• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Ron McLeod
  • Paul Clapham
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Junilu Lacar
Sheriffs:
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Tim Cooke
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • salvin francis
  • Frits Walraven
Bartenders:
  • Scott Selikoff
  • Piet Souris
  • Carey Brown

FBI can seize your PC

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
FBI seizes servers in the UK


While happily creating web pages and photos to share with friends, knock on the door, it's the FBI coming to seize your PC. Surreal,just stepped into the movie on the telly last night.

Isn't the UK outside the jurisdiction of the FBI ?
[ December 17, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The UK is outside the jurisdiction of the FBI but there are international treaties under which agencies from one country can work with agencies from another.

So if the FBI has a good enough case to convince a UK judge magistrate that a search and seizure is warranted the UK police can go in (with FBI officers possibly in attendance as observers) to seize the machines and hand them over to the FBI (or more likely work with the FBI to investigate the data found).
If enough is found to arrest the person (s)he will be arrested by UK agencies and extradited.

If this wasn't possible it would be all too easy for criminals to evade justice, just skip across a border and noone can touch you...
Some things can be done of course, including undercover operations to lure the suspect back to a place where (s)he can be arrested.
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Some things can be done of course, including undercover operations to lure the suspect back to a place where (s)he can be arrested.

Oh, those amount of calls to the winner of a luxury cruise to exotic places.
[ December 17, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I believe the British police can prosecute you now for what they think you might do in the far future and can detain the potential offender without trial.

How do you convince them you weren't planning anything in the far future ?

This has all the marks of the beginnings of a Stalinist state.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 872
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:
I believe the British police can prosecute you now for what they think you might do in the far future and can detain the potential offender without trial.

How do you convince them you weren't planning anything in the far future ?

This has all the marks of the beginnings of a Stalinist state.



Whatever next, DNA tests for babies to see if someone is ganna become a criminals and prosecute them before hand.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1408
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Helen Thomas:
I believe the British police can prosecute you now for what they think you might do in the far future and can detain the potential offender without trial.

How do you convince them you weren't planning anything in the far future ?

This has all the marks of the beginnings of a Stalinist state.

That is the essence of gun control. Prosecute someone for carrying a gun for protection against muggers because he _might_ use it to commit a mugging.
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Left-handers are murderous.

Jack the Ripper, Alexander the Great

Left handers are more prone to be ill, and more prone to be victims of serious accident.

Where they excel is in hand to hand combat , overtaking a right hander by surprise. Societies that had the most killings had the most left-handed people.
Data from an anthropological society indicate that left-handers are not more violent, just that being left-handed has an evolutionary advantage.
The police would think otherwise.
[ December 17, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
There's an advantage in basketball. Although I never killed anyone with a jump shot. Surprised them with it, oh sure. Including some cops.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
That is the essence of gun control. Prosecute someone for carrying a gun for protection against muggers because he _might_ use it to commit a mugging.



Just being a Devil's Advocate (it being friday an al'), by this justification there wouldn't be anything wrong with people carrying around swords, uzis, and rocket launchers in the street

Gun control laws are probably more along the idea that an item that has no other use but to do serious damage to other people is probably not a good thing for the general public to be carrying around.
[ December 17, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 897
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Rackspace are a US Company, so it would it be easier for the FBI to prosecute in this case?
 
Jeroen Wenting
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
The FBI cannot on their own seize property of a company that's not inside the US.
That's why they need the cooperation of UK law enforcement agencies.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 140
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'd like to point out that gun control doesn't necessarily mean you can't have a gun. That would be a gun ban. Gun control speaks specifically to Joe's point about uzi's and rocket launchers. Explosives and automatics, to most people, is considered going overboard. A simple hand gun is generally considered sufficient for personal protection.

Just want to point out that distinction because I see a lot of people get in an uproar about "You can't take away my right to own a gun!", when gun control is only saying that you don't need certain types of guns. I'd rather see them argue against the actual issue. (Not that some people/groups don't want to ban them altogether, but there is a distinction.)

andrew
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Heard the one about the rabbi's daughter, the Catholic priest and the HAlal butcher ?

Can't tell you because the penalty could be seven years in jail. This would be seen as an act to incite religious hatred.
Obviously comedians like Mr Bean are leading the campaign against the Bill.
He says " Religion is an idea. If we are forbidden to attack ideas we will no longer live in a free society."

Shaykh Hassan from California said something similar, using the following as an example.

The question of whether or not Samson was a martyr has been discussed theologically by several people like St Augustine ( can't remember the others) and theologicians from all religions.

He also said that 187 million people died in the last century because of secularism.
[ December 17, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
blacksmith
Posts: 1332
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Joe King:

Just being a Devil's Advocate (it being friday an al'), by this justification there wouldn't be anything wrong with people carrying around swords, uzis, and rocket launchers in the street

So what's wrong with sword, uzis, and rocket launchers?

If one of us really wants to do damage, most of us do after all have easy access to something far more effective than any of those: an automobile.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 624
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
That is the essence of gun control. Prosecute someone for carrying a gun for protection against muggers because he _might_ use it to commit a mugging.



hee hee - sorry about this Frank.. (I'm sure this'll get wiped before you read it anyway!)

[you Win! Jim, tell'em what he's won-MH]
[ December 18, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Warren Dew:
Joe King:

Just being a Devil's Advocate (it being friday an al'), by this justification there wouldn't be anything wrong with people carrying around swords, uzis, and rocket launchers in the street

So what's wrong with sword, uzis, and rocket launchers?

If one of us really wants to do damage, most of us do after all have easy access to something far more effective than any of those: an automobile.



Here's something much more devastating.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
- Lewis Carroll -- Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6

Anyway I think the Bill against inciting religous hatred came about because some crass journalists (esp in the Daily Telegraph) print articles that are patently anti-Islamic. The Bill shows the Government understands it's obligations to the community. Supported by the Guardian.
[ December 18, 2004: Message edited by: Helen Thomas ]
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Adrian Wallace:


hee hee - sorry about this Frank.. (I'm sure this'll get wiped before you read it anyway!)

[you Win! Jim, tell'em what he's won-MH]

[ December 18, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]



What did Adrian win ? Is there a competition ?

The Plot against America : Philip Roth imagines what would have happened had Roosevelt lost the presidential election of 1940 to Charles Lindberg portrayed as a Nazi sympathiser. It shows creeping fascism in a genteel suburb in New Jersey showing the ease with which a right-wing administration using a campaign of fear and propoganda eradicates the rights of part of it's citizens. The Plot Against America : A Novel got mixed reviews but it's on my Christmas list.

I only remember stories of Charles Lindbergh as a daring pilot whose child was kidnapped and never seen again.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 583
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Yuou know what??!! This reminds me of a joke I read long ago..
A woman was on a boat, just reading a book, in a placid late, in a warm summer afternoon..
A patrol boat comes along side and the cop shouts, "Aye there! I am placing you under arrest for fishing in a *no fishing pond*".
Woman, "Well, as you can see officer, I aint fishing."
Officer: "But you got all the apparatus, mate!! So come on over and tie your boat to starboard."
Woman thinks for a while and says, "in that case officer, I am charging you with RAPE."
The officer is taken aback.. "Aye, why would you do that, lady??!!"
Woman, "You got the apparatus".

- This is what comes to my mind looking at the posts about the British police able to take into custody persons that *they think* will commit a crime.. (Well, wasnt this the Tom cruise movie.. I forget the name, about??)

Cheers
Lupo
 
Helen Thomas
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1759
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
That was funny, gautham.
 
Alan Wanwierd
Ranch Hand
Posts: 624
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Let me try to explain again.. in more delicate terms and with no references to any persons or nationalities that might offend - This is intended purely as an intellectual excercise and I would actually really like to hear some responses from some of the smart people out here in MDland who clearly think very differently to me - so PLEASE dont erase me again (I'll be good I promise!)

There is a body of people who would argue that possesing a weapon is useful for defence purposes and that we should all be able to carry one as a matter of safety and fairness. These people tend to argue strongly against anyone who suggests that this is a bad thing and that weapons should be restricted. The argument (as we have seen in some above posts) is that just owning a weapon does not mean that the individual necessarily means to use it in a harmful manner.

On the flip-side - the point I try to highlight - Is that there is a tendency for the same body of people to argue that on a national level this logic should not apply and that nations should not be free to arm themselves and cannot use the "we might need these to defend ourselves" argument to justify the development of weapons.

I find this dual position amusingly hypocritical. - Does nobody else out there see the contradiction in these positions?

[For the record I am NOT suggesting that a global proliferation of weapons is necessarily a good and safe thing - merely that it is a natural extension of the "right to bear arms" philosophy.]
 
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Posts: 1332
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Adrian Wallace:

On the flip-side - the point I try to highlight - Is that there is a tendency for the same body of people to argue that on a national level this logic should not apply and that nations should not be free to arm themselves and cannot use the "we might need these to defend ourselves" argument to justify the development of weapons.

I find this dual position amusingly hypocritical. - Does nobody else out there see the contradiction in these positions?


Are you open minded enough to consider the possibility that there is no contradiction at all? I'll provide a theoretical argument; someone else can point out the empirical one.

Governments don't have the same rights as people. The purpose of governments is to make people better off. The converse is not true: the purpose of people is not to make governments better off. If the government can be made better off by making the people worse off, that's a bad thing. If the people can be made better off by making the government worse off, that's a good thing.

People who are in internal turmoil - say, who happen to have ailments that are slowly injuring or killing off many of their own cells - are still people, and should be treated as such. It would be wrong, indeed virtually unthinkable, to kill off a person suffering from disease just to preserve the livelihood of more of their cells (say in petri dishes or such).

Governments which are in internal turmoil - say, who happen to have ailments that are slowly injuring or killing off many of their own people - have no similar ethical standing. It would be right, some would say morally compelling, to topple such a government in order to preserve the lives and well being of its people.

Very simply, people and governments are not cognate. It is a mistake to treat them as such.

The "self defense" argument is that it's good to allow people to defend themselves against each other because that's better for the people involved, as people. That value judgement can't be generalized to governments. Whether it's good to allow governments to defend themselves is an entirely different question; it can't be judged based on whether it's better for the governments involved, because something that's good for a government may still be bad for its people.

I have a somewhat different view than Frank's; I view the "right to bear arms" as a check on government. The purpose is to limit governmental power by making the people more powerful. From this standpoint, anything that makes governments more powerful not only fails to be an extension of the principle, it's a perversion of it, as it alters the balance of power between governments and people in the wrong direction.
[ December 19, 2004: Message edited by: Warren Dew ]
 
Alan Wanwierd
Ranch Hand
Posts: 624
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Warren - OK, I remain unconvinced, but appreciate a few of the ideas...

Your basic premise seems to be that:
It is possible that a government, in defending itself, **may** be harmful to the people represented by that government. Because of this, that government should not have the right to defend themselves... on the grounds that things that hurt "the people" are bad.

I can see a kind of logic there...

Can we then extend this to say that since any government **may** harms its people in its self-defensive actions that it would be right and proper to discourage all governments from owning ANY weaponry?
 
Warren Dew
blacksmith
Posts: 1332
2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Adrian Wallace:

OK, I remain unconvinced, but appreciate a few of the ideas...

No problem. There are plenty of things that people can reasonably differ on.

Your basic premise seems to be that:
It is possible that a government, in defending itself, **may** be harmful to the people represented by that government. Because of this, that government should not have the right to defend themselves... on the grounds that things that hurt "the people" are bad....


Actually, my basic argument is that a government should not be judged on principle, but rather pragmatically, based on how that particular government acts and whether its actions are likely to benefit or harm people. That follows from my basic premise, which is that people are what count, not governments.

Can we then extend this to say that since any government **may** harms its people in its self-defensive actions that it would be right and proper to discourage all governments from owning ANY weaponry?

The conclusion from my position is that where a particular government's owning weaponry harms people, that particular government should be discouraged from owning weaponry, and where a particular government's owning weaponry helps people, that particular government should be encourage to own the weaponry. Further, the interests of all people must be considered in making this decision, not just the people under that particular government.

Ideally, it might be good if no government had any weaponry, but pragmatically, that situation is unlikely to be reached in the near future.
 
Alan Wanwierd
Ranch Hand
Posts: 624
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Warren Dew:

The conclusion from my position is that where a particular government's owning weaponry harms people, that particular government should be discouraged from owning weaponry, and where a particular government's owning weaponry helps people, that particular government should be encourage to own the weaponry. Further, the interests of all people must be considered in making this decision, not just the people under that particular government.



Of course, the difficulty here is in establishing exactly how to define and measure "harm" or "help" .....
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Warren Dew:
I have a somewhat different view than Frank's; I view the "right to bear arms" as a check on government. The purpose is to limit governmental power by making the people more powerful. From this standpoint, anything that makes governments more powerful not only fails to be an extension of the principle, it's a perversion of it, as it alters the balance of power between governments and people in the wrong direction.



I can see how this would have, at one point in time, been possibly a good thing. The idea that the people could, in a time of aggressive governing, protect themselves from that government is probably something that was a good idea in the past. The main difference between then and now is the level of technology. A couple of hundred years ago the types of arms that a normal person could buy would not be far off what a government army would be armed with (especially as many people in national armies of the time supplied their own weapons). In modern times its a very different story - does anyone really think that a small group of civilians could really protect themselves against a western government force in an armed conflict?

These days the level of weaponry that the national army and police have (in most western countries) mean that they could simply swat aside any small or medium level civilian force like a small bug. It would take something on the level of a nation-wide revolution to overthrow a government by force.... and if that were to happen that it would most likely happen regardless of if the general population had weaponry at the start or not.
 
Joe King
Ranch Hand
Posts: 820
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Adrian Wallace:

Of course, the difficulty here is in establishing exactly how to define and measure "harm" or "help" .....



Sometimes its both at the same time. Country X in the middle east has killed quite a large number of one part of its population (seen as foreigners, but living in territory X claims) in an attempt to protect another part of its population. Is that weaponry helping or harming?

Another example: country Y is a country often seen (mistakenly or not) as being militarily aggressive towards other countries, shown a tendency to not be concerned about using WMD, and is often accused of causing its own citizens to be harmed as cannon fodder in a war to gain more money for its leaders. Now all this is just one view of this country - some people see it as bad, but others see it as a good responsible country working for good causes. The question of whether it should have large amounts of weaponry, especially WMD, is therefore not clear. The idea of assessing a county's suitability to have weapons is a tricky one is its almost impossible to get a general consensus on the "goodness" level of a particular country.
 
Or we might never have existed at all. Freaky. So we should cherish everything. Even this tiny ad:
Building a Better World in your Backyard by Paul Wheaton and Shawn Klassen-Koop
https://coderanch.com/wiki/718759/books/Building-World-Backyard-Paul-Wheaton
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic