I agree that not buying games or consoles that employ DRM is a good choice to make, but making the reason why you didn't buy them known might change companies' minds in the future.
we already don't have any reason to expect privacy there
I'd say you're incorrect. We have some degree of privacy even in public places.
so... why *not* install cameras everywhere
No. I do not believe that's how it should be; it's more like, "Why should we install cameras everywhere? Why should we waste our tax dollars on such a useless thing?" I think ubiquitous government surveillance is already considered to be a bad thing to anyone who has thought about the issue even a little bit.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect that - and you'll be happy to know that they're not!
Great. And I don't believe they should in public places, either.
And actually, it isn't even perfectly reasonable (or perhaps it won't be in the future) to expect that. I'd change that to say that it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that the government shouldn't do such a thing.
Don't like it? Great, go work to get a law passed.
How insightful.
Don't claim it's a constitutional violation, because it's not
I didn't claim it was a constitutional violation; I've been claiming it's a bad idea and that proponents of such a policy are disgustingly naive. In may surprise you, but all I've been doing is expressing my opinion all along.
I believe the founding fathers had a number of good ideas, but there are some things that they could never have foreseen.
I suggest you do more of that, and less whining on slashdot about your "rights" that don't actually "exist."
What makes you think I don't take action? You have no reason to think so.
I do write to representatives, and I do vote against those who support policies I find disagreeable. However, more than a few people will have to come to the conclusion that ubiquitous government surveillance of public spaces is a terrible idea before anything will truly change. Notice how we still have the TSA? To all those who even care a little about the constitution, the TSA is unconstitutional, but then why do we still have it? If most people truly opposed it and wrote to their representatives and perhaps even changed their vote, I doubt we'd still have it. But they don't, and it is for that reason that I'm not hopeful about the current situation.
You have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" - if you're walking down a public street, then you are in public, and any expectation that your movements and activity is "private" is idiotic.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that the government isn't using surveillance devices to spy on everyone, everywhere.
And the government isn't entitled to have cameras everywhere, and I do believe it's a terrible idea to allow them to have such a thing.
But really, people have a fair bit more privacy in public places if there aren't cameras watching their every move. There are some degrees of privacy even in public places.
Those cameras don't have the same privacy concerns as government-owned cameras because no single entity has access to all of them except under extreme circumstances where everyone universally agrees to make that footage available.
I think this is a problem, though. The government seems to be increasingly outsourcing its spying efforts to various companies.
No, it's selective deep investigation. It is only harassment if they pick people at random, or for reasons unrelated to their being a potential security threat.
So far, this sounds like selective harassment to me. What does it take for them to begin thinking that you're dangerous? What oversight is there?
This is citizens of other countries crossing the border. Requirements for warrants and such have never applied in such circumstances in any country I can think of.
I'm well aware of that, but I don't particularly care about what the law says at the moment. I disagree with many laws, after all.
Yes, I would accept TSA screening policies if they were actually effective and the threat was proportional
That doesn't surprise me.
So even the Founding Fathers recognized that there are limits.
I believe the founding fathers made a number of mistakes, and if I were given the chance, I would rectify them. I still believe they had many good ideas, though.
So the only reasonable point to argue here is whether Israel is in sufficiently dire straits to justify an invasion of privacy of this magnitude.
I'll decide for myself what is reasonable to argue about.
If you want to talk effectiveness, I very highly doubt that someone who is truly dangerous (and I do not consider any old incompetent bomber truly dangerous) would be defeated because someone took a look at his/her emails.
It's not cowardly to dodge a punch that's actually thrown at you.
Infringing upon people's rights is quite different than dodging a punch. The only one affected by a punch is you, and you're simply defending yourself. When a government takes actions such as this, though, it results in the loss of freedom and privacy for many people.
The reason why US is the laughing stock of many other countries is because its security response was vastly disproportional to the threat, and also because measures taken were repeatedly shown to be useless to screen for actual threats.
The number of people who actually value freedom are small even among those who oppose the TSA, it seems.
Ah, but whose? There needs to be some oversight at the very least.
Also, in this case, they're just harassing random people who they deem "suspicious" (which is ambiguous). Though I suppose you were just reacting to my overly broad statement that you should just accept that there are sometimes casualties, and took this to mean that no one's privacy should ever be violated under any circumstances. Is this wrong?
They're looking through emails of people they deem suspicious for other reasons.
So it's selective harassment, then? Regardless, if these suspicious people are so incompetent that their devious plots would be foiled because some government thug was granted access to their email accounts, I doubt they're that dangerous to begin with.
So, by the same logic, US shouldn't have run any counter-espionage operations during WW2, then?
I do not believe people's privacy should be violated if the government does not at least have a warrant in a grand majority of cases. In Israel, this move is mere security theater, so I'd oppose it anyway.
They obviously trample on privacy
Ah, but whose? There needs to be some oversight at the very least.
Even if it's thousands regularly, better all die than one non-citizen would have to prove that he's not a threat.
This tells me that you'd accept the TSA if its current policies were actually effective at saving the lives of many, many people. If that is so, that also tells me just how much you truly care about freedom.
That'll show them!
At the very least, it would show them that you're not a coward who takes away people's rights at every given opportunity. We failed to demonstrate that in the US, and the terrorists subsequently emerged victorious because of our cowardice.
Studies go both ways. Furthermore, I see nothing to indicate that it's a significant problem even if some of those studies that say pornography can be harmful are correct.
I'd oppose censorship even if it was proven beyond doubt that pornography is harmful, anyway.
Because he used the word "objective," I don't think so.
But a child watching that isn't equipped to know it's fantasy.
And how often do actual children watch that sort of thing? Or even if they do, how often does it have a permanent, serious negative effect on them? I seriously doubt that that happens often at all.
So that's what's objectively wrong with porn.
You never explained what is objectively wrong with pornography in general; you only expressed an opinion, and one about certain kinds of pornography.
A large percentage of the people who view pornography. A few news stories where the reporters make assumptions about the cause of whatever happened will not be enough.
Earlier this year there was the widely reported rape of an unconscious girl at a US college party -- made all the more horrifying because so many of the people there thought there was nothing wrong with what had happened.
You assume that that happened because of pornography? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You will not be able to convince me like that. As I read the rest of your comment, it looks like you just blame everything on pornography. But again, even if it was the fault of pornography (How could it be? It would be the fault of people who are influenced by it and take action, anyway.) that these things happened, that doesn't mean that those types of things happen often, or that education wouldn't suffice.
I have trouble believe that there are a significant amount of people who believe everything they see in pornography, and you certainly haven't done anything to convince me otherwise.
If complying with "community standards" means implementing bans or censorship because some people are overly sensitive, then I'll just go ahead and say that such standards shouldn't be complied with.
He even asked what the objective problem with pornography is. Many people seem to have problems with just nudity and sex, and even people who have problems with pornography seem to have them because they're easily offended.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that not buying games or consoles that employ DRM is a good choice to make, but making the reason why you didn't buy them known might change companies' minds in the future.
we already don't have any reason to expect privacy there
I'd say you're incorrect. We have some degree of privacy even in public places.
so... why *not* install cameras everywhere
No. I do not believe that's how it should be; it's more like, "Why should we install cameras everywhere? Why should we waste our tax dollars on such a useless thing?" I think ubiquitous government surveillance is already considered to be a bad thing to anyone who has thought about the issue even a little bit.
I suppose you think the TSA removes terrorists' freedom to commit acts of terrorism?
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear!
The fact of the matter is that no amount of additional surveillance is going to prevent 'terrorism'
And if it did? Would that then justify having it?
It is perfectly reasonable to expect that - and you'll be happy to know that they're not!
Great. And I don't believe they should in public places, either.
And actually, it isn't even perfectly reasonable (or perhaps it won't be in the future) to expect that. I'd change that to say that it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that the government shouldn't do such a thing.
Don't like it? Great, go work to get a law passed.
How insightful.
Don't claim it's a constitutional violation, because it's not
I didn't claim it was a constitutional violation; I've been claiming it's a bad idea and that proponents of such a policy are disgustingly naive. In may surprise you, but all I've been doing is expressing my opinion all along.
I believe the founding fathers had a number of good ideas, but there are some things that they could never have foreseen.
I suggest you do more of that, and less whining on slashdot about your "rights" that don't actually "exist."
What makes you think I don't take action? You have no reason to think so.
I do write to representatives, and I do vote against those who support policies I find disagreeable. However, more than a few people will have to come to the conclusion that ubiquitous government surveillance of public spaces is a terrible idea before anything will truly change. Notice how we still have the TSA? To all those who even care a little about the constitution, the TSA is unconstitutional, but then why do we still have it? If most people truly opposed it and wrote to their representatives and perhaps even changed their vote, I doubt we'd still have it. But they don't, and it is for that reason that I'm not hopeful about the current situation.
We forget random people quite easily, so cameras are a fair bit different. Government-owned cameras are even more different.
You have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" - if you're walking down a public street, then you are in public, and any expectation that your movements and activity is "private" is idiotic.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that the government isn't using surveillance devices to spy on everyone, everywhere.
So do you support the notion that nobody should be allowed to take photo's in a public place then?
Forbidding the government from putting cameras everywhere is different from disallowing citizens from taking pictures and such.
You have no privacy in public spaces.
And the government isn't entitled to have cameras everywhere, and I do believe it's a terrible idea to allow them to have such a thing.
But really, people have a fair bit more privacy in public places if there aren't cameras watching their every move. There are some degrees of privacy even in public places.
Those cameras don't have the same privacy concerns as government-owned cameras because no single entity has access to all of them except under extreme circumstances where everyone universally agrees to make that footage available.
I think this is a problem, though. The government seems to be increasingly outsourcing its spying efforts to various companies.
Because that's the only acceptable reason.
I'd rather risk a bombing that have ubiquitous government surveillance.
but it does have effects on people's behavior
Many negative ones, no doubt.
No, it's selective deep investigation. It is only harassment if they pick people at random, or for reasons unrelated to their being a potential security threat.
So far, this sounds like selective harassment to me. What does it take for them to begin thinking that you're dangerous? What oversight is there?
This is citizens of other countries crossing the border. Requirements for warrants and such have never applied in such circumstances in any country I can think of.
I'm well aware of that, but I don't particularly care about what the law says at the moment. I disagree with many laws, after all.
Yes, I would accept TSA screening policies if they were actually effective and the threat was proportional
That doesn't surprise me.
So even the Founding Fathers recognized that there are limits.
I believe the founding fathers made a number of mistakes, and if I were given the chance, I would rectify them. I still believe they had many good ideas, though.
So the only reasonable point to argue here is whether Israel is in sufficiently dire straits to justify an invasion of privacy of this magnitude.
I'll decide for myself what is reasonable to argue about.
If you want to talk effectiveness, I very highly doubt that someone who is truly dangerous (and I do not consider any old incompetent bomber truly dangerous) would be defeated because someone took a look at his/her emails.
It's not cowardly to dodge a punch that's actually thrown at you.
Infringing upon people's rights is quite different than dodging a punch. The only one affected by a punch is you, and you're simply defending yourself. When a government takes actions such as this, though, it results in the loss of freedom and privacy for many people.
The reason why US is the laughing stock of many other countries is because its security response was vastly disproportional to the threat, and also because measures taken were repeatedly shown to be useless to screen for actual threats.
The number of people who actually value freedom are small even among those who oppose the TSA, it seems.
He doesn't have to insult every conceivable religion in existence in order to not be a hypocrite, and it seems silly to say otherwise.
Ah, but whose? There needs to be some oversight at the very least.
Also, in this case, they're just harassing random people who they deem "suspicious" (which is ambiguous). Though I suppose you were just reacting to my overly broad statement that you should just accept that there are sometimes casualties, and took this to mean that no one's privacy should ever be violated under any circumstances. Is this wrong?
They're looking through emails of people they deem suspicious for other reasons.
So it's selective harassment, then? Regardless, if these suspicious people are so incompetent that their devious plots would be foiled because some government thug was granted access to their email accounts, I doubt they're that dangerous to begin with.
So, by the same logic, US shouldn't have run any counter-espionage operations during WW2, then?
I do not believe people's privacy should be violated if the government does not at least have a warrant in a grand majority of cases. In Israel, this move is mere security theater, so I'd oppose it anyway.
They obviously trample on privacy
Ah, but whose? There needs to be some oversight at the very least.
Even if it's thousands regularly, better all die than one non-citizen would have to prove that he's not a threat.
This tells me that you'd accept the TSA if its current policies were actually effective at saving the lives of many, many people. If that is so, that also tells me just how much you truly care about freedom.
That'll show them!
At the very least, it would show them that you're not a coward who takes away people's rights at every given opportunity. We failed to demonstrate that in the US, and the terrorists subsequently emerged victorious because of our cowardice.
Studies go both ways. Furthermore, I see nothing to indicate that it's a significant problem even if some of those studies that say pornography can be harmful are correct.
I'd oppose censorship even if it was proven beyond doubt that pornography is harmful, anyway.
Israel faces an extremely severe threat
Which I'm sure looking through emails would solve! Security theater is security theater no matter where it is.
What if there's no such way?
Then I believe you should stop acting like a coward and just accept that there are sometimes casualties.
and the answer would have been more obvious
Because he used the word "objective," I don't think so.
But a child watching that isn't equipped to know it's fantasy.
And how often do actual children watch that sort of thing? Or even if they do, how often does it have a permanent, serious negative effect on them? I seriously doubt that that happens often at all.
So that's what's objectively wrong with porn.
You never explained what is objectively wrong with pornography in general; you only expressed an opinion, and one about certain kinds of pornography.
How many would it take?
A large percentage of the people who view pornography. A few news stories where the reporters make assumptions about the cause of whatever happened will not be enough.
Earlier this year there was the widely reported rape of an unconscious girl at a US college party -- made all the more horrifying because so many of the people there thought there was nothing wrong with what had happened.
You assume that that happened because of pornography? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You will not be able to convince me like that. As I read the rest of your comment, it looks like you just blame everything on pornography. But again, even if it was the fault of pornography (How could it be? It would be the fault of people who are influenced by it and take action, anyway.) that these things happened, that doesn't mean that those types of things happen often, or that education wouldn't suffice.
I have trouble believe that there are a significant amount of people who believe everything they see in pornography, and you certainly haven't done anything to convince me otherwise.
From my point of view (and it is only that!) I don't see what is so wrong with banning it from public wifi spots.
So you don't see a problem with government censorship, then.
All of this can be handled by the individual businesses, and if they don't want to, that's their choice.
But in this case, I believe there are absolutely zero benefits. Why would anyone think such a proposal is anything other than moronic?
If complying with "community standards" means implementing bans or censorship because some people are overly sensitive, then I'll just go ahead and say that such standards shouldn't be complied with.
He even asked what the objective problem with pornography is. Many people seem to have problems with just nudity and sex, and even people who have problems with pornography seem to have them because they're easily offended.
Regardless, I see no problem with the ban.
I do; it's a ban. Regardless of how easy it is to get around it, I do not believe workarounds should be necessary.