Transparency isn't the only problem. Freedom and privacy are simply more important than security. If freedom or privacy must be sacrificed (and that's a dubious claim), I don't want whatever you offer.
I'm sure no one figured out that people have the ability to do that. Quite insightful.
Crying 'consumer rights' for a product that is sold with a publicly known 'always on' feature is like wanting to enforce your own policy on the publisher.
Well, there are European countries which protect consumer rights to a greater extent than other countries, but whether they'd do anything about this is another matter. So, complaining 'consumer rights' might not be off-base if people can get someone to take action.
So why is it suddenly an issue now when Microsoft does it with their new console?
I'm pretty sure most of the same people complaining about this also objected to the other nonsense. This is not "suddenly" an issue; it always was an issue.
You can request to get around the filters, after all, so why not block other things as well? Religious websites would be a decent start. What's wrong...? Suddenly blocking things by default is bad because you don't like what's being blocked this time around?
But I still feel it's important to emphasize that freedom is more important than safety even if the safety we're being offered is not genuine. People do need to accept that this is not a perfect world, and they need to stop giving away freedoms so they can feel safe.
Yeah, apparently it's crazy to think that the people in the government aren't perfect beings who can never make mistakes or abuse their powers. It's crazy until... the government abuses its power in a profound way, and then people become enraged (for a time, anyway, and then later they'll repeat the same mistakes)! Of course, thinking about how something could turn out before it happens is a slippery slope fallacy (according to some people, anyway).
A frightening number of people seem to have a 'It's okay if it saves lives!' mentality. We're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, but supporters of this sort of nonsense never got the memo.
It's nice to see other people who actually care about privacy and freedom. Comments like yours are definitely helpful, and I only wish that cold fjord fellow would come around.
Do you really think you are important enough that your data is even getting archived?
Are you really so selfish that you don't care about people other than yourself? "Wow, the government is abusing that guy over there! Good thing it's not me!" It's perfectly possible for the government to abuse only some people (and that's exactly what happens when you give the government overreacting powers) but not others, but the fact that it's not you or I who would get abused absolutely does not make the abuses okay.
Unless you're suggesting that Congress shouldn't be able to regulate the sale of goods and services within the United States, I think your argument is shit.
Ah, the catch-all argument that the government loves using so they can feel justified in doing just about anything they want with regards to such matters. That said, the constitution does say "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," so if that's not happening, something is indeed wrong.
Naturally, this means that any law you disagree with is thus no longer enforceable and you don't have to worry about the consequences.
3. The real losses are nowhere near what the MPAA and RIAA wants you to believe. If they can sell a song for 99 cents then the actual damage for downloading a song is 99 cents
Actually, copyright infringement causes no real losses; all it does is cause someone to not gain something, and even that is not certain. Yes, it is not even certain that copyright infringement causes someone to not gain money, and that is because it is also not certain that the person would have purchased the product if he/she could not download it.
Because secret programs where data is collected on just about everyone would still be bad with encryption and such. The data should simply never be collected to begin with unless they have probable cause, and in that case, only on the actual targets.
A grand majority of them. Many of them even accept constitutional violations if it's to keep us safe from bogeymen and keep voting for the same two parties over and over. If voting doesn't make a difference (as you seem to imply), then they wouldn't bother doing it. The reason they keep voting for the same two parties over and over is because they're easily-manipulated imbeciles.
No, I mean you take everything I say quite literally and then attack the arguments that you feel I made thanks to your literal interpretations.
As for opening mail and such... no, I don't think that's okay to do without a warrant, war or no. The fact that Benjamen Franklin did it doesn't make it okay.
Legally speaking, anyone that has committed a crime but is not yet convicted is innocent, even if they did in fact commit the crime.
That's the sort of thing I meant by pedantry. You also took my post to mean that surveillance is never okay under any circumstances, and that's obvious just not what I meant.
Slashdot Mirror
Important people are talking now, citizen. Get back in line.
Transparency isn't the only problem. Freedom and privacy are simply more important than security. If freedom or privacy must be sacrificed (and that's a dubious claim), I don't want whatever you offer.
Then why are so many saying "Fuck the XBox One and it's DRM, use Steam!"
"so many"? I don't know if that's true, but not all of us are doing that. I despise any form of DRM.
are also those who have freely admitted to loving and buying from the likes of Steam previously.
Some people feel that DRM is magically okay when the games are cheap. They have no principles.
I do agree with you that these people are hypocrites.
Linux on PS3?, I really don't know anyone who actually used that.
Screwing over your customers is not okay simply because you did not screw over more than a few of them.
hence why the vast majority of gamers don't care.
Things such as this speak volumes about the intelligence of many gamers.
I certainly did not forget. I will not buy any Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo products.
If you don't want the product, you don't buy it.
I'm sure no one figured out that people have the ability to do that. Quite insightful.
Crying 'consumer rights' for a product that is sold with a publicly known 'always on' feature is like wanting to enforce your own policy on the publisher.
Well, there are European countries which protect consumer rights to a greater extent than other countries, but whether they'd do anything about this is another matter. So, complaining 'consumer rights' might not be off-base if people can get someone to take action.
So why is it suddenly an issue now when Microsoft does it with their new console?
I'm pretty sure most of the same people complaining about this also objected to the other nonsense. This is not "suddenly" an issue; it always was an issue.
It's not so much that XBone is bad
No, it is.
it's that the PS4 is much better
Sony isn't much better, and the console is still closed-down.
Incidentally, you're also a DRM-supporting imbecile.
Straw man.
Well, since it's apparently okay to block things just because you don't like them, sure.
You can request to get around the filters, after all, so why not block other things as well? Religious websites would be a decent start. What's wrong...? Suddenly blocking things by default is bad because you don't like what's being blocked this time around?
But I still feel it's important to emphasize that freedom is more important than safety even if the safety we're being offered is not genuine. People do need to accept that this is not a perfect world, and they need to stop giving away freedoms so they can feel safe.
Yeah, apparently it's crazy to think that the people in the government aren't perfect beings who can never make mistakes or abuse their powers. It's crazy until... the government abuses its power in a profound way, and then people become enraged (for a time, anyway, and then later they'll repeat the same mistakes)! Of course, thinking about how something could turn out before it happens is a slippery slope fallacy (according to some people, anyway).
Thinking about the future is bad.
There is no irony here.
A frightening number of people seem to have a 'It's okay if it saves lives!' mentality. We're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, but supporters of this sort of nonsense never got the memo.
It's nice to see other people who actually care about privacy and freedom. Comments like yours are definitely helpful, and I only wish that cold fjord fellow would come around.
Do you really think you are important enough that your data is even getting archived?
Are you really so selfish that you don't care about people other than yourself? "Wow, the government is abusing that guy over there! Good thing it's not me!" It's perfectly possible for the government to abuse only some people (and that's exactly what happens when you give the government overreacting powers) but not others, but the fact that it's not you or I who would get abused absolutely does not make the abuses okay.
Get some perspective, government cheerleader.
and then ones who would claim they hadn't would either be lying or gay.
But what if they're neither of those things?
Unless you're suggesting that Congress shouldn't be able to regulate the sale of goods and services within the United States, I think your argument is shit.
Ah, the catch-all argument that the government loves using so they can feel justified in doing just about anything they want with regards to such matters. That said, the constitution does say "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," so if that's not happening, something is indeed wrong.
Naturally, this means that any law you disagree with is thus no longer enforceable and you don't have to worry about the consequences.
That part just seems like a straw man.
3. The real losses are nowhere near what the MPAA and RIAA wants you to believe. If they can sell a song for 99 cents then the actual damage for downloading a song is 99 cents
Actually, copyright infringement causes no real losses; all it does is cause someone to not gain something, and even that is not certain. Yes, it is not even certain that copyright infringement causes someone to not gain money, and that is because it is also not certain that the person would have purchased the product if he/she could not download it.
Because secret programs where data is collected on just about everyone would still be bad with encryption and such. The data should simply never be collected to begin with unless they have probable cause, and in that case, only on the actual targets.
Apathy and ignorance of what voters?
A grand majority of them. Many of them even accept constitutional violations if it's to keep us safe from bogeymen and keep voting for the same two parties over and over. If voting doesn't make a difference (as you seem to imply), then they wouldn't bother doing it. The reason they keep voting for the same two parties over and over is because they're easily-manipulated imbeciles.
No, I mean you take everything I say quite literally and then attack the arguments that you feel I made thanks to your literal interpretations.
As for opening mail and such... no, I don't think that's okay to do without a warrant, war or no. The fact that Benjamen Franklin did it doesn't make it okay.
Legally speaking, anyone that has committed a crime but is not yet convicted is innocent, even if they did in fact commit the crime.
That's the sort of thing I meant by pedantry. You also took my post to mean that surveillance is never okay under any circumstances, and that's obvious just not what I meant.
Interesting straw men you have there. I also see you enjoy being pedantic to make it seem as if you have a point, but sadly, you do not.