As much as I dislike the marketing application being discussed for this chip, there are other things it would be great for. As a firefighter, I'd love to have one of these integrated into my gear. Currently if a firefighter goes down and isn't moving, their PASS alarm will sound, so that other firefighters within hearing distance can find them. But what if you fall through a floor in a burning building and get separated from your crew? Wouldn't it be great to automatically transmit to the crews outside not only the fact that you need help, but precisely where that help should be sent? The same could be said for police officers, soldiers, or any other high-risk workers who might suddenly find themselves in need of backup.
I have a few friends in law enforcement, and they tell me the reason such a high percentage of warrants are approved is because it is seen as bad for one's career to request a warrant and be denied. If a detective keeps asking for warrants that aren't justified, supervisors see it as a sign of poor quality police work, so many officers are reluctant to ask a judge for a warrant unless they know they have a nearly air-tight case.
Also, if a large percentage of warrants were denied by the courts, people would spin the statistics to say that police are trying to over-exert their powers by asking for illegal searches. The police don't want to create that image for themselves.
He did it, but it's hard to believe he had any criminal intent, considering he did it in the presence of a county official and a reporter.
There is a big difference between saying "I just stumbled across a major security hole that you might want to fix before the bad guys exploit it" and saying "ha ha I h4x0red j00 bitch3s!!!!!1" The former is helpful, the latter is criminal. The two are not the same - the underlying act may be the same but the intent is dramatically different.
In my mind, the site's talk of trying these individuals in legitimate courts does no more to mitigate the list of names crossing out those who have been killed than a disclaimer saying "don't download these programs unless you already own a licence" protects a warez site. Regardless of what precisely is said, it's clear what is meant. I'm sure I'm not the only person to come away with the understanding that to the site's author, more crossed-out names are better. Keeping in mind the history of anti-abortion terrorism, the real intent of this site doesn't seem very ambiguous.
Besides, these people could never be put on trial anyway, at least not in the United States. That would be "ex post facto" - making something illegal after it's already been done - and that is unconstitutional.
And even worse, the site names doctors that don't even do abortions! I personally know one of the doctors listed, and he has never performed an abortion in his entire career. All he's ever done is told women where they could go if they wanted one. And for this, he's somehow made his way onto the anti-abortionists shitlist.
Certainly, there aren't many people who would support a device that logs your every move and reports it to the authorities, as this would be a gross invasion of privacy. However, black boxes that only record data when you get in an accident can be very useful. These devices have been used on some fire engines and ambulances for several years now, and most of the time the evidence on the recorder protects rather than incriminates the driver.
I know one firefighter who was saved by the black box information when he got into an accident. A car hit the fire engine when it was going through an intersection, and the people in the car claimed the firefigher was at fault - they said he was speeding and that his lights and sirens weren't turned on, and they tried to sue the fire department for some large amount of money. Fortunately, the black box on the fire engine proved that these claims were 100% false: the lights and sirens were on, and the fire engine was actually going well under the speed limit. Without the system, the firefighter would have lost his job and the city would have lost a lot of money needlessly. For these reasons, many people I know feel more comfortable with the black box than without it. A human witness can lie ("Officer, that guy was doing 90 mph! It's all his fault!"), but with the black box there's very little question about what actually happened, and very little chance of you getting in trouble for an accident that wasn't your fault.
Without any (openly) dissenting voices, only the opponents of free speech will be heard.
There is a difference between dissenting speech and dissenting activity. In the USA, you are protected to engage in the first, but not necessarily the second. There will still be plenty of dissenting voices. A dissenting voice is when someone writes letters to the editor, or attends a demonstration or rally opposing anti-freedom legislation.
On the other hand, a dissenting act, e.g. civil disobedience/distributing DeCSS, can get you in trobule with the law, and most people can't afford that trouble. Simply avoiding prosecution is not the way to get the law changed, but when combined with dissenting speech, it provides a second line of defense for our rights if the normal political process fails us.
Slashdot Mirror
Even better, you can put it up as a skill on their resume on LinkedIn!
As much as I dislike the marketing application being discussed for this chip, there are other things it would be great for. As a firefighter, I'd love to have one of these integrated into my gear. Currently if a firefighter goes down and isn't moving, their PASS alarm will sound, so that other firefighters within hearing distance can find them. But what if you fall through a floor in a burning building and get separated from your crew? Wouldn't it be great to automatically transmit to the crews outside not only the fact that you need help, but precisely where that help should be sent? The same could be said for police officers, soldiers, or any other high-risk workers who might suddenly find themselves in need of backup.
I have a few friends in law enforcement, and they tell me the reason such a high percentage of warrants are approved is because it is seen as bad for one's career to request a warrant and be denied. If a detective keeps asking for warrants that aren't justified, supervisors see it as a sign of poor quality police work, so many officers are reluctant to ask a judge for a warrant unless they know they have a nearly air-tight case.
Also, if a large percentage of warrants were denied by the courts, people would spin the statistics to say that police are trying to over-exert their powers by asking for illegal searches. The police don't want to create that image for themselves.
He did it, but it's hard to believe he had any criminal intent, considering he did it in the presence of a county official and a reporter.
There is a big difference between saying "I just stumbled across a major security hole that you might want to fix before the bad guys exploit it" and saying "ha ha I h4x0red j00 bitch3s!!!!!1" The former is helpful, the latter is criminal. The two are not the same - the underlying act may be the same but the intent is dramatically different.
In my mind, the site's talk of trying these individuals in legitimate courts does no more to mitigate the list of names crossing out those who have been killed than a disclaimer saying "don't download these programs unless you already own a licence" protects a warez site. Regardless of what precisely is said, it's clear what is meant. I'm sure I'm not the only person to come away with the understanding that to the site's author, more crossed-out names are better. Keeping in mind the history of anti-abortion terrorism, the real intent of this site doesn't seem very ambiguous.
Besides, these people could never be put on trial anyway, at least not in the United States. That would be "ex post facto" - making something illegal after it's already been done - and that is unconstitutional.
And even worse, the site names doctors that don't even do abortions! I personally know one of the doctors listed, and he has never performed an abortion in his entire career. All he's ever done is told women where they could go if they wanted one. And for this, he's somehow made his way onto the anti-abortionists shitlist.
Certainly, there aren't many people who would support a device that logs your every move and reports it to the authorities, as this would be a gross invasion of privacy. However, black boxes that only record data when you get in an accident can be very useful. These devices have been used on some fire engines and ambulances for several years now, and most of the time the evidence on the recorder protects rather than incriminates the driver.
I know one firefighter who was saved by the black box information when he got into an accident. A car hit the fire engine when it was going through an intersection, and the people in the car claimed the firefigher was at fault - they said he was speeding and that his lights and sirens weren't turned on, and they tried to sue the fire department for some large amount of money. Fortunately, the black box on the fire engine proved that these claims were 100% false: the lights and sirens were on, and the fire engine was actually going well under the speed limit. Without the system, the firefighter would have lost his job and the city would have lost a lot of money needlessly. For these reasons, many people I know feel more comfortable with the black box than without it. A human witness can lie ("Officer, that guy was doing 90 mph! It's all his fault!"), but with the black box there's very little question about what actually happened, and very little chance of you getting in trouble for an accident that wasn't your fault.
"Conspiracy to Think Independently"
Oh wait, you can already get in trouble for that...
On the other hand, a dissenting act, e.g. civil disobedience/distributing DeCSS, can get you in trobule with the law, and most people can't afford that trouble. Simply avoiding prosecution is not the way to get the law changed, but when combined with dissenting speech, it provides a second line of defense for our rights if the normal political process fails us.
Simple: give the program to your friends on a floppy disk (or zip, or CD-R, or your media of choice).
For more effeciency, you can even attatch the disks to your school/office/organization (physical) bulletin board for anyone to use.
And if you don't want the disk traceable to you, wear gloves while handling it and don't let anyone see you handing it out.
Then when the program makes it's way onto the 'net, it won't be *your* problem...