UPDATE: No access to custom areas of the site…

Digg will be down for a brief period, while we make some changes.
While not digging, the digg crew recommends…

Has anyone been watching the situation at Digg?

For those not in the know, the HD-DVD crack recently became public. A significant number of Digg users are aghast that Digg, for reasons of which I will not speculate, has elected to ban users who circulate the crack on the site - a mere 16 seemlingly random digits that help unlock the copyright-protection features of the format. Digg users claim that it is a free speech right to publish the code on the site, and are committed to grinding the website to a halt through any means. Others seem to be of the herd mentality.

At this writing, every link on the site is related in some shape or form to the crack. No other content is available (or at least ranks high enough) to be accessible from most areas of the site.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, on several fronts.

The crack is public. If you want it for some sort of actual use, write it down. If you’ll need it in the future, it’ll be easy to find. Is this revolt really on principle? It’s like a hunger strike in that your odds don’t improve the longer you stick to your strategy. What good is a hijacked site? And low worthless is your time to be spending it circulating a hack that everyone in the world already has access to?

Some are saying Digg is dead. No more news, it’s a stand on a principle. Until Digg acquiesces to its users (regardless of the legal exposure to the site and its management), the site is worthless. Other users who care not to use their “news” sources as their protest grounds may have to abandon the site during the fracas. Will they return?

Might this be the first failure in Web 2.0, or will Digg survive?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_go_pr_wh/warrantless_surveillance

A federal judge has ruled the NSA’s wiretappings to be illegal and issued a cease and desist to the Justice department.  I believe we discussed this before but I was curious to see how this ruling affects our convictions of the case. 

 Does anyone think this will get upheld in the higher courts?  Do you think this is a strong message sent to the Executive branch about the rampant abuse of power?  Do you feel that they can do what they want to ensure our safety? 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060620/ap_on_re_us/new_orleans_national_guard_14

I believe we had this discussion before as per the right to firearms.  Now it seems the mayor, responding to a weekend of blood (6 deaths) is deploying the National Guard to patrol the streets.  Is this the right thing to do? Is this a signal of bad things to come?  I have also read that they are going to be closing down several of the public housing facilities in NO and issuing rent vouchers.  There are also widespread cases of releif abuse by the citizens. 

Is there a light at the end of the tunnel for NO? 

From Bloomberg, published today:

Congressional Leaders Challenge FBI Raid on U.S. House Office May 23 (Bloomberg) — House and Senate leaders challenged the constitutionality of an FBI raid on a lawmaker’s office, saying it broke a 219-year precedent and raised concerns about the separation of power between the administration and Congress.

You can read the full article here.

In short, the Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate agree on something other than to give themselves raises: the FBI should leave our offices alone when attempting to collect evidence against us.

My gut-shot reaction is to call bullshit.  If it is okay for the FBI to come into my office and collect evidence against me in the process of a valid and legal investigation, then they should be able to do it to anybody assuming the same standards apply.  Granted, the offices of senators and congressmen contain sensitive information, but so do offices of bankers, lawyers, and health practitioners.

Can anyone explain the big Constitutional problem here (I am missing it)?  Is this something other than a case of “we make the law so we can protect ourselves from it?”

Here, I think, are the two sides to the story.

Government should be allowed to force this kind of a dress code on kids because they can help reduce distractions in the classroom and create a better learning environment for all.

vs.

Government should not be allowed to force this kind of a dress code on kids because dressing is a freedom of expression, which is protected under the Constitution.

Tensions Change Dress Code At Local Middle School

Mike Hooker
Reporting

(CBS4) WESTMINSTER, Colo. The immigration debate and demonstrations caused a middle school in Adams County to change their dress code.

Students at Shaw Heights Middle School are no longer allowed to wear anything that’s patriotic, including camouflage pants, because they have become a political symbol for a version of patriotism.

“It upsets me that we cannot support our troops, the military,” said Kirsten Golgart, an eighth grader who was told she’d be suspended if she didn’t change her clothes. “We can’t support our country. If we’re American, I think we should be proud to be an American.”

A letter went home to parents last week that explained for student safety, no clothes were allowed with political messages or flags of any sort.

Myla Shepherd, the principal, said that tensions over the immigration issue were apparent when more than 20 students came to school wearing camouflage jackets and pants, apparently to show what they call their patriotism and American pride.

“We started seeing name calling,” Shepherd said. “Safety is my first concern so I’m going to do things to keep us from getting to a point where anybody is hurt or being suspended for fighting.”

She said the dress code diffused the tension immediately.

“I don’t think that’s a solution though because you’re punishing 400 students because the action of 100,” said Eric Golgart, Kirsten’s father.

He gathered signatures against the dress code, but the principal said for safety, freedom of speech can be limited in schools, even as students get involved in the national immigration discussion.

In Longmont, the principal of Skyline High School banned all flags, including the American flag, because of tensions related to immigration reform.