In that instance, and only that instance, I think a contempt of court charge for failure to divulge the key would be warranted.
Oh, I see. But I doubt many people would be foolish enough to do that. But the thing is, how long would they hold them in contempt of court? They could forget while they're holding them in contempt of court, too.
You can't choose to testify regarding some aspects of the case, and then when things start to turn sour, decide to shut up again.
I'm pretty sure you can, actually. According to the 5th amendment, anyway:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It really doesn't say anything other than that.
But then again, if the courts wanted to weasel their way out of that somehow, I'm sure they could. And they might very well be doing that.
So someone who decides to murder a complete stranger, someone just riding the bus and reading their book, who is doing nothing other than sitting there, is not violating any morals in your opinion?
Any morals? Well, they might violate an individual person's morals, but I don't believe they're violating some sort of universal morals (that come from some unknown source and have no effect on anything).
When I see someone reduced to arguing on semantics ("what is stealing?") then I know they have no legitimate justification.
Sounds like a non sequitur to me. The fact that I argued "semantics" does not mean that I have no "justification" (I don't believe such a thing is necessary, though). I simply tried to correct you on a point you made that I thought was wrong.
Justification about what? Whether or not a justification is "legitimate" is, I believe, subjective. Can you logically prove that someone arguing "semantics" indicates that they have no "legitimate justification"? What if someone used the same exact logic that you used against someone that was arguing that murder is wrong but was also arguing semantics? Does that mean that the person arguing semantics has no legitimate justification that (just an example) murder is wrong?
Justification of sociopathy.
No... I just don't believe in absolute morals. Nice straw man, though.
If the teach the test method also transfers the necessary skills to solve the test questions then the result is desirable.
Except that most of the time, it doesn't seem to work. From what I've seen (as experienced), people don't actually learn anything more than the most basic of material. If they do learn it slightly, they'll likely forget it after the test. Of course, they'll probably forget it if they're not interested anyway, but I don't think teaching someone how to pass a test is going to help them.
I think the US public 'education' system is, in its current form, downright awful. Especially its policies ("zero tolerance") and its tendencies to produce factory workers.
2) I know the key (not knew, but know, as in you haven't forgotten it)
Good luck with that! The human memory is (from what I've seen) incredibly fragile. So even if you arrested them, knew that they decrypted it every single day, and asked them to decrypt it soon after the arrest, you can't prove, likely not even near beyond a 'reasonable' doubt (since some people have great memory, others have terrible memory, and still others forget things under stress), that they still knew the password. They could've forgotten it under the stress of the situation for all you know.
Then maybe we should just fix the thing (amend it). It's not a surprise that when someone wants to see what the constitution says, they would read the constitution instead of playing guessing games trying to figure out the spirit of the constitution from things people said a long time ago on their own that aren't even in the constitution.
Encryption cannot be a perfect safety net with which to break the law with impunity
If they can't break it on their own without holding you in contempt of court indefinitely for not incriminating yourself, or if they can't prove that you know how to decrypt it (if you say you forgot), then that's simply too bad for them. They've failed to get evidence to convict you, and that, in my opinion, should be the end of that.
Some people seem to forget that policies like this are to protect the innocent.
Extreme 1: no security Pros: hassle approaching nil, best speed Cons: security approaching nil
If by "no security," you mean, "no security that violates people's privacy," then yes. Cockpit doors would still be secured, citizens would still be aware of any dangers, and there could even be a few guards on the plane itself (none of which would violate anyone's privacy).
This is, in my opinion, the best solution. I'm more interested in privacy than I am worried about terrorist attacks.
So, yeah, you didn't really need to spell out what you meant because I already had an idea. I would rather risk a terrorist attack than violate anyone's privacy.
Except this is NOT a moderation fallacy, because the compromise in the middle ground is actually correct.
"Yes! Extremes are good!"
That sounded like you were being sarcastic (which I believe you were). To me that implied that all extremes are not good.
Furthermore, whether or not the "extremes" are correct is a matter of preference. You're seemingly trying to bring in objectivity when there doesn't seem to be any to begin with. You see, I prefer protecting privacy over being paranoid about terrorist attacks or forcibly scanning people (or whatever your "middle ground" is). That's simply my preference.
As I said, "People can take their paranoia of terrorism elsewhere. Increased cockpit security and more aware citizens is more than good enough for me."
In other words, I don't agree with your "middle ground." I'd rather suffer a terrorist attack than invade people's privacy.
I don't quite understand. If you're saying that "extremes" (subjective) are wrong, then that would be the argument to moderation fallacy. There is no reason that I see to assume that an "extreme" is inherently wrong. If you weren't saying that, then I don't know what your point was.
Also, yes, I think all screening is bad because it violates people's privacy. People can take their paranoia of terrorism elsewhere. Increased cockpit security and more aware citizens is more than good enough for me.
If they arrest/fine/imprison enough people, one after the other, the allure of running an upload site is going to diminish greatly, especially if you're not even making much money off it in the first place.
Right. Because suing people for ridiculous amounts of money is working so well for us now. I think that's unrealistic. In order for civil liberties to not be violated, they actually have to investigate. Consider how long that pointless Megaupload bust took. Years. And likely lots of taxpayer dollars. For what? People allegedly copying media. My heroes!
I wonder how many slashdotters would be prepared to go to jail for the principle of being able to up/download copyright infringing files?
Putting people in jail for copying music sounds completely reasonable and a good use of taxpayer dollars. Doing that and making sure not to violate civil liberties is an easy task, right? Well, not as far as I know. I think what we're doing now (taking down websites which are quickly replaced) is about as far as we can go without circumventing due process (SOPA, PIPA, etc). Even the DMCA is being abused.
The downloaders likely won't be slowed down at all.
My guess would be: probably about the same number as would actually take up arms against the evil US government
The difference is that one is vastly more simple than the other.
I don't care what babies agree on (not that them crying means they think it's wrong, they're probably not thinking anything), and I don't see how it proves that absolute morals exist.
I believe all morals are subjective. Are you going to offer actual evidence to the contrary, or just state your opinion?
The pirate can't steal that. The time and money spent creating the original work is already gone. And it was the artist's own choice, at that. The pirate had nothing to do with that decision.
So would you consider the editorial process at a newspaper (say, the fact that a human being, with editorial authority, sits in between the web-based letter-to-the-editor form and the web-based display of letters-to-the-editor that the newspaper site's public visitors see) is censorship?
Suppressing such information could be considered censorship (at least by me), even if certain people agree with it. Not all censorship must be deemed "evil" or other such things.
Is deleting forum spam censorship?
I think it is, yes. The fact that you or some others may agree with that censorship doesn't mean it's not censorship.
I'd say that's subjective unless you can prove to me that absolute morals exist.
Net result for me, an innocent bystander who doesn't pirate stuff, because, you know, it's wrong - the internet gets more rules and becomes less useful. So thanks a lot, pirates.
I'd say the people who actually write those draconian laws are mostly at fault. Would you say, "Thanks, murderers!" if the government decided to imprison everyone so that they could get rid of murderers? I'd say the ones who write and try to pass the draconian laws are the ones who are most at fault.
I guess no website can have advertisements because of the piracy boogeyman. Someone, somewhere might be copying something! We should waste extreme amounts of taxpayer dollars trying to stop what amounts to jaywalkers.
They're really cracking down on those evil music downloaders, aren't they? This is surely a worthy cause and we need to spend twice the amount of taxpayer money going after these most heinous of criminals.
No, it's not. I said that I didn't use the appeal to popularity fallacy in this comment.
The reason I thought you said I did is because of your comment in this comment: "It is NOT Bandwagon fallacy, which you are attempting to apply incorrectly, and actually, you're applying one fallacy while committing another, using a Slashdot troll's favorite weapon: Strawman fallacy." That was a reply to my comment that I linked to above, so I thought you were saying that I said that you used the appeal to popularity fallacy yet again in a different comment.
And the whole reason I thought you were using the appeal to popularity fallacy is because of this comment in this reply: "It is relevant... its called Ethical Universalization. The ethical application of universalization is a test for whether an action, if universalized to a broad population, would have harmful consequences or maintain its sense of justifiability. If a broad population would not wish to see their own children, if not explicitly exploited, even merely suggestably exploited, then its an indicator that it is very likely unethical."
You started talking about "Ethical Universalization" and then went on to mention things about what the majority. But perhaps I misinterpreted you there.
Slashdot Mirror
In your original comment, you said: "What we have now is just as stupid as no screenings at all."
But I don't want any screenings (such as those TSA screenings).
In that instance, and only that instance, I think a contempt of court charge for failure to divulge the key would be warranted.
Oh, I see. But I doubt many people would be foolish enough to do that. But the thing is, how long would they hold them in contempt of court? They could forget while they're holding them in contempt of court, too.
You can't choose to testify regarding some aspects of the case, and then when things start to turn sour, decide to shut up again.
I'm pretty sure you can, actually. According to the 5th amendment, anyway:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It really doesn't say anything other than that.
But then again, if the courts wanted to weasel their way out of that somehow, I'm sure they could. And they might very well be doing that.
So someone who decides to murder a complete stranger, someone just riding the bus and reading their book, who is doing nothing other than sitting there, is not violating any morals in your opinion?
Any morals? Well, they might violate an individual person's morals, but I don't believe they're violating some sort of universal morals (that come from some unknown source and have no effect on anything).
When I see someone reduced to arguing on semantics ("what is stealing?") then I know they have no legitimate justification.
Sounds like a non sequitur to me. The fact that I argued "semantics" does not mean that I have no "justification" (I don't believe such a thing is necessary, though). I simply tried to correct you on a point you made that I thought was wrong.
Justification about what? Whether or not a justification is "legitimate" is, I believe, subjective. Can you logically prove that someone arguing "semantics" indicates that they have no "legitimate justification"? What if someone used the same exact logic that you used against someone that was arguing that murder is wrong but was also arguing semantics? Does that mean that the person arguing semantics has no legitimate justification that (just an example) murder is wrong?
Justification of sociopathy.
No... I just don't believe in absolute morals. Nice straw man, though.
Because stealing stuff
Yeah, I think stealing stuff is pretty bad because the one that had their property stolen loses it.
Copying, on the other hand...
but I still believe two wrongs don't make a right.
It's quite a different situation if a person doesn't believe that what they're doing is wrong to begin with.
If the teach the test method also transfers the necessary skills to solve the test questions then the result is desirable.
Except that most of the time, it doesn't seem to work. From what I've seen (as experienced), people don't actually learn anything more than the most basic of material. If they do learn it slightly, they'll likely forget it after the test. Of course, they'll probably forget it if they're not interested anyway, but I don't think teaching someone how to pass a test is going to help them.
I think the US public 'education' system is, in its current form, downright awful. Especially its policies ("zero tolerance") and its tendencies to produce factory workers.
2) I know the key (not knew, but know, as in you haven't forgotten it)
Good luck with that! The human memory is (from what I've seen) incredibly fragile. So even if you arrested them, knew that they decrypted it every single day, and asked them to decrypt it soon after the arrest, you can't prove, likely not even near beyond a 'reasonable' doubt (since some people have great memory, others have terrible memory, and still others forget things under stress), that they still knew the password. They could've forgotten it under the stress of the situation for all you know.
then you are waiving your 5th amendment rights
Where does the 5th amendment say that?
Then maybe we should just fix the thing (amend it). It's not a surprise that when someone wants to see what the constitution says, they would read the constitution instead of playing guessing games trying to figure out the spirit of the constitution from things people said a long time ago on their own that aren't even in the constitution.
Encryption cannot be a perfect safety net with which to break the law with impunity
If they can't break it on their own without holding you in contempt of court indefinitely for not incriminating yourself, or if they can't prove that you know how to decrypt it (if you say you forgot), then that's simply too bad for them. They've failed to get evidence to convict you, and that, in my opinion, should be the end of that.
Some people seem to forget that policies like this are to protect the innocent.
In all cases the two extremes are the worst
But that's subjective.
Extreme 1: no security
Pros: hassle approaching nil, best speed
Cons: security approaching nil
If by "no security," you mean, "no security that violates people's privacy," then yes. Cockpit doors would still be secured, citizens would still be aware of any dangers, and there could even be a few guards on the plane itself (none of which would violate anyone's privacy).
This is, in my opinion, the best solution. I'm more interested in privacy than I am worried about terrorist attacks.
So, yeah, you didn't really need to spell out what you meant because I already had an idea. I would rather risk a terrorist attack than violate anyone's privacy.
Except this is NOT a moderation fallacy, because the compromise in the middle ground is actually correct.
"Yes! Extremes are good!"
That sounded like you were being sarcastic (which I believe you were). To me that implied that all extremes are not good.
Furthermore, whether or not the "extremes" are correct is a matter of preference. You're seemingly trying to bring in objectivity when there doesn't seem to be any to begin with. You see, I prefer protecting privacy over being paranoid about terrorist attacks or forcibly scanning people (or whatever your "middle ground" is). That's simply my preference.
As I said, "People can take their paranoia of terrorism elsewhere. Increased cockpit security and more aware citizens is more than good enough for me."
In other words, I don't agree with your "middle ground." I'd rather suffer a terrorist attack than invade people's privacy.
Yes! Extremes are good!
I don't quite understand. If you're saying that "extremes" (subjective) are wrong, then that would be the argument to moderation fallacy. There is no reason that I see to assume that an "extreme" is inherently wrong. If you weren't saying that, then I don't know what your point was.
Also, yes, I think all screening is bad because it violates people's privacy. People can take their paranoia of terrorism elsewhere. Increased cockpit security and more aware citizens is more than good enough for me.
If fighting terrorism involves violating people's rights, then I'd rather we not fight terrorism.
If they arrest/fine/imprison enough people, one after the other, the allure of running an upload site is going to diminish greatly, especially if you're not even making much money off it in the first place.
Right. Because suing people for ridiculous amounts of money is working so well for us now. I think that's unrealistic. In order for civil liberties to not be violated, they actually have to investigate. Consider how long that pointless Megaupload bust took. Years. And likely lots of taxpayer dollars. For what? People allegedly copying media. My heroes!
I wonder how many slashdotters would be prepared to go to jail for the principle of being able to up/download copyright infringing files?
Putting people in jail for copying music sounds completely reasonable and a good use of taxpayer dollars. Doing that and making sure not to violate civil liberties is an easy task, right? Well, not as far as I know. I think what we're doing now (taking down websites which are quickly replaced) is about as far as we can go without circumventing due process (SOPA, PIPA, etc). Even the DMCA is being abused.
The downloaders likely won't be slowed down at all.
My guess would be: probably about the same number as would actually take up arms against the evil US government
The difference is that one is vastly more simple than the other.
I don't care if it wasn't healthy. I don't think the schools should be choosing what food kids are allowed to bring to eat.
I don't care what babies agree on (not that them crying means they think it's wrong, they're probably not thinking anything), and I don't see how it proves that absolute morals exist.
I believe all morals are subjective. Are you going to offer actual evidence to the contrary, or just state your opinion?
If you copy media you didn't purchase, you're cheap.
If you copy media you didn't purchase AND you make a profit off of it, you're a thief.
Sorry, but I don't see that much of a difference between these two. What makes the latter theft while the former is not?
I see even pirates claim this, and I just don't understand it.
The pirate can't steal that. The time and money spent creating the original work is already gone. And it was the artist's own choice, at that. The pirate had nothing to do with that decision.
So would you consider the editorial process at a newspaper (say, the fact that a human being, with editorial authority, sits in between the web-based letter-to-the-editor form and the web-based display of letters-to-the-editor that the newspaper site's public visitors see) is censorship?
Suppressing such information could be considered censorship (at least by me), even if certain people agree with it. Not all censorship must be deemed "evil" or other such things.
Is deleting forum spam censorship?
I think it is, yes. The fact that you or some others may agree with that censorship doesn't mean it's not censorship.
it's wrong
I'd say that's subjective unless you can prove to me that absolute morals exist.
Net result for me, an innocent bystander who doesn't pirate stuff, because, you know, it's wrong - the internet gets more rules and becomes less useful.
So thanks a lot, pirates.
I'd say the people who actually write those draconian laws are mostly at fault. Would you say, "Thanks, murderers!" if the government decided to imprison everyone so that they could get rid of murderers? I'd say the ones who write and try to pass the draconian laws are the ones who are most at fault.
However, I agree that those making money from piracy or counterfeiting are in fact stealing. In that case, something is indeed lost.
What would that be? I don't see anything that was lost that anyone originally had.
I guess no website can have advertisements because of the piracy boogeyman. Someone, somewhere might be copying something! We should waste extreme amounts of taxpayer dollars trying to stop what amounts to jaywalkers.
But it's not manageable. It's still not, and likely never will be. Anyone who isn't an idiot can find another website in five seconds flat.
They're really cracking down on those evil music downloaders, aren't they? This is surely a worthy cause and we need to spend twice the amount of taxpayer money going after these most heinous of criminals.
No, it's not. I said that I didn't use the appeal to popularity fallacy in this comment.
The reason I thought you said I did is because of your comment in this comment: "It is NOT Bandwagon fallacy, which you are attempting to apply incorrectly, and actually, you're applying one fallacy while committing another, using a Slashdot troll's favorite weapon: Strawman fallacy." That was a reply to my comment that I linked to above, so I thought you were saying that I said that you used the appeal to popularity fallacy yet again in a different comment.
And the whole reason I thought you were using the appeal to popularity fallacy is because of this comment in this reply: "It is relevant... its called Ethical Universalization. The ethical application of universalization is a test for whether an action, if universalized to a broad population, would have harmful consequences or maintain its sense of justifiability. If a broad population would not wish to see their own children, if not explicitly exploited, even merely suggestably exploited, then its an indicator that it is very likely unethical."
You started talking about "Ethical Universalization" and then went on to mention things about what the majority. But perhaps I misinterpreted you there.