If you're selecting hundreds of targets you aren't being selective.
They can select whoever they please, thanks to this information. I wouldn't be so quick to trivialize the situation.
because the US is so decentralized that there's no way to control it through 15 people.
Corporations have managed to bribe many of our officials pretty easily.
The Founding Fathers succeeded quite well in creating a Federal government that literally cannot oppress it's citizens most of the time.
Not nearly well enough, as far as I'm concerned. I see this as a very serious, very dangerous problem, regardless of how 'decentralized' you think our awful system is.
Read this article's comments. Whose talked about stop-and-frisk besides me? Abortion? Anything but the NSA?
Just because they don't constantly talk about it in every article doesn't mean it's not a concern.
The article is all about the Fourth Amendment, and yet we prefer lengthy battles on whether Assange is a rapist to actually talking about the Fourth Amendment.
Just saying that they exist does not make them exist. Where's your evidence of the magical rights fairy, or whatever it is that makes these magic rights exist? From all I've seen, it is people who create and defend these rights.
Operating extremely dangerous machinery in public, when the slightest mistake can kill somebody, is a privilege, not a right.
What's your point? Even if you believe this to be true, that does not mean you have to accept it when the government harasses innocent people without cause. Clearly a violation of the fourth amendment, in my opinion.
They're not government roads; they're the people's roads. And the government only has the powers that the constitution grants it. Since these roads are public (You do know what public means, don't you?), and since these policies violate the constitution and people's freedoms, I say they shouldn't be allowed.
When it comes to car drivers, all of them are guilty.
Oh, of course.
And in that spirit, there is a nice country called "Somalia".
I don't know. I just think there should be a glorious country in which all the bootlickers can congregate... and leave the rest of us out of it. North Korea might not be readily accessible, so perhaps it's not the best choice.
It's nice that you are willing to take the risk of being killed by a drunk driver, but the problem with your position is that it forces me to take that risk as well.
Since freedom is my goal, that is fine by me. Under my scheme, you'd have some more freedoms; woe is you. I'd much rather be the one defending freedoms than taking them from everyone else. I'd say that's how it should work in any free society.
You've created a false dichotomy that you believe so completely you can't see it.
Not a false dichotomy. I recognize that people can believe that certain rights are more important than others and that they can draw their own lines. But I can do the same, can I not? That's exactly what I've done. By my standards, you're wrong, and vice versa. Nothing new there.
That "the ends justify the means"? No, of course not
It seems to me that you've already made it clear that you think the ends justify the means in this case. This leads me to believe that you'd also be willing to sacrifice freedoms if, say, the TSA et al. were actually effective at keeping people safe. If that is so (and I don't see why it wouldn't be), then I find that terribly disappointing.
This is exactly why I made the comment that there is a balance to be achieved.
Well, I don't want your "balance" in this case; I want the government to follow the constitution and not violate people's rights. This is a pretty blatant violation of the fourth amendment to begin with.
Your argument of course will be, they'll start small
That won't be my argument. My argument is that even the "small" violations are unjust, and it doesn't matter to me whether or not it'll get worse; although, I do believe it could, especially with the 'logic' that people are putting forth to try to justify this.
but I like having the freedom to drive knowing that there more than likely is not some huge out of control slab of steel with my name on it.
You have that freedom. No government should infringe upon it, or at least that's what I think.
I'd also rather not be blown up by terrorists, but you don't see me supporting the TSA, the NSA, or any other such nonsense. In fact, I think those things should be completely obliterated; there's your "balance."
That's irrelevant; the logic is the same. They could just say, "By owning a house in this city/state, you agree to waive your rights away," and that would apparently be okay with you people. Actually, it wouldn't be, but that's probably because you're egregiously inconsistent.
Well, duh, you usually need a ticket for a bus, train or plane.
How is having to have a ticket at all equivalent to having government thugs harass people? I think the issue of tickets should be between you and the owner(s) of the property, anyway.
And be more creative, now. Such logic can be used to justify any government harassment. Don't want the government to harass you for living in a certain city? Don't want them to search your home? Don't live there.
Besides, if people were, in fact, innocent, there would be no need to harass them.
So they were asking for it? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear? All these people were simply guilty?
innocent people on the roads are a tiny minority.
No proof this specific individual committed any crimes? Then too bad for you.
There's a nice country called "North Korea" that might be right up your alley...
Then don't fly on a plane. Then don't drive a car. Then don't ride in a train. Then don't ride in a bus. Then don't live in a certain city.
This sort of logic can be used to justify anything. How about we just refrain from harassing innocent people? To me, it's simple enough, just, and we don't even have to waste money.
The reason for this is obvious if you spend 5 seconds thinking about it.
I'm not going to say what I've already said in about ten other posts again, so I'll make this short: To me, freedom > safety. I do not believe that you should be randomly harassed by worthless government thugs merely because you want to drive on a public road just so they can check if you're innocent. We also have this thing called the fourth amendment; this approach does not follow it, as they can't prove each of these individuals were violating any laws.
there is a balance to be achieved.
How many times have I heard that line used to justify some infringement upon our freedoms? Too many, I say. I do not compromise on issues such as this. I'll take the risks that come with having freedom. The end.
I don't see you or anyone else proposing anything other than sitting back and watching the death toll climb while you go on about the liberty you think you have, which itself would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetically contemptible considering what has come out over the last 6 months from the land of the free.
I believe freedom is more important than safety. I believe the government should be distrusted by default. I'm opposed to the NSA, the TSA, free speech zones, warrantless wiretapping, randomly harassing people to check their innocence, and all the other nonsense that's happening in the US that infringes upon people's fundamental rights. There is nothing laughable about the situation with the NSA, or at least I don't think so.
And I find it strange that you bring up the NSA (I'm presuming that's what you meant) as if you acknowledge it as a problem. To you, the ends justify the means, don't they? Rights don't seem to matter to you. Why would you care about the NSA? I care about the NSA in that I acknowledge it as a problem. And you know? I do not want this country to get even worse.
If you are using a public road then you are using someone elses property. It is completely within the rights of a government to bind usage of their roads to certain conditions.
I do not believe it is completely within the rights of a government to bind usage of roads to certain conditions, or usage of any public place to certain conditions. In fact, the government has privileges, not rights. It's a public place for a reason! It is public.
This is not something I believe happens in any free country.
If you don't like it don't use public roads, simple. By using them you implicitly agree.
That is absurd. Just like I don't agree to be molested by the TSA when I go into an airport, or I don't agree to give up all my rights when I go into public places in general, I do not agree, implicitly or otherwise, to have government thugs randomly harass me just because I want to drive on a public road! What part of this do you bootlickers not understand?
This is the logic of tyrants.
and most of the European countries are more free than the US these days.
Certainly not in that regard! And since when do you care about freedom? From my perspective, you've made it clear that you don't. For some reason, you're going to great lengths to justify this violation of freedom, and I have no idea why some people find the government's boots to be so tasty.
If the government exercises its right to (even randomly) check if people follow the rules on its own property it's not harassment.
It has no such right, or even privilege. We have something called the fourth amendment in the US, and no, they can't randomly decide it doesn't apply just because you're on a public road.
You fail: when you drive, you're agreeing to the conditions on your licence - to not drive while drunk, and that you can and will submit to testing at any time you're driving. It's quite simple. If you do not want to be stopped and tested, then don't drive.
You could make similar arguments about anything. By going to an airport, you agree to be molested by the TSA. By living in a certain city, you agree to waive your fourth amendment rights. I could go on and on, but I will say this: I agree to no such thing. I do not want government thugs harassing innocent people to test their innocence. The end.
In short, to anyone with a brain, your logic will probably appear absurd. This sort of thinking is something I'd expect from more tyrannical countries, not countries that claim to be free.
Nobody's forced you to give up any rights
Apparently, the government is. Do you honestly think that forcing individuals to give up certain rights if they do something as basic as drive is a moral thing, or that it's even voluntary? Doesn't sound voluntary to me.
In short, I believe any such "conditions" are ridiculous, unjust, and unenforceable. Did you know that you can't sign yourself into slavery? Why, then, should you be able to sign yourself into tyranny? Why, then, must you sign away your rights just because you want to drive a car, even when you're innocent? That doesn't sound voluntary to me.
It wasn't a violation of any rights, because I agree to tehse conditions the moment I drive off my property.
I do not believe you can surrender your rights so easily.
In short, don't be a dick: you choose to make yourself subject to these laws by driving.
No, I didn't, and don't. I chose to drive a car. I did not agree to have government thugs harass me just because I decide to drive around. They have no probable cause, nor any reason to harass these people. This is like saying that you consent to being molested by the TSA when you go into airports; it's just absurd.
I do not see why people defend this. Naivete? Ignorance? Both? Who knows.
Basic rights I believed should exist in any country, including the right to not be randomly harassed or intimidated by government thugs.
Have you read the Australian Constitution?
I don't need to. Regardless of whether or not they have the same protections, I believe that certain rights should exist for everyone, and that if they aren't recognized, that that's wrong.
so that my right to live isn't completely revoked by a drunk driver smashing into me!
A private citizen harming you and the government harassing you simply because you might be guilty are fundamentally different things to me. If you have evidence that a specific individual is breaking a law, then fine, but don't randomly harass people; that's not something I'd expect from any free country.
Just look at and compare the homicide by firearm per capita, or the road fatalities per capita or distance driven, etc. Look at our standard of living, average incomes and lifespan. Home ownership, days of annual holidays, health care system and condition, quality and newness of the infrastructure. Yeah, unions, socialism and constitutional monarchy democracies with capitalist economies can work very very well, come on down and see for yourself sometime.
What about it? I'd say every country has flaws that need to be fixed, regardless of how 'good' they are.
What happens to my innocent rights when a drinker harms me?
You get harmed. But this is all irrelevant, because in that case, it is not the government who harms you. In this case, it is the government that's doing the harassing.
Driving is not a right and people who get caught must be punished.
Then the answer would be to only make people stop when you have evidence that they as individuals are breaking the law. Problem solved.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're selecting hundreds of targets you aren't being selective.
They can select whoever they please, thanks to this information. I wouldn't be so quick to trivialize the situation.
because the US is so decentralized that there's no way to control it through 15 people.
Corporations have managed to bribe many of our officials pretty easily.
The Founding Fathers succeeded quite well in creating a Federal government that literally cannot oppress it's citizens most of the time.
Not nearly well enough, as far as I'm concerned. I see this as a very serious, very dangerous problem, regardless of how 'decentralized' you think our awful system is.
Read this article's comments. Whose talked about stop-and-frisk besides me? Abortion? Anything but the NSA?
Just because they don't constantly talk about it in every article doesn't mean it's not a concern.
The article is all about the Fourth Amendment, and yet we prefer lengthy battles on whether Assange is a rapist to actually talking about the Fourth Amendment.
I see most comments talking about the NSA.
But since the ability to have property is equivalent to the right to private property
I don't think so.
Just saying that they exist does not make them exist. Where's your evidence of the magical rights fairy, or whatever it is that makes these magic rights exist? From all I've seen, it is people who create and defend these rights.
Which is something to look for, but it's also something that is pretty easy to detect unless it's a very, very small group.
Or unless they merely use the information to select targets.
They care so much that after I bring it up they say "oh, yeah, I agree with you on that one too."
And you expect them to do what, exactly?
it's because the people who read Slashdot honestly think that the Federal government having a huge database will necessarily lead to mass oppression
I think it most likely will, eventually. But I wasn't aware that Slashdot readers were all the same.
And? That changes nothing.
America bashing is all the rage
I live in the US, and this particular situation occurred in the US. I realize people were also talking about Australia, though.
Operating extremely dangerous machinery in public, when the slightest mistake can kill somebody, is a privilege, not a right.
What's your point? Even if you believe this to be true, that does not mean you have to accept it when the government harasses innocent people without cause. Clearly a violation of the fourth amendment, in my opinion.
Government roads - governent rules.
They're not government roads; they're the people's roads. And the government only has the powers that the constitution grants it. Since these roads are public (You do know what public means, don't you?), and since these policies violate the constitution and people's freedoms, I say they shouldn't be allowed.
When it comes to car drivers, all of them are guilty.
Oh, of course.
And in that spirit, there is a nice country called "Somalia".
I don't know. I just think there should be a glorious country in which all the bootlickers can congregate... and leave the rest of us out of it. North Korea might not be readily accessible, so perhaps it's not the best choice.
I don't know of any, but according to these people's logic, it would be perfectly fine to randomly harass people who choose to walk around.
It's nice that you are willing to take the risk of being killed by a drunk driver, but the problem with your position is that it forces me to take that risk as well.
Since freedom is my goal, that is fine by me. Under my scheme, you'd have some more freedoms; woe is you. I'd much rather be the one defending freedoms than taking them from everyone else. I'd say that's how it should work in any free society.
You've created a false dichotomy that you believe so completely you can't see it.
Not a false dichotomy. I recognize that people can believe that certain rights are more important than others and that they can draw their own lines. But I can do the same, can I not? That's exactly what I've done. By my standards, you're wrong, and vice versa. Nothing new there.
That "the ends justify the means"? No, of course not
It seems to me that you've already made it clear that you think the ends justify the means in this case. This leads me to believe that you'd also be willing to sacrifice freedoms if, say, the TSA et al. were actually effective at keeping people safe. If that is so (and I don't see why it wouldn't be), then I find that terribly disappointing.
This is exactly why I made the comment that there is a balance to be achieved.
Well, I don't want your "balance" in this case; I want the government to follow the constitution and not violate people's rights. This is a pretty blatant violation of the fourth amendment to begin with.
Your argument of course will be, they'll start small
That won't be my argument. My argument is that even the "small" violations are unjust, and it doesn't matter to me whether or not it'll get worse; although, I do believe it could, especially with the 'logic' that people are putting forth to try to justify this.
but I like having the freedom to drive knowing that there more than likely is not some huge out of control slab of steel with my name on it.
You have that freedom. No government should infringe upon it, or at least that's what I think.
I'd also rather not be blown up by terrorists, but you don't see me supporting the TSA, the NSA, or any other such nonsense. In fact, I think those things should be completely obliterated; there's your "balance."
Oh, there isnt one?
That's irrelevant; the logic is the same. They could just say, "By owning a house in this city/state, you agree to waive your rights away," and that would apparently be okay with you people. Actually, it wouldn't be, but that's probably because you're egregiously inconsistent.
Well, duh, you usually need a ticket for a bus, train or plane.
How is having to have a ticket at all equivalent to having government thugs harass people? I think the issue of tickets should be between you and the owner(s) of the property, anyway.
And be more creative, now. Such logic can be used to justify any government harassment. Don't want the government to harass you for living in a certain city? Don't want them to search your home? Don't live there.
Besides, if people were, in fact, innocent, there would be no need to harass them.
So they were asking for it? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear? All these people were simply guilty?
innocent people on the roads are a tiny minority.
No proof this specific individual committed any crimes? Then too bad for you.
There's a nice country called "North Korea" that might be right up your alley...
Then don't fly on a plane. Then don't drive a car. Then don't ride in a train. Then don't ride in a bus. Then don't live in a certain city.
This sort of logic can be used to justify anything. How about we just refrain from harassing innocent people? To me, it's simple enough, just, and we don't even have to waste money.
No one is pretending that it isn't, they are just ok with it.
So basically, they want the government to have the power to do whatever it pleases?
When you spend money on trying to prevent something that kills tens of thousands of people every year people are less inclined to complain.
Why, do they have no principles whatsoever? Whatever happened to being the land of the free and the home of the brave?
You're either trolling, or stupid, not sure which...
In my opinion, these people sound borderline insane.
The reason for this is obvious if you spend 5 seconds thinking about it.
I'm not going to say what I've already said in about ten other posts again, so I'll make this short: To me, freedom > safety. I do not believe that you should be randomly harassed by worthless government thugs merely because you want to drive on a public road just so they can check if you're innocent. We also have this thing called the fourth amendment; this approach does not follow it, as they can't prove each of these individuals were violating any laws.
there is a balance to be achieved.
How many times have I heard that line used to justify some infringement upon our freedoms? Too many, I say. I do not compromise on issues such as this. I'll take the risks that come with having freedom. The end.
I don't see you or anyone else proposing anything other than sitting back and watching the death toll climb while you go on about the liberty you think you have, which itself would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetically contemptible considering what has come out over the last 6 months from the land of the free.
I believe freedom is more important than safety. I believe the government should be distrusted by default. I'm opposed to the NSA, the TSA, free speech zones, warrantless wiretapping, randomly harassing people to check their innocence, and all the other nonsense that's happening in the US that infringes upon people's fundamental rights. There is nothing laughable about the situation with the NSA, or at least I don't think so.
And I find it strange that you bring up the NSA (I'm presuming that's what you meant) as if you acknowledge it as a problem. To you, the ends justify the means, don't they? Rights don't seem to matter to you. Why would you care about the NSA? I care about the NSA in that I acknowledge it as a problem. And you know? I do not want this country to get even worse.
If you are using a public road then you are using someone elses property. It is completely within the rights of a government to bind usage of their roads to certain conditions.
I do not believe it is completely within the rights of a government to bind usage of roads to certain conditions, or usage of any public place to certain conditions. In fact, the government has privileges, not rights. It's a public place for a reason! It is public.
This is not something I believe happens in any free country.
If you don't like it don't use public roads, simple. By using them you implicitly agree.
That is absurd. Just like I don't agree to be molested by the TSA when I go into an airport, or I don't agree to give up all my rights when I go into public places in general, I do not agree, implicitly or otherwise, to have government thugs randomly harass me just because I want to drive on a public road! What part of this do you bootlickers not understand?
This is the logic of tyrants.
and most of the European countries are more free than the US these days.
Certainly not in that regard! And since when do you care about freedom? From my perspective, you've made it clear that you don't. For some reason, you're going to great lengths to justify this violation of freedom, and I have no idea why some people find the government's boots to be so tasty.
If the government exercises its right to (even randomly) check if people follow the rules on its own property it's not harassment.
It has no such right, or even privilege. We have something called the fourth amendment in the US, and no, they can't randomly decide it doesn't apply just because you're on a public road.
Dude, glass houses...
Pointing such things out changes nothing. How do you know he doesn't also feel as if his country has many problems?
The worst part is you don't even know how nuts that is.
How do you know what he thinks?
By living in a certain city, you agree to waive your fourth amendment rights.
Or, if you're not in the US, you agree to allow the police to search your home at any time they choose.
"If you want to do X, you must agree to surrender your individual liberties" is, to me, absolutely disgusting.
You fail: when you drive, you're agreeing to the conditions on your licence - to not drive while drunk, and that you can and will submit to testing at any time you're driving. It's quite simple. If you do not want to be stopped and tested, then don't drive.
You could make similar arguments about anything. By going to an airport, you agree to be molested by the TSA. By living in a certain city, you agree to waive your fourth amendment rights. I could go on and on, but I will say this: I agree to no such thing. I do not want government thugs harassing innocent people to test their innocence. The end.
In short, to anyone with a brain, your logic will probably appear absurd. This sort of thinking is something I'd expect from more tyrannical countries, not countries that claim to be free.
Nobody's forced you to give up any rights
Apparently, the government is. Do you honestly think that forcing individuals to give up certain rights if they do something as basic as drive is a moral thing, or that it's even voluntary? Doesn't sound voluntary to me.
I don't think those are really rights, but abilities, depending on what you're talking about.
In short, I believe any such "conditions" are ridiculous, unjust, and unenforceable. Did you know that you can't sign yourself into slavery? Why, then, should you be able to sign yourself into tyranny? Why, then, must you sign away your rights just because you want to drive a car, even when you're innocent? That doesn't sound voluntary to me.
It wasn't a violation of any rights, because I agree to tehse conditions the moment I drive off my property.
I do not believe you can surrender your rights so easily.
In short, don't be a dick: you choose to make yourself subject to these laws by driving.
No, I didn't, and don't. I chose to drive a car. I did not agree to have government thugs harass me just because I decide to drive around. They have no probable cause, nor any reason to harass these people. This is like saying that you consent to being molested by the TSA when you go into airports; it's just absurd.
I do not see why people defend this. Naivete? Ignorance? Both? Who knows.
What right is being violated?
Basic rights I believed should exist in any country, including the right to not be randomly harassed or intimidated by government thugs.
Have you read the Australian Constitution?
I don't need to. Regardless of whether or not they have the same protections, I believe that certain rights should exist for everyone, and that if they aren't recognized, that that's wrong.
so that my right to live isn't completely revoked by a drunk driver smashing into me!
A private citizen harming you and the government harassing you simply because you might be guilty are fundamentally different things to me. If you have evidence that a specific individual is breaking a law, then fine, but don't randomly harass people; that's not something I'd expect from any free country.
Just look at and compare the homicide by firearm per capita, or the road fatalities per capita or distance driven, etc. Look at our standard of living, average incomes and lifespan. Home ownership, days of annual holidays, health care system and condition, quality and newness of the infrastructure.
Yeah, unions, socialism and constitutional monarchy democracies with capitalist economies can work very very well, come on down and see for yourself sometime.
What about it? I'd say every country has flaws that need to be fixed, regardless of how 'good' they are.
What happens to my innocent rights when a drinker harms me?
You get harmed. But this is all irrelevant, because in that case, it is not the government who harms you. In this case, it is the government that's doing the harassing.
Driving is not a right and people who get caught must be punished.
Then the answer would be to only make people stop when you have evidence that they as individuals are breaking the law. Problem solved.