So what will happen when some sicko has sex with a six-year old? Four year old? A toddler?
If it's so 'obvious' that that is rape, as many people believe anyway, then an obvious result should follow. This is not hard to understand; prove that rape took place, and you have your conviction. Can't do that? Too bad.
in which case you're asking for lynch mobs to take justice in their own hands (and for good reason)
I'm not asking for any such thing, and we have enough lynch mobs as it is. Illogical pieces of garbage who supposedly want to 'protect' the children constantly try to get politicians to enact laws that infringe upon everyone's freedoms and the mob mentality has never been stronger, so your precious lynch mobs already exist.
The very fact that you felt the need to add the qualifier to "actual rape" suggests that there might be disagreement about just what the word entails, and thus the law needs to define it precisely - and that means drawing lines.
but personally, I'd be rather disappointed if they weren't trying to de-anonymize Tor! Figuring out who is talking to who, and how often, called Signals Intelligence, is the bedrock of intelligence analysis (and has been even before the NSA existed), and in many ways is more important than knowing what they are saying.
You'd be disappointed if they weren't so evil? I'm disappointed that people say such idiotic things.
There is absolutely no dilemma here. Freedom is simply more important than safety, and anyone who would trade the former for the latter is a naive fool of the highest caliber.
Why? Right now we basically toss anyone in prison who has sex with a person below a certain age whether or not they raped anyone. I would rather lines like that not exist at all, and that prosecutors and police be forced to prove that actual rape took place.
Not drawing that line at all would be even sillier.
After seeing the laws in place today, no one with a brain would draw such a conclusion.
Facebook keeps me in contact with my friends and family in a way that no other option does. Period.
Well, the fact that you feel the need to keep in contact with friends and family by using garbage like Facebook certainly does not make you seem intelligent.
Pragmatism is a valid political doctrine in a world filled with rational people and you and all the other ideologues are welcome to be the internet equivalent of preppers and go live out on your digital "compound" with the other nutters.
People who are concerned about issues such as privacy are not "nutters"; you're just an imbecile.
Now perhaps you think the world would be a better place if this were true
It probably would, as fewer people would put up with things such as being molested at airports. I think having principles is far more commendable than just being a bootlicker.
Well, as I said previously [slashdot.org], the problem with Social Fixer was that they *were* giving people a reason to use Facebook by making an app that *temporarily* alleviates some of the inconvenience caused by the latter's behaviour and policies without actually forcing- or even encouraging- them to change.
It didn't really fix anything. Why anyone would give any information to such a website is beyond me.
It's not "way out there." I interpreted your comment to mean that because people are put in prison, that means they were somehow wrong. My analogy was intended to convey the fact that violence (imprisoning people) doesn't make you right; in other words, might doesn't make right. If that was not the point you intended to convey, then please tell me how the people in prisons were "proven wrong."
In what sense were they "proven wrong"? If I beat you to a pulp because you disagree with me about something, does that mean you're wrong? I don't really understand your point.
That's not how it works. Proving benefit of copyright doesn't require showing that people would be harmed without copyright. The only requirement is to point to something that is beneficial with the existence of copyright.
Which may exist with or without copyright, so that wouldn't exactly be a benefit of copyright, now would it?
How do you expect to solve the copyright issue if you don't care about the source of the problem?
Who says that I don't?
I prefer if people care a little about each other and talk things out.
That's fine, but you seem to have misunderstood the meaning of that sentence.
You may already know, but you are not acting upon that knowledge.
Actually, there are definite benefits. It (along with patents and other related laws) formalizes how ideas can be bought and sold, facilitating the growth of US/Western economies based on intellectual property.
There are no proven definite benefits until proof has been provided that people wouldn't make money from their 'creations' without copyright. The benefits of copyright laws quite literally have not been demonstrated sufficiently.
Not every copyright holder is a corporate CEO who would sue little old ladies who accidentally listened a song for a second longer than she "shouldn't" have you know.
I believe copyright itself is immoral, so I don't care how 'good' or 'evil' an individual copyright holder is.
And if we jail or execute a person for murder, we're infringing upon his right to life. Again, that's a feature, not a bug.
And I suppose jailing people who say things that you don't like would be a feature, too? Well, to some people, it indeed would be.
If we as a society decide certain behavior is wrong, then whoever does that will see their rights revoked.
Oh, I see; you're stating the obvious. In other words, the side with the biggest guns will win. Tell me something I don't already know.
The problem you need to tackle is that other people (and there are lots of them) don't share your moral view on how ideas ought to be treated under the law.
You say these things as if I weren't already aware of them...
Why is government spying not merely a glorified form of stalking?
Given the amount of authority the government has, it is much, much worse, and far more dangerous than mere stalking, even if it is similar in some aspects.
The US constitution merely authorizes the government to have something like copyright for the sole purpose of encouraging innovation; it does not require that it exist. Furthermore, copyright is not for the artists; it is supposed to be for society.
The US constitution doesn't really disagree with anything I said in that comment, and I feel it was a mistake to ever let the government have the power to create something like copyright (since it violates freedom of speech and private property rights, and there is no evidence that it's effective), which is why I believe the constitution should be amended to ban copyrights and patents.
They do not "deserve" anything. If they cannot find a viable business model, I do not for a moment believe we should pretend they are entitled to government-enforced monopolies over ideas. It is on them and no one else to find out how to profit from their work.
Slashdot Mirror
So what will happen when some sicko has sex with a six-year old? Four year old? A toddler?
If it's so 'obvious' that that is rape, as many people believe anyway, then an obvious result should follow. This is not hard to understand; prove that rape took place, and you have your conviction. Can't do that? Too bad.
in which case you're asking for lynch mobs to take justice in their own hands (and for good reason)
I'm not asking for any such thing, and we have enough lynch mobs as it is. Illogical pieces of garbage who supposedly want to 'protect' the children constantly try to get politicians to enact laws that infringe upon everyone's freedoms and the mob mentality has never been stronger, so your precious lynch mobs already exist.
The very fact that you felt the need to add the qualifier to "actual rape" suggests that there might be disagreement about just what the word entails, and thus the law needs to define it precisely - and that means drawing lines.
I'm talking about the age of consent.
Irrelevant. It is not the information that caused any damage, but the actions.
It is difficult to prove actually took place
Yes, it is. And? Should we just throw away the entire concept of justice simply to make the jobs of prosecutors and police easier? I think not.
We live in a society with rules
It's called the US constitution, and fools like you seem to be attacking those who want the government to follow it.
but personally, I'd be rather disappointed if they weren't trying to de-anonymize Tor! Figuring out who is talking to who, and how often, called Signals Intelligence, is the bedrock of intelligence analysis (and has been even before the NSA existed), and in many ways is more important than knowing what they are saying.
You'd be disappointed if they weren't so evil? I'm disappointed that people say such idiotic things.
Half the eligible adults don't vote, or waste their votes on non-entities like the "Green Party"
If that many people 'wasted' their votes on third parties, we probably wouldn't be in such a mess right now. Sending a message is not a waste.
Actions harmed the Jews, not mere information. Time to grow up and live in the real world with the adults if you want to join this conversation.
How old are you?
The fact is information about what people are doing is a critical component of national security, in both war and peace.
But only because of the actions people take in response to information.
and the typical slashdotter seems to trivialize
it, ignoring the fact that both sides have drawbacks.
It's not hard to trivialize. If someone doesn't understand that freedom is more important than safety, then they're imbeciles to begin with.
There is absolutely no dilemma here. Freedom is simply more important than safety, and anyone who would trade the former for the latter is a naive fool of the highest caliber.
You have to draw a line somewhere
Why? Right now we basically toss anyone in prison who has sex with a person below a certain age whether or not they raped anyone. I would rather lines like that not exist at all, and that prosecutors and police be forced to prove that actual rape took place.
Not drawing that line at all would be even sillier.
After seeing the laws in place today, no one with a brain would draw such a conclusion.
Facebook keeps me in contact with my friends and family in a way that no other option does. Period.
Well, the fact that you feel the need to keep in contact with friends and family by using garbage like Facebook certainly does not make you seem intelligent.
Pragmatism is a valid political doctrine in a world filled with rational people and you and all the other ideologues are welcome to be the internet equivalent of preppers and go live out on your digital "compound" with the other nutters.
People who are concerned about issues such as privacy are not "nutters"; you're just an imbecile.
Now perhaps you think the world would be a better place if this were true
It probably would, as fewer people would put up with things such as being molested at airports. I think having principles is far more commendable than just being a bootlicker.
Well, as I said previously [slashdot.org], the problem with Social Fixer was that they *were* giving people a reason to use Facebook by making an app that *temporarily* alleviates some of the inconvenience caused by the latter's behaviour and policies without actually forcing- or even encouraging- them to change.
It didn't really fix anything. Why anyone would give any information to such a website is beyond me.
It's not "way out there." I interpreted your comment to mean that because people are put in prison, that means they were somehow wrong. My analogy was intended to convey the fact that violence (imprisoning people) doesn't make you right; in other words, might doesn't make right. If that was not the point you intended to convey, then please tell me how the people in prisons were "proven wrong."
I just know what the US constitution says.
In what sense were they "proven wrong"? If I beat you to a pulp because you disagree with me about something, does that mean you're wrong? I don't really understand your point.
That's not how it works. Proving benefit of copyright doesn't require showing that people would be harmed without copyright. The only requirement is to point to something that is beneficial with the existence of copyright.
Which may exist with or without copyright, so that wouldn't exactly be a benefit of copyright, now would it?
How do you expect to solve the copyright issue if you don't care about the source of the problem?
Who says that I don't?
I prefer if people care a little about each other and talk things out.
That's fine, but you seem to have misunderstood the meaning of that sentence.
You may already know, but you are not acting upon that knowledge.
News to me.
Desparate.
Actually, there are definite benefits. It (along with patents and other related laws) formalizes how ideas can be bought and sold, facilitating the growth of US/Western economies based on intellectual property.
There are no proven definite benefits until proof has been provided that people wouldn't make money from their 'creations' without copyright. The benefits of copyright laws quite literally have not been demonstrated sufficiently.
Not every copyright holder is a corporate CEO who would sue little old ladies who accidentally listened a song for a second longer than she "shouldn't" have you know.
I believe copyright itself is immoral, so I don't care how 'good' or 'evil' an individual copyright holder is.
And if we jail or execute a person for murder, we're infringing upon his right to life. Again, that's a feature, not a bug.
And I suppose jailing people who say things that you don't like would be a feature, too? Well, to some people, it indeed would be.
If we as a society decide certain behavior is wrong, then whoever does that will see their rights revoked.
Oh, I see; you're stating the obvious. In other words, the side with the biggest guns will win. Tell me something I don't already know.
The problem you need to tackle is that other people (and there are lots of them) don't share your moral view on how ideas ought to be treated under the law.
You say these things as if I weren't already aware of them...
Why is government spying not merely a glorified form of stalking?
Given the amount of authority the government has, it is much, much worse, and far more dangerous than mere stalking, even if it is similar in some aspects.
This is not about defending against terrorists, they are attacking the US citizens that dares to try to have some privacy.
And these pieces of garbage seem damn smug about it, too; exactly what I'd expect from thugs.
The US constitution merely authorizes the government to have something like copyright for the sole purpose of encouraging innovation; it does not require that it exist. Furthermore, copyright is not for the artists; it is supposed to be for society.
The US constitution doesn't really disagree with anything I said in that comment, and I feel it was a mistake to ever let the government have the power to create something like copyright (since it violates freedom of speech and private property rights, and there is no evidence that it's effective), which is why I believe the constitution should be amended to ban copyrights and patents.
They deserve fair compensation for that work
They do not "deserve" anything. If they cannot find a viable business model, I do not for a moment believe we should pretend they are entitled to government-enforced monopolies over ideas. It is on them and no one else to find out how to profit from their work.