In the US we have an incitement to imminent lawless action bit for free speech. how imminent/credible a threat is, that is only present online, and is not an incitement to violence for others, is a consideration.
Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means freedom of speech for everyone. And the fact that it is on the internet is entirely relevant because how threatened someone feels by the speech is a direct consideration, and if they know nothing about you but the user-name, you don't feel very threatened. Our freedom of speech protections are also directly applicable in this situation, our first amendment is specifically designed just for this, government overreach. This politician would get laughed out of the house so quickly in the US.
Remember, we let neo-nazis and racists rally, and we let fundamentalists protest funerals and abortion clinics. This is freedom.
hrm, looks like CDC has powers to quarantine, but generally for national entry and interstate travel. within states i'm thinking it serves in an advisory capacity for state and local authorities. States rights baby.
spanish flu killed 50-100 million people, because it infected 500 million and had a 10-20 % mortality rate.
you want enough people to survive to spread quickly, you want something that spreads like wildfire. Ebola isn't the easiest thing to spread, because it incapacitates the hell out of the carrier during their most infectious period, and it makes them pretty visibly infectious. And the mortality rate on ebola is too high to be scary.
... it's really not that hard to contain. you don't need a hospital to quarantine 150 people. all you need is a parking lot. mobilize the national guard, throw everyone in hazmat suits. civil liberties might take a massive hit, but it's pretty easy to contain. it's not like the sick are going to be terribly mobile for long anyway.
honestly, one guy brought ebola over, and the first thing we heard about was the 6 kids he came into contact with. his family was immediately quarantined, they'll quarantine the people they probalby talked to if they feel it necessary. this breakout scenario... how exactly will you get 150 people infected? who isn't going to notice 20 people with ebola showing up in the hospital room? why haven't they figured out patient zero is and who else could possibly be infected?
the only way i see 150 infected patients randomly popping up with ebola... is intentional at a large scale gathering or a really really unfortunate series of events. maybe a celebrity at comic-con shaking hands with fans.
that's fine, but it's also too narrow. yeah, my nation would be able to overpower yours, completely and utterly. but at what cost, what are the benefits of peaceful coexistence?
our coexistence is not zero sum. for one, if my neighbor prospers, he's less likely to rob me.
Peace is more economically viable, it's better for everybody. But if we're hit, i expect my nation to try and dissuade anyone from ever hitting us again:).
I said that other nations are at their leisure to spy on me and kill me in a hyperbolic fashion. It is their job to do everything in their power to advance the interest of their constituents. Usually this means making nice with America and the rest of the world and attracting foreign investment and economic growth. But spying is also something they should be doing. assassinating may be on the cards as well.
As they put it in The West Wing "If Dietrich Bonhoeffer had been successful... statues built of an assassin."
:) i got that, again, human rights are there, but less important than imagined. I take a cynical view of history. paying lip service to human rights is progress. sanctions in response to invading a sovereign state is progress, restraint in violence against our enemies... this is progress.
I give china a pass, because 4 decades ago it was literally starving. now it's not, and it's run roughshod over the rights of its people, but look how far they've come.
Anyway, "you" believe in human rights, that's fine, volunteer your life to do something about it, but don't volunteer mine.
i'm actually kinda confused as to what you mean, please expand on that.
An American life better damn well be more important to the american government then a non-american life. Just as a british life must ultimately be the responsibility of the UK and not the USA, and a japanese life to Japan and a chinese life to china.
I submit myself to the laws of my country, the taxes of my country, and in return i expect them to look out for my interests. The american government better damn well have the stance of America first. I think any government that doesn't have that stance, will not be government for long.
well, yeah, we believe in freedom and democracy and human rights for our people first.
When the democratically elected leader of a nation wants to kill americans. My government better damn well not respect their democratic process. Economically speaking, if it's a zero sum situation i expect my government to look out for "my" interests.
if there's a humanitarian situation, my government better not let instability in a region spread and destabilize the rest of it. Altruism is good, but it's also not practical or political for its own sake. there's always an upside to stability and peace, pretending there's not is both naive and evil.
being about humanitarian causes is good, but not at the cost of your economic growth. good stable societies are better suited to technological growth... you know i'm assuming.
I'm almost positive that our constitution does not prevent our government from infringing the rights of foreign nationals in foreign nations. Congress shall pass no law... etc, passing a law that covers people outside your legal jurisdiction would be pointless.
in soviet russia, no discussion would take place. yes hyperbole is fun, but it's also wrong. Stood against totalitarianism, communism and fascism. We are nowhere near that, and will never be, because at least we're having the conversation about how to proceed.
You're looking at the growing pains of navigating tricky waters in an increasingly complex world.
How to fight terrorism? can't declare war, nation-states aren't the enemy. How to fight radical islam, without appearing to condone religious discrimination. How to fight organized crime in an increasingly technological world, where the old laws don't suffice? How to protect national economic interests in an increasingly global economy?
This is being brought up in court you pissant, don't be facetious.
:) my government is there to protect my rights, not yours.
I always laugh when i see my government spying on other governments and those other governments getting snippy.
the crime is never the spying, it's the getting caught. My government is there to protect my rights, spy if they must, kill if they really must, but protect me. Your government is also doing the same, and it's at its leisure to spy on me, kill me if they can swing it and decide i'm a terrible threat, or whatnot. This is what i pay for, this is what i expect. They are not "my government" because they value my life and liberties equal to yours.
When did we get the impression that governments weren't supposed to spy on each other? when did we get the impression that the world was so... innocent? trust but verify:)
you're assuming that government sponsored chinese hackers haven't been trying to and succeeding at performing industrial espionage for the better part of a decade.
this game isn't played with the same rules. It would be ridiculous to expect a higher standard for the US when our economic security is at stake.
rights extend to citizens or peoples within the United states. The first amendment does jack shit for an iranian citizen in iran. An iranian in the US might be extended certain rights, almost certainly the first amendment rights. A US citizen in a foreign country must forfeit those rights in keeping with the host country's laws. that's generally how it's always worked.
evidence of this would be significantly more contrived constructions. all the examples that the summary seems to describe seem like " yeah, ok that's plausible." if they require plausibility to guard their deniability, then don't let their be plausibility. the good security practices still work in so much that they won't be able to come after you with something incredibly contrived and still guard their secret. Evidence that isn't actionable really isn't evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
In the US we have an incitement to imminent lawless action bit for free speech. how imminent/credible a threat is, that is only present online, and is not an incitement to violence for others, is a consideration.
Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means freedom of speech for everyone. And the fact that it is on the internet is entirely relevant because how threatened someone feels by the speech is a direct consideration, and if they know nothing about you but the user-name, you don't feel very threatened. Our freedom of speech protections are also directly applicable in this situation, our first amendment is specifically designed just for this, government overreach. This politician would get laughed out of the house so quickly in the US.
Remember, we let neo-nazis and racists rally, and we let fundamentalists protest funerals and abortion clinics. This is freedom.
we also didn't have a TSA when clinton was :).
hrm, looks like CDC has powers to quarantine, but generally for national entry and interstate travel. within states i'm thinking it serves in an advisory capacity for state and local authorities. States rights baby.
sounds like you have a stalker and bigger concerns at that point.
his comment was more amusing than your retort
some people are moronic :)
because it's a lot easier for the US to stop a infection in its population than in a population it has no influence over?
spanish flu killed 50-100 million people, because it infected 500 million and had a 10-20 % mortality rate.
you want enough people to survive to spread quickly, you want something that spreads like wildfire. Ebola isn't the easiest thing to spread, because it incapacitates the hell out of the carrier during their most infectious period, and it makes them pretty visibly infectious. And the mortality rate on ebola is too high to be scary.
... it's really not that hard to contain. you don't need a hospital to quarantine 150 people. all you need is a parking lot. mobilize the national guard, throw everyone in hazmat suits. civil liberties might take a massive hit, but it's pretty easy to contain. it's not like the sick are going to be terribly mobile for long anyway.
honestly, one guy brought ebola over, and the first thing we heard about was the 6 kids he came into contact with. his family was immediately quarantined, they'll quarantine the people they probalby talked to if they feel it necessary. this breakout scenario... how exactly will you get 150 people infected? who isn't going to notice 20 people with ebola showing up in the hospital room? why haven't they figured out patient zero is and who else could possibly be infected?
the only way i see 150 infected patients randomly popping up with ebola... is intentional at a large scale gathering or a really really unfortunate series of events. maybe a celebrity at comic-con shaking hands with fans.
probably because half the hosts die.
i'm intrigued... i've never witnessed this level of genuine paranoia...
could i perhaps study you by watching you 24/7?
no?
that's ok, i promise i won't. cross my heart, i won't spy on you.
that's fine, but it's also too narrow. yeah, my nation would be able to overpower yours, completely and utterly. but at what cost, what are the benefits of peaceful coexistence?
our coexistence is not zero sum. for one, if my neighbor prospers, he's less likely to rob me.
Peace is more economically viable, it's better for everybody. But if we're hit, i expect my nation to try and dissuade anyone from ever hitting us again :).
I said that other nations are at their leisure to spy on me and kill me in a hyperbolic fashion. It is their job to do everything in their power to advance the interest of their constituents. Usually this means making nice with America and the rest of the world and attracting foreign investment and economic growth. But spying is also something they should be doing. assassinating may be on the cards as well.
As they put it in The West Wing
"If Dietrich Bonhoeffer had been successful... statues built of an assassin."
:) i got that, again, human rights are there, but less important than imagined. I take a cynical view of history. paying lip service to human rights is progress. sanctions in response to invading a sovereign state is progress, restraint in violence against our enemies... this is progress.
I give china a pass, because 4 decades ago it was literally starving. now it's not, and it's run roughshod over the rights of its people, but look how far they've come.
Anyway, "you" believe in human rights, that's fine, volunteer your life to do something about it, but don't volunteer mine.
i'm actually kinda confused as to what you mean, please expand on that.
An American life better damn well be more important to the american government then a non-american life. Just as a british life must ultimately be the responsibility of the UK and not the USA, and a japanese life to Japan and a chinese life to china.
I submit myself to the laws of my country, the taxes of my country, and in return i expect them to look out for my interests.
The american government better damn well have the stance of America first. I think any government that doesn't have that stance, will not be government for long.
well, yeah, we believe in freedom and democracy and human rights for our people first.
When the democratically elected leader of a nation wants to kill americans. My government better damn well not respect their democratic process. Economically speaking, if it's a zero sum situation i expect my government to look out for "my" interests.
if there's a humanitarian situation, my government better not let instability in a region spread and destabilize the rest of it. Altruism is good, but it's also not practical or political for its own sake. there's always an upside to stability and peace, pretending there's not is both naive and evil.
being about humanitarian causes is good, but not at the cost of your economic growth. good stable societies are better suited to technological growth... you know i'm assuming.
I'm almost positive that our constitution does not prevent our government from infringing the rights of foreign nationals in foreign nations. Congress shall pass no law... etc, passing a law that covers people outside your legal jurisdiction would be pointless.
in soviet russia, no discussion would take place. yes hyperbole is fun, but it's also wrong. Stood against totalitarianism, communism and fascism. We are nowhere near that, and will never be, because at least we're having the conversation about how to proceed.
You're looking at the growing pains of navigating tricky waters in an increasingly complex world.
How to fight terrorism? can't declare war, nation-states aren't the enemy. How to fight radical islam, without appearing to condone religious discrimination. How to fight organized crime in an increasingly technological world, where the old laws don't suffice? How to protect national economic interests in an increasingly global economy?
This is being brought up in court you pissant, don't be facetious.
:) my government is there to protect my rights, not yours.
I always laugh when i see my government spying on other governments and those other governments getting snippy.
the crime is never the spying, it's the getting caught. My government is there to protect my rights, spy if they must, kill if they really must, but protect me. Your government is also doing the same, and it's at its leisure to spy on me, kill me if they can swing it and decide i'm a terrible threat, or whatnot. This is what i pay for, this is what i expect. They are not "my government" because they value my life and liberties equal to yours.
When did we get the impression that governments weren't supposed to spy on each other? when did we get the impression that the world was so... innocent? trust but verify :)
you're assuming that government sponsored chinese hackers haven't been trying to and succeeding at performing industrial espionage for the better part of a decade.
this game isn't played with the same rules. It would be ridiculous to expect a higher standard for the US when our economic security is at stake.
rights extend to citizens or peoples within the United states. The first amendment does jack shit for an iranian citizen in iran. An iranian in the US might be extended certain rights, almost certainly the first amendment rights. A US citizen in a foreign country must forfeit those rights in keeping with the host country's laws. that's generally how it's always worked.
i trust one reviewer, mark kermode, unless he's out, and i have to make due with his replacement. His recommendation is gospel truth.
if i were in charge i would give you all the monies to make this a reality... space bears :)
:) but in that case at least they're not also holding them at death's door.
there's a reason anesthesiologists make the big bucks. :)
death is no shy wallflower, you ask her to dance, you better be ready to get danced.
evidence of this would be significantly more contrived constructions. all the examples that the summary seems to describe seem like " yeah, ok that's plausible." if they require plausibility to guard their deniability, then don't let their be plausibility. the good security practices still work in so much that they won't be able to come after you with something incredibly contrived and still guard their secret. Evidence that isn't actionable really isn't evidence.
isn't the cloud service provider for these phones technically in possession of all the kiddie porn anyway?
has this issue been resolved yet?