enable police in the UAE to go after anyone who uses VPNs to access blocked services
That using a VPN to work-around the blocks is made illegal makes perfect sense. The blocks' existence is the real outrage here, not the fact, that it is illegal to evade them.
The only "sexual misconduct" worth discussing by millions of people, most of whom have never even heard the names of the parties, is rape. And even then — only on specialized forums.
Do members of a golf club have the right know all the emails and conversations within the club's administration?
That may depend on the club's bylaws. We do not know, what they are.
But we do know the laws of the US, which NY Times broke when they published classified information, which was illegally obtained. So, whatever excuses were found for NY Times back then and the reasons to reward them, would certainly apply for the publishers of DNC-leaks today.
There is a difference between "members" & their "club" and "citizens" & their "government".
Nope, your anonymous sock-puppet is wrong. There is a distinction, but it is without difference to the matter at hand.
a government that is accountable to the public and a private organization that is not
Ah, a Democrat stating, leadership of the Democratic Party is not accountable to the Democrats... The desperation is palpable...
Why, then, if DNC aren't accountable to the members, have they fired Ms. Wasserman Shultz? Why are they apologizing?
Of course, as is usual with the crooked liars, the apology and the recriminations follow not the actual misdeed, but the getting caught.
When it comes to private organizations, members can accept the rules or vote with their feet.
The rules, huh? How about the nation's laws about classified information? Which NY Times broke back then — and not only got away with breaking, but was rewarded?
The New York Times isn't a governmental agency or a Presidential candidate.
Ah, so if it turns out, a Russian newspaper is behind it, you'll have no problem?
Those are held to different standards than the media
Wow, a Clinton-supporter justifying a double standard... Do go on...
And the New York Times didn't call on foreign hackers
Trump didn't call on anybody to do it either — he just said, he "hopes" they'll do. But you missed the analogy by comparing NYTimes to Trump (even if incorrectly)
NY Times were the ones ordering the leaks back then. Putin — or whoever ordered it this time — will be in their position.
You[r] reference to the NYT's pulitzer is too vague
The link included in my post provides all the details.
The Democratic National Committee is not a government body. As such, I am not sure that "the people deserve to know" anything about its internal machinations.
Ok, substitute "the people" for "the Democrats" — I too have always suspected, there is a difference, but considered it impolite to mention it.
Certainly the Democrats have no less right to know all about the functioning of the Democratic Party's national body, than the citizens of the US — about the Federal Government.
When New York Times published illegally-obtained materials embarrassing a Republican, they got a Pulitzer Prize — because "the people deserve to know" all there is to know about their leaders.
Putin — or whoever really is behind the DNC leaks — certainly deserves a similar reward, does he not?
One you blow up a support pillar of a regular bridge, the whole bridge will collapse
That is, actually, very hard to achieve. Possible, but very hard — ask any demolition/explosives expert.
And a single pillar is unlikely to do it — you will make the bridge unusable, yes, but there will not be massive amount of deaths — most of the people on the affected section it will survive either on their own or thanks to rescuers. Whereas everyone in the entire flooded tunnel (except those right by the exits) will drown even if they are expert swimmers.
Such a tunnel seems to be an even easier target for a Russian submarine or a well-equipped terrorist, than a regular bridge or a tunnel in solid soil.
And the results will be spectacular — once a wall is breached, everybody inside drowns... No escape, no rescue... Unless, maybe, individual segments can somehow be made to self-seal and automatically surface in an emergency.
When a given company represents 90% of the daily information stream of your average citizen, it is a monopoly.
That may be relevant, if it were to try to use that monopoly status to get into a different market. Facebook is not doing that, so let them be. The barrier to entry into their market is none-existent — various snapchats, instagrams, et al. have done that. Facebook itself unseated MySpace in front of our eyes.
In the meantime, we need a way to ensure that citizens actually get all information that is relevant to their vote
Who are these omniscient benevolent "we", that need to ensure something for the "citizens", god bless their pretty little heads? No, the "we" and the "citizens" are the same people — and your sentence makes no sense.
A pragmatist would also acknowledge that making the public more informed is more important than giving FB freedom to censor whatever they want.
So, your proposal is to surrender an essential liberty in exchange for a hypothetical temporary gain?.. Don't we already know something about this approach?
The outrage is not that Facebook is censoring whatever they please. The outrage is that others aren't afforded the same liberty.
Unless, obviously, the candidate is from the Party of Government. For a few decades we had something called Fairness Doctrine, which allowed FCC to enforce "fairness". Libertarians fought it, but at least, with it on the books, one could formally complain against "unfair" coverage. Not any more — with only 7% of journalists being Republicans, the game is played with only one set of goal-posts...
You don't have to open the door to your house for example.
I doubt, that's the case, but IANAL. All of the "layman" guides out there emphasize, that you don't have to open your house unless police have a warrant, which would seem to imply, that, when they do have it, you must open.
The police instead have the right to break in likely damaging your property to execute the search
Or they can go back to the judge, who issued the warrant, and complain, And the judge may then find you in contempt — which is exactly, what happened in this case...
Also, quite obviously, if you think police are justified in applying violence, they'd also be able to forcefully apply the suspect's fingerprint to his phone — it would, of course, be far less painful and damaging to him, than the forced entry, which you've already allowed, and other aspects of a resisted arrest, that is sure to follow.
You're assuming that it's equally easy to get damaging materials from both countries. That's an incorrect assumption.
It may not be equally easy with Russia, but it is quite easy nonetheless. It is just very few people care. Ukrainians, for example, have been collecting undeniable proofs of Russia's official involvement in the alleged "civil" war in Ukraine's East. They don't have governmental backing, but they have patience enough to sift through social media looking for selfies, that Russian conscripts post online (with geotagging enabled). And yet, you can still encounter people even on Slashdot, who would deny Russian involvement...
Similarly, there is solid evidence — put together by volunteers and governmental investigators, that a Russian SAM shot down the Malaysian Boeing in 2014... And yet, a Google search for it today still brings up a theory, that it was a Ukrainian jet (top altitude 5000m), that shot down the airliner (flying at 10000m)...
The original problem — one with actual passwords — came from the painfully perverted reading of the Fifth Amendment (I wish, ACLU et al were as liberal reading the Second!). If you have to tell police your password that could be used against you, then the password became testimony (written or verbal) and so the police could not compel you to do that under the Fifth Amendment.
Well, fingerprints are neither said nor written, so the Fifth Amendment does not apply. End of story — whether police can look at your smart phone's contents is now controlled by the Fourth... If the judge issues a warrant, you have to open up...
When I said, an Individual's rights ought trump the Collective's wishes, you called me a "toothless hillbilly". That, really, is all anybody needs to know about your political opinion.
And believe me,you, as nothing but a mouthpiece for the Queen, don't represent anything close to human rights
Why should I believe you? You haven't posted a single actual fact or even a sensible opinion in the months of rather active Slashdot participation.
No, "believe me" is not going to work. Remember to logout.
Having you on record objecting to — indeed, jeering — the Individual human rights is enough for one evening. Living in the city, according to you, one surrenders his rights — and anyone objecting must be having severe dental problem... Ok...
Next time you peep about an unwarranted search or some other violation of an Individual's freedom by the Collective, I'll have a handy link to rub into your face.
Everybody objects to competition. That's a meaningless truism.
But in this case telecoms have a legal point — nobody should be getting preferential treatment from the city hall.
local democratically elected governmenst being allowed to make decisions that their citizens ask for
You mean, like the poisoning of Socrates? That's your "democracy in action"...
Sorry, but I'd like to keep the country, where guarantees given to an Individual, however obnoxious and cantankerous, trump the will of the Collective, however glorious.
Slashdot Mirror
That using a VPN to work-around the blocks is made illegal makes perfect sense. The blocks' existence is the real outrage here, not the fact, that it is illegal to evade them.
The only "sexual misconduct" worth discussing by millions of people, most of whom have never even heard the names of the parties, is rape. And even then — only on specialized forums.
Why is this on Slashdot's "front page"? It is nothing compared to the other sad facts of life, such as, for just one example, that 78% of Of Female Birds Sexually Harassed By Strangers.
You clearly aren't. It is Ok, by tomorrow the same DNC will update you with the new and improved talking points, Mr. Shill.
That may depend on the club's bylaws. We do not know, what they are.
But we do know the laws of the US, which NY Times broke when they published classified information, which was illegally obtained. So, whatever excuses were found for NY Times back then and the reasons to reward them, would certainly apply for the publishers of DNC-leaks today.
Nope, your anonymous sock-puppet is wrong. There is a distinction, but it is without difference to the matter at hand.
Ah, a Democrat stating, leadership of the Democratic Party is not accountable to the Democrats... The desperation is palpable...
Why, then, if DNC aren't accountable to the members, have they fired Ms. Wasserman Shultz? Why are they apologizing?
Of course, as is usual with the crooked liars, the apology and the recriminations follow not the actual misdeed, but the getting caught.
The rules, huh? How about the nation's laws about classified information? Which NY Times broke back then — and not only got away with breaking, but was rewarded?
Ah, so if it turns out, a Russian newspaper is behind it, you'll have no problem?
Wow, a Clinton-supporter justifying a double standard... Do go on...
Trump didn't call on anybody to do it either — he just said, he "hopes" they'll do. But you missed the analogy by comparing NYTimes to Trump (even if incorrectly)
NY Times were the ones ordering the leaks back then. Putin — or whoever ordered it this time — will be in their position.
The link included in my post provides all the details.
Ok, substitute "the people" for "the Democrats" — I too have always suspected, there is a difference, but considered it impolite to mention it.
Certainly the Democrats have no less right to know all about the functioning of the Democratic Party's national body, than the citizens of the US — about the Federal Government.
As if those hackers' decision on whether or not to attack is affected — even in the slightest — by such an invitation or absence thereof...
But you'll still have to call him Mister President.
When New York Times published illegally-obtained materials embarrassing a Republican, they got a Pulitzer Prize — because "the people deserve to know" all there is to know about their leaders.
Putin — or whoever really is behind the DNC leaks — certainly deserves a similar reward, does he not?
That is, actually, very hard to achieve. Possible, but very hard — ask any demolition/explosives expert.
And a single pillar is unlikely to do it — you will make the bridge unusable, yes, but there will not be massive amount of deaths — most of the people on the affected section it will survive either on their own or thanks to rescuers. Whereas everyone in the entire flooded tunnel (except those right by the exits) will drown even if they are expert swimmers.
If they are to be suspended, they must be flexible. If they have to be flexible, the walls will inevitably be softer than what we've had 'till now...
Unless, of course, some wonderful (and expensive) new material comes along... Like those nanotubes we keep thinking about for our space elevator.
Such a tunnel seems to be an even easier target for a Russian submarine or a well-equipped terrorist, than a regular bridge or a tunnel in solid soil.
And the results will be spectacular — once a wall is breached, everybody inside drowns... No escape, no rescue... Unless, maybe, individual segments can somehow be made to self-seal and automatically surface in an emergency.
It is moral because it is logical — like the rest of Libertarianism. But this is irrelevant to the conversation...
But it still true of GoDaddy et al. Their UI and horrible customer service makes them the equivalent of GeoCities of the past.
Please, cite the right currently being violated. Thanks.
That may be relevant, if it were to try to use that monopoly status to get into a different market. Facebook is not doing that, so let them be. The barrier to entry into their market is none-existent — various snapchats, instagrams, et al. have done that. Facebook itself unseated MySpace in front of our eyes.
Who are these omniscient benevolent "we", that need to ensure something for the "citizens", god bless their pretty little heads? No, the "we" and the "citizens" are the same people — and your sentence makes no sense.
So, your proposal is to surrender an essential liberty in exchange for a hypothetical temporary gain?.. Don't we already know something about this approach?
The outrage is not that Facebook is censoring whatever they please. The outrage is that others aren't afforded the same liberty.
I always said the same about TV and radio companies, but various Statists from FCC and FEC down to Slashdot cowards always disagreed.
Good to see some turnaround in public opinion towards liberty. Except, oh, wait, TV, radio, and even web-sites may not be able to do what they want... Even texting in support of a candidate may be illegal.
Unless, obviously, the candidate is from the Party of Government. For a few decades we had something called Fairness Doctrine, which allowed FCC to enforce "fairness". Libertarians fought it, but at least, with it on the books, one could formally complain against "unfair" coverage. Not any more — with only 7% of journalists being Republicans, the game is played with only one set of goal-posts...
I doubt, that's the case, but IANAL. All of the "layman" guides out there emphasize, that you don't have to open your house unless police have a warrant, which would seem to imply, that, when they do have it, you must open.
Or they can go back to the judge, who issued the warrant, and complain, And the judge may then find you in contempt — which is exactly, what happened in this case...
Also, quite obviously, if you think police are justified in applying violence, they'd also be able to forcefully apply the suspect's fingerprint to his phone — it would, of course, be far less painful and damaging to him, than the forced entry, which you've already allowed, and other aspects of a resisted arrest, that is sure to follow.
It may not be equally easy with Russia, but it is quite easy nonetheless. It is just very few people care. Ukrainians, for example, have been collecting undeniable proofs of Russia's official involvement in the alleged "civil" war in Ukraine's East. They don't have governmental backing, but they have patience enough to sift through social media looking for selfies, that Russian conscripts post online (with geotagging enabled). And yet, you can still encounter people even on Slashdot, who would deny Russian involvement...
Similarly, there is solid evidence — put together by volunteers and governmental investigators, that a Russian SAM shot down the Malaysian Boeing in 2014... And yet, a Google search for it today still brings up a theory, that it was a Ukrainian jet (top altitude 5000m), that shot down the airliner (flying at 10000m)...
The original problem — one with actual passwords — came from the painfully perverted reading of the Fifth Amendment (I wish, ACLU et al were as liberal reading the Second!). If you have to tell police your password that could be used against you, then the password became testimony (written or verbal) and so the police could not compel you to do that under the Fifth Amendment.
Well, fingerprints are neither said nor written, so the Fifth Amendment does not apply. End of story — whether police can look at your smart phone's contents is now controlled by the Fourth... If the judge issues a warrant, you have to open up...
When I said, an Individual's rights ought trump the Collective's wishes, you called me a "toothless hillbilly". That, really, is all anybody needs to know about your political opinion.
Why should I believe you? You haven't posted a single actual fact or even a sensible opinion in the months of rather active Slashdot participation.
No, "believe me" is not going to work. Remember to logout.
Ah, so many accusations and not one citation... Really sad...
Having you on record objecting to — indeed, jeering — the Individual human rights is enough for one evening. Living in the city, according to you, one surrenders his rights — and anyone objecting must be having severe dental problem... Ok...
Next time you peep about an unwarranted search or some other violation of an Individual's freedom by the Collective, I'll have a handy link to rub into your face.
This is incorrect.
Everybody objects to competition. That's a meaningless truism.
But in this case telecoms have a legal point — nobody should be getting preferential treatment from the city hall.
You mean, like the poisoning of Socrates? That's your "democracy in action"...
Sorry, but I'd like to keep the country, where guarantees given to an Individual, however obnoxious and cantankerous, trump the will of the Collective, however glorious.