I don't care for having my laptop searched at a border crossing either, but let's not pretend that the Constitution is written out in thoroughly debugged English that can be interpreted only one way.
Uh, the fourth amendment is pretty clear. As I already said, interpreting something doesn't mean completely changing its meaning, especially when that something is already clear (like the fourth amendment).
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That's pretty clear. A laptop can obviously be categorized under "effects." I don't see how you can logically interpret this to mean "the government can decide what property that they can search whenever they please."
What I meant was that they can see that something encrypted is present (or at least they assume it is). They would probably ask something such as "why would you have gibberish data stored on your hard drive"?
"Plus it's an extremely blatant violation of the fifth amendment to force somebody to testify against themselves by giving up the passphrase."
Amendments? Please! The government doesn't listen to those anymore (especially when they can get away with it)!
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I'm sorry, but I see no text there that says "this applies to all effects except those that the government decides it doesn't apply to."
Interpreting something doesn't involve changing its original meaning completely (especially if it was clear in the first place). It involves deciding to the best of your ability what it was originally supposed to mean as closely as possible. It's not like the fourth amendment was indecipherable. It clearly explained what it was supposed to mean, and a laptop can obviously be categorized under "effects."
"I'm still not sure how this doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment."
You think the government or its workers still abide by that silly old piece of paper known as the constitution when they can get away with not abiding by it? That's funny.
"isn't that the same as having a secret in your mind?"
An unreadable but visible secret.
"Isn't that stealing from the passenger then?"
It would only be stealing if he was deprived of something.
Ah, sorry. I'm not exactly sure how you would fix the broken system that we have now, or even implement a new one. Much public support would be needed, which would be difficult to obtain given how many people seem to be content with the current system. I'm not even sure how it would work.
But, my point isn't really to come up with a new system but to show that pirates are merely a symptom of the currently broken system and if they want to fix the "money problem" that these supposed suffering artists seem to have, they shouldn't be blaming pirates (which as I said, aren't hurting the artists) but their own broken system.
Artificial scarcity? Well, artists obviously can't participate in the current society if they don't get paid (either that or they would have to find a job that doesn't involve digital media). If (which I doubt would happen) everyone started pirating their digital media (which is in an unlimited supply) and stopped paying them, they wouldn't make any money off of it, and therefore couldn't produce more (unless they found other ways of making money) due to the fact that you must have money in order to live in the current society. Them or others attempt to stop piracy (which in reality doesn't hurt them in the first place) in order to personally gain from the pirates. Hence, artificial scarcity (they try, at least).
It might sound strange, but I've actually stopped playing a few good games (granted, I've beat them before) simply because I didn't want them to be over. Besides that, it's the usual reasons like the game being too tedious, boring, etcetera. But I've never really played a game that had so many bugs that it prevented me from wanting to finish it.
"So you're okay with me stealing your shit if I can say you weren't going to use it anyhow, and hence weren't deprived of anything?"
Well, no, I'm not okay with you stealing from me because then you have deprived me of something that I previously owned, which is something that pirates don't do. Pirates aren't stealing physical objects, they are making copies of data, and in the process, not a single person is deprived of anything. Don't compare it to stealing physical objects. Seriously.
"Doesn't matter if someone is deprived or not"
Yes, it does. If they're not being deprived of anything then how are they being hurt?
"you're not authorized to make a copy."
Right now, you mean. My entire point is that they should stop trying to restrict an action that hurts no one and actually fix the broken system that forces artists to try to utilize artificial scarcity.
No, it doesn't. It relies on the ability of the candidates to not lie, abuse their power, or accept bribes from the rich in exchange for their support.
What you've listed are actual problems, but they are not the only problems. Corruption will always be present, and we should try to minimize it as much as possible by striking balance.
Republicans, democrats... it really doesn't matter at this point. All of them are corporate tools or power hungry idiots. Yes, the people should do something about this. But unfortunately, due to the way our system works, the people don't have much power and have to rely on representatives to do everything for them (even though they don't). People are easily bribed, people lie, and people are selfish. Relying on a few people to do this is a terrible idea. It is much harder to bribe a majority of the population, even using deceit.
Again, the people need more (but not absolute) power, and the government needs less (but not no) power.
Haven't you heard? Even though it goes against basic logic, it's actually possible to steal potential profit! I mean, sure, it doesn't exist, but the government and large corporations say that you can so that makes it true!
That's just running away from the problem. What happens when every country has some form of this? Do we just wait until we are completely cornered to finally challenge it?
Number five sounds good, but I fear it wouldn't work because the government has either brainwashed a majority of the population into thinking that this is necessary, or the ones that do acknowledge the problems at hand feel that their petty lifestyles are more important than freedom. That leaves the people who would actually do something if the opportunity presented itself pretty much outnumbered until the other groups wake the hell up.
"What's desperately needed is a law which allows citizens to shut down legislators -- or an entire government -- as easily, maybe even capriciously, as these legislators enact new laws."
What's desperately needed is the ability for the people to override government bills through majority vote.
"The poor people stealing a few fucking movies hurts NO ONE."
Don't you mean "the people copying data hurt no one"? Stealing implies that they've deprived someone of something, which is not something that 'pirates' do.
Slashdot Mirror
"acknowledge that piracy was a bad thing"
The non-existent theft is what makes it bad! Even though no one is deprived of anything that they owned, it's theft!
"and it sends a message to would-be stealers"
Thieves? You can't really steal something by downloading something over the internet, as doing so deprives no one of anything.
I don't care for having my laptop searched at a border crossing either, but let's not pretend that the Constitution is written out in thoroughly debugged English that can be interpreted only one way.
Uh, the fourth amendment is pretty clear. As I already said, interpreting something doesn't mean completely changing its meaning, especially when that something is already clear (like the fourth amendment).
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That's pretty clear. A laptop can obviously be categorized under "effects." I don't see how you can logically interpret this to mean "the government can decide what property that they can search whenever they please."
"(b) it assumes the founders were of one mind on what "liberty" means, which they manifestly were not"
Of course they weren't, but the fourth amendment is still very clear. A laptop can obviously be categorized under "effects" as it is property.
Everything in the constitution may not be an absolute truth, but it is still a set of rules that weren't meant to be 'interpreted' away.
"Actually, it isn't a visible secret."
What I meant was that they can see that something encrypted is present (or at least they assume it is). They would probably ask something such as "why would you have gibberish data stored on your hard drive"?
"Plus it's an extremely blatant violation of the fifth amendment to force somebody to testify against themselves by giving up the passphrase."
Amendments? Please! The government doesn't listen to those anymore (especially when they can get away with it)!
"Those who are able to justify it"
I've never heard of a person who could logically justify this treatment. Screaming "terrorism" doesn't count, either.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I'm sorry, but I see no text there that says "this applies to all effects except those that the government decides it doesn't apply to."
Interpreting something doesn't involve changing its original meaning completely (especially if it was clear in the first place). It involves deciding to the best of your ability what it was originally supposed to mean as closely as possible. It's not like the fourth amendment was indecipherable. It clearly explained what it was supposed to mean, and a laptop can obviously be categorized under "effects."
Of course they do. They couldn't sue 'pirates' for those so-called 'damages' if they publicly admitted the truth.
"Customs is a legitimate and competent part of the government."
A part of the government that is both legitimate and competent? I never knew such a thing existed!
" essentially without limit, have been deemed reasonable."
Deemed reasonable by the constitution or just some judges who like to 'interpret' the constitution as they please?
"I'm still not sure how this doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment."
You think the government or its workers still abide by that silly old piece of paper known as the constitution when they can get away with not abiding by it? That's funny.
"isn't that the same as having a secret in your mind?"
An unreadable but visible secret.
"Isn't that stealing from the passenger then?"
It would only be stealing if he was deprived of something.
Ah, sorry. I'm not exactly sure how you would fix the broken system that we have now, or even implement a new one. Much public support would be needed, which would be difficult to obtain given how many people seem to be content with the current system. I'm not even sure how it would work.
But, my point isn't really to come up with a new system but to show that pirates are merely a symptom of the currently broken system and if they want to fix the "money problem" that these supposed suffering artists seem to have, they shouldn't be blaming pirates (which as I said, aren't hurting the artists) but their own broken system.
Artificial scarcity? Well, artists obviously can't participate in the current society if they don't get paid (either that or they would have to find a job that doesn't involve digital media). If (which I doubt would happen) everyone started pirating their digital media (which is in an unlimited supply) and stopped paying them, they wouldn't make any money off of it, and therefore couldn't produce more (unless they found other ways of making money) due to the fact that you must have money in order to live in the current society. Them or others attempt to stop piracy (which in reality doesn't hurt them in the first place) in order to personally gain from the pirates. Hence, artificial scarcity (they try, at least).
It might sound strange, but I've actually stopped playing a few good games (granted, I've beat them before) simply because I didn't want them to be over. Besides that, it's the usual reasons like the game being too tedious, boring, etcetera. But I've never really played a game that had so many bugs that it prevented me from wanting to finish it.
"So you're okay with me stealing your shit if I can say you weren't going to use it anyhow, and hence weren't deprived of anything?"
Well, no, I'm not okay with you stealing from me because then you have deprived me of something that I previously owned, which is something that pirates don't do. Pirates aren't stealing physical objects, they are making copies of data, and in the process, not a single person is deprived of anything. Don't compare it to stealing physical objects. Seriously.
"Doesn't matter if someone is deprived or not"
Yes, it does. If they're not being deprived of anything then how are they being hurt?
"you're not authorized to make a copy."
Right now, you mean. My entire point is that they should stop trying to restrict an action that hurts no one and actually fix the broken system that forces artists to try to utilize artificial scarcity.
"The system works fine"
No, it doesn't. It relies on the ability of the candidates to not lie, abuse their power, or accept bribes from the rich in exchange for their support.
What you've listed are actual problems, but they are not the only problems. Corruption will always be present, and we should try to minimize it as much as possible by striking balance.
Republicans, democrats... it really doesn't matter at this point. All of them are corporate tools or power hungry idiots. Yes, the people should do something about this. But unfortunately, due to the way our system works, the people don't have much power and have to rely on representatives to do everything for them (even though they don't). People are easily bribed, people lie, and people are selfish. Relying on a few people to do this is a terrible idea. It is much harder to bribe a majority of the population, even using deceit.
Again, the people need more (but not absolute) power, and the government needs less (but not no) power.
"I just hope robots don't become cheap soldiers that any rich guy can own his personal army."
They probably will be used for war if they become somewhat useful. That's the most important thing ever, right?
Haven't you heard? Even though it goes against basic logic, it's actually possible to steal potential profit! I mean, sure, it doesn't exist, but the government and large corporations say that you can so that makes it true!
"It's really amazing to me how many people on Slashdot lack even a minuscule awareness of how legislative politics works."
Other than "it doesn't," there's really not much more to say!
"Not that sites should steal content"
Sorry, but what? The word "steal" implies that someone was deprived of something, and in the case of copying data, this simply isn't true.
That's just running away from the problem. What happens when every country has some form of this? Do we just wait until we are completely cornered to finally challenge it?
Number five sounds good, but I fear it wouldn't work because the government has either brainwashed a majority of the population into thinking that this is necessary, or the ones that do acknowledge the problems at hand feel that their petty lifestyles are more important than freedom. That leaves the people who would actually do something if the opportunity presented itself pretty much outnumbered until the other groups wake the hell up.
"What's desperately needed is a law which allows citizens to shut down legislators -- or an entire government -- as easily, maybe even capriciously, as these legislators enact new laws."
What's desperately needed is the ability for the people to override government bills through majority vote.
Well, see, when there's money from large corporations such as the MPAA/RIAA involved, they can agree on just about anything.
"The poor people stealing a few fucking movies hurts NO ONE."
Don't you mean "the people copying data hurt no one"? Stealing implies that they've deprived someone of something, which is not something that 'pirates' do.