Yeah because there weren't ANY privacy violations back in 2001-2008.
strawman. You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack. By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
Likewise - Devin Nunes has nothing to do with Democrats or even Obama.
The reason to bring up Obama in this context is the last President's willingness — nay eagerness — to unmask US Citizens tangled in the surveillance for political reasons. The former Administration officials remain evasive about the process and procedures — they really are to blame for the actual privacy deterioration that took place.
After all, the worry is not so much that the NSA will know, who said something. It is what the rest of the government may do, when they learn about it.
If we aren't willing to block NSA from surveilling the foreigners, we better codify how to treat the cases of US citizens getting recorded incidentally — and not simply leave it up to the Executive, who has and will continue to abuse this power himself or by delegating to low-level unelected flunkies.
That's true — and is, indeed, the problem. My point was, we should not denounce the government's attempts to do the job we are paying them for doing. It is not wrong for them to seek a solution...
violates the constitution as the very mechanism removes the ability of people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The ability you speak of is underpinned by laws of men — such as the Constitution — not Math or Nature. It is not "removed" by the government's ability to get your data legally. Not any more, than your not having an unbreakable safe violates the same rights.
It is perfectly valid and legal for police to secure cooperation of a safe manufacturer to open up yours. Indeed, TSA-compatible luggage locks are all the rage. It is just as valid for them to seek similar cooperation and assistance from software-makers.
We are attacking the FBI for threatening our ability to protect our data — by pointing out, that, if we allow the FBI to get it legally, some day it will be accessed illegally as well harming our Fourth Amendment rights. That's a valid concern, but just as valid is the government's complaint about the other side of the same Amendment — when they have all the necessary warrants, but still can not read what they need.
Back to the title of this sub-thread, I put forth the following self-evident statement: whether or not the government can search your data, should not depend on the means you employ to protect it. If we don't want them to read it — out of (well-founded) fear, they will sometimes read more than they should — we should simply disallow them to do it, ever, warrant or not. Are you prepared to do that?
this idea that some authority should have all the keys to the encryption kingdom
Much as I don't like this idea myself, it is not new.
The Fourth Amendment explicitly allows the Executive Branch — after securiing Judicial Branch's approval — to access all of our possessions and "effects". They have a right to do that, which no one seems to seriously dispute.
The strong encryption has given us the means to lock things up so that even the government can't get them — this part is new. Although they still have the right to read your data, they no longer have the ability to do it.
While this is something we individually celebrate, you can not denounce police complaints about this situation without also denouncing their well-established — and generally accepted — power to search all your other stuff.
Whatever the outcome, this is wonderful news! Lawmakers are back into, you know, making laws — instead of delegating the responsibility to the unelected "commissions" and "agencies".
Though of questionable Constitutional standing, these issue "rules" and "regulations" that are no less binding than actual laws...
Well, I say, if the would-be ordinance is too complex for Congress to properly discuss and vote on, perhaps, it should not be considered at all! That government is best, that governs least — remember?
Per the Associated Press, France's plan for pay equity is still a work in progress.
Clearly, the government knows better, how you should be running your business. Not only do they already know, the gap exists, they also know it must be eliminated — as well as exactly how to do it.
If only the cantankerous electorate stopped fighting the inevitable and simply allowed the government to run everything... Poverty, hunger, hate, and racism would've all disappeared, Global Warming stopped, and sex improved.
Ok, so this punk will get the punishment he richly deserved long before an innocent man was killed.
Now, can we go back to punishing the actual killer — the cop, who pulled the trigger? Unlike certain Michael Brown, this victim really was raising his hands. Why was he shot at? Why will not you and me be shot at in the same situation?
It sure seems like police are trying to throw all of the responsibility on the prankster, the better to protect one of their own... We should not allow that to happen.
... is how you find out what is socially acceptable?
Make an experiment — walk through Greenwich Village in a Che Guevara T-shirt. Then change and walk back in a Trump one. Keep track of the number of middle-fingers and other expressions of hostility.
Since when is a home-owners association equivalent to a democratically elected state legislature?
Distinction without difference. Name one argument, that justifies State legislatures imposing rules, that would not also apply to Home Owner Associations (which, BTW, also have elected leaders). The OP's original argument, regarding "applying bottom up legislation" certainly works equally in both cases...
You can't be supporting a principle in one application and oppose it another — not without being a hypocrite. But, as I said: 2018 is when Illiberals learned to love State Rights. (Just after learning to love the FBI in 2017, I might add!)
If the citizens of California and New York feel these rules are necessary and important they should be able to dictate such rules as they see fit.
And if a local home-owner association feels it necessary and important to ban unsightly antennas, they should also be able to dictate such rules as they see fit, should they not be?
It's time to go back to an anti-federalist interpretation of the federal government.
2018, when Illiberals learned to stop worrying and love State Rights.
So you've spotted the slippery slope that leads from municipal utilities to North Korean communism?
While I do hope we'll stop a few notches above Venezuela, the slippery slope of collective ownership certainly does lead all the way down to North Korea.
Beats me but if the governed consent then what's it got to do with you unless you live there?
That logic would apply to North Koreans too, wouldn't it?
Without getting too dark, my worry is as follows: governments are in a position of immense power over both private residents and would-be businessmen wishing to operate in a town. Especially, when the particular line of business requires infrastructural work — such as laying cables or pipes. Indeed, they are the main reason for the dearth of choices of ISPs already.
An ambitious mayor seeking to expand his power — whether for the Greater Good[tm] or unjust personal enrichment — can easily sabotage all efforts by private enterprises (including the mighty Google!) until the governed give up and permit him to do it instead.
Think about it — a group of people in that town will now be laying the cables, buying the routers, and negotiating with the uplinks. Why do these people have to be government employees? And, as I ask in the subject, what else will the town's government seek to similarly nationalize — after making it impossible for those not connected to town hall to provide competing service?
It is to prevent even appearance of this corruption that various laws exist banning governments from offering commercial services — they have an inherent conflict of interest.
You and most of the rest of Slashdotters are blinded by your desire to stick it to Comcast. But you are cheering the creation of a worse monster... Comcast will survive this — but small guys like these will not.
By "not much", do you mean that it's only more than 5 times the subsidies for electric vehicles?
That's an absolute figure, which is meaningless to the topic. What is meaningful is the relative figure: what part of the car's price and cost of ownership is subsidized?
You claim to be a teacher, so this should be obvious to you — either you are incompetent or lying (by omission). Or both...
These subsidies include a tax reimbursement for exploration expenses, accelerated deductions on investments, research and development grants, the provision of seismic investigations by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, the provision of infrastructure and facilities by Gassco (a state-owned enterprise that operates the gas pipeline grid), and special treatment of the Snøhvit natural gas field in Northern Norway.
In other words, one has to stretch the definition of the term "subsidy" quite a bit to call what Norway is doing that.
adds up to a much bigger subsidy than the electric vehicles get
A falsehood. Even if we stipulate, that each of the enumerated measures constitutes a subsidy, it is not much. From your own link again:
The subsidies constitute around 13 per cent of the oil and gas industry’s total revenue.
On contrast, TFA provides numbers like regular VW Golf selling in Norway for 65% more than it costs to import it, while an electric Golf sells with less than a 1% mark-up. That a subsidy of about 70%, Mr. School Teacher...
Are you really stupid enough to claim the average citzens speech has equal chance of being heard than the rich
You seem rather misinformed about what freedom of speech in general — and the First Amendment in particular — are about. It is not about equal ability to speak. It is about equal right to do it.
Enjoy your continued descent into 3rd world shithole, whilst China replaces your influence in the world.
Given the geography, you, an Australian, will be enjoying China's hypothetical ascent first. Curiously, China has no government-provided health-care at all — and no welfare system either. Not even public pensions — of any kind. Maybe, you've got a point picking it as the winner...
Slashdot Mirror
This may be the first time a federal court has intervened, but such cases do happen all the time — one just reached Supreme Court in Texas last September — and a federal court may get involved there as well.
That the federal judges intervened in a matter of how a State decides on voting should be troubling to anyone, who claims to support States' Rights...
The intent to disenfranchise is not even alleged in TFA, much less proven.
The reason to bring up Obama in this context is the last President's willingness — nay eagerness — to unmask US Citizens tangled in the surveillance for political reasons. The former Administration officials remain evasive about the process and procedures — they really are to blame for the actual privacy deterioration that took place.
After all, the worry is not so much that the NSA will know, who said something. It is what the rest of the government may do, when they learn about it.
If we aren't willing to block NSA from surveilling the foreigners, we better codify how to treat the cases of US citizens getting recorded incidentally — and not simply leave it up to the Executive, who has and will continue to abuse this power himself or by delegating to low-level unelected flunkies.
That's true — and is, indeed, the problem. My point was, we should not denounce the government's attempts to do the job we are paying them for doing. It is not wrong for them to seek a solution...
The ability you speak of is underpinned by laws of men — such as the Constitution — not Math or Nature. It is not "removed" by the government's ability to get your data legally. Not any more, than your not having an unbreakable safe violates the same rights.
It is perfectly valid and legal for police to secure cooperation of a safe manufacturer to open up yours. Indeed, TSA-compatible luggage locks are all the rage. It is just as valid for them to seek similar cooperation and assistance from software-makers.
We are attacking the FBI for threatening our ability to protect our data — by pointing out, that, if we allow the FBI to get it legally, some day it will be accessed illegally as well harming our Fourth Amendment rights. That's a valid concern, but just as valid is the government's complaint about the other side of the same Amendment — when they have all the necessary warrants, but still can not read what they need.
Back to the title of this sub-thread, I put forth the following self-evident statement: whether or not the government can search your data, should not depend on the means you employ to protect it. If we don't want them to read it — out of (well-founded) fear, they will sometimes read more than they should — we should simply disallow them to do it, ever, warrant or not. Are you prepared to do that?
What rock is so comfortable that you were able to hide underneath it for so long as to entirely miss the FBI vs. Apple drama about this?
Not only did FBI had the necessary warrant(s), a judge explicitly ordered Apple to assist the Bureau.
And yet, Apple fought it tooth and nail — with popular support...
Much as I don't like this idea myself, it is not new.
The Fourth Amendment explicitly allows the Executive Branch — after securiing Judicial Branch's approval — to access all of our possessions and "effects". They have a right to do that, which no one seems to seriously dispute.
The strong encryption has given us the means to lock things up so that even the government can't get them — this part is new. Although they still have the right to read your data, they no longer have the ability to do it.
While this is something we individually celebrate, you can not denounce police complaints about this situation without also denouncing their well-established — and generally accepted — power to search all your other stuff.
Whatever the outcome, this is wonderful news! Lawmakers are back into, you know, making laws — instead of delegating the responsibility to the unelected "commissions" and "agencies".
Though of questionable Constitutional standing, these issue "rules" and "regulations" that are no less binding than actual laws...
Well, I say, if the would-be ordinance is too complex for Congress to properly discuss and vote on, perhaps, it should not be considered at all! That government is best, that governs least — remember?
Clearly, the government knows better, how you should be running your business. Not only do they already know, the gap exists, they also know it must be eliminated — as well as exactly how to do it.
If only the cantankerous electorate stopped fighting the inevitable and simply allowed the government to run everything... Poverty, hunger, hate, and racism would've all disappeared, Global Warming stopped, and sex improved.
Utterly irrelevant to the point at hand. Like I said, there is not argument for States to regulate communications, that would not also apply to HOAs.
I won. You had a chance to offer a counter-example, and failed it — demonstrating your hypocrisy.
Sure, the typical hypocritical explanation: "its complicated".
Ok, so this punk will get the punishment he richly deserved long before an innocent man was killed.
Now, can we go back to punishing the actual killer — the cop, who pulled the trigger? Unlike certain Michael Brown, this victim really was raising his hands. Why was he shot at? Why will not you and me be shot at in the same situation?
It sure seems like police are trying to throw all of the responsibility on the prankster, the better to protect one of their own... We should not allow that to happen.
I offered two links, not one. And there are lots more. Communism is cool again — even if not everyone at Buzzfeed think so.
Heck, most of the "Antifa" are not-so-crypto Communists...
Make an experiment — walk through Greenwich Village in a Che Guevara T-shirt. Then change and walk back in a Trump one. Keep track of the number of middle-fingers and other expressions of hostility.
Communism is both much deadlier and more socially-accepted than any other kind of hateful school of thought today.
Anything "fighting evil" that ignores images of Che Guevara and like symbols is simply partisan b.s.
Lawyers fighting to for more laws and regulations. Slashdot loves it.
Distinction without difference. Name one argument, that justifies State legislatures imposing rules, that would not also apply to Home Owner Associations (which, BTW, also have elected leaders). The OP's original argument, regarding "applying bottom up legislation" certainly works equally in both cases...
But hey, if you want to stick to local governments, why would you oppose a State's right to decide, how certain races are treated within its borders? Remember the earlier claim: Everybody knows states’ rights mean the right of Southern states to resist integration. ?
You can't be supporting a principle in one application and oppose it another — not without being a hypocrite. But, as I said: 2018 is when Illiberals learned to love State Rights. (Just after learning to love the FBI in 2017, I might add!)
And if a local home-owner association feels it necessary and important to ban unsightly antennas, they should also be able to dictate such rules as they see fit, should they not be?
2018, when Illiberals learned to stop worrying and love State Rights.
While I do hope we'll stop a few notches above Venezuela, the slippery slope of collective ownership certainly does lead all the way down to North Korea.
How were we achieving all of these before 1990-ies?
At some point the North Koreans decided to support Communism. It looked appealing and the promises were wonderful...
The town in TFA has made the first step in the same direction.
That logic would apply to North Koreans too, wouldn't it?
Without getting too dark, my worry is as follows: governments are in a position of immense power over both private residents and would-be businessmen wishing to operate in a town. Especially, when the particular line of business requires infrastructural work — such as laying cables or pipes. Indeed, they are the main reason for the dearth of choices of ISPs already.
An ambitious mayor seeking to expand his power — whether for the Greater Good[tm] or unjust personal enrichment — can easily sabotage all efforts by private enterprises (including the mighty Google!) until the governed give up and permit him to do it instead.
Think about it — a group of people in that town will now be laying the cables, buying the routers, and negotiating with the uplinks. Why do these people have to be government employees? And, as I ask in the subject, what else will the town's government seek to similarly nationalize — after making it impossible for those not connected to town hall to provide competing service?
It is to prevent even appearance of this corruption that various laws exist banning governments from offering commercial services — they have an inherent conflict of interest.
You and most of the rest of Slashdotters are blinded by your desire to stick it to Comcast. But you are cheering the creation of a worse monster... Comcast will survive this — but small guys like these will not.
Consent of the governed, even if we stipulate it, is required, but not sufficient.
What actual inalienable right is being secured by the government taking over this part of the market?
I wonder, which right is being secured by the governments providing Internet access...
That's an absolute figure, which is meaningless to the topic. What is meaningful is the relative figure: what part of the car's price and cost of ownership is subsidized?
You claim to be a teacher, so this should be obvious to you — either you are incompetent or lying (by omission). Or both...
From your (first) link:
In other words, one has to stretch the definition of the term "subsidy" quite a bit to call what Norway is doing that.
A falsehood. Even if we stipulate, that each of the enumerated measures constitutes a subsidy, it is not much. From your own link again:
On contrast, TFA provides numbers like regular VW Golf selling in Norway for 65% more than it costs to import it, while an electric Golf sells with less than a 1% mark-up. That a subsidy of about 70%, Mr. School Teacher...
You seem rather misinformed about what freedom of speech in general — and the First Amendment in particular — are about. It is not about equal ability to speak. It is about equal right to do it.
Given the geography, you, an Australian, will be enjoying China's hypothetical ascent first. Curiously, China has no government-provided health-care at all — and no welfare system either. Not even public pensions — of any kind. Maybe, you've got a point picking it as the winner...