Not just that. The problem is also dumb-ass technophobe bureaucrats not securing their systems.
One big reason I don't want my information in the hands of the feds unless they need it.
Not only do I not trust the people in power not to abuse it down the road, but I also don't trust that a hacker who sees a big juicy governemnt database of personal information won't try to break into it for their own nefarious purposes.
Driving on state highways and city roads is not a right, it is a privilege.
You already need a driver's license.
As far as car thefts go, it usually doesn't take long for cars to get "fenced" at the chop shop.
It would be far more efficient to provide incentives and education for people to park their cars in a secure manner.
Like giving people parking tickets for leaving a running vehicle unattended or providing security briefings on locking your doors and not leaving the key in the ignition.
In theory you'd expect competition to weed out consumer unfriendly attitudes like this.
In practice, raping the consumer's information is so profitable that nobody in their right mind would fail to do it.
If everyone who can provide you an essential service refuses to give it to you unless you sell your soul, your only choices are cough up the ghost or go without.
It's called "getting squeezed by the board of directors and the shareholders to deliver maximum profit, and having to duke it out in the market with several other businesses whose management has the same obligation"
A corporation's moral woes are merely the extension of the greed of dispassionate shareholders that see fit to only care about the almighty dollar while being comfortably insulated from the gory details of how that money is "earned".
And in a dog eat dog world where companies are ready to cut each other's throats to get ahead, anyone who ties to be nice and ethical will simply not survive.
I would opine that vice presidency doesn't so much strip away your moral sense as filter out those who have it.
Just like trying to be a politician will weed out happy horseshit folks who fail to pass the corporate kiss-ass test from special interests.
By your logic then we can't claim lemons cure scurvy either.
It's common knowledge that the "disease" of scurvy is a vitamin C deficiency, and yet someone selling citrus fruits as a cure would be committing a federal offense.
Note that I didn't say lemons won't cure scurvy. I only said you weren't allowed to make such a claim in the US.
The FDA ruled that only drugs can cure diseases, and the implication is that if you sell anything claiming to do so, yes, even water, you are selling a drug, and doing so without an FDA license is a federal offense.
And if you think the FDA is immune to the same sort of regulatory capture and bribery that plagues a good deal of the rest of our federal government you are sorely naive.
A corporation can buy a law that causes you to go to jail for pissing off the corporation that bought it.
DMCA? The war on drugs that was supposedly started by the cotton industry throwing a tizzy from hemp competition? Drug companies pushing the FDA into saying that only drugs can cure diseases which means anyone using non Big Pharma approved remedies can go to prison? Draconian penalties for copyright infringement that are worse than rape?
And why can't we just let trademark and fraud law handle this the old fashioned way in court?
The fact that our legal system is so clogged it can't be used by anyone except the rich who can afford an army of lawyers to drown out anyone they don't like is itself a symptom of a much bigger problem.
The legal system is supposed to be in place to keep companies from pulling shenanigans in the first place, and defensive registration wouldn't be needed in the first place if the courts would do their fucking jobs to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd much rather not have a big juicy government database to tempt a hacker with an appetite for personal information.
Not just that. The problem is also dumb-ass technophobe bureaucrats not securing their systems.
One big reason I don't want my information in the hands of the feds unless they need it.
Not only do I not trust the people in power not to abuse it down the road, but I also don't trust that a hacker who sees a big juicy governemnt database of personal information won't try to break into it for their own nefarious purposes.
The people in power like lots of laws because it lets them pick and choose who to prosecute.
And since ultimately the people in power are the only ones that have an opinion that actually matters, well, go figure.
It's simple.
Driving on state highways and city roads is not a right, it is a privilege.
You already need a driver's license.
As far as car thefts go, it usually doesn't take long for cars to get "fenced" at the chop shop.
It would be far more efficient to provide incentives and education for people to park their cars in a secure manner.
Like giving people parking tickets for leaving a running vehicle unattended or providing security briefings on locking your doors and not leaving the key in the ignition.
I'd say it counts as a search if you drive your car onto private property in a garage not visible to the prying eyes of the public.
The question is would police gain information they could not gain with their own eyes?
I'd rather have the government doing it anyway.
For one they already have the power, and for two, there's additional safeguards in place.
Law enforcement, unlike private business, is bound by the 4th amendment.
Additionally, it's a federal offense to abuse police power to violate someone's civil rights.
See the FBI website and what it has to say about "color of law violations" where they investigate such cases.
Governments, however, are bound by the 4th amendment.
Consider, for example, the protection afforded letters handled by the postal system.
If someone working for UPS cracks open a parcel, it's a civilian matter involving breach of contract and theft.
If someone working for the USPS cracks open a letter (without a warrant), it's an illegal search and seizure.
In theory you'd expect competition to weed out consumer unfriendly attitudes like this.
In practice, raping the consumer's information is so profitable that nobody in their right mind would fail to do it.
If everyone who can provide you an essential service refuses to give it to you unless you sell your soul, your only choices are cough up the ghost or go without.
It's called "getting squeezed by the board of directors and the shareholders to deliver maximum profit, and having to duke it out in the market with several other businesses whose management has the same obligation"
A corporation's moral woes are merely the extension of the greed of dispassionate shareholders that see fit to only care about the almighty dollar while being comfortably insulated from the gory details of how that money is "earned".
And in a dog eat dog world where companies are ready to cut each other's throats to get ahead, anyone who ties to be nice and ethical will simply not survive.
I would opine that vice presidency doesn't so much strip away your moral sense as filter out those who have it.
Just like trying to be a politician will weed out happy horseshit folks who fail to pass the corporate kiss-ass test from special interests.
Actually, when they're corporations they are no longer called criminals.
Doing wrong and breaking the law are two very different things now.
Remember that the one who has the gold gets to *make* the rules, not merely get away with breaking them.
By your logic then we can't claim lemons cure scurvy either.
It's common knowledge that the "disease" of scurvy is a vitamin C deficiency, and yet someone selling citrus fruits as a cure would be committing a federal offense.
Note that I didn't say lemons won't cure scurvy. I only said you weren't allowed to make such a claim in the US.
You missed my point.
The FDA ruled that only drugs can cure diseases, and the implication is that if you sell anything claiming to do so, yes, even water, you are selling a drug, and doing so without an FDA license is a federal offense.
And if you think the FDA is immune to the same sort of regulatory capture and bribery that plagues a good deal of the rest of our federal government you are sorely naive.
So put two and two together.
Politicians actually have a lot more common sense than we give them credit for.
Like how much a big greedy corporation can pay them than a voter.
Their hearts are broken. Their heads are just fine.
"your competition can do it just as well as you can" is a bullshit reason to deny a claim.
Nix v. Hedden settled that case.
In favor of the tax greedy government, asyou might expect.
Tomatoes were ruled to be a vegetable.
And oddly enough, vegetables had higher taxes than fruits.
Simple
A corporation can buy a law that causes you to go to jail for pissing off the corporation that bought it.
DMCA? The war on drugs that was supposedly started by the cotton industry throwing a tizzy from hemp competition? Drug companies pushing the FDA into saying that only drugs can cure diseases which means anyone using non Big Pharma approved remedies can go to prison? Draconian penalties for copyright infringement that are worse than rape?
I could go on.
That's the whole point.
Your congress critters are too busy listening to lobbyist coins jingling in their pockets to want to be distracted by the pleas of their constituents.
Put simply, they make it hard on purpose because...THEY DON'T WANT TO LISTEN TO YOU ANYWAY!
Making it technically possible but difficult in practice is just a workaround to avoid pissing everyone off.
You don't need a citation.
This law isn't just bad, it's redundant.
The legal system already caters to itchy trigger fingers anyhow.
I would love to see what passes for slashdot.xxx
Hell I'd visit just to see what they come up with.
A news site catering to people with an infamous stereotype for having no sex life.
Then the truth is that slippery slope is a fallacy as a deductive argument, but it makes a damn good *inductive* argument.
It actually is simple.
If the government says something is illegal then it's illegal.
In fact, the government saying so by passing a law is exactly what MAKES it illegal.
That's what sovereignty is all about
Unfortunately that includes if the child lied about his age and the so called rapist didn't know.
I've even heard of a few cases of minors using statutory rape as a weapon against gullible hornballs.
And why can't we just let trademark and fraud law handle this the old fashioned way in court?
The fact that our legal system is so clogged it can't be used by anyone except the rich who can afford an army of lawyers to drown out anyone they don't like is itself a symptom of a much bigger problem.
The legal system is supposed to be in place to keep companies from pulling shenanigans in the first place, and defensive registration wouldn't be needed in the first place if the courts would do their fucking jobs to begin with.
That only works when people looking to dodge the fees are honest enough not to impersonate newbies to get another free domain.
Many ideas that look good on paper will fail in the real world because of cheaters gaming the system.
As corrupt as DC is what's the fucking difference between government control and corporate control in the first place?