He then took no action whatsoever to ensure that he wasn't assisting criminal activity.
I wasn't aware that this should be a problem in any truly free country. I also wasn't aware that you can just magically detect if they're breaking the law without invasive monitoring, or even with invasive monitoring. You authoritarians are truly pieces of trash who despise the very essence of freedom.
You're a worthless authoritarian scumbag. The mere fact that abuse is possible or even common doesn't mean a technology should be suppressed. Services that allow you to gain some degree of anonymity with no questions asked are very important, regardless of how they might be misused. I'd rather allow many 'Bad People' to go free than arrest someone who provides such a service. Anyone who says otherwise should, again, move to North Korea.
The judge made the assumption that anyone who wants to be untraceable to law enforcement must be a criminal, which is actually not such a huge stretch.
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is an argument that completely ignores the millions of government abuses throughout history and pretends that the government is full of perfect angels who could never do any wrong or make any mistakes. And I assure you that desiring privacy--a basic human need--does not mean one is doing anything wrong.
can you *prove* I'm not just going to change my mind and just grill up some really good burgers instead?
I suppose not. You're off the hook, hopefully.
4) Even regarding things in the past, there's generally no such thing as proof of who committed a crime. If I watch a guy shoot somebody, make a citizen's arrest until the cops get there, and they take him away... can I truly confirm that the person sitting handcuffed across the courtroom from me two weeks later is the same person I watched kill another person?
It always baffles me when I use a word like "proof" and people like you feel the need to be 'smart' and go off ranting about how you can't truly prove much of anything, as if I'm not already aware of that. Substitute the lone word "proof" for "beyond a reasonable doubt" or something. Was that so hard?
Those freedom-hating scumbags include most of the contributors to the text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
You do realize, of course, that there was slavery in those days? The founders had some good ideas, but I don't look to them as some sort of freedom gods.
I do not care. List off as many judges as you want, and I'll say they're just ignoring what the constitution says.
(Incidentally, as a textual literalist, Black also believed there was no right to privacy in the Constitution, because the text doesn't explicitly state one).
Privacy exists because of the limitations we place on the government. It exists in practice, and the constitution need not explicitly state it exists. Remember, the constitution only allows the government to do what it says it can. It doesn't work like, "It doesn't say people have a right to X, so they don't." It works like, "It doesn't say the government can do X, so they can't." The latter is what gives us privacy in practice.
If your world view is "there's everyone who thinks like me, and scumbags who hate freedom" I'm not sure there exists a prescription to eliminate that particular kind of myopia.
I'm not sure of that either. The problem is, people only pretend to want to live in 'the land of the free.'
Wow! You are *multiple* kinds of moron! Very impressive. Please don't breed.
Funny, I think the same about you. Your post doesn't convince me of anything.
1) You can't prove anybody is "about" to do something of their own volition. By your (idiotic) reasoning, I should be permitted to walk down the street with a loaded pistol in each hand, pointing one at anybody who gets within twenty feet of me or makes eye contact. After all, you can't prove I'm going to shoot anybody who doesn't attack me first!
No, by my logic, there's no proof or reason to think that it was anything beyond fantasy. I know you hate it, but you have to prove things beyond a shadow of a doubt in order to convict someone. I do not think that happened here, and neither does this judge, apparently.
But you seem more focused on arguing semantics than you do about the issue at hand. Begone, insect.
And, yes, making a request to your computer in your ownership+control is the same as making a request to you.
Besides what others said: No, because a person isn't instantly informed that such a thing took place. Under certain circumstances, they may never even find out.
Unless you can prove he actually was planning to do so, it doesn't matter. He could've been looking for people to fantasize about, rather than planning on actually doing it.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says they can't do this so should they be free to do this?
Yes. That's how the constitution works.
What about my right to practice my own religion (or no religion) without being harassed?
I wasn't aware that such a right even existed (except if you mean harassed by the *government*), but that would all depend on what the constitution says at the time. It could be amended if you don't like it.
Making everyone's freedoms unrestrained would just lead to chaos.
Writing an income statement is procedural, and requires juggling a lot of information.
I think innovating in some difficult field is relevant to intelligence, not juggling a lot of information. Being able to do so might be useful, but I don't think it means that someone is not an idiot.
People always seem to think their skills are simple, and other people are dumb for not getting it.
I always thought they thought of it as difficult, and something most people don't have the aptitude to comprehend. Well, I've seen both.
In the US, the government can only do what the constitution says it can do. Therefore, if it doesn't say a certain right has limits, then it doesn't. If it doesn't give the government a certain power, and the courts say it does, and everyone ignores this blatant violation of the constitution, that *still* doesn't mean the government has the authority to do so. We see the government ignore the constitution all the time, but that doesn't make it right.
This doesn't mean that all restrictions are unreasonable, just that we've got to rein in the government's overreach until the restrictions are reasonable again.
All unconstitutional restrictions are unreasonable.
I think your English didn't match what you were trying to say, but either way I did not say that, I just was responding to your defense of saying the there was no room for debate by your quoting a line from the National Anthem.
Most of these 'people' supporting government violations of our rights also pretend to want to live in a free country, making them hypocrites. That is the point.
I just wanted to explain that rights have limits, such as threatening to kill your spouse/neighbor/teacher/President isn't protected speech under the First Amendment
The government only has as much (legitimate) power as the constitution grants it. The first amendment lists no exceptions, so the problem isn't with the first amendment, but with judges who modify the constitution with invisible ink when it is convenient to do so. Furthermore, the constitution certainly does not grant the government the power to spy on everyone's communications, safety or no.
Don't like the constitution? Move to amend it. The end.
Your freedom to swing your fist wildly about ends at my face.
People's freedom to not have their constitutional rights violated is in no way equivalent to them punching your face. Try to keep it relevant, yes?
While I do not approve of the intrusive spying the NSA does there is a good reason to use laws to limit the constitution.
The constitution in the US is the highest law of the land. You cannot use normal laws to limit the constitution. In order to change the constitution, you must amend the constitution, which is a far more difficult process.
that doesn't mean you should be allowed to walk into a bank with a few friends, all with masks on and AK-47's in your hands.
Simply put, if the constitution does not give the government the power to stop people from doing that, then it does not have any legitimate authority to do so.
You do realize that there is no firm consensus of what "free" and "brave" mean in that statement
Ah, so it means giving up our freedoms for safety, then. Yes, that's what free and brave mean.
Some people have a different view of the meaning and how we achieve them, and you feel people with a different view from you "who says otherwise should move to North Korea". Nice argument style.
You're defending people who want to discard our fundamental freedoms and give the government all kinds of unchecked power for 'safety.' You cannot defend them. There are no excuses.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see where RMS is crazy at all.
Why are there so many authoritarian morons defending this garbage? Am I even on Slashdot, a site supposedly for nerds, anymore?
He then took no action whatsoever to ensure that he wasn't assisting criminal activity.
I wasn't aware that this should be a problem in any truly free country. I also wasn't aware that you can just magically detect if they're breaking the law without invasive monitoring, or even with invasive monitoring. You authoritarians are truly pieces of trash who despise the very essence of freedom.
Whether or not it should actually constitute a crime is a larger a more complex question
It's not complex at all. The answer is simply, "No."
You're a worthless authoritarian scumbag. The mere fact that abuse is possible or even common doesn't mean a technology should be suppressed. Services that allow you to gain some degree of anonymity with no questions asked are very important, regardless of how they might be misused. I'd rather allow many 'Bad People' to go free than arrest someone who provides such a service. Anyone who says otherwise should, again, move to North Korea.
Then those states are anti-freedom.
The judge made the assumption that anyone who wants to be untraceable to law enforcement must be a criminal, which is actually not such a huge stretch.
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is an argument that completely ignores the millions of government abuses throughout history and pretends that the government is full of perfect angels who could never do any wrong or make any mistakes. And I assure you that desiring privacy--a basic human need--does not mean one is doing anything wrong.
So saying "Aha! A right was violated, abolish the entire agency!!" is not the answer.
At this point, it definitely is.
(a more strident First Amendment supporter can't be found)
You are wrong.
can you *prove* I'm not just going to change my mind and just grill up some really good burgers instead?
I suppose not. You're off the hook, hopefully.
4) Even regarding things in the past, there's generally no such thing as proof of who committed a crime. If I watch a guy shoot somebody, make a citizen's arrest until the cops get there, and they take him away... can I truly confirm that the person sitting handcuffed across the courtroom from me two weeks later is the same person I watched kill another person?
It always baffles me when I use a word like "proof" and people like you feel the need to be 'smart' and go off ranting about how you can't truly prove much of anything, as if I'm not already aware of that. Substitute the lone word "proof" for "beyond a reasonable doubt" or something. Was that so hard?
True proof is impossible.
While we're fucking around, can you prove that?
I don't think so. Again, prove he was about to take action and you're good. I don't care if you think something is unlikely.
Then it would probably a good idea to make sure *no one* goes to jail for such things.
Those freedom-hating scumbags include most of the contributors to the text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
You do realize, of course, that there was slavery in those days? The founders had some good ideas, but I don't look to them as some sort of freedom gods.
I do not care. List off as many judges as you want, and I'll say they're just ignoring what the constitution says.
(Incidentally, as a textual literalist, Black also believed there was no right to privacy in the Constitution, because the text doesn't explicitly state one).
Privacy exists because of the limitations we place on the government. It exists in practice, and the constitution need not explicitly state it exists. Remember, the constitution only allows the government to do what it says it can. It doesn't work like, "It doesn't say people have a right to X, so they don't." It works like, "It doesn't say the government can do X, so they can't." The latter is what gives us privacy in practice.
If your world view is "there's everyone who thinks like me, and scumbags who hate freedom" I'm not sure there exists a prescription to eliminate that particular kind of myopia.
I'm not sure of that either. The problem is, people only pretend to want to live in 'the land of the free.'
Wow! You are *multiple* kinds of moron! Very impressive. Please don't breed.
Funny, I think the same about you. Your post doesn't convince me of anything.
1) You can't prove anybody is "about" to do something of their own volition. By your (idiotic) reasoning, I should be permitted to walk down the street with a loaded pistol in each hand, pointing one at anybody who gets within twenty feet of me or makes eye contact. After all, you can't prove I'm going to shoot anybody who doesn't attack me first!
No, by my logic, there's no proof or reason to think that it was anything beyond fantasy. I know you hate it, but you have to prove things beyond a shadow of a doubt in order to convict someone. I do not think that happened here, and neither does this judge, apparently.
But you seem more focused on arguing semantics than you do about the issue at hand. Begone, insect.
Well, it shouldn't. In any truly free country, the potential for abuse shouldn't mean whatever it is should get banned.
Only if you can prove he really was about to do something.
And, yes, making a request to your computer in your ownership+control is the same as making a request to you.
Besides what others said: No, because a person isn't instantly informed that such a thing took place. Under certain circumstances, they may never even find out.
Unless you can prove he actually was planning to do so, it doesn't matter. He could've been looking for people to fantasize about, rather than planning on actually doing it.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says they can't do this so should they be free to do this?
Yes. That's how the constitution works.
What about my right to practice my own religion (or no religion) without being harassed?
I wasn't aware that such a right even existed (except if you mean harassed by the *government*), but that would all depend on what the constitution says at the time. It could be amended if you don't like it.
Making everyone's freedoms unrestrained would just lead to chaos.
So amend the constitution, fool.
Then anything could be a sport. And it probably could be, because these terms are ambiguous as hell.
Writing an income statement is procedural, and requires juggling a lot of information.
I think innovating in some difficult field is relevant to intelligence, not juggling a lot of information. Being able to do so might be useful, but I don't think it means that someone is not an idiot.
People always seem to think their skills are simple, and other people are dumb for not getting it.
I always thought they thought of it as difficult, and something most people don't have the aptitude to comprehend. Well, I've seen both.
In the US, the government can only do what the constitution says it can do. Therefore, if it doesn't say a certain right has limits, then it doesn't. If it doesn't give the government a certain power, and the courts say it does, and everyone ignores this blatant violation of the constitution, that *still* doesn't mean the government has the authority to do so. We see the government ignore the constitution all the time, but that doesn't make it right.
This doesn't mean that all restrictions are unreasonable, just that we've got to rein in the government's overreach until the restrictions are reasonable again.
All unconstitutional restrictions are unreasonable.
I think your English didn't match what you were trying to say, but either way I did not say that, I just was responding to your defense of saying the there was no room for debate by your quoting a line from the National Anthem.
Most of these 'people' supporting government violations of our rights also pretend to want to live in a free country, making them hypocrites. That is the point.
I just wanted to explain that rights have limits, such as threatening to kill your spouse/neighbor/teacher/President isn't protected speech under the First Amendment
The government only has as much (legitimate) power as the constitution grants it. The first amendment lists no exceptions, so the problem isn't with the first amendment, but with judges who modify the constitution with invisible ink when it is convenient to do so. Furthermore, the constitution certainly does not grant the government the power to spy on everyone's communications, safety or no.
Don't like the constitution? Move to amend it. The end.
Is that what you believe?
Until the constitution is amended, yes.
Your freedom to swing your fist wildly about ends at my face.
People's freedom to not have their constitutional rights violated is in no way equivalent to them punching your face. Try to keep it relevant, yes?
While I do not approve of the intrusive spying the NSA does there is a good reason to use laws to limit the constitution.
The constitution in the US is the highest law of the land. You cannot use normal laws to limit the constitution. In order to change the constitution, you must amend the constitution, which is a far more difficult process.
that doesn't mean you should be allowed to walk into a bank with a few friends, all with masks on and AK-47's in your hands.
Simply put, if the constitution does not give the government the power to stop people from doing that, then it does not have any legitimate authority to do so.
You do realize that there is no firm consensus of what "free" and "brave" mean in that statement
Ah, so it means giving up our freedoms for safety, then. Yes, that's what free and brave mean.
Some people have a different view of the meaning and how we achieve them, and you feel people with a different view from you "who says otherwise should move to North Korea". Nice argument style.
You're defending people who want to discard our fundamental freedoms and give the government all kinds of unchecked power for 'safety.' You cannot defend them. There are no excuses.