Whether or not it should be constitutional is another matter entirely.
Just because the courts have yet to rule more of it unconstitutional, that doesn't mean there aren't more parts that are unconstitutional. A lot of it is, in fact, unconstitutional, regardless of what courts say.
P.S.: You need to examine that "ballot box" argument a bit more. in a system with plurality rules voting, then two parties will become so dominant that there is little chance of a third party being successful.
"little chance"? So there is a chance. People need to vote for third parties, regardless of how unlikely it is they'll win. Even if they don't win, the two main parties have been known to adopt third party policies when enough people vote for them.
Regardless, the answer is never "Give up and vote for evil scumbags." That just makes you complicit in the crimes against the American people, as well as a brainless moron.
Imagine having to come up with an immutable law that will still have to be applicable after another two hundred years of scientific and technological progress and you too may understand why constitutions need to be amended from time to time.
But they're not trying to amend it at all; they're just ignoring it. And if they did try to amend it, everyone should oppose them simply because mass surveillance is wrong.
And by the same logic the government can't stop you from driving your car on the public roads or from selling narcotics on the corner.
Unless you can find some part of the constitution that says they can, they can't. If you don't like it, amend the constitution. Or just use the commerce clause in ways it was never intended to be used again, if you happen to be an asshole.
You apparently want to fuck off in the street and expect everyone else to turn away or go to jail.
Nope. I expect that people not spy on our communications. Being right next to someone and speaking or spotting someone in a public place is 100% different from the government using surveillance technology to spy on your communications, whether encrypted or not. Only authoritarian scumbags would suggest otherwise. I seriously have no idea why anyone would think it's a good idea to let the government spy on your communications. I mean, I realize some people are mentally retarded, but not to that extent... right?
I am hostile to idiots like you who won't take it upon yourself to understand the law and protect yourself under it.
I understand the law, and I understand that the government often breaks it, while the courts just let them do as they please.
Well, "we the people" have not said that in the Constitution or anywhere else that I know of.
Ignorant fool. Did you not see the word "if"? Even assuming (and I don't believe this) what they're doing is legal now, that could be changed if we wanted it to change.
If you care about your privacy, then take the responsibility upon yourself to protect it and stop pointing the finger and an institution that is apparently acting legally.
"apparently acting legally"? Only in the eyes of authoritarian scumbags. But of course, the government has the capability to easily break into my house and install surveillance equipment everywhere. Therefore, it's okay, and it's all my fault for not making my house impenetrable. But, wait! The courts have arbitrarily decided that this case is different, so it's absolutely different!
The government can only do what the constitution says it can. The constitution is not a list of rights that citizens have, but a list of powers that the government has. Therefore, there is a constitutional right to privacy unless explicitly stated otherwise.
This is particularly true where your communications are broadcast in the clear for the world to receive.
Oh, fuck off. I damn well expect the government to not listen to my communications. And say, "Well, it would be pretty easy to listen to your conversation!" doesn't mean that it's moral to do so. My conversation is between me and the person I'm talking to. It's not public just because it's transmitted in the clear, and people like you with a such a privacy-hostile mentality are the cause of things such as the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, and warrantless wiretapping in general.
If a policeman wants to stand on the corner listening to public conversations, he gets to.
Not if We The People say that that is not okay and punish the government if it does such things. We can place any limitation upon the government that we want.
Your first point is that it is worse if the car's location is not private than if "everything that happens in and outside your car" is not private. That's just obvious rubbish.
Whereas I was saying that while people may be able to see you, you still have privacy even on a public road.
First, this is a strawman - there is a difference between vehicle-to-vehicle communication and centralised tracking.
There is no straw man here. Other comments have already pointed out that a lot of the information it's supposed to send is, in fact, identifying. It would not be at all surprising to see the government working with corporations to collect as much data about people as possible, as they've already done a number of times. There are tracking concerns as long as it's sending data around.
Second, it's not an argument, it's just a soundbite.
Much like your drivel. I see no reason to trust the government; history simply does not provide one. Just about every single time we let the government play with our information, we find out it's using it to violate people's privacy and abuse them.
You aren't engaging with the issue: how much erosion of your privacy would be a reasonable price to pay to make safe, driverless cars a reality?
None. In order to get me to accept driverless cars, the software must be free software, the hardware must be open, there must be no backdoors, and they must be able to drive without sending information to some server somewhere. In other words, no tracking garbage.
I don't see why that's the most likely explanation, and also don't see why that would justify this disgusting treatment even if it were true. I really see no reason to give authority figures the benefit of the doubt; it's wasted on them.
A lot of parents are irrational morons with no respect for the constitution or individual liberties. Nevermind that this country was founded on a distrust of government or that it's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Then again, I don't think this applies just to parents.
As far as I know, it's just something used for emphasis, and isn't being put forth as an actual argument. "childish" and "nonsensical" are completely subjective descriptions in this case. Period.
that you can't necessarily blame the police or the school.
Sure I can. Screwing up people's lives is immoral, and they definitely can be blamed for taking actions which do exactly that, regardless of any societal pressure being put on them.
The FCC has no inherent right to regulate the internet whatsoever.
Governments have powers, not rights, so this sentence is correct. Whether or not they have the legitimate authority to regulate the Internet is determined by our laws, which can change.
This is someone walking down the street and writing down every license plate they come across.
Again, nonsense. License plate readers are 100% different from simply writing down license plates. Here are some fundamental differences: 1) They're more accurate. 2) They can be nearly omnipresent; just install them everywhere. 3) They cost less than paying lots of people to write down license plates. 4) They can all send the information to a central source far more easily than a human could.
So yeah, you're an imbecile.
Some privacy exists even in public places. People need privacy from mass government surveillance, and bootlickers such as yourself need to stop pretending that this is the same as someone just writing down license plates. All you're doing is making it easier for the government to selectively oppress its targets, which can range anywhere from civil rights leaders (such as when they spied on MLK) to people who make jokes about the government to people who criticize it.
What the police do with those license plates is the police's business
No, We The People pay them and give them their powers in the first place. The government does not have rights; it has powers, and those powers can be revoked.
You may get your panties in a wad over government abuses, but just remember that distrusting everything the government says and does without actually thinking it through just makes you an ignorant, spittle-spewing conspiracy nut.
Straw man. I distrust the government with this data because of the hundreds of millions of cases of government abuses of power throughout history. The idea that the government can be trusted with mass surveillance technologically is an idea that can only be put forth by ignorant morons and those who want to oppress others with the information to begin with. I've thought it through, and I've come to the conclusion (much like with the NSA's mass surveillance) that this violates privacy rights and is too easily abused; that is not debatable.
But elementary school math? I'm just NOT seeing the issue you have
You'll find that I'm not a fan of one-size-fits-all solutions like that. Look, if it works for you, go ahead. Then again, this sort of thing is exactly why I encourage homeschooling; no one-size-fits-all nonsense forced on your by others. See, I've had this discussion so many times and heard all the arguments that it's just pointless. People just assume I'm saying you should never memorize anything ever, but that is not the case.
Since no-fly lists subvert due process, they cannot be allowed, regardless of their efficacy.
Some complain our government doesn't do enough to protect us.
We're supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Free and brave people wouldn't sacrifice the constitution and fundamental liberties for safety.
Others see the boogeyman behind everything the government does.
With a ridiculous number of years of historical evidence to back them up. People with power will abuse it. People with a massive amount of power that they're allowed to use in secret will abuse it with an even greater frequency. That's a simple historical fact.
I meant to imply that their reasons for opposing it would be specious.
How so? They'd probably oppose it on constitutional grounds and on the fact that it subverts due process. Or do I not understand how libertarians supposedly think...?
We have probably passed the point where for most applications more speed, memory, cores, etc does anything for users
Awful and mediocre programmers (the majority) are trying their hardest to make their software as inefficient as possible so as to completely or mostly eliminate any advantages we get from the latest and greatest technologies.
Well, some corporations did try to stand up to the government, so that doesn't apply to everyone. But still, the point wasn't that it's surprising, but that all this is unconstitutional.
Further in my experience, the kids that have trouble with high school math are frequently hobbled because they can't manipulate basic arithmetic efficiently
In my experience, it's because high school math is taught equally terribly. No... more terribly, because the subject matter is more complex. Useless busywork and rote memorization abound.
And either way 15 minutes of homework turns into 2 hour marathons
The assignments are just awful. Doing 10 "Find the missing side of the triangle" problems does not lead to understanding. It's just an exercise in rote memorization, and so are most word problems. 99% of these problems result because our education system is simply terrible all around, and the homework assignments are abysmal too.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether or not it should be constitutional is another matter entirely.
Just because the courts have yet to rule more of it unconstitutional, that doesn't mean there aren't more parts that are unconstitutional. A lot of it is, in fact, unconstitutional, regardless of what courts say.
P.S.: You need to examine that "ballot box" argument a bit more. in a system with plurality rules voting, then two parties will become so dominant that there is little chance of a third party being successful.
"little chance"? So there is a chance. People need to vote for third parties, regardless of how unlikely it is they'll win. Even if they don't win, the two main parties have been known to adopt third party policies when enough people vote for them.
Regardless, the answer is never "Give up and vote for evil scumbags." That just makes you complicit in the crimes against the American people, as well as a brainless moron.
I'm shocked that the government interprets the constitution in the way that's most convenient for them. Shocked!
Imagine having to come up with an immutable law that will still have to be applicable after another two hundred years of scientific and technological progress and you too may understand why constitutions need to be amended from time to time.
But they're not trying to amend it at all; they're just ignoring it. And if they did try to amend it, everyone should oppose them simply because mass surveillance is wrong.
And by the same logic the government can't stop you from driving your car on the public roads or from selling narcotics on the corner.
Unless you can find some part of the constitution that says they can, they can't. If you don't like it, amend the constitution. Or just use the commerce clause in ways it was never intended to be used again, if you happen to be an asshole.
You apparently want to fuck off in the street and expect everyone else to turn away or go to jail.
Nope. I expect that people not spy on our communications. Being right next to someone and speaking or spotting someone in a public place is 100% different from the government using surveillance technology to spy on your communications, whether encrypted or not. Only authoritarian scumbags would suggest otherwise. I seriously have no idea why anyone would think it's a good idea to let the government spy on your communications. I mean, I realize some people are mentally retarded, but not to that extent... right?
I am hostile to idiots like you who won't take it upon yourself to understand the law and protect yourself under it.
I understand the law, and I understand that the government often breaks it, while the courts just let them do as they please.
Well, "we the people" have not said that in the Constitution or anywhere else that I know of.
Ignorant fool. Did you not see the word "if"? Even assuming (and I don't believe this) what they're doing is legal now, that could be changed if we wanted it to change.
If you care about your privacy, then take the responsibility upon yourself to protect it and stop pointing the finger and an institution that is apparently acting legally.
"apparently acting legally"? Only in the eyes of authoritarian scumbags. But of course, the government has the capability to easily break into my house and install surveillance equipment everywhere. Therefore, it's okay, and it's all my fault for not making my house impenetrable. But, wait! The courts have arbitrarily decided that this case is different, so it's absolutely different!
There is no U.S. constitutional right to privacy.
The government can only do what the constitution says it can. The constitution is not a list of rights that citizens have, but a list of powers that the government has. Therefore, there is a constitutional right to privacy unless explicitly stated otherwise.
This is particularly true where your communications are broadcast in the clear for the world to receive.
Oh, fuck off. I damn well expect the government to not listen to my communications. And say, "Well, it would be pretty easy to listen to your conversation!" doesn't mean that it's moral to do so. My conversation is between me and the person I'm talking to. It's not public just because it's transmitted in the clear, and people like you with a such a privacy-hostile mentality are the cause of things such as the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, and warrantless wiretapping in general.
If a policeman wants to stand on the corner listening to public conversations, he gets to.
Not if We The People say that that is not okay and punish the government if it does such things. We can place any limitation upon the government that we want.
Your first point is that it is worse if the car's location is not private than if "everything that happens in and outside your car" is not private. That's just obvious rubbish.
Whereas I was saying that while people may be able to see you, you still have privacy even on a public road.
First, this is a strawman - there is a difference between vehicle-to-vehicle communication and centralised tracking.
There is no straw man here. Other comments have already pointed out that a lot of the information it's supposed to send is, in fact, identifying. It would not be at all surprising to see the government working with corporations to collect as much data about people as possible, as they've already done a number of times. There are tracking concerns as long as it's sending data around.
Second, it's not an argument, it's just a soundbite.
Much like your drivel. I see no reason to trust the government; history simply does not provide one. Just about every single time we let the government play with our information, we find out it's using it to violate people's privacy and abuse them.
You aren't engaging with the issue: how much erosion of your privacy would be a reasonable price to pay to make safe, driverless cars a reality?
None. In order to get me to accept driverless cars, the software must be free software, the hardware must be open, there must be no backdoors, and they must be able to drive without sending information to some server somewhere. In other words, no tracking garbage.
The most likely explanation
I don't see why that's the most likely explanation, and also don't see why that would justify this disgusting treatment even if it were true. I really see no reason to give authority figures the benefit of the doubt; it's wasted on them.
A lot of parents are irrational morons with no respect for the constitution or individual liberties. Nevermind that this country was founded on a distrust of government or that it's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Then again, I don't think this applies just to parents.
As far as I know, it's just something used for emphasis, and isn't being put forth as an actual argument. "childish" and "nonsensical" are completely subjective descriptions in this case. Period.
that you can't necessarily blame the police or the school.
Sure I can. Screwing up people's lives is immoral, and they definitely can be blamed for taking actions which do exactly that, regardless of any societal pressure being put on them.
You're obscuring the issue.
Nope. I just stated facts. I actually agree with what you said, but I do think that people need to stop referring to government powers as "rights."
The FCC has no inherent right to regulate the internet whatsoever.
Governments have powers, not rights, so this sentence is correct. Whether or not they have the legitimate authority to regulate the Internet is determined by our laws, which can change.
Look women wear revealing clothes to attract male attention.
Never heard of lesbians? Never heard of asexuals? Never heard of people who just like certain aesthetics?
This is someone walking down the street and writing down every license plate they come across.
Again, nonsense. License plate readers are 100% different from simply writing down license plates. Here are some fundamental differences:
1) They're more accurate.
2) They can be nearly omnipresent; just install them everywhere.
3) They cost less than paying lots of people to write down license plates.
4) They can all send the information to a central source far more easily than a human could.
So yeah, you're an imbecile.
Some privacy exists even in public places. People need privacy from mass government surveillance, and bootlickers such as yourself need to stop pretending that this is the same as someone just writing down license plates. All you're doing is making it easier for the government to selectively oppress its targets, which can range anywhere from civil rights leaders (such as when they spied on MLK) to people who make jokes about the government to people who criticize it.
What the police do with those license plates is the police's business
No, We The People pay them and give them their powers in the first place. The government does not have rights; it has powers, and those powers can be revoked.
You may get your panties in a wad over government abuses, but just remember that distrusting everything the government says and does without actually thinking it through just makes you an ignorant, spittle-spewing conspiracy nut.
Straw man. I distrust the government with this data because of the hundreds of millions of cases of government abuses of power throughout history. The idea that the government can be trusted with mass surveillance technologically is an idea that can only be put forth by ignorant morons and those who want to oppress others with the information to begin with. I've thought it through, and I've come to the conclusion (much like with the NSA's mass surveillance) that this violates privacy rights and is too easily abused; that is not debatable.
But elementary school math? I'm just NOT seeing the issue you have
You'll find that I'm not a fan of one-size-fits-all solutions like that. Look, if it works for you, go ahead. Then again, this sort of thing is exactly why I encourage homeschooling; no one-size-fits-all nonsense forced on your by others. See, I've had this discussion so many times and heard all the arguments that it's just pointless. People just assume I'm saying you should never memorize anything ever, but that is not the case.
Or somehow abuse the commerce clause in ways that were never intended... again.
Since no-fly lists subvert due process, they cannot be allowed, regardless of their efficacy.
Some complain our government doesn't do enough to protect us.
We're supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Free and brave people wouldn't sacrifice the constitution and fundamental liberties for safety.
Others see the boogeyman behind everything the government does.
With a ridiculous number of years of historical evidence to back them up. People with power will abuse it. People with a massive amount of power that they're allowed to use in secret will abuse it with an even greater frequency. That's a simple historical fact.
I meant to imply that their reasons for opposing it would be specious.
How so? They'd probably oppose it on constitutional grounds and on the fact that it subverts due process. Or do I not understand how libertarians supposedly think...?
The G. W. Bush administration lied about WMD [wikipedia.org] in Iraq, justifying the invasion of Iraq
That's just it, though: Iraq was a sovereign country. If they had WMDs, that still wouldn't be a justification for an invasion.
We have probably passed the point where for most applications more speed, memory, cores, etc does anything for users
Awful and mediocre programmers (the majority) are trying their hardest to make their software as inefficient as possible so as to completely or mostly eliminate any advantages we get from the latest and greatest technologies.
Well, some corporations did try to stand up to the government, so that doesn't apply to everyone. But still, the point wasn't that it's surprising, but that all this is unconstitutional.
Further in my experience, the kids that have trouble with high school math are frequently hobbled because they can't manipulate basic arithmetic efficiently
In my experience, it's because high school math is taught equally terribly. No... more terribly, because the subject matter is more complex. Useless busywork and rote memorization abound.
And either way 15 minutes of homework turns into 2 hour marathons
The assignments are just awful. Doing 10 "Find the missing side of the triangle" problems does not lead to understanding. It's just an exercise in rote memorization, and so are most word problems. 99% of these problems result because our education system is simply terrible all around, and the homework assignments are abysmal too.
Whatever.
So now your argument isn't that we need to rote memorize the entire multiplication tables
Nope.
You want to graduate and forget everything you knew about history, arithmetic, physics, and chemistry that's fine.
All of which is taught exceedingly poorly, so everyone who didn't make an attempt by themselves to understand the hows and whys will forget it anyway.
But as I said, I'm done with you. You lack the imagination to perceive how others might be different. It's sad, really.
The problem, of course, is that corporations mostly just do what the government wants.