Huh? I wasn't claiming that if DVD's had poor copy protection, studios would sell VHS instead. I'm claiming they would abandon the market altogether.
Considering the size of this market they'd be foolish to act this way. Even without the very real posibility that any executive who even though this way would be booted out by the shareholders.
I can guarantee the movie industry would have released material on DVD even without those protections. Why? Because for every videotape produced, it costs a significant chunk of change and takes a significant amount of time in some giant room full of VCRs recording the content, probably at real-time speed. A DVD can be stamped in a fraction of a second, and costs a tiny fraction of what a videotape costs from a manufacturing perspective.
The production of a tape is likely to involve lots of people, whereas the production of a DVD is highly automated and includes quality control. A DVD is also smaller, lighter, less fragile and less capable of being von-visibly damaged compared with a VHS cassette. Which means that they cost less to transport.
Good point about the technological use restrictions, but they may not even release DVD's if they had to release them in a format that allowed for easy pirating. So it's not all bad.
The only way to make DVDs difficult to pirate would be to ensure that factories producing them are always operating at capacity. Otherwise the easiest form of piracy is to pay for an increased production run.
It's almost amazing the movie industry gets away with this. They scream and throw tantrums over any overtures, any market that dares step foot in their domain. How? By threatening to sue almost anyone! How? By demanding the electronics industry put "safeguards" in dvd players (more on that in a second). How? By spending millions in D.C. demanding laws be passed to protect their eroding stranglehold on an evolving market place. How? By doing everything in their power to prevent evolution (read: progress).
It isn't even just technology which has to do with movies either. A few months ago they were moaning about people using general communications technology to review movies.
In the meantime, they approve pap for movie plots and ideas, pander to the idiotic mainstream thinking that's their meal ticket (it mostly is). But their offerings have become so predictable, so terrible, and so terribly produced and directed people are starting to feel ripped off for the small fortune they must spend for a night out of movies and popcorn.
Maybe this "idiotic mainstream" isn't as idiotic or large as the movie execs appear to think.
This is the same as a company printing a book that's in the public domain, yet still retaining copyright. For THAT PARTICULAR EDITION they hold the copyright.
Actually all they can claim copyright on is something they have added to the public domain text. e.g. preface, footnotes, new cover art, etc. To claim copyright on the whole thing is "copyright fraud".
Dude he's not talking about DMCA but copyright. You can't sell COPIES of copyrighted works on ebay without the copyright owner's permission.
This may be according to the rules with Ebay apply. But it isn't about copyright law. Strictly speaking you need the copyright holder's only if you are making and distributing copies of their work(s).
Let me know when 19 geriatric patients hijack a bunch of airplanes and kill thousands of people with them.
The problem with the 19 alleged hijackers is that several of them turned up alive and well. Thus the identities, even the number, of hijackers are very unclear. Even over 4 years later it's still unclear where these names of the accused came from came from... As for the possibility of geriatric patients killing thousands of people this most commonly happens if said geriatric patient is a head of state.
all of the "you can't give up freedom to gain security" idealists are just completely missing the whole point: terrorism is real,
The more pragmatic issue is that there's little evidence that this idea actually works in the first place. Even if things were as simple as the public transfering freedoms to the state made terrorim less likely, which self evidently is not the case. There is a very real possiblity that the "terrorists" would simply apply to join the police.
Just go to downtown London or any British city: cameras and microphones everywhere!! Do they prevent any terrorist attacks? OBVIOUSLY NOT!
Apparently they wen't even working at the time. Yet the response is that "more survailance is needed".
Any of us could come up with a plot and blow up some public building if we put our heads to it. What's a LOT more annoying than the remote chance of dying in a terrorist attack is the increasing curbing of civil liberties for the sake of 'public security'.
Which may result in exchange of a risk of being blown up with a risk of being shot. As was demonstrated in London on the 22nd of July. Note that "curbing of civil liberties" might be better put as "giving increasing privileges and powers to the state". Which, as recently demonstarted in the US, can equate to giving these privileges and powers to incompetent morons who tend to hinder rather than help.
I very highly doubt that. Copyright law allows for a balance of how works are distributed. Copyright law by default is very restrictive. The whole point of copyright licenses is to loosen those restrictions.
Copyright says that you need the permission of the copyright holder in order to make and distribute copies.
The authors of GPL'd code have essentially said "I own the copyright to this code. I own the exclusive right to this code. HOWEVER, I will allow you to do a, b, c, d and e as long as you abide by f, g, h and i.
Having a published licence is an advantage to third parties, since they know what terms and conditions the copyright holder will grant permission to copy and distribute. Rather than having to negotiate permission with the copyright holder. It is also an advantage to the copyright holders, since they do not have to negotiate terms and conditions with every third party who might want to make and distribute copies of their work(s). Copyright law gives copyright holders a great deal of choice as to terms and conditions. (Including using an already existing set of terms and conditions, such as the GPL.) About the only exception would be if they required some illegal action as a condition.
To say that if a license is found to be invalid that the code it covers would go into the public domain is ridiculous. You have obviously been listening to SCO's and Microsoft's lawyers a little too much.
In some cases SCO's argument appears to be that simply by their disagreeing with a licence the work is in the Public Domain.
Or your code is declared Public Domain and everyone gets to use it with no license.
This was one of SCO's arguments. Which dosn't actually appear to have any standing in either statute or case law anywhere on the planet. If a court were to rule a distribution licence "invalid" then the standard provisions of copyright apply. Thus it would be pointless for any party to even bring a suit to attempt to do this, they'd have nothing to gain.
Really, it could go either way. Since the intent of the GPL is to allow people to freely use your code, then a judge might see it as identical to PD.
Whilst a judge may have the power to reassign copyrights. Between parties in a lawsuit they most likely do not have the power to destroy them.
If I want to distribute an author's book I need to ask permission.
Actually you only need ask permission if you are copying the book and distributing the copies. You don't need the permission of the author to run either a bookshop or a library.
I think its more about Iran and the like having a deterrent that would prevent invasion. Think about it. Iraq's conventional defenses were no match for the USA and Iran's wouldn't be either. They don't have the military muscle to stop the USA from pounding them into the ground and sending a few hundred thousand troops into their country.
There arn't many countries which could opose such an invasion force. Probably all of those which could do so with conventional weapons have nuclear weapons anyway.
But if they had a handful of nukes up their sleeve, well that changes everything. They don't have to be able to hit the USA with them,
It Probably isn't too hard to smuggle lots of things into the US.
they just have to be able to wipe out a sizable chunk of a USA invasion force with half a dozen well placed nukes.
The 'problem' is that creating an actual nuke is incedibly difficult.
It it dosn't work then you have a "dirty bomb". It's even more difficult creating a working long range missile, yet the US is spending large sums of money on an anti-missile system.
Interesting. So if the soldiers aren't likely to fire on citizenry, why do so many people consider guns as necessary for keeping the govt in check?
Regular soldiers may or may not choose to open fire on their own people. However those who act as bodyguards for politians are unlikely to show such restraint.
It may be very hard to stop someone who wants to blow up a train and is convinced it is the will of their God to do so. Security should be increased and anything in the power of public utilities like train stations and airports should be done to prevent terrorism.
The obvious "anything" would be to close all stations and airports. Which would have more of a negative impact than a bomb. Whatever changes, if any, made need to have the minimum of impact on the function of the building.
moreover any army in a democratic country is made of citizen who, especially during the last century, tend to refuse to harm their peers.
This has happened even in non-democratic countries. e.g. China having to get soldiers from a different part of the country who would actually obey orders to attack protestors.
even a fully-equipped and trained soldier in a foreign country must, from time to time, go outside (quit his armored building or vehicle). therefore any hostile and armed citizen remains dangerous, and the super-duper-soldier is affraid. any modern army occupying a country (for example the Nazis during WW2) tries hard to confiscate all weapons as quickly as possible
which is kind of hard, considering that all sorts of tools make effective weapons.
Consider: What happens when a fully-equipped, trained, and organised army is deployed in response to a bunch of 'conscientious objectors' armed with pistols and rifles who have started assassinating members of state? I'll give you a clue - the phrase "fish in a barrel" will undergo a statistically unlikely surge in usage.
In practice it isn't so clear cut. The soldiers could simply choose to do nothing, as happened in Serbia.
Creating new laws, eroding rights is not going to make the world a safer place to live.
It may make it more dangerous. Laws, like other human actions, can have both intended and unintended consequences. There is also the problem that politicans don't tend to know much about security processes. Thus can spend vast sums of money replacing something moderatly secure with something completly insecure.
A war on terrorism is stupid, because it's a war on a tactic. you can't have a war against flanking, you can't have a war on spying, so why is there a war on terrorism?
A war which can't be won is a good thing if you are in the business of selling arms. "Terror" isn't going either win or surrender. (Nor is "drugs" for that matter).
It's a threat they threw at the american public to justify their current impearlist ideas and to throw off of the fact that the current administration is incompetent from beuracrat to president.
In the case of the likes of FEMA being simply incompetent might be an improvement.
The problem comes when the law makers don't really think through the consquences of the laws they write.
In some cases things are worst than that. e.g. laws written by interested parties being "rubber stamped" or legislators voting on laws they havn't even read.
The problem comes when the law makers don't really think through the consquences of the laws they write. The start with the assumption that criminals are dumb. Most of the time this is actually a fairly good assumption. However, it is a mistake to right off all criminals as being stupid.
Stupid criminals tend to be the easiest to catch and the least dangerous.
The people behind 9/11 were certainly not dumb and it's these type of people we are drafting laws to stop.
It's rather hard to draft laws (or even know what, if any, new laws might be needed) when you don't even know basic facts. e.g. who the people on the planes were, let alone who else was involved or who was responsible for planning and co-ordinating.
The first question a legislator should be asking themselves when faced with a security decision is "How could an attacker make this law useless". On the subject of wiretapping the first thing that springs to mind is encrypting the connection. How can you wiretap an encrypted connection? Of course, they could try and use RIPA to get the keys off you but RIPA is badly drafted (as I discuss here) and can be circumvented easily provided you use a signed Diffie-Helman key exchange to determine the session key.
That's a quite technical method of subversion. More "low tech" methods would include not using the phone, using codes, intermixing real and bogus communications. The concept of secret communication has been around almost as long as the concept of communication.
We need to get the government to recognize the human right of peoples in other countries to their own self-determination.
Problem is that the US Government has had problems in this respect for over a century. Quite often involving corporate lobbying. Most likely at least part of a "fix" would involve addressing the "corporate person" fiction.
This means among other things that we need to state a clear foreign policy in this regard and tell our allies to respect these rights.
Or even a consistent policy...
For example the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a major source of agitation. It is perfectly reasonable to issue Isreal an ultimatum:
For many people in the US Government issuing Israel with any kind of ultimatum would be unthinkable. The relationship between the US and Israel is completly strange, even to the point where the US Government will put Israeli interests ahead of those of US Citizens. It wouldn't be a bad thing, IMHO, for the US Government to make a priority of sorting out things in the US.
I expect things to get worse. It is looking very much like Iraq will be reformulated in the image of Iran. Heck, Iran (for good reason) is praising the new Iraq Constitution and stating that their model of government (Islamic Republic) is successul and spreading to Iraq. Will the US allow the Iranian concept of Democracy to be the dominant political force in the Middle East? Or will we stay there and foment further unrest by denying the Iraqis the right to decide for themselves what sort of government they want?
Thing is that Iran actually had a secular democratic government. Until the US (and UK) decided that some oil companies needed some "help" and installed a tyrant.
In reality, the only answer that is *right* is to allow the Iraqis to choose their own form of government even if that means the spread of the Iranian model.
Any truely democratic Iraqi government is unlikely to be very friendly towards the current US and UK governments. People, as a rule, greatly dislike having their country invaded.
In the US, such rights as you have that are enumerated by the man-written Constitution exist or defined/interpreted by the Supreme Court. Rights that are not enumerated/defined/interpreted don't exist, pure and simple.
What you are missing is that the US Constitution enumerates the rights which the Federal Government has.
freedom = 1/security. (Or, for those who like rearranging formula: security = 1/freedom)
In other words, these two quantities are inversly proportionaly to each other. The more security you have, the less freedom, and vise versa.
That appears to be a popular assumption but neither concept is a simple one. It's perfectly possible for a change to result in both less freedom and less security.
Right now, everyone is passing the buck up to the governement to "keep them safe". The government translates that into "more secure", which means "less freedom".
Quite a bit of the time they are trying to deal crooks too.
Everyone needs to take a long, hard look at exactly what they feel "safe" is.
Feeling safe and actually being safe are different things.
Safe from what? From who? For how long? By how much? How much of your freedom are you ABSOLUTELY willing to give up into order to keep yourself "safe" from something that MIGHT happen?
"Freedom" isn't a generic concept. It's more are you prepared to give up specific freedoms for someone to claim that you might be safer from something or other. N.B. what they do might make no difference at all to your safety. It might even make you less safe, either by increasing a different risk or even increasing the risk they claim to be reducing.
Slashdot Mirror
Huh? I wasn't claiming that if DVD's had poor copy protection, studios would sell VHS instead. I'm claiming they would abandon the market altogether.
Considering the size of this market they'd be foolish to act this way. Even without the very real posibility that any executive who even though this way would be booted out by the shareholders.
I can guarantee the movie industry would have released material on DVD even without those protections. Why? Because for every videotape produced, it costs a significant chunk of change and takes a significant amount of time in some giant room full of VCRs recording the content, probably at real-time speed. A DVD can be stamped in a fraction of a second, and costs a tiny fraction of what a videotape costs from a manufacturing perspective.
The production of a tape is likely to involve lots of people, whereas the production of a DVD is highly automated and includes quality control.
A DVD is also smaller, lighter, less fragile and less capable of being von-visibly damaged compared with a VHS cassette. Which means that they cost less to transport.
Good point about the technological use restrictions, but they may not even release DVD's if they had to release them in a format that allowed for easy pirating. So it's not all bad.
The only way to make DVDs difficult to pirate would be to ensure that factories producing them are always operating at capacity. Otherwise the easiest form of piracy is to pay for an increased production run.
It's almost amazing the movie industry gets away with this. They scream and throw tantrums over any overtures, any market that dares step foot in their domain. How? By threatening to sue almost anyone! How? By demanding the electronics industry put "safeguards" in dvd players (more on that in a second). How? By spending millions in D.C. demanding laws be passed to protect their eroding stranglehold on an evolving market place. How? By doing everything in their power to prevent evolution (read: progress).
It isn't even just technology which has to do with movies either. A few months ago they were moaning about people using general communications technology to review movies.
In the meantime, they approve pap for movie plots and ideas, pander to the idiotic mainstream thinking that's their meal ticket (it mostly is). But their offerings have become so predictable, so terrible, and so terribly produced and directed people are starting to feel ripped off for the small fortune they must spend for a night out of movies and popcorn.
Maybe this "idiotic mainstream" isn't as idiotic or large as the movie execs appear to think.
This is the same as a company printing a book that's in the public domain, yet still retaining copyright. For THAT PARTICULAR EDITION they hold the copyright.
Actually all they can claim copyright on is something they have added to the public domain text. e.g. preface, footnotes, new cover art, etc. To claim copyright on the whole thing is "copyright fraud".
Dude he's not talking about DMCA but copyright. You can't sell COPIES of copyrighted works on ebay without the copyright owner's permission.
This may be according to the rules with Ebay apply. But it isn't about copyright law. Strictly speaking you need the copyright holder's only if you are making and distributing copies of their work(s).
Let me know when 19 geriatric patients hijack a bunch of airplanes and kill thousands of people with them.
The problem with the 19 alleged hijackers is that several of them turned up alive and well. Thus the identities, even the number, of hijackers are very unclear. Even over 4 years later it's still unclear where these names of the accused came from came from...
As for the possibility of geriatric patients killing thousands of people this most commonly happens if said geriatric patient is a head of state.
Were told lots of things by the Government / Police, though they are very often untrue.
As well as many things which are unlikely to be true. Certainly this is the case with the bombings and the shooting which took place in July.
all of the "you can't give up freedom to gain security" idealists are just completely missing the whole point: terrorism is real,
The more pragmatic issue is that there's little evidence that this idea actually works in the first place. Even if things were as simple as the public transfering freedoms to the state made terrorim less likely, which self evidently is not the case. There is a very real possiblity that the "terrorists" would simply apply to join the police.
Just go to downtown London or any British city: cameras and microphones everywhere!! Do they prevent any terrorist attacks? OBVIOUSLY NOT!
Apparently they wen't even working at the time. Yet the response is that "more survailance is needed".
Any of us could come up with a plot and blow up some public building if we put our heads to it. What's a LOT more annoying than the remote chance of dying in a terrorist attack is the increasing curbing of civil liberties for the sake of 'public security'.
Which may result in exchange of a risk of being blown up with a risk of being shot. As was demonstrated in London on the 22nd of July.
Note that "curbing of civil liberties" might be better put as "giving increasing privileges and powers to the state". Which, as recently demonstarted in the US, can equate to giving these privileges and powers to incompetent morons who tend to hinder rather than help.
I very highly doubt that. Copyright law allows for a balance of how works are distributed. Copyright law by default is very restrictive. The whole point of copyright licenses is to loosen those restrictions.
Copyright says that you need the permission of the copyright holder in order to make and distribute copies.
The authors of GPL'd code have essentially said "I own the copyright to this code. I own the exclusive right to this code. HOWEVER, I will allow you to do a, b, c, d and e as long as you abide by f, g, h and i.
Having a published licence is an advantage to third parties, since they know what terms and conditions the copyright holder will grant permission to copy and distribute. Rather than having to negotiate permission with the copyright holder. It is also an advantage to the copyright holders, since they do not have to negotiate terms and conditions with every third party who might want to make and distribute copies of their work(s).
Copyright law gives copyright holders a great deal of choice as to terms and conditions. (Including using an already existing set of terms and conditions, such as the GPL.) About the only exception would be if they required some illegal action as a condition.
To say that if a license is found to be invalid that the code it covers would go into the public domain is ridiculous. You have obviously been listening to SCO's and Microsoft's lawyers a little too much.
In some cases SCO's argument appears to be that simply by their disagreeing with a licence the work is in the Public Domain.
Or your code is declared Public Domain and everyone gets to use it with no license.
This was one of SCO's arguments. Which dosn't actually appear to have any standing in either statute or case law anywhere on the planet. If a court were to rule a distribution licence "invalid" then the standard provisions of copyright apply. Thus it would be pointless for any party to even bring a suit to attempt to do this, they'd have nothing to gain.
Really, it could go either way. Since the intent of the GPL is to allow people to freely use your code, then a judge might see it as identical to PD.
Whilst a judge may have the power to reassign copyrights. Between parties in a lawsuit they most likely do not have the power to destroy them.
If I want to distribute an author's book I need to ask permission.
Actually you only need ask permission if you are copying the book and distributing the copies. You don't need the permission of the author to run either a bookshop or a library.
I think its more about Iran and the like having a deterrent that would prevent invasion. Think about it. Iraq's conventional defenses were no match for the USA and Iran's wouldn't be either. They don't have the military muscle to stop the USA from pounding them into the ground and sending a few hundred thousand troops into their country.
There arn't many countries which could opose such an invasion force. Probably all of those which could do so with conventional weapons have nuclear weapons anyway.
But if they had a handful of nukes up their sleeve, well that changes everything. They don't have to be able to hit the USA with them,
It Probably isn't too hard to smuggle lots of things into the US.
they just have to be able to wipe out a sizable chunk of a USA invasion force with half a dozen well placed nukes.
The only "delivery system" needed is a truck.
The 'problem' is that creating an actual nuke is incedibly difficult.
It it dosn't work then you have a "dirty bomb".
It's even more difficult creating a working long range missile, yet the US is spending large sums of money on an anti-missile system.
Interesting. So if the soldiers aren't likely to fire on citizenry, why do so many people consider guns as necessary for keeping the govt in check?
Regular soldiers may or may not choose to open fire on their own people. However those who act as bodyguards for politians are unlikely to show such restraint.
It may be very hard to stop someone who wants to blow up a train and is convinced it is the will of their God to do so. Security should be increased and anything in the power of public utilities like train stations and airports should be done to prevent terrorism.
The obvious "anything" would be to close all stations and airports. Which would have more of a negative impact than a bomb. Whatever changes, if any, made need to have the minimum of impact on the function of the building.
moreover any army in a democratic country is made of citizen who, especially during the last century, tend to refuse to harm their peers.
This has happened even in non-democratic countries. e.g. China having to get soldiers from a different part of the country who would actually obey orders to attack protestors.
even a fully-equipped and trained soldier in a foreign country must, from time to time, go outside (quit his armored building or vehicle). therefore any hostile and armed citizen remains dangerous, and the super-duper-soldier is affraid. any modern army occupying a country (for example the Nazis during WW2) tries hard to confiscate all weapons as quickly as possible
which is kind of hard, considering that all sorts of tools make effective weapons.
Consider: What happens when a fully-equipped, trained, and organised army is deployed in response to a bunch of 'conscientious objectors' armed with pistols and rifles who have started assassinating members of state? I'll give you a clue - the phrase "fish in a barrel" will undergo a statistically unlikely surge in usage.
In practice it isn't so clear cut. The soldiers could simply choose to do nothing, as happened in Serbia.
Creating new laws, eroding rights is not going to make the world a safer place to live.
It may make it more dangerous. Laws, like other human actions, can have both intended and unintended consequences. There is also the problem that politicans don't tend to know much about security processes. Thus can spend vast sums of money replacing something moderatly secure with something completly insecure.
A war on terrorism is stupid, because it's a war on a tactic. you can't have a war against flanking, you can't have a war on spying, so why is there a war on terrorism?
A war which can't be won is a good thing if you are in the business of selling arms. "Terror" isn't going either win or surrender. (Nor is "drugs" for that matter).
It's a threat they threw at the american public to justify their current impearlist ideas and to throw off of the fact that the current administration is incompetent from beuracrat to president.
In the case of the likes of FEMA being simply incompetent might be an improvement.
The problem comes when the law makers don't really think through the consquences of the laws they write.
In some cases things are worst than that. e.g. laws written by interested parties being "rubber stamped" or legislators voting on laws they havn't even read.
The problem comes when the law makers don't really think through the consquences of the laws they write. The start with the assumption that criminals are dumb. Most of the time this is actually a fairly good assumption. However, it is a mistake to right off all criminals as being stupid.
Stupid criminals tend to be the easiest to catch and the least dangerous.
The people behind 9/11 were certainly not dumb and it's these type of people we are drafting laws to stop.
It's rather hard to draft laws (or even know what, if any, new laws might be needed) when you don't even know basic facts. e.g. who the people on the planes were, let alone who else was involved or who was responsible for planning and co-ordinating.
The first question a legislator should be asking themselves when faced with a security decision is "How could an attacker make this law useless". On the subject of wiretapping the first thing that springs to mind is encrypting the connection. How can you wiretap an encrypted connection? Of course, they could try and use RIPA to get the keys off you but RIPA is badly drafted (as I discuss here) and can be circumvented easily provided you use a signed Diffie-Helman key exchange to determine the session key.
That's a quite technical method of subversion. More "low tech" methods would include not using the phone, using codes, intermixing real and bogus communications. The concept of secret communication has been around almost as long as the concept of communication.
We need to get the government to recognize the human right of peoples in other countries to their own self-determination.
Problem is that the US Government has had problems in this respect for over a century. Quite often involving corporate lobbying. Most likely at least part of a "fix" would involve addressing the "corporate person" fiction.
This means among other things that we need to state a clear foreign policy in this regard and tell our allies to respect these rights.
Or even a consistent policy...
For example the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a major source of agitation. It is perfectly reasonable to issue Isreal an ultimatum:
For many people in the US Government issuing Israel with any kind of ultimatum would be unthinkable. The relationship between the US and Israel is completly strange, even to the point where the US Government will put Israeli interests ahead of those of US Citizens.
It wouldn't be a bad thing, IMHO, for the US Government to make a priority of sorting out things in the US.
I expect things to get worse. It is looking very much like Iraq will be reformulated in the image of Iran. Heck, Iran (for good reason) is praising the new Iraq Constitution and stating that their model of government (Islamic Republic) is successul and spreading to Iraq. Will the US allow the Iranian concept of Democracy to be the dominant political force in the Middle East? Or will we stay there and foment further unrest by denying the Iraqis the right to decide for themselves what sort of government they want?
Thing is that Iran actually had a secular democratic government. Until the US (and UK) decided that some oil companies needed some "help" and installed a tyrant.
In reality, the only answer that is *right* is to allow the Iraqis to choose their own form of government even if that means the spread of the Iranian model.
Any truely democratic Iraqi government is unlikely to be very friendly towards the current US and UK governments. People, as a rule, greatly dislike having their country invaded.
In the US, such rights as you have that are enumerated by the man-written Constitution exist or defined/interpreted by the Supreme Court. Rights that are not enumerated/defined/interpreted don't exist, pure and simple.
What you are missing is that the US Constitution enumerates the rights which the Federal Government has.
freedom = 1/security. (Or, for those who like rearranging formula: security = 1/freedom)
In other words, these two quantities are inversly proportionaly to each other. The more security you have, the less freedom, and vise versa.
That appears to be a popular assumption but neither concept is a simple one. It's perfectly possible for a change to result in both less freedom and less security.
Right now, everyone is passing the buck up to the governement to "keep them safe". The government translates that into "more secure", which means "less freedom".
Quite a bit of the time they are trying to deal crooks too.
Everyone needs to take a long, hard look at exactly what they feel "safe" is.
Feeling safe and actually being safe are different things.
Safe from what? From who? For how long? By how much? How much of your freedom are you ABSOLUTELY willing to give up into order to keep yourself "safe" from something that MIGHT happen?
"Freedom" isn't a generic concept. It's more are you prepared to give up specific freedoms for someone to claim that you might be safer from something or other. N.B. what they do might make no difference at all to your safety. It might even make you less safe, either by increasing a different risk or even increasing the risk they claim to be reducing.