If I go on my favorite message board and make derogatory comments at the owner and then my comments are deleted it's censorship? Really?
Yes. Your problem seems to be that you think all censorship must necessarily be bad or done by the government, but that is not true and has never been true. The idea that censorship can be used by entities other than the government is to well established in our ever-evolving language by now that you should probably just give it up.
The claim is the latter ratio is much higher than the former.
I can't even count the number of male characters that are constantly slaughtered in video games. Whoever would make such an assertion is an idiot. Most of the random thugs in video games are male.
That just means that men are regarded as having no value (not even sexual value) whatsoever to these developers. Almost no time needs to be spent on their appearances or their backgrounds; they're just objects to be discarded once their purposes are fulfilled.
So will any other sane, rational, non sociopath. Deal with it.
That's just silly. Just because someone does something in a video game that would be considered bad in real life doesn't mean they're a sociopath, irrational, or not sane. I hope this is just a misunderstanding on my part.
This particular discussion is not about the executive order itself, but more about the collection of citizens' information without a warrant, which absolutely is unconstitutional.
2. A lot (not all) of this would not be a problem if people would realize the simple fact that nothing on the Internet is truly private.
Why not apply the same thing to your house, your phone calls, and every other thing that the government wants to spy on? Just because your privacy *can* be violated, that doesn't mean it *should* happen. You can have a relatively private conversation on the Internet, and especially if you use encryption.
This would still be a problem if people believed that there is no privacy on the Internet. The government should not be collecting all this information to begin with.
The "spirit" of the Constitution doesn't mean jack shit legally.
You're an idiot. The first amendment states, "Congress shall pass no law[...]" So, then, why can libel and slander be made illegal? Because the constitution is not interpreted literally.
The government can't do an end-run around the Constitution if the Constitution doesn't even apply in the first place.
It absolutely does apply. Again, the idea that the government can just get information from corporations that it couldn't other get in a constitutional way is absolutely absurd.
The government does have the authority to conduct such surveillance. They've been doing it for a long time.
Unconstitutionally, at that.
If you don't like it, then don't store your data on someone else's servers and give them ownership over it.
No. How about if *you* don't like the fact that the government doesn't have such powers, *you* can move to North Korea.
Again, the *spirit* of the constitution is what matters. This is just a lazy end-run around the constitution that idiots like you like to pretend is valid. Anyone with a brain can see it for what it is, but sadly, people without brains--like yourself--aren't capable of understanding logic. The constitution is often not interpreted literally. The idea that the government can just get all your information from corporations and that's 100% constitutional is just absurd.
Look, I get it; you don't want to live in a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." You want to live in a police state hellhole. North Korea would be perfect for you.
Yes you should have to impeach someone to get them to follow the Constitution.
They swear to follow the constitution, so they should do that of their own volition.
Metadata isn't considered to be a part of your "effects" since it is third party information so it has nothing to do with the constitution. Collection of third party information without a warrant has been around since forever.
Bull-fucking-shit, government bootlicker. The government has absolutely no constitutional authority to conduct such surveillance on citizens without a warrant. If this sort of surveillance had been used against the founders, they would have taken steps to prevent the newly-formed government from doing the same thing, just like they did on a number of others issues that they faced at the time, and since the spirit of the constitution is what matters, that's really what's relevant.
The idea that the government can get around the constitution by letting corporations collect the data first and then getting the data from them is absolutely ludicrous. And a lot of this spying is just sapping up information as it travels to its destination. Anyone who says this is even remotely constitution is an authoritarian of the highest caliber and despises freedom.
He also ramped up the war on drugs, something that so many freedom-hating scumbags in our government have done. So he wasn't a good president, and he definitely didn't want "small government."
But what does that have to do with him being to blame for this specific issue?
I don't know what that means. If you need to calculate 7 x 7 how is not being able to recall it, not a significant drawback.
Because not everyone needs to do that as much as others. Because not everyone who does it 'manually' does it at the same speed. Because some people use tools.
Your problem is that you lack the imagination to see how others may be different from you.
Because there is no method of arithmetic that doesn't require memorization of at least a significant subset of basic single digit math facts.
You can just memorize a few and then observe simple, basic patterns.
Different sure. But your claim amounts to them being magical.
Nope. That's a straw man and/or just a complete misunderstanding of the situation. I get it. Something works for you. That doesn't mean it'll work equally well for everyone else, or that they need it. And because of that, I'm done with you. Work on your analytical abilities a bit and stop pretending everyone is black and white.
Single digit addition and single digit multiplication are pretty much a prerequisite for everything else; not having them on instant recall is a pretty major handicap.
I've found otherwise. Why do you think that what works for you must work for everyone else, or what doesn't work for you must not work for everyone else?
I'm going to say something truly outrageous: Different individuals are different.
Yeah, sue random people who make death threats. Before long, the courts will be full of people who made fake death threats over the Internet and beyond.
People (red blooded Americans, no less) are gobbling up cars with OnStar and similar systems that have clearly advertised features of vehicle tracking AND remote control
Well, I'm not.
If the only meaningful way someone can think to express freedom is having an untrackable car, then I take pity on them.
Good thing that's not my position, Mr. Straw Man. Not allowing the government to track you is but one way to preserve your privacy and freedom; one way out of many.
First, it's pretty obvious that jeffmeden was talking about privacy in terms of the car's location, not "everything that happens in and outside your car".
I see. That's even *worse*. The government absolutely does not have permission to track you.
Second, everything you do involves a tradeoff of privacy, safety, freedom and a dozen other things.
Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. Going out voluntarily != giving the government permission to track you.
The idea that you can be some sort of privacy and freedom absolutist who never trades either of them for anything is just nonsense.
You're spewing forth straw men. The main point was that the government should not be tracking people and violating their right to privacy. You have privacy and constitutional rights even on public roads.
1) Officer discretion is gone. Jay walking? Have a tiny amount of pot? Prosecute everything since it's on camera and cop might conceivably get into trouble if he lets it go.
That depends on how the footage is handled. Maybe it's only kept for a while, and then deleted if it isn't requested in any case.
2) Potential for privacy invasion. The cameras don't just record the cops actions, they record everything in their line of sight. 800,000 cops in the US = 800,000 cameras on the street and inside people's houses with data stored on government servers.
The difference is that there are much fewer cameras than there would be if the cameras were installed everywhere without requiring a human owner. With this, the cameras are always around the cop, so they don't see much more than the cop would, and mass surveillance is limited. 800,000 cameras in a country as big in the US is absolutely nothing.
The same problems simply don't exist.
3) Slippery slope. If you can put camera on cops, why not put them on other government employees? How about post office workers - mail theft is a serious crime. How about private sector employees.
Because office workers don't have massive power over others like cops do.
4) More criminals let out on a technicality. This footage is a gift to the Saul Goodman type lawyers who can now pore over every single thing an officer does or says.
This is a good thing. Cops shouldn't get away with abuses, technicality or no. They have to follow procedure, and that's precisely what our system should ensure happens.
5) Cops are people too. How would you like wearing a camera on your job?
I'd have to suck it up if I had the power over others that cops do.
but privacy, as you note, is pretty close to the bottom since your car location is most certainly other people's business as soon as you take it on a public road.
This is absolutely false. People can look at your car, yes, but that doesn't mean everything that happens in and outside your car isn't private. I'd rather have freedom and privacy than safety, and you'd think everyone in a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave" would agree with me. I don't want the government having control over my vehicle, and all software on the vehicle should be 100% open source, and all hardware should be open as well. No black boxes, and no proprietary garbage. There's just too much room for abuse, and in a free country, that's all it should take to oppose it.
Public road != you forfeit all your rights. This is a common misunderstanding.
Slashdot Mirror
Death threats are a serious matter
Death threats with zero proof that they're credible are a different matter, though. Especially when they're on the Internet.
If I go on my favorite message board and make derogatory comments at the owner and then my comments are deleted it's censorship? Really?
Yes. Your problem seems to be that you think all censorship must necessarily be bad or done by the government, but that is not true and has never been true. The idea that censorship can be used by entities other than the government is to well established in our ever-evolving language by now that you should probably just give it up.
The claim is the latter ratio is much higher than the former.
I can't even count the number of male characters that are constantly slaughtered in video games. Whoever would make such an assertion is an idiot. Most of the random thugs in video games are male.
That just means that men are regarded as having no value (not even sexual value) whatsoever to these developers. Almost no time needs to be spent on their appearances or their backgrounds; they're just objects to be discarded once their purposes are fulfilled.
In a well-ordered world she would be getting a PhD for work of this depth and quality.
She'd be getting a fucking PhD for these opinion pieces? Is that all a PhD is to you?
So will any other sane, rational, non sociopath. Deal with it.
That's just silly. Just because someone does something in a video game that would be considered bad in real life doesn't mean they're a sociopath, irrational, or not sane. I hope this is just a misunderstanding on my part.
is insulting to the gender
Nothing can be insulting to a gender. Individuals are insulted.
If you spend time reading your game "friends" saying these nasty things, you're a neckbeard, not a man.
No True Scotsman is so popular.
And wait... what is a "man"? Do you think gender roles are good? Or were you making some point?
Did you even read the executive order?
This particular discussion is not about the executive order itself, but more about the collection of citizens' information without a warrant, which absolutely is unconstitutional.
I'm sure the Executive branch will claim that this is all for the national defense
Which is irrelevant to whether or not it's constitutional, anyway.
2. A lot (not all) of this would not be a problem if people would realize the simple fact that nothing on the Internet is truly private.
Why not apply the same thing to your house, your phone calls, and every other thing that the government wants to spy on? Just because your privacy *can* be violated, that doesn't mean it *should* happen. You can have a relatively private conversation on the Internet, and especially if you use encryption.
This would still be a problem if people believed that there is no privacy on the Internet. The government should not be collecting all this information to begin with.
The bill of rights was also applied to the states via the 14th amendment.
And if you really think the constitution is interpreted literally by the courts, you need to educate yourself.
The "spirit" of the Constitution doesn't mean jack shit legally.
You're an idiot. The first amendment states, "Congress shall pass no law[...]" So, then, why can libel and slander be made illegal? Because the constitution is not interpreted literally.
The government can't do an end-run around the Constitution if the Constitution doesn't even apply in the first place.
It absolutely does apply. Again, the idea that the government can just get information from corporations that it couldn't other get in a constitutional way is absolutely absurd.
The government does have the authority to conduct such surveillance. They've been doing it for a long time.
Unconstitutionally, at that.
If you don't like it, then don't store your data on someone else's servers and give them ownership over it.
No. How about if *you* don't like the fact that the government doesn't have such powers, *you* can move to North Korea.
Again, the *spirit* of the constitution is what matters. This is just a lazy end-run around the constitution that idiots like you like to pretend is valid. Anyone with a brain can see it for what it is, but sadly, people without brains--like yourself--aren't capable of understanding logic. The constitution is often not interpreted literally. The idea that the government can just get all your information from corporations and that's 100% constitutional is just absurd.
Look, I get it; you don't want to live in a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." You want to live in a police state hellhole. North Korea would be perfect for you.
Violate their own constitution. But what they wrote was still there, regardless.
Yes you should have to impeach someone to get them to follow the Constitution.
They swear to follow the constitution, so they should do that of their own volition.
Metadata isn't considered to be a part of your "effects" since it is third party information so it has nothing to do with the constitution. Collection of third party information without a warrant has been around since forever.
Bull-fucking-shit, government bootlicker. The government has absolutely no constitutional authority to conduct such surveillance on citizens without a warrant. If this sort of surveillance had been used against the founders, they would have taken steps to prevent the newly-formed government from doing the same thing, just like they did on a number of others issues that they faced at the time, and since the spirit of the constitution is what matters, that's really what's relevant.
The idea that the government can get around the constitution by letting corporations collect the data first and then getting the data from them is absolutely ludicrous. And a lot of this spying is just sapping up information as it travels to its destination. Anyone who says this is even remotely constitution is an authoritarian of the highest caliber and despises freedom.
He also ramped up the war on drugs, something that so many freedom-hating scumbags in our government have done. So he wasn't a good president, and he definitely didn't want "small government."
But what does that have to do with him being to blame for this specific issue?
I don't know what that means. If you need to calculate 7 x 7 how is not being able to recall it, not a significant drawback.
Because not everyone needs to do that as much as others. Because not everyone who does it 'manually' does it at the same speed. Because some people use tools.
Your problem is that you lack the imagination to see how others may be different from you.
Because there is no method of arithmetic that doesn't require memorization of at least a significant subset of basic single digit math facts.
You can just memorize a few and then observe simple, basic patterns.
Different sure. But your claim amounts to them being magical.
Nope. That's a straw man and/or just a complete misunderstanding of the situation. I get it. Something works for you. That doesn't mean it'll work equally well for everyone else, or that they need it. And because of that, I'm done with you. Work on your analytical abilities a bit and stop pretending everyone is black and white.
Single digit addition and single digit multiplication are pretty much a prerequisite for everything else; not having them on instant recall is a pretty major handicap.
I've found otherwise. Why do you think that what works for you must work for everyone else, or what doesn't work for you must not work for everyone else?
I'm going to say something truly outrageous: Different individuals are different.
Yeah, sue random people who make death threats. Before long, the courts will be full of people who made fake death threats over the Internet and beyond.
He's obviously just trolling.
Disagreeing != trolling.
People (red blooded Americans, no less) are gobbling up cars with OnStar and similar systems that have clearly advertised features of vehicle tracking AND remote control
Well, I'm not.
If the only meaningful way someone can think to express freedom is having an untrackable car, then I take pity on them.
Good thing that's not my position, Mr. Straw Man. Not allowing the government to track you is but one way to preserve your privacy and freedom; one way out of many.
First, it's pretty obvious that jeffmeden was talking about privacy in terms of the car's location, not "everything that happens in and outside your car".
I see. That's even *worse*. The government absolutely does not have permission to track you.
Second, everything you do involves a tradeoff of privacy, safety, freedom and a dozen other things.
Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. Going out voluntarily != giving the government permission to track you.
The idea that you can be some sort of privacy and freedom absolutist who never trades either of them for anything is just nonsense.
You're spewing forth straw men. The main point was that the government should not be tracking people and violating their right to privacy. You have privacy and constitutional rights even on public roads.
1) Officer discretion is gone. Jay walking? Have a tiny amount of pot? Prosecute everything since it's on camera and cop might conceivably get into trouble if he lets it go.
That depends on how the footage is handled. Maybe it's only kept for a while, and then deleted if it isn't requested in any case.
2) Potential for privacy invasion. The cameras don't just record the cops actions, they record everything in their line of sight. 800,000 cops in the US = 800,000 cameras on the street and inside people's houses with data stored on government servers.
The difference is that there are much fewer cameras than there would be if the cameras were installed everywhere without requiring a human owner. With this, the cameras are always around the cop, so they don't see much more than the cop would, and mass surveillance is limited. 800,000 cameras in a country as big in the US is absolutely nothing.
The same problems simply don't exist.
3) Slippery slope. If you can put camera on cops, why not put them on other government employees? How about post office workers - mail theft is a serious crime. How about private sector employees.
Because office workers don't have massive power over others like cops do.
4) More criminals let out on a technicality. This footage is a gift to the Saul Goodman type lawyers who can now pore over every single thing an officer does or says.
This is a good thing. Cops shouldn't get away with abuses, technicality or no. They have to follow procedure, and that's precisely what our system should ensure happens.
5) Cops are people too. How would you like wearing a camera on your job?
I'd have to suck it up if I had the power over others that cops do.
but privacy, as you note, is pretty close to the bottom since your car location is most certainly other people's business as soon as you take it on a public road.
This is absolutely false. People can look at your car, yes, but that doesn't mean everything that happens in and outside your car isn't private. I'd rather have freedom and privacy than safety, and you'd think everyone in a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave" would agree with me. I don't want the government having control over my vehicle, and all software on the vehicle should be 100% open source, and all hardware should be open as well. No black boxes, and no proprietary garbage. There's just too much room for abuse, and in a free country, that's all it should take to oppose it.
Public road != you forfeit all your rights. This is a common misunderstanding.