I don't recall a majority of people opposing the PATRIOT ACT. I still see a significant amount of people who want to trade freedom for security, in fact.
It has advanced and progressed and we keep letting the cocksuckers get away with it.
It seems rather unlikely that a majority of people truly oppose it, then.
and in fact neither do I, at least without proper transparency and oversight to prevent and rectify abuse
I view the mere act of collecting that information to be an abuse, transparency or no transparency. I wouldn't mind seeing the entire organization destroyed (same with the TSA and most of the other warmongers).
The "government" is currently being demonized for things that they MIGHT do in the future if they are allowed to continue their spy programs.
Well, of course. History has given us no reason to trust human beings in power, so why would people not be wary of the government having such a vast amount of power? We literally have zero reason to trust them.
If any thing similar to 9/11 happens the people arguing the loudest against the governments security programs will be the first ones to declare it is the governments fault and demand to know why they were not doing anything to stop it.
I didn't do that on 9/11 and I wouldn't do it if something similar happened again. Honestly, which people are you talking about?
If you trust the government, I have to say that your trust is misplaced and that you're seriously naive. You're giving them the benefit of the doubt and seemingly defending authoritarian practices, and I do not for a yoctosecond believe they deserve any of it.
Once again is something unconstitutional just because you say so?
Just because I say so? Well, no. But if I say that something is unconstitutional, that is simply my opinion, and the same applies to any judge (even if, again, their opinions have more of an effect in practice).
The free speech zones were created to minimize the disruption for those not participating in the protests (ie. snarling traffic as one example).
Irrelevant. If someone is punished for their speech, it is a violation of their first amendment rights, regardless of their location. Using this logic, the government could ban certain speech in entire states and claim that the first amendment was not violated simply because people could move elsewhere and exercise their rights. This is just a foolish newspeak justification.
I firmly believe that security is far less important than individual liberties, and that people who find such things acceptable are absolute cowards who don't belong in any free country.
The TSA is a response to the events of 9/11.
Irrelevant. It's security theater, and it's a violation of people's constitutional rights.
A large majority of people wanted the government to do something to prevent any similar events in the future.
Irrelevant. Constitutional rights come before the majority's wants.
Once again you are defining what is and what is not constitutional based solely on your opinion.
Well, of course.
You are also making an unsubstantiated statement about the government invoking secrecy to prevent someone from getting a fair trial.
You've seriously not heard of cases where the government invoked the national security excuse to prevent cases from going forward?
Find one example of someone being convicted of a crime using "secret" evidence.
I don't recall seeing any of the government programs being declared illegal in a judicial proceeding.
Or is something unconstitutional just because you say so?
Is something constitutional just because corrupt government thugs say so? Their opinions may matter the most in practice, but they're not always right. Authority figures can be wrong; they're humans with opinions just like anyone else.
Laws are made and passed by the executive and legislative branches which may be vetted by legal experts prior to submitting and passing any changes in the law but until it is tested by the Judicial branch in a real world case you can't definitively state the law is unconstitutional.
TSA. Free speech zones. The NSA spying where warrants that include millions of innocent Americans are rubberstamped by a court whose decisions are typically secret. The government does all sorts of things that fill me with certainty that they're violating the constitution, and though I've read some supreme court decisions trying to claim that the government is acting in a constitutional manner, I wasn't fooled one bit.
I can state that some laws are unconstitutional; I'm a living, breathing human being with opinions. When I use the word "unconstitutional," I simply mean that the government's actions violate the constitution.
Some one who feels their rights are being violated or someone who has suffered harm will need to contest the charges and laws in court.
Lots of people's rights were violated, but the government makes it difficult to fight back when they claim secrecy on everything. The TSA and free speech zones can be fought, I suppose, but I believe the TSA already has been, and the judges (and lawyers) demonstrated their knowledge about newspeak to try to get around the constitution.
This is standard practice and in the past the judiciary has struck down laws they found wanting.
Because they're almost useless. I highly doubt we actually need many of these warmongering organizations, or at the very least, they don't need nearly as much money as they're getting now.
Society is always changing. Sometimes in a good way and sometimes in a bad way.
I had no idea. Really.
Laws and acceptable behavioral standards also change with the society and the laws and rules that govern the society need to be reviewed and updated to keep pace.
But it becomes a problem for me when the government blatantly violates the constitution, as it is now.
A work in progress? So in other words, they can do whatever they want; that's a nice way of thinking, and it benefits them, too!
Computer technology alone would look like magic to someone living in 1776.
Irrelevant.
Collecting data is not in itself a violation of constitutional rights.
No, it's not, and no one said so. The way they're doing it and how they're doing it, however, does violate the constitution.
Electronic surveillance is not limited to just the government and right now private companies and determined criminals represent more of a danger than the government.
That's completely irrelevant, even if true (Which I doubt, because the chances of an individual getting killed by a terrorist are minuscule, and almost everything else is petty compared to what the government is able to do. Even if that weren't so, I don't feel the government should be able to violate the constitution.). The government is violating the constitution and I absolutely feel that the thugs need to be stopped in their tracks.
It's not a rant against religion; it's a stab against those who normally propose this sort of nonsense. In reality, I don't want any censorship at all.
Yeah, and the US government has violated the US constitution many times, and continues to do so; governments seem to derive pleasure from doing that sort of thing.
BTW, I don't see a simulated rape with explicit sex being something that should be allowed in public places. It is plain barbaric, just like when they hang people from cranes in Iran.
That's your opinion. You said in your original post that you're against censorship that is applied by default, but now you say that it's okay if it's a public place and you don't like the content in question (or deem it "barbaric"). This is all completely subjective and I don't see this going anywhere good.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't recall a majority of people opposing the PATRIOT ACT. I still see a significant amount of people who want to trade freedom for security, in fact.
It has advanced and progressed and we keep letting the cocksuckers get away with it.
It seems rather unlikely that a majority of people truly oppose it, then.
and in fact neither do I, at least without proper transparency and oversight to prevent and rectify abuse
I view the mere act of collecting that information to be an abuse, transparency or no transparency. I wouldn't mind seeing the entire organization destroyed (same with the TSA and most of the other warmongers).
and the People were fighting against it tooth and nail.
All five of them? If you're referring to the majority, when did that happen?
i think most americans would agree with you that the US government is retarded
I highly doubt that.
If he really didn't believe in it, he was perfectly free to walk away into obscurity without selling out for fame
I'm glad he didn't.
A real hero would gladly go to jail to prove his point.
Why? There's literally no point. Your version of a "real hero" just sounds like an imbecile.
and ensuring that no thinking person is ever going to agree with you.
The general public isn't made up of thinking people anyway.
but the people who aren't old enough to have learned to know the difference
Largely don't exist, and can quickly be taken care of if someone who does know the difference pays attention at all.
The "government" is currently being demonized for things that they MIGHT do in the future if they are allowed to continue their spy programs.
Well, of course. History has given us no reason to trust human beings in power, so why would people not be wary of the government having such a vast amount of power? We literally have zero reason to trust them.
If any thing similar to 9/11 happens the people arguing the loudest against the governments security programs will be the first ones to declare it is the governments fault and demand to know why they were not doing anything to stop it.
I didn't do that on 9/11 and I wouldn't do it if something similar happened again. Honestly, which people are you talking about?
If you trust the government, I have to say that your trust is misplaced and that you're seriously naive. You're giving them the benefit of the doubt and seemingly defending authoritarian practices, and I do not for a yoctosecond believe they deserve any of it.
Once again is something unconstitutional just because you say so?
Just because I say so? Well, no. But if I say that something is unconstitutional, that is simply my opinion, and the same applies to any judge (even if, again, their opinions have more of an effect in practice).
The free speech zones were created to minimize the disruption for those not participating in the protests (ie. snarling traffic as one example).
Irrelevant. If someone is punished for their speech, it is a violation of their first amendment rights, regardless of their location. Using this logic, the government could ban certain speech in entire states and claim that the first amendment was not violated simply because people could move elsewhere and exercise their rights. This is just a foolish newspeak justification.
I firmly believe that security is far less important than individual liberties, and that people who find such things acceptable are absolute cowards who don't belong in any free country.
The TSA is a response to the events of 9/11.
Irrelevant. It's security theater, and it's a violation of people's constitutional rights.
A large majority of people wanted the government to do something to prevent any similar events in the future.
Irrelevant. Constitutional rights come before the majority's wants.
Once again you are defining what is and what is not constitutional based solely on your opinion.
Well, of course.
You are also making an unsubstantiated statement about the government invoking secrecy to prevent someone from getting a fair trial.
You've seriously not heard of cases where the government invoked the national security excuse to prevent cases from going forward?
Find one example of someone being convicted of a crime using "secret" evidence.
Where did I mention secret evidence?
I don't recall seeing any of the government programs being declared illegal in a judicial proceeding.
Or is something unconstitutional just because you say so?
Is something constitutional just because corrupt government thugs say so? Their opinions may matter the most in practice, but they're not always right. Authority figures can be wrong; they're humans with opinions just like anyone else.
Laws are made and passed by the executive and legislative branches which may be vetted by legal experts prior to submitting and passing any changes in the law but until it is tested by the Judicial branch in a real world case you can't definitively state the law is unconstitutional.
TSA. Free speech zones. The NSA spying where warrants that include millions of innocent Americans are rubberstamped by a court whose decisions are typically secret. The government does all sorts of things that fill me with certainty that they're violating the constitution, and though I've read some supreme court decisions trying to claim that the government is acting in a constitutional manner, I wasn't fooled one bit.
I can state that some laws are unconstitutional; I'm a living, breathing human being with opinions. When I use the word "unconstitutional," I simply mean that the government's actions violate the constitution.
Some one who feels their rights are being violated or someone who has suffered harm will need to contest the charges and laws in court.
Lots of people's rights were violated, but the government makes it difficult to fight back when they claim secrecy on everything. The TSA and free speech zones can be fought, I suppose, but I believe the TSA already has been, and the judges (and lawyers) demonstrated their knowledge about newspeak to try to get around the constitution.
This is standard practice and in the past the judiciary has struck down laws they found wanting.
Yeah.
Because they're almost useless. I highly doubt we actually need many of these warmongering organizations, or at the very least, they don't need nearly as much money as they're getting now.
Then maybe he thinks those countries should knock it off too?
Society is always changing. Sometimes in a good way and sometimes in a bad way.
I had no idea. Really.
Laws and acceptable behavioral standards also change with the society and the laws and rules that govern the society need to be reviewed and updated to keep pace.
But it becomes a problem for me when the government blatantly violates the constitution, as it is now.
A work in progress? So in other words, they can do whatever they want; that's a nice way of thinking, and it benefits them, too!
Computer technology alone would look like magic to someone living in 1776.
Irrelevant.
Collecting data is not in itself a violation of constitutional rights.
No, it's not, and no one said so. The way they're doing it and how they're doing it, however, does violate the constitution.
Electronic surveillance is not limited to just the government and right now private companies and determined criminals represent more of a danger than the government.
That's completely irrelevant, even if true (Which I doubt, because the chances of an individual getting killed by a terrorist are minuscule, and almost everything else is petty compared to what the government is able to do. Even if that weren't so, I don't feel the government should be able to violate the constitution.). The government is violating the constitution and I absolutely feel that the thugs need to be stopped in their tracks.
It's not a rant against religion; it's a stab against those who normally propose this sort of nonsense. In reality, I don't want any censorship at all.
Why? If I design something, I don't want you to print that without paying me.
Too bad for you.
Yeah, and the US government has violated the US constitution many times, and continues to do so; governments seem to derive pleasure from doing that sort of thing.
Still don't see anything better from you.
Honestly, just getting rid of the poorly-designed tests (or using them less often) would be better, in my opinion.
Nice solution - stop measuring.
Their current measurements are nearly useless to begin with, and attitudes like yours only encourage this.
My comment was merely a stab at the types who usually propose this sort of thing.
3. People forget all about it and lose another tiny bit of freedom forever.
No one's going to forget (or at least not me).
If you're going to be critical, at least say something like 'all they do is teach to the tests'.
That's indeed what seems to be happening.
And your solution?
To begin with, stop focusing so much on poorly-designed tests; preferably, just get rid of them.
How about everyone gets a flat $, with bonuses for better test scores.
Why should they be rewarded for handing out tests which are fundamentally flawed?
BTW, I don't see a simulated rape with explicit sex being something that should be allowed in public places. It is plain barbaric, just like when they hang people from cranes in Iran.
That's your opinion. You said in your original post that you're against censorship that is applied by default, but now you say that it's okay if it's a public place and you don't like the content in question (or deem it "barbaric"). This is all completely subjective and I don't see this going anywhere good.