Seriously, what good are freedoms when you're dead?
Yeah, so I guess the army that people worship so much should stop 'fighting for our freedom.' Why do you even live in "the land of the free" if you don't even understand that freedom is more important than security?
If you die while being free, at least you weren't a coward.
Can we seriously not tolerate some innocuous, invisible surveillance that has ZERO EFFECT ON OUR LIVES if it helps our government carry out its constitutional duty to provide for the national defense?
No, intelligent people will not tolerate government thugs spying on their communications and violating their rights, the constitution, and privacy.
What you advocate for is the ability of government to be able to do as it pleases. The hundreds of millions dead throughout history thanks to governments disproves your fantasy view that the people in the government are perfect angels.
And since when do you care about the constitution? Clearly, you don't. You're an unprincipled piece of trash.
Only if there was an ongoing shooting war (not periodic acts of terrorism) should the government be using its war fighting authority to monitor domestic communications
But only if they have a warrant. Can't spy on innocent people.
I would suggest coming to the realization that freedom is more important than safety (fake or real) and accepting the risks that come with having freedom.
The government thugs should just get out of airports completely. Freedom is more important than safety, and government thugs shouldn't be harassing anyone.
That's not a very good devil's advocate, since freedom is more important than security. The government should get its thugs out of airports completely.
And regardless of my feelings about it, even free speech has limits in the US. Does that mean it isn't a right? I don't understand these people's logic.
The very purpose of a license plate is to make public the identity of a specific vehicle. Trying to say that govenrment or anyone else can not keep records of where a plate is noticed is absurd.
Bullshit, once again. You government drones need to think for yourselves. It is not absurd to say that while it is possible for people to see you in public places, the government shouldn't be installing surveillance equipment everywhere. The latter is what people want to be free from.
It does not track the owner at all. The tag identifies the car and not the driver.
But it tracks the car, which is bad enough. In my case, it would be more than enough to track me.
Worse yet one doesn't even need a plate unless one uses the vehicle on a public road.
Which nearly everyone does. A moot point.
So just what element is private about a plate openly displayed in public.
The part where we step up and demand that the government not install surveillance equipment in public places, which is a far cry from someone merely seeing you.
If I notice a suspicious vehicle can i write down the plate number just in case something happens?
Can your worthless little mind not comprehend the difference between surveillance equipment that belongs to a single source recording everything automatically and someone writing something down? Really? And you're on Slashdot? Vanish!
The privacy nuts get way over the edge these days.
No, you government drones go way over the edge. You are literally making this country worse. We have people like you to thank for the TSA, the NSA spying, stop-and-frisk, free speech zones, constitution-free zones, DUI checkpoints, and the hundreds of other small ways the government is violating our rights. Get rid of your trust for the government. Get rid of your desire to justify everything the government does.
Why do you hate freedom to that degree? Your arguments have been debunked time and time again.
So, if you don't like having your licensed plate tracked by government, DON'T FUCKING DRIVE. You have no right to drive in the first place.
You have no right to fly on a plane, so rejoice as the TSA thugs molest you.
If the government can violate your rights simply because you choose to participate in some activity that's not strictly necessary and/or is a privilege, you have no rights; you have tyranny.
Keep in mind, driving on public roads is a privilege - not a right. Public Safety trumps privacy in public places.
Bullshit. You shouldn't be living in "the land of the free and the home of the brave" if you think that doing something that's not strictly necessary means the government can violate your rights or privacy. I'm sure you love the TSA, which was justified based on similar reasoning (That you choose to go into the airport and that it's not necessary, so being molested by the government is okay.).
And yes, privacy is at stake, and yes, people *do* have some degree of privacy even in public places. In your mind, you need to separate the right to not have people see you in public places (nonexistent) with the right to not be recorded by government surveillance equipment in public places (a damn good idea).
The more you support ubiquitous surveillance, the more you support tyranny. Blabbering about how it's "nothing new" does not make it okay in the least.
Privacy is a right. And the mere fact that something is unnecessary does not mean you give the government consent to violate your rights, which you can't do, anyway. Also, keep in mind that this is about the kind of privacy that prevents the government from using surveillance technology to keep tabs on you in public places, not the kind that ensures that no one can see you in public places; the latter doesn't exist, but the former damn well should.
Using your logic, the TSA is 100% okay. They actually used logic along those lines to justify it.
But most applications you install on your computer/phone/server could abuse their powers. If not right now, maybe in future when you install "security" updates, since corporations change.
Yes? That's why I try to limit my exposure to proprietary software, as those companies have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. Valve already has, as we see here. The fact that they'd even do this shows that they lack morals.
I don't see you complaining this about emacs.
Do I have to complain about everything I have a problem with, lest you assume that I have no problems with the things I didn't complain about?
With that said, I usually wait for a while after an update comes out to begin with.
If copyright is to mean anything (and I realize that's debatable around here, but I don't want to get into that debate right now), there has to be some mechanism for enforcement. The copyright holder has to be able to stop infringement by legal means.
Go to court and get the court to issue a court order that will make the website remove it. If the user posted the content, the website wouldn't be held responsible (safe harbor). No more DMCA requests that remove safe harbor. Difficult and expensive? Yes, but it also removes the ability for copyright trolls to be able to remove content without courts or judges being involved at all under the threat of removing a website's safe harbor. Justice is more important than copyright.
The problem with your thinking is that you (seem to) assume the ability to be able to to cheaply and easily censor content is a good thing; it isn't.
It's the same logic of "You're not a winner if you don't do X." It's perfectly applicable, and it wasn't really intended to be a reductio ad absurdum, although I don't care for the activity myself.
I would rather have that than have this guilty unless proven innocent (or guilty-until-you-fight-back) nonsense. And I see this as a good thing, as it would likely mean that only the more serious cases would be handled. But again, justice > safety.
Website owners should always have safe harbor, and there should be no take down notices. Holding website owners responsible for the actions of users simply because they decided not to remove something on someone's mere request is quite unjust.
2. Small copyright holders would have to spend thousands of dollars defending obvious copyright infringement.
Yes, and? No one is under any obligation to give them a way to subvert the justice system.
3. It would take months, if not years, to get to court and by that time the damage has already been done.
Even if I pretend the damage exists, again, I do not see this as a problem.
4. Take down notices are evidence in court used to establish the clam and sometimes the falsehood of the claim.
There are numerous ways to accomplish that without having takedown notices that jeopardize a website's safe harbor.
So your bias against copyright leads to a "solution" that is not effective and can damage the court system.
So your bias in favor of copyright leads to a "solution" that is not effective (It really isn't.) and is unjust.
I am curious, why don't you like copyright?
Haven't we been through this before, as you already pointed out?
Exactly what other people pointed out, yet this guy acted as if that's not the case.
With that said, I play a number of games (Doom, with the Zandronum source port) online where the software is open source, and there isn't much of a cheating problem. The community self-regulates and server admins (both of individual servers and master server admins) take care of the problem. They don't need shitty, invasive anti-cheat software.
Saying that they didn't abuse their powers in the past, so they likely won't in the future is, in fact, ridiculous. Corporations change. The people in corporations change. New people come in. The logic just doesn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's because I'm assuming we want to keep copyright more or less working.
It isn't working now.
Court orders are not cheap, while it is cheap to put up something copyrighted.
Real justice isn't cheap; that doesn't mean we should discard it so we can catch more Bad People. I much prefer freedom over safety.
A good many Americans know their history, and know exactly what happens when shockingly tragic events happen to the foundations of a country.
An elite few Americans, you mean.
Seriously, what good are freedoms when you're dead?
Yeah, so I guess the army that people worship so much should stop 'fighting for our freedom.' Why do you even live in "the land of the free" if you don't even understand that freedom is more important than security?
If you die while being free, at least you weren't a coward.
Can we seriously not tolerate some innocuous, invisible surveillance that has ZERO EFFECT ON OUR LIVES if it helps our government carry out its constitutional duty to provide for the national defense?
No, intelligent people will not tolerate government thugs spying on their communications and violating their rights, the constitution, and privacy.
What you advocate for is the ability of government to be able to do as it pleases. The hundreds of millions dead throughout history thanks to governments disproves your fantasy view that the people in the government are perfect angels.
And since when do you care about the constitution? Clearly, you don't. You're an unprincipled piece of trash.
Only if there was an ongoing shooting war (not periodic acts of terrorism) should the government be using its war fighting authority to monitor domestic communications
But only if they have a warrant. Can't spy on innocent people.
I would suggest coming to the realization that freedom is more important than safety (fake or real) and accepting the risks that come with having freedom.
In fact, they shouldn't care about *anything*; the TSA needs to be destroyed.
The government thugs should just get out of airports completely. Freedom is more important than safety, and government thugs shouldn't be harassing anyone.
That's not a very good devil's advocate, since freedom is more important than security. The government should get its thugs out of airports completely.
as someone that values freedom of speech
Are you sure about that?
but is it time for Anonymous Coward to go?
I don't think so.
Let's face it... Anonymous Coward adds as much to a meaningful discussion as someone who drives past a coffee shop and yells out, "Look at me!".
Depends on the post. I've seen plenty of ACs who have posted comments I thought were insightful.
In the end, your post offended me. Time to ban Slashcrunch? Total lack of respect for my sensibilities.
And regardless of my feelings about it, even free speech has limits in the US. Does that mean it isn't a right? I don't understand these people's logic.
Read the numerous comments above that debunk your shortsighted, freedom-hating nonsense.
A simple solution would be to get rid of this garbage entirely.
The very purpose of a license plate is to make public the identity of a specific vehicle. Trying to say that govenrment or anyone else can not keep records of where a plate is noticed is absurd.
Bullshit, once again. You government drones need to think for yourselves. It is not absurd to say that while it is possible for people to see you in public places, the government shouldn't be installing surveillance equipment everywhere. The latter is what people want to be free from.
It does not track the owner at all. The tag identifies the car and not the driver.
But it tracks the car, which is bad enough. In my case, it would be more than enough to track me.
Worse yet one doesn't even need a plate unless one uses the vehicle on a public road.
Which nearly everyone does. A moot point.
So just what element is private about a plate openly displayed in public.
The part where we step up and demand that the government not install surveillance equipment in public places, which is a far cry from someone merely seeing you.
If I notice a suspicious vehicle can i write down the plate number just in case something happens?
Can your worthless little mind not comprehend the difference between surveillance equipment that belongs to a single source recording everything automatically and someone writing something down? Really? And you're on Slashdot? Vanish!
The privacy nuts get way over the edge these days.
No, you government drones go way over the edge. You are literally making this country worse. We have people like you to thank for the TSA, the NSA spying, stop-and-frisk, free speech zones, constitution-free zones, DUI checkpoints, and the hundreds of other small ways the government is violating our rights. Get rid of your trust for the government. Get rid of your desire to justify everything the government does.
Why do you hate freedom to that degree? Your arguments have been debunked time and time again.
So, if you don't like having your licensed plate tracked by government, DON'T FUCKING DRIVE. You have no right to drive in the first place.
You have no right to fly on a plane, so rejoice as the TSA thugs molest you.
If the government can violate your rights simply because you choose to participate in some activity that's not strictly necessary and/or is a privilege, you have no rights; you have tyranny.
Keep in mind, driving on public roads is a privilege - not a right. Public Safety trumps privacy in public places.
Bullshit. You shouldn't be living in "the land of the free and the home of the brave" if you think that doing something that's not strictly necessary means the government can violate your rights or privacy. I'm sure you love the TSA, which was justified based on similar reasoning (That you choose to go into the airport and that it's not necessary, so being molested by the government is okay.).
And yes, privacy is at stake, and yes, people *do* have some degree of privacy even in public places. In your mind, you need to separate the right to not have people see you in public places (nonexistent) with the right to not be recorded by government surveillance equipment in public places (a damn good idea).
The more you support ubiquitous surveillance, the more you support tyranny. Blabbering about how it's "nothing new" does not make it okay in the least.
Privacy is a right. And the mere fact that something is unnecessary does not mean you give the government consent to violate your rights, which you can't do, anyway. Also, keep in mind that this is about the kind of privacy that prevents the government from using surveillance technology to keep tabs on you in public places, not the kind that ensures that no one can see you in public places; the latter doesn't exist, but the former damn well should.
Using your logic, the TSA is 100% okay. They actually used logic along those lines to justify it.
But most applications you install on your computer/phone/server could abuse their powers. If not right now, maybe in future when you install "security" updates, since corporations change.
Yes? That's why I try to limit my exposure to proprietary software, as those companies have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. Valve already has, as we see here. The fact that they'd even do this shows that they lack morals.
I don't see you complaining this about emacs.
Do I have to complain about everything I have a problem with, lest you assume that I have no problems with the things I didn't complain about?
With that said, I usually wait for a while after an update comes out to begin with.
If copyright is to mean anything (and I realize that's debatable around here, but I don't want to get into that debate right now), there has to be some mechanism for enforcement. The copyright holder has to be able to stop infringement by legal means.
Go to court and get the court to issue a court order that will make the website remove it. If the user posted the content, the website wouldn't be held responsible (safe harbor). No more DMCA requests that remove safe harbor. Difficult and expensive? Yes, but it also removes the ability for copyright trolls to be able to remove content without courts or judges being involved at all under the threat of removing a website's safe harbor. Justice is more important than copyright.
The problem with your thinking is that you (seem to) assume the ability to be able to to cheaply and easily censor content is a good thing; it isn't.
It's the same logic of "You're not a winner if you don't do X." It's perfectly applicable, and it wasn't really intended to be a reductio ad absurdum, although I don't care for the activity myself.
but the average person is statistically more likely to be creepy outlier.
Most people are completely unintelligent, though. That's bad enough.
Not digging giant holes in the ground with spoons means you're not a winner.
Have you ever thought that not everyone shares your interests?
Completely getting rid of any form of discretion sounds like a much worse plan to me.
1. Places an undue burden on the court system.
I would rather have that than have this guilty unless proven innocent (or guilty-until-you-fight-back) nonsense. And I see this as a good thing, as it would likely mean that only the more serious cases would be handled. But again, justice > safety.
Website owners should always have safe harbor, and there should be no take down notices. Holding website owners responsible for the actions of users simply because they decided not to remove something on someone's mere request is quite unjust.
2. Small copyright holders would have to spend thousands of dollars defending obvious copyright infringement.
Yes, and? No one is under any obligation to give them a way to subvert the justice system.
3. It would take months, if not years, to get to court and by that time the damage has already been done.
Even if I pretend the damage exists, again, I do not see this as a problem.
4. Take down notices are evidence in court used to establish the clam and sometimes the falsehood of the claim.
There are numerous ways to accomplish that without having takedown notices that jeopardize a website's safe harbor.
So your bias against copyright leads to a "solution" that is not effective and can damage the court system.
So your bias in favor of copyright leads to a "solution" that is not effective (It really isn't.) and is unjust.
I am curious, why don't you like copyright?
Haven't we been through this before, as you already pointed out?
Exactly what other people pointed out, yet this guy acted as if that's not the case.
With that said, I play a number of games (Doom, with the Zandronum source port) online where the software is open source, and there isn't much of a cheating problem. The community self-regulates and server admins (both of individual servers and master server admins) take care of the problem. They don't need shitty, invasive anti-cheat software.
Saying that they didn't abuse their powers in the past, so they likely won't in the future is, in fact, ridiculous. Corporations change. The people in corporations change. New people come in. The logic just doesn't work.