waaaambulance?

I prefer to have my information steamed rather than boiled ;)

SpinStopper: I prefer to have my information steamed rather than boiled ;)

I like mine fried, or chicken fried.

"Hey, hey, HEY!!! I said it was okay for YOU PEONS. I never meant it could be used against me!"

I'll take "Because he's a hypocritical douche" for $1,000, Alex.

Couldn't have happened to a better man.

What kind of whine goes best with steamed scalia?

I think the class proved its point. Bravo.

His class turned in a 15-page dossier that included not only Scalia's home address, home phone number and home value, but his food and movie preferences, his wife's personal e-mail address and photos of his grandchildren

I'm not that impressed. What about all his usenet postings in alt.tiemeup?

Do we know his Netflix queue?

About a decade ago he gave a brilliant speech at UNC, and talked a bit about how federal lawmakers and agencies had forgotten about the 9th and 10th amendments, particularly the way the federal government used highway money as legal leverage. I wish I knew what happened to that guy, because somewhere about September 12, 2001 they replaced him with a body-double douchebag.

Does that make him a steamed ham?

SCALIA!!

Anything that pisses off Scalia gives me a raging happy-on.

UNC_Samurai: somewhere about September 12, 2001 they replaced him with a body-double douchebag.

Pretty much. For being a right-wing douche, his writing, learning and research is very strong. If you want someone to take what is ostensibly an asinine and irrational argument and make it look remotely rational, read his decisions.

Scalia, the TL;DR version: "Just because it's legal to do this (and it is), doesn't mean it should be done."

The full version: I stand by my remark at the Institute of American and Talmudic Law conference that it is silly to think that every single datum about my life is private. I was referring, of course, to whether every single datum about my life deserves privacy protection in law.

It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any.

MasterThief: The full version: I stand by my remark at the Institute of American and Talmudic Law conference that it is silly to think that every single datum about my life is private. I was referring, of course, to whether every single datum about my life deserves privacy protection in law.

It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any.

At what point does something because so invasively irresponsible that we declare it illegal? You can't just pretend they are too independent things.

madmann: Anything that pisses off Scalia gives me a raging happy-on.

THIS.

As a librarian, anyone using publicly-available information and doing good research that results in such an awesome comeuppance in defense of information... oh, my little heart just goes pitter-pat.

MasterThief: Scalia, the TL;DR version: "Just because it's legal to do this (and it is), doesn't mean it should be done to me."

Now with more accuracy!

This reminds me of the an attempt to Sieze some of Justice Kennedy's property with imminent domain after his ridiculous view on that issue.

We need to move the Supreme Court down a notch. Our forefathers never intended them to be gods amongst men.

DamnYankees: MasterThief: The full version:

What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any.


Why should it be considered the professor's bad judgement? He's not the source of the information; he's only demonstrating that other sources have made the information available to the public.

If anyone is irresponsible, it's the companies and organizations that allow the public inappropriate access to personal information, not the person who finds the information.

He's blaming the messenger.

A glimpse inside the brilliant legal mind of Justice Scalia, on the topic of torture and the law:

Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives... Are you going to convict Jack Bauer? Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?

I don't think so.

Nemo's Brother: imminent domain

wat

Nemo's Brother: This reminds me of the an attempt to Sieze some of Justice Kennedy's property with imminent domain after his ridiculous view on that issue.

We need to move the Supreme Court down a notch. Our forefathers never intended them to be gods amongst men.

You mean Souter and "eminent domain."

Theaetetus: wat

It's RIGHT NOW domain.

First Jane Harman, now Scalia.

I have equally nonexistent sympathy for either.

Jon Snow: A glimpse inside the brilliant legal mind of Justice Scalia, on the topic of torture and the law:

Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives... Are you going to convict Jack Bauer? Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?

I don't think so.

F your A

"And ought we believe in these absolutes"

What?

He didn't really seem "steamed", just annoyed. And his comments weren't in any way hypocritical or inconsistent.

/Liberal Dem who hates Scalia.

I didn't know he liked youporn.com?

Wow. That explains the shaky left hand.

People who are trying to make every bit of information protected, especially those concerned about aggregation, are fighting a losing battle.

If information is locked down too tight, it becomes useless. If information can't be shared among parties, you have to generate that much more unique data.

Rather than trying to lock down every nugget that might be out there, maybe we should instead focus on making each bit of information less important.

For example, rather than say "how can we lock down SSNs so that no unauthorized parties can find them" (which is going to be impossible anyway) we should be saying "even if someone has your SSN, how can we make it so that someone can't do much with it".

rob.d: I didn't know he liked youporn.com?

Wow. That explains the shaky left hand.

(checks left hand)

Yep....its youporn.com

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: If information is locked down too tight, it becomes useless valuable.

FTFY. Information has value, and controlling who has the information has significant value. A trade secret known to the world is not a trade secret anymore. Marketing plans for a new product or details of a proposed merger have significant value as long as your competitors don't know. Controlling the release of information is where much of its value lies... With significant government intrusion into privacy however, we lose the ability to control the release of information. This directly destroys value.

Remember, folks. Torture isn't "punishment," because they haven't been tried and convicted, and therefore, isn't protected under the 8th Amendment.

Jon Snow: A glimpse inside the brilliant legal mind of Justice Scalia, on the topic of torture and the law:

Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives... Are you going to convict Jack Bauer? Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?

I don't think so.

Holy fark. I didn't think it was possible for me to think any less of Scalia.

HA HA

SCALIAWNED!!11!1!!

Sounds like someone got PWNED! Learn to live with your decisions dude.

Did they find an answer to this probing question?

/the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation

HAW HAW HAW HAW.

Peek-a-boo!

mediablitz: "Hey, hey, HEY!!! I said it was okay for YOU PEONS. I never meant it could be used against me!"

DING DING DING!!!

Theaetetus: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: If information is locked down too tight, it becomes useless valuable.

FTFY. Information has value, and controlling who has the information has significant value. A trade secret known to the world is not a trade secret anymore. Marketing plans for a new product or details of a proposed merger have significant value as long as your competitors don't know. Controlling the release of information is where much of its value lies... With significant government intrusion into privacy however, we lose the ability to control the release of information. This directly destroys value.

You missed the point. I said "locked down too tight"; you're implying that it is either impossible or actually desirable to do so. Your information might become more valuable up to a point (sharing it with only 5 people), but once you hit 1 or 0 people, most information is useless. If I have the detailed written plans for a 100% safe fusion reactor, it seems like you're saying that if I lock it in a safe, throw if off a boat in the middle of the Pacific, don't tell anyone about it and forget both the combination and where I put it; I've made it more valuable, not less. A fat lot of good it does us then; you may as well just burn it instead.

Now, as for "destroying the value", you come back around... that's exactly what I want to do with most individual bits of personal information, because they're being used for things for which they were never intended. Here are two scenarios:

1. My National ID # is used to uniquely identify me to a host of companies, government agencies, etc. It must be protected at all costs from disclosure to unauthorized parties.

Problems:
- It's pretty damn hard to determine who an "authorized" party is, especially when people come and go; and it's up to each authorized party to determine who else they will trust with that information.
- If that bit of information is ever disclosed to an unauthorized party, or an authorized party who decides they don't like you, you're completely screwed.

2. My SSN is out there, but the only people who care about it are at the Social Security Administration. It can't be used to get a car loan, a credit card, a W2, anything. Its ONLY purpose is for tracking and collecting SS contributions and benefits, and to act on those requires a secondary form of ID.

Problems:
- You can't use your SSN for everything under the sun. On the other hand, if it's disclosed, whoop dee farking doo.

I think I'll pick door #2. We should take the same approach to this as the USAF takes to nukes; you can't do it with one key, you need two keys 40 feet away from each other turned simultaneously.

I dislike Scalia, but at least he's being consistent about this.

Although you're not happy with private information of yours being collected, he thinks it's still perfectly legal.

Although he's not happy with private information of his being collected, he thinks it's still perfectly legal.

I hope this removes the scalia from his eyes.

Jon Snow: A glimpse inside the brilliant legal mind of Justice Scalia, on the topic of torture and the law:

Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives... Are you going to convict Jack Bauer? Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?

I don't think so.

I see this more of an argument for jury nullification (something I'm guessing Scalia is against) than as a argument that criminal laws need not apply to gov't agents.

You missed a comma between "information" and "steamed."

kevinatilusa: I dislike Scalia, but at least he's being consistent about this.

Although you're not happy with private information of yours being collected, he thinks it's still perfectly legal.

Although he's not happy with private information of his being collected, he thinks it's still perfectly legal.

Look, this is Fark. Get out of here with sensibleness.

good for him. let him steam until his head explodes.

So, did they get his credit card numbers, his membership account in the Whites Only Country Club, and his DUI disposition file?

Vagpuncher: I see this more of an argument for jury nullification (something I'm guessing Scalia is against) than as a argument that criminal laws need not apply to gov't agents.

Although the original article is no longer available, from what I remember, he was essentially making the argument that torture was okay if done for the "right" reasons. This is pretty typical of the conservative mindset, from Scalia to Cheney to Krauthammer.

Anyone interested in the personalities of the Supreme Court should read Toobin's book. Scalia and Thomas come of rather poorly.

http://www.amazon.com/Nine-Inside-Secret-World-Supreme/dp/0385516401

As if the same farktard that uses a fictional TV show to contemplate torture has any right to discuss using "judgment".

Scalia is a fat farking douchebag.

Systemic irresponsibility is what drives the creation of new law.

Any system based upon the assumption that idiots won't abuse it is a system bound for failure.