Slashdot Mirror
Rights Groups Speak Out Against Phorm, UK Comm. Database
MJackson writes "The Open Rights Group (ORG) has issued a public letter to the Chief Privacy Officers (or the nearest equivalent) for seven of the world's largest website giants (including Microsoft and Google), asking them to boycott Phorm. The controversial Phorm system works with broadband ISPs to monitor what websites you visit for use in targeted advertising campaigns. Meanwhile, the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust has issued a new report slamming the UK government's plans for a Communications Database. This would be designed to intercept and log every UK ISP user's e-mail headers, website accesses and telephone history. The report warns that the public are often, 'neither served nor protected by the increasingly complex and intrusive holdings of personal information invading every aspect of our lives.'"
If, for instance, your mommy says you are special; but nobody else does, your specialness isn't "controversial" in any useful sense, it's just a settled matter with a contrarian outlier. In this case, the only people who think Phorm is even remotely a good idea are A)Phorm and B)ISPs who Phorm has promised gobs of money. That isn't "controversy", it is a handful of money-grubbing special interests attempting to screw everybody else. To dignify Phorm as "controversial" is far more than it deserves.
If you don't like what your ISP is planning to do then change it. Personally I will be trying this:- http://superawesomebroadband.com/ Does anyone have any experiance with them?
They fitted George Orwell's coffin with rollers so he could turn over more easily years ago.
It's seems the UK government is constantly trying to do some and more to stop it's citizens having any kind of privacy. While it's great that people like the ORG and JRRT are standing up to them and other organisations doing the same, you have to wonder, what can they really do when half the population is too ignorant to care?
Take all the data that the government is collecting and make it public information that any citizen can view. Then, the population will not have an excuse to be ignorant. I think exposing my communications in exchange for being able to see the business and political leaders communications sounds like a great deal. Letting them spy on me while they reside in the shadows, not so much...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
The UK and France are slowly but surely turning into the totalitarian states that, prior to 1990, they despised. You can't carry a defensive weapon to protect yourself from a criminal attack. You can't walk down the street without a camera following you. You can't visit websites with nudity or other "harmful" material (censorship of the right to expression). You don't have a right to a trial by your peers (three strikes and you lose ISP access). Your biometric data is being recorded and tracked by the government, and soon I wouldn't be surprised if they make diets mandatory for people with BMI>25 (as has happened in Japan), or else get fined.
Yay. Freedom won. (cough). Or maybe not.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Sorry in fact I need to RTFA it's two news stories in one, I apologize profusely.
They fitted George Orwell's coffin with rollers so he could turn over more easily years ago.
Links to the Rowntree report: executive summary, and the full report. (Both in PDF format). It's worth mentioning that their report doesn't particularly single out the communications database. They assessed 46 databases across all the major UK government departments. They found that at least one quarter "are almost certainly illegal under human rights or data protection law", and that these "should be scrapped or substantially redesigned", while over "half have significant problems with privacy or effectiveness and could fall foul of a legal challenge". Less than 15% were believed to be "effective, proportionate and necessary". They had some equally damning things to say about the cost of IT projects in the public sector, and the high failure rate of the projects (only 30% succeed).
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
I highly doubt that some of the largest website giants are going to provide active discourse to boycott all of this invasion of privacy of traffic logging and email snooping. Look at how these large internet conglomerates get their money: from ads specifically tracking where you click your mouse on their website.
But anyway. Gee, look at the time! 1984 all ready.
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments. - Nietzche
Let me get back to you when my sides stop hurting from laughing.
Firefox plus any number of anti-advert plugins stop most adverts, so the system would be self-defeating to what is an ever larger percentage of people dumping browsers like Internet Explorer.
Don't expect the UK's privacy head to do anything, he makes a lot of noises like over the adding of 1 million innocent people to the DNA database (which is the largest in the world and larger than all 26 other European countries combined), but has let the government carry on. Deliberately toothless, a good PR job is all he does.
What is more worrying though, is that this technology has the ability to re-write web pages on the fly per users requests. So today it's just adverts being changed, tomorrow it's whole content and history changed to suit a governments propaganda. It must be made MUCH easier and cheaper for any website no matter how small to be able to use HTTPS instead of standard HTTP. This will help to put one over the evil that is Phorm and the governments and media who want to control content.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
I found this comment in TFA (I believe it's taken from the Roundtree Report) intriguing:
"One of them (the National DNA Database) has been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights, and both the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats have promised to scrap many of the others (emphasis mine)."
Is the an instance of the Tories saying simply "we're not Labour," or is this some new-found attachment to civil liberties by a party previously known for devotion to monarchy and deference to authority?
The Conservatives have never been very fond of Brussels either, so I'm guessing it's not a new-found devotion to the concept of EU-wide human rights that trump the authority of the member national governments.
What do guns have to do with my network connection? Should I camp out by my firewall and shoot dropped packets, the varmints?
[FUCK BETA]
Whenever I see a story about internet and privacy, the same thought comes to mind.
The idea is brought up regularly on slash. Are we at the point that we need a type of DNS/ssl system put in place?
I mean, come on!, this IS slashdot people here??
Meh..GET OFF MY LAWN!!
It's seems the UK government is constantly trying to do some and more to stop it's citizens having any kind of privacy.
Privacy? That really depends on who you are. If you're a "nobody" then expect none, but if you're the rich and powerful that set the bullsh*t laws then you hold all the aces on privacy. From The Daily Mail newspaper
Google was at the centre of new controversy last night after pictures of Tony Blair's London home were mysteriously removed from its Street View web service. Images of the House of Commons, the entrance to Downing Street and several Government departments were also blacked out. And it also emerged that Google's own boss in the UK does not have his London house on Street View.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Yeah, I'm fine with having my eyes poked out so long as everyone else gets their eyes poked out too.
Don't know how you go from "everyone has the blinders torn off at the same time" to "everyone gets sticks in their eyes". Do you have reading comprehension problems?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
It is interesting that the government seems to think that whilst the population should be monitored as closely as possible when it comes to their own activities they clearly take the exact opposite view and fight tooth and nail to keep their own details secret. They also appear to want to take this inbalance even further since according to a government minister defending the government from this report on the radio this morning...
They appear to think they can also completely ignore the law if it suits the interests of Wacky Jacky and the rest of them.
Personally I can see the benefit of centralising government databases, done correctly it should save money and allow the government to work more efficiently which can only be a good thing. However, and it is a big however, I would only support the creation of these central databases based on the following ground rules being enforced:
1. I want to be able see every single piece of data the government is holding on me myself and I want an audit log showing me who has accessed this data and a reason as to why they had done so.
2. In tandem with the above I would want a swift and effective system to impartially consider any complaints I might have that my data was not being accessed for a good reason and the ability to correct any incorrect data I came across and I would require the impartial authority to actually be impartial and have the power to block access and effectively punish those responsible if they agree people have abused their priviledge of access to my data.
3. I would want the ability to remove my data completely from government systems should I choose to do so and not suffer any discriminatory restrictions to my access of government facilities if I chose to do so. Obviously I'd accept things may take them a bit longer to process without access to the electronic data but I wouldn't want to, for example, lose my driving licence.
4. I would have to trust the government and believe that they held themselves to the rule of law and did not undertake nefarious and underhand schemes to abuse my data and to be honest about their intentions.
Sadly I don't think the circumstances will ever be met which would allow the above to happen, particulary points 3 and 4 and especially not under the current morally bankrupt bunch of incompetents.
you know it was 1903 when they outlawed firearms in the UK right?
Actually no, it wasn't until 1997 that they outlawed whole classes of firearms. My understanding is that the previous bits of legislation regulated them but did not outlaw them. In either case, how does that change my original point? When the populace meekly surrenders one right why should they then act surprised when the government seeks to curtail other rights? You set the precedent -- don't be surprised by the results.
I also can't help but notice how my original comment has been modded into oblivion. Gotta love people using the moderation system to downrate comments they don't agree with.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I see you've been modded (0). Dear moderators, simply because you disagree with someone is Not a valid reason to subtract a point. Making a person effectively invisible by plummeting their score to 0 or -1 is censorship in my humble opinion. If you disagree, that's fine but the disagreement should come through a *reply* not through punishment of the speaker.
>>>by acquiescing to the surrender of a right you held for hundreds of years
To clarify, the right is not the right to own a gun. The right is the right to protect your person, your family, or your home from criminal attack, whether it's using a gun, or sword, a stunner, or a very large bat. It's an inalienable right. An instinctive right. A government may suppress the right through force, but it cannot take it away because it is an innate quality of all living things - the right to self-ownership of your body, and the right to self-defense of same.
One final thought: The government is the employee. We the people are the boss. The boss rules, not the employee.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
In 1997 under 125K had firearm licenses
After 1997 around 125K have firearm licences. The difference is that they are now not allowed handguns.
1997 is not a significant date for this "rights" discussion. You had zero right to defend yourself with those firearms for a long time before that. The handgun ban was brought in to stop nuts shooting up schools. And it did.
The British public has no appetite for guns and hasn't had for many years and I sure as fuck don't want armed chavs roaming the streets.
I'm sorry, but your NRA talking point about 1997 is just plain wrong. I mean it. If you want to look at rights loss in the Uk there are hundreds of valid studies. If you even want to look at a link between loss of handguns and freedom, go ahead, but look further back.
I'm getting pretty tired of explaining this on the internet now, but I'll spell it out one last time -
In the discussion on citizens rights in the UK, 1997 gun legislation is completely, totally, utterly irrelevant.
Please take that back to your gun club speaker and make sure he get the message.
I see you've been modded (0)
Yeah, I'm not surprised. I should have protected myself with a shield of "go ahead, mod me down, I've got karma to burn!" in the original comment ;)
To clarify, the right is not the right to own a gun. The right is the right to protect your person, your family, or your home from criminal attack, whether it's using a gun, or sword, a stunner, or a very large bat. It's an inalienable right. An instinctive right. A government may suppress the right through force, but it cannot take it away because it is an innate quality of all living things - the right to self-ownership of your body, and the right to self-defense of same.
What kills me is that the right to keep and bear arms has it's origins in the English common law. They literally had that right for hundreds of years until they surrendered it in the 20th century. Then they act surprised that the Government (having seen that the populace willingly surrenders such a right) seeks to curtail other rights. WTF? You set the precedent. Are you really surprised?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It doesn't matter what your "appetite" is. You've missed the point. The point is that you voluntarily surrendered a right that you held for hundreds of years. Now you act surprised that your Government seeks to curtail other rights? Can you not see how you set the precedent?
but your NRA talking point about 1997 is just plain wrong
I'm not parroting NRA talking points. I'm talking about the voluntary surrender of a right that the populace held for hundreds of years and the precedent that such surrender set. I could make the same point about the right to a trial by jury, which I understand is also being slowly eroded away. Think you'll still have that right in a generation or so?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Where else are they going to get their political donations from? Having decided to offshore every other form of manufacturing, the only "manufacturing" industry left in the UK is the generation and analysis of personal data. Any company can use the "it will help in the fight against terrorism and child porn" justification for getting access to collect the information in the first place; the data; web browsing, car journeys, public transport journeys, supermarket purchases, mobile phone communications.
Then once they have access to that information, they can then sell it on to anyone else who wants it. The more random and disconnected data, the more funding the company will get to find "relevant data".
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
"I'm not parroting NRA talking points."
The 1997 myth is a favourite of US gun associations.
"I'm talking about the voluntary surrender of a right that the populace held for hundreds of years and the precedent that such surrender set."
Then find another example, there are plenty. 1997 is not an example of this. There was no right to use firearms destroyed by the law brought in then. There was no ability to use firarms to defend yourself before then. We did not give up any "rights" in 1997. For a long, long time before that licenses for firearm ownership were only available at the discretion of the police.
"Think you'll still have that right in a generation or so?"
That's got nothing to do with what I'm trying to say. The UK is badly in need of people to stand up for their rights, and is getting worse every day.
Just please, please, please, would Americans stop crowing about nineteen ninety bloody seven when FUCK ALL happened to impact anyone's rights.
Good idea, but it's a pipe dream. Here in the US, Congress spends a lot of money on public research, but we never see most of it. Technically it's public domain, but you can't use the Freedom of Information Act on a document you don't know about.
A tiny percentage makes it to wikileaks anonymously through various senators and representatives, but only when it makes some of their opponents look bad. Reports that reflect poorly on the US government as a whole, especially Congress, quietly disappear. Moral: Unless forced to, western governments will almost never admit that they're wrong. You have to catch them in the act before they'll say "sorry." Even then that won't stop them from doing it again.
For a long, long time before that licenses for firearm ownership were only available at the discretion of the police.
Then that's where you went wrong. I'm sure that you realize that the police (indeed, all organs of Government) work for you and shouldn't have the right to dole out permission to exercise your inalienable rights, correct?
Just please, please, please, would Americans stop crowing about nineteen ninety bloody seven when FUCK ALL happened to impact anyone's rights.
Would it make you happier if I just said that you set the stage for it when you willingly surrendered a right sometime in the 20th century that you had previously held for hundreds of years? I honestly didn't set out here to debate the merits of gun control, just to point out that the UK populace set a precedent for surrendering their rights long before the surveillance society came onto the scene.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Spot on. I'd also be fine with CCTV if all streams were public and all access logs available.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
If you're concerned about defending yourself in the case of a total break-down of society, then all of these weapons are still available and still legal to own, as are shotguns and rifles. My old school (that's high school for USians) still has around 40 L-98s and a couple of LSWs. The only difference is that it is understood in the UK that firing guns at people is not something that happens in a civilised society. The guns are there for sport and may be useful if society collapses. The structure of the society we have built is there to protect us from sociopaths. Vigilante action is not.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This isn't about rights, it's about your contractual position with your ISP. Does your contract allow them to interfere with the packets you receive from the network? Maybe, maybe not. Reserving the ability to shoot BT repairmen on sight will not really do much for you here, either way.
[FUCK BETA]
This, shows up in my news feeds, on the same day that the Tories declare that they are considering repealing the Human Rights Act if they come to power...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I must confess that there have been days when I too wanted to give the bleeping server both barrels of my shotgun.
Then that's where you went wrong. I'm sure that you realize that the police (indeed, all organs of Government) work for you and shouldn't have the right to dole out permission to exercise your inalienable rights, correct?
So carrying a lethal weapon is now an 'inalienable right'? I'd rather most of my fellow citizens did not have that right thanks very much, and it looks like the stats on violent death in the UK and US per capita agree with me.
Government is the voluntary surrender of certain rights in return for security. Thus we give the police the power to lock us up, confiscate weapons, etc etc, governed by certain laws. So giving up certain rights is not some kind of watershed moment, it is fundamental to the social contract. Other rights, such as the right to a free trial. I'd be far more worried about detention without trial, and secret trials than the right to bear arms. Those are real attacks on your freedom, happening right now, in the US and the UK.
Evidently we disagree about whether wide gun ownership is a fundamental right, and further about whether it is even desirable. To go from there to saying that states with tighter gun control laws than the US are somehow automatic dictatorships where citizens have abrogated all rights is laughable. Contrary to your beliefs, it is still legal to own weapons in the UK, but the controls are stricter than the US.
Would it make you happier if I just said that you set the stage for it when you willingly surrendered a right sometime in the 20th century that you had previously held for hundreds of years? I honestly didn't set out here to debate the merits of gun control, just to point out that the UK populace set a precedent for surrendering their rights long before the surveillance society came onto the scene.
Ask yourself when you would ever use your gun against your government, and you realise pretty quickly that if you don't want to end up like those at Waco, you wouldn't. Further, if you feel gun ownership is a fundamental guarantor of other rights, why has the US seen the biggest erosion of civil rights in its history in the last decade? What have the gun owners done to stop that? Nothing.
So carrying a lethal weapon is now an 'inalienable right'?
Yes, actually it is. The right to keep and bear arms originated in the Common Law, alongside the right to self-defense.
and it looks like the stats on violent death in the UK and US per capita agree with me.
Correlation != causation. And what other kind of death besides 'violent' death is there? Is there a nice way to die that I'm not aware of?
Ask yourself when you would ever use your gun against your government, and you realise pretty quickly that if you don't want to end up like those at Waco, you wouldn't. Further, if you feel gun ownership is a fundamental guarantor of other rights, why has the US seen the biggest erosion of civil rights in its history in the last decade?
Nice way to repeat all the gun control talking points but if you had bothered to read any of my other posts you would have found that wasn't the point I was attempting to make.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The structure of the society we have built is there to protect us from sociopaths. Vigilante action is not.
Let me know how well the structure of society works out for you when someone breaks into your house at 3:00 and starts stabbing you. Sure the police will be there in a few minutes -- by which time you will be dead or dying. And I'd really like to know how self-defense qualifies as 'vigilante action'. Vigilantism was already illegal before the advent of gun control you know.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"Would it make you happier if I just said that you set the stage for it when you willingly surrendered a right sometime in the 20th century that you had previously held for hundreds of years?"
That would certainly please me more, I dislike this focus on that one piece of legislation that had very little real effect on the rights of UK citizens.
"just to point out that the UK populace set a precedent for surrendering their rights long before the surveillance society came onto the scene."
These precedents have been set in most western nations. People (and states) in the US have been surrendering more and more rights to the federal government for decades. Hell, the US has a long history of abuses against its own citizens (mandatory sterilisation of those considered mentally deficient through about half of the 20th century, for example).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/24/police_ad/
These precedents have been set in most western nations. People (and states) in the US have been surrendering more and more rights to the federal government for decades. Hell, the US has a long history of abuses against its own citizens
Those abuses won't stop until people take back their rights. All of their rights. Not just the ones that happen to enjoy widespread support or the ones that happen to be politically correct. I grow weary every time I hear somebody justify a reduction in freedom with phrases like "it's for the public good", "it's for our protection" or the time-honored "think of the children!"
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"Let me know how well the structure of society works out for you when someone breaks into your house at 3:00 and starts stabbing you."
Let me know when that's anything much more than a gun nut's fantasy. Home invasions are very very rare.
In disarmed UKia we have a lot less murder and rape than in the US. I'm not saying this is because of our gun policy, I'm just saying, there's not actually a strong case to arm the populace either.
While repealing the human rights act sounds horrific, I can support it as long as its replaced with something better.
The Human rights act has been used by criminals to sue people for injuries they incurred trying to rob them and is heavily abused by rejected asulym seekers to delay their removal, the whole school girl demanding to wearing speacial clothing in school and by much of the PC brigade to supress the majority. Having actually read it I think it would be a lot easier to tear the thing up and start out using the old act as a guide rather than try and patch the issues in the current one.
Well, a GE Minigun is a pretty efficient way to mass-uninstall Windows from a server farm. :)
The 'strong case' is the fact that you historically had the right and now you don't
Historically, land owners had the right to unilaterally increase their tennants' rent or throw them off without notice, now they don't.
Historically, men had the right to rape their wives, now they don't.
Historically, employers had the right to refuse to employ women, Jews, or black people, and shops had the right to refuse to serve people on the basis of their faith, creed, gender, or colour, now they don't.
Historically, fathers had the right to decide who their daughters married, now they don't.
Historically, rich men had the right to horsewhip peasants who were rude to them, now they don't.
We've given up all of these rights, but I don't see you many people claiming that society would be improved by getting them back. If you think the right to carry a gun around with you would be worth reintroducing you need to give a better argument than 'well, that's what it used to be, back before 1903 when society was basically rubbish for anyone below the upper middle class'.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Historically, land owners had the right to unilaterally increase their tennants' rent or throw them off without notice, now they don't.
They still have that right if you are on a month-to-month lease. Granted, they have to give you 30 days to get out but if you think they can't unilaterally increase your rent you are sadly mistaken.
Historically, employers had the right to refuse to employ women, Jews, or black people, and shops had the right to refuse to serve people on the basis of their faith, creed, gender, or colour, now they don't.
And I have a problem with that. Of course now you'll probably assume that I'm some sort of racist -- I'm not -- I have an issue when the Government compels private businesses or individuals to associate with others. If I don't want to do business with [insert some racial/religious group here] that's my right. It's also your right not to do business with me and to encourage others to do the same.
If you think the right to carry a gun around with you would be worth reintroducing you need to give a better argument
Self-defense is a right that we haven't yet given up. The most effective way to defend yourself is with weaponry. Who are you to tell me that I can't defend myself if my life is in danger?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
>>>he handgun ban was brought in to stop nuts shooting up schools. And it did.
You make it sound like an epidemic. A quick google search turned-up ONE instance of a school shooting in the entire history of the UK. One. One nutjob with a gun is not reason to disarm the hundreds of thousands of sane gun-owners, except in the mind of the politicians who fear the people having freedom.
Every person should have a right to defend himself. To quote one woman here in the U.S.: "I am not as strong as a man. If I am attacked by a man, I will be at a disadvantage but having a gun makes me equal to a man, so I can protect myself." Guns turn victims from helpless sheep into toothed wolves, and that reduces crime.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>So carrying a lethal weapon is now an 'inalienable right'?
Yes. It's called the right of self-ownership of your body, and the right to self-defense of same. The government may suppress that right through force, but it can not take it away. It is an inalienable, instinctive right to protect yourself and your children against criminals or nutters.
Perhaps you'll grasp the idea just a few seconds before someone murders you. (Not that I want that to happen - but it does happen from time to time.) In those few final seconds, as you wish you had some kind of gun or sword or knife to protect yourself, and as you gasp your final breaths, maybe then you'll come to realize how valuable the right of self-defense is. But at that point, it will be too late.
I've heard stories of people somewhat similar to this. In particular a Texas legislator who watched a criminal gundown her mom and dad. She owned a gun, but per Texas law she left it at home rather than carry it in her car. She says if she would have had the gun, she could have saved her parents by shooting the criminal dead.
The right of self-ownership and self-defense IS an inalienable right.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I want every single piece of information about the primer minister, members of the government and the whole parliament,and their families and friends, the data shall include health records, monetary records, travel information, education records, letters, phone calls, email and internet records, DNA records, shopping and expending habits....
I want to be able to access that data when ever I want to be able to cross reference it, data mine it and share with whoever I consider pertinent without prior permission or particular reason
I want to be able to track their location activities, and detain then for an indefinite amount of time under the terrorist law for their own good and the protection of their freedoms.
Bottom line I want those in power and their closest to be treated like any other citizen is being treated in UK right now.
Lets ignore the 2 mass shooting the US has had in the last week.
Why is it that gun nuts insist on bringing this up whenever something remotely bad is reported in Britain. London experienced record snowfall lately and some uninformed gun nut pipes up and says "this is what happens when you don't have guns".
Also it doesn't seem to matter, where did the armed uprising take place when Bush started warrant-less wiretapping, which is far worse then anything other western nations have done in the march towards fascism? When an uprising occurs, it occurs when enough people stand together and say "no", so long as you have enough people together saying "no" it doesn't matter if you are armed or not as Mahatma Gandhi pointed out. Oh, the British did leave India, the IRA have been trying that armed resistance thingy for almost a century and there is still a British element in Northern Ireland. Sorry mr gun nut sir, but things are not as clear cut as you think, armed population != control by the people, more often then not it means mob rule al a South Africa and Somalia.
Besides, how would guns help in this scenario, its being pushed by a corporation, who if they cant buy an army will just take their money and fly away to their tax haven in the Caribbean. The government in this scenario is at worse, only taking advantage of the situation (it is far more likely the government was solicited by the corporation in question).
That's a gross oversimplification of history. Up until the 18th century firearms were not manufactured industrially, in fact up until the Napoleonic wars most private firearms were either a) government issued b) custom built, this made them quite expensive and beyond the price range of the average peasant. The majority of firearm manufacturing in Europe was done in government armouries anyway, Smith and Wesson was not founded until 1855. Prior to the Napoleonic wars, most people in Europe still used swords and bows for defence, guns were quite expensive and considered a luxury item to own thus only found in the hands of the upper class and professional soldiers. Hundreds of years is hyperbole.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Sorry mr gun nut sir, but things are not as clear cut as you think, armed population != control by the people
I disagree, but regardless, if you had actually bothered to read my post you would have seen that this wasn't the point I was trying to make. Let me help you since your reading comprehension is apparently lacking: "And no, I'm not implying that guns keep the Government in line. I'm implying that by acquiescing to the surrender of a right you held for hundreds of years you set the stage for the Government to curtail your other rights"
Lets ignore the 2 mass shooting the US has had in the last week.
Let's also ignore the fact that if any of the victims had been armed they might just have been able to defend themselves. Something the gun control lobby refuses to ever acknowledge as a possibility. Let's also ignore the fact that one of those "mass shootings" you refer to had one victim and the perpetrator was stopped by members of the public and not by law enforcement.
where did the armed uprising take place when Bush started warrant-less wiretapping, which is far worse then anything other western nations have done in the march towards fascism?
Yes, the warrant-less wiretapping of overseas phone calls is much worse than Kristallnacht or anything else that has happened in history. Why don't you get some fucking perspective and leave your off-topic rants about GWB for another discussion?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
By "Offtopic" do you mean "I don't agree with this guy but I can't fault what he's saying"?
Thought so.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Bulgaria sound good? We're too stupid and disorganized to fix potholes, let alone spy on any part of the population in any meaningful way.
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.