The bill or the letter criticizing it that were linked in TFS, but there are so many more important freedoms (sharing of data with the DOD/NSA, further erosion of the Fourth Amendment, inadequate protection of Personally Identifiable Information and more) at risk than throttling streaming of the latest Hollywood garbage.
It amazes me that the poster would choose to focus on something both so innocuous and so unlikely, rather than the important issues. Sigh. One can only hope that there will soon be a new Darwin Award winner. Sigh.
Between CISPA and the ruling against Aereo restricting the rights of others is it any wonder the Republicrats and Democans popularity is at an all time low. They are so far out of touch with realitythey don't give a damn about the rights of anyone but the rich and passing laws and regulations that favor them. Because of that anyone who has voted and will vote Republicrat or Democan, shut up and go sit on the sidelines. You've already demonstrated that you want an intrusive, activist government and as such you have no room to complain. You ASKED FOR THIS.
______________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself
Strange. You encourage people to self-censor on the one hand, while strongly implying your support for free speech (via your sloganeering) with the other. So which is it, AC? Do you want the "blessings of Liberty" or do you want those who disagree with you to, as you put it, "shut up and go sit on the sidelines?" You can't have it both ways.
Really. Point out a conservative (neo, rather than classical) supporting this, other than Bloomberg.
I didn't make reference to anyone (except Bloomberg) supporting or opposing (other than me) the issue.. You did. If you're going to make a claim, then be willing to back it up. You said:
I'm talking about the people supporting the issue. Few of them are on the Right. This is a Leftist issue through and through,
So. Who are these people? I found Bloomberg's attempt to regulate soft drinks to be a serious attempt at overreach and was disgusted with Bloomberg and his authoritarian tactics.
On a global scale, my political beliefs put me squarely in the center-left, which in the US (if you listen to the folks screeching in the corner) makes me a Marxist bent on global communist domination. It's not true, but why let facts get in the way of a divisive ideological argument? But I digress.
You made specific assertions about the political persuasions of the people on both sides of this issue. It's not data, but the anecdotal me gives the lie to your assertions. And so, I ask again: Since (as is strongly implied by your statements) you know so much about who supported and opposed Bloomberg's attempt to regulate sugary drinks, who exactly are those people?
I made no other assertion than that I opposed it and that Bloomberg supported it. See. I enumerated the folks I made assertions about. Can you do that? Sure you can. I await your answer, but I won't hold my breath since I'm pretty sure you're pulling all of this out of your ass.
No. My point, as I've made several times, is that you (feel better now?) shouldn't paint all NYers with such a broad brush. You said: "What saddens me is that the people of NYC tolerated Nanny Bloomberg so long and proved they didn't care the slightest about the concepts of liberty and personal freedom." [Emphasis Added]
You didn't say, "a plurality of NYers", or "a majority of NYers". If you didn't mean "The people of NY" you should have said so.
That was my point. I emphatically do not mean that because elections can be bought, all is well. In fact, I believe all elections should be completely publicly funded with free, equal media representation and no outside funds of any kind. That would make things freer and fairer, and would likely increase liberty.
Please show me where I said (or even implied) that "You complain that because he could buy the election it means that liberty is alive and well in NYC." You can't because it ain't there.
You're a troll. There is no way anyone could think that every person of the 8+ million in NYC was meant.
Then to whom were you referring?
I interpreted what you wrote based on, well, what you wrote. Unfortunately (actually, quite fortunate for me at least), I'm not inside your head.
So, when you say, "the people of NY," I interpret that to mean, "the people of NY" not "the subset of people who live in NY that Crashmarik is thinking about."
If using the English language in a clear, concise fashion is too much trouble for you, you shouldn't be surprised when you're misunderstood.
Also, I'd really like to know where, exactly, I said, intimated, implied or otherwise held forth that I "complain that because he could buy the election it means that liberty is alive and well in NYC." Not going to answer that, are you?
P.S. The best advice I can give you is "don't feed the trolls." If that's what you think I am, don't feed me. We'll both be happier.
not the point he was making at all. The point stands, when obama doesnt get his way through congress, he does it anyway, just as bush did, and just as bloomy tried.
too much power in the hands of any 1 individual be it mayor or president is a bad thing.
in other words, check your biases, moron
It was definitely overreach for Bloomberg to attempt this. And it was hugely unpopular in NYC for just that reason. However. the operative term I was replying to in the OP's rant was "dickhead, liberal mayor." Bloomberg is definitely a dickhead, but also definitely not a liberal. I certainly wasn't defending Bloomberg or his heavy-handed tactics.
sitting where i am, he is no where near right, thats why simply a right left paradigm does not work so well anymore
Seeing as the US Democratic Party is a Center-Right party, I can see where you could be confused. Now, something like FARC is a far Left group. See the difference?
I'm not talking about Bloomberg, I'm talking about the people supporting the issue. Few of them are on the Right. This is a Leftist issue through and through, despite Bloomberg's nonsLeftist stances on other things.
And who would "the people supporting the issue" be? No citations, no names, just you confirming your bias.
My point (seeing as you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension) was that the OP shouldn't paint all NYers with such a broad brush. Wait, I actually said that. In so many words. Which means you deliberately ignored what I wrote to make your own point. What does that say about you, friend?
I guess you don't know how elections work in the US, do you? He who has the most money, wins. Bloomberg outspent his opponent 4 or 5 to 1 in the 2009 election. He spent something like $174/vote.
As for "outliving" term limits, that's completely inaccurate. Bloomberg colluded with a City Council of which 85% of the members were serving their second terms to change the law allowing themselves (and not future elected officials) an extra term in office, over the clear judgement of the voters who, not once -- but twice, voted to limit elected NYC officials to two terms.
If you are going to a reading comprehension jackass, you might have noticed I was the original poster and was replying to you directly, or do you just make a habit of obliquely referring to people you are responding directly to ? You might also try not to read things in statements that aren't there, or take statements to obvious absurdities. There is no way any reasonable person could have read my initial statement as meaning every single person in NYC, and the fact you are arguing from this position implies you are in no way shape or form a reasonable person.
You complain that because he could buy the election it means that liberty is alive and well in NYC ? I see purchased elections as proof it is not.
No. My point, as I've made several times, is that you (feel better now?) shouldn't paint all NYers with such a broad brush. You said: "What saddens me is that the people of NYC tolerated Nanny Bloomberg so long and proved they didn't care the slightest about the concepts of liberty and personal freedom." [Emphasis Added]
You didn't say, "a plurality of NYers", or "a majority of NYers". If you didn't mean "The people of NY" you should have said so.
That was my point. I emphatically do not mean that because elections can be bought, all is well. In fact, I believe all elections should be completely publicly funded with free, equal media representation and no outside funds of any kind. That would make things freer and fairer, and would likely increase liberty.
Please show me where I said (or even implied) that "You complain that because he could buy the election it means that liberty is alive and well in NYC." You can't because it ain't there.
I don't see how you mean this as a rebuttal.
The people of New York couldn't oust him and he was able to outlive term limits. All you have done is demonstrate you are in a minority in a city that turned away from individual liberty long ago. One of the big reasons that when I could retire, I went elsewhere.
My point (seeing as you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension) was that the OP shouldn't paint all NYers with such a broad brush. Wait, I actually said that. In so many words. Which means you deliberately ignored what I wrote to make your own point. What does that say about you, friend?
I guess you don't know how elections work in the US, do you? He who has the most money, wins. Bloomberg outspent his opponent 4 or 5 to 1 in the 2009 election. He spent something like $174/vote.
As for "outliving" term limits, that's completely inaccurate. Bloomberg colluded with a City Council of which 85% of the members were serving their second terms to change the law allowing themselves (and not future elected officials) an extra term in office, over the clear judgement of the voters who, not once -- but twice, voted to limit elected NYC officials to two terms.
It's not the city that passed the law. It is a controlling, dickhead, liberal mayor. As Obama is showing us, executive power can be a very destructive thing.
Michael Bloomberg was elected mayor of NYC *three* times on the Republican ticket. Check your biases, moron.
What saddens me is that the people of NYC tolerated Nanny Bloomberg so long and proved they didn't care the slightest about the concepts of liberty and personal freedom.
Don't blame me. I voted for the other guy. Three times. Not coincidentally, I also voted for term limits (max 2 terms) twice, which Bloomberg and the power-hungry City Council overrode with complete disrespect to their constituents. Don't paint NYers with such a broad brush. In his 2009 mayoral campaign Bloomberg outspent his opponents many times over and still only won by 4.4% with just 50.7% of the vote.
I invite you to check your facts before spouting off. You've just shown yourself to either be uninformed and unaware of it, or just spouting lies and hoping no one will notice.
Indeed. Generally, the Left has been known for its opposition to using government to control social behavior. It was one of the last things they were good for. Now they're completely devoid of any value, just like the Right.
You do realize that Bloomberg and his administration were Republican, right? So what was that you were saying? Nothing. That's right.
I think the Imminent Threat refers to the body searches that police do to determine that suspects have no weapons on their person when arrested.
My point exactly. GP said:
...I can only imagine a situation where a phone is strongly suspected to contain information relating to a kidnapping, bombing, etc where the information may lead to the rescue of a victim or victims....
GP's example would be Exigent Circumstances and not Imminent Threat, IMHO.
Off the top of my head, I can only imagine a situation where a phone is strongly suspected to contain information relating to a kidnapping, bombing, etc where the information may lead to the rescue of a victim or victims. In other cases they can collect the phone while they wait for a warrant from a judge.
IANAL, but I believe what you are referring to is Exigent Circumstances rather than Imminent Threat.
This is a dead topic. Since no one else will receive the benefit of my post I'll just summarize really quick.
Corporations are a free expression of how individuals want to conduct business and earn a profit. Recent Supreme Court decisions especially have been expanding the individuals ability to exercise free speech in any organized manner.
Dead indeed. But you never did answer my question. No worries. I understand that you were referring to your belief that all regulation is bad. That it has nothing to do with the First Amendment was, I'm sure, an oversight on your part. Carry on and have a nice day.
Let me turn that around on you and ask how surveillance of your employees is regulated under interstate commerce?
As I said:
...a business' ability to spy on its employees (which is, at least in the US, perfectly legal on company owned/controlled premises or equipment)...
My reference to the Interstate Commerce clause was a guess as to how the Federal Government might regulate such activities. AFAIK, they do not already do so. IANAL. YMMV.
So, I'll ask again. How is it that this activity violates anyone's First Amendment rights?
Whether or not that's actively policed is a different question.
Which is exactly what I said. Yes, it violates their policies, but they dont care. Are you stupid or just trolling?
Your employer may not do so, but other ISPs do. As is clearly detailed in the links included. I guess I should have proofread my post a little better and modified that sentence. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'd edit my post to make it more coherent, but this is/. Sigh.
I thought your post interesting enough to respond with my own. Unfortunately, your employers' policies are not universally used. Hopefully those ISPs that engage in abusive practices will follow suit, but I'm not holding my breath.
As to my intelligence, that's not really relevant to the discussion is it? If you disagree with me or take issue with how I present information, proving me wrong or correcting me will go a lot farther to advance the discussion than attempting (and failing) to insult me.
If you think I'm trolling, then best practices suggest not feeding me. Your choice.
Then again, if you can't get in some ad hominem here and there, then what's the point of the Internet anyway? Carry on.
Reading Comprehension skills aren't your forte, are they? THey say 'police', you argue against 'restrict' and then say 'whether or not that's actively policed...'.
Since I actually referred to policing, I guess I did comprehend. What's more, If you'd bothered to read the links I included you'd see that various ISPs are, in fact, enforcing port blocking as well as throttling bittorrent streams. I think that qualifies as policing.
But rather than stoop to your level and make ad-hominem remarks, I'll just assume that you were really busy and didn't have time to read the links. See how easy that was?
I also work for a large ISP.
Port blocking is almost always limited to sendmail (25) and web (80, 8080), and a handful of other ports which are (or have been) common security vulnerabilities and which mostly involve network protocols that you should not have exposed to the internet directly to start with. (like netbios, windows admin, and such).
Your ISP sells you a residential account on the assumption that most people will not attempt to use the entire bandwidth, 24/7. Which is why they can afford to give you a 20meg, 50meg, 100meg, or even gigabit connection for $100 or less per month. If you DO want a 100meg guaranteed connection where you can run servers and use it for Commercial purposes, you CAN buy one- but it's a lot more expensive because you're actually paying full price. Instead of the discount you get for sharing a "pipe" with other people.
The rules are there to a) prevent legal liability, b) prevent Commercial use on a residential account, and c) give them a way to kick you off in a few rare situations where your activity threatens the rest of their network. Prior to the DMCA, they rarely terminated anybody who wasn't caught doing something like reselling access (b), and the exceptions were primarily people who were hacking (poorly)... they aren't going to risk having a/12 or/23 IP block blacklisted globally because some idiot scriptkiddy doesn't know how to hide his tracks.
Now, there are a few companies who really want to put Metered internet into practice here in the US. But they know it's highly unpopular, and although many places (Europe) are fine with it, they know it'll hurt sales. So they try to use the TOS to bully "high bandwidth" users into cutting back on usage... this is usually spearheaded by the idiot MBA's and almost always poorly handled. See the case of Comcast MiTM'ing people's peer to peer connections and spoofing packets as an obvious example.
More recently, the Netflix fiasco... but unlike the torrent situation they can't shit-talk the users and portray them as thieves and perverts, because not only is it legitimate it's also highly popular.
Your points are well taken and, in my experience, relatively accurate. Thank you. In contrast, My ISP doesn't block any ports, throttle any protocols or restrict the use of servers. They even give me multiple free static IP addresses.
At the same time, I have issues with artificial restrictions (and they are artificial) on usage and access. My concerns are three-fold, and relate to the most used last-mile protocols (e.g., DOCSIS, ADSL, etc.), the asymmetric bandwidth associated with those protocols, and the resulting impact on freedom of expression, creativity and stifling of the "marketplace of ideas."
Asymmetric bandwidth extends the "consumer" society onto the Internet. The IP protocol suite is inherently peer to peer, in that any node can serve as client, server or both. By restricting upload bandwidth, we discourage the use of personal servers to share information and ideas, express our creativity and create real communities of users, unencumbered by the rapacious scumbags who spy on us so they can help others try to sell us stuff. As an example, with symmetric bandwidth at the last mile, a platform such as
I have to unfortunately agree. Laws that encroach on private business' ability to run their busyness as they like is encroaching on the First Amendment. We don't need good and bad private business laws. That's their business.
Please explain where the First Amendment comes into this particular discussion about surveilling your employees and acting on the intel from that surveillance. What conceivable law regulating a business' ability to spy on its employees (which is, at least in the US, perfectly legal on company owned/controlled premises or equipment) could be an infringement of the First Amendment? Because, frankly, I'm at a loss to understand what the hell you're on about.
For your reference, I've included the text of the First Amendement below:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Regulating Interstate Commerce is explicitly the purview of the Federal Goverment. What is considered Interstate commerce is a moving target, but there's this little document called the US Constitution which, as I said, explicitly gives such powers to the Federal government. Someone else has a sig that reads, IIRC, "The US constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now." Are you suggesting that we amend the Constitution to remove the Commerce clause?
Okay. So where were we? Oh, yes. I'd love to read what you claim (in this context) would be an infringement on a corporation's (whether or not a corporation has First Amendment rights is not clearly defined) rights under the law. There is also a long history (backed up by that pesky Commerce clause) of Federal business regulation.
Reading Comprehension skills aren't your forte, are they? THey say 'police', you argue against 'restrict' and then say 'whether or not that's actively policed...'.
Since I actually referred to policing, I guess I did comprehend. What's more, If you'd bothered to read the links I included you'd see that various ISPs are, in fact, enforcing port blocking as well as throttling bittorrent streams. I think that qualifies as policing.
But rather than stoop to your level and make ad-hominem remarks, I'll just assume that you were really busy and didn't have time to read the links. See how easy that was?
So, that I know of, no ISP has a program where they police what you do.
Really?That's just not so. What is more, the abusive contracts/TOS/AUPdo restrict what you allowed to do. Whether or not that's actively policed is a different question.
These types of restrictions are one of the biggest threats to the real promise of the Internet IMHO -- the truly free sharing of ideas and information.
I'm not so sure. I'm thinking that Hanlon's Razor [wikipedia.org] should be applied here.
The corollary? Nothing is provable; everything is permissible.
Your adage is one of a pushover. You are a sucker, and you promote being one.
Are we having a bad day? Did mommy make you leave the basement or clean your room?
Your statement may be a corollary to something, but not Hanlon's Razor. Given the rest of your blather, I attribute your poorly written and rather emotional post to both stupidity *and* malice.
My name isn't Hanlon, and it;'s not my adage.
I'm sorry you're dumb. I'm sorry you're angry. I feel pity for you. At the same time, you're still an asshole, which is certainly provable (you did that yourself) and while I do support free speech, I imagine you'd be less of a fucktard if we were having this conversation in person.
Slashdot Mirror
The bill or the letter criticizing it that were linked in TFS, but there are so many more important freedoms (sharing of data with the DOD/NSA, further erosion of the Fourth Amendment, inadequate protection of Personally Identifiable Information and more) at risk than throttling streaming of the latest Hollywood garbage.
It amazes me that the poster would choose to focus on something both so innocuous and so unlikely, rather than the important issues. Sigh. One can only hope that there will soon be a new Darwin Award winner. Sigh.
Between CISPA and the ruling against Aereo restricting the rights of others is it any wonder the Republicrats and Democans popularity is at an all time low. They are so far out of touch with realitythey don't give a damn about the rights of anyone but the rich and passing laws and regulations that favor them. Because of that anyone who has voted and will vote Republicrat or Democan, shut up and go sit on the sidelines. You've already demonstrated that you want an intrusive, activist government and as such you have no room to complain. You ASKED FOR THIS.
______________________________________ A vote against a Libertarian candidate is a vote to abolish the Constitution itself
Strange. You encourage people to self-censor on the one hand, while strongly implying your support for free speech (via your sloganeering) with the other. So which is it, AC? Do you want the "blessings of Liberty" or do you want those who disagree with you to, as you put it, "shut up and go sit on the sidelines?" You can't have it both ways.
Really. Point out a conservative (neo, rather than classical) supporting this, other than Bloomberg.
I didn't make reference to anyone (except Bloomberg) supporting or opposing (other than me) the issue.. You did. If you're going to make a claim, then be willing to back it up. You said:
So. Who are these people? I found Bloomberg's attempt to regulate soft drinks to be a serious attempt at overreach and was disgusted with Bloomberg and his authoritarian tactics.
On a global scale, my political beliefs put me squarely in the center-left, which in the US (if you listen to the folks screeching in the corner) makes me a Marxist bent on global communist domination. It's not true, but why let facts get in the way of a divisive ideological argument? But I digress.
You made specific assertions about the political persuasions of the people on both sides of this issue. It's not data, but the anecdotal me gives the lie to your assertions. And so, I ask again: Since (as is strongly implied by your statements) you know so much about who supported and opposed Bloomberg's attempt to regulate sugary drinks, who exactly are those people?
I made no other assertion than that I opposed it and that Bloomberg supported it. See. I enumerated the folks I made assertions about. Can you do that? Sure you can. I await your answer, but I won't hold my breath since I'm pretty sure you're pulling all of this out of your ass.
...while he may be right on a national level, he is not right on an american level
More's the pity.
No. My point, as I've made several times, is that you (feel better now?) shouldn't paint all NYers with such a broad brush. You said: "What saddens me is that the people of NYC tolerated Nanny Bloomberg so long and proved they didn't care the slightest about the concepts of liberty and personal freedom." [Emphasis Added]
You didn't say, "a plurality of NYers", or "a majority of NYers". If you didn't mean "The people of NY" you should have said so.
That was my point. I emphatically do not mean that because elections can be bought, all is well. In fact, I believe all elections should be completely publicly funded with free, equal media representation and no outside funds of any kind. That would make things freer and fairer, and would likely increase liberty.
Please show me where I said (or even implied) that "You complain that because he could buy the election it means that liberty is alive and well in NYC." You can't because it ain't there.
You're a troll. There is no way anyone could think that every person of the 8+ million in NYC was meant.
Then to whom were you referring?
I interpreted what you wrote based on, well, what you wrote. Unfortunately (actually, quite fortunate for me at least), I'm not inside your head.
So, when you say, "the people of NY," I interpret that to mean, "the people of NY" not "the subset of people who live in NY that Crashmarik is thinking about."
If using the English language in a clear, concise fashion is too much trouble for you, you shouldn't be surprised when you're misunderstood.
Also, I'd really like to know where, exactly, I said, intimated, implied or otherwise held forth that I "complain that because he could buy the election it means that liberty is alive and well in NYC." Not going to answer that, are you?
P.S. The best advice I can give you is "don't feed the trolls." If that's what you think I am, don't feed me. We'll both be happier.
Have a nice day!
not the point he was making at all. The point stands, when obama doesnt get his way through congress, he does it anyway, just as bush did, and just as bloomy tried. too much power in the hands of any 1 individual be it mayor or president is a bad thing. in other words, check your biases, moron
It was definitely overreach for Bloomberg to attempt this. And it was hugely unpopular in NYC for just that reason. However. the operative term I was replying to in the OP's rant was "dickhead, liberal mayor." Bloomberg is definitely a dickhead, but also definitely not a liberal. I certainly wasn't defending Bloomberg or his heavy-handed tactics.
sitting where i am, he is no where near right, thats why simply a right left paradigm does not work so well anymore
Seeing as the US Democratic Party is a Center-Right party, I can see where you could be confused. Now, something like FARC is a far Left group. See the difference?
I'm not talking about Bloomberg, I'm talking about the people supporting the issue. Few of them are on the Right. This is a Leftist issue through and through, despite Bloomberg's nonsLeftist stances on other things.
And who would "the people supporting the issue" be? No citations, no names, just you confirming your bias.
My point (seeing as you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension) was that the OP shouldn't paint all NYers with such a broad brush. Wait, I actually said that. In so many words. Which means you deliberately ignored what I wrote to make your own point. What does that say about you, friend?
I guess you don't know how elections work in the US, do you? He who has the most money, wins. Bloomberg outspent his opponent 4 or 5 to 1 in the 2009 election. He spent something like $174/vote.
As for "outliving" term limits, that's completely inaccurate. Bloomberg colluded with a City Council of which 85% of the members were serving their second terms to change the law allowing themselves (and not future elected officials) an extra term in office, over the clear judgement of the voters who, not once -- but twice, voted to limit elected NYC officials to two terms.
If you are going to a reading comprehension jackass, you might have noticed I was the original poster and was replying to you directly, or do you just make a habit of obliquely referring to people you are responding directly to ? You might also try not to read things in statements that aren't there, or take statements to obvious absurdities. There is no way any reasonable person could have read my initial statement as meaning every single person in NYC, and the fact you are arguing from this position implies you are in no way shape or form a reasonable person.
You complain that because he could buy the election it means that liberty is alive and well in NYC ? I see purchased elections as proof it is not.
No. My point, as I've made several times, is that you (feel better now?) shouldn't paint all NYers with such a broad brush. You said: "What saddens me is that the people of NYC tolerated Nanny Bloomberg so long and proved they didn't care the slightest about the concepts of liberty and personal freedom." [Emphasis Added]
You didn't say, "a plurality of NYers", or "a majority of NYers". If you didn't mean "The people of NY" you should have said so.
That was my point. I emphatically do not mean that because elections can be bought, all is well. In fact, I believe all elections should be completely publicly funded with free, equal media representation and no outside funds of any kind. That would make things freer and fairer, and would likely increase liberty.
Please show me where I said (or even implied) that "You complain that because he could buy the election it means that liberty is alive and well in NYC." You can't because it ain't there.
I don't see how you mean this as a rebuttal. The people of New York couldn't oust him and he was able to outlive term limits. All you have done is demonstrate you are in a minority in a city that turned away from individual liberty long ago. One of the big reasons that when I could retire, I went elsewhere.
My point (seeing as you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension) was that the OP shouldn't paint all NYers with such a broad brush. Wait, I actually said that. In so many words. Which means you deliberately ignored what I wrote to make your own point. What does that say about you, friend?
I guess you don't know how elections work in the US, do you? He who has the most money, wins. Bloomberg outspent his opponent 4 or 5 to 1 in the 2009 election. He spent something like $174/vote.
As for "outliving" term limits, that's completely inaccurate. Bloomberg colluded with a City Council of which 85% of the members were serving their second terms to change the law allowing themselves (and not future elected officials) an extra term in office, over the clear judgement of the voters who, not once -- but twice, voted to limit elected NYC officials to two terms.
You do realize that Bloomberg and his administration were Republican, right? So what was that you were saying? Nothing. That's right.
He said "Left" not "Democrat". Bloomberg is no where near the right side of things. You do realize that, right?
From where I'm sitting, and I watched all twelve years of it, Bloomberg is no liberal. Nor is he anywhere near the "Left." That's what I know.
It's not the city that passed the law. It is a controlling, dickhead, liberal mayor. As Obama is showing us, executive power can be a very destructive thing.
Michael Bloomberg was elected mayor of NYC *three* times on the Republican ticket. Check your biases, moron.
What saddens me is that the people of NYC tolerated Nanny Bloomberg so long and proved they didn't care the slightest about the concepts of liberty and personal freedom.
Don't blame me. I voted for the other guy. Three times. Not coincidentally, I also voted for term limits (max 2 terms) twice, which Bloomberg and the power-hungry City Council overrode with complete disrespect to their constituents. Don't paint NYers with such a broad brush. In his 2009 mayoral campaign Bloomberg outspent his opponents many times over and still only won by 4.4% with just 50.7% of the vote.
I invite you to check your facts before spouting off. You've just shown yourself to either be uninformed and unaware of it, or just spouting lies and hoping no one will notice.
Indeed. Generally, the Left has been known for its opposition to using government to control social behavior. It was one of the last things they were good for. Now they're completely devoid of any value, just like the Right.
You do realize that Bloomberg and his administration were Republican, right? So what was that you were saying? Nothing. That's right.
I think the Imminent Threat refers to the body searches that police do to determine that suspects have no weapons on their person when arrested.
My point exactly. GP said:
GP's example would be Exigent Circumstances and not Imminent Threat, IMHO.
Off the top of my head, I can only imagine a situation where a phone is strongly suspected to contain information relating to a kidnapping, bombing, etc where the information may lead to the rescue of a victim or victims. In other cases they can collect the phone while they wait for a warrant from a judge.
IANAL, but I believe what you are referring to is Exigent Circumstances rather than Imminent Threat.
This is a dead topic. Since no one else will receive the benefit of my post I'll just summarize really quick. Corporations are a free expression of how individuals want to conduct business and earn a profit. Recent Supreme Court decisions especially have been expanding the individuals ability to exercise free speech in any organized manner.
Dead indeed. But you never did answer my question. No worries. I understand that you were referring to your belief that all regulation is bad. That it has nothing to do with the First Amendment was, I'm sure, an oversight on your part. Carry on and have a nice day.
Let me turn that around on you and ask how surveillance of your employees is regulated under interstate commerce?
As I said:
My reference to the Interstate Commerce clause was a guess as to how the Federal Government might regulate such activities. AFAIK, they do not already do so. IANAL. YMMV.
So, I'll ask again. How is it that this activity violates anyone's First Amendment rights?
Whether or not that's actively policed is a different question.
Which is exactly what I said. Yes, it violates their policies, but they dont care. Are you stupid or just trolling?
Your employer may not do so, but other ISPs do. As is clearly detailed in the links included. I guess I should have proofread my post a little better and modified that sentence. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'd edit my post to make it more coherent, but this is /. Sigh.
I thought your post interesting enough to respond with my own. Unfortunately, your employers' policies are not universally used. Hopefully those ISPs that engage in abusive practices will follow suit, but I'm not holding my breath.
As to my intelligence, that's not really relevant to the discussion is it? If you disagree with me or take issue with how I present information, proving me wrong or correcting me will go a lot farther to advance the discussion than attempting (and failing) to insult me.
If you think I'm trolling, then best practices suggest not feeding me. Your choice.
Then again, if you can't get in some ad hominem here and there, then what's the point of the Internet anyway? Carry on.
Reading Comprehension skills aren't your forte, are they? THey say 'police', you argue against 'restrict' and then say 'whether or not that's actively policed ...'.
Since I actually referred to policing, I guess I did comprehend. What's more, If you'd bothered to read the links I included you'd see that various ISPs are, in fact, enforcing port blocking as well as throttling bittorrent streams. I think that qualifies as policing.
But rather than stoop to your level and make ad-hominem remarks, I'll just assume that you were really busy and didn't have time to read the links. See how easy that was?
I also work for a large ISP.
Port blocking is almost always limited to sendmail (25) and web (80, 8080), and a handful of other ports which are (or have been) common security vulnerabilities and which mostly involve network protocols that you should not have exposed to the internet directly to start with. (like netbios, windows admin, and such).
Your ISP sells you a residential account on the assumption that most people will not attempt to use the entire bandwidth, 24/7. Which is why they can afford to give you a 20meg, 50meg, 100meg, or even gigabit connection for $100 or less per month. If you DO want a 100meg guaranteed connection where you can run servers and use it for Commercial purposes, you CAN buy one- but it's a lot more expensive because you're actually paying full price. Instead of the discount you get for sharing a "pipe" with other people.
The rules are there to a) prevent legal liability, b) prevent Commercial use on a residential account, and c) give them a way to kick you off in a few rare situations where your activity threatens the rest of their network. Prior to the DMCA, they rarely terminated anybody who wasn't caught doing something like reselling access (b), and the exceptions were primarily people who were hacking (poorly)... they aren't going to risk having a /12 or /23 IP block blacklisted globally because some idiot scriptkiddy doesn't know how to hide his tracks.
Now, there are a few companies who really want to put Metered internet into practice here in the US. But they know it's highly unpopular, and although many places (Europe) are fine with it, they know it'll hurt sales. So they try to use the TOS to bully "high bandwidth" users into cutting back on usage... this is usually spearheaded by the idiot MBA's and almost always poorly handled. See the case of Comcast MiTM'ing people's peer to peer connections and spoofing packets as an obvious example. More recently, the Netflix fiasco... but unlike the torrent situation they can't shit-talk the users and portray them as thieves and perverts, because not only is it legitimate it's also highly popular.
Your points are well taken and, in my experience, relatively accurate. Thank you. In contrast, My ISP doesn't block any ports, throttle any protocols or restrict the use of servers. They even give me multiple free static IP addresses.
At the same time, I have issues with artificial restrictions (and they are artificial) on usage and access. My concerns are three-fold, and relate to the most used last-mile protocols (e.g., DOCSIS, ADSL, etc.), the asymmetric bandwidth associated with those protocols, and the resulting impact on freedom of expression, creativity and stifling of the "marketplace of ideas."
Asymmetric bandwidth extends the "consumer" society onto the Internet. The IP protocol suite is inherently peer to peer, in that any node can serve as client, server or both. By restricting upload bandwidth, we discourage the use of personal servers to share information and ideas, express our creativity and create real communities of users, unencumbered by the rapacious scumbags who spy on us so they can help others try to sell us stuff. As an example, with symmetric bandwidth at the last mile, a platform such as
I have to unfortunately agree. Laws that encroach on private business' ability to run their busyness as they like is encroaching on the First Amendment. We don't need good and bad private business laws. That's their business.
Please explain where the First Amendment comes into this particular discussion about surveilling your employees and acting on the intel from that surveillance. What conceivable law regulating a business' ability to spy on its employees (which is, at least in the US, perfectly legal on company owned/controlled premises or equipment) could be an infringement of the First Amendment? Because, frankly, I'm at a loss to understand what the hell you're on about.
For your reference, I've included the text of the First Amendement below:
Regulating Interstate Commerce is explicitly the purview of the Federal Goverment. What is considered Interstate commerce is a moving target, but there's this little document called the US Constitution which, as I said, explicitly gives such powers to the Federal government. Someone else has a sig that reads, IIRC, "The US constitution isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now." Are you suggesting that we amend the Constitution to remove the Commerce clause?
Okay. So where were we? Oh, yes. I'd love to read what you claim (in this context) would be an infringement on a corporation's (whether or not a corporation has First Amendment rights is not clearly defined) rights under the law. There is also a long history (backed up by that pesky Commerce clause) of Federal business regulation.
So please, do tell!
Reading Comprehension skills aren't your forte, are they? THey say 'police', you argue against 'restrict' and then say 'whether or not that's actively policed ...'.
Since I actually referred to policing, I guess I did comprehend. What's more, If you'd bothered to read the links I included you'd see that various ISPs are, in fact, enforcing port blocking as well as throttling bittorrent streams. I think that qualifies as policing.
But rather than stoop to your level and make ad-hominem remarks, I'll just assume that you were really busy and didn't have time to read the links. See how easy that was?
So, that I know of, no ISP has a program where they police what you do.
Really? That's just not so. What is more, the abusive contracts/TOS/AUP do restrict what you allowed to do. Whether or not that's actively policed is a different question.
These types of restrictions are one of the biggest threats to the real promise of the Internet IMHO -- the truly free sharing of ideas and information.
The corollary? Nothing is provable; everything is permissible. Your adage is one of a pushover. You are a sucker, and you promote being one.
Are we having a bad day? Did mommy make you leave the basement or clean your room?
Your statement may be a corollary to something, but not Hanlon's Razor. Given the rest of your blather, I attribute your poorly written and rather emotional post to both stupidity *and* malice.
My name isn't Hanlon, and it;'s not my adage.
I'm sorry you're dumb. I'm sorry you're angry. I feel pity for you. At the same time, you're still an asshole, which is certainly provable (you did that yourself) and while I do support free speech, I imagine you'd be less of a fucktard if we were having this conversation in person.
Oops. I guess you disproved your own bullshit.
Have a great day!
If you think that the leak is a failure, well, it's a PLANNED FAILURE
The Fed doesn't like bitcoins, feels very threaten by bitcoins, and hope that nobody will deal in bitcoins
With the sale of those bitcoins of course they will execute a planned failure that will look to the world at large as a "leak"
It is never a leak, it is a PLANNED LEAK
I'm not so sure. I'm thinking that Hanlon's Razor should be applied here.