if everything worked perfectly, if only 3% want it, and 97% want the current system, I'm not sure why the 3% (even if I'm part of it) gets to impose its will on the group."
Let's be real, 97% don't understand it well enough to have any idea what they want. They will buy just about anything that is promoted competently.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @12:05AM
But in your situation, those "next addresses" are places with a known physical location, that gets closer and closer to the actual person. So I'm confused as to how anonymity is added.
If you say the mesh network is just for redundancy, fine. But that wasn't the original reason given.
Well, they know some of what they want. They want it to be turnkey (0 configuration). They tend to want it to be fast, instead of reliable. They want to spread the payments for hardware over a 2 year contract. They want to know that if something goes wrong Someone(tm) is on the case.
And frankly, those ideas compete with a mesh network. Reliability usually comes at the cost of something, dollars or performance To say nothing of speed usually means fiber to fiber points, which seem to be impossible in your situation.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Friday February 05 2016, @01:41AM
There's actually no guarantee that each step takes you physically closer - but obviously that's going to be the most typical trajectory.
"So I'm confused as to how anonymity is added."
With a centralized system one tap on a backbone catches all the traffic. With a mesh network, while it's possible to pick up bits and pieces of anyones conversation just about anywhere, if you actually want to capture the full traffic instead of just a bit here and there, you can't just drop one bug in a central location and catch everyone with it. You have to target specific people, which incidentally is what our laws say should be done anyway. Without in any way granting *anonymity* (which is not the point and not even always desirable) it would still create a situation much more conducive to *privacy* (which is a different thing, and roundly beneficial.)
"And frankly, those ideas compete with a mesh network. "
And frankly, those ideas just reflect people without any understanding of reality. You want it all, yesterday, for free eh? You'll keep right on wanting.
And there will be no shortage of people ready to take your money, of course, but don't kid yourself they will do this by creating the impossible.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @07:39PM
Those ideas don't compete with reality. The current system is better at implementing the ideas than a mesh network. They are reality./p.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Subsentient on Thursday February 04 2016, @02:26AM
Perhaps it's better to put convicted practicing pedophiles to death, or give them a choice between that or life imprisonment, rather than force them to live like that. They deserve it, but still, after something like that, there is no hope at all for them ever building a meaningful life. They will be hated for damaging children for the rest of their lives. And considering the high amount of repeat offenders, even after a conviction, even after a jail sentence, perhaps it's best.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Kell on Thursday February 04 2016, @04:04AM
Another way to look at it is that these people have a mental disorder and need treatment and empathy, rather than stigmatisation and punishment. If they are a continuing threat to others, then they should be committed to a secure hospital facility, much like we do with violent mentally ill people. Why should Hannibal Lector get a comfortable cell while Uncle McFeely must be publicly executed? It seems incongruous to treat one type of offender as mentally incompetent patient and the other as evil incarnate.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday February 04 2016, @05:07AM
Yeah, they should have raped an adult instead. Then they'd be less hated, because an adult's life is inherently less valuable than a child's life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @06:28AM
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:25PM
Well...kids have more of their life ahead of them. So all other things considered equal, it's sort of a fair statement.
That being said we tend to go overboard with the idea in the U.S.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday February 05 2016, @02:56AM
I don't see why that means their lives are more valuable. That seems incredibly arbitrary.
Furthermore, that doesn't always hold true. Some people die very early.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday February 05 2016, @02:38PM
More valuable because there's more of them left. More potential work performed (for the physics idea of "work").
Yes, obviously it's on average.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday February 05 2016, @10:23PM
You have yet to explain how that indicates they are more valuable. This seems entirely subjective and almost religious in nature. I do not worship children, so I cannot comprehend this.
More potential work performed (for the physics idea of "work").
So you base the value of a human on how much work they will do?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Saturday February 06 2016, @02:14AM
I can hardly make it any clearer for you, dude. No, it's not "religious." It's just regular timespace physics.
Back in high school science "work" in physics was defined as "moving a force through a motion." So I mean, how much stuff the kid can do in the rest of his life is more because, on average, he's going to live longer than an adult (Please don't argue with me on this. It's 3rd-grade math. 80 - 10 > 80 - 30.)
.
.
So if we want to be really, really pigheaded and literal about it, let's say the kid dedicates his life to running laps around a track. Let's say he can run 10 laps a day.
So say the kid is 10 years old, compare him to an adult who's 30 years old, and assume they both live to be 80 (or whatever the hell life expectancy is these days).
So 10 years * 365 days * 10 laps = 36,500 laps a decade.
kid = 36,500 * 7 decades = 255,500 potential laps in his future
adult = 36,500 * 4 decades = 146,000 potential laps in his future
So the kid has the potential to accomplish 109,500 more units of work (laps) than the adult.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday February 06 2016, @02:31AM
It's just regular timespace physics.
You're still on this "work" nonsense? I see no reason why being able to do more work means you have more value as a human being.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Saturday February 06 2016, @04:02AM
If you bothered to listen you'd recognize that in this context "work" is the sum total of all possible activity you can do.
What better way to gauge how good your life is than to let you set the standard yourself and measure the maximum amount of whatever it is you consider valuable to do that you're doing?
And now I'm going to stop paying attention to your "dur dur I'm going to purposely misinterpret everything you say to demonstrate you have no point." Good day, sir.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday February 06 2016, @04:22AM
If you bothered to listen you'd recognize that in this context "work" is the sum total of all possible activity you can do.
So what? I did listen. I just think that trying to tie this to a person's value as a human being is completely silly. Why not measure a human being's value by how much money they have, or how many name brand clothes they own? It's silly and arbitrary. I guess it can be done, but I don't see the point.
What better way to gauge how good your life is than to let you set the standard yourself and measure the maximum amount of whatever it is you consider valuable to do that you're doing?
Letting you set the standard yourself is fine, but the standards I've seen people pick in order to conclude that children are magically more important as human beings seem completely silly to me and usually conflict with the person's own values. In cases like this, I sincerely doubt that they're actually using their stated standards to measure the value of a human being's life, and the real "standard" is probably something more primitive in nature.
And now I'm going to stop paying attention to your "dur dur I'm going to purposely misinterpret everything you say to demonstrate you have no point."
In what way did I misinterpret you, purposely or otherwise? I simply reject the idea that the amount of "work" someone can do determines the value of a human being's life. Can you really not comprehend the difference?
In any case, I don't value the lives of children more highly than I value the lives of adults. Yes, I guess it's possible to subjectively reach the conclusion that children's lives are more important than adults' lives, but I see no compelling reason to do so.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday February 04 2016, @02:26AM
I'm guessing these ankle bracelets only last 2-3 years before either the battery runs out or it gets broken somehow. I'm also guessing they go for prolly $1k a pop, based on a) typical government spending; and b) something I can pull out of my ass.
On top of this it has to be monitored. Again, I'm gonna guess prolly $100-200 a month. See above for my reasons.
Then, someone has to be responsible for watching where this guy goes (assuming the monitoring company gives an alert when he goes to a park, school, church, wherever). That someone is probably a parole agent making 70k/year or more.
So we're talking about a few grand every year to "protect" the public against shadows in the night. Big ass waste of money if you ask me. If the guy is a danger keep him in prison. If he's not then let him rebuild his life.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by mattTheOne on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:11AM
It sounds like he's a lifetime offender, from the repeat convictions. So there's 2 problems with this case.
1. It looks like they're using lifetime monitoring as a workaround to spending the money on keeping him imprisoned or getting him the medical help (castration!) needed? He really should be in jail and the justice system isn't working here.
2. It's not clear why they're monitoring him on GPS if he's finished with parole and not considered a danger. This law on the books in Wisconsin seems unconstitutional and needs to be struck down.
This case is really messed up and its a bad omen for our society. Yes, it's basically setting the precedence for everyone to be monitored 23/7.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:33PM
No, it's actually not a waste of money: last I heard, it costs over $30K/year to keep someone in prison. A few grand a year is a lot cheaper than that. That's the main reason we have the "house arrest" programs we have today: it's a whole lot cheaper to stick an ankle bracelet on someone and make them stay at home, and send a parole officer around periodically to check on them, and pay for the monitoring equipment, than it is to keep them in an actual prison with armed guards, medical staff, etc.
If someone's not considered a very high danger (like a violent murderer), this does make sense. GPS monitoring can be used to make sure they don't go around schools and such. It isn't perfect, but it's definitely cheaper than prison.
(Score: 5, Informative) by mendax on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:34AM
The article quotes the court's reasoning, saying:
Uh.... there is a great deal of evidence, including statistical studies, that indicate that as a general rule those convicted of sex crimes DO NOT have a high rate or recidivism.
Now, having said that, in this case, this fellow being a repeat offender, he may be one of those few convicted of a sex crime who is likely to reoffend.
Based upon what I understand of the law, since he's not on parole, probation, or federal supervised release, the appeals court decision flies in the face of what the SCOTUS said a few years ago about putting GPS monitoring devices on cars without a warrant. If it gets appealed there and if they take it, I feel he will win.
Incidentally, the California law the court pointed out by the court only applies to those on parole.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 4, Funny) by snufu on Thursday February 04 2016, @04:56AM
Think different. Real different.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday February 04 2016, @12:12PM
CentiPed!
PedophilePedophilePedophilePedophile
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by D2 on Thursday February 04 2016, @04:59AM
What's with allowing this story with that Opinion paragraph at end?
We have comments. The Opinion at foot needs to be in comments.
(Score: 2) by Popeidol on Thursday February 04 2016, @02:24PM
Summaries are usually biased one way or another, they're just less obvious about it.
This method provides raw facts and the submitters opinion but physically separates them. I can skip the opinion completely, I can use it to get an existing view on a topic I haven't considered before, or it can show me why the person considered it important enough to submit in the first place.
I like it. It's like separating news from editorials in the newspaper while keeping the content in the same place. It's used to great effect at places like Delimiter [delimiter.com.au].
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday February 04 2016, @05:05AM
I wasn't aware that all of his carry tracking devices, seeing as how I definitely don't. I have no cellphone.
Alright, so it's probably true that most people have cellphones. So what? For one thing, it's voluntary. Second of all, that data doesn't go directly so the government, or at least, it doesn't have to. I don't think they are the same things.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday February 04 2016, @05:30AM
Do you have an alternative to cellphones that don't track your position?
satellite phones don't track your position... but they are expensive. VoIP services don't track your position... but need a network connection. how about just not using the phone? ;)
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:48PM
Sure, no problem. How about not using a computer or the internet too, while you're at it? Don't forget not using a car (assuming you don't like in a very dense urban area).
(Score: 4, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Thursday February 04 2016, @05:52AM
So you are convicted and go to jail. That requires far trial and constitutional protections against slow trials, evidence, jury selection and cruel and unusual punishment.
So once he has served his sentence, he is an ex-felon, but no longer under the sentence.
How is a lifetime of *anything* constitutional, without a sentence that says "do X, get max Y".
Otherwise, lifetime GPS monitoring could be phone tapping or any other "low cost" dubious government requirement.
Am I missing something here? Or is the state law one of those "hang 'em high" type deals, that gets struck down when the grown ups get to notice it...?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:50PM
Why is this scum even being freed in the first place? They can either rot in prison, or be used as dog feed in animal shelters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2016, @10:33AM
"Populous" should be "populace". Thank you!