Whether the local tribal leader is named Jamaludin Badr or Rupert Murdoch.
Except Ropert Murdoch has no means to compel you to stay away from competing publishers — neither by banning the competitors nor by prohibiting you to buy their wares.
And that is the key difference between a government-provided service (whether it is news, education, health care, food, shelter, or entertainment) and a privately-provided one.
Anonymous transponders would've done just as well for this purpose. And yet, currently, the transponders are registered to both name and car. The same person can not even move a transponder from one car to another without violating EZ-Pass terms.
Though I agree, Mayor Bloomberg does not carefully study personal driving habits through his city every day, the information is there for the law enforcement to use. And not just law-enforcement — divorce lawyers, for example, have subpoenaed the EZ-Pass records to prove (or disprove) allegations of infidelity.
That the government, when designing this system, deliberately chose to not make it anonymous (as the subway cards are, for example), is a sign, they intended to use it to violate our privacy.
If the government cared for privacy, they would've made these tags anonymous — to be purchased and/or re-charged at gas-stations and convenience stored. Instead they must be registered to both your name and your license-plate and even using your own transponder in a rental car while yours is in a shop, is a violation of the terms (though people normally get away with it).
It was obvious from day one, data-collection was at least a secondary objective. Nominally the system is owned by a private company(ies), but with the government-enforced monopoly we get the worst of both worlds — a business' normal desire for profit, with government-style absence of competition.
If that's the case, why do all those personally voted people in US congress vehemently clamp to their party line?
Sometimes they do so, and some times — on the issues, on which they don't agree with their chosen Party. — they do not. Whether it is legalizing the illegal immigrants currently in the US, or attacking Syria, a number of lawmakers vote against their Party's majority. There is even a term for it: "crossing the party line".
And your argument about the reason of your two-party system, well -- [citation neeeded].
What citation? The ballots do list people in the US (their party-affiliation in parentheses), not parties.
Quite different to our system, for example, that handles 4-6 political parties in parlament quite stable, thank you.
Sorry, I will not be sucked into debating, which system is "better". We like ours, thank you very much, and have used it for over 200 years uninterrupted. There even used to be a third major party — the Whigs (scoring two Presidents, no less). Maybe, you can be pacified in your unprovoked anger, if I compare American parties with German coalitions?
I am glad it has been amended. Certainly it was an injustice.
I wouldn't say, it is necessarily an injustice in all cases. A small crime committed on an impulse — see candy, see cashier looking the other way — is less serious, than a cold-blooded conspiracy. Because whereas the impulse might still have the scruples not realize, given time, he should not do it, with the conspirators there is no such doubt.
But were discussing, what is and what is not legal in US vs. China — not what the punishment is, for the things that are illegal.
You're only one party away from a one-party state -- if we can even count dems and reps to be significantly distinct...
This is a mistake many — Americans and foreigners alike — make about America's political system. True, we only have two major parties, but that's because we use them completely differently: we vote for persons, not for parties.
Whereas in most (all?) Democracies world-wide the voters pick parties on their ballots, Americans pick actual people. Party-affiliation in the US is neither official, nor binding. There is nothing about "parties" in the Constitution or Federal voting law (and very little in State laws). Politicians can and have changed their party affiliation. A party is as strong as the number of elected officials, who choose to affiliate with it.
On contrast, in other countries people vote for parties — and the parties then assign legislative seats (and other perks) in proportion to their share of the vote.
Not saying, which system is "better", just pointing out the huge difference. The difference, which might explain, why the US only has two — because they are both very diverse and would've split up, had the voting rules been different...
Which, of course, would be why you would not trust the government to do anything of this sort.
I wouldn't, of course. Unfortunately, Socialism has this sort of appeal to the "low-information voter".
Any question like: "Would you like the government to help research life-saving medicines?" — gets a resounding "yes" from many people. Without it occurring to most, that it means, the government officials — the same omniscient and benevolent folks, who have already given us the Department of Motor Vehicles, the NSA, the Post Office, Amtrak and commuter rail — will be deciding, what "life-saving" means, and how the research is to be conducted.
Not sure how this tripe was moderated interesting. You're a buffoon.
Let me guess... You were offended by my questioning the wisdom of our letting the government decide, what aspects of medicine should be helped with our dollars?
Wow... The big-government fans are certainly easy to degrade into name-calling...
If people became weak, sick, and old more slowly, though, you'd score more person-years of post-childhood, post-education, experienced labor
Of course! This is why I said, it will be ultimately useful to society. However, it would require delaying the retirement, which is a difficult thing to do politically.
A 67 year-old may — thanks to some miracle treatment — be hale and healthy, but he is still legally entitled to pension.
I suspect that those in power are very interested in it for themselves
I suspect, it is too late for the people already in power to be getting any sorts of treatment. Thus, they have no prospect of benefit for themselves...
I suspect, the governments — the leading stewards of the research dollars — aren't particularly interested in lengthening the lifespans. Because delaying the retirement age is politically difficult, such lengthening may further enlarge the number of people receiving retirement benefits.
Other social aspects will be affected too — such as bosses not retiring for longer, thus slowing down careers of the underlings.
Obviously, it would ultimately be a good thing for society, but not without quite some upheaval and costs. By trusting the government to spend the research dollars, that are already taxed away from us, we may have slowed this particular research down a bit...
I'm fairly certain that's to protect their head from getting banged around inside the cockpit
A distinction without difference — in this case...
even the best helmet would do fuck-all against the spinning rotor blade of a real helicopter
Actually, it might still keep the head in one piece. It may still fly away from the body (in one piece), if hit closer to the middle, but you may be luckier, if it slides higher. Whereas you'll be scalped without a helmet, you may survive with one. Not that it matters to TFA, of course.
But we must make sure to only ban assault model helicopters!
Oh, no we don't. This most recent incident is just another painful reminder, that the time for half-measures is gone! Enough! We must do something about the safety of our communities, the safety of our kids. And we must do something NOW!.
Real helicopter pilots always wear a helmet. And so should you...
BTW, would somebody think of the children? How long before some maniac brings one of these to school and decapitates a bunch of innocent children?
It is long overdue we ban them on school grounds (and for a couple of miles around each school) and establish a national registry for the devices and background checks for buyers!
- encryption is not a weapon so treating it as such makes no sense.
It is, and was even treated as such until 1992 — when the export bans were abolished because of being impractical.
- the rest of the world is able to invent encryption algorithms too
Absolutely. But if the foreigners were unable to use our algorithms, there would've been no justification for the NSA to seek to undermine and break them. They would've been able to perform their mission — spying on foreigners — while unable to spy on Americans.
- strong encryption is a requirement for electronic commerce, when the rest of the world does not have access to encryption this hurts the US financially.
As you said, the rest of the world can invent their own methods — and the NSA would be allowed (nay, encouraged!) to covertly break into them. And the American firms would've had the advantage of being able to use American algorithms (even if only with American customers).
But all of this is moot, because it is between simply impossible to keep an algorithm a secret for very long — all the while various implementations of it are in daily use by millions of people.
Encryption is no less a weapon than, for example, a bulletproof vest. And though you can buy those on eBay, you must vouch to be an American and promise not to export it...
The president didn't ask the IRS to hurt opposition's finances
Oh, but he did... Of course, he retained a perfectly plausible deniability, and there is not enough evidence for a "beyond reasonable doubt" conviction. But there is plentiful "preponderance of evidence" none-the-less...
you first kill everyone who donates money to the opposition--everybody stops giving them money, hampering their campaign. Then you kill anyone who's given any hint that they might vote for the opposition.
But how would you be able to do all of this, if everybody — including your would-be victims — can access your communications (such as the orders to kill) just as well?
Obama has alreadyordered the IRS to suppress the opposition, because the opposition's records weren't private, while Obama's and the IRS' still were. I'd argue, that opening everybody's records and communications would help prevent tyranny just as much as keeping records properly private.
What we'd have is certain people being completely transparent and other, more privileged, people having privacy.
I'm not sure, this is, what the OP meant. His statement was simply "If there is no privacy the government will eventually degenerate to a tyranny."
Maybe, he meant something like: "If only government-connected people retain privacy, the government will eventually degenerate to a tyranny," — but that's not, what he wrote...
My old boss was employee 7 at Verisign and he says he was there the day they came for the keys.
The silver lining in this sad story is that the algorithm used by SSL itself is still unbreakable to the NSA. They wouldn't have needed the keys otherwise. So asymmetric crypto is still sound — if used properly — and privacy-minded people can still use it to communicate...
Though I sympathize with the gist of your position, I must question this particular argument:
If there is no privacy the government will eventually degenerate to a tyranny.
Why exactly is this so? Of course, it would be rather uncomfortable to have no privacy, but would it necessarily lead to tyranny? Why not the opposite, for example — if no one's dealings are private and all information (from banking transactions, to kissing, to bowel movements) about everyone is readily available to whoever cares, wouldn't it be harder to subdue the electoral process, for example?
Slashdot Mirror
Except Ropert Murdoch has no means to compel you to stay away from competing publishers — neither by banning the competitors nor by prohibiting you to buy their wares.
And that is the key difference between a government-provided service (whether it is news, education, health care, food, shelter, or entertainment) and a privately-provided one.
Though I agree, Mayor Bloomberg does not carefully study personal driving habits through his city every day, the information is there for the law enforcement to use. And not just law-enforcement — divorce lawyers, for example, have subpoenaed the EZ-Pass records to prove (or disprove) allegations of infidelity.
That the government, when designing this system, deliberately chose to not make it anonymous (as the subway cards are, for example), is a sign, they intended to use it to violate our privacy.
It was obvious from day one, data-collection was at least a secondary objective. Nominally the system is owned by a private company(ies), but with the government-enforced monopoly we get the worst of both worlds — a business' normal desire for profit, with government-style absence of competition.
Sometimes they do so, and some times — on the issues, on which they don't agree with their chosen Party. — they do not. Whether it is legalizing the illegal immigrants currently in the US, or attacking Syria, a number of lawmakers vote against their Party's majority. There is even a term for it: "crossing the party line".
What citation? The ballots do list people in the US (their party-affiliation in parentheses), not parties.
Sorry, I will not be sucked into debating, which system is "better". We like ours, thank you very much, and have used it for over 200 years uninterrupted. There even used to be a third major party — the Whigs (scoring two Presidents, no less). Maybe, you can be pacified in your unprovoked anger, if I compare American parties with German coalitions?
I wouldn't say, it is necessarily an injustice in all cases. A small crime committed on an impulse — see candy, see cashier looking the other way — is less serious, than a cold-blooded conspiracy. Because whereas the impulse might still have the scruples not realize, given time, he should not do it, with the conspirators there is no such doubt.
But were discussing, what is and what is not legal in US vs. China — not what the punishment is, for the things that are illegal.
This is a mistake many — Americans and foreigners alike — make about America's political system. True, we only have two major parties, but that's because we use them completely differently: we vote for persons, not for parties.
Whereas in most (all?) Democracies world-wide the voters pick parties on their ballots, Americans pick actual people. Party-affiliation in the US is neither official, nor binding. There is nothing about "parties" in the Constitution or Federal voting law (and very little in State laws). Politicians can and have changed their party affiliation. A party is as strong as the number of elected officials, who choose to affiliate with it.
On contrast, in other countries people vote for parties — and the parties then assign legislative seats (and other perks) in proportion to their share of the vote.
Not saying, which system is "better", just pointing out the huge difference. The difference, which might explain, why the US only has two — because they are both very diverse and would've split up, had the voting rules been different...
I wouldn't, of course. Unfortunately, Socialism has this sort of appeal to the "low-information voter".
Any question like: "Would you like the government to help research life-saving medicines?" — gets a resounding "yes" from many people. Without it occurring to most, that it means, the government officials — the same omniscient and benevolent folks, who have already given us the Department of Motor Vehicles, the NSA, the Post Office, Amtrak and commuter rail — will be deciding, what "life-saving" means, and how the research is to be conducted.
Let me guess... You were offended by my questioning the wisdom of our letting the government decide, what aspects of medicine should be helped with our dollars?
Wow... The big-government fans are certainly easy to degrade into name-calling...
Of course! This is why I said, it will be ultimately useful to society. However, it would require delaying the retirement, which is a difficult thing to do politically.
A 67 year-old may — thanks to some miracle treatment — be hale and healthy, but he is still legally entitled to pension.
No, it is not.
Not quite "simply holding signs", were they?
I suspect, it is too late for the people already in power to be getting any sorts of treatment. Thus, they have no prospect of benefit for themselves...
The big difference here is, these three hypothetical people will not be facing a three-year sentence.
You may equate an FBI investigation with actual imprisonment all you want, but in practice there is some difference.
Other social aspects will be affected too — such as bosses not retiring for longer, thus slowing down careers of the underlings.
Obviously, it would ultimately be a good thing for society, but not without quite some upheaval and costs. By trusting the government to spend the research dollars, that are already taxed away from us, we may have slowed this particular research down a bit...
No, they do not. There are no requirements on citizens in the 2nd Amendment. Zilch.
Ah, the clean, precise, and convincing arguments of the Constitution-shredders...
A distinction without difference — in this case...
Actually, it might still keep the head in one piece. It may still fly away from the body (in one piece), if hit closer to the middle, but you may be luckier, if it slides higher. Whereas you'll be scalped without a helmet, you may survive with one. Not that it matters to TFA, of course.
The same people, who are willing to shred the Constitution (the Bill of Rights, specifically) to ban firearms...
Oh, no we don't. This most recent incident is just another painful reminder, that the time for half-measures is gone! Enough! We must do something about the safety of our communities, the safety of our kids. And we must do something NOW! .
Real helicopter pilots always wear a helmet. And so should you...
BTW, would somebody think of the children ? How long before some maniac brings one of these to school and decapitates a bunch of innocent children?
It is long overdue we ban them on school grounds (and for a couple of miles around each school) and establish a national registry for the devices and background checks for buyers!
It is, and was even treated as such until 1992 — when the export bans were abolished because of being impractical.
Absolutely. But if the foreigners were unable to use our algorithms, there would've been no justification for the NSA to seek to undermine and break them. They would've been able to perform their mission — spying on foreigners — while unable to spy on Americans.
As you said, the rest of the world can invent their own methods — and the NSA would be allowed (nay, encouraged!) to covertly break into them. And the American firms would've had the advantage of being able to use American algorithms (even if only with American customers).
But all of this is moot, because it is between simply impossible to keep an algorithm a secret for very long — all the while various implementations of it are in daily use by millions of people.
Encryption is no less a weapon than, for example, a bulletproof vest. And though you can buy those on eBay, you must vouch to be an American and promise not to export it...
Oh, but he did... Of course, he retained a perfectly plausible deniability, and there is not enough evidence for a "beyond reasonable doubt" conviction. But there is plentiful "preponderance of evidence" none-the-less...
But how would you be able to do all of this, if everybody — including your would-be victims — can access your communications (such as the orders to kill) just as well?
Obama has already ordered the IRS to suppress the opposition, because the opposition's records weren't private, while Obama's and the IRS' still were. I'd argue, that opening everybody's records and communications would help prevent tyranny just as much as keeping records properly private.
I'm not sure, this is, what the OP meant. His statement was simply "If there is no privacy the government will eventually degenerate to a tyranny."
Maybe, he meant something like: "If only government-connected people retain privacy, the government will eventually degenerate to a tyranny," — but that's not, what he wrote...
The silver lining in this sad story is that the algorithm used by SSL itself is still unbreakable to the NSA. They wouldn't have needed the keys otherwise. So asymmetric crypto is still sound — if used properly — and privacy-minded people can still use it to communicate...
Why exactly is this so? Of course, it would be rather uncomfortable to have no privacy, but would it necessarily lead to tyranny? Why not the opposite, for example — if no one's dealings are private and all information (from banking transactions, to kissing, to bowel movements) about everyone is readily available to whoever cares, wouldn't it be harder to subdue the electoral process, for example?