Verizon is still providing unlimited data, as much as the user can download.
What a bunch of bullshit. When you think of "unlimited," you don't think that they'll throttle you so hard your connection is useless anyway. This is just corporate lying.
But your insinuation that I don't want bad breath so I can be presentable to others was wrong. I don't want bad breath because I don't like the smell or taste. The end.
I would think you'd want to maintain basic hygiene for other reasons. I don't care about being "presentable" (which is subjective), but then again, I don't hang around with superficial drones.
No, they mistakenly believe they have nothing to hide. But they are not the ones who decide; the government does. If you do something the government doesn't like, and it notices, you may find yourself in a very unfortunate situation.
Banning drugs is 100% unjust. Same as government censorship. The idea that we should bust users merely because it might lead to the supplier is absurd; I'd rather let criminals get away than have that. Find another way to go after the actual rapists.
Your message on Slashdot qualifies as free speech. Your message is data sent over the Internet, much like the data transmitted between people when copyrighted material is being copied. It is communication. It is free speech. And the first amendment makes everything clear when it says "Congress shall pass no law [...]". Since the first amendment is an amendment to the constitution, the earlier copyright clause was overridden. So, censorship like this is unconstitutional. Courts don't see it this way, but that's because they just modify the constitution with invisible ink rather than reading it.
If you think that free speech is only about talking to other people, then you're wrong.
No, I just acknowledge reality. Are you saying that I am wrong that censorship is a futile endeavor? If so, history has proven you wrong many times over. Trying to keep everyone from having some pictures *is never going to work*, so if the victims are hurt by the thought that some people are masturbating to the content somewhere, then they're going to be constantly miserable, because it's never going to go away.
Or would you rather deny reality and pretend not only that your precious government censorship works, but that it's morally just because some people are 'emotionally harmed' by the existence of the content? Emotions should rarely come into any sort of ban, especially not one that involves censorship, since it's 100% subjective and anything could be banned using that logic.
Your last sentence is disturbing and warrants an investigation all by itself or are you just stupid?
Again, I'm anti-government censorship. I do not like the idea of trading fundamental liberties (free speech) for security. Maybe you do, and you people are to thank for the TSA, the NSA's surveillance, etc.
Things exist and have value even if there is no coherent scientific basis for them.
I'll give you that they exist, but value is subjective.
There is much more to life than what you consider
Look, no one's going to forbid you from taking art classes. If you like that sort of thing, then take them, but don't force them on others. Why is this so hard to understand?
and you're quite wrong to think that they quantify in any kind of constant fashion.
They can be measured far more easily, and have practical value to a grand majority of the planet.
Also, China's little schemes aren't as effective as some believe. You're also ignorant of the technological aspects of Tor. I think it's time for you to move to North Korea.
You are confusing freedom with getting away from accountability.
No, I mean what I said. Unconstitutional spying is wrong. I'm not confusing anything with anything.
The fact that Tor could be abused means absolutely nothing. I would rather 'criminals' get away en masse and have freedom and privacy than surrender freedom and privacy. That's what it means to live in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.'
Tor being monitored by law enforcement is a very good thing in general.
Most of their methods are unconstitutional, so it can't be a good thing. Fuck you. You obviously don't understand the importance of privacy and ignore the hundreds of millions of innocents throughout history that were abused and/or murdered by governments. You think the 'democratic' governments are full of perfect angels, and you couldn't be more wrong.
That simply enables them to do their job.
You know what else would do that? Allowing law enforcement to break into any houses they wanted without a warrant. We place restrictions upon our governments because they can't be trusted with much of anything, and that's how it should be. The prime concern is not and never should be to make the government's law enforcement job easier.
Now think about it, do you as a citizen of a free country think that a) pedofiles, hitmen, large drugs distributors and all credit card thieves should be totally safe doing their business right under noses of law enforcement who you're paying your taxpayer's money while they can't do shit with that encrypted traffic;
I'm not the least bit scared of terrorists, pedophiles, hitmen, or any other bogeymen you mindless drones can think of. I'm more afraid of losing freedom and privacy because cowards like you insist that everyone surrender it in the name of security.
Seriously, are you parodying someone? Because this is Poe's law material right here. It looks like your post was constructed just to make me think you're utterly devoid of intelligence, what with the mentions of authoritarian nonsense "accountability" in the context of Tor, how Tor is so evil because Bad Guys use it, and how we should all be afraid of the bogeymen. You're like the average mindless drone personified.
So the constant knowledge that out there people are fapping over the most devastating and painful part of your life is victimless.
Yes, people reacting to an image/video in a way you don't like is victimless. Get used to it. Censorship is futile, as someone will probably always have the content.
Reminds me of voodoo. Someone masturbating to a video/image will 'hurt' the person in it.
Not necessarily, but if nearly everyone I try to communicate with is a normal person who doesn't think about these things, then most of them will be unencrypted.
An active effort must be made for someone to read it. It's easy to just read a post card while picking it up. The expectation is that they should not be reading it.
If we had an electronic envelope (using encryption) for messages, then google's spying capability would be greatly/slightly lowered. The encryption should be reliable and be provided by a third party, not google.
Yes. And then you have to get everyone else on board, or you're screwed.
Slashdot Mirror
Verizon is still providing unlimited data, as much as the user can download.
What a bunch of bullshit. When you think of "unlimited," you don't think that they'll throttle you so hard your connection is useless anyway. This is just corporate lying.
but the problem here isn't with what the FBI is doing, but rather the fact that they can do it.
The problem is both.
Except this time actual pedophiles were caught, their sites brought down and houses searched.
The ends justify the means, huh? One of you people always pop out. I'd rather have freedom and privacy than your 'safety.'
There isn't some big system that is supposed to "save the children" that actually doesn't help the children at all.
Yes, there is. Going after people who look at porn is just a waste of time and saves no one.
But your insinuation that I don't want bad breath so I can be presentable to others was wrong. I don't want bad breath because I don't like the smell or taste. The end.
So, if your intimate partner doesn't like it when your breath smells bad, that makes them a "superficial drone?"
Not liking a smell is a practical matter. We're speaking of the superficial, here. Pay attention.
I would think you'd want to maintain basic hygiene for other reasons. I don't care about being "presentable" (which is subjective), but then again, I don't hang around with superficial drones.
2. They have nothing to hide.
No, they mistakenly believe they have nothing to hide. But they are not the ones who decide; the government does. If you do something the government doesn't like, and it notices, you may find yourself in a very unfortunate situation.
Banning drugs is 100% unjust. Same as government censorship. The idea that we should bust users merely because it might lead to the supplier is absurd; I'd rather let criminals get away than have that. Find another way to go after the actual rapists.
And communicating a secret is also definitely speech. How could you even say that it's not?
Your message on Slashdot qualifies as free speech. Your message is data sent over the Internet, much like the data transmitted between people when copyrighted material is being copied. It is communication. It is free speech. And the first amendment makes everything clear when it says "Congress shall pass no law [...]". Since the first amendment is an amendment to the constitution, the earlier copyright clause was overridden. So, censorship like this is unconstitutional. Courts don't see it this way, but that's because they just modify the constitution with invisible ink rather than reading it.
If you think that free speech is only about talking to other people, then you're wrong.
No, I just acknowledge reality. Are you saying that I am wrong that censorship is a futile endeavor? If so, history has proven you wrong many times over. Trying to keep everyone from having some pictures *is never going to work*, so if the victims are hurt by the thought that some people are masturbating to the content somewhere, then they're going to be constantly miserable, because it's never going to go away.
Or would you rather deny reality and pretend not only that your precious government censorship works, but that it's morally just because some people are 'emotionally harmed' by the existence of the content? Emotions should rarely come into any sort of ban, especially not one that involves censorship, since it's 100% subjective and anything could be banned using that logic.
Your last sentence is disturbing and warrants an investigation all by itself or are you just stupid?
Again, I'm anti-government censorship. I do not like the idea of trading fundamental liberties (free speech) for security. Maybe you do, and you people are to thank for the TSA, the NSA's surveillance, etc.
Things exist and have value even if there is no coherent scientific basis for them.
I'll give you that they exist, but value is subjective.
There is much more to life than what you consider
Look, no one's going to forbid you from taking art classes. If you like that sort of thing, then take them, but don't force them on others. Why is this so hard to understand?
and you're quite wrong to think that they quantify in any kind of constant fashion.
They can be measured far more easily, and have practical value to a grand majority of the planet.
It's being copied, not stolen.
That is not theft, and they don't have the right to a secret. Free speech comes first, so if someone finds out their secret, too bad for them.
Explicit? Really??
Yes. They have to put effort into these automated tools, after all.
This stuff happens to thousands of gmail users
Yes. I know all of that.
Also, the property is free to throw out any people screaming nonsense, so this is a solved problem anyway.
The Constitution allows you to own it and use it
The first amendment makes no exceptions for speech. The end.
should they just ignore such a call-out and be burned alive if it is not a hoax?
Trampling over everyone else does nothing. Acting rationally would be preferable.
However, this is 100% irrelevant. Accident or not, any damage they cause is on them.
if you chose to use your "rights" to cause a net harm to the society, then you can simply find another society to live in.
Again, the only harm here is caused by the people doing the trampling.
Less effort is required by some admin at google.
Nope. He has to make an explicit effort to do that, unlike a mailman picking up mail just happening to read it.
You're underestimating the number of customers who want secure email.
You're underestimating the ignorance and apathy of the general public.
Also, China's little schemes aren't as effective as some believe. You're also ignorant of the technological aspects of Tor. I think it's time for you to move to North Korea.
You are confusing freedom with getting away from accountability.
No, I mean what I said. Unconstitutional spying is wrong. I'm not confusing anything with anything.
The fact that Tor could be abused means absolutely nothing. I would rather 'criminals' get away en masse and have freedom and privacy than surrender freedom and privacy. That's what it means to live in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.'
Tor being monitored by law enforcement is a very good thing in general.
Most of their methods are unconstitutional, so it can't be a good thing. Fuck you. You obviously don't understand the importance of privacy and ignore the hundreds of millions of innocents throughout history that were abused and/or murdered by governments. You think the 'democratic' governments are full of perfect angels, and you couldn't be more wrong.
That simply enables them to do their job.
You know what else would do that? Allowing law enforcement to break into any houses they wanted without a warrant. We place restrictions upon our governments because they can't be trusted with much of anything, and that's how it should be. The prime concern is not and never should be to make the government's law enforcement job easier.
Now think about it, do you as a citizen of a free country think that a) pedofiles, hitmen, large drugs distributors and all credit card thieves should be totally safe doing their business right under noses of law enforcement who you're paying your taxpayer's money while they can't do shit with that encrypted traffic;
I'm not the least bit scared of terrorists, pedophiles, hitmen, or any other bogeymen you mindless drones can think of. I'm more afraid of losing freedom and privacy because cowards like you insist that everyone surrender it in the name of security.
Seriously, are you parodying someone? Because this is Poe's law material right here. It looks like your post was constructed just to make me think you're utterly devoid of intelligence, what with the mentions of authoritarian nonsense "accountability" in the context of Tor, how Tor is so evil because Bad Guys use it, and how we should all be afraid of the bogeymen. You're like the average mindless drone personified.
So the constant knowledge that out there people are fapping over the most devastating and painful part of your life is victimless.
Yes, people reacting to an image/video in a way you don't like is victimless. Get used to it. Censorship is futile, as someone will probably always have the content.
Reminds me of voodoo. Someone masturbating to a video/image will 'hurt' the person in it.
So some active effort is expended here as well.
Some.
Not necessarily true.
Not necessarily, but if nearly everyone I try to communicate with is a normal person who doesn't think about these things, then most of them will be unencrypted.
Yes, it is.
An active effort must be made for someone to read it. It's easy to just read a post card while picking it up. The expectation is that they should not be reading it.
If we had an electronic envelope (using encryption) for messages, then google's spying capability would be greatly/slightly lowered. The encryption should be reliable and be provided by a third party, not google.
Yes. And then you have to get everyone else on board, or you're screwed.
Please have a look on how panic works. It's not anything like you think it is.
Accident or not, unconscious or not, any damage you cause is your own doing.
So, people knowingly paying to watch children being raped have no responsibility whatsoever.
Yep. It's on the rapist.
You're a twisted fuck.
I think going after people viewing/buying content like that and trying to censor it is twisted.