Slashdot Mirror
Interception in the UK
An anonymous reader sent in the following: "A story on Techwire discusses the
UK government proposal to require providers of digital communications services to make available interception capabilities for
all pagers, IP telephony, email etc. As usual, the US Feds have some involvment in this.
" Quite distressing. Even VPNs are covered.
You are a small-brained lemming/sheep. It's people like you that scare me the most. While, yes, in the short term, you give some freedom up in exchange to catch the bogeyman, in the long run you give up far more. Would you curse your children or grandchildren to a horrible existence just to protect you from the "monsters"?
Yes, I currently have nothing to hide, yet that is no reason for me to arbitrarily give my privacy rights to someone else.
See, eventually, if all this "listening" goes into effect, some day, some crazy (Hitler, Big Brother, or probably something worse) will get into a leadership position of world government and will abuse the shit out of that power, and for the first time in human history, the general population, once it becomes enraged by the atrocities, will be unable to coordinate to change/overthrow this sick person as the minute they try to discuss it, they are instantly "listened" and then the secret police show up and kill you and your family.
Don't say it wont happen. Study the history of EVERY government that has ever existed. Sadly, it always happens.
Who was it that said (I can't remember the exact quote, so patches are welcome)
When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, and when they came for the Gays, I said nothing...
etc...
And when they came for me, there was no one to say anything,,,
Where IS the line? I think it is right here and now.
http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/
It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off
The unwritten consitution manifests itself through the winds blowing through Parliament. Simple majority parliamentarian actions carry the weight of constitutional law in the UK. Therefore, rights are easily adbridged. That is why is it was so easy for handguns to be banned.
In Australia there was a bill passed recently that enables the government to enforce restrictions on content on web servers. Another bill allows government agencies (equivalents of FBI and NSA) to snoop into other people's machines kinda like this bill passed in the UK. IMHO this is the worst thing possible for the internet. We all saw this coming, but now that it's upon us, I'm very afraid. The past two years have brought good things (Linux coming into the light, Microsoft DOJ) and bad (privacy invasions, Microsoft is still on trial).
I'm looking ahead with anticipation and fear...
---------------------
Mail order purchases are definitely taxable. It's up to you to come forward and pay it. Michigan has a Use-Tax addendum to the state income tax, and every other state with a sales tax has something in place to receive the taxes.
If (when) you get audited, the auditor will have your credit card records and can start asking about purchases and if you filed a fraudulent tax return. If you didn't pay those taxes promptly, you have committed tax fraud, and you will be fined.
This defacto exception is killing home town clothing stores, flower shops, and local governments. Remember, return of collected sales tax is a huge part of municipal and county budgets, and their receipts are noticeably down.
The county commissioners and city managers are screaming bloody murder about this one, and this loophole is going to be closed by the next congress.
Really helped Jill Dando, didn't it? Your homicide and violence rates are going through the roof, and they were just as bad as they are in the US. Same with Australia.
You don't even get to catch the bogeyman because the bogeyman will cover his tracks (it can be done).
Thus, the police only get to monitor legal activities, and small time criminals who don't know what they're doing.
And you do have plenty to hide. The fact that your mother has piles, your credit card details, your little brother Billy's problems with women. I don't see why we should tell our governments these things while the criminals still get to hide their activities.
Health care yeah maybe. Who the fuck wants to live in a body that's always whining back to you about all kinds of shite it needs?
Ayn Rand/Orwell aside, the gov't is not Big Brother. WE ARE when we are too scared to read an article that disagrees with us, when we wait for news to slap in the face instead of giving it some thought and realizing how fucked up the media really is, when we're more afraid of being assaulted than living a life as numb-souled husks gasping for air in towns where there's a church at the end of every damned street.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Monkey see monkey do when it comes to world rulers.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Two words: Adaptive Networks.
there's a link in slashdot somewhere if you're interested.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Things I learned from 1984 (not stated by Orwell by the way)
Beware of O'Brien (Implies reading man's and info's and html's to stay ahead of the bastards who tell you they're on your side.)
And big brother is not the gov't. Big Brother is the disorganized but effective collective of parishioners taking their kids CD's and throwing in the street in front of a bulldozer.
The gov't is just a blood sucking beast serving them.
HOME sweet HOME Oceania. When does the 13 minute hate start I wannabe obnoxiously late.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Decrypt this!
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Sigh, when will governments learn? Privacy must be protected at all costs. This isn't much different than many bills in the US passed by congress but vetoed, or not passed by the Senate....It could happen here to... :)
Btw, I think this is first comment
Home Secretary Jack Straw now proposes all CSPs be required to take reasonable steps to ensure their system is capable of being intercepted.
Well, just run IIS, right guys?
You do have to wonder, though. Any system that lets technoignorant lawenforcement snoop is bound to have lots of holes for normal malicious citizens to exploit. Or is it just a matter of handing out root to the local constable.
But then, the English populace never did have many guarantees of privacy or speech or anything, really. At least here in the US, we make the pretense of having such guarantees.
And never mind that police can't be trusted not to torture and mutilate innocent people. I'm not prepared to trust anyone with my online communications whom I can't even trust not to assault my rectum, to put it bluntly.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Before, when governments/law enforcement wanted to subvert the enemy, wouldn't they take pride in being more clever than the enemy, rather than civil rights groups? I think in the era of burgeoning regulation and legislation, law enforcement is taking the easy way out and in the process taking a cheap shot at everyone's rights.
Maybe I'm just a libertarian demagogue, but I don't see how owning bulletproof encryption technology hurts anyone except the lazy intellegence agent who wants to avoid the hassle of getting a search warrant for the physical data repository, i.e. the physical server.
Pardon me for my outburst ...
has been drawn. Who drew it?
Where is it?
Who are you?
Who is that?
What did he say?
What does he want?
Who is he with?
Did you hear?
Did you hear that?
"I am a law student. I spend a lot of time on this new communications medium that no one owns yet.
"The men are trying to buy it. If they can't buy it, they want to control it. If they can't control it, they will make the speakers fear.
"I believe war has been declared against me. They want me to tell them how to break into my network and monitor my friends.
"Attorney-client privilege mutha fucka; just like the NSA mutha fucka, attorney-client privilege!!!"
Folks, before going all crazy /. style *please* read the paper that's linked from the techwire report. Bear in mind that the new law only covers domestic UK transmissions -- seeing as international transmissions are already monitored via eschelon and it's derivatives. It goes into great detail on what methods are currently in place for monitoring traffic (voice prints) and which ones are being developed (word recgonition!).
As far as monitoring within the EU, I can see a number of memeber nations throwing hissy fits. Wasn't it just within the last decade that Germany started allowing for electronic survailence by domestic authorities? (someone please correct me there)
-- r . m o s q u i t o --
Rage Against the Machine - Evil Empire
I think that sums it up quite nicely.
The same thing is happening in Australia to.
There were plans in the European Union to introduce such law (enfopol). This also would have forced the providers to allow monitoring in real time without the customer noticing it.
This law were redrawn only at the beginning of this month after the European Parliament had already agrred on the law a month before. Now the UK will go their own way, as will many other countries in the European Union that are quite eager to know what people think, do, and feel.
Two words: Adaptive Networks. Soup Nets.
Dump a server keep the content. Just have a little faith in the Internet community.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
I haven't read it (yet), but check out oceania.org. It seems like it didn't work though.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
It might seem like a good idea now, to give up some civil rights, but what about later...
Once a government (of any kind) determines that it can trick the population into denouncing some civil rights for a "good" purpose another enemy will be found, this enemy could be you for perhaps disagreeing with having all your rights crushed, and another civil right can and most likely will be crushed, because now the people are accustomed to it, it didn't "really" cause any problems last time, why should it now?
Where does this end?
It should end with the first attempt to trample on our (your) civil rights.
Ashley Clark
_The_Horse,_Hunter,_And_Stag_
A Quarrel had arisen between the Horse and the Stag, so the Horse came to
a Hunter to ask his help to take revenge on the Stag. The Hunter agreed, but
said: "If you desire to conquer the Stag, you must permit me to place this
piece of iron between your jaws, so that I may guide you with these reins, and
allow this saddle to be placed upon your back so that I may keep steady upon
you as we follow after the enemy." The Horse agreed to the conditions, and the
Hunter soon saddled and bridled him. Then with the aid of the Hunter the Horse
soon overcame the Stag, and said to the Hunter: "Now, get off, and remove
those things from my mouth and back."
"Not so fast, friend," said the Hunter. "I have now got you under bit and
spur, and prefer to keep you as you are at present."
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
According to the article, "all communications service providers (CSPs) would be required to build interception software or hardware into their systems". But I see nothing in the article which indicates that clients of these CSPs must do the same. In other words, a CSP must provide some sort of wiretapping functionality, but organizations which use these CSPs do not (unless they themselves are a CSP).
So it seems to me that an organization wishing to protect itself from government snooping could simply implement a non-tappable VPN using strong encryption of its own choosing. This means that CSPs can't implement truly secure VPNs for their customers, but there is nothing which prevents a customer from implementing a secure VPN for itself.
Dunno about other commonwealth countries, but here in Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, found here.
OK, every government spies on its and other people. This is a problem only if it is abused.
So what we need is effective safeguards against abuse. Acknowledge that spying will happen no matter what, but make it accountable.
The fact that the government could be spying on me RIGHT NOW, in my conversations on the phone for example, doesn't make me lose sleep. I haven't seen a lot of demonstrations by concerned citizens saying this has to stop now. If I had something to hide I'd find a way to hide it, and I don't mind if stupid criminals get caught by this process. Basically, I trust the government with this, partly because I have to and partly because I always have. I don't see why, just because there's a new technology that could shut out spying, we should use it that way.
There was a thread about this a few months ago, prompted by an interview with David Brin. Basically he says there's a problem and an opportunity. The problem is that with new technologies, privacy is threatened (as it always has been, in one way or another). The opportunity is what he calls "two way transparency" -- make sure the spies can be spied upon.
We know the value of Open Source -- similarly there's value in an Open Society. Neither of which prohibits the proprietary/privacy -- it just makes more sense to be Open.
I have a TV license. I was forced under the fear of severe fine to have it. I neither watch BBC nor browse their website. I don't give a rat about their BBC24 (night only news, very poorly done), which is in my view a clear waste of money. So, what about lack of ad's? Excuse me, but if it was really that attractive customers would pay volunteraly, right? It is ridiculous that in the country, which claims to be a leading market economy in the world, customers are not given option. I reckon this is because BBC won't stand competition.
Now about "ad's". I am particularly annoyed to see TV license ad's on the other private channels. The whole point is that if personally YOU want to pay license, than do it, but don't force ME. BBC could use encoded signal and charge people for decoders, as any commercial company does, why don't they do it? Well, because I would say few people would pay for their services.
This is 1999 not 10,000 BC when humanity first set foot on Earth. Get real.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
OK, so since I don't care about gov't health care, don't like the tactics or methods of the drug war, don't plan on Social Security, homeschool my children, get vaccinations from my doctor like normal people, don't give a fuck about whales, and am a Libertarian and against government power, can I opt out? I don't want to be a part of your society anymore. Oh wait, I forgot, that's not allowed either. The government will force me. Well, I guess it's time to leave.
Moon, anybody?
-- The meek shall inherit the Earth. In very small plots, about 6 feet by 3.
This topic warrants a separate Slashdot discussion.
You're wrong.
The right to keep and bear arms is a symbol. It means that the government has the right to take your life, if you have done something to require it, but they do not have the right to make you lie down and take it like a good boy or girl.
Banning guns does not prevent violent crime. It expands it, because criminals know that all law-abiding citizens are now unarmed. The criminals can still get guns of a sort - they are not difficult to make, even without buying one - and now, they don't have to worry about the victim producing a shotgun and blowing their head off. If you think differently, then it's quite simple; don't keep guns. DO NOT tell me not to. The US was founded on this principle; it was a sad, sad day when we forgot it.
As for education, you're quite right. The US public school system sucks rocks. Which proves MY point, not yours. Here, we have the right to simply pull our children from the school system and teach them at home, or in smaller private schools. And if you compare those homeschool and private school children to your schools, we've got YOU beat, not the other way around. Pity you don't have the right to force the same concession, isn't it?
The reason we say it will happen here is that the government is continually trying to force more controls. Remove those freedoms. To the detriment of us all.
"Is it freedom if your cage is larger than the distance you wish to fly?"
"When a place is so crowded as to require IDs and traffic cops, it is time to go elsewhere." The problem being that there is nowhere else to go.
-- The meek shall inherit the Earth. In very small plots, about 6 feet by 3.
By the way, I'm not the person you replied to, but I felt I needed to respond.
There are two big problems with your argument. The first is that the events you describe happened around 220 years ago. Things change. One of the things that has changed is the size of the gap between the low end weaponry that the typical citizen has and the high end weapons that the military has. Back in those days a warm body on one side of the fight was roughly tactically equal to a warm body on the other side. These days it's more appropriate to think of a well armed soldier as a mobile weapons platform.
The other big problem is that you seem to be forgetting that Britain was on another continent entirely. The trip took weeks. It wasn't even practical for Britain to try to hold onto its North American colonies. The British just didn't have the neccessary military presence. Have you stopped to consider just who George Washington was a general for before the war? Do you think that all of his soldiers were fresh new recruits who'd never fought in a war before? If some were veterans, just which side of the conflict could be considered the "army"?
The mistake you're making, and that many others make, is that the right to bear arms has nothing to do with the ability to overthrow the government. That was proven @200 years ago, with John Brown and the Whiskey Rebellion. The weapons John Brown and his associates used were the same weapons as the military had, and all were trained. They still lost; the military had more men, more ammunition, and more supplies. John Brown knew this going in; at his trial, shortly before hanging, he made it clear that he never planned to survive, nor even to win a battle.
So what did it prove?
It proved that the last, true right that every man (and woman) has is the right to fight for your beliefs. And die for them. Alright, so he was fighting against the taxation of liquor. The point is, at that time, it was your right, guaranteed in the Constitution, to protest the actions of the US government by any means at your disposal, including armed rebellion, on the principle that by drawing attention to your cause, the government would be forced to change the rules or face the possibility of a general uprising.
Today, the government has taken away almost everything else. The Montana Freemen faced the same problem; so, in their way, did David Koresh and his followers. With less success, thanks to the vagaries of modern government, the illiteracy of the people and the stupidity or ignorance of the media. As of this week, Congress is (once again) trying to remove the right to physically desecrate the American flag. One more form of political protest gone.
And don't be so sure that modern weaponry makes a fight against an army pointless. There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people. People have been making your assumptions since the Greeks fought the Persians; they were wrong then. You still are. A single, lone fighter, fighting for his home, with only a knife, can be as dangerous and as important as a platoon of soldiers with every weapon known to man.
And your second argument; that proves my point. Rebellion was possible because it wasn't worth the effort to try and hold the colonies; the war with France was more important, much closer to home. That's why we won, certainly. The British thought they could easily reconquer the territory later, say about 1812; it didn't prove to be so easy. The revolution did not succeed so much because Britain didn't fight; it succeeded because the Rebels picked their time, picked their tactics, and picked their battlefield. The same tacts would work today.
-- The meek shall inherit the Earth. In very small plots, about 6 feet by 3.
I've used it with my credit card customer service. It works very well and has for years. The report is wrong.
"'Is it freedom if your cage is larger than the distance you wish to fly?'" ....of course, the answer to this rhetorical question would be no. Even though the actions of the governments (here, to force the use of interception) may not infringe upon your freedom to use the internet, to teleconference, to network, etc., they _are_ infringing upon your freedom to communicate privately using technology (and by that I mean any technology that is necessary to not talk to the person(s) face-to-face).
And I personally don't see the point. I'm sure there are valid uses for being able to intercept some forms of communication, or to intercept all forms at certain levels, but I see no purpose in imposing upon others your "desire" to be able to intercept all communications at all levels. It smacks of violation of basic human rights, and I don't see how they (the public, the legislators, whomever) are not stomping it into the ground as we speak (unless of course, there is/are completely splendid reasons for this interception business, in which case, I apologize, and I'd certainly like to know what those splendid reasons are).
Other than that, I say: give me privacy or give me death!
Insert mind here.
Well, I'm living in the UK right not (not from here though!) And I have two definite points to make:
1 - I still don't really know who Jill Dando was
2 - UK violent crime rates are higher than the US in every category except murder. I think they're working on that one.
your encrytion export controls still suck. And I'm Canadian.
(I know, I know, gun controls. I'm not overly bothered by gun controls, to be honest. Whenever I talk to anyone who I might consider to be the average "man on the street," I think to myself "Would I want him carrying automatic weapons? I don't think so.")
Guns have EVERYTHING to do with this.
Speaking as an armed agent of the state, I am all for gun control. I already have all the guns I could ever need. I legally bought and confiscated them years ago. Additional gun control laws won't bother me in the least, but will help to ensure my safety while carrying out my 'business'. I FEAR armed citizens.
One of the advantages of being an agent is that I did not have to get my guns 'legally', so nobody (including my governors - the people of this land) knows what guns I have and where I have them so they will never be able to take them away from me.
Now that I hear about this enforced lack of privacy, I couldn't be happier. Soon I will have access to this fine technology too. Legally, of course. And since slashdot wants to remain a good law abiding website, I'll have all its data too. I'll soon know who you all are and where you all live. And thanks to your expressed beliefs, I now know which of you are for gun control too. Chances are, you gun control supporters don't own guns yourselves (especially you, Lars). You'll make things easier for me.
Then I'll be able to do whatever I want with you.
Be seeing you.
Rough, but there you go.
>[...] can I opt out?
Yep, you can leave the country. In Libertarian theory, the owner of property can set just about any rules on anyone who wants to stay on that property, a la neighborhood HOAs. Consider the Constitution et al as a super HOA agreement covering the U.S., and everything is *perfectly* Libertarian.
Deeds to property are granted by Federal and/or State authorities. Don't fall under the foolish assumption that any individual owns property outright.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
May rest in the actions of the world during the rest of this year. I have never heard about more possible losses of privacy in such a short period of time in the years that I have been on the internet (6+). Are people really going to want to run an archaic operating system like Linux or *BSD? Now, I'm not knocking Linux or *BSD, I run RedHat 6.0 on all my computers, and run VMware on top of it to use IE4 and Outlook Express. But Linux isn't evolved to the point where it is as easy for a common person to use as Win98.
Or maybe I made the wrong statement. The future of the internet doesn't hinge on these events, since everyone will download a slightly older version of PGP (So we know it hasn't been tampered with) and sign/encrypt all messages with 2048bit keys. The correct statement is the future of *NIXs hinge on these events. Nothing would bring the evolution of Linux quicker than a public need/outcry for an operating system where nearly everything is encrypted and secured by the operating system. Plus, since Linux (Not necessairly *BSD) isn't owned by a corporation, the gov't can't force anyone to allow security holes. Even if Linus is forced to make changes to the kernel, all we would have to do is take the existing secure kernel code and have someone else work on it. The gov't can't stop information once it is disseminated to the masses.
-- Terry
I have no problems with you. You have no problems with me. Our governments are acting like spoiled children, yes. So, let's solve that. There's a reference up above to oceania.org; it is, in fact, defunct/bankrupt. At any rate, no one is doing anything with the page or with anything else. So, let's do it ourselves.
-- The meek shall inherit the Earth. In very small plots, about 6 feet by 3.
I agree with Lars.
The USA has the unenvious world record for unvoluntary children homicides by guns.
Bannings Guns? Yes. When you need one to negotiate property boundaries, you are in serious trouble: call it social cancer if you want.
FYI: for many of us (other carbon based life forms) the simple idea of using a weapon of some form to harm a fellow lifeform is nauseating.
Oh, there's no doubt that it will be used against terrorists. After all, terrorists communicate every day by unencrypted, plain text email. And of course, there's no doubt that we can trust our dear friends in the government to only use that power for those purposes, and of course they will cease and desist as soon as the "Troubles" are over. Just like automatic tax deductions from American paychecks. "Temporarily" instituted by Congress during WWII. For the duration of the war, only. Gee, I didn't know the war was still going on, but it must be, since they're still taking money from my paycheck. Hmmm. Wonder why that is...
-- The meek shall inherit the Earth. In very small plots, about 6 feet by 3.
Take a look at mixmaster remailers if you really want to keep even the recipient of your emails a secret. Properly used, The Man can tell that you put a message into a remailer, and that your recipient got a message from a different remailer some time afterward... but connecting the two is pretty much intractable.
Right on , pal.
These guys are morons. Nobody owns the world of numbers. And nobody understands numbers better than geeks (us) do.
Game's already over. We won. There's no way to enforce this shit in the US without a soviet-style Surveillance scheme, where everyone is monitored all the time.
We also have a very cool 2nd amendment. (guns for everyone) We may soon have to excercise it, if this stuff continues.
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
Seriously, I agree with you that we can both find numbers to back ourselves up. I will, however, counter a few points you made:
To me, that sounds like a big price to pay for a symbol.
Is it? Men (and women) will often die for symbols but not for real, tangible goals. Nobody ever jumped off on an assault certain to bring heavy casualties shouting "A higher standard of living!" or "A better socio-economic landscape!" No, they charge into machine gun fire shouting "Remember the Alamo!" and reciting phrases like "Duty, Honor, Country."
No, I know that's not what you meant. There are, of course, costs associated with widespread gun ownership. There are also costs associated with freedom of religion - such as having to listen to evangelical "Christians" hounding me about my faith. (Now THERE's a use for a handgun!) As a matter of fact, there are costs for every single "right" and privelage we have.
I think that is bull, but both of us will have problems finding hard numbers to prove our points.
I think you're right, we will have a hard time finding hard numbers. I could show statistics from the US showing that crime rates rise every time guns are restricted; but then there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics." Besides, I don't feel like it. ;) Instead, I will simply state that the argument of removing guns from law-abiding citizens will reduce crime makes no sense to me or anyone who got a C+ or better in basic logic. My main reason for arguing against restricting guns is that no society, going back to ancient greece, has ever survived such a restriction. Sure, sure, modern times are different, this situation has never happened before, and this time it won't happen. Uh-huh. And I'm sure the Spartans argued the same point, and I'm sure they lost as thoroughly as I probably will. Doesn't mean I'm wrong. They weren't.
Hmmm... no. Although you remind me of someone... oh yeah, me! ;)
If the victims didn't have guns, criminals would be less inclined to carry or use them as well since they didn't have to worry about having their heads blown off, ever consider that? It's a good circle! :-)
Stupid ones might. Smart ones would say "The more ability I have to threaten my victim, the less likely they will be to make a fuss. A gun is the greatest means at my disposal. Therefore I will use a gun." At least I would.
Besides, I believe manufacturing a good handgun is more difficult than you claim, especially if sales of ammo and gunpowder was limited as well. I would much prefer to face a criminal armed with some home made pipe gun than a state of the art semi-automatic military issue thingy.
I didn't say "good" nor did I say "handgun." I speak from experience; as a child I made a black-powder musket from information at the library. Ground my own powder, fired a ball-bearing through a lead pipe. Crude, yes, but it worked. I would never use one against someone armed with an assault rifle, but if the government took away all guns, I wouldn't need to worry about it, now would I?
No, but seriously. I might have been a bit careless. When I said "ban guns" above, I did not mean the complete banning of guns. I meant banning the sale of stuff like assault rifles and armour piercing bullets, strict background checks at all times (including gun shows), and bans against carrying firearms in public. That's my view. But we live on different continents, and if someone is in the position to limit anyones rights, its you who can harm me, so the point is moot anyway.
Good, point's moot, I win. ;) Seriously, I would agree with the assualt rifles and armor-piercing rounds bans, although I would prefer restrictions. Levels, perhaps. Convicted felons - not so much as a pea shooter. Kids - likewise. Permitted to get a permit with their guardian's permission, provided the guardian accepts total responsibility. Adults - rifles, handguns, and so on, provided they pass firearms safety tests and background checks. And one other level, perhaps members of a militia such as the national guard, allowed to purchase assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons.
The point is that as far as firearms go, there's a sharp and harsh curve where the stupid and foolish will inevitably cause problems. Which is not a sufficient argument for restricting them.
Do you think it's OK if only the kids of a rich elite gets a good education in the US? What good does it do if 5% are very intellectual if the remaining 95% are ignorant and easy to manipulate?
No, of course not. But that's not what happens. So far as grammar and high school goes, that is to the age of 18, most of the home-schooled children are middle-class. Rich kids are almost invariably sent to public schools, since they don't need intelligence to get ahead, or sent to expensive boarding schools. I would infinitely prefer for public schools to improve to the point that I would trust my child's education to them, but I don't see it happening. Therefore I value my right to avoid it.
Then we agree. Only not on the details. :-)
Basically. This is getting longer than I had planned, but I think we agree more than we disagree. The disagreements are important, but not critical.
I would like to make one last point. In the wake of the Littleton shootings, there has been a wave of anti-gun laws being rushed into legislation. Considering that the guns used were purchased illegally from someone who got them under conditions that would be legal even under the new laws, I fail to see the point. There will always be illegal weapons. There will always be murders. Trying to stop them is like trying to stop the tide with a broom; you get wet, tired, and a bad taste in your mouth, but you don't get anywhere.
-- The meek shall inherit the Earth. In very small plots, about 6 feet by 3.
A well armed militia? To name a few counter-examples:
1- Algeria (France);
2- The French in Indochina: they got out too late;
3- Vietnam: they got out too late in disregard of DeGaulle's (VLQL) warning to JFK to keep out!
4- Afghanistan: well... they didn't learn the above lessons.
In all these cases, well armed and well trained armies were defeated by (hum) inferior forces!
Moral: Guerrilla warfare is always a lose/lose conflict!
>>A well EDUCATED citizinry is the best tool
;-)
i refc.htm
;-)
>>against oppression, and the UK beats you hands
>>down there as well in all international tests.
>
>I'm pretty sure that Pol Pot has more than
>proved that arguement is wrong. Please remember
>that one of the first things they did was kill
>all the EDUCATED people. And they killed them
>with guns.
..meaning they were more frightened of educated people than of guns, and rightly so. There were guns in Cambodia. That didn't stop Pol Pot from getting into power, and easy access to guns made it possible for them to continue their reign of terror. So you see, it proves me right.
>Apparently a well educated citizenry doesn't know how to spell 'citizenry'.
Oh, spell flames against someone writing in a foreign language. That's brave.
>Only a few people die in the US from firearms
>each year. Very few of those casualties
>are 'innocent'.
*In 1995, 14 children, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns every day in this country [USA].
*In 1996, 10,744 people were murdered with firearms in this country.
*In 1996, there were only 176 justifiable handgun homicides by private citizens in the United States.
http://www.handguncontrol.org/protecting/D4/d4f
Do you call this few? I call that a lot, and I think it is sick.
>Now compare that to the 13 MILLION unarmed jews
>and others killed by the Nazi's. And the 20
>MILLION unarmed civilians killed by the Soviets.
>And the 20 MILLION unarmed chinese killed in the
>cultural revolution. And the 100 THOUSAND
>unarmed Maya killed in Guatemala. And the 300
>THOUSAND unarmed christian political dissidents
>killed in Uganda.
Oh, so you know they were all unarmed, do you? That's a lot of unarmed people.
>And if you think it can't happen here, please
>tell that to the Black Panthers. Or the
>protestors at Kent State. Or the Native
>Americans for that matter. Especially those that
>died at Wounded Knee (both times).
What do these examples tell me except that appearently Americans believe that violence is a great way to solve problems? It isn't.
More guns just mean more paranoia and more risk that someone on either side will open fire.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
>Speaking as an armed criminal, I am all for gun
.22 calibre. This law was spurred in large part by the massacre in Dunblane, Scotland, in March 1996, in which 16 children and one teacher were killed in just a few minutes by a lone gunman.
.22 calibre reportedly affected some 80 percent of handguns in the United Kingdom, or an estimated 160,000 handguns. It included new procedures for storing .22 calibre handguns in gun clubs, and provided stricter standards for firearms ownership certification. Owners of prohibited weapons were required to hand them in by 1 October 1997. This program appears to have been largely successful -- as of a week before the hand-in date, approximately 120,000 of the 160,000 prohibited weapons had been turned in."
:-)
;-)
>control. I already have all the guns I could
>ever need. I illegally bought and stole them
>years ago. Additional gun control laws won't
>bother me in the least, but will help to ensure
>my safety while carrying out my 'business'. I
>HATE armed victims.
I reiterate: Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.
More guns means more death. Less guns means less death.
>One of the advantages of being a criminal is
>that I did not have to get my guns 'legally', so
>nobody (including your government) knows what
>guns I have and where I have them so they will
>never be able to take them away from me.
When you use them, you will be revealed. If you don't use them, no one is hurt. Also, the hardened premeditaded criminal who stockpiles guns is probably rarer than you think. Compare with the situation in Britain:
"One important effort to tighten domestic controls is the ban on handguns currently being implemented in the United Kingdom. In February 1997, a new UK law banned private possession of handguns of greater than
The February ban on handguns greater than
>Now that I hear about this enforced lack of privacy, I couldn't be happier.
That will be defeated. Believe me.
>And thanks to your expressed beliefs, I now know
> which of you are for gun control too. Chances
>are, you gun control supporters don't own guns
>yourselves (especially you, Lars). You'll make
>easy cash opportunities for me.
Quite right, I don't own a gun. Three times people have tried to rob me, once in Sweden and twice (the same night!) in Barcelona, Spain. The thing is, I didn't have a gun, and neither did the robbers. I managed to get out of the situation all three times without losing my money or getting hurt by using my wits. You see, brains is more important than guns.
I believe if either of us had had guns, and especially both of us had had guns, the chance that I would be sitting here this fine Sunday morning blabbing on the net would have been significantly less.
>Be seeing you.
Neat! You are welcome. Oh yeah...now I remember.
Cheers,
Lars
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
>>A well armed militia is NOTHING against an army.
;-)
>Perhaps you should read up on Lord Cornwallis and his problems in North America circa 1776-1781.
The military situation of 200 years ago has little relevance to modern warfare.
>>A well EDUCATED citizinry is the best tool
>>against oppression, and the UK beats you hands
>>down there as well in all international tests.
>So what happened to you? Or doesn't the
>wonderful British school system teach "America
>kicks Geaorge III's Ass 101" along with
>spelling?
I'm not British, I'm Swedish. I apologize for any spelling errors that might have offended you, but I am writing in a foreign language, see?
I have studied history, but as I said before, and as another poster explained, the military situation in those days were quite different.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
Let's see how that maps in other spheres...
The only person I trust with my education is me.
The only person I trust with my defense is me.
The only person I trust with my transportation is me.
The only person I trust with my health and safety is me.
I agree that we should have a healthy distrust about government, but it seems to me we do rely on it, whether we like it or not. And the only realistic hope is to make it better, not get rid of it. (BLEAT OFF)
Clowns have EVERYTHING to do with this.
:-)
Speaking as a painted agent of mirth, I have all the cream pies I need. Now that I hear about this enforced lack of privacy, I will invent humiliating practical jokes involving fishes and itching powder. Chances are, I will one day come and go *pfrthththh* in your face!
Be seeing you.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
"In fact, I reckon you're British."
Nope, I'm just an informed free citizen of the United States.
"We don't have guns because that was what we specifically asked for as people. We don't have no choice because we don't have guns, we *chose* not to have them. That wasn't very long ago either (after Dunblane massacre of little children, remember?)"
Chose not to have them? Well, that was stupid. You chose to only have criminals and oppresssors have weapons. Not a smart move. But you did it 'for the children'. More stupidity. Children that aren't free can _never_ be safe. Been to North Ireland lately? Are your children safe there?
"Secondly, as for British terrorisation, I would simply have to point out that the Americans are undoubtedly far more decadent. Is it possible to be a communist in the US?"
What the hell are you talking about? Could it be that you are confusing the definition of FREEDOM with the word 'decadent'? And yes, Americans do still have freedom, including the freedom to be a communist. Unlike brainwashed British slaves.
>Yawn. This is way offtopic
;-)
It is, isn't it? But it was actually one pro-gun AC who brought the subject up, not me.
>We are talking here about modern government and
>civil rights. And about how some of us seem to
>have more than others.
Yep. Five countries in the world are primitive enough to execute children. And yours is #1.
If I understand correctly, if you are a black man in the US, chances are that the police will enthusiastically violate your rights.
>Rights are funny things. A lot of people are against them.
Yeah! For instance, I am against your right to kill me. You see, some rights we have to give up if we are going to live together in a working society. We are debating which rights are important enough, right? So "Its too hard", "Let the government decide" "I don't want to think", "I don't want to be responsible" are clearly examples of straw man arguments.
>Most of the violent deaths in the twentieth century were unarmed civilians.
I would like to see some numbers, but either way civilian casualties of war is irrelevant to this discussion.
>Your death row inmate is unarmed by force of his state.
I'm against the death penalty as well, so we can start arguing about that too.
>Some guy posted below how he was afraid of gun
>rights because the ordinary people in the street
>didn't look capable of handling them. What a
>lack of faith in humanity this dude has. What
>cowardice. Its depressing
Lack of faith in humanity? Look, it is YOU who think that unless you have the threat of weapons to back you up, people and goverments will immediately start to do the worst things possible to you.
And yeah, I wouldn't want the average person on the street to be armed. If all were rational beings at all times, maybe, but there are crazy people out there, and normal people can go crazy when angry, drunk, high, depressed or what have you. And that's when you get statistics like "35,957 Americans killed with firearms, in homicides, suicides, and accidents in one year (1995), and 14 CHILDREN 19 years and under EACH DAY."
Now THAT is depressing.
>Any way lets flame and call some names.
Let's not. I think it's childish.
Cheers,
Lars
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
In particular, there is a service availible commercially which you call, and there's a computer which transcribes your voice. You receive an ASCII copy by e-mail within the hour. It started as an operation to improve the ability of British military officers to submit reports from the field. It's rather expensive, but it does work with an exceptional degree of accuracy, and with no training whatsoever. It was described by a computer trade rag (I think it was PCMAG) in comparison to PC-Based voice recognition software. The author of the article tested it, and got results orders of magnitude better than any PC program.
Separately, the IBM company has speech recognition technology used in the direct treatment of impediments. It can understand how well someone is procouncing something regardless of nationality or accent. As a result, it is trivial to collect a sequence of phonemes and thus construct a spoken vocabulary, thus making ordinary phone conversations vulnerable to a dictionary attack. Notably, this software runs on ordinary PCs of moderate power. No doubt special purpose electronics could fare much better.
Important point: The report will not mention and will even deny the existance of things classified, and explicitly said that things significantly beyond the current state of the research community are classified at least "Secret".
It is usually a long time before things get declassified, even after they become irrelevant. (e.g. who shot JFK?) Thus, there is no doubt lots of technology in use not explicitly mentioned, and in fact some explicitly denied.
>I would agree with your rant, except for one
:-)
;-)
:-)
:-)
>thing:
>
>You're wrong.
I am??
>The right to keep and bear arms is a symbol. It
>means that the government has the right to take
>your life, if you have done something to require
>it, but they do not have the right to make you
>lie down and take it like a good boy or girl.
"Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense. The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold."
http://www.handguncontrol.org/firearm_facts.htm
To me, that sounds like a big prize to pay for a symbol.
>Banning guns does not prevent violent crime. It
>expands it, because criminals know that all
>law-abiding citizens are now unarmed.
I think that is bull, but both of us will have problems finding hard numbers to prove our points.
Here are some statistics that I believe support my point:
"In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany and 9,390 in the United States." Again, high prize to pay...
But of course there are an enormous number of factors - economical cultural and others that influence crime statistics. For instance I might cite Japan to support my view (strict gun laws=less crime), and then you might counter by saying that the high and fairly equally distributed wealth in Japan combined with the homogenised and closly knit Japanese society makes crime unlikely in the first place. Or else you might take my own country, Sweden, as an example (lots of guns, more per capita than the US I've heard=less crime) and I would then say that 95% of those guns are hunting rifles, the owners must go through very strict background checks and hunting tests, and there are laws that they must be disassembled and locked up in safes apart from ammo when not in use.
If we had one country to observe over a long period of time (ten years maybe) which had changed its gun laws, and we then had the sociological and statistical education to calculate the influence that for instance economy and distribution of wealth could have on the results, then we might get somewhere (it would be a statistical selection of one though, which is never good). But we don't even have one example, so you will just have to accept that I am right, damnit. You must!
>The criminals can still get guns of a sort -
>they are not difficult to make, even without
>buying one - and now, they don't have to worry
>about the victim producing a shotgun and blowing
>their head off.
If the victims didn't have guns, criminals would be less inclined to carry or use them as well since they didn't have to worry about having their heads blown off, ever consider that? It's a good circle!
Besides, I believe manufacturing a good handgun is more difficult than you claim, especially if sales of ammo and gunpowder was limited as well. I would much prefer to face a criminal armed with some home made pipe gun than a state of the art semi-automatic military issue thingy.
>If you think differently, then it's quite
>simple; don't keep guns. DO NOT tell me not to.
*tease* I forbid you to keep guns.
No, but seriously. I might have been a bit careless. When I said "ban guns" above, I did not mean the complete banning of guns. I meant banning the sale of stuff like assault rifles and armour piercing bullets, strict background checks at all times (including gun shows), and bans against carrying firearms in public. That's my view. But we live on different continents, and if someone is in the position to limit anyones rights, its you who can harm me, so the point is moot anyway.
>Here, we have the right to simply pull our
>children from the school system and teach them
>at home, or in smaller private schools. And if
>you compare those homeschool and private school
>children to your schools, we've got YOU beat,
>not the other way around.
It's not a competition (though I realise I said some ill chosen words in the previous post). I believe that all people should have a decent education, both from a basic human rights perspective of the individual and for the good of the human race. Do you think it's OK if only the kids of a rich elite gets a good education in the US? What good does it do if 5% are very intellectual if the remaining 95% are ignorant and easy to manipulate?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it also so that many of the people in elite schools are in fact foreigners? Many of whom later return to their original countries. Many stay of course, which is lucky for the US.
>Pity you don't have the right to force the same
>concession, isn't it?
There are private schools here (Sweden) as well were you can put your kids if you wish to, but since our education is not an such a bad shape (yet...) most have been started by people who have other needs, for instance moslems.
>The reason we say it will happen here is that
>the government is continually trying to force
>more controls. Remove those freedoms. To the
>detriment of us all.
Then we agree. Only not on the details.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
In your criticism of the US you are visiting the sins of the state on its citizens. This is a besides-the-point attack on aspects of the legal system. I won't defend capitol punishment and racial injustice, separate issue.
;-). Thankyou for responding.
>You see, some rights we have to give up if we are going to live together in a working society.
Giving up rights or freedoms should ideally be a moral choice of an individual, not enforced by a majority. The corollary is noninterference with others. But, you suggest the US is dysfunctional? I think it functions very well.
Anyway you might argue for one supposed common good. I hold out for another common good. That's right. A common good of independent responsible citizenry rather than defenceless clients of the law.
>clearly examples of straw man arguments.
Banning the guns is the easy way out. Actually dealing with armed individuals is hard. Most people tend to dislike and ignore hard. The question is whether nations try to deal with it or ignore it. I say leave it to the people to sort out. Governments typically make a mess of whatever they touch.
>>Most of the violent deaths in the twentieth century were unarmed civilians.
>I would like to see some numbers, but either way civilian casualties of war is irrelevant to this discussion.
How about civilian casualities of 'civil unrest'. Like Indonesia - East Timor. Or Rwanda, Kosovo, Germany WW2.
>Lack of faith in humanity? Look, it is YOU who think that unless you have the threat of weapons to
>back you up, people and goverments will immediately start to do the worst things possible to you.
No. I am being rational. Do the math and overcome the sqeamishness. I am arguing for equality. The weapons are not there to threaten, they are there to square the score.
One armed guy can shoot a lot of unarmed guys easy. He will be a little more circumspect if they are armed.
You are plainly too afraid to trust the people living around you every day with your life. Think they are going to shoot you? That shows no faith in your own people. See, we are both being paranoid. Its just I prefer to trust myself.
The murder figures are trivial compared to the results of genocide. Even if it never comes to that, what is the cost of oppression? I am arguing for a positive response, not a retreat from the fact of life that deadly weapons pose.
>childish
Well, the flame was kind of a bait, since this is the twilight of this particular thread. Childish with purpose
As for "Clowns" - well this isn't really a funny subject, but, I did laugh.
--MH
>Well, the flame was kind of a bait, since this ;-). Thankyou for
:-)
>is the twilight of this particular thread.
>Childish with purpose
>responding.
I still don't agree, but as you said, it is the twilight of the thread, this subtread was a slightly off topic aside to begin with, and also it seems Virtuel was the only poster who agreed with me, so lets move on to fresher pastures. Moo.
Thanks for responding too.
Cheers,
Lars
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
18th Century. 20th Century. Note that the numbers differ. Things change.
The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.
Like a bunch of rednecks militias are going to make a whit of a difference if the US (or Canadian) government somehow would turn opressive against their people and get the military to support them. You are so deluded.
.45s? An armed citizenry is the best defense against a rampaging government (power corrupts, remember?). It is our check against government monopoly, which is the ultimate bad in a "free" situation (market or country). You can round up 5,000 people with no defense, but 100 with guns make headline news.
Who is that military made of? When does it start to crack? Is it when they are being pelted with sticks and stones or
Given the choice (and I am) I choose to not own a gun, but do I think I should have the right to? Most gaddamdefinitely (that's a "yes" for you English as a second langaugers)
+&x
Actually, in a fairly reecent court case it was decided that, if you couldn't watch BBC (because of poor reception, a television without a plug on it or your television was not tuned to BBC channels) then you don't need a TV License
Too wierd to live, too rare to die.
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I have nothing but contempt for the way the British goverment keeps brownnosing the US. "We have a special relationship between our nations" indeed.
Perhaps the goverment thinks it is a fair trade since they probably get trade secrets stolen from other countries by Eschelon, but I wonder why the British people allows American entities to take away their rights in ways these entities would never get away with at home.
If Britain keeps this up, why don't they just get it done with and quit the EU and become the 51st state of the USA?
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
Why install millions of telescreens nationwide when they can just use existing equipment that is already in place in much of the world? Its very cost effective. Big Brother isn't stupid. I'm ready to give up now. Its only a matter of time until we're all under complete control of the government, whatever it is..!
You junior socialists want the gov't to provide health care, fight the drug war, save Social Security, edjoocate the chil'drun, provide vaccinations, save the whales, and give the gov't whatever power it needs to do it.
The only way to fulfill this mission is to know everything everybody does. You should see what HCFA is doing with the Medicaid surveys for in-home care. They've got 20 year nurses' aides asking 80 year old wheelchair bound grannies 'How many times have you had sex in the last week?'
Other than the fact that this bites, how exactly would they pull this off? Most sysadmins I know keep a pretty close eye on what goes in and out of systems that they operate. How would you be able to tell if it was the facist^H^H^H^H^H^H "internet" police "legitimately" grabbing something, and not somebody comprimising your system?
*eek*
Yes, one day I may actually learn to spell...
This sort of tension has always existed: Henry David Thoreau
But!
We have the technology! We have the talent! We are connected!
What still needs doing: GNU Encryption
Overall I'm still happy about the way stuff is going.
--MolochHorridus, juvenile rockthrower.
Posted by zyberphox:
do we already lost our privacy? do they force us to encrypt everything in our life style?
The US and the EU are going to merge into the Atlantic Alliance.
1st NATO.
2nd EEC/CEE.
4rd NAFTA
5th EU/UE.
6th Atlantic Alliance.
I may be crazy, but I'm detecting a contradiction in the "Slashdot ideology":
- Open Source is good, hiding code is bad
- Privacy is good, having others see what you do is bad
I mean, I thought information wanted to be free? Or doesn't that include information about what you do?OK, I don't think it's good if the government or big corporations or crazy lunatics use information about me to harm me. But isn't that what laws are for?
By analogy, isn't it our judicial system that allows the GPL (and more lenient copyright-based licenses) to make software truly free?
And doesn't it bother anyone that all this cool information flowing around should be inaccessible? I mean, it's nobody's business how many times I visit whitehouse.com, but I don't know, maybe there just might be some valid use for that information. I feel, in the spirit of openness and convenience, that most things shouldn't be hidden.
I'm scared of the police like anyone, but I feel that it's better and more productive to have laws that try to make sure the police behaves, rather than try to fight them (I know I'll lose).
Or maybe I'm crazy.
"A well EDUCATED citizinry is the best tool against oppression, and the UK beats you hands down there as well in all international tests."
Tell that to the victims of the Cambodian Khmer Rouge. I'm pretty sure that Pol Pot has more than proved that arguement is wrong. Please remember that one of the first things they did was kill all the EDUCATED people. And they killed them with guns.
Apparently a well educated citizenry doesn't know how to spell 'citizenry'.
"Banning guns? I certainly hope so. A lot of innocent people lose their lives each year in the US because some gun nuts have a pathological need to play with their phallic symbols."
Please try to think more in the future before responding with meaningless psychobabble. Only a few people die in the US from firearms each year. Very few of those casualties are 'innocent'. Now compare that to the 13 MILLION unarmed jews and others killed by the Nazi's. And the 20 MILLION unarmed civilians killed by the Soviets. And the 20 MILLION unarmed chinese killed in the cultural revolution. And the 100 THOUSAND unarmed Maya killed in Guatemala. And the 300 THOUSAND unarmed christian political dissidents killed in Uganda. I know those are large numbers for someone with a severe aversion to rational thought, but please do the math anyways.
And if you think it can't happen here, please tell that to the Black Panthers. Or the protestors at Kent State. Or the Native Americans for that matter. Especially those that died at Wounded Knee (both times).
The really dangerous people will simply avoid this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but why couldn't the smart cracker use the same back doors to make himself invisible, essentially invulnerable from the FBI and whoever? I mean really, won't this just screw the people even more than this idiotic excuse for a government already does? The guilty become more guilty but can get away with it even more, and the innocent get fucked up the a$$. And if no one's noticed this, wouldn't government servers be accessible? Course, having open servers for government communications would be good. I think we'd have a better government if anyone was able to read all the transmissions. 8-} Course, the entire senate would be in jail by next week, but that's another problem...
Guns have EVERYTHING to do with this.
Speaking as an armed criminal, I am all for gun control. I already have all the guns I could ever need. I illegally bought and stole them years ago. Additional gun control laws won't bother me in the least, but will help to ensure my safety while carrying out my 'business'. I HATE armed victims.
One of the advantages of being a criminal is that I did not have to get my guns 'legally', so nobody (including your government) knows what guns I have and where I have them so they will never be able to take them away from me.
Now that I hear about this enforced lack of privacy, I couldn't be happier. Soon I will have access to this fine technology too. Not legally, of course, but since I'm a criminal, I don't have to obey laws. And since slashdot wants to remain a good law abiding website, I'll have all its data too. I'll soon know who you all are and where you all live. And thanks to your expressed beliefs, I now know which of you are for gun control too. Chances are, you gun control supporters don't own guns yourselves (especially you, Lars). You'll make easy cash opportunities for me.
Be seeing you.
I'm scared of the police like anyone, but I feel that it's better and more productive to have laws that try to make sure the police behaves, rather than try to fight them (I know I'll lose).
Shall I explain the contradiction, or can you figure it out? Never mind, I'll explain it, you didn't catch it the first time.
Laws set the rules of behavior, according to you. OK. I can accept that. Who enforces those laws? The police. OK. With you so far.
But you say you are afraid of the police, and that we all are, implying that this is the normal state of affairs. That is a very good reason why laws alone will not work.
Another one is explained by the second contradiction. We already stated that police enforce the law. So what use are laws designed to restrict the police? Who enforces THOSE laws? And then who regulates THEM?
As for Open Source applying to everything; no. It never has, it never will. It can't. Some things will always be restricted, and private. I don't want you or my employer or anyone else to look up my medical history. That's private. My doctor needs it? Fine. I'll give it to him, and I'll have to trust him to keep it private.
-- The meek shall inherit the Earth. In very small plots, about 6 feet by 3.
Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense. The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold."
http://www.handguncontrol.org/firearm_facts.htm
Well now, there's an unbiased source.
The "statistics" are irrelevant bullshit, of course.
Let's take a look in more detail:
Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense
Two major things wrong with that statement, even assuming that the numbers aren't fabricated. (1) the vast majority of "kill a family member or friend" cases are suicides, thus irrelevant here; there are plenty of ways for someone intent on suicide to do so. (2) Most - by orders of magnitude - uses of a gun in self-defense do not involve killing the attacker. Even if we count only the actual confrontations that occur (and ignore the large deterrent value a firearm has), most end with the bad guy being scared off or held until the police arrive, no shots fired at all. In a much smaller incidence, the perp may be wounded - these cases still outnumber those cases in which the perp is killed.
Of course, the whole paragraph is nonsense if taken literally: guns don't kill anybody, don't have family members, and don't defend themselves.
The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.
Heh. Now subtract out the number of those cases in which the gun was acquired with the specific intent to commit murder and/or suicide (which acts can certainly be accomplished without a gun), and what are the numbers?
The facts are, when other influences are factored out (eg socioeconomic background, cultural influences, etc), the crime rate is inversely proportional to the availability of guns. MOst people are neither homicidal nor suicidal. Most criminals, while perhaps stupid, are not suicidal either. The facts also are that women who defend themselves against rape/assault with a gun are more likely to survive than those who don't defend themselves at all or who use some other (less effective) weapon.
-- Alastair
To think that the brits think that the us is a backwards nation. We have the most online users (% included) of any nation in the world, we have the best telephone/cable network in the world and we are one of the 2 most advanced nations in the world. Our only equal is japan. I don't want to hear any of the bs about law enforcement having a hard time stopping cyber crooks. Only the CIA, DIA (DIA=Defense Intellegence Agency) and military have the hackers which can catch most of the real hackers, not the script kiddies. I have said for years that the FBI should be abolished. The potential for abuse of the 4th ammendment if something like that happens over here in the states is too great. I can just see the fbi agents conveniently glancing at me and my friend's accounts while looking for crooks on the earthlink network. My dad used to work with Customs (the friskers @ the airport are only 1 of 5 divisions of customs) and even he agrees that any decent law enforcement officer doesn't need something like this, if they do good police work. Why can't the stupid brits take a hint from customs's cybercops (for lack of a better description) and actually infilitrate the cyber crook scene? I bet in the end, agencies like customs will end up being more successful
---Got Coffee?---
Another helping of crow, Lars?
Yawn. This is way offtopic, but:
We are talking here about modern government and civil rights. And about how some of us seem to have more than others. And how the citizens of the UK just lost a bit more of their right to privacy.
Rights are funny things. A lot of people are against them. "Its too hard", "Let the government decide" "I don't want to think", "I don't want to be responsible". Giving up all your rights to a higher power might seem like a good idea, until you see what governments did with them in the past. Then you tend to want them back quickish.
Most of the violent deaths in the twentieth century were unarmed civilians. Your death row inmate is unarmed by force of his state.
Some guy posted below how he was afraid of gun rights because the ordinary people in the street didn't look capable of handling them. What a lack of faith in humanity this dude has. What cowardice. Its depressing.
The US is running the show? Very likely. Most of the people really fighting this stuff effectively (cryptography, lobbying) are in the US. It just so happens the US is the focal point. The UK tends to just generate colourful and (obviously) useless street protest.
Any way lets flame and call some names. You are a pussy. Your vaunted liberal education has taught you intolerance of people you don't understand. You desire security. Security is double-edged, a blanket that can be used to smother.
Deconstruct your belief system. Then do it again.
I shall endeavor to do the same, anything else is laziness.
--MH
> reiterate: Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.
;-)
WRONG. Please stop quoting the Kellerman report. The data contained in it was proved false years ago. Please read (and try to comprehend) "More Guns, Less Crime : Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics)" by John Lott before quoting false statistics.
> More guns means more death. Less guns means less death.
WRONG. Why do you allways take the childish and simplistic view that your gun control supporting overlords have spoon fed you. PLease make some effort to analyze the FACTS. Disarming the public ALLWAYS results in massive increases in violent crime.
>>Now that I hear about this enforced lack of privacy, I couldn't be happier.
> That will be defeated. Believe me.
God but you are naive AND stupid! Don't think for a moment that if it fails now, it won't be back again and again untill it passes. And since the public is disarmed, they WON'T BE ABLE TO STOP IT.
> The thing is, I didn't have a gun, and neither did the robbers.
So you were targeted by incompetent and ill equipped robbers. That proves nothing. Just wait untill an armed criminal finds and kills you.
> I managed to get out of the situation all three times without losing my money or getting hurt by using my wits. You see, brains is more important than guns.
So you were LUCKY. But please remember, your luck only has to fail you once. Also note that these were ill equipped UNARMED ASSAILANTS. Therefore, guns were not in the situation and don't contribute to these data points.
> I believe if either of us had had guns, and especially both of us had had guns, the chance that I would be sitting here this fine Sunday morning blabbing on the net would have been significantly less.
Well, if only the criminal had the gun, then whether or not you are here alive now would be HIS CHOICE and NOT YOURS, now wouldn't it. And you missed the point of the original message that THE CRIMINALS ALLREADY HAVE GUNS. Don't think for a moment that they are going to give them up because some law tells them to.
>>Be seeing you.
>Neat! You are welcome. Oh yeah...now I remember.
Are you THAT STUPID? Eventually he probably will be seeing you (or someone very much like him). Just not for very long. Enjoy your dirt nap.
>meaning they were more frightened of educated people than of guns, and rightly so. There were guns in Cambodia. That didn't stop Pol Pot from getting into power, and easy access to guns made it possible for them to continue their reign of terror. So you see, it proves me right.
;-)
No, it proves you WRONG. And stupid. Please try to think before responding. They did fear educated people, but mostly they feared those educated people might ARM THEMSELVES. And yes, there were guns in Cambodia, and the Khmer Rouge had them all (or almost all). The people of Cambodia had been disarmed 9for their own 'safety') by their own government before the Khmer Rouge took over.
> Oh, spell flames against someone writing in a foreign language. That's brave.
I beleive the statement was more about the irony of mispellings in a statement about the importance of education. You do know what 'irony' means, don't you?
>>Only a few people die in the US from firearms each year. Very few of those casualties are 'innocent'.
>In 1995, 14 children, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns every day in this country [USA].
>In 1996, 10,744 people were murdered with firearms in this country.
>In 1996, there were only 176 justifiable handgun homicides by private citizens in the United States.
What is it with you and false statistics? Here are sopm other statistics for you: In 1997, 12 times as many children (using your false definition of children - 19 year olds are adults) died of drowning than of firearms. So what do we do about that? Ban water? Please stop repeating disproved Handgun Control Incorporated lies.
>Oh, so you know they were all unarmed, do you? That's a lot of unarmed people.
OF COURSE THEY WERE UNARMED YOU IDIOT. OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE PASSIVELY BEEN MURDERED, NOW WOULD THEY? And it wasn't their murderers that disarmed them. usually it was the previous regime that passed 'gun control' laws for their oen protection. I beleive in Germany it was the Weimar republic that banned guns (with 'reasonable laws'). The Nazi's just took advantage of this, and probably would have been stopped had the german people been in any condition to prevent them (i.e. armed).
> What do these examples tell me except that appearently Americans believe that violence is a great way to solve problems? It isn't.
Get some FACTS moron! These people were all killed BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT! BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. The supposed defender of the free world. The same goventment that supposedly garantees their rights (including the right not to be shot in your own bed by 'law enforcement' agents).
What you completely fail to understand is that violence is the favorite method used by governments to enslave people. Good or bad, it works. But only if the people being enslaved can't fight back.
Only two kinds of people support gun control. Evil people and stupid people. Which are you?
> and also it seems Virtuel was the only poster who agreed with me,
Well, that's because you are WRONG.
>The USA has the unenvious world record for unvoluntary children homicides by guns.
The USA also has the largest number of free children in the world. Go figure.
>Bannings Guns? Yes. When you need one to negotiate property boundaries, you are in serious trouble: call it social cancer if you want.
Actually, when you need to use guns to negotiate property boundaries, you are in the REAL WORLD. Not some fantasy land where everyone plays nice.
> the simple idea of using a weapon of some form to harm a fellow lifeform is nauseating.
Yeah. So? Too bad for you that it actually happens. And won't ever stop happening. Someone somewhere will allways have the guns (or pointy sticks, or nukes, or pulse rifles). It's allways best to make sure that person is you. You won't ever be able to prevent other people from arming themselves. All you can do is make sure that you have the option to be armed too.
>No, it proves you WRONG. And stupid. Please try
;-)
>to think before responding. They did fear
>educated people, but mostly they feared those
>educated people might ARM THEMSELVES.
How do you know?
>> Oh, spell flames against someone writing in a
>>foreign language. That's brave.
>I beleive the statement was more about the irony
>of mispellings in a statement about the
>importance of education.
It was a spell flame, though perhaps the nicest one.
>What is it with you and false statistics? Here
>are sopm other statistics for you: In 1997, 12
>times as many children (using your false
>definition of children - 19 year olds are
>adults) died of drowning than of firearms. So
>what do we do about that? Ban water?
I believe 19 years old are children. And no, we don't ban water, that is a typical straw man argument I have heard before by the pro-gun crowd. We can't avoid all deaths. Water is a natural occurance that we can't do anything about (except educating children about the dangers), guns are man made death machines, that work very well.
>Ban water? Please stop repeating disproved Handgun Control Incorporated lies.
If you can prove to me they are lies, sure.
>>Oh, so you know they were all unarmed, do you?
>>That's a lot of unarmed people.
>OF COURSE THEY WERE UNARMED YOU IDIOT. OTHERWISE
>THEY WOULDN'T HAVE PASSIVELY BEEN MURDERED, NOW
>WOULD THEY?
Lets see, they were unarmed because they were murdered, and they were murdered because they were unarmed. You are using circular reasoning.
>The Nazi's just took advantage of this, and
>probably would have been stopped had the german
>people been in any condition to prevent them
>(i.e. armed).
The nazis were allowed in several gun fights when they were going to power. The four who were killed in the "beer putz" were declared martyrs and later almost saints by the nazi party. This didn't stop the nazis, it just helped them in their propaganda. The Germans people brought the Nazis to power. It didn't matter if they were armed or not. That brings me back to my original argument - education and democratic participation is important, not the number of guns.
>Get some FACTS moron! These people were all
>killed BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT! BY THE UNITED
>STATES GOVERNMENT.
I don't know who the Kent protestors were. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Wounded Knee was a hundred years ago, not relevant to this discussion. As for the Black Panthers - they had guns. That obviously didn't help them. They died anyway. If they hadn't been armed, perhaps it wouldn't have been a shootout, and they could have been fighting still today for their rights.
>The supposed defender of the free world
We know YOU think so. The rest of the world hasn't been fooled by that for a long time, belive me.
>Only two kinds of people support gun control.
>Evil people and stupid people. Which are you?
False dichotomy. If you want to convince me, use reason instead instead of childish flames.
Cheers,
Lars
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
>WRONG. Please stop quoting the Kellerman report.
;-)
;-)
;-)
>The data contained in it was proved false years ago.
That is interesting. Could you show me any references?
>Please read (and try to comprehend) "More Guns,
>Less Crime : Understanding Crime and Gun-Control
>Laws (Studies in Law and Economics)" by John
>Lott before quoting false statistics.
I searched on the net, but I couldn't find it. Lott seems like a kook though. "the worst thing people can expect from dioxin is a bad rash.", "stop worrying so much about the environment", "[A] nation's wealth [is maximized] if a crime is not deterred when the benefit to the criminal of a particular crime is greater than the total social cost of that crime." indeed. He sounds like a social darwinist. One gun related wievpoint I found about him was that if teachers would have been armed, the Jonesboro shooting would not have occured (and presumably neither the Littleton one). It's just nuts. In Littleton, two guards were armed and opened fire, but when the kids opened up with automatic weapons they had to hide and then ran and phoned the cops. And these were people who were trained.
The absurdity of this view is pretty effectively debunked here http://www.salon.com/co mics/boll/1999/05/06/boll/index.html.
I can only agree with this: "Lott has a long and well-documented track record of zealously advocating an extreme anti-consumer, anti-public safety ideology. His view that arming the populace with concealed handguns will reduce crime is just one more extreme view to be added to the list."
>>>Now that I hear about this enforced lack of
>>>privacy, I couldn't be happier.
>>That will be defeated. Believe me.
>God but you are naive AND stupid! Don't think
>for a moment that if it fails now, it won't be
>back again and again untill it passes. And since
>the public is disarmed, they WON'T BE ABLE TO
>STOP IT.
You know there is a conflict between openness and privacy. You wan't openness when it comes to politicians (and we have the most extensive laws on that subject in the world in Sweden) and privacy when it comes to citizens, right? The EU passed directives that said that you couldn't post personal information about living persons on the net without those persons' agreement. Sweden was the only country that made that a law (PUL - the Personal Information Law). Most people consider this a too serious infringement into free speech and there were LOADS of protests. Most people (including me) ignored it completely and continued to post personal information on the net. A political youth organization turned themselves in, to show how absurd the law was. This were examples of peaceful civil disobedience, and guess what? The goverement have realised how absurd the law is, and are going to scrap it.
No guns needed...just rational democratic discourse. And we were able to stop it.
>> The thing is, I didn't have a gun, and neither
>>did the robbers.
>
>So you were targeted by incompetent and ill
>equipped robbers. That proves nothing. Just wait
>untill an armed criminal finds and kills you.
Again, few people are killed by armed criminals in Sweden. That is because we have very strict gun laws.
>> I managed to get out of the situation all
>>three times without losing my money or getting
>>hurt by using my wits. You see, brains is more
>>important than guns.
>
>So you were LUCKY.
I was SMART.
>But please remember, your luck only has to fail
>you once.
Yeah, that's a fact of life isn't it? Sooner or later my luck will run out. An astroid will hit me, or I will trip and fall on a sharp stick, or my heart will give out of old age.
>Also note that these were ill equipped UNARMED
>ASSAILANTS. Therefore, guns were not in the
>situation and don't contribute to these data
>points.
Actually, we don't know that. If I would have pulled a gun on them perhaps I would have found out the hard way. But the odds are good they didn't have a gun, see, in Europe we have these strics gun laws that save a lot of peoples lives each year...
>>>Be seeing you.
>>Neat! You are welcome. Oh yeah...now I remember.
>Are you THAT STUPID?
Are you THAT HUMOURLESS?
>Eventually he probably will be seeing you (or someone very much like him).
Well, MolochHorridus turned out to be a pretty nice guy, even if we disagreed on the subject of gun control. So that is ok.
If you refer to his fictional gun toting criminal or goverment agent - the risk is actually pretty low. My brother is a cop, and he has not been fired at once yet.
>Just not for very long. Enjoy your dirt nap.
Dirt nap? I don't know exactly what that means, but I can guess it wasn't nice. Again, try reason instead of flames if you want to convince me.
Cheers,
Lars
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
The US and the EU are going to merge into the Atlantic Alliance.
1st NATO.
2nd EEC/CEE.
3rd NAFTA
4th EU/UE.
5th Atlantic Alliance.
My VPN isn't going to have back doors for Mr Straw's friends. Good luck to him cracking my 256 bit session keys.
I don't know if it is because I live in calgary alberta canada and spend sixty hours a week up to my neck in in almost every type of data network available, but everytime this topic crops up I am amazed that (almost) everyone forgets about openbsd.
this un*x is _the_ most secure platform that I have seen.
not only has openbsd been through a detailed security audit, but it implements some of the most robust cryptographic routines available.
and because it is 'made in canada' there are no export restrictions.
full strength encryption. public algorithms. even the source code is available for you to examine and compile.
canada is 'the land of free cryptography', and because of this, I don't mind the fact that the cse and nsa has sonet links to every major dacs frame across this land.
at home I have an openbsd box in between my linux box and my cable modem (firewall/nat box & ipsec for work).
if I suddenly feel the need to communicate securely with an individual or group of people somewhere on the net, it's fairly trivial to throw together another openbsd machine at the other end and say 'decrypt this!' to the collective spy net.
L8er Bud!
ps: http://www.openbsd.net/
The US Internet trade ranks as the world's 18th largest economy, and it isn't taxed. Either the seller or buyer must report the transaction, and neither are.
The solution is for the Treasury to record them as they happen, and when audit time rolls around, the agent can throw this list at you.
Taxation of these transactions will happen, and soon, and uber surveilling of the rabble is the way to do it.
>passed by congress but vetoed
So you think Clinton's veto pen protects your privacy? HaHaHaHa. Know Your Customer is his baby, and 90% of the banks do it anyway, notwithstanding its "defeat" in the press.
I don't know about in your country, but in the US, mail order purchases are not taxable by the state governments. Making a purchase over the internet is not any different than if I called up some company's 1-800 number out of computer shopper and purchased my stuff through a digital voice answering service.
Not too current on UK law but I was under the impression the only "rights" they have are documented in the Magna Carta and in their unwritten constitution. (How exactly does that work? Is that like the unwritten code of the street?)
Thankfully the US rebelled against that tyranny hundreds of years ago. Now if only our friends in Canada and Australia and other UK terrorized colonies could throw off the oppressive shackles of the monarchy, the world would be a better place!
Actually, Britain is by no means the first country to come up with this idea; a very similar proposal was considered last year in germany and is again under consideration now.
The scary thing about it is that it's only a question of implementing existing legislature, namely para. 88 of the telecommunications act. So, the basic laws which require this sort of monitoring are already in place.
Basically, any network provider (ISP, company network, whatever) will have to provide dedicated access to the network at its own cost, in a way that not only enables government to capture any and all data but also leaves the network provider none the wiser.
Cost for the required infrastructure is estimated to be between DM 15.000 for small and DM 100.000 ( US $ 7.500 - 50.000) for large providers (Numbers from german iX magazine, 6/1999). In addition to the complete loss of privacy this offers a perfect infrastructure for hackers..
You can find details (in german!) at http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/ inhalt/te/2793/1.html
you have moved your mouse, please reboot to make this change take effect
Obviously you are entirely too stupid to ever be properly educated in this matter, but here goes anyways.
>>but mostly they feared those educated people might ARM THEMSELVES.
>How do you know?
Because I have that education that you seem to value so highly but demonstrate so little of. Unlike some people that refuse to examine dark spots in history, I actually study them. That way, I can find ways of preventing such atrocities in the future.
It's probably useless to attempt to explain this to anyone with less than a third grade grasp of logic, but what else could the educated citizens do to stop the Khmer? Certainly to 'protest and march in the streets'. Passive resistance just got you shot. Appeal to intervention from outside free states? Hardly. The outside world wasn't paying any attention to Cambodia. Organize and arm themselves and others into well equipped resistance movement? YES. That's what the Khmer were afraid of. That's why they killed all the educated people. Not for what they were but for what they could become.
>I believe 19 years old are children.
Then you are extreme in your arrogance and hypocrisy. Anyone who has attained the age of 18 years old can vote. They can get married. They are subject to the adult justice system. They can also be drafted; in other words coerced into placing their lives in danger for the safety of their country and the corporate interests it represents. They have all the responsibilities of adulthood. You would call these people children? You are off by two whole years.
Your attempts to redefine these adults as children, just to properly cook your statistics, is arrogant and insulting to the extreme. Yet I'm sure you will be the first to insist they go out and fight your wars for you should your stock portfolio ever start to slump, am I right?
Do you know how many real children (under the age of 12 years) died in the United States from firearms in 1997? 63. Only 63. Total. HCI has intentionally raised the definition of child to 19 years old so they can include all the gun related suicides and crime related deaths into their false statictics.
>if you can prove to me they are lies, sure.
I don't have to. It has allready been done. Please look at http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/bradylies.html should you actually have the integrity to actually educate youself on the falsehood of your 'statistics'. Apart from that, the HCI lies have been more than proven false in other posts AT THIS VERY SITE. Yet with the typical HCI sheep response, you continue to ignore the FACTS and continue to spout flasehoods.
>And no, we don't ban water, that is a typical straw man argument I have heard before by the pro-gun crowd. We can't avoid all deaths. Water is a natural occurance that we can't do anything about (except educating children about the dangers), guns are man made death machines, that work very well.
Then why not educate children about the dangers of firearms and leave it at that? As you say, we can't avoid all deaths. That's the price of freedom. Of course logic like this has no meaning to someone such as yourself who fear inanimate objects. I'm beginning to think that you don't value or desire the freedom that others fought and died to acquire for you.
> Lets see, they were unarmed because they were murdered, and they were murdered because they were unarmed. You are using circular reasoning.
How insulting to the memory of the victims of genocide can you be? Do you honestly think that armed citizens capable of resistance would passively march into the camps? Maybe it's because you are such a coward that that's just what you would do. But not everyone. Take note that the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto held off the Nazi's for over 100 days with only 12 guns. The Berlin ghetto was disarmed by the Weimar republic and took only two weeks to 'cleanse'. The difference? Only 12 firearms, but those 12 firearms gave the jews who had them 100 more days of freedom and life.
And here is yet another fact. No society that recognises the right of its citizens to freely and openly arm themselves has ever sufferes enslavement or genocide. Never.
So, which do you prefer? A few accidental deaths a year from weaponry that are small compared to all the other causes of death, but with a absolute guarantee of liberty and justice for all. Or do you want to 'save' (with no real guarantee of actua safety) a few lives each year but suffer the constant threat (and eventual success) of opression and enslavement?
>I don't know who the Kent protestors were.
You don't know a LOT of things, do you?
The Kent protestors specifically refers to those unarmed but EDUCATED STUDENTS who non-violently protested at Kent State University in 1970 against US involvement in Vietnam. Guess what? They were shot by the police for protesting.
>Wounded Knee was a hundred years ago, not relevant to this discussion.
Typicall HCI blathering. You don't like an arguement so you call it 'irrelevant'. That's the one thing I've found common to all deluded fools that support gun control. They all refuse to learn from history (or even bother to learn history). What about the american indian movement occupation of Wounded Knee in 1976? Or is that irrelevant too because it was "over 22 years ago"?
>As for the Black Panthers - they had guns
Not while they were shot with machine guns by the police while sleeping in their beds. And the police made sure of the fact by opening fire before they had even opened the front door. And these are the police you expect to protect you?
You who are too cowardly to trust your own neighbors with the tools of liberty, and yet have no problems with arming known thugs just because thay are called the police and wear uniforms? For shame!
>>The supposed defender of the free world
>We know YOU think so. The rest of the world hasn't been fooled by that for a long time, belive me.
No stupid! That was nore irony! That's what the 'supposed' means. The point I was making is that the US government claims to be the protector of the free world and yet still murders its unarmed dissident citizens. But being a hypocrite yourself, I can hardly expect you to recognise hypocrisy.
>If you want to convince me, use reason instead instead of childish flames.
I have used reason. You refuse to learn. Ignoring your direct insults to the victims of genocide and opression, your only arguements have been nothing more than repeated spoutings of the same disproved HCI lies and pathetic emotional (not rational) please to eliminate guns because they scare you. Well, life is scary. You can either accept that and deal with it, or keep your head in the sand. But don't force me in there with you.
Firstly, the new laws proposed are nothing more than an extension to existing laws which aloow phone tapping when a warrent has been issued by a judge.
Secondly while I like my civil rights there is another side to this equation. Ever consider why these laws are being enacted? There are people out there who these laws are actually useful against. I'm from Northern Ireland and as you know there is a lot of trouble here - it's still going on although the govenment would prefer to show things as being rosey.
These laws will be no doubt used against terrorists who are out to murder someone and will quite possibly prevent some of these attacks - just as intelligence has been used in the past.
Even if it means reducing my civil rights as a cost, if this law puts something in the path of terrorists - of any description - then I support it.
...will end up having none.
Now you should _really_ add SSL support to slashdot.
>In the UK, citizens do not have the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore they have no rights, no power, no authority, no voice, and no choice.
*rant*
What absolute bullshit. What gives you "rights, voice and choice"? Carrying weapons or participating in the democratic process? More people vote in the UK than in the US, that is a better sign of a country's health than how easy it is to obtain tools to kill someone. A well armed militia is NOTHING against an army. A well EDUCATED citizinry is the best tool against oppression, and the UK beats you hands down there as well in all international tests.
And who are you to talk about rights? As long as your country continues to execute children in defiance of international human rights, you have NOTHING to say about how other countries run their business.
But if we get back to the issue of right to privacy, it the US which is successfully bullying the goverments of other countries to deny their citizens human rights, as the article shows again.
>And guess what? It WILL happen here.
Banning guns? I certainly hope so. A lot of innocent people lose their lives each year in the US because some gun nuts have a pathological need to play with their phallic symbols.
*rant off*
BTW - here is a pretty amusing link from this weeks issue of the Economist:
The gun commandments . "5. Thou shalt not kill, except when provoked. But if thou dost, remember that thy gun had nothing to do with it."
Cheers,
Lars
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
"Those willing to give up a little liberty in order to gain a little security deserve neither liberty nor security." -- Benjamin Franklin