"The groups argue that the practice of suspicionless laptop searches violates fundamental rights of freedom of speech and protection against unreasonable seizures and searches." If this isn't obvious, then Welcome, Police State!
Why is anyone seriously discussing this? It's one of the looniest claims I have heard for a long time. The insane and inane fascination with copyright has been driven by idiotic legislation and the demands of greedy corporations. If someone or some country can claim copyright over Aztec images, how about pre-historic cave drawings? Get a life everyone!
What makes you so sure that the lousy work ethic is unique to the IT industry? It is the same everywhere. I was a senior manager in provincial government in Saskatchewan, Canada, and I found that the same problems existed. Most people are lazy and stupid and only interested in feathering their own nests. Does that surprise you? If so, then you are either naive or stupid.
Everyone, except those of a certain age [those that learned to work as a result of the depression], expects a rewarding job where their employers consider them as being worthy and deserving of advancement to senior positions because of their intrinsic values as human beings, without consideration of actual contributions, merit or value contribution to the enterprise, especially those who are "most deserving" such as Indians or other minorities.
It is a losing game because competence, skill, educations level, and experience, are not valid anymore.
If you are too stupid to see this, then, too bad for you. I am glad I am old enough to be dead before too long, and not have to deal with this crap for too much longer.
Myron Kuziak
former lawyer, judge, etc.
If they haven't embraced medieval thinking and are not priest-ridden, then how in hell did they elect such a bunch of dark-ages assholes? Even an ignoramus like Dubya didn't dare do what your assholes have done. Don't forget that the electors get what they deserve in elected representatives when they don't pay enough attention to smell the stink.
This should be easy to resolve, providing the airlines management had and principles and any balls. Just give the U.S. bastards the actual names and "erroneous" data.
Stupid totalitarian Nazi-like Pigs against bloggers re underpants bomber.
How's that for a short and sweet comment?
Unfortunately, I can't just let it go with that. Please forgive me.
I had booked a flight with Westjet to Palm Springs just after the Detroit fiasco. When I called Westjet some dingbat female weenie responded to my mild criticism of the ludicrous anti-passenger measures adopted by airlines by saying, It's for your benefit. Don't be such an ingrate. [I paraphrase]. What crap! The father of the bomber alerted US and other security weenies about his crazy son. The stupid bastards ignored it. No communication between various police/security/spy agencies resulted in his entering the US without scrutiny. After the many screw-ups by the "authorities", now they take it out on us innocent passengers. What a bunch of idiots. Its no wonder I hate to fly airlines. If it wasn't for my wife who keeps her head up her ass on such issues, I'd have driven. Never again. The airlines are also too stupid to notice the long-smoldering irritation of potential passengers with the nonsensical and totally ineffective security measures which only work against innocent and honest citizens.
I am amazed at the timidity, childishness and ignorance of some posters on the issue of re-use of a piece of hardware someone paid good money for. There is no "abuse" of TIVO involved, as far as the intent of the original poster is concerned. The word "abuse" is over-used and reflects a politically-correct embracing of the notion of victim-hood that makes me cringe.
Someone even went as far as to assert that the phone companies who offer discounted phones as a hook to con suckers into paying grossly exhorbitant phone charges for years at a time become innocent victims when a purchaser ends the subscription contract and keeps the phone to do with as they like. How silly. Grow up!
Hi:
As a retired judge [Saskatchewan, Canada], I appreciate the problems, however, the ruling made by Whatsherfutz, is patently nonsense. Either a denizen [or is it a citizen] of the USA has the right to make a backup copy of a commercial DVD or not, and, judicial sophistry aside, either that right is effective or not. If not, then it is not a right and any software company that assists the citizen to do what is a right is in the right. If it is a right, then her judgment is B.S. and she is at the least, mistaken, and at the most, an idiot, and, in between, she is a fool. I am tired of such nonsense. Unfortunately, the corporations and people that are trying to deny the rest of us the right to protect our purchases, are venal and evil greedy bastards. They are leaning heavily on the cowardly Canadian government to come into line and enact similar evil legislation. Guess what the venal bastards are likely to do.
I am a Canadian retired lawyer and judge. I am appalled by the Alice in Wonderland nature of US copyright and related laws and penalties [blame for this must be laid at the feet of the criminally negligent legislators and bureaucrats who created, then passed, the legislation] and the attitude of the courts in these cases. I know that most legislators accept bills from the bureaucrats or whoever prepares them and pass them into law without, in most cases, reading them or understanding them. This law is a good example of the personal harm that can be done by such negligence. I say criminal negligence because if it has resulted from negligence, it is such a high level of negligence as to come so close to the deliberate doing of harm as to be indistinguishable from deliberate intent. If the law didn't come into existence because of negligence, then it reveals an even greater evil. There is no doubt in my mind that the penalties revealed by this and similar cases are so disproportionate to the harm done that the laws and the policies behind them are much more evil than the acts they are punishing people for.
This is a response to causality, whose contribution I endorse. But I would like to go a lot further:
Urge all current cell phone customers who are able, to go "on strike" by dropping or closing out their use of cell phone services for some significant period of time. If a significant portion of their customers did this, the cell phone operators and rip-off artists [the same crew] might get the message. I terminated my use of cell phones with regular carriers a few years ago in complete disgust over the obvious rip-off. I know that teenagers and others with more money than brains will continue to be willing victims, but there must be some out there who can see beyond their noses.
Whenever I travel in the US I have a $12.00 phone I purchased from a large chain and I buy a $20.00 card from the same source, and both of them allow me to make calls up to the limits of the card [then buy another one if I need more], merely by registering my card, then making calls as if I was a regular customer of the major rip-off artists. I don't mean that I use their services, but the system I use is convenient and does not involve roaming charges. Of course, I don't send stupid text messages. I have a laptop and a gmail account and send emails from wherever I can use a wireless connection [motels, resorts, coffee houses, etc.] I can't do this in Canada, because the rip-off artists have the market in their back pockets. So, no cell phone in Canada. My approach will continue until the usual suspects reform their bad behavior or Hell freezes over [I'm not holding my breath respecting either prospect].
I don't expect governments to come to the rescue, since they are either complicit in the rip-off or too stupid to grasp it [probably the former].
Canada, and its governing pols, are about to join the ranks of fascistic, totalitarian and appalling stupid governments in formerly democratic countries which have all opted for unwarranted spying on their citizens communications over the internet, especially through spying on emails.
What is more appalling is the strong likelihood that Canada's courts will approve the measures, employing sophistic [misleading and false] arguments and justifications for the gutting of our constitutional protections against governmental misbehaviour directed against privacy and communication rights. Our courts have, in the past, been only too willing to ignore our constitutional rights in favour of police-state powers on the pretext of countering terrorism, of pushing a feminist agenda, or on the pretext of "protecting" children. Certainly in regard to terrorism, it would not be too much to ask that spying on private communications should require the usual safeguards based on the obtaining or warrants from a court charged with the responsibility to ensure that some reasonable grounds exist for such spying.
The problem with giving the police and spy agencies "carte blanche" or the power to act arbitrarily and without reasonable grounds, is that, in the past, the police, as have other agencies of the state, have often not only failed to act with responsibility towards the protection of privacy rights, but, instead, have acted with utter disregard for same. As has been argued by civil rights guardians, such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, editorial writers, academics, and others, there are very adequate laws in effect in Canada which, if properly applied, give police and the state the means to counter terrorism and criminality without generalized spying on everyone. In fact, recent experience in dealing with examples of terrorist plotting has demonstrated the truth of such arguments.
One possible reason why this proposal will likely be enacted is the horde of lazy, ignorant and stupid politicians that infest our Parliament. It is well known, at least amongst those who make it their business to know, that complicated legislation containing potentially far-reaching and harmful provisions, is frequently passed by the politicians without being read in some cases, and in most cases, without being understood, and, in some cases with flagrant disregard for the harm that such legislation can lead to.
Since your writer is just an ordinary citizen, such comments as made in the preceding paragraph can be stated with little fear of reprisal. Consequently, I have not minced words. Please add your concerns to mine and attempt to stop the fools. Protests seem to have succeeded in Australia, where a similar proposal was defeated in the past several years.
As a long-practising lawyer [retired]with lots of criminal court experience, I can say without fear of contradiction by anyone knowledgeable that:
Many cops are not much better than criminal thugs - they are just thugs hired by governments to intimidate the public, especially the other criminal thugs.
Many cops lie and perjure themselves in order to appear to solve cases and justify their existence, their outrageous incomes and early retirement benefits.
Many cops are pretty stupid and grossly ignorant about society and don't deserve to be around decent people.
Many cops don't give a damn about justice or fair treatment of people they get in their clutches, they just say they do.
Never talk to investigating cops unless you have a "competent" criminal lawyer at your side for advice on everything, because cops will twist and put the worst possible interpretation on anything you say.
I guess that sums it up. Have a good day.
The group calling itself ACTRA is NOT a Canadian cultural organization as it is described in this story. It is a union of actors, performers and other media people. It is in no way a reflection of the community. It is also mostly composed of people who make their living off the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, itself a hotbed of left-wingers, terrorist sympathizers and politically-correctness gone mad. It is totally unrepresentative of the vast majority of people working in the media in Canada and of the population as a whole. Give it the respect it deserves. NONE. The only way its agenda might be translated into laws is by fooling or misleading the idiots we elect to our national Parliament. Given the antics of the clowns in Parliament recently [the attempted coup by liberals, left-wingers and separatists], perhaps there is something to worry about. I hope the Tory government is awake enough to realize the dangers to freedom of communication inherent in such a goofy idea.
In the UK Guardian's story 'Recent Media Coverage" relating to vaccines and the mis-information the media conveys about it, the author absolved the public from any responsibility for discovering the available 'truth' by saying:
Middle class parents are not to blame, even if they do lack rhetorical panache when you try to have a discussion with them about it.
"They have been systematically and vigorously misled by the media, the people with access to all the information, who still choose, collectively, between themselves, so robustly that it might almost be a conspiracy, to give you only half the facts."
I am sick of this kind of liberal-minded crap about the poor public who are not to blame because they have been systematically misled. Ever hear about doing your own research? What about developing an attitude that you can't believe anything anyone tells you in the media, or from governments, businesses, churches, or your old aunt Myrtle, for that matter. It is mostly laziness and a desire to believe that combines to perpetuate ignorance. Being critical, sceptical and applying scientific principles to examining the validity of anything is difficult because it takes effort.
I have no way of verifying the truth and accuracy of Mr. Seimer's accusations against the accountant he is attacking, or against certain New Zealand judges, whose integrity and honesty he is also attacking, however, one fact alone suggests he may be more of a victim than a wrong-doer in this situation: For a Senior Law Officer of the national government to seek "indefinite imprisonment" [which sounds an awful lot like a life sentence], raises the spectre of totalitarianism and the rank arbitrary use of state power that such an "ism" normally implies. If such an extreme penalty can be invoked in New Zealand for merely thumbing one's nose at the state, it would not have been much more dangerous to live in the Soviet Union, Franco's Spain or Nazi Germany, than it is to live in New Zealand. On the other hand, it is not unheard of, even in Canada or Britain, for the courts in serious "contempt" cases to throw the person in contempt in jail UNTIL he purges his contempt, which in this case, would be to take down the web site. I would like to know a lot more about the facts and the meaning of "indefinite imprisonment" in NZ law before getting too worked up about this matter. Perhaps the term is just a quaint way of saying "Stay in jail until you comply with the order".
Slashdot Mirror
"The groups argue that the practice of suspicionless laptop searches violates fundamental rights of freedom of speech and protection against unreasonable seizures and searches." If this isn't obvious, then Welcome, Police State!
Why is anyone seriously discussing this? It's one of the looniest claims I have heard for a long time. The insane and inane fascination with copyright has been driven by idiotic legislation and the demands of greedy corporations. If someone or some country can claim copyright over Aztec images, how about pre-historic cave drawings? Get a life everyone!
Fuck you and your score 1. You are also too stupid and cowardly to recognize things as they are.
What makes you so sure that the lousy work ethic is unique to the IT industry? It is the same everywhere. I was a senior manager in provincial government in Saskatchewan, Canada, and I found that the same problems existed. Most people are lazy and stupid and only interested in feathering their own nests. Does that surprise you? If so, then you are either naive or stupid. Everyone, except those of a certain age [those that learned to work as a result of the depression], expects a rewarding job where their employers consider them as being worthy and deserving of advancement to senior positions because of their intrinsic values as human beings, without consideration of actual contributions, merit or value contribution to the enterprise, especially those who are "most deserving" such as Indians or other minorities. It is a losing game because competence, skill, educations level, and experience, are not valid anymore. If you are too stupid to see this, then, too bad for you. I am glad I am old enough to be dead before too long, and not have to deal with this crap for too much longer. Myron Kuziak former lawyer, judge, etc.
If they haven't embraced medieval thinking and are not priest-ridden, then how in hell did they elect such a bunch of dark-ages assholes? Even an ignoramus like Dubya didn't dare do what your assholes have done. Don't forget that the electors get what they deserve in elected representatives when they don't pay enough attention to smell the stink.
This should be easy to resolve, providing the airlines management had and principles and any balls. Just give the U.S. bastards the actual names and "erroneous" data.
Are you saying Ireland has not embraced the Inquisition again [and Islam]?
Stupid totalitarian Nazi-like Pigs against bloggers re underpants bomber. How's that for a short and sweet comment? Unfortunately, I can't just let it go with that. Please forgive me. I had booked a flight with Westjet to Palm Springs just after the Detroit fiasco. When I called Westjet some dingbat female weenie responded to my mild criticism of the ludicrous anti-passenger measures adopted by airlines by saying, It's for your benefit. Don't be such an ingrate. [I paraphrase]. What crap! The father of the bomber alerted US and other security weenies about his crazy son. The stupid bastards ignored it. No communication between various police/security/spy agencies resulted in his entering the US without scrutiny. After the many screw-ups by the "authorities", now they take it out on us innocent passengers. What a bunch of idiots. Its no wonder I hate to fly airlines. If it wasn't for my wife who keeps her head up her ass on such issues, I'd have driven. Never again. The airlines are also too stupid to notice the long-smoldering irritation of potential passengers with the nonsensical and totally ineffective security measures which only work against innocent and honest citizens.
I am amazed at the timidity, childishness and ignorance of some posters on the issue of re-use of a piece of hardware someone paid good money for. There is no "abuse" of TIVO involved, as far as the intent of the original poster is concerned. The word "abuse" is over-used and reflects a politically-correct embracing of the notion of victim-hood that makes me cringe. Someone even went as far as to assert that the phone companies who offer discounted phones as a hook to con suckers into paying grossly exhorbitant phone charges for years at a time become innocent victims when a purchaser ends the subscription contract and keeps the phone to do with as they like. How silly. Grow up!
Hi: As a retired judge [Saskatchewan, Canada], I appreciate the problems, however, the ruling made by Whatsherfutz, is patently nonsense. Either a denizen [or is it a citizen] of the USA has the right to make a backup copy of a commercial DVD or not, and, judicial sophistry aside, either that right is effective or not. If not, then it is not a right and any software company that assists the citizen to do what is a right is in the right. If it is a right, then her judgment is B.S. and she is at the least, mistaken, and at the most, an idiot, and, in between, she is a fool. I am tired of such nonsense. Unfortunately, the corporations and people that are trying to deny the rest of us the right to protect our purchases, are venal and evil greedy bastards. They are leaning heavily on the cowardly Canadian government to come into line and enact similar evil legislation. Guess what the venal bastards are likely to do.
I am a Canadian retired lawyer and judge. I am appalled by the Alice in Wonderland nature of US copyright and related laws and penalties [blame for this must be laid at the feet of the criminally negligent legislators and bureaucrats who created, then passed, the legislation] and the attitude of the courts in these cases. I know that most legislators accept bills from the bureaucrats or whoever prepares them and pass them into law without, in most cases, reading them or understanding them. This law is a good example of the personal harm that can be done by such negligence. I say criminal negligence because if it has resulted from negligence, it is such a high level of negligence as to come so close to the deliberate doing of harm as to be indistinguishable from deliberate intent. If the law didn't come into existence because of negligence, then it reveals an even greater evil. There is no doubt in my mind that the penalties revealed by this and similar cases are so disproportionate to the harm done that the laws and the policies behind them are much more evil than the acts they are punishing people for.
This is a response to causality, whose contribution I endorse. But I would like to go a lot further: Urge all current cell phone customers who are able, to go "on strike" by dropping or closing out their use of cell phone services for some significant period of time. If a significant portion of their customers did this, the cell phone operators and rip-off artists [the same crew] might get the message. I terminated my use of cell phones with regular carriers a few years ago in complete disgust over the obvious rip-off. I know that teenagers and others with more money than brains will continue to be willing victims, but there must be some out there who can see beyond their noses. Whenever I travel in the US I have a $12.00 phone I purchased from a large chain and I buy a $20.00 card from the same source, and both of them allow me to make calls up to the limits of the card [then buy another one if I need more], merely by registering my card, then making calls as if I was a regular customer of the major rip-off artists. I don't mean that I use their services, but the system I use is convenient and does not involve roaming charges. Of course, I don't send stupid text messages. I have a laptop and a gmail account and send emails from wherever I can use a wireless connection [motels, resorts, coffee houses, etc.] I can't do this in Canada, because the rip-off artists have the market in their back pockets. So, no cell phone in Canada. My approach will continue until the usual suspects reform their bad behavior or Hell freezes over [I'm not holding my breath respecting either prospect]. I don't expect governments to come to the rescue, since they are either complicit in the rip-off or too stupid to grasp it [probably the former].
Canada, and its governing pols, are about to join the ranks of fascistic, totalitarian and appalling stupid governments in formerly democratic countries which have all opted for unwarranted spying on their citizens communications over the internet, especially through spying on emails. What is more appalling is the strong likelihood that Canada's courts will approve the measures, employing sophistic [misleading and false] arguments and justifications for the gutting of our constitutional protections against governmental misbehaviour directed against privacy and communication rights. Our courts have, in the past, been only too willing to ignore our constitutional rights in favour of police-state powers on the pretext of countering terrorism, of pushing a feminist agenda, or on the pretext of "protecting" children. Certainly in regard to terrorism, it would not be too much to ask that spying on private communications should require the usual safeguards based on the obtaining or warrants from a court charged with the responsibility to ensure that some reasonable grounds exist for such spying. The problem with giving the police and spy agencies "carte blanche" or the power to act arbitrarily and without reasonable grounds, is that, in the past, the police, as have other agencies of the state, have often not only failed to act with responsibility towards the protection of privacy rights, but, instead, have acted with utter disregard for same. As has been argued by civil rights guardians, such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, editorial writers, academics, and others, there are very adequate laws in effect in Canada which, if properly applied, give police and the state the means to counter terrorism and criminality without generalized spying on everyone. In fact, recent experience in dealing with examples of terrorist plotting has demonstrated the truth of such arguments. One possible reason why this proposal will likely be enacted is the horde of lazy, ignorant and stupid politicians that infest our Parliament. It is well known, at least amongst those who make it their business to know, that complicated legislation containing potentially far-reaching and harmful provisions, is frequently passed by the politicians without being read in some cases, and in most cases, without being understood, and, in some cases with flagrant disregard for the harm that such legislation can lead to. Since your writer is just an ordinary citizen, such comments as made in the preceding paragraph can be stated with little fear of reprisal. Consequently, I have not minced words. Please add your concerns to mine and attempt to stop the fools. Protests seem to have succeeded in Australia, where a similar proposal was defeated in the past several years.
As a long-practising lawyer [retired]with lots of criminal court experience, I can say without fear of contradiction by anyone knowledgeable that: Many cops are not much better than criminal thugs - they are just thugs hired by governments to intimidate the public, especially the other criminal thugs. Many cops lie and perjure themselves in order to appear to solve cases and justify their existence, their outrageous incomes and early retirement benefits. Many cops are pretty stupid and grossly ignorant about society and don't deserve to be around decent people. Many cops don't give a damn about justice or fair treatment of people they get in their clutches, they just say they do. Never talk to investigating cops unless you have a "competent" criminal lawyer at your side for advice on everything, because cops will twist and put the worst possible interpretation on anything you say. I guess that sums it up. Have a good day.
The group calling itself ACTRA is NOT a Canadian cultural organization as it is described in this story. It is a union of actors, performers and other media people. It is in no way a reflection of the community. It is also mostly composed of people who make their living off the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, itself a hotbed of left-wingers, terrorist sympathizers and politically-correctness gone mad. It is totally unrepresentative of the vast majority of people working in the media in Canada and of the population as a whole. Give it the respect it deserves. NONE. The only way its agenda might be translated into laws is by fooling or misleading the idiots we elect to our national Parliament. Given the antics of the clowns in Parliament recently [the attempted coup by liberals, left-wingers and separatists], perhaps there is something to worry about. I hope the Tory government is awake enough to realize the dangers to freedom of communication inherent in such a goofy idea.
In the UK Guardian's story 'Recent Media Coverage" relating to vaccines and the mis-information the media conveys about it, the author absolved the public from any responsibility for discovering the available 'truth' by saying: Middle class parents are not to blame, even if they do lack rhetorical panache when you try to have a discussion with them about it. "They have been systematically and vigorously misled by the media, the people with access to all the information, who still choose, collectively, between themselves, so robustly that it might almost be a conspiracy, to give you only half the facts." I am sick of this kind of liberal-minded crap about the poor public who are not to blame because they have been systematically misled. Ever hear about doing your own research? What about developing an attitude that you can't believe anything anyone tells you in the media, or from governments, businesses, churches, or your old aunt Myrtle, for that matter. It is mostly laziness and a desire to believe that combines to perpetuate ignorance. Being critical, sceptical and applying scientific principles to examining the validity of anything is difficult because it takes effort.
I have no way of verifying the truth and accuracy of Mr. Seimer's accusations against the accountant he is attacking, or against certain New Zealand judges, whose integrity and honesty he is also attacking, however, one fact alone suggests he may be more of a victim than a wrong-doer in this situation: For a Senior Law Officer of the national government to seek "indefinite imprisonment" [which sounds an awful lot like a life sentence], raises the spectre of totalitarianism and the rank arbitrary use of state power that such an "ism" normally implies. If such an extreme penalty can be invoked in New Zealand for merely thumbing one's nose at the state, it would not have been much more dangerous to live in the Soviet Union, Franco's Spain or Nazi Germany, than it is to live in New Zealand. On the other hand, it is not unheard of, even in Canada or Britain, for the courts in serious "contempt" cases to throw the person in contempt in jail UNTIL he purges his contempt, which in this case, would be to take down the web site. I would like to know a lot more about the facts and the meaning of "indefinite imprisonment" in NZ law before getting too worked up about this matter. Perhaps the term is just a quaint way of saying "Stay in jail until you comply with the order".