To me, Wikileaks is journalism, not terrorism. It looks like the US is giving up on principal democratic rights under the flag of ultra-nationalistic, or even outright fascist, tendencies. By extension, we can expect a more aggressive nationalistic US in the future, with possible China-like monitoring of the Internet as to avoid thought-crimes by its citizens.
The overall effect on me, as a European, is roughly: 'If the US feels like, let them dig their own nationalistic grave.'
I could care less about who watches what where at what moment with whom. This is just gossip. Doesn't it say, 'news for nerds - stuff that matters' in the headline?
I can pick up a tabloid anywhere, thank you very much.
Duh, you really want to live in a police state don't you?
Look at the top post. Someone Googled a colleague and looked at whatever digital bits were left behind, and that behavior is criminalized? Know what, I Googled probably almost all my friends. Am I a criminal for participating in Facebook, too?
That's my point. It isn't civil disobedience, you criminalize ordinary behavior, and there are laws against exactly that. Not my behavior.
I am a trained IT professional btw. You know what I do with my own routers? I leave them open, exactly for that reason that people think they can make conclusions from IP. And most of these online, or hard-copy, inquiries I sign with "Daffy Duck." Just such that we don't end up in a police state.
This is the most ridiculous post I've ever read. Faking identities is as old as cats, and is a real problem, and is going to be a more real problem in everyday life from this day to come.
By your reasoning, someone who lends a book in a library using stolen credentials is not responsible for that but the robbed party is, and all millions of owners of hacked spam-bots computers are criminals.
BS.
It is even worse. How do you distinguish browsing history from one person between another. By IP?
What if:
You are given false records by an IT department?
You are tracking not a person but everyone who has access to his router?
You are tracking not a person but everyone who has access to his computer?
You are tracking not a person but everyone who has remote access to his hacked browser?
The only manner in which browsing can have any legal standing is someone was there and actually saw you do it.
I.e. I used to be a teacher on a college. How many students or even colleagues do you think are up to a prank and just start downloading Nikki Underwear's finest from your computer? And that is without even going into the many reasons people might have some sick attempt to damage another.
>> the purpose of law (and government) is to create a successful society
> It may be true at a practical level, but I find this kind of rationalization very scary. You are saying that the needs of the collective universally outweigh those of the individual.
I don't find it a rationalization. The law of a society reflects its own morality. Just imagine we were another species. We might find it just to eat all children up to age four, some spiders do that. We are human, so we don't.
>> From some points of view, pornography is immoral. The real questions that should be asked are whether it is detrimental to society
> I have to disagree. We are not here to serve 'society', 'society' is here to serve us.
The law is societies common morality. Each society has its own right to establish its own laws. In the Netherlands, some porn was just aired on public television. We even have a television show on drugs and sex. I doubt anyone cares here. To each his own.
Slashdot Mirror
The overall effect on me, as a European, is roughly: 'If the US feels like, let them dig their own nationalistic grave.'
I could care less about who watches what where at what moment with whom. This is just gossip. Doesn't it say, 'news for nerds - stuff that matters' in the headline? I can pick up a tabloid anywhere, thank you very much.
Duh, you really want to live in a police state don't you? Look at the top post. Someone Googled a colleague and looked at whatever digital bits were left behind, and that behavior is criminalized? Know what, I Googled probably almost all my friends. Am I a criminal for participating in Facebook, too? That's my point. It isn't civil disobedience, you criminalize ordinary behavior, and there are laws against exactly that. Not my behavior.
I am a trained IT professional btw. You know what I do with my own routers? I leave them open, exactly for that reason that people think they can make conclusions from IP. And most of these online, or hard-copy, inquiries I sign with "Daffy Duck." Just such that we don't end up in a police state.
This is the most ridiculous post I've ever read. Faking identities is as old as cats, and is a real problem, and is going to be a more real problem in everyday life from this day to come. By your reasoning, someone who lends a book in a library using stolen credentials is not responsible for that but the robbed party is, and all millions of owners of hacked spam-bots computers are criminals. BS.
I have a Mac. It runs Fedora. To me: Mac = Good Hardware, Linux = Good Productivity.
According to TFA. Diplomats are the same in all countries it seems.
Ah, you beat me to it.
What if:
The only manner in which browsing can have any legal standing is someone was there and actually saw you do it.
I.e. I used to be a teacher on a college. How many students or even colleagues do you think are up to a prank and just start downloading Nikki Underwear's finest from your computer? And that is without even going into the many reasons people might have some sick attempt to damage another.
How is this news?
>> the purpose of law (and government) is to create a successful society
> It may be true at a practical level, but I find this kind of rationalization very scary. You are saying that the needs of the collective universally outweigh those of the individual.
I don't find it a rationalization. The law of a society reflects its own morality. Just imagine we were another species. We might find it just to eat all children up to age four, some spiders do that. We are human, so we don't.
>> From some points of view, pornography is immoral. The real questions that should be asked are whether it is detrimental to society
> I have to disagree. We are not here to serve 'society', 'society' is here to serve us.
The law is societies common morality. Each society has its own right to establish its own laws. In the Netherlands, some porn was just aired on public television. We even have a television show on drugs and sex. I doubt anyone cares here. To each his own.