but its generally 2 weeks before you have to move a couple miles.
I'm guessing that you're probably talking about BLM land.
https://www.blm.gov/programs/recreation/camping
BLM-managed lands offer numerous opportunities for camping under the stars ranging from staying in an RV at a highly developed campground to simply throwing a sleeping bag on the ground in the backcountry. No matter what type of experience you are looking for, you can find it on BLM-managed public lands.
Dispersed Camping
Camping on public lands away from developed recreation facilities is referred to as dispersed camping. Most of the remainder of public lands are open to dispersed camping, as long as it does not conflict with other authorized uses or in areas posted "closed to camping," or in some way adversely affects wildlife species or natural resources.
Dispersed camping is generally allowed on public land for a period not to exceed 14 days within a 28 consecutive day period. Camping limitation rules vary per office, please check with your local office for details on camping limitations. In addition, campers must not leave any personal property unattended for more than 10 days (12 months in Alaska).
EDIT: Oh, no, the Forest Service does it too. A little over two weeks for them.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/fishlake/recreation/?cid=stelprdb5121831
You may camp in a dispersed area for up to 16 days. After 16 days, you must move at least 5 road miles for camping in another dispersed area. Campers may not spend more than 16 days of any 30 day period at the same dispersed area.
Huh. Well, that's interesting. First I'd heard of that.
I predict upcoming NonCredibleDefense mecha musume memes.
EDIT: Apparently they're way ahead of me. This is 12 hours old as of this writing. Just hasn't made it to Threadiverse !NonCredibleDefense@sh.itjust.works yet.
Maybe.
The Kim dynasty has a history of using family as leverage. That's potent stuff in terms of social control.
kagis for an example
expand
Mrs Kim's only crime was what Kim Jong-il's regime calls yeon-jwa-je – guilt by association. In the early 1970s her grandfather defected to South Korea and under North Korea's system of collective punishment for political crimes, the entire family was rounded up. "We were living in Pyongyang," she explains, referring to North Korea's capital. "I was just 13 at the time and the whole family had been classified by the state as a 'dangerous element'."
Ordered to leave her home by armed guards, she would not see the outside of a labour camp for the next 28 years. Mrs Kim was taken to Bukchang, a gulag run directly by the interior ministry, which refers to it by its bland official title: Kwan-li-so (penal-labour colony) No 18. A sprawling complex that straddles the Taedong river, it houses an estimated 10,000 inmates, the vast majority of whom are political prisoners serving life sentences in a country where life really does mean life.
The regime is slightly less strict than the camps at Yodok and Kaechon, but beatings, starvation and summary executions are still common. "We were always hungry," recalls Mrs Kim. "Every day was a struggle to find food. The camp provided a single meal of corn gruel, but it was never enough. We would go out looking for anything green to eat. The most popular item was acorn leaves as they were easier to digest." The misery of malnutrition was compounded by long bouts of forced labour – the average working day was 16 hours. The "lucky ones" worked on farms or in the prison itself but most toiled in coal mines that fed the nearby power station, slowly succumbing to exhaustion and disease.
As the decades passed, Mrs Kim's grandmother died after years of hunger and her mother and brother were killed in work accidents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_punishment
expand
Numerous testimonies of North Korean defectors confirm the practice of kin punishment (연좌제, yeonjwaje literally "association system") in North Korea, under which three to eight generations of a political offender's family can be summarily imprisoned or executed.[11] Such punishment is based on internal Workers' Party protocols and lies outside the formal legal system.[12] Relatives are not told why they fell under suspicion and the punishment extends to children born in prison.[13] The association system was introduced with the North Korean state's founding in 1948, having previously existed under the Joseon kingdom.[13][11]
If you go back to medieval times, Europe used to have some similar practices.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(youth)
expand
During the European Middle Ages, a charge often meant an underage person placed under the supervision of a nobleman. Charges were the responsibility of the nobleman they were charged to, and they were usually expected to be treated as guests or a member of the household. Charges were at times used more or less openly as hostages, in order to keep their parents in line.
Somewhat-related: There was also just a post on !europe@feddit.org with an article saying that Poland would temporarily suspend the right to asylum.
Yeah, thanks!
Nah, the Reddit-alike thread-based intercompatable forum systems on the Fediverse. Lemmy. Kbin. Mbin. Piefed. Sublinks.
It's not a Geneva Convention. Separate treaty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
I think that there's some clause that permits non-use of the treaty. I was reading that treaty text back during the European migrant crisis a bunch.
kagis
https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/3b66c2aa10.pdf
Yeah, Article 9:
Article 9
PROVISIONAL MEASURES
Nothing in this Convention shall prevent a Contracting State, in time of war or other grave and exceptional circumstances, from taking provisionally measures which it considers to be essential to the national security in the case of a particular person, pending a determination by the Contracting State that that person is in fact a refugee and that the continuance of such measures is necessary in his case in the interests of national security
But that's supposed to be specific to people on a case-bye-case basis person, not a general suspension. Hmm.
The EU's Schengen Treaty has a clause that permits temporary general suspension of the Schengen Area freedom of movement, and a bunch of EU members used that, but I don't think that there is an analog to that in the Refugee Convention.
looks further
WP does say that there aren't really any consequences to violating the treaty, and that countries have done so in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
There is no body that monitors compliance. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has supervisory responsibilities but cannot enforce the convention, and there is no formal mechanism for individuals to file complaints. The Convention specifies that complaints should be referred to the International Court of Justice.[19] It appears that no nation has ever done this.
An individual may lodge a complaint with the UN Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or with the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, but no one has ever done so in regard to violations of the convention. Nations may levy international sanctions against violators, but no nation has ever done so.
At present, the only real consequences of violation are 1) public shaming in the press, and 2) verbal condemnation of the violator by the UN and by other nations. To date, those have not proven to be significant deterrents.[20]
The EU apparently mandates member state conformance in this treaty. However, given the unpopularity of refugee immigration and the negative political consequences for political parties, I'm not sure how much practical ability Brussels has to impose penalties on member states. Like, we already had the attempt to invoke Article 9 (different article 9 from the one above, the one to strip European Union members of their political powers) during the European migrant crisis.
EDIT: Oh, I bet I know what Poland is gonna do. They're not gonna actually suspend the treaty, whatever they're calling it. They aren't gonna use Article 9 (of the Refugee Treaty). They're gonna use Article 31.
Article 31
REFUGEES UNLAWFULLY IN THE COUNTRY OF REFUGE
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
This already came up before during the European migrant crisis. If someone comes to your country but not directly, then you're free to penalize them for illegal entry. Basically, no refugees are coming directly to Poland. The EU tried plugging this hole with the Dublin Regulation. It didn't work all that well.
EDIT2: Apparently in 2026, the Dublin Regulation is supposed to be replaced with this. Could alter the picture legally. Dunno if it has any mechanism for suspension, as the Schengen Treaty did, or not.
EDIT3: Ah. You can buy your way out of conformance, for one, under the 2026 replacement:
The Dublin III Regulation, which determines which member state is responsible for processing any individual asylum application, will be reformed. Countries where migrants first arrive will newly be able to relocate a total of up to 30,000 migrants per year to other EU member states. The Pact will institute a "mandatory solidarity mechanism" where all EU countries must either physically host asylum seekers, or assist in other ways such as financially or by providing extra personnel. A country can pay 20,000 Euros for every migrant it does not accept under the mechanism.
Is this that girl who has the big archive of videos of robots that she's made malfunctioning in funny ways?
EDIT: No, I don't think so. This one has a short archive of projects on YouTube:
https://youtube.com/@shebuildsrobots
The one I'm thinking of has a large collection of them failing in funny ways.
US:
https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/privacy-full
Last updated on March 28, 2024
Canada:
https://www.paypal.com/ca/legalhub/privacy-full
Last updated on July 24, 2023
So I'd guess not.
But you might just want to keep an eye on that, because just because they haven't changed it today doesn't mean that they won't later. Like, if their people are thinking that this is a good idea to make money in the US, they might also think that it'd be useful in Canada. Don't know if Canada has any restrictions on such a change.
I kind of wish that they'd unify some of their features.
For example, I use the "Fediverse Forums" search lens to search the Threadiverse only. That's a drop-down menu.
Then there are those Duck Duck Go-style alias things that start with an exclamation mark.
kagis
And now the snaps.
Like, is it necessary to have all these as separate, segregated features? They all kind of do the same thing, are a way to ask the search engine to interpret the query differently.
EDIT: Also, I don't know if there's a Kagi lemmy community, but if so, that might be a better place than !technology@lemmy.world, since most folks won't be using Kagi. Doesn't matter much for communities that are desperate for traffic -- like, for games, I'd rather talk on a general games forum until traffic hits some point, rather than having a lot of game-specific communities that are ghost towns. But !technology@lemmy.world is one of the largest Lemmy communities, probably has enough post throughput.
I'm not a mod, not saying that it's community policy, just thinking about where it might best make sense.
EDIT2: Looking at lemmyverse.net, there is, but it's on lemmy.ml, and I'd really rather not subscribe to .ml communities. Doesn't appear to be any other Kagi communities at the moment.
Well, I don't really want to mod one myself, but if anyone wants to run a Kagi community somewhere off .ml, I'll subscribe.
Nah, they each have land allocated to them. If it's a national forest, then it'll be the Forest Service; I'd figured that you were just confused about the land being part of a national forest. Wasn't aware that the Forest Service had a similar policy to the BLM.
There's also the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Park Service; all have some amount of federal land allocated to them.
Lemme find a map. I've seen ones that show which land belongs to each before.
kagis
Okay, cool, this one is interactive. Haven't seen this before, just static maps.
https://maps.usgs.gov/padusdataexplorer/
You can click anywhere and it'll show you which service the land is under the control of.