Cases like this show why we should never accept any form of government surveillance. The government will inevitably overreact to something you said, take it out of context, and/or take it seriously, and then they'll make you wish you were never born.
and I am also free to take the consequences of my action.
Then countries such as North Korea must have as much freedom of speech as the US... but there are consequences for exercising the right. That's all. Just consequences.
That's because the government has massive amounts of power compared to normal people, and history has taught us that power inevitably corrupts. These agencies must not be trusted; it is naive to do otherwise.
Oh, and there's the fact that the government has used the same logic time and time again...
Nobody "needs" to watch the latest movie or TV episode. Pirating content just gives them ammunition to push government for laws against breaking DRM
Wishful thinking. The reality is that they'll always use copyright infringement as an excuse to lobby for draconian laws and harm their customers. Do not think of it as anything more than a terrible excuse.
then we say no that's not okay and put a stop to it.
And sometimes, the imbeciles go overboard and ban things that shouldn't be banned at all. The 'safety' mentality can be truly disgusting, and it's thanks to that mentality that people get molested in airports.
a mechanism would need to be put into place to prevent incestuous couples from having children
No, that's ridiculous. The fact that a child born from an incestuous relationship may end up with genetic defects is no reason for banning it. Individual liberties trump safety.
There shouldn't even be enough of such relationships to make it worthwhile to ban such a thing, even from the point of view of someone who hates freedom.
Animals cannot give consent
Perhaps not like a human can, but animals can initiate such acts. I don't know about marrying them, though.
Because it will stop suiting your purposes, for one. Microsoft has announced that there are only ten more Patch Tuesdays left for Windows XP: July 2013 through April 2014, after which Microsoft will end support for the operating system.
If I used Windows XP, I could always switch operating systems. Not difficult.
Why the hell would you want to keep one for 10 years?
Because it works and suits my purposes. Why else? What is and is not obsolete is not for someone else to decide. I certainly don't get a new computer every single year (or even after three or four years); that's a colossal waste of money a grand majority of the time
What exactly is "unproven" about patents doing more good then harm?
Simple: There is no real evidence that they are beneficial in this modern age; that's it. There are very, very few countries today (if any) without some form of patent and copyright laws, and the countries with extremely lenient patent and copyright laws are vastly different from our own for numerous unrelated reasons.
You are not entitled to a monopoly simply because you can't figure out how to monetize your ideas, or at least, I don't believe it should be that way.
So you believe then that its OK for someone to steal another idea
You cannot "steal" an idea.
It is simply not valid to assume that someone has a right to build off or refine an invention without entering a partnership or cooperation with the original inventor.
Sure it is. Someone else comes up with an idea, you hear about it, and then you copy the information (as human beings do all the time). There is nothing magic about it.
so NO freedoms are being restricted here.
Incorrect. If someone else files for a patent and you use your own resources to duplicate the way they created whatever is described in the patent, that would be considered patent infringement. Patents and copyrights harm real property rights. Copyright often also leads to censorship.
My stance is that it's not worth it to sacrifice those lives because it's not protecting lives.
It reveals the government's wrongdoing, which makes it worthwhile. The leaks do not kill anyone; other people do that. If the people do not step up and fix the issues with their own government, then that is their problem.
But you don't know that you'd do in such an extraordinary situation.
and that would mean turning myself in.
Whatever floats your boat.
The real question is why you trust him so much.
What? I don't really care what he has. I'm tired of this "Revealing our wrongdoings could endanger lives!" nonsense. It's well worth it to me since freedom is more important than security.
Americans willing gave up their privacy to big business a long time ago.
The fact that they reveal certain facts about themselves to certain businesses does not mean they also want the government to know; that's utterly ridiculous.
And come on, now. Not all of us give away tons of our information to big businesses.
If terrorists were aware of the spying, they'd be even more careful.
The nearly-nonexistent terrorist bogeyman, you mean? I'd much rather risk dying in a terrorist attack than allow the government to blatantly violate the constitution and our rights.
The leaker thought he knew better than the Senators on the intelligence committee what choices the American people have made, and he deserves to die.
Clearly, he did know better. I'm glad he revealed our treacherous government's wrongdoings.
If you live in the US, have fun getting groped at airports; it's thanks to the 'safety is more important than freedom' mentality that that happens.
No, I'm not; read what I quoted. He quite explicitly stated that only 'bad' people are put under surveillance, and that's the part I chose to reply to.
So, because some people might abuse the ability to wear masks, doing so should be severely restricted? I thought we were supposed to the land of the free and the home of the brave, not the home of the sniveling cowards. I don't want the government dictating what clothing or accessories I can wear on my own body.
The only people who get actual personal surveillance and monitoring are people who do bad things.
Wow, you're naive. People who do something the government doesn't like (which isn't necessarily bad) might be put under surveillance, too. Rules and attitudes change, and so too can the criteria that determines who should be put under surveillance. "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is an absolutely idiotic mindset to have.
Slashdot Mirror
Cases like this show why we should never accept any form of government surveillance. The government will inevitably overreact to something you said, take it out of context, and/or take it seriously, and then they'll make you wish you were never born.
and I am also free to take the consequences of my action.
Then countries such as North Korea must have as much freedom of speech as the US... but there are consequences for exercising the right. That's all. Just consequences.
Sure they do. They can use their vast resources to influence national governments, distort laws, and influence local prosecutors.
They can, but isn't that ultimately a problem with the government?
The big deal is that they shouldn't be collecting the information to begin with.
That's because the government has massive amounts of power compared to normal people, and history has taught us that power inevitably corrupts. These agencies must not be trusted; it is naive to do otherwise.
Oh, and there's the fact that the government has used the same logic time and time again...
Nobody "needs" to watch the latest movie or TV episode. Pirating content just gives them ammunition to push government for laws against breaking DRM
Wishful thinking. The reality is that they'll always use copyright infringement as an excuse to lobby for draconian laws and harm their customers. Do not think of it as anything more than a terrible excuse.
and for very good reasons (content protection, IP protection)
Those aren't "good reasons"; that's garbage.
then we say no that's not okay and put a stop to it.
And sometimes, the imbeciles go overboard and ban things that shouldn't be banned at all. The 'safety' mentality can be truly disgusting, and it's thanks to that mentality that people get molested in airports.
a mechanism would need to be put into place to prevent incestuous couples from having children
No, that's ridiculous. The fact that a child born from an incestuous relationship may end up with genetic defects is no reason for banning it. Individual liberties trump safety.
There shouldn't even be enough of such relationships to make it worthwhile to ban such a thing, even from the point of view of someone who hates freedom.
Animals cannot give consent
Perhaps not like a human can, but animals can initiate such acts. I don't know about marrying them, though.
And since my definition of marriage is to create a family
No one cares what your definition is; words can and do have multiple meanings.
Using harm to society as a metric for evaluating these other relationships allows us to allow the former while filtering out the latter.
I'm not aware of how incest or bestiality truly harm society. Maybe you just find them offensive and wish that to be the case?
And as the other person said, individual liberties trump all else most of the time.
The only thing greater than a lack of privacy is the illusion you still have control to maintain it. You don't.
And it's not like enough people would be willing to stop voting for the same two parties over and over over such an issue.
Because it will stop suiting your purposes, for one. Microsoft has announced that there are only ten more Patch Tuesdays left for Windows XP: July 2013 through April 2014, after which Microsoft will end support for the operating system.
If I used Windows XP, I could always switch operating systems. Not difficult.
Why the hell would you want to keep one for 10 years?
Because it works and suits my purposes. Why else? What is and is not obsolete is not for someone else to decide. I certainly don't get a new computer every single year (or even after three or four years); that's a colossal waste of money a grand majority of the time
What exactly is "unproven" about patents doing more good then harm?
Simple: There is no real evidence that they are beneficial in this modern age; that's it. There are very, very few countries today (if any) without some form of patent and copyright laws, and the countries with extremely lenient patent and copyright laws are vastly different from our own for numerous unrelated reasons.
You are not entitled to a monopoly simply because you can't figure out how to monetize your ideas, or at least, I don't believe it should be that way.
So you believe then that its OK for someone to steal another idea
You cannot "steal" an idea.
It is simply not valid to assume that someone has a right to build off or refine an invention without entering a partnership or cooperation with the original inventor.
Sure it is. Someone else comes up with an idea, you hear about it, and then you copy the information (as human beings do all the time). There is nothing magic about it.
so NO freedoms are being restricted here.
Incorrect. If someone else files for a patent and you use your own resources to duplicate the way they created whatever is described in the patent, that would be considered patent infringement. Patents and copyrights harm real property rights. Copyright often also leads to censorship.
Actually, this is the rare occasion cf is correct.
I actually do not care what the government thinks of the matter, or rather, if they believe it to be constitutional, then I believe they are wrong.
My stance is that it's not worth it to sacrifice those lives because it's not protecting lives.
It reveals the government's wrongdoing, which makes it worthwhile. The leaks do not kill anyone; other people do that. If the people do not step up and fix the issues with their own government, then that is their problem.
Just because you're tired of it doesn't mean it isn't true. There is a line.
I have my own priorities, so I can that, at least for me, it isn't true.
Because I'm me and I know me.
But you don't know that you'd do in such an extraordinary situation.
and that would mean turning myself in.
Whatever floats your boat.
The real question is why you trust him so much.
What? I don't really care what he has. I'm tired of this "Revealing our wrongdoings could endanger lives!" nonsense. It's well worth it to me since freedom is more important than security.
In fact I would have turned myself in rather than be captured by Russia and China.
How do you know that?
What if Snowden is forced to help for the intelligence agencies of those foreign countries?
And here I thought that fear of the terrorist bogeyman was bad enough...
Americans willing gave up their privacy to big business a long time ago.
The fact that they reveal certain facts about themselves to certain businesses does not mean they also want the government to know; that's utterly ridiculous.
And come on, now. Not all of us give away tons of our information to big businesses.
If terrorists were aware of the spying, they'd be even more careful.
The nearly-nonexistent terrorist bogeyman, you mean? I'd much rather risk dying in a terrorist attack than allow the government to blatantly violate the constitution and our rights.
The leaker thought he knew better than the Senators on the intelligence committee what choices the American people have made, and he deserves to die.
Clearly, he did know better. I'm glad he revealed our treacherous government's wrongdoings.
If you live in the US, have fun getting groped at airports; it's thanks to the 'safety is more important than freedom' mentality that that happens.
When will people stop pretending that the Constitution isn't being followed?
I know. Why don't they get with the times and delude themselves into a state of bliss and complacency, just as you have done?
Your missing his point.
No, I'm not; read what I quoted. He quite explicitly stated that only 'bad' people are put under surveillance, and that's the part I chose to reply to.
So, because some people might abuse the ability to wear masks, doing so should be severely restricted? I thought we were supposed to the land of the free and the home of the brave, not the home of the sniveling cowards. I don't want the government dictating what clothing or accessories I can wear on my own body.
The only people who get actual personal surveillance and monitoring are people who do bad things.
Wow, you're naive. People who do something the government doesn't like (which isn't necessarily bad) might be put under surveillance, too. Rules and attitudes change, and so too can the criteria that determines who should be put under surveillance. "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is an absolutely idiotic mindset to have.