The government breaking the law and private citizens breaking the law are radically different things.
We started with phone companies helping the government to break the law. It is not at all clear, the agreeing executives even knew (or should've known), that the government was overstepping the Constitutional limits. In fact, I don't think, it is a fully legally-answered question even today...
Yet the original poster implied, it is better to stay with Verizon Wireless, than to switch to a company, which has merely helped its government intercept phone conversations with (strongly) suspected foreign terrorists.
If you'd actually read any history you'd know that the point of legal overview is to prevent abuse
Well, if you'd actually read any history, you would know, that not only illegal wiretaps were authorized by the "war president" Roosevelt, but also a few apparent rub-outs of American citizens by foreign (British) secret agencies.
But do tell me, how NSA (or its clients) could've abused the gathered information.
Also terrorism is a rather minor threat except that it's a great way for politicians to get more power and votes.
Sure — abortions kill far more, for example. About a million every year in US alone, you know... Mmm, what a flamebait...
I take it you also find the revolutionary war to be a horrible thing, after all the British were the government and it's utterly evil to not bow down to the government.
Do quote me on saying "it's utterly evil to not bow down to the government". I dare you...
You want a wide variety of other companies to know who you are calling and how long you are talking to them for, just to get better advertising?
Both — the diminishing of privacy and the abundance of misdirected advertising — are bad, and it is not at all obvious (to me), which is worse.
And the expectation of privacy of cellular calls (it is Verizon Wireless we are talking about) is unfounded. The calls aren't encrypted and, AFAIK, it would not be illegal to build and install devices collecting the dialed numbers and the durations of calls. Eavesdropping on the actual calls may be illegal (although still possible), but not collecting (and selling) the end-points' numbers and call-durations...
I'd think that a corporation helping its government spy illegally is bad.
First of all, let's clear a few things out of this — you would not approve of anyone helping anyone doing anything illegal, would you? Spying, growing weed, downloading music without permission, having an abortion (illegal in many countries)?..
Because if, in your opinion, some things just "ought to be legal" (and thus it is Ok to do them, even if they aren't), then, certainly, it can be argued, that NSA's spying on strongly suspected enemies (abroad) is not particularly wrong. And, of course, any body helping their government defeat the enemies is a good and upstanding citizen (or corporation).
Unlike with music downloads and other matters of entertainment, waiting for the due course of legalization to run just may not be an option in the matters of terrorism (or, indeed, abortion).
On your analysis, the government is your enemy, and your only enemy?
The government is not my enemy (in this blessed country), but I can see, how it can overstep.
None of my (other) enemies can harm me, though. It is not obvious, that the dangers outweight the benefits here — yet the poster calling me clueless is currently basking in "5 Insightful" — Verizon's decision's evilness must be obvious to all, except me, but nobody can outline, what it is, exactly...
My initial reaction was "No way!". I even started dialing the posted number...
Then I stopped to think — heck, if this improves the relevance of the advertising I'm getting, maybe, it is not such a terrible thing after all?
The only real risk I see here, is that it may allow the government to buy these records in the future (directly or via a contractor) instead of subpoenaing them in case of an investigation — the former could be easier (a good thing) and avoid the judicial oversight (a bad thing).
An excuse can always be found for censorship — trademark or not. Thousands of blacks coming to Jena a few weeks ago all think, that the speech of hanging nooses off the tree justified the violence against the suspected perpetrator, and that the people suspected of committing the violence ought to be set free "Now!" (No Greenpeace activists were seen chaining themselves to the innocent tree, when the city cut it, either.)
Subsequently, try searching for "Fuck Jena Six" on CafePress.com — the site famous for tolerating seemingly all speech. You can find "fuck Bush", "fuck Mexico", and "fuck Cuba" there, but you will not find "Fuck Jena Six", although merchandise with slogans supporting the six thugs abound.
There were a few such products initially, when the hysteria was just whipping up, but they were promptly removed. By the time I went looking for something, the links to about 10 different products were still present in the CafePress' index, but the actual merchandise was no longer available.
CafePress also suppressed all attempts to discuss the removals on their customer-forums — threads were deleted as "off-topic" or "political". The only explanation for the removals themselves was that the "messages on the merchandise was found to be hateful" (emphasis mine)...
Well, we all disapprove of "hateful" (and I personally strongly disapprove of using the expletives in public discourse), but if you allow shirts with "Fuck Racist Assholes" and "Fuck Police", then — just to be consistent — you ought to allow "Fuck Jena Six" as well.
I want small drone airplanes continuously flying above the major highways and streets and broadcasting the observed view over a TV-band. Anybody with a compatible set within range will then be able to observe traffic incidents, police traps, and road repairs in real time.
Supposedly, our military's use of such things is rapidly growing. Police use is growing too. Hopefully, the technology will allow peaceful civilian use soon.
It can be advertising-sponsored — the images may display an advertising logo in a corner of the screen, or something...
Hey, I don't know about you, but I rather enjoy not having to fight off the Canadian Imperial Army singlehandedly.
Somehow US fought them long before 1913, when the 16th Ammendment was rammed through.
In fact, US even fought some aggressive wars without the personal income tax — a 3% tax on "luxury" off telephone (only the rich have phones, right?) was enough to finance the Spanish-American war, for example.
The 10th Amendment died it's last gasping breath in Roe vs. Wade [...]
Much earlier, actually. It happened when the US Congress allowed itself to collect Income Tax — there was a pretense of ammending the Constitution, but the procedure was never properly followed.
Since then various people have gone to jail for refusing to pay the tax — on the grounds of it being unconstitutional. The worst part is that they are dismissed as "lunatics" by both their peers and the courts. "What do you mean, no income tax? We've always paid it!"
What "got into her" was Soviet Army's shooting at civilians in the Baltic Republics of the then-USSR. Scores have died — not just in Lithuenia.
Yes, it could've been worse — a'la Yugoslavia (although, considering the Azerbajdjan vs. Armenia war, it would not be much worse). But it could've been better too — a'la Chechoslovakia. And yet that most exemplary peaceful split resulted in no Peace Prizes.
Giving a Peace prize to a Communist is a disgrace — and Gorbachev was not the first one...
So, suppose they are not addictive, then it would be ok to take them?
For all I care, you can knock yourself out with anything. I was just pointing out the difference between a psychological dependence ("It is all in your head! Whack, whack, whack") and a more physiological one.
Just be careful there — not being addictive is only a required quality, it is not sufficient. Cyanides, for example, aren't addictive at all either...
I actually know how it can be used to abuse *YOU*.
All of it can. By breaking up the encryption believed to be secure, NSA can wreck havoc in today's world of information. I — unlike you, who believes, that government funding automatically taints any research (except on the subject of global warming, and even then it better come up with the right answer) — just happened to trust my government a notch more than enemies.
In your world, of course, there are no enemies — only friends, whose grievances we failed to address so far. And since there are no enemies, the only application of the government can be against you... See, I know your side too.
No, my side should have the very best equipment, technology, and training, so that it can overwhelmingly crush and subdue any opponent. That is how it should be. We don't go to war to fight — we go to win — as quickly and with as few casualties as possible.
You, doofuses, are so good at "seeing the other side" of every story, you lose sight of your own side. War is not "fair" — you must be confusing it with sports...
I disagree. Employers have the power to fire and hire, and a lot of control over work conditions while you're hired.
You have the same powers over a cleaner or a baby-sitter. You don't control the conditions of your food and other vendors, but you have the same full power to fire and hire. So, let me repeat the question: would you like the government to be reviewing your hiring, dining, entertainment, and shopping choices, to ensure non-discrimination and other fairness?
we had child labor, 14-hour workdays, and company cops to bust your head if you complained
All of these — except for the head-busting, which is just plain illegal anyway and needs no additional regulation — were due to less-developed industries. They went away not because of the laws, but because the life in general changed. Even if we were to repeal the anti-child labor laws today, there'll be few children working. As for 14-hour workdays — I, and many people I know, pull these regularly. Fortunately, it is legal for us to do so, and I certainly do want it to remain my choice...
As a geek, I like to be in favor of strong employment laws that give the government full audit power over every corporation's decision to fire any one whatsoever.
There is nothing "geeky" about your preference, it is just plain foolish. Implementing it will lead to companies holding on to underperforming employees (think Wally) for fear of government audits and other legal problems. It already happens (Wally did threaten the PHB with a lawsuit once), but, at least, the burden of proof is on the complainer... It would be both unfair and unproductive to make companies justify their firing decisions.
Imagine yourself having to file a form with the government, when you wish to switch a babysitter or the cleaning person. And why stop there? Should not your decision to switch from one supermarket to another by subject to audit? What if your reasons for switching are discriminatory — maybe, you are doing it, because you didn't like the cashier — because she is too old?
Contrary to many people's perception, there is no difference in principle between employers and the rest of us — we all participate in the market, buying something and selling something. Attempts to make the sellers of labor into a special group have no basis in fairness or legal principles — they are all purely vote-winning measures. In a typical democracy there are far more employees (sellers of labor) than others, so laws favor them to a large degree, fairness or not.
Boycott the tools creating files in proprietary formats, until Adobe either releases the source code for the player(s), or begins producing binary players for all platforms. Win/i386, MacOS/i386 and Linux/i386 is not enough...
It is one thing for them to want to make money off the authoring tools. But keeping the player closed serves no good purpose to anyone (not even Adobe) and inconveniences many thousands.
I was unaware that you are required to help the police to search your house.
You are required to provide the key to your safe, so it can be searched.
Tell me, does someone accused [you mean, convicted, right?] of murder get a heavier sentence if he refuses to tell where the murder weapon is?
"Obstruction of justice" can be thrown in as an extra charge. It rarely happens, I guess, because it is a very minor offense compared to the murder itself.
Interestingly, in the US, one can, probably, refuse to provide to provide the decryption key on the 5th Amendment's ground... Not sure, if anything similar exists in the UK at all.
Slashdot Mirror
We started with phone companies helping the government to break the law. It is not at all clear, the agreeing executives even knew (or should've known), that the government was overstepping the Constitutional limits. In fact, I don't think, it is a fully legally-answered question even today...
Yet the original poster implied, it is better to stay with Verizon Wireless, than to switch to a company, which has merely helped its government intercept phone conversations with (strongly) suspected foreign terrorists.
Well, if you'd actually read any history, you would know, that not only illegal wiretaps were authorized by the "war president" Roosevelt, but also a few apparent rub-outs of American citizens by foreign (British) secret agencies.
But do tell me, how NSA (or its clients) could've abused the gathered information.
Sure — abortions kill far more, for example. About a million every year in US alone, you know... Mmm, what a flamebait...
Do quote me on saying "it's utterly evil to not bow down to the government". I dare you...
Both — the diminishing of privacy and the abundance of misdirected advertising — are bad, and it is not at all obvious (to me), which is worse.
And the expectation of privacy of cellular calls (it is Verizon Wireless we are talking about) is unfounded. The calls aren't encrypted and, AFAIK, it would not be illegal to build and install devices collecting the dialed numbers and the durations of calls. Eavesdropping on the actual calls may be illegal (although still possible), but not collecting (and selling) the end-points' numbers and call-durations...
First of all, let's clear a few things out of this — you would not approve of anyone helping anyone doing anything illegal, would you? Spying, growing weed, downloading music without permission, having an abortion (illegal in many countries)?..
Because if, in your opinion, some things just "ought to be legal" (and thus it is Ok to do them, even if they aren't), then, certainly, it can be argued, that NSA's spying on strongly suspected enemies (abroad) is not particularly wrong. And, of course, any body helping their government defeat the enemies is a good and upstanding citizen (or corporation).
Unlike with music downloads and other matters of entertainment, waiting for the due course of legalization to run just may not be an option in the matters of terrorism (or, indeed, abortion).
The government is not my enemy (in this blessed country), but I can see, how it can overstep.
None of my (other) enemies can harm me, though. It is not obvious, that the dangers outweight the benefits here — yet the poster calling me clueless is currently basking in "5 Insightful" — Verizon's decision's evilness must be obvious to all, except me, but nobody can outline, what it is, exactly...
You seem to imply, that other phone company would be worse, but don't specify why. Is it because:
Please, advise...
My initial reaction was "No way!". I even started dialing the posted number...
Then I stopped to think — heck, if this improves the relevance of the advertising I'm getting, maybe, it is not such a terrible thing after all?
The only real risk I see here, is that it may allow the government to buy these records in the future (directly or via a contractor) instead of subpoenaing them in case of an investigation — the former could be easier (a good thing) and avoid the judicial oversight (a bad thing).
What am I missing?
An excuse can always be found for censorship — trademark or not. Thousands of blacks coming to Jena a few weeks ago all think, that the speech of hanging nooses off the tree justified the violence against the suspected perpetrator, and that the people suspected of committing the violence ought to be set free "Now!" (No Greenpeace activists were seen chaining themselves to the innocent tree, when the city cut it, either.)
Subsequently, try searching for "Fuck Jena Six" on CafePress.com — the site famous for tolerating seemingly all speech. You can find "fuck Bush", "fuck Mexico", and "fuck Cuba" there, but you will not find "Fuck Jena Six", although merchandise with slogans supporting the six thugs abound.
There were a few such products initially, when the hysteria was just whipping up, but they were promptly removed. By the time I went looking for something, the links to about 10 different products were still present in the CafePress' index, but the actual merchandise was no longer available.
CafePress also suppressed all attempts to discuss the removals on their customer-forums — threads were deleted as "off-topic" or "political". The only explanation for the removals themselves was that the "messages on the merchandise was found to be hateful" (emphasis mine)...
Well, we all disapprove of "hateful" (and I personally strongly disapprove of using the expletives in public discourse), but if you allow shirts with "Fuck Racist Assholes" and "Fuck Police", then — just to be consistent — you ought to allow "Fuck Jena Six" as well.
I want small drone airplanes continuously flying above the major highways and streets and broadcasting the observed view over a TV-band. Anybody with a compatible set within range will then be able to observe traffic incidents, police traps, and road repairs in real time.
Supposedly, our military's use of such things is rapidly growing. Police use is growing too. Hopefully, the technology will allow peaceful civilian use soon.
It can be advertising-sponsored — the images may display an advertising logo in a corner of the screen, or something...
Somehow US fought them long before 1913, when the 16th Ammendment was rammed through.
In fact, US even fought some aggressive wars without the personal income tax — a 3% tax on "luxury" off telephone (only the rich have phones, right?) was enough to finance the Spanish-American war, for example.
Much earlier, actually. It happened when the US Congress allowed itself to collect Income Tax — there was a pretense of ammending the Constitution, but the procedure was never properly followed.
Since then various people have gone to jail for refusing to pay the tax — on the grounds of it being unconstitutional. The worst part is that they are dismissed as "lunatics" by both their peers and the courts. "What do you mean, no income tax? We've always paid it!"
What "got into her" was Soviet Army's shooting at civilians in the Baltic Republics of the then-USSR. Scores have died — not just in Lithuenia.
Yes, it could've been worse — a'la Yugoslavia (although, considering the Azerbajdjan vs. Armenia war, it would not be much worse). But it could've been better too — a'la Chechoslovakia. And yet that most exemplary peaceful split resulted in no Peace Prizes.
Giving a Peace prize to a Communist is a disgrace — and Gorbachev was not the first one...
Nobel Peace Prize was disgraced, when Yassir Arafat and Mikhail Gorbachev received theirs. The latter caused Andrei Sakharov's wife Elena to try to get her husband's name crossed out in disgust.
Al Gore is joining a good company, indeed. I wonder, what Henry Kissinger would be thinking about this new club-member.
Economist held a generally favourable view of her work. Last year it reviewed her book "Tough Choices"... The second link is freely readable by all.
For all I care, you can knock yourself out with anything. I was just pointing out the difference between a psychological dependence ("It is all in your head! Whack, whack, whack") and a more physiological one.
Just be careful there — not being addictive is only a required quality, it is not sufficient. Cyanides, for example, aren't addictive at all either...
Drugs are bad, because they cause physiological (chemical) dependence — not because they cause you to sense something, that's not there (like movies).
Religion — as well as hamburgers (a potential targets for the now unemployed anti-tobacco lawyers) — has no such effects.
All of it can. By breaking up the encryption believed to be secure, NSA can wreck havoc in today's world of information. I — unlike you, who believes, that government funding automatically taints any research (except on the subject of global warming, and even then it better come up with the right answer) — just happened to trust my government a notch more than enemies.
In your world, of course, there are no enemies — only friends, whose grievances we failed to address so far. And since there are no enemies, the only application of the government can be against you... See, I know your side too.
Abuse us by funding research on the subjects of:
- Duality for modules over finite rings and applications to coding theory
- Bounding the number of geometric permutations induced by k-transversals
- A unified framework for enforcing multiple access control policies
- Affine Lie algebras and multisum identities
?You sure do sound abused, kid. But not by (this) government...
Who said anything about "fun"?
You already assumed, I'm crazy, and a warmonger — for all I care, you can also assume I torture puppies, perform abortions, and lynch mixed couples.
It could well be, that the University's research costed more, than whatever the patents-holder(s) would've charged for the licensing...
No, my side should have the very best equipment, technology, and training, so that it can overwhelmingly crush and subdue any opponent. That is how it should be. We don't go to war to fight — we go to win — as quickly and with as few casualties as possible.
You, doofuses, are so good at "seeing the other side" of every story, you lose sight of your own side. War is not "fair" — you must be confusing it with sports...
You have the same powers over a cleaner or a baby-sitter. You don't control the conditions of your food and other vendors, but you have the same full power to fire and hire. So, let me repeat the question: would you like the government to be reviewing your hiring, dining, entertainment, and shopping choices, to ensure non-discrimination and other fairness?
All of these — except for the head-busting, which is just plain illegal anyway and needs no additional regulation — were due to less-developed industries. They went away not because of the laws, but because the life in general changed. Even if we were to repeal the anti-child labor laws today, there'll be few children working. As for 14-hour workdays — I, and many people I know, pull these regularly. Fortunately, it is legal for us to do so, and I certainly do want it to remain my choice...
There is nothing "geeky" about your preference, it is just plain foolish. Implementing it will lead to companies holding on to underperforming employees (think Wally) for fear of government audits and other legal problems. It already happens (Wally did threaten the PHB with a lawsuit once), but, at least, the burden of proof is on the complainer... It would be both unfair and unproductive to make companies justify their firing decisions.
Imagine yourself having to file a form with the government, when you wish to switch a babysitter or the cleaning person. And why stop there? Should not your decision to switch from one supermarket to another by subject to audit? What if your reasons for switching are discriminatory — maybe, you are doing it, because you didn't like the cashier — because she is too old?
Contrary to many people's perception, there is no difference in principle between employers and the rest of us — we all participate in the market, buying something and selling something. Attempts to make the sellers of labor into a special group have no basis in fairness or legal principles — they are all purely vote-winning measures. In a typical democracy there are far more employees (sellers of labor) than others, so laws favor them to a large degree, fairness or not.
Boycott the tools creating files in proprietary formats, until Adobe either releases the source code for the player(s), or begins producing binary players for all platforms. Win/i386, MacOS/i386 and Linux/i386 is not enough...
It is one thing for them to want to make money off the authoring tools. But keeping the player closed serves no good purpose to anyone (not even Adobe) and inconveniences many thousands.
You are required to provide the key to your safe, so it can be searched.
"Obstruction of justice" can be thrown in as an extra charge. It rarely happens, I guess, because it is a very minor offense compared to the murder itself.
Interestingly, in the US, one can, probably, refuse to provide to provide the decryption key on the 5th Amendment's ground... Not sure, if anything similar exists in the UK at all.