Is this the Libertarian fantasy? The purpose of any government agency is to do the job given to that agency and you'd be surprised what a well funded terrorist cleanroom can produce. As for the knife thing, how exactly do you know? What about a plastic container carrying a biological weapon such as smallpox or a modified flu?
I fully agree that the threat is minor...part of that is due to the work of various government agencies, lucky, and our international relations. I disagree with your targets stuff, even "continuing" business as usual isn't so simple unless you are of the opinion that people should remain heartless. In that case, anything is possible...even a Libertarian future!
I suspect it has a lot to do with persuading the government(s) that are protecting him to stop doing so. He SHOULD face his day in court over the rape allegations. His Wikileaks stuff is another issue and I realize the connections (mainly he'll get hit with the Wikileaks stuff whenever he gets his trial for the sexual assault), but I do not believe one person's political actions should deprive others the right for justice.
If it was simple it'd be done. Bomb/weapon detection isn't so simple. What if I had a vacuumed sealed container (plastic of course) stuffed into my luggage? What if I brought on a ceramic knife/sword? I understand the complexities of trying to stop someone determined to hurt as many people as possible. The question isn't "what's the bare bones solution" but rather "what is an adequate solution".
9/11 ticked off a LOT of people and they questioned why the government didn't stop this at the airport or before hence all of this overreaching. The key is to find a balance, develop better technologies, and work WITH the populace. Not provide the bare minimal amount of protection that even I can circumvent with 3 different ideas off the top of my head in 30 seconds.
And? It highlights the real issue with the proposed "value" of this currency. It's not stable, it's not backed by any meaningful entity, and its value is an illusion created by Libertarians and gov't conspiracy nuts who love to circle-jerk each other that somehow currency can just appear out of thin air...like magic. You can argue a fiat currency system, but it means a lot more when a massive nation (or group of nations) back that currency and will use military force to ensure it stays around.
How does one know if it's true? They don't report to any regulating body. There is no one that can fact check their claims unless the companies willingly releases the data.
The marketplace shouldn't have much faith in a currency with no real backing, no accountability, no stability, and a lack of history to prove trust. The government says "no" because there's no proof that bitcoin is some sort of viable currency, despite all of the anti-government circle jerking.
This argument is flawed in nature. The US has a multi-tiered "classification" system. "Classified" documents can be "classified" in many levels and one of those levels is "Confidential". It's defined, broadly speaking, as documents that could damage the US national security interests if released without proper authorization. There is also aggregation wherein a single document might be seen as "Confidential" by itself, but in a series of documents it could be considered Top Secret based on the information the entire group has.
Such that being the case people like Bradley Manning could have released enough information that the information might be considered Top Secret. So it's entirely possible that the accused released classified material stemming from (in part) releasing enough unclassified/classified material that the entire leaked group is upgraded, by aggregation (and allowed by the various acts/executive orders that define these laws) to have leaked highly classified material.
> I would point out that executive orders did not exist when the Constitution was written
I agree with this statement, but would also argue that Executive Orders have been used (in one form or another, numbered or unnumbered) with President Washington. I would argue the Constitutionality of these orders on the basis of their use by Founding Father Presidents and their allowance of the usage by Congresses made up of Founding Fathers. Put another way, legal precedence has been set since the first President and Congress. I'm sure there are arguments contrary to my beliefs, but the question is truly "Will ANY President give up the power that office has enjoyed since the Dawn of the Presidency?" and each and every time I come back to a solid, two letter answer: NO.
Generally speaking the idea of anti-Net Neutrality is an anti-business, conservative idea. It "stifles" the "free market" by forcing regulations on businesses. The conservative's "free market" approach would be to let ISPs decide if they want to charge on a per-site basis and let consumers go to other ISPs who will simply do the same thing.
No matter where you move it, if you're sharing it on the internet there's a good chance it will touch some fiber or cable that is US jurisdiction. If that happens it can be seen, stored, and spied on at the NSA's leisure. Nothing is fixed, it's all PR smoke and mirrors.
> So the next time I meet in American in Britain, it's OK if I punch him on the nose?
It's not OK, because I live in a civilised country. Apparently Americans don't, but that isn't news.
The fact that your first example was about violence stands contrary to your overall point of being in a "civilised" country. As far as rights go, sure...punch the American in the nose. If your country lets you get away with it I'm sure it won't be a problem. Now try to blow up 3000 Americans and I bet the picture changes drastically...we're talking economies of scale.
So you just, quite literally, generalized a population of ~319 million people based off what? Assuming you're from Britain we're 5 times your population and you feel comfortable with your assessment of the American people as uncivilised; could I then just generalize all of Britain as being pompous, self righteous, judgemental assholes with a superiority complex made richer by their apparent xenophobia?
I've responded to this kind of comment previously. The fact is your rights in your country do not necessarily translate to the US. Furthermore it's of questionable legal status whether a non-us citizen on non-us soil has any of our Constitutional rights. It should be up to your country to defend those rights (socially, economically, or with your military if all else fails). If your own government would allow us to spy on you (and many countries traded information with us through our spy program) then why should I care if your own government fails to care and even endorses it?
At the end of the day a piece of paper is just a piece of paper. An idea is only as powerful as the people who believe in that idea. It's not my place to determine what is right or just for your people -- that's your job as a citizen of whatever country you're from...not mine.
We're entering legal theory at this point...suffice to say, there's not enough case law to definitively say one way or another. Furthermore while I'm aware of case law for non-us citizens on US soil, I'm not familiar with any (although that's not to say it doesn't exist) case law for non-us citizens on non-us soil. I'm not qualified enough to make a determination on whether what you say is true. This also doesn't even provide for when the rights of non-us citizens on foreign soil are "infringed" but are infringed by their own government's allowance (ie your government gave my government permission to spy on you in exchange for the information we gathered).
This is part of why I don't care/can't care about other country's citizens and their "rights". What it comes down to is whether your country is powerful enough (economically, socially, and/or militarily) to defend those rights. If your own government allows us to spy on you, why should I care whether or not it upsets you?
I never said screw anyone else. But realistically nations are only as powerful as their military makes them. Secondly many governments worked, in conjunction, with the US to share that data (along with their own data collection programs if they had them). If your own governments were allowing this all to happen, why should I care?
The thing with the UN is that it's not really all that binding for the US. We supply a lot of money and power to it and good or bad no nation with a large military truly has to listen to the UN.
SIDE was (is?) a fairly well known agency back in the 80s-90s. I cannot fathom that your government would be unable to spy on the US and unless you work for SIDE, I question as to how you'd actually know that? Does the name Ross Newland ring a bell?
That's the thing -- they're not protected by the US constitution. I'm not saying those rights are "inalienable" but, truthfully, the only rights anyone has are those that they're willing (and able) to fight for. The Native Americans, blacks, French, Irish, and many others can attest to that.
Who taught you kids? That's not the definition of treason...I grow tired of people who make up or redefine parts of our Constitution while simultaneously trying to prop up their weak points with it. Before you continue trying to tell everyone what the Constitution says, perhaps you should actually READ it. It's not hard and the people who voted you up should take a second from modding on/. and actually do a little reading themselves. What a sad, stupid group of people.
Point of note: Per the US, other nation's citizens don't have rights as recognized by the United States Constitution (diplomatic policies are not "rights") and indeed US citizens don't have rights from other countries. While I disagree with the blanket spying on American citizens, I cannot and do not care about the citizens of other countries. This may be seen as selfish, but truly other nations spy on us just as much as we spy on them. The US and its allies tends to share their collective intelligence. So while people are outraged by our spying on other nations, truth be told the other nations knew and we've known about their spying on us.
The only place that you can ever have true privacy is that place inside your head. Everywhere else, if you have something you want to remain private then use encryption that is publicly vetted or learn to live with the fact that 99% of us are totally boring, uninteresting people and no one truly gives a shit that you cheated on your wife.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this the Libertarian fantasy? The purpose of any government agency is to do the job given to that agency and you'd be surprised what a well funded terrorist cleanroom can produce. As for the knife thing, how exactly do you know? What about a plastic container carrying a biological weapon such as smallpox or a modified flu?
I fully agree that the threat is minor...part of that is due to the work of various government agencies, lucky, and our international relations. I disagree with your targets stuff, even "continuing" business as usual isn't so simple unless you are of the opinion that people should remain heartless. In that case, anything is possible...even a Libertarian future!
I suspect it has a lot to do with persuading the government(s) that are protecting him to stop doing so. He SHOULD face his day in court over the rape allegations. His Wikileaks stuff is another issue and I realize the connections (mainly he'll get hit with the Wikileaks stuff whenever he gets his trial for the sexual assault), but I do not believe one person's political actions should deprive others the right for justice.
If it was simple it'd be done. Bomb/weapon detection isn't so simple. What if I had a vacuumed sealed container (plastic of course) stuffed into my luggage? What if I brought on a ceramic knife/sword? I understand the complexities of trying to stop someone determined to hurt as many people as possible. The question isn't "what's the bare bones solution" but rather "what is an adequate solution".
9/11 ticked off a LOT of people and they questioned why the government didn't stop this at the airport or before hence all of this overreaching. The key is to find a balance, develop better technologies, and work WITH the populace. Not provide the bare minimal amount of protection that even I can circumvent with 3 different ideas off the top of my head in 30 seconds.
Mix it with the nude stuff and it can be a Lady Gaga fashion show!
>And you morons vote for this shit. Really? The irony.
Military, police, roads, etc
Couldn't Linux do that as well then?
In terms of contract law fairness can be a legal "term" (or concept in this case).
And? It highlights the real issue with the proposed "value" of this currency. It's not stable, it's not backed by any meaningful entity, and its value is an illusion created by Libertarians and gov't conspiracy nuts who love to circle-jerk each other that somehow currency can just appear out of thin air...like magic. You can argue a fiat currency system, but it means a lot more when a massive nation (or group of nations) back that currency and will use military force to ensure it stays around.
How does one know if it's true? They don't report to any regulating body. There is no one that can fact check their claims unless the companies willingly releases the data.
Negative Ghost Rider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
The marketplace shouldn't have much faith in a currency with no real backing, no accountability, no stability, and a lack of history to prove trust. The government says "no" because there's no proof that bitcoin is some sort of viable currency, despite all of the anti-government circle jerking.
This argument is flawed in nature. The US has a multi-tiered "classification" system. "Classified" documents can be "classified" in many levels and one of those levels is "Confidential". It's defined, broadly speaking, as documents that could damage the US national security interests if released without proper authorization. There is also aggregation wherein a single document might be seen as "Confidential" by itself, but in a series of documents it could be considered Top Secret based on the information the entire group has.
Such that being the case people like Bradley Manning could have released enough information that the information might be considered Top Secret. So it's entirely possible that the accused released classified material stemming from (in part) releasing enough unclassified/classified material that the entire leaked group is upgraded, by aggregation (and allowed by the various acts/executive orders that define these laws) to have leaked highly classified material.
> I would point out that executive orders did not exist when the Constitution was written
I agree with this statement, but would also argue that Executive Orders have been used (in one form or another, numbered or unnumbered) with President Washington. I would argue the Constitutionality of these orders on the basis of their use by Founding Father Presidents and their allowance of the usage by Congresses made up of Founding Fathers. Put another way, legal precedence has been set since the first President and Congress. I'm sure there are arguments contrary to my beliefs, but the question is truly "Will ANY President give up the power that office has enjoyed since the Dawn of the Presidency?" and each and every time I come back to a solid, two letter answer: NO.
Generally speaking the idea of anti-Net Neutrality is an anti-business, conservative idea. It "stifles" the "free market" by forcing regulations on businesses. The conservative's "free market" approach would be to let ISPs decide if they want to charge on a per-site basis and let consumers go to other ISPs who will simply do the same thing.
No matter where you move it, if you're sharing it on the internet there's a good chance it will touch some fiber or cable that is US jurisdiction. If that happens it can be seen, stored, and spied on at the NSA's leisure. Nothing is fixed, it's all PR smoke and mirrors.
> So the next time I meet in American in Britain, it's OK if I punch him on the nose? It's not OK, because I live in a civilised country. Apparently Americans don't, but that isn't news. The fact that your first example was about violence stands contrary to your overall point of being in a "civilised" country. As far as rights go, sure...punch the American in the nose. If your country lets you get away with it I'm sure it won't be a problem. Now try to blow up 3000 Americans and I bet the picture changes drastically...we're talking economies of scale.
So you just, quite literally, generalized a population of ~319 million people based off what? Assuming you're from Britain we're 5 times your population and you feel comfortable with your assessment of the American people as uncivilised; could I then just generalize all of Britain as being pompous, self righteous, judgemental assholes with a superiority complex made richer by their apparent xenophobia?
I've responded to this kind of comment previously. The fact is your rights in your country do not necessarily translate to the US. Furthermore it's of questionable legal status whether a non-us citizen on non-us soil has any of our Constitutional rights. It should be up to your country to defend those rights (socially, economically, or with your military if all else fails). If your own government would allow us to spy on you (and many countries traded information with us through our spy program) then why should I care if your own government fails to care and even endorses it?
At the end of the day a piece of paper is just a piece of paper. An idea is only as powerful as the people who believe in that idea. It's not my place to determine what is right or just for your people -- that's your job as a citizen of whatever country you're from...not mine.
We're entering legal theory at this point...suffice to say, there's not enough case law to definitively say one way or another. Furthermore while I'm aware of case law for non-us citizens on US soil, I'm not familiar with any (although that's not to say it doesn't exist) case law for non-us citizens on non-us soil. I'm not qualified enough to make a determination on whether what you say is true. This also doesn't even provide for when the rights of non-us citizens on foreign soil are "infringed" but are infringed by their own government's allowance (ie your government gave my government permission to spy on you in exchange for the information we gathered).
This is part of why I don't care/can't care about other country's citizens and their "rights". What it comes down to is whether your country is powerful enough (economically, socially, and/or militarily) to defend those rights. If your own government allows us to spy on you, why should I care whether or not it upsets you?
I never said screw anyone else. But realistically nations are only as powerful as their military makes them. Secondly many governments worked, in conjunction, with the US to share that data (along with their own data collection programs if they had them). If your own governments were allowing this all to happen, why should I care?
The thing with the UN is that it's not really all that binding for the US. We supply a lot of money and power to it and good or bad no nation with a large military truly has to listen to the UN.
SIDE was (is?) a fairly well known agency back in the 80s-90s. I cannot fathom that your government would be unable to spy on the US and unless you work for SIDE, I question as to how you'd actually know that? Does the name Ross Newland ring a bell?
That's the thing -- they're not protected by the US constitution. I'm not saying those rights are "inalienable" but, truthfully, the only rights anyone has are those that they're willing (and able) to fight for. The Native Americans, blacks, French, Irish, and many others can attest to that.
Who taught you kids? That's not the definition of treason...I grow tired of people who make up or redefine parts of our Constitution while simultaneously trying to prop up their weak points with it. Before you continue trying to tell everyone what the Constitution says, perhaps you should actually READ it. It's not hard and the people who voted you up should take a second from modding on /. and actually do a little reading themselves. What a sad, stupid group of people.
Point of note: Per the US, other nation's citizens don't have rights as recognized by the United States Constitution (diplomatic policies are not "rights") and indeed US citizens don't have rights from other countries. While I disagree with the blanket spying on American citizens, I cannot and do not care about the citizens of other countries. This may be seen as selfish, but truly other nations spy on us just as much as we spy on them. The US and its allies tends to share their collective intelligence. So while people are outraged by our spying on other nations, truth be told the other nations knew and we've known about their spying on us.
The only place that you can ever have true privacy is that place inside your head. Everywhere else, if you have something you want to remain private then use encryption that is publicly vetted or learn to live with the fact that 99% of us are totally boring, uninteresting people and no one truly gives a shit that you cheated on your wife.