When the perp wins, it is not a moral victory, but a national one.
From the article, I gathered that he was trading known images, not creating new ones. The plea to "protect the children" would be a plea to prevent sharing images that already exist, not preventing further abuse. We can make all kinds of arguments about what he might do, but he is not accused of hypotheticals.
That should make it easier to be okay with this decision, for people who aren't already. Possession of CP and transmission of CP are meant to stop people from producing, and in any way benefiting from producing, such images. And in that sense, we can guarantee that this guy, who is looking at 20 years in jail, is going home and wiping his drive, and will stick to the "barely 18" porn in at least the near future. Therefore, Mission Accomplished.
The perp did not win. Especially given your last sentence.
... he will always be painted with the brush of a 'child abuser'.
That's not winning. He is legally innocent, but factually guilty.
Unless you want to build a time machine, go back to 1775, and tell everyone to hold off and make some changes to the Constitution, this is not tough.
You: "Hey guys, what you're about to write means that some guy trading pictures of what most of you are doing with your slaves in real life is going to be freed because an asshat is going to go all England on him and violate his Constitutional rights."
The Constitution defines how the country operates. The legal framework for everything that happens. If the evidence was not gathered constitutionally, then it cannot be applied.
If we allow punishments from unconstitutional evidence gathering to stand, then we are basically saying that it's not important. The ends justify the means and all of that. Ignore the Constitution, and all of the reasons that the American colonies told England to fuck off, and all of the people who died, and all of the ideas put into creating a Constitution that made sure people could not be abused in the way the colonies were abused. All of those smart ideas don't mean anything because this one guy should be punished.
That's not how the country works. If you want it to work that way, you are against the American Constitution, against the American people, and therefore a terrorist. You might as well be in the desert chopping journalists' heads off. The ones that reported this story, because obviously it undermines how you feel America should be. Why not, if the ends justify the means?
If the way to a better America is to require Americans to quarter troops at home, and the troops can go through their hosts' belongings looking for any crime at all, it's fine, because the ends justify the means, right?
It is a tragedy that this guy goes free. But it is one tragedy. To think that sidestepping the way things are done here is a good thing is to desire an end to America. This is not hyperbole. That's why you will find Mencken quotes scattered about.
The Troll moderation on parent is not appropriate. This is probably a genuine concern, and deserves to be moderated up. Likewise, I put the time into illustrating just why, even though it sounds good, it cannot be allowed to stand, for the express reason of explaining just how contrary to the foundation of the entire American government this idea is. The idea should not be buried as a troll - it should be shouted widely, and ridiculed all the while.
And the only thing worse than "hang him anyway" would be "lol they are shitting on the Constitution anyway" because, while you aren't calling for the Constitutionally innocent to be punished, you are actively dismissing a chance to rein in bad actors before they spread.
They can search all of Gnutella live for people currently sharing filenames and/or hashes known to be illegal. Just like people and p2p indexers and really the whole goddamned internet.
What does that mean? That Gnutella is operating like it should?
Here's your API - search for anything that ends in jpg or mov or avi or whatever else. With the list of hashes you get back, see if you get any matches. If so, return the result.
Law enforcement has piles of lists of hashes and filenames, and if a new p2p technology came out with a new hash, they wouldn't mind generating new hashes. I think it's the national missing child something project that maintains those, so if you want to argue about law enforcement maintaining a hard drive full of abuse images we've already had that discussion.
First came speed limits, then bring stuck in our ways, then money making.
Your psychotic revisionist description is a clear case of attribution error.
And given the context of this thread, it looks like a knee jerk pet peeve response instead of part of a discussion. Like you're talking but not listening.
Did you read the article? Yahoo tried it, and pretty much failed.
Yahoo is a public company, and did not want to have a $91 million loss in addition to their already failed everything else.
How do you have a successful business with every page redirecting to static text?
And no one uses Yahoo, at least intentionally. How the shit do they fight back with a barely captive audience?
It's almost like you took your barely functioning understanding of the economy, and applied it to a minimalistic understanding of how economics actually works.
So Yahoo takes the burden, what happens to the rest of the companies? The competition? They learn not to oppose the government. Yahoo, from the article, was the first to comply. If they did not, and died as a company, would anything be different other than fewer @yahoo.com email addresses?
I can't find LavaBit stock quotes. I can find Yahoo stock quotes very easily back 5 years and more.
That makes a huge difference.
Initially, Yahoo was betting on public perception to buoy the reputation and therefore the stock. That failed with the threat of fines, because those losses are reportable to investors.
Initially, LavaBit was betting on public perception. They apparently folded before fines could be levied.
Yahoo was public, and could not "pull a LavaBit". There are vast differences between the LavaBit options and the Yahoo options. You are comparing apples to SchrÃdinger's cat because of ignorance. Stop that.
Yes, we lost freedoms, and people forecast that we would.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Yeah, he was a smart mutherfucker.
Why did the Constitution have any power? Because it was the description of how we put the country together. It was the description of who had power, and which powers they had. Was is the operative word.
That stopped when people shit their pants because a few small percent of people died.
And yes, I know someone who had a lifetime of earnings in boxes that were destroyed from fire. Screw the conspiracy shit, even without that they would still be at zero earnings as of 9/11. It was a major impact for a very large number of people. I'm not minimizing it. But there were a small number of people affected, unless you count the number of people who knew the dead. And even then, the percentage is still small.
You paraphrased Franklin, yet did not learn from him. You don't understand the basic human psyche. Yet you ask of us some answer?
It is because of people like you. Go share your knowledge among the people you know personally. Then get back to us.
Fuck them all if you must, and if you have the stamina.
The FCC is responsible for ensuring that desired communications reach their destination, and undesired communications do not. If a radio station has a license, and your jackass neighbor buys a giant antenna, you have the right to ask the FCC to shut your asshole neighbor down. If community standards say that you cannot "fuck" them all, and that you must "f$%#" them all, then you should live in a different country. Unless you have an argument that applies to your country. Which you apparently do not.
FBI likewise is asked to protect the country from internal threats. Total information awareness seems to be a really good way to do this.
CIA spies on foreigners. Is this forbidden?
And I don't really care where you live - you have to make a good argument supported by facts, or you can eat a dick and die in a fire and all of the most wonderful greetings from Tisdale, Saffronica. Talk sense or only the nonsensical will support you.
For the record, I don't disagree. But you sound like a retarded hermaphroditic swing voter with anger issues. Convince me.
I don't get your point, nor why you are at +5 currently. Has Snowden been hacked? Is there even any question?
He appeared supportive of Russia, and explained his reasoning. The government has apparently not been successful at hacking Snowden. The public has tired, as Snowden said, of the constant reports of misconduct.
The government does not win, because lots of people have not, individually, tired.
Did I adequately answer your question? Regardless, will you answer any of mine?
Who said there's no shock? It wasn't me, and it wasn't the article. And the only one in between is you.
You had, apparently, the first post.
Is it really that hard to shout, "Ha, ha, no one is shocked." when no one has replied with at a minimum the requisite, "I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you."?
Beyond illustrating why quotes belong outside the punctuation, this shows that you are either:
1) Minimizing the possibility of a public backlash, of which there clearly is evidence due to the number of anti-responses
"Information wants to be free" is incredibly misunderstood.
First, it is information, and does not want anything. It cannot want anything.
Second, when someone learns something, their first instinct is to share it. Arcade game cheat, little known factoid, best restaurant in a different city, how to apply blush, or really anything that someone deems significant.
Third, publishers took hardcover books and printed them sideways on a magazine press. This was to reduce the loss on the discount.
Fourth, the intent apparently was to make readers of men. This is a business model, unrelated to what information wants or does not want. Whether they covered costs or not, publishers got a huge bulk order which may have sold for 25 cents instead of 200 cents.
I did not read the Council on Books in Wartime link, but I assume that's what people here want to actually discuss.
Nonetheless, this is unrelated to information wanting to be free. Please, just make a goddamned effort to understand words before using them.
I am not a linux sysadmin. Is there something that cannot be accomplished with a command line?
Compile systemd without getting its mitts into everything, or don't use it. Compile an alternate scheduler.
Can you not do this? The crux of the argument seems to rely on you not being able to do this at all. Otherwise, the answer is to be in charge of the command line.
So what the 1 percenters can afford is the minimum for everyone?
We are talking about a minimum definition, below which is not broadband. If I am a CEO earning $300k/yr and more, and I can afford gigabit internet, should we require that the poorest of the poor have gigabit internet?
If so, who pays the cost of gigabit internet for the poor?
Poor people? Taxpayers? Universal Service Fund?
Back up your position with math. Not with tree huggery, but with numbers in and numbers out.
You missed the point. There are lots of areas that don't reach the minimum. I don't care where you define the minimum, as long as it is not a regression.
How can we raise the minimum if it has not been met?
And how do we not punish companies which failed to meet the target?
This is where we need to define a goal before proceeding. If we raise the minimum and take no other action, have we done anything at all?
We need a really good argument to say that broadband means anything more than "faster than dial-up", until there is no more dial-up.
How I reached this conclusion:
Duh. We need to be debating whether this is reasonable.
I can watch YouTube videos, with minor glitches. Is that a reasonable baseline for broadband considering how many people have dial-up as the only choice?
I see people listing 1080 Netflix as a point of comparison. Is it reasonable to expect 1080 streaming as the basic definition of broadband?
With DVR over cable, I can watch a show and record two others. If Netflix says 5mpbs is required for streaming, that means 15mpbs. Is that how we define the minimum for broadband?
I grew up when 56kb was new, and people would get a second phone line for dual modem 100kbs download. Broadband was anything faster. What has changed since then? Services like Netflix offering more data? More data for luxury does not raise the minimum without some argument behind it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Would" is a very specific word, and I would put money on the conditional not being satisfied, at least not as completely as expected.
I'm just glad that Slashdot nerds are arguing about this, instead of physicists. That could get ugly.
People with problems like ocd, where things have to be just so, will not appreciate this. Nor will people who like tidy spaces.
It's called clutter, and there is a really good reason why neatly every infomercial uses the word. People get bothered by clutter.
When the perp wins, it is not a moral victory, but a national one.
From the article, I gathered that he was trading known images, not creating new ones. The plea to "protect the children" would be a plea to prevent sharing images that already exist, not preventing further abuse. We can make all kinds of arguments about what he might do, but he is not accused of hypotheticals.
That should make it easier to be okay with this decision, for people who aren't already. Possession of CP and transmission of CP are meant to stop people from producing, and in any way benefiting from producing, such images. And in that sense, we can guarantee that this guy, who is looking at 20 years in jail, is going home and wiping his drive, and will stick to the "barely 18" porn in at least the near future. Therefore, Mission Accomplished.
The perp did not win. Especially given your last sentence.
That's not winning. He is legally innocent, but factually guilty.
Unless you want to build a time machine, go back to 1775, and tell everyone to hold off and make some changes to the Constitution, this is not tough.
You: "Hey guys, what you're about to write means that some guy trading pictures of what most of you are doing with your slaves in real life is going to be freed because an asshat is going to go all England on him and violate his Constitutional rights."
Them: "Good, now die you redcoat."
The Constitution defines how the country operates. The legal framework for everything that happens. If the evidence was not gathered constitutionally, then it cannot be applied.
If we allow punishments from unconstitutional evidence gathering to stand, then we are basically saying that it's not important. The ends justify the means and all of that. Ignore the Constitution, and all of the reasons that the American colonies told England to fuck off, and all of the people who died, and all of the ideas put into creating a Constitution that made sure people could not be abused in the way the colonies were abused. All of those smart ideas don't mean anything because this one guy should be punished.
That's not how the country works. If you want it to work that way, you are against the American Constitution, against the American people, and therefore a terrorist. You might as well be in the desert chopping journalists' heads off. The ones that reported this story, because obviously it undermines how you feel America should be. Why not, if the ends justify the means?
If the way to a better America is to require Americans to quarter troops at home, and the troops can go through their hosts' belongings looking for any crime at all, it's fine, because the ends justify the means, right?
It is a tragedy that this guy goes free. But it is one tragedy. To think that sidestepping the way things are done here is a good thing is to desire an end to America. This is not hyperbole. That's why you will find Mencken quotes scattered about.
The Troll moderation on parent is not appropriate. This is probably a genuine concern, and deserves to be moderated up. Likewise, I put the time into illustrating just why, even though it sounds good, it cannot be allowed to stand, for the express reason of explaining just how contrary to the foundation of the entire American government this idea is. The idea should not be buried as a troll - it should be shouted widely, and ridiculed all the while.
And the only thing worse than "hang him anyway" would be "lol they are shitting on the Constitution anyway" because, while you aren't calling for the Constitutionally innocent to be punished, you are actively dismissing a chance to rein in bad actors before they spread.
They can search all of Gnutella live for people currently sharing filenames and/or hashes known to be illegal. Just like people and p2p indexers and really the whole goddamned internet.
What does that mean? That Gnutella is operating like it should?
Here's your API - search for anything that ends in jpg or mov or avi or whatever else. With the list of hashes you get back, see if you get any matches. If so, return the result.
Law enforcement has piles of lists of hashes and filenames, and if a new p2p technology came out with a new hash, they wouldn't mind generating new hashes. I think it's the national missing child something project that maintains those, so if you want to argue about law enforcement maintaining a hard drive full of abuse images we've already had that discussion.
How do we identify the correct person to fine or educate? Because this scheme doesn't, and without a solution your statement is no more than rhetoric.
Fining the wrong person will not be effective.
First came speed limits, then bring stuck in our ways, then money making.
Your psychotic revisionist description is a clear case of attribution error.
And given the context of this thread, it looks like a knee jerk pet peeve response instead of part of a discussion. Like you're talking but not listening.
One bad patent has significant financial impact for the country. We will give you a break when you can cover the loss. Each time.
Sure, she is one of the people to blame, if you have a reductionist view that all government members have the same goal and opinions.
And if you have no idea how the supreme court works.
Given that, you're totally correct. How about specific cases?
Show your work?
I'm not wasting time proving you wrong if you have put zero effort in.
Start with any article on blackouts due to pricing disagreements, and work your way up.
Did you read the article? Yahoo tried it, and pretty much failed.
Yahoo is a public company, and did not want to have a $91 million loss in addition to their already failed everything else.
How do you have a successful business with every page redirecting to static text?
And no one uses Yahoo, at least intentionally. How the shit do they fight back with a barely captive audience?
It's almost like you took your barely functioning understanding of the economy, and applied it to a minimalistic understanding of how economics actually works.
So Yahoo takes the burden, what happens to the rest of the companies? The competition? They learn not to oppose the government. Yahoo, from the article, was the first to comply. If they did not, and died as a company, would anything be different other than fewer @yahoo.com email addresses?
I can't find LavaBit stock quotes. I can find Yahoo stock quotes very easily back 5 years and more.
That makes a huge difference.
Initially, Yahoo was betting on public perception to buoy the reputation and therefore the stock. That failed with the threat of fines, because those losses are reportable to investors.
Initially, LavaBit was betting on public perception. They apparently folded before fines could be levied.
Yahoo was public, and could not "pull a LavaBit". There are vast differences between the LavaBit options and the Yahoo options. You are comparing apples to SchrÃdinger's cat because of ignorance. Stop that.
Really?
Are they instead nominated by the Executive and then confirmed by the Legislative?
Or are they
Maybe they are given magic powers by Leprechauns and allowed to vote by the number of Trolls they fellate?
Because of fear.
Yes, we lost freedoms, and people forecast that we would.
Yeah, he was a smart mutherfucker.
Why did the Constitution have any power? Because it was the description of how we put the country together. It was the description of who had power, and which powers they had. Was is the operative word.
That stopped when people shit their pants because a few small percent of people died.
And yes, I know someone who had a lifetime of earnings in boxes that were destroyed from fire. Screw the conspiracy shit, even without that they would still be at zero earnings as of 9/11. It was a major impact for a very large number of people. I'm not minimizing it. But there were a small number of people affected, unless you count the number of people who knew the dead. And even then, the percentage is still small.
You paraphrased Franklin, yet did not learn from him. You don't understand the basic human psyche. Yet you ask of us some answer?
It is because of people like you. Go share your knowledge among the people you know personally. Then get back to us.
Fuck them all if you must, and if you have the stamina.
The FCC is responsible for ensuring that desired communications reach their destination, and undesired communications do not. If a radio station has a license, and your jackass neighbor buys a giant antenna, you have the right to ask the FCC to shut your asshole neighbor down. If community standards say that you cannot "fuck" them all, and that you must "f$%#" them all, then you should live in a different country. Unless you have an argument that applies to your country. Which you apparently do not.
FBI likewise is asked to protect the country from internal threats. Total information awareness seems to be a really good way to do this.
CIA spies on foreigners. Is this forbidden?
And I don't really care where you live - you have to make a good argument supported by facts, or you can eat a dick and die in a fire and all of the most wonderful greetings from Tisdale, Saffronica. Talk sense or only the nonsensical will support you.
For the record, I don't disagree. But you sound like a retarded hermaphroditic swing voter with anger issues. Convince me.
Has the government, and keep in mind this relates to all three branches, refused to admit that a FISC exists, or that the FISA was passed?
Specifically, which parts do "the government" refuse to admit exist?
I don't get your point, nor why you are at +5 currently. Has Snowden been hacked? Is there even any question?
He appeared supportive of Russia, and explained his reasoning. The government has apparently not been successful at hacking Snowden. The public has tired, as Snowden said, of the constant reports of misconduct.
The government does not win, because lots of people have not, individually, tired.
Did I adequately answer your question? Regardless, will you answer any of mine?
Who said there's no shock? It wasn't me, and it wasn't the article. And the only one in between is you.
You had, apparently, the first post.
Is it really that hard to shout, "Ha, ha, no one is shocked." when no one has replied with at a minimum the requisite, "I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you."?
Beyond illustrating why quotes belong outside the punctuation, this shows that you are either:
1) Minimizing the possibility of a public backlash, of which there clearly is evidence due to the number of anti-responses
or
2) Functionally retarded
Choose wisely: troll or retard, which is it?
"Information wants to be free" is incredibly misunderstood.
First, it is information, and does not want anything. It cannot want anything.
Second, when someone learns something, their first instinct is to share it. Arcade game cheat, little known factoid, best restaurant in a different city, how to apply blush, or really anything that someone deems significant.
Third, publishers took hardcover books and printed them sideways on a magazine press. This was to reduce the loss on the discount.
Fourth, the intent apparently was to make readers of men. This is a business model, unrelated to what information wants or does not want. Whether they covered costs or not, publishers got a huge bulk order which may have sold for 25 cents instead of 200 cents.
I did not read the Council on Books in Wartime link, but I assume that's what people here want to actually discuss.
Nonetheless, this is unrelated to information wanting to be free. Please, just make a goddamned effort to understand words before using them.
Splitting is a bad idea why? Install from the desktop repo, or the server repo, and your problems are solved, right?
Are they not solved? Well use something like Gentoo where the compile is customized for your environment. There is no Gentoo? Why?
Defend your position.
I am not a linux sysadmin. Is there something that cannot be accomplished with a command line?
Compile systemd without getting its mitts into everything, or don't use it. Compile an alternate scheduler.
Can you not do this? The crux of the argument seems to rely on you not being able to do this at all. Otherwise, the answer is to be in charge of the command line.
So what the 1 percenters can afford is the minimum for everyone?
We are talking about a minimum definition, below which is not broadband. If I am a CEO earning $300k/yr and more, and I can afford gigabit internet, should we require that the poorest of the poor have gigabit internet?
If so, who pays the cost of gigabit internet for the poor?
Poor people? Taxpayers? Universal Service Fund?
Back up your position with math. Not with tree huggery, but with numbers in and numbers out.
You missed the point. There are lots of areas that don't reach the minimum. I don't care where you define the minimum, as long as it is not a regression.
How can we raise the minimum if it has not been met?
And how do we not punish companies which failed to meet the target?
This is where we need to define a goal before proceeding. If we raise the minimum and take no other action, have we done anything at all?
We need a really good argument to say that broadband means anything more than "faster than dial-up", until there is no more dial-up.
How I reached this conclusion:
Duh. We need to be debating whether this is reasonable.
I can watch YouTube videos, with minor glitches. Is that a reasonable baseline for broadband considering how many people have dial-up as the only choice?
I see people listing 1080 Netflix as a point of comparison. Is it reasonable to expect 1080 streaming as the basic definition of broadband?
With DVR over cable, I can watch a show and record two others. If Netflix says 5mpbs is required for streaming, that means 15mpbs. Is that how we define the minimum for broadband?
I grew up when 56kb was new, and people would get a second phone line for dual modem 100kbs download. Broadband was anything faster. What has changed since then? Services like Netflix offering more data? More data for luxury does not raise the minimum without some argument behind it.