Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property.
If they find a illegal immigrant on public streets, they can be detained, but still cannot enter a private residence (even if occupied by an illegal immigrant) as it would violate the 4th amendment.
> Despite the word "warrant" being present, an “administrative warrant” does not allow law enforcement to enter private property.
Even an actual judicial arrest warrant doesn't (legally) allow them to enter private party on suspicion that the target might be there. Search is a separate thing from seizure, and you need a judicial search warrant to search a private residence or the non-public areas of a business for a person, no matter what authority you might have to arrest them should you find them.
That makes sense. But that raises a separate unrelated question; how do bailbondsmen seem to be able to take their targets in, are they violating the law or are criminals gullible or something else?
Bail agents can usually enter the home of the subject without additional consent due to clauses in the contract of the bail bond, but not (without the owners consent) homes owned by third parties even if the target is present.
Criminals are also frequently gullible.
And bail agents are fairly notorious as a group for having a less than scrupulous attention to legal restrictions.
What do you think amateur radio does? Why do you think that broadcasting your location, and that you're looking to get information from somewhere other than the approved sources will end up in anything other than tragedy? What information do you think could reliably be provided with amateur radio in a situation like this?
There is no privacy in amateur radio. That is not a matter of preference, it is a regulatory and physical reality.
Amateur radio transmissions are public, unencrypted, and attributable. Callsigns are required, modes and frequencies are well known, and transmissions are trivially direction-findable. In a country like Iran, where RF spectrum is actively monitored and unauthorized communications are treated as a security issue, transmitting on amateur bands is effectively broadcasting your location and intent. Direction finding is routine, fast, and does not require exotic equipment. One transmission can be enough.
In the US and most other countries, amateur radio is tightly regulated. Encryption to obscure content is explicitly prohibited. Ignoring this can result in fines, seizure of equipment, and loss of license. Foreign operators encouraging or participating in such use are not insulated from consequences simply because the target country is authoritarian.
I did not claim to have a better solution. That's the point. When the threat model includes surveillance, attribution, and enforcement, there may be no safe civilian workaround. Suggesting amateur radio in this context is not “imperfect but helpful”, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what amateur radio actually is and how it is regulated.
Amateur radio can't provide privacy, safety, or reliable information flow under an active crackdown. Pretending otherwise is irresponsible.
> so that you can at least get information out to others.
So they can do what with it? The people who can action it already have intensive satellite imagery of the area and domestic intelligence assets. The level of risk to reward for a citizen to do this is fairly low.
Sure, if you are smart enough. Maybe mount a small transmitter on a tree then use a directional antenna at a very low power and use the tree as a repeater.
Or use NVIS, which at least makes triangulation harder.
~5m antenna during the day, 10m at night for a simple dipole antenna
I'd be more worried about them being able to triangulate the radio signals though. If they can jam GPS, surely they can detect a 100W signal around 14MHz.
Most likely his ancient astronaut theory was the inspiration for the entire Stargate franchise. Of course to make the movie believable they had to give Jackson a more academic background than von Däniken had.
I've been curious myself about why the activist class seems weirdly quiet on this issue.
On a quick scan of media feeds I've seen a couple of things that stand out (I do not confirm or deny how true these claims are)
1) Current Iran is a enemy of the USA and thus activists can't support the destruction of the current regime. Iran is able to create nukes so can put pressure on the USA in Middle East Politics (esp. Palestine and Israel)
2) The uprising and the Shah are CIA/Western Backed and thus supporting the protestors is de-facto colonialism/imperialism.
3) Contrary to popular belief Iran is not actually a Muslim nation, only the leadership is. The population is significantly more varied and people do not want to be seen supporting the firebombing of Mosques because Islamphobia.
I don't know how widespread these opinions are, but it IS very strange how I don't see more outrage.
There's an alliance between the new left and islamism due to some ideological similarities.
Sure one side would march for pride and the other hangs gays on cranes.
However, in foreign policy both explain anything as some product of colonialism, a phenomena that essentially disappeared 60 years ago.
This is due to the effect Edward Said had on US humanities, which was in turn was influenced by Muslim Brotherhood thought in his home country of Egypt
I think the left-leaning activist people in the Americas are so against any position that could align with a Trump position, that they can’t think beyond those lines. If Trump supports the revolution it must be bad.
You are more right than you realize. Around the time the US and Israel bombed the Iranian nuclear sites, I personally witnessed our local pro-Hamas protesters add 'stop bombing Iran' signs to their repertoire.
Give me an example of websites on HN, which spread fake news by purpose and it was allowed by the mods even they knew the news / artice / website was spreading fake news.
You have quite an unatenable position (you really think there have never been outright wrong headlines on HN?). Even this very article is (being very generous) clickbait.
The TI-89 came out in 1998 and can do a lot of calculus work. It can go very far in entry level calculus courses and can be very useful for checking work even in the higher courses.
The summary and justification sections help set the intent of the bill, but they don't define the law itself.
Those uses are:
Section two of this bill adds a new Article 45-A to General Business Law
to require addictive social media platforms which feature predatory
features such as algorithmic feeds, push notifications, autoplay, infi-
nite scroll, and/or like counts as a significant part of the provision
of their service to post warning labels for all users upon access to the
platform. The bill features a series of specific exemptions for certain
types of notifications that fall beyond the scope of the bill (i.e.
those explicitly requested by a user or which are deployed for civic
communication). More broadly, the bill also exempts any feature which is
determined by the Attorney General via regulation to be offered for a
valid purpose unrelated to prolonging use of the addictive social media
platform.
...
... Additionally, as this bill covers only social media
platforms that deploy addictive features such as algorithmic feeds, push
notifications, autoplay, infinite scroll, and like counts, any platform
not wishing to display a warning label could simply limit their use of
these features.
The text of the law, however, does not define "algorithmic feed" (sorting by date post could be considered "an algorithm" by some).
"[S]uch as algorithmic feeds" in the description and justification remains undefined in the text of the bill itself.
I don't see how "Addictive feed" is circularly defined. The definition given is [1]:
> "Addictive feed" shall mean a website, online service, online
application, or mobile application, or a portion thereof, in which
multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users of a website,
online service, online application, or mobile application, either
concurrently or sequentially, are recommended, selected, or prioritized
for display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information
associated with the user or the user's device, unless any of the
following conditions are met, alone or in combination with one another:
> (a) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on
information that is not persistently associated with the user or user's
device, and does not concern the user's previous interactions with media
generated or shared by other users;
> (b) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on
user-selected privacy or accessibility settings, or technical
information concerning the user's device;
> (c) the user expressly and unambiguously requested the specific media,
media by the author, creator, or poster of media the user has subscribed
to, or media shared by users to a page or group the user has subscribed
to, provided that the media is not recommended, selected, or prioritized
for display based, in whole or in part, on other information associated
with the user or the user's device that is not otherwise permissible
under this subdivision;
> (d) the user expressly and unambiguously requested that specific
media, media by a specified author, creator, or poster of media the user
has subscribed to, or media shared by users to a page or group the user
has subscribed to pursuant to paragraph (c) of this subdivision, be
blocked, prioritized or deprioritized for display, provided that the
media is not recommended, selected, or prioritized for display based, in
whole or in part, on other information associated with the user or the
user's device that is not otherwise permissible under this subdivision;
> (e) the media are direct and private communications;
> (f) the media are recommended, selected, or prioritized only in
response to a specific search inquiry by the user;
(> g) the media recommended, selected, or prioritized for display is
exclusively next in a pre-existing sequence from the same author,
creator, poster, or source; or
> (h) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is necessary to
comply with the provisions of this article and any regulations
promulgated pursuant to this article.
Ahh... thank you. That's a different part of the already established legislation and wasn't part of this one (which is why I couldn't find it at first glance - I was looking at 1520 and this is 1500). It was referencing it and saying it was itself.
That does clear it up.
With that definition in mind, to answer the question "does HN need to have this label?" ...
... "unless any of the following conditions are met" ...
and it would appear that under (a) that the prioritization or selection of articles displayed is not associated with a user or a user's device, nor does it concern the user's previous interactions with media generated by others...
So my layman's read of this is that "No, Hacker News does not fall into the definition of an addictive feed."
If you consider "feeds" to be the home page, ask hn, etc. then afaik content is determined by user submission after spam/abuse filtering, and all users see the same content. Article position is largely determined by user votes, with some ageing. Again, everyone sees the same ordering (unless they choose to hid le articles).
Hard to see how this can be interpreted as "algorithmic".
It's hard to see it as anything but algorithmic considering that an algorithm is deciding what you see. It doesn't matter if everyone is also seeing the same thing.
By the definitional you are using pretty much every feed presented on a website is an algorithmic feed, making the term "algorithmic feed" useless since it could simply be replaced with "feed".
What "algorithmic feed" means in most discussion and publications is a feed that is personalized for the individual users based on their known or inferred interests and their past interactions.
The algorithm that is deciding what you see is simply <things submitted by other humans> + <voting on those things by other humans>. There's no per-user content customisation and profiling to drive engagement. And hn has an optional "no procrastination" feature that is provided to mitigate excessive engagement.
"The basic algorithm divides points by a power of the time since a story was submitted. Comments in threads are ranked the same way.
"Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, software which demotes overheated discussions, account or site weighting, and moderator action."
Pretty obvious and vague overview. Obviously the weights are the important part that is missing.
I don't know why you're trying to argue that this isn't an algorithmically driven social news feed website with an addictive homepage. It's exactly what the NY state law is targeting.
If they find a illegal immigrant on public streets, they can be detained, but still cannot enter a private residence (even if occupied by an illegal immigrant) as it would violate the 4th amendment.
reply