Discarded philosopher-statesman Rick Santorum’s latest column at World Net Daily is about Freedom and the taking of it by Barack Obama. Naturally, it’s a veritable Journey concert of brain-dead paleo-conservative greatest hits: We are Free Americans because our values are having guns, being hetero-sexing Christians, drowning Obamacare in the sink, and Taxed Enough Already! Yes, all of this stopped being terribly funny a while ago, but here’s the thing: Rick Santorum’s rote regurgitations distill a certain dangerous strain of American political “thought” that remains influential. Hell, they might even
Now I've read the opinion and most of the dissent, I find both to be deeply flawed.
The definition the majority gives of "identity" is garbage, but Scalia's discussion of reasonableness is grossly inadequate (why is a search he concedes is reasonable pursuant to conviction not reasonable pursuant to arrest on probable cause?) and contains some highly misleading statements.
The techie in me is also pissed that Tony makes some significant misstatements about the technical details both of CODIS (the DNA database) and IAFIS (the fingerprint database).
Also, his parade of horribles (to the effect that this case will allow DNA testing pursuant to traffic violation) willfully ignores an important part of the majority opinion, even though he had earlier addressed that part of the decision - if Scalia cannot distinguish between cases requiring detention, and simple ticket offenses, his ability to distinguish is several light years short of that one would feel necessary for service in our highest court. Here I suspect it's not a case of being unable to distinguish, so much as choosing to ignore that a distinction might be possible because it would be troublesome to his point.
&quot;3.5 digits&quot; is a little generous for 1024, and I&#039;ve never yet met anyone who was <em>quick</em> at binary, especially binary multiplication.
I haven&#039;t had a chance to read it, or even a comprehensive summary, but what I did see sounded like they all managed to get into the weeds a bit...
Opinion basically says that criminal history is part of your \"identity\" (huh?) and that pursuant to an arrest law enforcement needs to know your record as part of normal post-arrest processing (to determine what kind of bail conditions need to be set, and how you should be detained before/if not granted bail), and this need is adequate to justify taking a cheek swab as being a \"reasonable\" search in a booking context. Their argument is weird, and their justification is mostly hypothetical since Scalia is right to point out much of it is inconsistent with the Maryland law in question, which for example prohibits the processing of a DNA sample until after the first court appearance.<br /><br />Scalia makes some arguments on process comparing DNA against fingerprints that really only are applicable to recent times. The majority claims that the constitutionality of fingerprinting was uncontroversial even before 1999 when the FBI first brought online a database capable of rapid fingerprint lookup - Scalia poohoos this by saying the constitutionality of fingerprinting before then was never challenged (doesn&#39;t that mean it was uncontroversial?).<br /><br />Like I say the technical misstatements he makes irked me most. He said there were two distinct \"collections\" in CODIS - this is not true, there are two <em>indexes</em> on the database, as a database guy I can tell you that&#39;s a totally different thing. He said that there&#39;s no evidence the database contains samples from solved crimes, but that&#39;s not true - while a crime must be unsolved to qualify for a sample to be first entered in the database, the <em>source he cites</em> explains that there&#39;s no need for local authorities to report when a conviction is secured, and moreover the criteria for expunging data do not include convictions being secured, so the database certainly contains samples from crimes that were unsolved at the time but are now solved. He states definitively based on his source that samples entered in the database because they were taken from convicts and arrestees will <em>not</em> be crosschecked against other samples for individuals whose identities are known, but his source says nothing of the sort because it does not describe the process when such samples are entered, only for what happens when a sample related to an unsolved crime is entered. Then on the fingerprint side he asserts that latent prints recovered from crime scenes \"are not systematically compared against the database of known fingerprints\", but the particular part of IAFIS he references to support this claim - RISC - systematically \"chains\" <em>all</em> searches against the database of latent prints from unsolved crimes; the FBI has cited generating a ranked list of matches against an unknown latent print as one of the three major services the system provides; and the FBI&#39;s press release for their \"next generation\" update to IAFIS bragged it would offer \"improved latent processing services.\"<br /><br /><br />In other words, his argument that there&#39;s a meaningful distinction between fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting contains many holes, and I&#39;m still not sure how to answer the question.
Well, log10(2^10) is 3.01, is basically my point. Using your fingers for binary gives you three digits, not three and a half.<br /><br />If you&#39;re using a slide rule you&#39;re probably not counting on your fingers.
So when liberals kill, it&#039;s a rejection of God and very bad but when right-wingers kill it&#039;s somehow because of something liberals did to earn God&#039;s wrath and sort of understandable. God sure seems inconsistent.
A cool thing is that even the conservatives in the upcoming generation don&#039;t buy the homophobia line. Santorum is flogging the political equivalent of the slide rule.
Pic caption: &quot;Ricky demonstrates his well-honed &#039;Rafalca&#039; technique.&quot;
Now I&#039;ve read the opinion and most of the dissent, I find both to be deeply flawed.
The definition the majority gives of &quot;identity&quot; is garbage, but Scalia&#039;s discussion of reasonableness is grossly inadequate (why is a search he concedes is reasonable pursuant to conviction not reasonable pursuant to arrest on probable cause?) and contains some highly misleading statements.
The techie in me is also pissed that Tony makes some significant misstatements about the technical details both of CODIS (the DNA database) and IAFIS (the fingerprint database).
Also, his parade of horribles (to the effect that this case will allow DNA testing pursuant to traffic violation) willfully ignores an important part of the majority opinion, even though he had earlier addressed that part of the decision - if Scalia cannot distinguish between cases requiring detention, and simple ticket offenses, his ability to distinguish is several light years short of that one would feel necessary for service in our highest court. Here I suspect it&#039;s not a case of being unable to distinguish, so much as choosing to ignore that a distinction might be possible because it would be troublesome to his point.
part of his campaign to be mayor of Tijuana
not enough lovin, touchin or squeezin...
&quot;3.5 digits&quot; is a little generous for 1024, and I&#039;ve never yet met anyone who was <em>quick</em> at binary, especially binary multiplication.
I haven&#039;t had a chance to read it, or even a comprehensive summary, but what I did see sounded like they all managed to get into the weeds a bit...
sounds like a typical Saturday night for me...
Separate ways- worlds apart
Opinion basically says that criminal history is part of your \"identity\" (huh?) and that pursuant to an arrest law enforcement needs to know your record as part of normal post-arrest processing (to determine what kind of bail conditions need to be set, and how you should be detained before/if not granted bail), and this need is adequate to justify taking a cheek swab as being a \"reasonable\" search in a booking context. Their argument is weird, and their justification is mostly hypothetical since Scalia is right to point out much of it is inconsistent with the Maryland law in question, which for example prohibits the processing of a DNA sample until after the first court appearance.<br /><br />Scalia makes some arguments on process comparing DNA against fingerprints that really only are applicable to recent times. The majority claims that the constitutionality of fingerprinting was uncontroversial even before 1999 when the FBI first brought online a database capable of rapid fingerprint lookup - Scalia poohoos this by saying the constitutionality of fingerprinting before then was never challenged (doesn&#39;t that mean it was uncontroversial?).<br /><br />Like I say the technical misstatements he makes irked me most. He said there were two distinct \"collections\" in CODIS - this is not true, there are two <em>indexes</em> on the database, as a database guy I can tell you that&#39;s a totally different thing. He said that there&#39;s no evidence the database contains samples from solved crimes, but that&#39;s not true - while a crime must be unsolved to qualify for a sample to be first entered in the database, the <em>source he cites</em> explains that there&#39;s no need for local authorities to report when a conviction is secured, and moreover the criteria for expunging data do not include convictions being secured, so the database certainly contains samples from crimes that were unsolved at the time but are now solved. He states definitively based on his source that samples entered in the database because they were taken from convicts and arrestees will <em>not</em> be crosschecked against other samples for individuals whose identities are known, but his source says nothing of the sort because it does not describe the process when such samples are entered, only for what happens when a sample related to an unsolved crime is entered. Then on the fingerprint side he asserts that latent prints recovered from crime scenes \"are not systematically compared against the database of known fingerprints\", but the particular part of IAFIS he references to support this claim - RISC - systematically \"chains\" <em>all</em> searches against the database of latent prints from unsolved crimes; the FBI has cited generating a ranked list of matches against an unknown latent print as one of the three major services the system provides; and the FBI&#39;s press release for their \"next generation\" update to IAFIS bragged it would offer \"improved latent processing services.\"<br /><br /><br />In other words, his argument that there&#39;s a meaningful distinction between fingerprinting and DNA fingerprinting contains many holes, and I&#39;m still not sure how to answer the question.
Well, log10(2^10) is 3.01, is basically my point. Using your fingers for binary gives you three digits, not three and a half.<br /><br />If you&#39;re using a slide rule you&#39;re probably not counting on your fingers.
Rick Santorum: [ &quot;visionary&quot;]. Boldly attempting to lead us into the 17th century.
Needs moar preparation
That&#039;s &quot;motility&quot; you&#039;re thinking of.
&quot; Troofs have WINGS!!!!&quot;
too much Red Bull
So when liberals kill, it&#039;s a rejection of God and very bad but when right-wingers kill it&#039;s somehow because of something liberals did to earn God&#039;s wrath and sort of understandable. God sure seems inconsistent.
A cool thing is that even the conservatives in the upcoming generation don&#039;t buy the homophobia line. Santorum is flogging the political equivalent of the slide rule.