But you have missed the whole point here. Whether it "should" be done on one level or another is a completely separate matter. The fact is that our Constitution does not authorize our Federal government to get involved, whether they "should" be or not.
"So you're in favour of States being able to ban marriage between people of different races?"
That's rather twisted logic. You think the fact that I am against a Federal law somehow means I am for a State law? Where did that idea come from?
I was simply pointing out a fact: the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to be involved in marriage. I did not say or even imply that I therefore thought States could do whatever they want.
"Moving the goal posts because you couldn't hit the one you originally set yourself?"
I hardly think admitting a simple mistake is "moving the goalposts". They remain the same: the idea of voluntarily allowing the Federal government to control marriage. I doubt very much that SCOTUS will find any Constitutional authority for the Defense of Marriage Act. Which means they don't have any for the other thing, either. By the way: states have just been ignoring DoMa anyway, as though it didn't exist. Probably because they know damned well that it won't pass Constitutional muster.
"It's not about impressing. I have disdain for libertarians and I will display it."
That's fine. I was simply trying to point out to you, in case nobody else had, that your insulting manner says far more about you than it does about your target(s).
"You're being ignorant again. A democrat is someone who believes in democracy. A Democrat is someone who belongs to the Democratic party. I was referring to libertarians (those who believe in libertarianism), not Libertarians (those who belong to the Libertarian Party)."
And you're sticking your foot in your mouth again. If you had claimed I was a Libertarian (a supporter of, if not necessarily a member of, the Libertarian Party of the United States), you would have been correct. And I tried to tell you that, but you didn't listen. Instead, you have now insisted twice that I am a "libertarian", and that's just wrong.
Violation of TOS is breach of contract at most. A civil matter, not even a crime, and nowhere near a felony. The notion that violating a TOS is also a violation of CFAA would mean that anybody could make their own laws, simply by writing them into the TOS on their website. The very idea is ridiculous.
He had authorization to download files from the source in question, though the TOS said he was not authorized to do it automatically. He wasn't "stealing" anything, or even violating copyright.
He had authorization to be on campus. A sign said he did not have authorization to be in that particular room. BUT... it is important to note that he simply walked through the door. He did not "break and enter" or pick any locks or anything of that nature.
All Aaron Swartz violated were other peoples' rules. He didn't violate any laws. Despite government's claim that violation of TOS amounts to violation of CFAA, that is a ridiculous -- I mean really, really ludicrous -- "interpretation" of the law. It is clear as an azure sky of deepest summer that Congress did not intend that when it passed the law. Sooner or later, somebody will demonstrate that in court and the prosecution's whole theory will be out the window, as it should be. (Arguably, Swartz was in an ideal position to do exactly that, but he opted for a different "solution".)
So, he violated a TOS. As for entering that room... technically, I don't think he's even guilty of trespass. The sign apparently did say "Do Not Enter" or maybe "Authorized Personnel Only" but those are ambiguous. They are not the same as a "No Trespassing, This Means You" sign.
So the only conceivable thing that Swartz was guilty of (unless you are a Federal prosecutor, who is apparently capable of conceiving some pretty wild and stupid things) was trespassing, and even that is shaky.
"Show me the part of the constitution where it says 'And the state shall not do anything that might make administration of the judicial process cheaper, faster, and more efficient.'"
In this case, "Constitutional scholar" bedamned. You err in citing the Constitution -- or lack of mention in the Constitution, that is -- for justification.
Our legal process is mostly based on Common Law, which predates the Constitution by a rather large margin. Most of it has very little to do with the Constitution, per se.
Regardless, I have to side with GP. Plea bargaining might have started out as an attempt to find ways to keep criminals off the street when cases are difficult to prove. BUT, it has become not just a way to make trials more efficient. It has become a major instrument of coercion on the part of government. The deal offered Aaron Swartz was coercion, plain and simple. It was not an attempt to enforce justice. Hell, it was not even close to anything like justice. They tried to get him to plead guilty to a felony, for the act of downloading files which he had legal right and authorization to download. His "crime" was not even really a crime; he violated an online service's TOS. If you don't think the charges represent a real, genuine threat to freedom then you aren't thinking very clearly.
The proper role of government is neither to make its own job simple at the expense of citizens, or to be coercive in order to "make an example". Coercion has no rightful place in government, and government has no right to be coercive. No, the government did not kill Aaron Swartz. Yes, it was blackmail. Worse than blackmail, really. He was given the option to plead guilty to a felony, or to face charges for far worse felonies, when he hadn't even really broken the spirit of any laws.
"On the one hand people are saying that copyright infringement is a private affair and the government should butt out - and certainly not devote a bunch of police work to it."
No. Quite wrong. It is a civil affair, not a "private" affair. Very different things.
"With all due respect, I think there are a number of cases that discount your statement."
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I was referring to what their JOBS are (i.e., what they are supposed to do), not what they actually do. As I am sure you are aware, and I think that case is a pretty good example, sometimes people don't do their jobs.
My own area has been victim in the past of both police and prosecutors who didn't so their jobs. So I know very well that what they are supposed to do, and what they actually do, are not always the same things.
"You seem to be under the belief that the federal government currently doesn't marriage or have any concept of it. You'd claimed is in multiple posts. And you are clearly wrong, most obviously because there's the Defense of Marriage Act, that's a federal law that DOES define marriage as between a man and a woman."
Pardon me. I admit that I mis-wrote. Such a law does exist.
BUT... I challenge you to find any Constitutional authority for it.
Despite your apparent belief that the Federal government can do anything it wants, recent State nullifications of unconstitutional Federal laws should give you cause to pause and reconsider. Not to mention a good few thousand historical documents. Try, for just one example of a great many, New York's notice of ratification of the Constitution. If you don't know how that is significant to this subject, then calling ME "ignorant" is pretty damned hypocritical.
And nobody is impressed by your disdain for Libertarians. And that's capital "L", by the way, not lower-case. There is a difference. Or were you too "ignorant" to know that?
"that's only in an ideal world. in the real world the police arrest people all too often even when there is no crime..."
No, it isn't.
My examples were real-world. What I listed ARE their actual jobs... not just ideal jobs. If they aren't actually doing those things, then they aren't doing their jobs. It's that simple.
"You make it sound very easy not to say anything to the police or the prosecutor."
If so, that was not my intent. Rather, I would like to warn everybody about it precisely because it isn't easy.
And just about the ONLY time you can get in REAL legal trouble for keeping your mouth shut is in front of a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury "system" we currently have does not represent justice and should have been abolished long ago. This has been a popular issue since the Perry Mason days.
"If you're not on facebook but your sister is and your sister inputs data that links back to you. It's trivial to gather more when other indirectly leave breadcrumbs."
The example you give is such a tiny fraction of the big issue that it can safely be ignored. If you don't like it, just don't use Facebook. End of problem.
The big privacy invader that is done often without people knowing is tracking.
And an anti-tracking law would be very easy to enforce. Tracking is ridiculously easy to detect. If there were an anti-tracking law, then people would know and trackers would get caught.
Besides... it is currently against the law in the U.S. to track anybody under the age of 13. But nobody has been checking ages, and nobody is enforcing it. This should be troubling to everyone.
If it is illegal to track anyone 12 or younger, and there is no way for trackers to determine age, then they ARE breaking the law, right and left, and must be stopped. It is far past time people stood up and did something about it.
"Just because someone doesn't agree that marriage should be redefined as a union between two people of the same sex does not mean they hate people that are homosexual. However at this time, that is the label now automatically applied to anyone who disagrees with that viewpoint."
Precisely. My own point has been that it is a self-defeating attitude. "If you aren't with us you are against us" might be fine for certain war situations, I suppose, but in this situation it simply doesn't apply, and the people who say it does are mean-spirited and selfish... and possibly unintentionally self-destructive.
For example: I am against a Federal "gay marriage" law for the simple reason that the Federal government has no business being involved in marriage at all. They have no Constitutional authority to define marriage, and in the entire history of our country (and long before, for that matter) it has been a State issue.
Allowing the Federal government to get its hands into who can and cannot marry is bound to eventually cause a huge mess. And that is an understatement. It will eventually have a detrimental effect not just on LGBT couples, but everybody else as well.
So yes, I am opposed to such a law. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether I hate or love LGBTs, or anybody else.
"Is there nothing so stupid a libertarian won't say it?"
You mean like "read a little actual history, which clearly illustrates my point"???
I'm not going to argue with you beyond that, because if you had a real argument, and knew how to argue, you would have done so rather than trying to be insulting. Ad hominem isn't worth my time.
"So you are afraid that if we are given something, they can take it back. Which they can do anyway; it would be just as easy to remove something without ever actually giving it."
Generally and roughly speaking, historically (over the last 5-6 decades, anyway), the Left has been pro-civil-rights, while the Right has been con-civil-rights. So yes, it is a Left-Right issue. And as a consequence, you were just feeding fuel to GP's fire by swearing at him and telling him to fuck off.
"It's not a question of the use of a particular word. It's a question of equality under the law."
"The law"??? Which law? We have 50 states, with 50 different sets of marriage laws.
You want to get the Federal government involved? BIG mistake. Historically they have had no power over marriage, and "giving" them that power also gives them power to say who CANNOT be married. Believe it.
First, the Federal government has no Constitutional authority over marriage. It *does* have the power to enforce "equal protection under the law", but that is an existing mandate... no new law would change that. If anything, a Federal "gay marriage" law would represent UNequal protection, because there is no Federal "straight marriage" law.
The fight belongs at the State level. That's where the marriage laws are, and where they should stay. Make no mistake: if you were to "give" the Federal government the (unconstitutional) power to say who CAN be married, you had better believe that sooner or later they would use that same power to say who CANNOT.
Slashdot Mirror
"Well she's in favor of the states not authorizing marriage between people of the same gender so take a guess..."
Nonsense. In fact I stated the opposite, more than once.
Maybe you should go back and read again.
But you have missed the whole point here. Whether it "should" be done on one level or another is a completely separate matter. The fact is that our Constitution does not authorize our Federal government to get involved, whether they "should" be or not.
"So you're in favour of States being able to ban marriage between people of different races?"
That's rather twisted logic. You think the fact that I am against a Federal law somehow means I am for a State law? Where did that idea come from?
I was simply pointing out a fact: the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to be involved in marriage. I did not say or even imply that I therefore thought States could do whatever they want.
"Moving the goal posts because you couldn't hit the one you originally set yourself?"
I hardly think admitting a simple mistake is "moving the goalposts". They remain the same: the idea of voluntarily allowing the Federal government to control marriage. I doubt very much that SCOTUS will find any Constitutional authority for the Defense of Marriage Act. Which means they don't have any for the other thing, either. By the way: states have just been ignoring DoMa anyway, as though it didn't exist. Probably because they know damned well that it won't pass Constitutional muster.
"It's not about impressing. I have disdain for libertarians and I will display it."
That's fine. I was simply trying to point out to you, in case nobody else had, that your insulting manner says far more about you than it does about your target(s).
"You're being ignorant again. A democrat is someone who believes in democracy. A Democrat is someone who belongs to the Democratic party. I was referring to libertarians (those who believe in libertarianism), not Libertarians (those who belong to the Libertarian Party)."
And you're sticking your foot in your mouth again. If you had claimed I was a Libertarian (a supporter of, if not necessarily a member of, the Libertarian Party of the United States), you would have been correct. And I tried to tell you that, but you didn't listen. Instead, you have now insisted twice that I am a "libertarian", and that's just wrong.
Violation of TOS is breach of contract at most. A civil matter, not even a crime, and nowhere near a felony. The notion that violating a TOS is also a violation of CFAA would mean that anybody could make their own laws, simply by writing them into the TOS on their website. The very idea is ridiculous.
"Uh. What he did was really illegal."
Uh. No, it wasn't.
He had authorization to download files from the source in question, though the TOS said he was not authorized to do it automatically. He wasn't "stealing" anything, or even violating copyright.
He had authorization to be on campus. A sign said he did not have authorization to be in that particular room. BUT... it is important to note that he simply walked through the door. He did not "break and enter" or pick any locks or anything of that nature.
All Aaron Swartz violated were other peoples' rules. He didn't violate any laws. Despite government's claim that violation of TOS amounts to violation of CFAA, that is a ridiculous -- I mean really, really ludicrous -- "interpretation" of the law. It is clear as an azure sky of deepest summer that Congress did not intend that when it passed the law. Sooner or later, somebody will demonstrate that in court and the prosecution's whole theory will be out the window, as it should be. (Arguably, Swartz was in an ideal position to do exactly that, but he opted for a different "solution".)
So, he violated a TOS. As for entering that room... technically, I don't think he's even guilty of trespass. The sign apparently did say "Do Not Enter" or maybe "Authorized Personnel Only" but those are ambiguous. They are not the same as a "No Trespassing, This Means You" sign.
So the only conceivable thing that Swartz was guilty of (unless you are a Federal prosecutor, who is apparently capable of conceiving some pretty wild and stupid things) was trespassing, and even that is shaky.
"Show me the part of the constitution where it says 'And the state shall not do anything that might make administration of the judicial process cheaper, faster, and more efficient.'"
In this case, "Constitutional scholar" bedamned. You err in citing the Constitution -- or lack of mention in the Constitution, that is -- for justification.
Our legal process is mostly based on Common Law, which predates the Constitution by a rather large margin. Most of it has very little to do with the Constitution, per se.
Regardless, I have to side with GP. Plea bargaining might have started out as an attempt to find ways to keep criminals off the street when cases are difficult to prove. BUT, it has become not just a way to make trials more efficient. It has become a major instrument of coercion on the part of government. The deal offered Aaron Swartz was coercion, plain and simple. It was not an attempt to enforce justice. Hell, it was not even close to anything like justice. They tried to get him to plead guilty to a felony, for the act of downloading files which he had legal right and authorization to download. His "crime" was not even really a crime; he violated an online service's TOS. If you don't think the charges represent a real, genuine threat to freedom then you aren't thinking very clearly.
The proper role of government is neither to make its own job simple at the expense of citizens, or to be coercive in order to "make an example". Coercion has no rightful place in government, and government has no right to be coercive. No, the government did not kill Aaron Swartz. Yes, it was blackmail. Worse than blackmail, really. He was given the option to plead guilty to a felony, or to face charges for far worse felonies, when he hadn't even really broken the spirit of any laws.
"Sadly, you'll have to wait until there's a Republican in the White House before Reid or Pelosi speak against the drone strikes."
Yep. Right now, she says "We have to launch it in order to see who is targeted."
Skype does for free what Jitsi does for free. So what's the big deal?
If you want SIP service to call PSTN (landline) numbers, OnSIP (for example) is a hell of a lot MORE expensive than Skype.
"Currently paying for Skype premium to do multiuser video chat."
You wouldn't need Jitsi or Skype to do that if you were on a Mac.
"These are civil cases; the plaintiffs have a lower standard/burden of proof."
But they STILL have a burden of proof... and "the RIAA says so" is very far from even good evidence, much less proof.
"On the one hand people are saying that copyright infringement is a private affair and the government should butt out - and certainly not devote a bunch of police work to it."
No. Quite wrong. It is a civil affair, not a "private" affair. Very different things.
"With all due respect, I think there are a number of cases that discount your statement."
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I was referring to what their JOBS are (i.e., what they are supposed to do), not what they actually do. As I am sure you are aware, and I think that case is a pretty good example, sometimes people don't do their jobs.
My own area has been victim in the past of both police and prosecutors who didn't so their jobs. So I know very well that what they are supposed to do, and what they actually do, are not always the same things.
"You seem to be under the belief that the federal government currently doesn't marriage or have any concept of it. You'd claimed is in multiple posts. And you are clearly wrong, most obviously because there's the Defense of Marriage Act, that's a federal law that DOES define marriage as between a man and a woman."
Pardon me. I admit that I mis-wrote. Such a law does exist.
BUT... I challenge you to find any Constitutional authority for it.
Despite your apparent belief that the Federal government can do anything it wants, recent State nullifications of unconstitutional Federal laws should give you cause to pause and reconsider. Not to mention a good few thousand historical documents. Try, for just one example of a great many, New York's notice of ratification of the Constitution. If you don't know how that is significant to this subject, then calling ME "ignorant" is pretty damned hypocritical.
And nobody is impressed by your disdain for Libertarians. And that's capital "L", by the way, not lower-case. There is a difference. Or were you too "ignorant" to know that?
Yes, email works, too. Or should, anyway. I didn't mention email because people might get the wrong impression.
But there are occasions in which real-time collaboration is necessary, and at those times email can be awkward. IM is usually a bit more immediate.
"that's only in an ideal world. in the real world the police arrest people all too often even when there is no crime..."
No, it isn't.
My examples were real-world. What I listed ARE their actual jobs... not just ideal jobs. If they aren't actually doing those things, then they aren't doing their jobs. It's that simple.
"You make it sound very easy not to say anything to the police or the prosecutor."
If so, that was not my intent. Rather, I would like to warn everybody about it precisely because it isn't easy.
And just about the ONLY time you can get in REAL legal trouble for keeping your mouth shut is in front of a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury "system" we currently have does not represent justice and should have been abolished long ago. This has been a popular issue since the Perry Mason days.
"If you're not on facebook but your sister is and your sister inputs data that links back to you. It's trivial to gather more when other indirectly leave breadcrumbs."
The example you give is such a tiny fraction of the big issue that it can safely be ignored. If you don't like it, just don't use Facebook. End of problem.
The big privacy invader that is done often without people knowing is tracking.
And an anti-tracking law would be very easy to enforce. Tracking is ridiculously easy to detect. If there were an anti-tracking law, then people would know and trackers would get caught.
Besides... it is currently against the law in the U.S. to track anybody under the age of 13. But nobody has been checking ages, and nobody is enforcing it. This should be troubling to everyone.
If it is illegal to track anyone 12 or younger, and there is no way for trackers to determine age, then they ARE breaking the law, right and left, and must be stopped. It is far past time people stood up and did something about it.
"Just because someone doesn't agree that marriage should be redefined as a union between two people of the same sex does not mean they hate people that are homosexual. However at this time, that is the label now automatically applied to anyone who disagrees with that viewpoint."
Precisely. My own point has been that it is a self-defeating attitude. "If you aren't with us you are against us" might be fine for certain war situations, I suppose, but in this situation it simply doesn't apply, and the people who say it does are mean-spirited and selfish... and possibly unintentionally self-destructive.
For example: I am against a Federal "gay marriage" law for the simple reason that the Federal government has no business being involved in marriage at all. They have no Constitutional authority to define marriage, and in the entire history of our country (and long before, for that matter) it has been a State issue.
Allowing the Federal government to get its hands into who can and cannot marry is bound to eventually cause a huge mess. And that is an understatement. It will eventually have a detrimental effect not just on LGBT couples, but everybody else as well.
So yes, I am opposed to such a law. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether I hate or love LGBTs, or anybody else.
"I once had an email exchange with S. M. Stirling about piracy..."
Thank you for sharing that with us. I shall henceforth make it a point to not read Stirling.
All political and other views aside, any "artist" who displays that much disdain for his / her audience does not deserve to have one.
"Is there nothing so stupid a libertarian won't say it?"
You mean like "read a little actual history, which clearly illustrates my point"???
I'm not going to argue with you beyond that, because if you had a real argument, and knew how to argue, you would have done so rather than trying to be insulting. Ad hominem isn't worth my time.
"So you are afraid that if we are given something, they can take it back. Which they can do anyway; it would be just as easy to remove something without ever actually giving it."
W-H-O-O-O-O-S-H !!!
Just to clarify what I was saying:
Generally and roughly speaking, historically (over the last 5-6 decades, anyway), the Left has been pro-civil-rights, while the Right has been con-civil-rights. So yes, it is a Left-Right issue. And as a consequence, you were just feeding fuel to GP's fire by swearing at him and telling him to fuck off.
"Fuck off. This is not a left or right issue, it's a civil rights issue."
Hahaha. Open mouth, insert foot. You are just proving GP's point.
"It's not a question of the use of a particular word. It's a question of equality under the law."
"The law"??? Which law? We have 50 states, with 50 different sets of marriage laws.
You want to get the Federal government involved? BIG mistake. Historically they have had no power over marriage, and "giving" them that power also gives them power to say who CANNOT be married. Believe it.
First, the Federal government has no Constitutional authority over marriage. It *does* have the power to enforce "equal protection under the law", but that is an existing mandate... no new law would change that. If anything, a Federal "gay marriage" law would represent UNequal protection, because there is no Federal "straight marriage" law.
The fight belongs at the State level. That's where the marriage laws are, and where they should stay. Make no mistake: if you were to "give" the Federal government the (unconstitutional) power to say who CAN be married, you had better believe that sooner or later they would use that same power to say who CANNOT.