It's one thing to suspect government duplicity, it's another to see it written in black on white.
As an example, I am sickened how the German authorities caved to US pressure with regards to El-Masri's abduction by the CIA while calling for a "thorough investigation" publicly.
If that's the conclusion they are arriving at, then they have failed to get the point spectacularly.
The masses aren't DDoSing Visa and Mastercard because they have cut of services to Wikileaks per se. It's because they have caved to extra-judicial US government pressure citing bullshit legal reasons. The behavior is objectionable in principle, not that Wikileaks is the aggrieved party.
But what do mastercard.com customers find? A web site that doesn't response. There's no message they can receive - they'll just come back later, when the site is back online.
The message is reported by the news. Maybe those customers should tune in from time to time and not spent all their energy on meaningless consumerism.
How many leaders around the world will be less likely to cooperate in the future - not because the US did anything "wrong", but simply because they are afraid of looking bad in the eyes of their own version of the radical christian right?
The leaked cables have shown that the "cooperation" between the US and foreign leaders often is NOT in the interest of the people those leaders represent. As one of those foreigners I fail to see how preventing these kind of back-door deals is a bad thing.
In any case, other governments cooperate with the US because they perceive it to be in their interest and/or politically expedient. It's not like Wikileaks is releasing communication in real time, the latest cable is from February 2010. People don't remember what happened two weeks ago, politically, so diplomacy will continue just fine.
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but your post betrays a strong US bias and a belief in American exceptionalism.
FWIW, the first amendment does not state that freedom of speech is an inalienable right, and, in theory, it could be repealed by another amendment however unlikely that may be. But you're conflating the US constitution with the US declaration of independence, which, incidentally, has no legal force whatsoever.
Secondly, no modern democracy "grants" rights to its population. That is an American myth. For example, the German constitution begins by saying that human dignity is inalienable, that all state authority has to respect and protect it, and that human rights -- free speech being one of them -- develop organically from human dignity. This is much stronger language than anything you will find in the US constitution. Personally, I prefer the emphasis on human dignity and not on free speech, but then I am German and biased myself. (I did live in the US for a while though, but that was some time ago.)
I'm not a big fan of levies on DVDs and iPods and such that are then distributed to the labels. Mostly, because it keeps the entrenched system going an would stifle innovation even more than now. I just don't trust the major record labels to distribute the funds fairly.
I think going back to patronage as it was done before the 20th century is the way to go. Except that every consumer with disposable income could become a micro-patron. The internet makes it easy for musicians to put up a button on their site to facilitate micro-donations. The more popular the music the more money you make. Movies could also be financed up-front, although it's arguably more difficult.
Of course, we're not there yet. The recent Paypal debacle (cutting of Wikileaks) stresses the fact that private micro-payment services aren't yet trustworthy. They should be common carriers -- like the ISPs -- and only freeze assets upon an order issued by a court of the artist's country.
The home is no more a public nuisance than any other home with any smaller amount of explosives or weapons in it; the risk to the person removing the explosives is identical whether it's enough to kill that person or enough to blow the side off the house. More importantly, if the house had enough explosives in it to pose a significant risk of harm to the nearby houses, they would not be burning down the house because they would run too much risk of causing an explosion and taking out the neighborhood.
I'd imagine that the authorities fear that a small explosion will release toxic material in the neighborhood. That would negate both of your arguments. First, the more explosives there are in the house, the more toxic material could be released. Second, a controlled burn without an explosion would destroy all the toxic material without releasing it. At least, that's what the experts mentioned in TFA are hoping for.
More importantly, it was only Pfc. Bradley Manning who leaked the information (and thus broke any applicable laws). Julian Assage/Wikileaks only published it afterward.
I seem to have missed his conviction which actually established his guilt.
Until then, it is only fair to say that he allegedly leaked the info.
You mean like voting yourselves freebie entitlements with no money to pay for itand not voting the taxes to fund it?
I know of two studies which suggest differently. They are mentioned in the following white paper (in German), which summarizes data from Germany, Switzerland and the US and concludes that the people are fiscally more responsive than their elected politicians: http://www.mehr-demokratie.de/fileadmin/md/pdf/diskussionspapiere/du12-wirtschaft.pdf
One important aspect of direct democracy is the public discussion that should precede every law enacted by initiative. This makes it more likely that cost-effective alternatives are realized.
Our country is a republic because tyranny of the majority has more problems.
You are simply parroting conservative talking-points without showing any understanding. The concepts of republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive. The former describes some aspects of the organization of a state while the latter simply means that the people have a say in how they are governed. A modern democracy (unlike the ancient Greek) includes the rule of law and universal suffrage -- two ideas that are much more effective in preventing tyranny than some idealized notion of "republic".
Finally, direct and representative democracy are not mutually exclusive as well, although it is true that direct elements weaken the parliament. But that's the whole point -- it is meant as a check on elected officials. As Americans take so much stock in their so-called "checks and balances" one would hope that this concept would not be lost on them.
If your transaction is owned jointly, does that mean you could demand that the vendor destroy the data the next day?
Theoretically, yes. Practically, you have no idea what data different entities have on you and it's hard to force them to disclose that. Also, the time limit is not the next day but IIRC 3 months to account for billing and other business purposes.
Does it prevent vendors from compiling data for data mining purposes?
Unfortunately, no. That's one of the loopholes I was talking about. Even worse, they can legally sell some of the data to other entities for marketing purposes (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listenprivileg). A major goal of the CCC is to get rid of the Listenprivileg.
And life is a little bit more complicated than you seem to believe as well because you're viewpoint is entirely US-centric.
OTOH, if we look at Europe the GP is right -- data held by businesses or other entities that is tied to me and was created because of a transaction between me and that entity is owned by me and the other entity has, in principle, no right to it other than what's necessary to complete the aforementioned transactions. It's the basis of our strong data protection laws.
Unfortunately, these laws contain loopholes, so the reality is quite different from the ideal.
Actually, in Europe you own the data that is tied to you. That, at least, is the ideal that is prescribed in our data protection laws. The reality, of course, is quite different.
I don't care about national security. At all. Again and again, "national security" is invoked to cover up malfeasance by government officials which are supposed to be accountable to us. How can there be accountability in government if the government decides what information to share and what not?
What I do care about is personal security. Big difference.
No, the solution is to enable the citizens to become lawmakers themselves by cutting out the middlemen and letting them vote on the issues directly if they desire to.
The problem with elected politicians is that their number one priority is staying in power.
I've been dreaming about such a system for years. In cities, those underground tubes would also connect to apartment buildings and would be used to deliver goods and for inner-city travel.
This would allow us to get rid of inner-city car traffic and significantly reduce the amount of space that is dedicated to streets and parking.
We would finally reclaim the streets. Kids could play outside again without parents fearing that they get run over, it could be powered by green tech (snow would be white once again without all those car exhausts) and if intelligent routing is used, it would cut down on traffic time (no more traffic jams).
In 2004, it hadn't come out yet that the Bush administration was wrong about Iraq and it was unknown that the reasons for going to war were fabricated or based on faulty intelligence.
10+ million people who went to the streets to protest against the Iraq war worldwide beg to differ. Of course, we benefited from not being brainwashed by the US media.
I don't know the procedures in your country, but at least in Germany you have no obligation whatsoever to assist the police and can lie all you want when questioned by them.
You only have to submit to questioning if ordered by a court and/or a state attorney and lies will only get you in (legal) trouble if you're under oath.
Slashdot Mirror
It's one thing to suspect government duplicity, it's another to see it written in black on white.
As an example, I am sickened how the German authorities caved to US pressure with regards to El-Masri's abduction by the CIA while calling for a "thorough investigation" publicly.
Source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,733860,00.html
It's really simple:
1. Click preview.
2. Click submit without reviewing your text.
3. Profit.
If that's the conclusion they are arriving at, then they have failed to get the point spectacularly.
The masses aren't DDoSing Visa and Mastercard because they have cut of services to Wikileaks per se. It's because they have caved to extra-judicial US government pressure citing bullshit legal reasons. The behavior is objectionable in principle, not that Wikileaks is the aggrieved party.
The message is reported by the news. Maybe those customers should tune in from time to time and not spent all their energy on meaningless consumerism.
Fixed that for you.
The leaked cables have shown that the "cooperation" between the US and foreign leaders often is NOT in the interest of the people those leaders represent. As one of those foreigners I fail to see how preventing these kind of back-door deals is a bad thing.
In any case, other governments cooperate with the US because they perceive it to be in their interest and/or politically expedient. It's not like Wikileaks is releasing communication in real time, the latest cable is from February 2010. People don't remember what happened two weeks ago, politically, so diplomacy will continue just fine.
I've seen those interviews too and I would wish that at this point the journalist would just call the politician a filthy liar and be done with it.
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but your post betrays a strong US bias and a belief in American exceptionalism.
FWIW, the first amendment does not state that freedom of speech is an inalienable right, and, in theory, it could be repealed by another amendment however unlikely that may be. But you're conflating the US constitution with the US declaration of independence, which, incidentally, has no legal force whatsoever.
Secondly, no modern democracy "grants" rights to its population. That is an American myth. For example, the German constitution begins by saying that human dignity is inalienable, that all state authority has to respect and protect it, and that human rights -- free speech being one of them -- develop organically from human dignity. This is much stronger language than anything you will find in the US constitution. Personally, I prefer the emphasis on human dignity and not on free speech, but then I am German and biased myself. (I did live in the US for a while though, but that was some time ago.)
I'm not a big fan of levies on DVDs and iPods and such that are then distributed to the labels. Mostly, because it keeps the entrenched system going an would stifle innovation even more than now. I just don't trust the major record labels to distribute the funds fairly.
I think going back to patronage as it was done before the 20th century is the way to go. Except that every consumer with disposable income could become a micro-patron. The internet makes it easy for musicians to put up a button on their site to facilitate micro-donations. The more popular the music the more money you make. Movies could also be financed up-front, although it's arguably more difficult.
Of course, we're not there yet. The recent Paypal debacle (cutting of Wikileaks) stresses the fact that private micro-payment services aren't yet trustworthy. They should be common carriers -- like the ISPs -- and only freeze assets upon an order issued by a court of the artist's country.
I'd imagine that the authorities fear that a small explosion will release toxic material in the neighborhood. That would negate both of your arguments. First, the more explosives there are in the house, the more toxic material could be released. Second, a controlled burn without an explosion would destroy all the toxic material without releasing it. At least, that's what the experts mentioned in TFA are hoping for.
Devil's advocate here...
If you were working in one of those facilities, wouldn't you want to know that your job entails a higher risk than elsewhere?
I seem to have missed his conviction which actually established his guilt.
Until then, it is only fair to say that he allegedly leaked the info.
I think it's more likely that his arrest will be widely publicized in the media whereas his acquittal will be swept under the rug.
The common men on the street will think he's a criminal/terrorist and the establishment will have won.
But it will be a pyrrhic victory because 100 other wikileaks-type sites will follow in their footsteps.
I know of two studies which suggest differently. They are mentioned in the following white paper (in German), which summarizes data from Germany, Switzerland and the US and concludes that the people are fiscally more responsive than their elected politicians: http://www.mehr-demokratie.de/fileadmin/md/pdf/diskussionspapiere/du12-wirtschaft.pdf
One important aspect of direct democracy is the public discussion that should precede every law enacted by initiative. This makes it more likely that cost-effective alternatives are realized.
You are simply parroting conservative talking-points without showing any understanding. The concepts of republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive. The former describes some aspects of the organization of a state while the latter simply means that the people have a say in how they are governed. A modern democracy (unlike the ancient Greek) includes the rule of law and universal suffrage -- two ideas that are much more effective in preventing tyranny than some idealized notion of "republic".
Finally, direct and representative democracy are not mutually exclusive as well, although it is true that direct elements weaken the parliament. But that's the whole point -- it is meant as a check on elected officials. As Americans take so much stock in their so-called "checks and balances" one would hope that this concept would not be lost on them.
Theoretically, yes. Practically, you have no idea what data different entities have on you and it's hard to force them to disclose that. Also, the time limit is not the next day but IIRC 3 months to account for billing and other business purposes.
Unfortunately, no. That's one of the loopholes I was talking about. Even worse, they can legally sell some of the data to other entities for marketing purposes (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listenprivileg). A major goal of the CCC is to get rid of the Listenprivileg.
Great retort.
And life is a little bit more complicated than you seem to believe as well because you're viewpoint is entirely US-centric.
OTOH, if we look at Europe the GP is right -- data held by businesses or other entities that is tied to me and was created because of a transaction between me and that entity is owned by me and the other entity has, in principle, no right to it other than what's necessary to complete the aforementioned transactions. It's the basis of our strong data protection laws.
Unfortunately, these laws contain loopholes, so the reality is quite different from the ideal.
Actually, in Europe you own the data that is tied to you. That, at least, is the ideal that is prescribed in our data protection laws. The reality, of course, is quite different.
I don't care about national security. At all. Again and again, "national security" is invoked to cover up malfeasance by government officials which are supposed to be accountable to us. How can there be accountability in government if the government decides what information to share and what not?
What I do care about is personal security. Big difference.
No, the solution is to enable the citizens to become lawmakers themselves by cutting out the middlemen and letting them vote on the issues directly if they desire to.
The problem with elected politicians is that their number one priority is staying in power.
I've been dreaming about such a system for years. In cities, those underground tubes would also connect to apartment buildings and would be used to deliver goods and for inner-city travel.
This would allow us to get rid of inner-city car traffic and significantly reduce the amount of space that is dedicated to streets and parking.
We would finally reclaim the streets. Kids could play outside again without parents fearing that they get run over, it could be powered by green tech (snow would be white once again without all those car exhausts) and if intelligent routing is used, it would cut down on traffic time (no more traffic jams).
Stop the fear-mongering!
You are allowing websites to run arbitrary code in your browser sandbox.
The sandbox may be leaky -- which is what the article complains about -- but I read up-thread that both Webkit and Firefox have fixed this issue.
10+ million people who went to the streets to protest against the Iraq war worldwide beg to differ. Of course, we benefited from not being brainwashed by the US media.
That sucks, especially since the police can usually lie all they want unless they're under oath.
I don't know the procedures in your country, but at least in Germany you have no obligation whatsoever to assist the police and can lie all you want when questioned by them.
You only have to submit to questioning if ordered by a court and/or a state attorney and lies will only get you in (legal) trouble if you're under oath.