Maybe we didn't do anything on this level, but we sure as hell did violate a number of people's rights when they were suspected of being communists. Plus, the NSA has been doing evil shit for decades, such as ECHOLON. We criticized our enemies, but the government liked to violate people's rights in secret.
What he doesn't seem to get (though I bet he actually does), and where some of the arguments here are missing the mark, is that if someone else holds a key that will grant access, even if the holder is the government, that provides a path for a bad guy to abuse the ability to access. The bad guy(s) can be hackers/attackers from down the street, on the other side of the planet, employees of our government, etc.
And the government can be the bad guy. It often is, in fact.
And the issue regarding the 4th amendment is somewhat misleading because he is saying a REASONABLE search is what is being prevented, namely one where conditions like a valid warrant exist or an imminent physical threat is present (I am not going to argue the problem here about anything can be claimed as an imminent threat).
I think this is a good thing, as it causes them to focus on the most important cases and protects you from rubberstamped warrants.
So the question is does the Constitution allow a person to use technical means to prevent the government access to data even when a valid warrant is presented?
The constitution is a whitelist of things the government can do, not a blacklist of things it can't. So of course it does.
In an ideal world, individuals would use encryption that would protect their privacy from the run-of-the-mill attacker but not from the government.
Governments abused countless innocents throughout history. Trusting the government is foolish; one should always be cautious of what they do or say, but not mindlessly so.
In this case, it's not an issue of a lack of trust; this man's position is fundamentally ridiculous and privacy would be important even in an "ideal world" where the government was full of perfect beings.
I can comfortably agree with the principle in its entirety and disagree quite strongly with you on what is an unreasonable search.
On many issues, it would be quite foolish to do so. See: NSA surveillance, TSA. Those are not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination; only those who hate liberty claim otherwise.
Or try voting for third party candidates, who have yet to prove themselves to be evil (since they haven't won). At the very least, it'll send a message to The One Party.
Republicans believe in states rights, which means minimal federal government.
Really? So why support the TSA, the Patriot Act, the NSA's mass surveillance, and a number of other unconstitutional things? I'm aware that the Democrats (the other side of The One Party) do the same crap, but why do "small government" people seem to want the exact opposite of what they claim? Oh, they're politicians. That makes sense.
It would help his position if the FBI were to go after Federal agencies (e.g. the NSA) for their illegal violation of citizen's privacy rights, and make it perfectly clear that the only searches of cell phones the FBI is interested in would be supported by probable cause and warrants from legitimate courts.
That wouldn't help his case, because his position is fundamentally ridiculous. Even if the FBI of today did that, it would eventually become corrupt (it is corrupt now, but that's just if it weren't). Furthermore, I think it's a good thing to make their jobs difficult, warrant or no warrant. Then they have to be more select about who they oppress.
Are you kidding me? I see countless 'normal' people who have no issues whatsoever with the government violating our constitutional rights in such ways.
And no, voting for one of two assholes who voted for it does not mean it was sanctioned by the people.
Maybe not outright approval, but at the very least, it does mean you're an apathetic fool. Voting for evil scumbags means you're an idiot.
In addition to the other responses, have you never heard of the spirit of the constitution? There is more to the constitution than just interpreting everything 100% literally; you can take intent into account.
I don't know how much the amounts were exactly, but kitches are extremely expensive.
Maybe so, but you shouldn't buy useless crap you can't afford. It amazes me to watch middle class families complaining about having no money, and then I see people with families making ~$15,000 a year who still have lots of stuff. If you can't survive on a middle class income and still have lots of money left over, chances are you're wasting your money. Remodeling is usually a waste.
They spent most of the money remodeling their kitchen, within about a year of getting the money.
Over $25,000 to remodel a kitchen. This sort of shit is why people complain about having no money; they waste it. Here we have plenty of people living on less than $20,000 a year (while still having things like computers, cell phones, and cable), and yet there are people who can waste more than that in such a short amount of time, and usually on junk.
Whereas people who value their money and invest wisely can retire at the age of 30, these people will be working their whole lives.
I don't need to edit it. You are lying about my position, which I've stated multiple times. Either you have severe reading comprehension problems, or you're attacking an imaginary position out of convenience.
Well, it's your damn contract - if you want all those other things, hey, feel free to put this into your marriage contract: "This marriage does not include any consent to sexual congress between the parties".
Again, you're missing the actual point. It seems that some terms in a contract being unenforceable is an alien concept to you.
That would lead to me "buying" stuff from your business but never sending the money after I receive the goods.
You're straw manning me. You have no actual idea what it is that I'm saying.
All I pointed out is that anyone who breaches a contract should face penalties.
Haha, okay. I'll keep that in mind next time someone signs themselves into slavery. Oh, that's not enforceable.
Your side, wanting total anarchy where any party to a deal can simply and without penalty fail to fulfill their side of the deal, is never going to win this one.
Except, that doesn't describe my side at all. My side just says that certain things are none of the government's business to enforce. Like signing people into slavery, or controlling others' sexuality.
I'm pretty sure the majority of married folks agree with exactly what the parent poster stated...married changes it to implied consent unless rejected.
And most people believe in magical sky daddies. Who cares what most people believe? If they want "implied consent," then that can work that out between themselves. What I actually said was that marriage itself implies no such thing and that not everyone wants it to imply such a thing.
Are you attempting the bandwagon fallacy, here?
Otherwise, why would you put up with the legal and fiscal baggage that comes along with it?
Why would you put up with that shit just for "implied consent"? That's utterly idiotic. You can actually come to such an agreement with an individual without any marriage at all.
But you are missing the fact that she did in fact consent to sex with me for the rest of our lives together in a public setting in front of hundreds of witnesses where she said "To have and to hold".
No, that's not what marriage means. Marital rape does exist and yes, it's possible for someone to not consent to have sex with you. This isn't difficult.
What you have decided between yourselves is different from what marriage itself is. Random words in a vow that's ignored all the time mean nothing.
I'm honestly shocked that there is someone out there naive enough to believe what you believe about married couples.
Married couples have sex together all the time, and no, we don't ask for permission first.
I'm shocked that you're stupid enough to interpret what I'm saying as saying that married couples don't have sex. There are multiple ways besides explicitly asking for it.
All contracts are the governments business, otherwise contracts would be worthless because they cannot be enforced.
Some contracts actually aren't enforceable. I do not believe that marriage should automatically have such restrictive terms, and I don't believe they should be enforceable. Just say, "Well, it's a contract, therefore the government should automatically be involved and it should always be enforced." is stupid and won't work on me.
If the person does not want to be "controlled" (as you put it) they are free to not sign the contract.
And you've just ruined any other benefits marriage might have by trying to control such trivial things. Now people can't have any of the other benefits marriage might have because of your religious nonsense.
That's what freedom means - you can walk away without signing.
Actually, part of what freedom means is that the government can't do shit to interfere with your business, even if it means enforcing a silly contract that shouldn't be legally enforceable to begin with. And here, I think they have no business enforcing such "contracts."
But these "adultery" laws seem to be getting weaker, if the very first poster is correct. If so, you and your ilk are already losing. Good, I say.
I think it's a completely secular (as far as the government should be concerned) contract between two people that can have a number of benefits (many which I think should be available to unmarried people, but that's not the point) that have absolutely nothing to do with "I don't need consent anymore."
Marriage without "that" is fraud to get a deal on insurance & taxes.
Marriage without being able to rape your spouse is fraud? Believe it or not, you don't own someone's body just because you're married to them.
Again, marriage itself implies no such thing. I don't recall anything like, "I no longer have to have consent." being one of the benefits of marriage; that would be screwed up beyond belief. Fortunately, we eventually recognized that marital rape is, in fact, possible.
Any details (such as "implicit consent" or when that is okay) have to be worked out between the individuals.
As far as I'm concerned, unless my wife indicates that she doesn't want to be touched, I'm gonna touch her however I want to without asking for permission.
Then, unless she told her you could do that beforehand (perhaps when getting married), you have no real consent. Marriage doesn't mean "I can have sex with this person whenever I please."
why get married if you have to explicitly ask permission?
There are a number of benefits of marriage that many people like to take advantage of, and none of them are, "I no longer have to have consent."
I'm not trying to control anything; there are many different contracts which regulate behaviour.
In fact, you are. The instant you try to get government thugs to enforce your contract, you are trying to control someone. Many contracts are, in fact, not enforceable. I see no reason why contracts controlling sexuality should be the government's business. If you believe otherwise, you're an authoritarian of the highest caliber.
Marriage is the state's business and most people strongly believe that.
I don't care what most people strongly believe.
Marriage also forms the basis of most families since the history of recorded civilization which means marriage is the vehicle by which society is regenerated.
It's just a title. It is not some magical thing which allows society to continue. Take your religious nonsense elsewhere.
but a serious breach like adultery is not.
There is no "serious breach"; your puritanism is showing.
But even setting that aside, you have no right to "give consent" to someone other than your spouse.
Yes, you do.
You swore away that right once you got married.
You can't swear your sexuality away. If any laws say otherwise, they're broken and need to be fixed, just like contracts which sign you into slavery are invalid.
The government should get out of people's private business.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe we didn't do anything on this level, but we sure as hell did violate a number of people's rights when they were suspected of being communists. Plus, the NSA has been doing evil shit for decades, such as ECHOLON. We criticized our enemies, but the government liked to violate people's rights in secret.
What he doesn't seem to get (though I bet he actually does), and where some of the arguments here are missing the mark, is that if someone else holds a key that will grant access, even if the holder is the government, that provides a path for a bad guy to abuse the ability to access. The bad guy(s) can be hackers/attackers from down the street, on the other side of the planet, employees of our government, etc.
And the government can be the bad guy. It often is, in fact.
And the issue regarding the 4th amendment is somewhat misleading because he is saying a REASONABLE search is what is being prevented, namely one where conditions like a valid warrant exist or an imminent physical threat is present (I am not going to argue the problem here about anything can be claimed as an imminent threat).
I think this is a good thing, as it causes them to focus on the most important cases and protects you from rubberstamped warrants.
So the question is does the Constitution allow a person to use technical means to prevent the government access to data even when a valid warrant is presented?
The constitution is a whitelist of things the government can do, not a blacklist of things it can't. So of course it does.
In an ideal world, individuals would use encryption that would protect their privacy from the run-of-the-mill attacker but not from the government.
Governments abused countless innocents throughout history. Trusting the government is foolish; one should always be cautious of what they do or say, but not mindlessly so.
In this case, it's not an issue of a lack of trust; this man's position is fundamentally ridiculous and privacy would be important even in an "ideal world" where the government was full of perfect beings.
I can comfortably agree with the principle in its entirety and disagree quite strongly with you on what is an unreasonable search.
On many issues, it would be quite foolish to do so. See: NSA surveillance, TSA. Those are not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination; only those who hate liberty claim otherwise.
The long, long history of American jurisprudence has determined that your effects are materials held at home.
Judges are often complicit in the crimes against the American people.
Or try voting for third party candidates, who have yet to prove themselves to be evil (since they haven't won). At the very least, it'll send a message to The One Party.
Republicans believe in states rights, which means minimal federal government.
Really? So why support the TSA, the Patriot Act, the NSA's mass surveillance, and a number of other unconstitutional things? I'm aware that the Democrats (the other side of The One Party) do the same crap, but why do "small government" people seem to want the exact opposite of what they claim? Oh, they're politicians. That makes sense.
It would help his position if the FBI were to go after Federal agencies (e.g. the NSA) for their illegal violation of citizen's privacy rights, and make it perfectly clear that the only searches of cell phones the FBI is interested in would be supported by probable cause and warrants from legitimate courts.
That wouldn't help his case, because his position is fundamentally ridiculous. Even if the FBI of today did that, it would eventually become corrupt (it is corrupt now, but that's just if it weren't). Furthermore, I think it's a good thing to make their jobs difficult, warrant or no warrant. Then they have to be more select about who they oppress.
Are you kidding me? I see countless 'normal' people who have no issues whatsoever with the government violating our constitutional rights in such ways.
And no, voting for one of two assholes who voted for it does not mean it was sanctioned by the people.
Maybe not outright approval, but at the very least, it does mean you're an apathetic fool. Voting for evil scumbags means you're an idiot.
In addition to the other responses, have you never heard of the spirit of the constitution? There is more to the constitution than just interpreting everything 100% literally; you can take intent into account.
I don't know how much the amounts were exactly, but kitches are extremely expensive.
Maybe so, but you shouldn't buy useless crap you can't afford. It amazes me to watch middle class families complaining about having no money, and then I see people with families making ~$15,000 a year who still have lots of stuff. If you can't survive on a middle class income and still have lots of money left over, chances are you're wasting your money. Remodeling is usually a waste.
Yeah. I'm guessing you're a grumpy middle aged male who doesn't see the point of Facebook. Me too.
Well, I am a middle aged male, but I've been privacy-conscious my whole life. My age has nothing to do with it. Plus I'm an introvert.
I mentioned 4 other companies in my comment. Are you dumb enough to use any of them?
Nope.
They spent most of the money remodeling their kitchen, within about a year of getting the money.
Over $25,000 to remodel a kitchen. This sort of shit is why people complain about having no money; they waste it. Here we have plenty of people living on less than $20,000 a year (while still having things like computers, cell phones, and cable), and yet there are people who can waste more than that in such a short amount of time, and usually on junk.
Whereas people who value their money and invest wisely can retire at the age of 30, these people will be working their whole lives.
I don't need to edit it. You are lying about my position, which I've stated multiple times. Either you have severe reading comprehension problems, or you're attacking an imaginary position out of convenience.
It actually described your "side" perfectly
If you have to lie about what my position is, then I doubt you have anything of value to offer.
Well, it's your damn contract - if you want all those other things, hey, feel free to put this into your marriage contract: "This marriage does not include any consent to sexual congress between the parties".
Again, you're missing the actual point. It seems that some terms in a contract being unenforceable is an alien concept to you.
That would lead to me "buying" stuff from your business but never sending the money after I receive the goods.
You're straw manning me. You have no actual idea what it is that I'm saying.
All I pointed out is that anyone who breaches a contract should face penalties.
Haha, okay. I'll keep that in mind next time someone signs themselves into slavery. Oh, that's not enforceable.
Your side, wanting total anarchy where any party to a deal can simply and without penalty fail to fulfill their side of the deal, is never going to win this one.
Except, that doesn't describe my side at all. My side just says that certain things are none of the government's business to enforce. Like signing people into slavery, or controlling others' sexuality.
I'm pretty sure the majority of married folks agree with exactly what the parent poster stated...married changes it to implied consent unless rejected.
And most people believe in magical sky daddies. Who cares what most people believe? If they want "implied consent," then that can work that out between themselves. What I actually said was that marriage itself implies no such thing and that not everyone wants it to imply such a thing.
Are you attempting the bandwagon fallacy, here?
Otherwise, why would you put up with the legal and fiscal baggage that comes along with it?
Why would you put up with that shit just for "implied consent"? That's utterly idiotic. You can actually come to such an agreement with an individual without any marriage at all.
But you are missing the fact that she did in fact consent to sex with me for the rest of our lives together in a public setting in front of hundreds of witnesses where she said "To have and to hold".
No, that's not what marriage means. Marital rape does exist and yes, it's possible for someone to not consent to have sex with you. This isn't difficult.
What you have decided between yourselves is different from what marriage itself is. Random words in a vow that's ignored all the time mean nothing.
I'm honestly shocked that there is someone out there naive enough to believe what you believe about married couples.
Married couples have sex together all the time, and no, we don't ask for permission first.
I'm shocked that you're stupid enough to interpret what I'm saying as saying that married couples don't have sex. There are multiple ways besides explicitly asking for it.
All contracts are the governments business, otherwise contracts would be worthless because they cannot be enforced.
Some contracts actually aren't enforceable. I do not believe that marriage should automatically have such restrictive terms, and I don't believe they should be enforceable. Just say, "Well, it's a contract, therefore the government should automatically be involved and it should always be enforced." is stupid and won't work on me.
If the person does not want to be "controlled" (as you put it) they are free to not sign the contract.
And you've just ruined any other benefits marriage might have by trying to control such trivial things. Now people can't have any of the other benefits marriage might have because of your religious nonsense.
That's what freedom means - you can walk away without signing.
Actually, part of what freedom means is that the government can't do shit to interfere with your business, even if it means enforcing a silly contract that shouldn't be legally enforceable to begin with. And here, I think they have no business enforcing such "contracts."
But these "adultery" laws seem to be getting weaker, if the very first poster is correct. If so, you and your ilk are already losing. Good, I say.
I'm sorry - what do you think marriage means?
I think it's a completely secular (as far as the government should be concerned) contract between two people that can have a number of benefits (many which I think should be available to unmarried people, but that's not the point) that have absolutely nothing to do with "I don't need consent anymore."
Marriage without "that" is fraud to get a deal on insurance & taxes.
Marriage without being able to rape your spouse is fraud? Believe it or not, you don't own someone's body just because you're married to them.
Again, marriage itself implies no such thing. I don't recall anything like, "I no longer have to have consent." being one of the benefits of marriage; that would be screwed up beyond belief. Fortunately, we eventually recognized that marital rape is, in fact, possible.
Any details (such as "implicit consent" or when that is okay) have to be worked out between the individuals.
Pedantic, aren't we?
What sort of terrible marriage are you in?
None, because I think marriage is trash.
As far as I'm concerned, unless my wife indicates that she doesn't want to be touched, I'm gonna touch her however I want to without asking for permission.
Then, unless she told her you could do that beforehand (perhaps when getting married), you have no real consent. Marriage doesn't mean "I can have sex with this person whenever I please."
why get married if you have to explicitly ask permission?
There are a number of benefits of marriage that many people like to take advantage of, and none of them are, "I no longer have to have consent."
I'm not trying to control anything; there are many different contracts which regulate behaviour.
In fact, you are. The instant you try to get government thugs to enforce your contract, you are trying to control someone. Many contracts are, in fact, not enforceable. I see no reason why contracts controlling sexuality should be the government's business. If you believe otherwise, you're an authoritarian of the highest caliber.
Marriage is the state's business and most people strongly believe that.
I don't care what most people strongly believe.
Marriage also forms the basis of most families since the history of recorded civilization which means marriage is the vehicle by which society is regenerated.
It's just a title. It is not some magical thing which allows society to continue. Take your religious nonsense elsewhere.
but a serious breach like adultery is not.
There is no "serious breach"; your puritanism is showing.
But even setting that aside, you have no right to "give consent" to someone other than your spouse.
Yes, you do.
You swore away that right once you got married.
You can't swear your sexuality away. If any laws say otherwise, they're broken and need to be fixed, just like contracts which sign you into slavery are invalid.
The government should get out of people's private business.