I suspect the AC meant the USA's foreign policy in general, not just versus their opponents. Since you mention throwing allies under buses, however, I note the US government is not without some history (at least post-WW2) when it comes to propping up tyrannies, toppling democracies, and throwing away opportunities to capitalise (no irony intended) on events that earned them respect and goodwill.
Now it's entirely possible, I suppose, that it did and does these things for good reasons still classified, but in the meantime it looks pretty bad from the admitted comfort of my allied armchair.
The "third party doctrine" as per United States vs Miller (1976) at least involved two court subpoenas (regardless of any controversy over the manner and scope of their issue). The submitter is instead concerned about "behind the scenes" activities: namely, situations where the government simply leans on a business to hand over any records the government wants or even be given a direct feed.
Here's my unwashed Australian opinion: using a business entity - especially in the case of limited liability corporations, which are designed to avoid personal responsibility; qv the Milgram Experiment - to attempt an end-run around the Fourth doesn't make what you're doing constitutional. It simply shows that you're willing to tread on the Bill of Rights to pursue someone on whom you don't even have enough to evidence to get a subpoena, let alone a full search warrant.
Alice sending Bob a message via Facebook rather than the USPS should not give the Government the ability to warrantlessly tap their correspondance just because some employees of Facebook - which only exists because the Government enables it, no more and no less than the USPS - promptly bent over and said that was okay.
You astound me. Not only do you use a completely contrary example as your classic case - "reap what you sow" refers to the same party, while "privatising profits and socializing losses" refers to a small clique exploiting the masses - you appear to be seriously suggesting that a bunch of poor people ("most Australians are completely unaware") should be left to rely on government handouts because a few rich people in the same country ("a few powerful players") contributed to the problem.
The GP's assertion that the gun was used for that purpose lacks evidence (from the cnn webpage, "Authorities said they did not know the motive for the shooting -- the suspect was not talking and had invoked his right against self-incrimination"), but even presuming that the constitution does enable the populace to be armed for the purpose of countering government oppression, it still does not make it unconstitutional to criminalise assassination.
"He needed killing" is a defence, not a license. James Bond is a work of fiction.
My post presumed that while A and B were bad choices, C was a good choice. If all of the candidates are bad, then your choices may include one or more of (but not limited to):
1) vote for the least bad choice
2) get yourself or someone else you could vote for onto the ballot (even if it's just your local town/district)
3) some nations allow you to write in your own choice of candidate; even if they don't, enough people voting informally draws attention to the system (as it is a form of civil disobedience)
4) don't vote, or vote invalidly; this may be illegal in some countries, but if your nation's voting is truly anonymous such a law is moot from a practical standpoint
5) make use of local forums (e.g. "letters to the editor" sections of local newspapers) to point out political failings (just make sure not to slander anyone; YMMV depending on your nation's freedom of speech or lack thereof).
6) migrate to somewhere better for you and yours (note, not somewhere perfect, there's no such earthly locale, just somewhere better).
"This also explains why consciousness appears to have a special place in quantum collapse. It's really an illusion, and there is no "collapse" - you have just chosen a particular viewpoint that is only consistent with one specific observation."
I'm imagining someone learning to consciously choose improbable viewpoints (e.g. a universe in which they win the lottery twice in a row). And what happens when two such people strive for opposing viewpoints - do they each, from the viewpoint of the other, fail? Or what if one fails from both viewpoints? Possible thesis, the elasticity of consensual reality and its applications to gambling, immortality and extreme sports.:)
(and then there's choosing alternate viewpoints, e.g. a universe in which you didn't miss that train)
Vote for C *anyway*. At least then you can honestly say you're trying.
In the U.S. (and similar countries), the anonymous non-compulsory voting system and the rule of law means you have absolutely no excuse for voting for the bad guys.
So voting for A or B when you know them to be bad choices, and not for C when you know they are a good choice, is ethically the voting equivalent of committing treason.
Doing so whilst bemoaning that there's no point voting for C because he can't get enough to beat A or B is just adding hypocrisy and collusion to the moral charges.
It's of note that the AC officer mentions his department has been "~20% understaffed for the last decade".
That's vicious circle territory: not enough police, too much crime, politicians pass badly-designed "tough on crime" laws to look good but only add to police workloads, stressed police take it out - verbally or physically - on citizens, citizens lose respect for police, more crime, loop.
Is it irony, that one of the best ways to create a "police state" is to make it harder for the police to do their jobs?
I wonder if you've misunderstood me. Yes, there are those who maintain their wealth by keeping others poor. But beyond a certain point, further asset concentration generally diminishes in its returns to your quality of life, and may even introduce negative factors.
By way of example, compare european royalty in the middle ages to the middle-class of a reasonably civilised nation (e.g. Australia, since I live there) of the modern age. The latter's QoL is far superior.
TLDR: Some folks would rather rule in hell than retire in heaven. Worse, some don't realise there's any other way.
"That's just companies doing what companies do, and the government seeking the records later."
What's the practical difference between real-time knowledge of our papers and effects by the government, and real-time knowledge of our papers and effects by companies with a copy uploaded to the government a few seconds later?
But a company only exists within and because of the framework of laws that the government creates. What's the point of having the Amendments, or the Constitution in general, if the government can simply have patsy companies do its dirty work?
Hmm. I point out that the records "you" generate are records of "my" actions, and exist only because of a mutually beneficial contract (since all contracts must involve a quid pro quo to be valid).
But it's not so much about what the CC companies can do. It's about what the government must not do.
A company is an arbitrary entity that exists only because the government empowers it to exist.
And if I understand correctly, the United States Constitution guarantees the people certain inalienable rights - contracts cannot give them away - and this includes due process and freedom from warrantless search and seizure.
So the moment a company - an empowerment of government - can be compelled without a warrant to share specific records of my activities (that I entrusted to them) with the government, even if I contractually agree to that, at least for purposes unrelated to the data's original reason for collection, a constitutional line is being crossed.
At least, that's my understanding. Please educate me if I'm mistaken.
1. I think your example is closer to "the museum charges the public an entrance fee at the front door, but I found a side entrance with no lock and no guard; if, knowing about the front door fee, my feeling is that this side door is not meant to be a free way in for the public, should I respect that feeling?"
2. Yes; however, also consider what is actually scarce - and what is not. While a "file" is an infinitely reproducible abstraction, the mechanisms that enable copying are finite and non-free. Sharing your copy comes out of your resources; sharing someone else's copy comes out of theirs. Do you have their informed consent for the latter?
As a reader, I gained greater awareness of the dangers of suing lawyers, and of the legal system, for an individual. If that's what the submitter intended, then he succeeded.
The answers are no and maybe. Breaking and entering is not a capital offence, but if you're breaking into someone's house, then you bloody well better understand that the "fight or flight" fear reflex is not predictable and that you are invading another animal's lair, possibly occupied, possibly one where young are reared.
All the "laws" of civilisation - the ones you're breaking yourself if you're a burglar - mean nothing if you make the mistake of tripping an otherwise peaceful person's natural instinct to defend their territory and/or loved ones. Any law that doesn't take this into account is itself unjust and inhumane.
If there was no copyright, the RIAA would not exist. I am increasingly of the belief that patent and copyright law was a mistake - an attempt to implement an ideal that, like soviet communism, is in practice fatally allergic to the emergent properties of human society.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect the AC meant the USA's foreign policy in general, not just versus their opponents. Since you mention throwing allies under buses, however, I note the US government is not without some history (at least post-WW2) when it comes to propping up tyrannies, toppling democracies, and throwing away opportunities to capitalise (no irony intended) on events that earned them respect and goodwill.
Now it's entirely possible, I suppose, that it did and does these things for good reasons still classified, but in the meantime it looks pretty bad from the admitted comfort of my allied armchair.
Thankyou for clarifying. It wasn't immediately clear that you were taking aim at the government rather than the population.
The "third party doctrine" as per United States vs Miller (1976) at least involved two court subpoenas (regardless of any controversy over the manner and scope of their issue). The submitter is instead concerned about "behind the scenes" activities: namely, situations where the government simply leans on a business to hand over any records the government wants or even be given a direct feed.
Here's my unwashed Australian opinion: using a business entity - especially in the case of limited liability corporations, which are designed to avoid personal responsibility; qv the Milgram Experiment - to attempt an end-run around the Fourth doesn't make what you're doing constitutional. It simply shows that you're willing to tread on the Bill of Rights to pursue someone on whom you don't even have enough to evidence to get a subpoena, let alone a full search warrant.
Alice sending Bob a message via Facebook rather than the USPS should not give the Government the ability to warrantlessly tap their correspondance just because some employees of Facebook - which only exists because the Government enables it, no more and no less than the USPS - promptly bent over and said that was okay.
You astound me. Not only do you use a completely contrary example as your classic case - "reap what you sow" refers to the same party, while "privatising profits and socializing losses" refers to a small clique exploiting the masses - you appear to be seriously suggesting that a bunch of poor people ("most Australians are completely unaware") should be left to rely on government handouts because a few rich people in the same country ("a few powerful players") contributed to the problem.
Nice job breaking it, hero.
The problem isn't allowing or banning guns. The problem is that people can't be bothered to include the education that should go with either.
Sad thing is the rot is spreading.
The GP's assertion that the gun was used for that purpose lacks evidence (from the cnn webpage, "Authorities said they did not know the motive for the shooting -- the suspect was not talking and had invoked his right against self-incrimination"), but even presuming that the constitution does enable the populace to be armed for the purpose of countering government oppression, it still does not make it unconstitutional to criminalise assassination.
"He needed killing" is a defence, not a license. James Bond is a work of fiction.
My post presumed that while A and B were bad choices, C was a good choice. If all of the candidates are bad, then your choices may include one or more of (but not limited to):
1) vote for the least bad choice
2) get yourself or someone else you could vote for onto the ballot (even if it's just your local town/district)
3) some nations allow you to write in your own choice of candidate; even if they don't, enough people voting informally draws attention to the system (as it is a form of civil disobedience)
4) don't vote, or vote invalidly; this may be illegal in some countries, but if your nation's voting is truly anonymous such a law is moot from a practical standpoint
5) make use of local forums (e.g. "letters to the editor" sections of local newspapers) to point out political failings (just make sure not to slander anyone; YMMV depending on your nation's freedom of speech or lack thereof).
6) migrate to somewhere better for you and yours (note, not somewhere perfect, there's no such earthly locale, just somewhere better).
I'm imagining someone learning to consciously choose improbable viewpoints (e.g. a universe in which they win the lottery twice in a row). And what happens when two such people strive for opposing viewpoints - do they each, from the viewpoint of the other, fail? Or what if one fails from both viewpoints? Possible thesis, the elasticity of consensual reality and its applications to gambling, immortality and extreme sports. :)
(and then there's choosing alternate viewpoints, e.g. a universe in which you didn't miss that train)
Vote for C *anyway*. At least then you can honestly say you're trying.
In the U.S. (and similar countries), the anonymous non-compulsory voting system and the rule of law means you have absolutely no excuse for voting for the bad guys.
So voting for A or B when you know them to be bad choices, and not for C when you know they are a good choice, is ethically the voting equivalent of committing treason.
Doing so whilst bemoaning that there's no point voting for C because he can't get enough to beat A or B is just adding hypocrisy and collusion to the moral charges.
It's of note that the AC officer mentions his department has been "~20% understaffed for the last decade".
That's vicious circle territory: not enough police, too much crime, politicians pass badly-designed "tough on crime" laws to look good but only add to police workloads, stressed police take it out - verbally or physically - on citizens, citizens lose respect for police, more crime, loop.
Is it irony, that one of the best ways to create a "police state" is to make it harder for the police to do their jobs?
Spam is speech? I thought it was noise.
Sidestep? Sidestep? So what would you do if you were facing the possibility of jail in a foreign prison for rape, the tango?
I wonder if you've misunderstood me. Yes, there are those who maintain their wealth by keeping others poor. But beyond a certain point, further asset concentration generally diminishes in its returns to your quality of life, and may even introduce negative factors.
By way of example, compare european royalty in the middle ages to the middle-class of a reasonably civilised nation (e.g. Australia, since I live there) of the modern age. The latter's QoL is far superior.
TLDR: Some folks would rather rule in hell than retire in heaven. Worse, some don't realise there's any other way.
It's rather sad that people - both below and above - continue to believe and spread that particular fallacy.
What's the practical difference between real-time knowledge of our papers and effects by the government, and real-time knowledge of our papers and effects by companies with a copy uploaded to the government a few seconds later?
But a company only exists within and because of the framework of laws that the government creates. What's the point of having the Amendments, or the Constitution in general, if the government can simply have patsy companies do its dirty work?
Hmm. I point out that the records "you" generate are records of "my" actions, and exist only because of a mutually beneficial contract (since all contracts must involve a quid pro quo to be valid).
But it's not so much about what the CC companies can do. It's about what the government must not do.
A company is an arbitrary entity that exists only because the government empowers it to exist.
And if I understand correctly, the United States Constitution guarantees the people certain inalienable rights - contracts cannot give them away - and this includes due process and freedom from warrantless search and seizure.
So the moment a company - an empowerment of government - can be compelled without a warrant to share specific records of my activities (that I entrusted to them) with the government, even if I contractually agree to that, at least for purposes unrelated to the data's original reason for collection, a constitutional line is being crossed.
At least, that's my understanding. Please educate me if I'm mistaken.
It's not your data. It's not my data. It's our data.
And to borrow a phrase, with great data should come great responsibility.
Closer to 7 billion, and might reach it sometime late next year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html
Weyland-Yutani will be contacting you shortly.
1. I think your example is closer to "the museum charges the public an entrance fee at the front door, but I found a side entrance with no lock and no guard; if, knowing about the front door fee, my feeling is that this side door is not meant to be a free way in for the public, should I respect that feeling?"
2. Yes; however, also consider what is actually scarce - and what is not. While a "file" is an infinitely reproducible abstraction, the mechanisms that enable copying are finite and non-free. Sharing your copy comes out of your resources; sharing someone else's copy comes out of theirs. Do you have their informed consent for the latter?
Yes. Of course, if anyone objects, you may find yourself experiencing the due process to which you are likewise constitutionally entitled.
As a reader, I gained greater awareness of the dangers of suing lawyers, and of the legal system, for an individual. If that's what the submitter intended, then he succeeded.
The answers are no and maybe. Breaking and entering is not a capital offence, but if you're breaking into someone's house, then you bloody well better understand that the "fight or flight" fear reflex is not predictable and that you are invading another animal's lair, possibly occupied, possibly one where young are reared.
All the "laws" of civilisation - the ones you're breaking yourself if you're a burglar - mean nothing if you make the mistake of tripping an otherwise peaceful person's natural instinct to defend their territory and/or loved ones. Any law that doesn't take this into account is itself unjust and inhumane.
If there was no copyright, the RIAA would not exist. I am increasingly of the belief that patent and copyright law was a mistake - an attempt to implement an ideal that, like soviet communism, is in practice fatally allergic to the emergent properties of human society.