Slashdot Mirror
Copy That Floppy, Lose Your Computer
Over the weekend we posted a story about a new copyright bill that creates a new govt. agency in charge of copyright enforcement. Kevin Way writes "In particular, the bill grants this new agency the right to seize any computer or network hardware used to "facilitate" a copyright crime and auction it off. You would not need to be found guilty at trial to face this penalty. You may want to read a justification of it, and criticism presented by Declan McCullagh and Public Knowledge." Lots of good followup there on a really crazy development.
Excuse me while I gather the virgin sacrifice and assemble the pentagram required to solve your problem
In case you missed the message, Don't Copy That Floppy!
(warning: may cause eye strain and/or brain damage)
Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
Ever hear of something called the Magna Carta? If not then you should read it.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Since the intarweb is used to facilitate copyright infringement, the gov't can seize the entire series of tubes!
An entire new agency in charge of stopping copyright violations. Wonderful. I am SO glad to know our government has its priorities straight.
~Eien no Inori wo Sasagete~ Searching for my Hatsumi...
Here is the EFF Link that should be in the article summary: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/12/pro-ip-act-increase-infringement-penalties-and-drastically-expand-government-enfor
If someone on my schools network downloads an illegal mp3, then the RIAA has the right to confiscate and sell every single router, switch, and hub between the two people... clogging the tubes is bad enough, but taking them away and stealing them?
Live life to the fullest. It's not that life is short, but that you are dead for so long.
Fixed.
Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
Amendment V
No person...shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I understand here that "due process of law" is actually being changed to make this legal, but I feel that the following serves to define "due process of law" in a way:
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Just once I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'You're making a scene.'
leave the US while you can. Serious.
:)
Well, let's see what happens in the next elections. If the people lose, you're welcome to establish here below the Bravo
Based on other laws coming out in the USA in the last 8 years this isn't so bad. It just means you should do your copying on the latest most expensive machine in the local shop, report them then pick it up at auction for buttons.
Even more so: since you do not have to be found guilty, I think that would very clearly be an unconstitutional Government "Taking" denial of Due Process. It's one thing to ask if corporate lobbiests have a grip on the government but quite another to ask ARE THESE PEOPLE COMPLETELY MAD?!
For the past five to ten years, lawmakers have passed an incredible number of laws that the courts had to sort out as unconstitutional. It's almost as if they abandoned sensible work for a "let's try everything and see what works" attitude.
Really, is it just my perception or has the number of stuff that was made a law only to be killed by the courts as unconstitutional skyrocketed? I really wonder, why that is.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
As a Republican, I agree, but not necessarily for the same reasons. The big reason that Republicans should oppose this is that it creates more government bureaucracy - now I'm no crazy Ron Paul supporter who wants to get rid of every federal government institution, but really, this is not a good solution. I've always thought that government should stay out of this whole issue - it's costing the big media companies money, so they should be investing their money into stopping it. There's a reason that retail stores have security guards - it's cheaper for them in the long run to deter theft than to call the cops every time that something gets taken.
This is absurd. There's no point in even debating that.
I think it's the (RI|MP)AA asking for the moon - that way, when they tone down their demands they won't sound as absurd.
Look at it from this perspective: how much resources do you imagine the FBI is dedicating to copyright infringement given the number of embarrassing gaffes that the entertainment industry is making? The entertainment industry wants a government department with powers similar to the FBI but dedicated purely to copyright enforcement. Such a department could not reasonably refuse to assist in arresting some relatively innocent granny because they have higher priorities.
You DO realize Bush has already suspended Habeas Corpus right? For "terrorists", in theory, but wait till they amend this law to label people who do "illegal copying" (or anyone who does anything that deprives any big corporation of profits) as an "economic terrorist".
Although the US courts have blasted him and congress again and again over that, he keeps going at it.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
This make sense to me in some ways. I know people who were caught poaching fish (catching more than their license allowed). They had their fishing rods taken away, as well as their boat, and the truck that they towed the boat, and just about anything else that was even remotely involved in the crime. It may seem a little excessive, but it's quite a deterrent. Getting your computer taken away for sharing copyrighted content seems to be in alignment with most of the other laws I've seen. Now if this is excessive, than maybe all the other consequences for a lot of other laws are also a problem, but that's a different issue.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
"I predict that many Republicans will oppose this bill, ... but, becuase the industry that they would be tasked to protect is one that generally opposses them."
You forget the one thing that all politicians value most: The almighty dollar. Once the lobbyists start handing out "campaign donations" you will see every idiot believing in the wisdom of the RIAA/MPAA.
Of course my right to backup copies will be ignored because I do not even have the money to get my representative to blink. I only get lip service from him every two years near election time.
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
Absolutely. Now - did that happen around the time of the civil war, or around the time of WWII?
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
In the hopes that this post will not be disregarded, I have to say that I am not in favour of draconian copyright laws, such as those currently proposed in Canada (my home), or the ridiculous penalties applied in the US ($10,000 per song!), and I am worried that DRM will have the long-term effect of making our culture inaccessible to future generations (back with the folks who didn't write anything down).
Globalization and outsourcing are removing most of the jobs that involve physically producing something from North America. Look around your house and imagine what you would have left if everything that was made elsewhere was removed. Those jobs used to be the backbone of our societies; with them gone, we are moving to "intellectual property" (usually meaning charging repeatedly for the same product, such as a movie or song) and "service jobs" (usually low paying and temporary).
Like it or hate it, if no one pays for ideas, then all that is left is low-end service jobs and the eventual failure of our way of life. I think they are doing a very poor job of selling the idea of buying ideas, but the politicians and corporations who are terrified of a world where we only pay for music and movies once do have a few good points mixed in with their nonsensical terms and anti-copying advertising.
I look forward to a day when we can have reasonable copyright laws and periods, no DRM and affordable prices that people can pay to reward creators at a reasonable rate. Perhaps my children will live to see that day, but I doubt I will (and I'm only 29).
cheers,
Andrew
Nothing new here. Civil forfeiture has been a feature of the War on Drugs for a long time; extending it to the War on Copying is an obvious strategy. The "great" thing about civil forfeiture is that the defendant isn't you, with all of your rights; in a twisted bit of legal sophistry, it's the property itself being sued by the government.
I'm sure it will be just as successful in stopping copying as it was in stopping drug use. (I'm just waiting for the violent black market in bootleg DVDs to develop.)
"History repeats itself: First as tragedy, then as farce." - Marx got that one right at least.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
This just gives more "guns" to stop any real publication of criticism. /Will the computers be taken by the Firemen?
You write something the NeoCons/Republicans don't like, they invoke this; You may not be guilty of any "Illegal" copies, but the computers are still gone. This is the modern version of Nazi Germany's book burnings.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
it's been suspended in the UK for a long time, ever since the introduction of fixed penaltys for certain offences that can just be handed out by police officers, or general busy boddies employed by councils.
one example would be a man who was handed a £60 fine for littering when he threw a used match stick out of his car window.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Hm... Lobby, lobbier, lobbiest...
OK, it all checks out... You can go about your business. Move along.
Bow-ties are cool.
And I welcome a new way to avoid paing electronics recycling charge!
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
At least they didn't say it would "brick" the computer. Baby steps, folks.
Look at civil forfeiture law in the US. The government can sue your property and is given the ability to seize and sell your property based on a mere probable cause that the property was used for criminal purposes.
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.html
Are you suggesting that here, in the Land of the Free(TM), that the government would seize and auction off your assets for a copyright "crime" even if you haven't been adjudicated as guilty? Oh, come on.....next you'll try to tell me that they'll seize and auction your car and keep your cash if they even suspect you of having drugs! (Chuckle) Yeah....like that's gonna happen....
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Download some MP3s at work. In comes the MAFIAA, seizes all computers and your company goes down the loo. Whether the company has anything to do with it is irrelevant. Guilty 'til proven innocent. Well, even if proven innocent, the hardware is gone and won't come back.
Is that how I should imagine this?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Now, without a trial and conviction, your computer equipment can be seized by the cops and sold to supplement the donut/hooker/beer petty cash fund. This is just fucking great. I'd love to see this shot down, but I doubt it will.
And I love the "justification". The fact that the US doesn't make anything *real* anymore is not my fault. Ideas are great and all, but when your only product is ideas, and you've outsourced the manufacture of real, durable goods to other places, you will eat your own dog food eventually. I laugh at how they tossed counterfeit meds in there -- nobody will vote that down during an election cycle. "The senator from your state voted *against* protecting seniors from counterfeit medicine on the internet!" Nevermind that they're trying to kill out-of-country medication purchases *anyway*.
Anyone know where I can get a free (or cheap and paid anonymously with cash) shell account overseas where I can SSH in and compile/run TOR? This is getting fucking ridiculous.
Method of processing duck feet
..that the BusyBox developers could have Verizon's servers seized for the GPL violations?
I can't wait.
(Not that I really expect that would ever happen even if this became law. We all know there's one law for the people and another for the corporations (and yet another for the politicians).)
What I'd really like to see is a constitutional amendment (that's what it would take) that automatically bars an official from re-election if he or she proposes, sponsors, or votes for legislation like this which is prima facie unconstitutional (they've violated their oath of office to uphold the constitution).
But I don't expect that to happen either.
-- Alastair
In addition: Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Nobody challenged it when "drug dealers" were deprived of their money and belongings, without due process.
This is just the next chapter.
Bow-ties are cool.
Stop the money from reaching their banks, dont buy their products, dont listen to their music, dont see their movies
I recall saying this years ago when this question first arose and people kept on using the old "but it's not worth the price" argument to justify their theft. Are people so naive that they really think that this is a downhill battle?
If it's not worth paying for than it's not worth owning. For the most part it's piracy from the "but it's not worth the price" crowd that has allowed things to sink to this new low. The industry is convinced that these are lost sales, and some of them are. If you honestly believe it's not worth the price it's better to truely stick it to the industry by not bothering with the product at all regardless of how low the price goes.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Please tag a story 'typo' when you see this. It'll alert us admins to a problem and it'll get fixed in probably less time than it takes to write a comment about it...
from http://www.wikiality.com/Dennis_Kucinich
They're not "undercover cops" or "plainclothes policemen". Call a spade a spade - they're God damned Secret Police, no different than the Communist KGB or the Nazi's Secret Police. If "crimes" like drug possession, gambling, and prostitution weren't crimes there would be no reason or excuse to have Secret Police.
So now you have a "crime" that's a civil matter and you forfeit property without compensation or trial. Thank you, "Partnership for a Drug Free America". I hope your God damned children become needle junkies you fucking assholes, because drug laws make their becoming junkiest MORE likely. Marijuana doesn't lead to harder drugs, marijuana LAWS leas potsmokers to harder drugs.
How far does this slippery slope slide? I love my country, I hate its government. Perhaps one day my descendants will again have a representative government, rather than the one party plutocracy it has become.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Due process is out the window since the War on Drugs. And some folks challenged it, but the difference was, no one "liked" the drug dealers... when Grandma loses her computer to the government... people might start taking the 4th amendment seriously. But I doubt the sheeple will notice. Such is life after soma.
At least they had a warrant (such that it was...) when they stole the drug dealers' property. Now they don't even need that to grab your stuff.
scared yet?
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
There is always a process by which things like civil asset forfeiture can be challenged.
Trouble is, in so many cases, the people having their assets seized are actually guilty
(usually drug possession or tax evasion), and giving up property can yield better results
than trying to defend oneself from a position of guilt.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Members of the House Judciary Committee
AT&T Unix source code was somehow put in some national security list. Basically if you were caught with a copy of the source without having had paid or part of some University that paid the $60,000 source license, the Secret Service would come with guns drawn and seize every piece of electronics equipment on the premises.
There is little documentation that this had even happened and almost none of the victims ever received there hardware back.
http://www.chriswaltrip.com/sterling/crack2l.html the Chicago Task Force were now convinced that they had discovered an underground gang of UNIX software pirates, who were demonstrably guilty of interstate trafficking in illicitly copied AT&T source code. &
http://www.cs.wustl.edu/cs/cs/archive/CS142_SP96/notes16.html
This finally ended with Steve Jackson Games that managed to sue them for a similar seizure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
This isn't the law. It's people discussing potential legislation.
Being able to suggest unpopular, possibly unpleasant, and even downright moronic ideas isn't a flaw of the US. It's a strength. It's all about freedom of speech.
It may not be long. When you increase the criminal penalties on a black market item, it actually increases the violence because it drives away the more casual dealers and attracts the more hardcore criminals who are more willing to take risks.
etting rid of governmental institutions (federal or not) is not laziness, it's being ethical. By supporting governmental institutions, you support organizations that routinely engage in theft, extorsion, slavery, kidnapping and murder merely by making their did legal. Don't be an accomplice.
Government isn't innately evil, its the concentration of power that is. If all you do is get rid of a government institution to institute a corporate monopoly in its place, then you haven't solved much of anything. That's why its so important to oppose things like longer copyrights, and longer patents. Both tend to create monopolies when what we want is competition in the private sector to actually work. In an era where the barriers to entry are steep enough, it stands to reason that you don't need to reduce incentives even more for someone else to compete.
If Republicans were so big into private competition, then what is so wrong about legislation that ensures that companies do exactly that?
This is my sig.
People at Harvard do illegal file sharing. Now the government can take all their computers! Woohoo! I bet they have nice stuff. They can go there on their way to MIT!
The government is going to have absolutely awesome computers. And the beauty of it, is they can sell them, then go back and impound them later! Sell them again and again and instant $$$ Budgest crisis? Solved! Funding wars against the rest of the world? PAID FOR! Impound and auction, rinse and repeat!
Would it be possible file a class action lawsuit against congress for passing unconstitutional laws (derliction of duties, public endagerment, etc)?
Generally speaking, no. You can only sue the (Federal) government when it decides to allow you to sue it, and the exceptions are defined pretty narrowly. While maybe you could argue that doing something blatantly unconstitutional is tortuous, it'd be an uphill battle. (Cf. "Federal Tort Claims Act")
Pretty much the sole remedies afforded to you by the Constitution if you don't like what the Government does (aside from a violent insurrection, which isn't really given to you; you always have it as an option, albeit a suicidal one) are bitching and moaning to your elected representatives, and voting.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Guilty until proven innocent, shoot first gather facts later, etc. are an extremely dangerous way to conduct law enforcement, though fortunately that can't happen in the United States because the Founding Fathers wrote protections against it in the constitution. Oh wait
This is the same crap as the drug seizure laws. Everyone thought--great, take the houses, cars, property of the drug dealers. However, what's ended up happening is people are having their cars seized because a friend had a small amount of pot. Worse yet people are having large amounts of cash seized with the attitude that you must prove yourself innocent. It doesn't matter that no drugs were found or any evidence of drug dealing, just the fact that you're carrying a large amount of cash is considered a crime. And good luck getting it back!
Friends, our freedoms are being eroded away while we stand by. According to the Supreme Court, municipalities can grab your land under imminent domain to sell to Wal-Mart or someone building condos. Police can seize your cash for no reason other than you're carrying it and now they want the right to seize you computers on the claim that you might have illegally downloaded something. It's got to stop or this really will be a police state.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
Please actually perform the function of editors and edit the story. It'll save us the time of correcting your mistakes in the comments section.
People challenged it, they just all lost. Often times when people are warned about slippery slopes, they will counter, "This is the furtherest thing from a slippery slope," right before sliding down to the bottom
Plenty of people have complained about it when it was done for drugs.
I was at an infragard meeting where some LE person asked for feedback about a similar proposal he wanted enacted for child porn. I submitted comments suggesting that it was a terrible idea.
Civil forfeiture laws are a terrible idea. They corrupt law enforcement and people do not get proper due process under this system.
If a judge doesn't want someone to access something that enables a particular type of crime that someone has been doing, they can make not owning or using that enabler (say a computer or a fishing boat) a condition of parole. And if they want to punish the person with a fine they can choose one that makes sense rather than one that is randomly based on what property was nearby when the person was apprehended.
"What computer did I download it with? Well, it was this one, over here. Yes, the one that says 'two-eight-six' on the front. And all six of those monitors over there, I was definitely downloading with those. And that dot-matrix printer in the corner...that's my MP3 printer."
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
They're simply hoping that 80 year old grandmothers and single mums won't be mounting Constitutional challenges.
I think there should be a special class of judgement that SCOTUS can invoke against legislators, where a law is so obviously a violation of the Constitution, that the legislatures are fined millions of dollars and/or sent to prison for years for intentional violation of citizens' civil liberties. As well, where it's revealed that lobbiests were involved in the drafting of said legislation, they also are fined and sent to prison.
But of course, we know that Jesus loves money, loves lobbiests and despises liberties.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So that means in light of last weeks MPAA violation of Xubuntu in their "University Toolkit" they can have all their computers confiscated and auctioned. Cool. Seriously though, do corporations get the same penalties applied, they violate IP all the time...
MPAA violation, see: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/03/mpaas-university-wir.html
And Congress and the entertainment lobbiests believe that they are above Constitutional restrictions and that Jesus gives them the right to protect extinct business models.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/13/sonys-rootkit-infrin.html
Close examination of the rootkit that Sony's audio CDs attack their customers' PCs with has revealed that their malicious software is built on code that infringes on copyright. Indications are that Sony has included the LAME music encoder, which is licensed under the Lesser General Public License (LGPL), which requires that those who use it attribute the original software and publish some of the code they write to use the library. Sony has done none of this.
So, based on the proposed bill - how much of Sony would have been auctioned of I wonder...
The 4th amendment to the US constitution, that authority that describes the limits of federal law, emphasis mine:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I'm having a lot of trouble reading this in any way at all that can justify trial- and conviction-free seizure and disposal of a citizen's property.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You expect us to read the FAQ's? You must be new he--oh, wait... nevermind.
Yes, I think a Libertarian Randist like Paul could be a helluva lot worse than Bush. Bush is just an alcoholic puppet, Ron Paul is a lunatic with damn little understanding of history, economics and politics. The only thing that would really keep a maniac like Paul in place is that Congress would fight him at every turn.
Why people are so addicted to this crazy bastard is quite beyond me. He speaks rubbish. Libertarianism is a fantasy. The closest I know of to a Libertarian state was the US until the Civil War, built largely on Maddison's and Jefferson's ideal state, but the idea of a minimalistic Federal government proved incapable of properly dealing with the economic disparity between the Northern and Southern states and its most obvious effect; slavery.
Abraham Lincoln killed American Libertarianism, and needed to to preserve the Union.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Marijuana doesn't lead to harder drugs, marijuana LAWS lea[d]s potsmokers to harder drugs.
Bingo. When a kid buys pot,he has to basically seek it through underground channels. The same channels that also traffic Meth, Crack, Heroine, etc. When you start going to various dealers you quickly realize that you're knee deep in the drug underworld, and you can ask for pretty much any drug you want and you will get it.
If you just had to flash an ID showing you're 18 or 21 or whatever to the guy behind the counter, you'd be all set. I would prefer that gas stations and grocery stores not sell marijuana. but perhaps Head shops could apply for a license the same way as a restaurant applies for a liquor license, and can be turned down under the same criteria. If the state, county or township doesn't want it there, then they can ban it. And let adjacent regions pull in the tax revenue instead. This is how alcohol sales works right now, where dry counties lose sales as people just pick up their beer at stores over the border.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
the consequence of libertarianism, while getting government "out of your business", is that corporations are ALL OVER your business like white on rice.
In fact the consequence of libertarianism is that you are pretty much owned by the corporations.
Trendy (aka Naive and shortsighted) political positions such as libertarianism are not the answer.
We've lived libertarianism before, it's why we have a lot of the laws on the books we have (like 40 hour work week, no child labor, consumer product safety rules, etc).
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Big brother doesn't have to watch you, he's got his cousin - Big corporation.
That's not true. It's actually parchment. Much more durable.
.sig withheld by request
Due process is out the window since the War on Drugs.
I'm sure a lot of people have no idea what you're talking about. This started because state police in many states were empowered to seize property, without due process, and *pocket* the proceeds. This created an environment where almost every state cop in the US, where this was implemented, was actually a criminal. Several states, after a decade or more of complaints, finally started to investigate.
It seems it worked like this. Cop sees nice expensive car. Cop pulls over the car. Cop claims you are a drug deal and plants evidence. Cop seizes you car and everything in it. You are arrested. Drug charges were often dropped. You car and all your property within the car is sold at auction. Cop pockets all of the proceeds. Normally out of state cars were the preferred targets, leave you little recourse. And in the end, who wants to champion "drug dealers." States only started to act when it was found that the majority of the "drug dealers" fit a certain profile such as "affluent retirees" passing through the state.
States such as GA, LA, MS, and AL were especially bad. The solution was to tell the police to stop it. They couldn't simply arrest all of the criminal cops because in those four states, as much as 90% of the state police would be behind bars. It was thought that created too much of a risk to public safety to put criminals in jail.
So chances are, if you've been ticketed by a state policeman in these states, you were ticketed by a criminal that has commit more crimes than most any criminal currently convicted, sitting in jail right now.
Also, I ran into the following on-target quote just now on Neatorama, and I hopped right back here to append it:
- Ernest Benn, publicist (1875 - 1954)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You are in fact the delusional one. A government that kidnaps people, never gives them a trial, tortures them, covers it up, and starts unprovoked wars of aggression...yeah it IS that bad already. You can't even take care of your own sick people or soldiers that come back with arms and legs missing. Oh but you're an American! A corrupt totalitarian government could NEVER form in your country, you're all too smart to for that. Wake up, it's happening right now, it's been happening. The smart ones are leaving.
So, since that one was 'accepted'...they've naturally progressed to 'lesser' crimes.
Another step in the guilty until proven innocent transformation of our legal system.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The people I have heard on the Internet (Because nobody in real life really supports him) preach about transparency and bold ideas. They probably would have voted for Spitzer in NY, and then been oh-so-shocked to find out about trooper-gate, harassing phone calls to opponents, accusations of threats and sorta-stalking, his real-ID-compatible plan for illegal immigrants to safely register for IDs.
::waving arms in the air:: there. Point is, they rarely can define what he stands for and neither can he.
When you ask them what Paul stands for, they claim that THEY know, and if anyone else wants to they need to google it because it's all out
Listen to him talk about the gold standard, the war on drugs, how big state government is better than beg federal government, his theories on reducing the bureaucracy... anyone with a medium understanding of economics, history, evolution (as a concept not strictly in the creationism v. evolution sense) or consequence can start poking holes in his theories.
...any computer or network hardware used to "facilitate" a copyright crime and auction it off. So this includes entire ISPs and root DNS servers?Your ad here.
The Land of Life (of Servitute to greedy corporations), Liberty (Unless the someone shouts "terrorist", "government protest", or "lack of obsene corporate profits") and The Pursuit of Happiness (if you are a corporation bribing, aka lobbying the proper government officials).
The people of the USA have basically had all liberties and due proces taken from them, first in small doses then in larger doses more visible to the point the US Constitution is basically a joke. The people can do one of two things:
1. Take it up the rear end and love it, or
2. Stand up to it and say "no" like human being who still believe in the constitution (if it hasn't been totally shreaded yet).
We'll see which the people the USA decide. Perhaps they could use from lessons from the French who still know how to fight for and protect their rights. Unfortunately the people of the USA have so far been relatively uninvolved with politics worrying about things at home and on TV. Guess what? This IS your home and reality television is anything but real.
'Imagination is more important than knowledge' - Einstien
There's a bit of a problem here.
1) Before your trial, all of your assets are seized.
2) Therefore you can't pay an attorney...so you probably lose if they try you.
3) You can't appeal the verdict without:
a) Paying a rather expensive fee for the appeal, and
b) The appeals court accepting the case
4) If you appeal, you can't appeal based on anything that wasn't raised as an issue in the original trial...where you had a lawyer who was either unpaid or chosen by the govt. (aka public defender).
5) If the appeals court decides against you, you must appeal to the District court. (I think I have this right. Possibly this step is skipped.) All of the caveats WRT the appeals court apply again (if I haven't separated into two what is really one court).
6) Now you can appeal to the Supreme Court. They refuse to hear most cases that are appealed to them. They will generally only agree to hear cases where the decision that they will make is politically acceptable. They are also quite expensive, and all of your assets were impounded before step one.
Because of this, your only hope is if some organization, e.g. the ACLU, decides to get involved very early in the process. This rarely happens. It will essentially never happen if you represent something unpopular, because the organization depends on solicited funds.
Also notice that each of these steps takes multiples of years. You're trying to swim upstream, and all levels of the government offer increased resistence when you do that. If you were trying to plead guilty the case might be decided within months, but since you are opposed to the govt., it will take years to decades even if you are *eventually* successful.
So, no, these laws haven't yet gone to the Supreme Court. I doubt that they've ever gone to an appeals court. Remember that step one is to strip the defendent of the ability to pay for lawyers.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
If someone as dedicated, intellectual and powerful as Jefferson had a belief, it should be expected that his actions would reflect those beliefs. So, either he was talking out of the other side of his mouth--believing that slaves were not "men" at all, a truly Evil and humanity corruptung belief which was commonly held at the time--or he was a flaming hypocrite. Neither are good character traits.
Lots of words, both good and evil ring true throughout the ages, because people will them to do so. The tangibility of phrases like this, on the other hand is only obtained through action, and the consequent good or evil which is brought to bear through them. Lincoln's and King's words have been infinitely more effective in establishing a positive change. Even some of Hitlers' one liners sound great and good, but the big picture sure is another thing--and the only way you can measure a man is to look at the big picture.
I don't care if emancipating all of his slaves would have boiled down to poverty for himself, he didn't care enough about the problem to do, well, much of anything but spout hot air. I continually fail to see how this man is regarded as man of the people, and when people spout his insubstantial words like they were trumpeted by some great ancient benefactor, it puts a little smirk on my face and another line in my forehead.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Welcome to 2007 (or 2006, it's an old map), there are 5 companies which have a stranglehold on everything you see and hear, and every one of them has worked hard to convince people that "independent" is merely a budgetary constraint. If you can find a movie that doesn't have one of those logos on them, congrats, you've found a true independent film and not something that's just an audition for the main stream. Bonus points if it's good.
Now all you have to do is convince the general public to not go watch the emotional pablum advertised by pretty people staring at them from every magazine cover and billboard, then convince the juggernaut multiplexes which are mostly owned by studios to show them. If that doesn't work, all you have to do is convince the "premium" cable channels (also owned by the same 5 companies) to throw it into their rotation. To round things out, you'd also have to find a distributor that's not either owned in part by or extremely friendly to those same 5 companies (otherwise you run the risk of your work being "vaulted", which means thrown away until Hollywood can churn out something similar) who'll try their best to convince rental outlets to waste valuable shelf space on it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for independent media and stifle a slight bit of anger whenever a mom and pop theater closes or Disney releases another High School Musical, but too many people sat by idly while this system built itself for it to be easily stopped.
Uhh, yeah, I was with you up until this point. For better or worse SCOTUS has issued lots of highly unpopular decisions in it's history. Hell, the GP even mentioned a recent one.
That which you say is true, but so is what I said. They do make politically unpopular decisions, and they also try to avoid doing so. They're busy, and they must usually be selective about what cases to accept. The current court has been less protective of individual liberties than any court in recent memory. (I'm not sure I agree with some of the decisions of the Warren court, but they *did* at least *try* to be protective of individual liberties. Sometimes, admittedly, with less than stellar success.) the ACLU, decides to get involved very early in the process. This rarely happens. It will essentially never happen if you represent something unpopular, because the organization depends on solicited fundsI'd disagree with this too. The ACLU has defended people accused of possession of child pornography before. Doesn't get much more unpopular then that.
(I agree with everything else you said)
Again, it's a matter of frequency. The ACLU does take on unpopular cases...but it tries hard to limit them as a percentage of what it covers.OTOH, all of this is based on my perception of what's happening. I haven't done research on the statistics. I *do* observe many clearly vile instances of injustice that the ACLU doesn't get involved with, and it's not always because they don't think they could win. They're dealing with a kind of triage, because there are many more cases of injustice than they can possibly deal with. They are *forced* to be selective in what cases they tackle. So they tackle the ones that they think are 1) important, 2) winnable, 3) not too unpopular. Then if they've got a bit of slack, they pick up a few of the others. (Again, this is just my model of how they work. I could be wrong.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
"No, man, it's dry. Want some coke?"
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Is the case of Donald Scott the one you're talking about? I've never heard of this and would be interested to know. I bet others would as well.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Is that your solution to life's problems? Run away from them?
I see you're no Einstein.
Here's my first problem.....the way you're stating this, the majority of cops are cruising around with a trunk full of cocaine just waiting to frame the innocent. Yes, there are cases where evidence has been planted, but in the ones I've heard of there's usually a stonger motive than "I want to confiscate your car". Unless you cite a good source, there's no way I believe it's that rampant.
In what jurisdiction does the cop get the proceeds of auctioned property? I've never heard of this being practiced in the United States. The state gets the proceeds, and depending on where, it could go either directly to the police budget, or the general budget. Again, unless you can cite this, I'm having a hard time believing it.
I would suspect that corruption on that level would attract both federal investigations, and media attention.
I get the feeling that what you've got is some half-remembered anecdotes about evidence auctions, and a general dislike for the police.......
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
Yes, that's the case I was referring to. Thanks for posting the link.
But all that aside, even if it did happen, I'm rather failing to see exactly how this was a violation of Habeas Corpus, which is a law that protects you against being detained without due process.
If they actually form this proposed Federal Information Property Bureau they've been talking about, I'm seriously going to start looking for a new country to live in. It's been bad enough lately that I've been tossing the idea around, I just haven't found anywhere that I like better yet. Mostly I'm looking for someplace with a good tech sector, good privacy rights, and preferably no censorship of any kind. I used to think Canada might be feasible, but more and more they're looking like a clone of the USA. Sometimes I wonder if they're not passing some of this stupid regulation in the USA just to keep ahead of Canada on abusive laws.
So, anyone got any suggestions for places to live? I've thought about someplace like Norway, or maybe Iceland, although at the very least I'm a bit concerned about the language barrier, being a native English speaker and not entirely certain I could handle mastering an entirely new language.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
You are painting a false dichotomy here. The choice isn't between idealistic libertarianism and extreme corporatism. The choice is between a world where the government becomes increasing controlling and dictatorial and a world where individuals are free to make there own choices.
Many of the abuses of the industrial revolution that you cite were the result of corporations buying off corrupt politicians to get what they wanted. It took a massive uprising of individuals to transform both corporate and governmental policies. The government was as complicit in the abuses as the corporations.
In a truly libertarian society, the government would not have the power to act in the best interests of the corporations as they do today. It is even possible that many large corps would not even be able to exist in that environment. The reality is that our current political system heavily favor those with the $$$ to buy what they want, including legislation. Idealistic libertarianism would not be the perfect solution, but a good dose of libertarian common sense injected into our currently corrupt system would help tip the scales in favor of the Average Joe.
It's a mistake to judge past civilizations and societies by modern standards of right and wrong. This is one of the first lessons of anthropology. Past societies have done any number of things (slavery, wars of conquest, gladiatorial combat, human sacrifice, forced religious conversion and/or religious persecution) that would be considered abhorrent by modern standards. Does that mean that we can't embrace the progress that those societies brought in the arts, sciences, etc, etc?
Yeah, that's what I thought. If there were one trait that both Hippocrates and Socrates had the least of, compared most men, it was hypocrisySo it's Jefferson's supposed hypocrisy that bothers you? Even though his actions were perfectly in line with societal norm at the time? Even though he supported efforts towards the reduction of slavery?
One word: context.I fail to see in what context you can use the term "fat white man" and not expect it to stir racist sentiment. It serves no legitimate purpose other then an appeal to emotion and hatred. And I stand by my statement -- if I made a similar comment about somebody like Martin Luther King (maybe something like "nigger plagiarist" or "nigger womanizer") I would likely find myself called out as a racist and modded into oblivion.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"You are painting a false dichotomy here. The choice isn't between idealistic libertarianism and extreme corporatism."
I stopped reading at that point, because anything you said after this was based upon false assumptions. I was not creating a dichotomy - i was dealing with cause and effect. The cause is libertarianism, the effect is a power vacuum. That power vacuum is then the cause of the rise of the power of corporations as they fill that power vacuum. IT is true that they are not the only party that could seize upon that power vacuum, but given the current state of the US and that we're talking about libertarianism in the US it is the most likely chain of events, and it is consistent with united states history.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Ahhh,
The Ad Hominem.
Ron Paul is a lunatic with damn little understanding of history, economics and politics.
Ron Paul may not be an unequaled sage; there are most likely students of history, economics, and politics who are superior to him.
These people are not, however, in our government. Obama is a toll. Hillary Clinton, though quite bright, fundamentally doesn't understand the long-term strategic mis-steps the U.S. has made in the past 50 years. That being said, both Obama and Clinton have a much better grip on reality that the rest (as in non-Paul) of the Republican slate. McCain, Huckabee, Giulani, and the rest have no clue on basic things like immigration, economics, foreign policy, and religion.
Does Paul say stupid things some times? Yes. However, if you do some research, you'll see that he is far more knowledgable about the issues he speaks about that his contemporaries, and many of the things that he advocates are sane, sound policy decisions.
For example, the DEA, and the drug war, is a ridiculous mess. If the only good thing that came out of a Paul Presidency was the end of the drug war, the U.S. would be a much better place.
The same is true of the IRS, which is also a complete mess. Keep in mind that Paul who advocate a replacement such as a sales tax, which is the sort of mechanism that European economics use (they call it a VAT).
Our government has gone through large scale reformations before, and survived. Recently, even; look at the Department of Homeland security, which has completely reoriented the operations of domestic law enforcement, and the USCIS, which is a newish entity replacing the INS.
I, for one, am willing to trade the possibility of the free market failing in providing economic equality in exchange for strengthening of our civil liberties, the end of the drug war, a return to a more conservative foreign policy, pursuit of a balanced budget and trade, and a complete overhaul of our insane tax system.
Who are you to call me a lunatic, and why are the risks involved in moving to what I believe to be a "better" government any worse than the shitstorm the democrats and republicans are currently driving us towards? The vast majority of the electorate has delved into the issues far less than I have, and the vast majority of the congress, and every _other_ lunatic running for President, is a good deal less informed than Dr. Paul.
Either you are a hopeless optimist, and like the direction this country is going in, or you've become so conservative and a afraid of change that any large-scale reorientation of the government is terrifying to you.
Hell, I'd excuse people like you if you had a candidate who would restore our liberties without pursuing radical economics changes, however, given the current slate of possibilities on both sides of the aisle, no one other than Kucinich and Paul defend civil liberties that way they need to be defended.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
You don't understand.
The **AA considers ANY copying, even copying that has time and again been considered FAIR USE, to be "theft." Much like the BSA and SPA don't consider possession of simply a "certificate of authenticity" to be proof of a valid license (you have to have reciepts for all those!), even if you obtained the music legally (via eMusic or a service like Rhapsody, or ripped from a CD) how much do you want to bet that the RIAA would go after you if you had a CD AND a MP3 of a song?
While he the grandparent was uncouth about it, he is right, Ron Paul has a lot of bad ideas.
Ron Paul runs on a platform of states rights and openly says it is so the states can remove those rights currently protected by the Federal government. There is nothing in the earth or the stars that proclaims a state government would be any more sane with guaranteeing our freedoms than a federal government. In fact if you go into the South you'll find state's rights as an excuse for racism as much as anything else, if you go to the bible belt you'll find state's rights as an excuse to teach creationism Christianity using public funds while ignoring the scientific aspects of evolution that would be just as if not more important to a growing mind. Ron Paul doesn't want to limit the government to protect the citizen he wants to limit it to restrict the citizen.
Ron Paul runs on a platform of strict-constitutionalism but he supports amendments to tear down the Full Faith and Credit clause (src: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html). He wants to limit the ability of the supreme court to protect separation of church and state, the right to an abortion, the right for people to have sex with whomever they wish (be it man and women out of wedlock, or woman and woman, or a married couple getting a little freaky) and even the right to marry. (src: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300.IH:;)
Ron Paul wants to return the legislating of environmental policies to states, but fails to recognize that pollution in one state can cause serious or worse implications in other states.
Ron Paul wants to remove the IRS, but seems to have no firm plan on how to make up lost funds. In some places he has said he won't replace it with anything, in some places he claims to use what amounts to a regressive tax policy to replace it meaning people who make less end up paying more percentage-wise (this is in direct contradiction to reforms suggested by billionaire Warren Buffet).
Again in his currency policy he is unclear, he wants to return us to a system similar to the gold standard and even endorsing multiple currencies. He seems not to recognize the strength of having one clear currency and the fact hat our economy has been for the most part more resilient because we stopped using the gold standard.
There are a number of other issues with his platform, but I'll end on a conciliatory note with the parent. If all RP does is stop the drug war we will be better off, because if he does even 1/10th of the other things we will not be better off.
----------
Just your ordinary BOFH
http://killertux.org
The 40 hour work, if it's even still alive, mandates only that your employer pay you more if you work more. It says nothing about how many hours they can require you to work. Even so, the 40 hours have become bog-standard in many professions.
You are quite free to "home-school" your children on the farm where they all have chores to do all day long. Yet for some reason most people choose not to. I think you could completely repeal child labor laws and see no measurable increased incidence of actual child labor.
By the way, I have never lived libertarianism and neither has any living American. I'd like to give it a try.