Author Topic: Our Tech-Savvy Supreme Court  (Read 1568 times)

Psidefect

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,633
  • Karma: +161/-155
    • Bizarre Confessions
Our Tech-Savvy Supreme Court
« on: April 21, 2010, 10:31:18 AM »
Our Tech-Savvy Supreme Court

'the first sign of trouble came was about midway through the argument, when Chief Justice John Roberts asked what the difference was “between email and a pager?”'

This is fucking frightening.
“You've got a lot to learn about screwing up your life, pal.” - mrcookieface
“How sad for a marriage to fail because it's not compatible with Windows 31!  But it'll happen.” - random axe
“Not my problem if they don't know how to make magic smoke out of it.” - Stormy
“Dude. That will get you out of TWO family holidaycausts.” - Stoatse
"It is my role in this drama to misunderstand things at top volume." - Hmof

stormneedle

  • Trusted
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,746
  • Karma: +118/-42
  • Nonsense Stuffer
    • Your page here!
Re: Our Tech-Savvy Supreme Court
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2010, 01:44:03 PM »
They both subvert and twist poor helpless electrons, so they're really the same.  :batteyes:
“I'm generalizing from one example here, but everyone generalizes from one example. At least, I do.”

Psidefect

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,633
  • Karma: +161/-155
    • Bizarre Confessions
Re: Our Tech-Savvy Supreme Court
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2010, 03:42:37 PM »
How could someone who doesn't know the difference between a pager and an email make any kind of informed decision on an issue like Net Neutrality?

edit - heh, sorry Stormy, that wasn't a direct reply to your post. I'm just blown away by the ignorance. Don't these people have technology advisors or something? Hell TV shows have tech consultants!
« Last Edit: April 21, 2010, 03:44:27 PM by Psidefect »
“You've got a lot to learn about screwing up your life, pal.” - mrcookieface
“How sad for a marriage to fail because it's not compatible with Windows 31!  But it'll happen.” - random axe
“Not my problem if they don't know how to make magic smoke out of it.” - Stormy
“Dude. That will get you out of TWO family holidaycausts.” - Stoatse
"It is my role in this drama to misunderstand things at top volume." - Hmof

random axe

  • Concerned Netizen
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,733
  • Karma: +92/-20
  • Concern Intensifies
Re: Our Tech-Savvy Supreme Court
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2010, 04:18:01 PM »
Quote
This is fucking frightening.

This is fucking 'as expected'.  The Supremes tend to ask some deep questions and a bunch of retarded ones no matter what the subject matter is.  Anyway, Roberts never comes across as terribly bright, so this might be more symptomatic than a specific weak spot.

I agree they need better information for cases where they're likely to have less personal experience.  That's part of why they're often drowning in amicus briefs -- in theory, qualified expert authorities weigh in with (usually printed) opinions on the subject, hopefully with some background and clear, rational advocacy thrown in.

Personally, I should be more outraged in this instance, but I really hate texting and think this cop was pretty stupid.  I know, the precedent is important, but just once I'd like to see expectation of privacy be reduced to WARNING you.  (Maybe this happens, but I don't hear about it.)  You know, the employer saying, 'Seriously, if you use your company computer to send a personal email on company time, then we can read it if we want.'  Companies say that all the time, so shouldn't that affect your reasonable expectation of privacy?

If you're a cop, the notion that (A) the cops might snoop on you, and (B) activities leave a trail of evidence that can be discovered and used against you . . . .  You know what?  I'm not even going to finish that.

Just once, also, I'd like to see a ruling like this:  Employer's a dick.  Defendant's a dick.  Employer has slightly more responsibility than a private individual, so we fine the employer $5k, but the court would like to repeat that they're both dicks.