The idea of freedom or choice is irrelevant when there is not someone to choose then nothing to choose from. If the person is dead he is neither free or restrained, he simply isn't.
Nope, it is not. It is not a crime. Furthermore it is not legally equivalent and not even remotely associated with stealing as you imply. Nobody has ever been arrested for non commercial piracy and by the current US Law Code nobody will. There were only civil lawsuits against some, which have absolutely nothing to do with crimes.
Sure because data coming from the ISP, over which they have complete control and opportunity to tamper with is certainly good evidence in a case where they are one of the interested parties.
Oh, but by throttling you down for using X or Y source be it supposedly illegal or not (they are not legal courts to determine that) makes X or Y source more costly, thus disrupting net neutrality.
Worse yet. If you decide to take legal action against the ISP for unfairly throttling your connection down the evidence will come from them, their registers, over which they have complete control and can easily tamper with. So basically you can't win.
And more, piracy is actually needed as a healthy price regulator in our extremely unfair copyright system. If piracy didn't exist services like Netflix would cost way more, you can be sure of that.
The restaurant was the first one: "Violation of Foreign Law (The Lacey Act)". Basically the owner of a restaurant was convicted because she bought Lobsters which were shipped in clear plastic bags from Honduras, which was a minor contravention by Honduran Laws at the time. It was not against any US laws, and actually not against any Honduran laws anymore at the time of her arrest, a fact the Honduran government pointed out to the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeal. Furthermore it was never a felony in Honduras. Still she was considered a felon and convicted to 2 years of prison by the US court.
Anyway these are just 9 examples from a myriad of others and there is plenty of literature referring to that. But apparently you are looking for excuses not for information. Suit yourself. You can keep believing in whatever you want, that is, until it happens to you. Good luck.
You can be skeptical about the exact value. It is certainly a reasonable position. But, regardless of the precision of the figure, you just need a glimpse on US Federal Law Code and your state Criminal Code to understand the idea. If you are ever curious about it, just check the said codes and count how many felonies you have committed in the last year. You will be surprised.
Fixing the laws is certainly a good idea, but even with perfect laws it is always possible to abuse of information. Furthermore governments with more access to information tend to become more powerful and authoritative not less, so the chances of fixing the laws actually diminish as their wealthy of information grows.
Absolute privacy is an illusion. Limited privacy is not, but the moment you stop to worry about 'limited' becomes more and more limited as time go. There must be a compromise between the efficiency of communication and its invasiveness. If the price you pay for perfect communication means that anything you do will be watched by the government it is simply not worth the price.
Which are all invasive and should be able to be opted out. If you are OK with it good for you, but nobody should be forced to accept it. Any device able to track a person should never be mandatory.
Sorry bud, but I don't work for you. If you want to check the video, which is related to the subject, be my guest. There some examples are provided as you asked. If you are too lazy for that, on the other hand, it is your problem. I won't waste my time to save yours.
Just check the link for a youtube video I posted on the subject in this same thread. There are a few examples there, or if you really want to go deep check the US Federal Law Code.
Which is remarkably difficult to be done and not be noticed by anyone... Actually "remarkably difficult " severely understate the difficulty and unlikelihood of the feat.
Video is not more invasive per se. It depends on the circumstance. Video is another media. It usually has more information about that specific place filmed but it has much less time coverage and less information over a single individual. Additionally it can be avoided. The fact that, in your experience, RFID has not been abused to do things like I exemplified above does not mean it cannot be done. Allowing others to have power over you like this is never a good idea.
It is not impossible, as I already said, but It is more expensive, takes more time, it is less precise and it is prohibitively costly to do with everybody to data mine, that is unless you have suspicious in advance it won't be used, unlike RFID. Furthermore video information has far less specific information about individuals. Not that I like video surveillance, but RFID surveillance is much much worse.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea of freedom or choice is irrelevant when there is not someone to choose then nothing to choose from. If the person is dead he is neither free or restrained, he simply isn't.
Nope, it is not. It is not a crime. Furthermore it is not legally equivalent and not even remotely associated with stealing as you imply. Nobody has ever been arrested for non commercial piracy and by the current US Law Code nobody will. There were only civil lawsuits against some, which have absolutely nothing to do with crimes.
Neither is America nor Asia. All are continents.
Sure because data coming from the ISP, over which they have complete control and opportunity to tamper with is certainly good evidence in a case where they are one of the interested parties.
Oh, but by throttling you down for using X or Y source be it supposedly illegal or not (they are not legal courts to determine that) makes X or Y source more costly, thus disrupting net neutrality.
Worse yet. If you decide to take legal action against the ISP for unfairly throttling your connection down the evidence will come from them, their registers, over which they have complete control and can easily tamper with. So basically you can't win.
And more, piracy is actually needed as a healthy price regulator in our extremely unfair copyright system. If piracy didn't exist services like Netflix would cost way more, you can be sure of that.
Crime? Since when non commercial piracy is a crime? Not even in US. Yet...
Most people don't leave their countries frequently, that is true for America, Europe, Asia and basically everywhere else.
The restaurant was the first one: "Violation of Foreign Law (The Lacey Act)". Basically the owner of a restaurant was convicted because she bought Lobsters which were shipped in clear plastic bags from Honduras, which was a minor contravention by Honduran Laws at the time. It was not against any US laws, and actually not against any Honduran laws anymore at the time of her arrest, a fact the Honduran government pointed out to the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeal. Furthermore it was never a felony in Honduras. Still she was considered a felon and convicted to 2 years of prison by the US court.
Anyway these are just 9 examples from a myriad of others and there is plenty of literature referring to that. But apparently you are looking for excuses not for information. Suit yourself. You can keep believing in whatever you want, that is, until it happens to you. Good luck.
Some examples can be found here:
http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx
This is just a few among many many more. Even if none of them apply to you, some other certainly will. The restaurant example is specially scary.
You are definitely evil.
You can be skeptical about the exact value. It is certainly a reasonable position. But, regardless of the precision of the figure, you just need a glimpse on US Federal Law Code and your state Criminal Code to understand the idea. If you are ever curious about it, just check the said codes and count how many felonies you have committed in the last year. You will be surprised.
Fixing the laws is certainly a good idea, but even with perfect laws it is always possible to abuse of information. Furthermore governments with more access to information tend to become more powerful and authoritative not less, so the chances of fixing the laws actually diminish as their wealthy of information grows.
Absolute privacy is an illusion. Limited privacy is not, but the moment you stop to worry about 'limited' becomes more and more limited as time go. There must be a compromise between the efficiency of communication and its invasiveness. If the price you pay for perfect communication means that anything you do will be watched by the government it is simply not worth the price.
Which are all invasive and should be able to be opted out. If you are OK with it good for you, but nobody should be forced to accept it. Any device able to track a person should never be mandatory.
Sure, sure. Did you take the pills the good doctor gave you, today?
Sorry bud, but I don't work for you. If you want to check the video, which is related to the subject, be my guest. There some examples are provided as you asked. If you are too lazy for that, on the other hand, it is your problem. I won't waste my time to save yours.
Just check the link for a youtube video I posted on the subject in this same thread. There are a few examples there, or if you really want to go deep check the US Federal Law Code.
Then the network operators in these cases are as responsible as Nokia is here.
Opera allows you to download and install their MITM Opera Mini suit, if you so wish and trust them, or:
If you need full end-to-end encryption, you should use a full web browser such as Opera Mobile.
Which is remarkably difficult to be done and not be noticed by anyone... Actually "remarkably difficult " severely understate the difficulty and unlikelihood of the feat.
Video is not more invasive per se. It depends on the circumstance. Video is another media. It usually has more information about that specific place filmed but it has much less time coverage and less information over a single individual. Additionally it can be avoided. The fact that, in your experience, RFID has not been abused to do things like I exemplified above does not mean it cannot be done. Allowing others to have power over you like this is never a good idea.
Read the book. Then come criticize it. Do not argument based on a review...
It is not impossible, as I already said, but It is more expensive, takes more time, it is less precise and it is prohibitively costly to do with everybody to data mine, that is unless you have suspicious in advance it won't be used, unlike RFID. Furthermore video information has far less specific information about individuals. Not that I like video surveillance, but RFID surveillance is much much worse.
Educate yourself:
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
http://www.amazon.com/Go-Directly-Jail-Criminalization-Everything/dp/1930865635/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y
http://www.amazon.com/The-Tyranny-Good-Intentions-Constitution/dp/0307396061/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_z