Hell, it's even used and abused to intentionally deny information to people such as the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc. by those who bow down to that which is the Military-Industrial Complex.
How do you think shit gets done and then the rest of them who are to blame, can cry, "No prior knowledge!" (Plausible Deniability), and say it with a straight face?
All classified material is authorized by the president(who can pass that authority on to others with limitations). By definition, the current POTUS has access to ALL US classified material at all times.
Despite what some would have you believe, there are other (and more important) laws than copyright laws. If the document in question is appropriately labeled confidential, secret, or top secret, it's possible that those who leaked the document inappropriately could face serious consequences, and I'm not even sure that it is so labeled in this case.
You're off on a bit of a tangent, the document was released publicly with "redacted" statements that were not actually redacted. I would argue that it was improperly released intact, and that's not the fault of wiki-leaks.
Your ignoring that loss of privacy for "the consumer" is an externalized cost to the "mall market" and therefore surveillance will need to be implemented by all malls in order to compete. Mall A sets up cameras and Mall B doesn't. Mall A directly improves its profit margin because it reduces shoplifting and more/better stores want to open in Mall A. Mall B loses business because it doesn't have the better stores/variety. Your strategy would only work if privacy were forced to be an internalized cost through gov't regulation, boycott, or corporate policy. This is also assuming you live in an area where the next mall isn't a substantially prohibitive distance away.
Never mind the fact that acquiring the millions of dollars in venture capital required to buy land and build a mall in an already served area where your gimmick is you're intentionally handicapping yourself in the eyes of the market is a complete and utter pipe dream.
Well not necessarily, Corporatism is more like Communism than anything. However I agree given the way things are going now a Corporate state made up of Walmart, Monsanto, Sony, TSA would be just as fascist and surveillance oriented as the worst police states you can think of.
I wonder how many "libertarians don't support corporations" replies will I get? They all miss the point, of course: the shield of limited liability is not needed if you're too big for anyone to hold you liable. That's why you can't sue the government: who would enforce the judgement?
You should expect more "If you don't like it you can go to another mall".
Which classically ignores that loss of privacy for "the consumer" is an externalized cost to the "mall market" and therefore will be implemented by all malls in order to compete. Mall A sets up cameras and Mall B doesn't. Mall A directly improves its profit margin because it reduces shoplifting and more/better stores want to open in Mall A. Mall B loses business because it doesn't have the better stores/variety.
Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for
on
Monkeys With Syntax
·
· Score: 1
With the internet and global commerce that would be akin to having no copyright law. That may be what you want, but you should just have that instead of a hodgepodge of unenforceable systems.
I agree with what you said. There are too many politicians in the whitehouse and congress and not enough civil-servants. Indeed, there are too many politicians in the state legislature, and with Palin as an example, there are often too many politicians running our towns too.
The eternal question is, what is the solution?
What's a real, and by real I mean enforceable and fair, way to keep "politicians" out of government? You can start a bloody revolution(most extreme example, I know there are degrees of "bloody" here) to overthrow the gov't, but how can you be sure the new guys that get there aren't politicians in disguise. And if they aren't how do you keep the "right" people in power?
Democracy 2.0, politics without politicians, is a great tag line, but what does it actually consist of?
On one hand, I see why a treaty like ACTA might be desirable to establish a common copyright law across all nations. Especially given how much copyright infringement is going on between nations and how hard it is to enforce laws nationally when the economy and the access is global. I can also understand that they may not want to disclose the nitty-gritty of the treaty until they have a lot of the kinks worked out so that parts that will get changed aren't attacked and destroy hope for the treaty ever being passed in any form.
However, everything I've heard about it, admittedly "leaked", is terrible. They're using the secrecy of the process to hide the severeness of the treaty rather than "working out the kinks". Also, the treaty seems very much focused on protecting America's corporate copyrighted interests rather than respecting the authors and the people who use the author's works. This is a huge opportunity to fix our system, but instead it's being used to make everyone else's more broken.
But The State having the ability to break up monopoly is a hindrance of economic freedom and therefore actual freedom according to FlyingAfrican.
Equating economic freedom to personal freedom is just wrong. Personal freedoms would be ignored by a true free market if they stood in the way of profit(which they often do).
-So having a choice between my not-so-favorite-monopoly and nothing is freedom?
-Having the ability to starve to death is freedom?
-Having the local warlord^H^H^H^H^H^H^H entrepreneur with the most money call all the shots is freedom?
What the hell does your health insurance rant have to do with the subject at hand?
The subject at hand outrages Illiberal slashdotters because the government's law enforcers find it "too easy" to get GPS-data about their suspects (the subset of suspects, who are also Sprint customers) from Sprint. The "health insurance rant" is related to that, because people with self-consistent beliefs ought to be even more outraged, by the government's attempts to learn about each citizen's (suspected of anything or not) health care, linked precisely to their financial information.
It's funny that you say "self-consistent [beliefs]" when you really mean "consistent with my beliefs".
I think there are pretty clear differences between having a database of database of medical records subject to the same HIPAA regulations we have now and a warrentless GPS tracking program. Those differences mainly being usefulness to me, accountability for abuse, and intention of use to spell it out.
I did read your link btw, and it hinges on:
HIPAA's so-called privacy law permits individuals' personal health information to be exchanged – for many broad purposes – without patients' consent (See 45 CFR Subtitle A, Subpart E – Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information; section 164.502(a)(1)(ii) "Permitted uses and disclosures").
So I went to see who could look at your identifiable health information http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/octqtr/45cfr164.502.htm. In short it's no one you wouldn't expect: you, registered doctors/nurses treating you, your insurance provider for billing purposes, and specific exceptions like parent/legal guardians for minors.
If you're worried about you non-identifiable information then a lot of researchers can get a hold of that data. However I'd argue that data is doing more good than harm by being released.
This just proves once again privatization is better than gov't. See corporations are even better at censorship than governments are. You don't need messy strong men to silence viewpoints, you just need to have absolute power over the dominant medium of the day.
Slashdot Mirror
How is that a troll? He's right and non-trivially so.
It doesn't diminish the GP's point either.
Hell, it's even used and abused to intentionally deny information to people such as the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc. by those who bow down to that which is the Military-Industrial Complex.
How do you think shit gets done and then the rest of them who are to blame, can cry, "No prior knowledge!" (Plausible Deniability), and say it with a straight face?
All classified material is authorized by the president(who can pass that authority on to others with limitations). By definition, the current POTUS has access to ALL US classified material at all times.
Despite what some would have you believe, there are other (and more important) laws than copyright laws. If the document in question is appropriately labeled confidential, secret, or top secret, it's possible that those who leaked the document inappropriately could face serious consequences, and I'm not even sure that it is so labeled in this case.
You're off on a bit of a tangent, the document was released publicly with "redacted" statements that were not actually redacted. I would argue that it was improperly released intact, and that's not the fault of wiki-leaks.
Related Stories
Google CEO Says Privacy Worries Are For Wrongdoers 666 comments
Oddly appropriate
Your ignoring that loss of privacy for "the consumer" is an externalized cost to the "mall market" and therefore surveillance will need to be implemented by all malls in order to compete. Mall A sets up cameras and Mall B doesn't. Mall A directly improves its profit margin because it reduces shoplifting and more/better stores want to open in Mall A. Mall B loses business because it doesn't have the better stores/variety. Your strategy would only work if privacy were forced to be an internalized cost through gov't regulation, boycott, or corporate policy. This is also assuming you live in an area where the next mall isn't a substantially prohibitive distance away.
Never mind the fact that acquiring the millions of dollars in venture capital required to buy land and build a mall in an already served area where your gimmick is you're intentionally handicapping yourself in the eyes of the market is a complete and utter pipe dream.
Well not necessarily, Corporatism is more like Communism than anything. However I agree given the way things are going now a Corporate state made up of Walmart, Monsanto, Sony, TSA would be just as fascist and surveillance oriented as the worst police states you can think of.
I wonder how many "libertarians don't support corporations" replies will I get? They all miss the point, of course: the shield of limited liability is not needed if you're too big for anyone to hold you liable. That's why you can't sue the government: who would enforce the judgement?
You should expect more "If you don't like it you can go to another mall".
Which classically ignores that loss of privacy for "the consumer" is an externalized cost to the "mall market" and therefore will be implemented by all malls in order to compete. Mall A sets up cameras and Mall B doesn't. Mall A directly improves its profit margin because it reduces shoplifting and more/better stores want to open in Mall A. Mall B loses business because it doesn't have the better stores/variety.
Does this mean they're ripe for Uplift?
Are we suddenly not allowed to make fun of politicians who are not in office?
Agreed, the joke is tired and overdone, but it's not as if leaving office stopped jokes from following past political figures.
It can also be used to enforce the status quo. The goal of terrorism is to create terror. How it is used afterward is up to the terrorist or state.
Interesting, so the real solution would be to make those treaties enforceable rather than signing a new one? Is that possible?
With the internet and global commerce that would be akin to having no copyright law. That may be what you want, but you should just have that instead of a hodgepodge of unenforceable systems.
I agree with what you said. There are too many politicians in the whitehouse and congress and not enough civil-servants. Indeed, there are too many politicians in the state legislature, and with Palin as an example, there are often too many politicians running our towns too.
The eternal question is, what is the solution?
What's a real, and by real I mean enforceable and fair, way to keep "politicians" out of government? You can start a bloody revolution(most extreme example, I know there are degrees of "bloody" here) to overthrow the gov't, but how can you be sure the new guys that get there aren't politicians in disguise. And if they aren't how do you keep the "right" people in power?
Democracy 2.0, politics without politicians, is a great tag line, but what does it actually consist of?
On one hand, I see why a treaty like ACTA might be desirable to establish a common copyright law across all nations. Especially given how much copyright infringement is going on between nations and how hard it is to enforce laws nationally when the economy and the access is global. I can also understand that they may not want to disclose the nitty-gritty of the treaty until they have a lot of the kinks worked out so that parts that will get changed aren't attacked and destroy hope for the treaty ever being passed in any form.
However, everything I've heard about it, admittedly "leaked", is terrible. They're using the secrecy of the process to hide the severeness of the treaty rather than "working out the kinks". Also, the treaty seems very much focused on protecting America's corporate copyrighted interests rather than respecting the authors and the people who use the author's works. This is a huge opportunity to fix our system, but instead it's being used to make everyone else's more broken.
True story, poor example.
Haha, wish I had mod points. Just thinking about a printer jam on one of these things turns my stomach a little.
The last mile.
Clever, but you have to RTFA so no one will get it.
But The State having the ability to break up monopoly is a hindrance of economic freedom and therefore actual freedom according to FlyingAfrican.
Equating economic freedom to personal freedom is just wrong. Personal freedoms would be ignored by a true free market if they stood in the way of profit(which they often do).
To quote the overused and ancient internet meme:
O RLY?
-So having a choice between my not-so-favorite-monopoly and nothing is freedom?
-Having the ability to starve to death is freedom?
-Having the local warlord^H^H^H^H^H^H^H entrepreneur with the most money call all the shots is freedom?
The subject at hand outrages Illiberal slashdotters because the government's law enforcers find it "too easy" to get GPS-data about their suspects (the subset of suspects, who are also Sprint customers) from Sprint. The "health insurance rant" is related to that, because people with self-consistent beliefs ought to be even more outraged, by the government's attempts to learn about each citizen's (suspected of anything or not) health care, linked precisely to their financial information.
It's funny that you say "self-consistent [beliefs]" when you really mean "consistent with my beliefs".
I think there are pretty clear differences between having a database of database of medical records subject to the same HIPAA regulations we have now and a warrentless GPS tracking program. Those differences mainly being usefulness to me, accountability for abuse, and intention of use to spell it out.
I did read your link btw, and it hinges on:
HIPAA's so-called privacy law permits individuals' personal health information to be exchanged – for many broad purposes – without patients' consent (See 45 CFR Subtitle A, Subpart E – Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information; section 164.502(a)(1)(ii) "Permitted uses and disclosures").
So I went to see who could look at your identifiable health information http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/octqtr/45cfr164.502.htm. In short it's no one you wouldn't expect: you, registered doctors/nurses treating you, your insurance provider for billing purposes, and specific exceptions like parent/legal guardians for minors.
If you're worried about you non-identifiable information then a lot of researchers can get a hold of that data. However I'd argue that data is doing more good than harm by being released.
me, (Galileo) Galileo (Galileo) Galileo, Galileo Figaro
This just proves once again privatization is better than gov't. See corporations are even better at censorship than governments are. You don't need messy strong men to silence viewpoints, you just need to have absolute power over the dominant medium of the day.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
That's just as naive as those who think we can ban guns. Desperate people do desperate things; guns only raise the body count.