One of the fascinating Fourth Amendment questions that courts have recently divided on is how the “search incident to arrest” exception applies to the search of a cell phone.

This discussion is closely related to the border search question - when someone is arrested can the police read all their email on their smart phone "incident to arrest." I think the answer is no but coming up with a workable rule that allows the kinds of searches that should be allowed will be very difficult.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Georgia Court of Appeals — Including “Feddie” — Weighs In On Search Incident to Arrest for Cell Phones

The Air Force is barring its personnel from using work computers to view the Web sites of The New York Times.

The non-sense needs to stop.

Air Force Blocks Sites That Posted Secret Cables - NYTimes.com

List: openbsd-tech
Subject: Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC
From: Theo de Raadt
Date: 2010-12-14 22:24:39
Message-ID: 201012142224.oBEMOdWM031222 () cvs ! openbsd ! org [Download message RAW]

I have received a mail regarding the early development of the OpenBSD IPSEC stack. It is alleged that some ex-developers (and the company they worked for) accepted US government money to put backdoors into our network stack, in particular the IPSEC stack. Around 2000-2001.

One presumes this will prove to be false but its rather interesting.

'Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC' - MARC

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World was pleasing on many different levels. And stuff.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bad for Democracy: How the Presidency Undermines the Power of the People (2008)[2] is a non-fiction book written by Vanderbilt professor Dana D. Nelson. It is notable for criticism of excessive presidential power and for her call for substantive political reform.

Bad for Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What follows is a line of thinking that I think is pretty interesting but it fell on deaf ears in the first place I posted it. I'd like to know what MemeStreams readers think about these thoughts:

I think Libertarianism is broken - I feel like the vast majority of "Libertarians" are big-R Republicans who define themselves as Libertarian because they don't think the Republican party is radical enough. A lot of these people don't so much care about social or civil liberties as they are ambivalent about them. They just want a lower tax burden and they don't really care about anything else.

In Libertarian circles voting for a socially regressive Republican is acceptable as long as he plans to lower taxes, but voting for a Democrat in order to gain civil liberties is never acceptable if there is any risk that taxes might increase. A movement that was truly concerned with both economic and social liberty would be willing to make deals with both of these devils if either of them. The clear preference for one over the other sort of reveals the whole thing as dishonest. They are really just a part of the Republican tent.

At the heart of the modern Republican party is an allegiance between southern social conservatives and libertarians. This allegiance functions because both camps want to limit the power of the federal government, but its important to recognize that both camps have different reasons for desiring this. Libertarians seek a lower tax burden and less government interference in business, both at the federal and the state level, but the social conservatives want to empower the state governments as opposed to the federal government. They want more powerful state legislatures. This is precisely because they want to pass socially regressive policies that the federal government would seek to constrain and did constrain during the civil rights era.

When federalists show up offering projects that would limit the power of the federal government but not that of the states, the question one must ask is who is fooling who? Is it really about "limited government" across the board or is it about making the state governments more powerful at the expense of the federal government? Guys like Ron Paul don't believe in concepts like incorporation of civil liberties, for example.

What does left libertarianism mean? Hopefully not just a liberal mirror of the right libertarians - voting for social liberty with a cryptic ambivalence to economic issues. Is it possible to reconcile a social safety net with resistance to the unnecessary rent seeking that it often produces? Its not strictly about making government less powerful, but about limiting its power in specific ways while empowering it in others...

Perhaps a desirable concept would be the establishment of certain economic rights along side the civil liberties protected by the Constitution? Congress shall make no law interfering with an individual's right to practice his or her profession in a manner that does not bring harm to others?

So what are the black-clad youngsters so filled with hatred and so prone to destroy? They call themselves anarchists, but they are the embodiment of the statist principle: "do as I say--or else." The masked hordes rioting the streets calling for anarchy want power; they want the power to do as they please, and they want the power to separate action from responsibility. They want the freedom to act--without consequence. They demand respect from others in the sense of fear, obedience and subjection rather than appreciation and admiration; they want to be the state and control its powers.

Blame Anarchism? | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty

This is a very clear picture of the state of employment.

While this indicator did indeed turn up (making a higher low in December 2009), the indicator has done little but flatline since April 2010, a full 6 months... it has to rise by another 500,000 just to get to the August 2003 low.

Note that layoffs and discharges did revert to the mean plus an overshoot which should be expected. The number of quits is nowhere near its trendline.

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: What does the "Take this Job and Shove-It Indicator" say about the Economy?

Stefanie wrote:
I'm with you, regarding Lieberman.

However, I don't blame for-profit companies for distancing themselves from WikiLeaks... If they don't want to risk controversy, it's their right... companies trying to make money don't need bad press, and being associated with WikiLeaks right now brings too much heat.

You're right in a sense - Visa, Mastercard, and Amazon are victims here.

The reason continuing to process payments for Wikileaks brings heat is because Lieberman brought heat. He raised this issue publicly and promoted the idea that the public ought to insist that companies distance themselves from Wikileaks. He basically told the press to go find companies that are doing this and ask them why and quote them on it. The media complied - they even went after companies that have nothing to do with Wikileaks without checking their facts. These companies faced reprisals, real market consequences stemming from bad press, if they did not comply with Lieberman's "request."

As has been raised in many places, the credit card companies are still processing payments for the KKK. No one seems to care about that, in spite of the number of times that the issue has been raised, because the people raising the issue are not powerful enough that the media telegraphs their opinions.

The reason Lieberman's opinions matter is because he is a United States Senator.

So there you have it. Lieberman is using the power of his public office to threaten businesses that refuse to comply with his demand to distance themselves from an organization that, like it or not, probably hasn't broken the law and which is engaged in actions that are probably protected by the Constitution.

(And to make matters worse, these companies were also hit with DDOS attacks!)

The power of the United States Senate is not supposed to be used in this way. The power of the Senate is supposed to be exercised through due process of law. So the fact that this is happening this way is a real problem - this was a significant abuse of power.

However, the only way that we can combat this public perception problem is to present another side to the coin. To make it clear that we don't think that this is how business ought to be done in America, and that we support companies that have the spine to refuse to comply with requests like this, which should never have been made in the first place.

Visa, Mastercard, and Amazon had a choice. They chose wrong. You cannot simultaneously claim that its reasonable for people to be upset with these companies for doing business with Wikileaks but its not reasonable for people to be upset with these companies for refusing to do business with Wikileaks.

If we don't push back against these companies no one will be able to host anything controversial on the Internet in the future.

RE: Lieberman undeterred

Yesterday Lieberman stated that companies who complied with his extra legal "request" to block Wikileaks are:

“doing the right thing as good corporate citizens.”

These companies are helping Lieberman undermine the rule of law.

"We received a phone call from a friend who is a senior member of the party. We agreed to shut down your website. You understand?"

Why have a legal system at all Joe? Why have democratically elected politicians? Why don't you and your corporate buddies just get together and decide what you want the law to be. It almost works that way now, doesn't it?

Why not ask Blackwater to be a "good corporate citizen" and detain everyone associated with Wikileaks. Who needs trials? Blackwater can just do its corporate duty and hold them indefinitely without trial as "enemy combatants." Thats already on the table, isn't it? Senior members of the Republican party seriously suggested it, didn't they? Whats the hold up? Aren't you serious about protecting this country's national security? I mean, who gives a fuck about democracy? Clearly you don't!

Lieberman undeterred