but these deviations tend to be based on rather awful historic facts and are very much targeted.
Perhaps people should fight lies with truth rather than getting government thugs to censor information they don't like.
Re:What's the difference between China and EU?
on
China Cuts Off Some VPNs
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
But when your own Western countries decide to block IS websites which encourage violence and mayhems to Europe / America why you guys never cry foul?
Who is "you guys"? I assure you that not everyone is part of some sort of mindless hivemind just because they live in a certain country. I'm against all censorship, whether it's the US, the EU, or China doing it.
Repeated often, but false. A human being spotting you in public is absolutely different from surveillance cameras spotting you everywhere and recording everything for some organization. Human memories are unreliable, private, a single human can't be in so many places at once, and using humans for surveillance is more expensive. This is why I think people should have privacy from mass government surveillance in public places. That's a type of privacy.
You also wouldn't want someone looking up other people's skirts just because they're in public. Lots of people don't want to be randomly recorded by some ignorant privacy-hating tool.
I don't speak of an expectation of privacy (though I expect privacy in many cases), but about whether or not it's ethical for someone to violate your privacy in certain instances. That whole "expectation of privacy" thing is eradicated the minute you get the ignorant majority used to surveillance. I 'expect' that the NSA is collecting most people's communications, and yet it's still immoral.
Which Americans are sick of this? Because from what I see, most support unconstitutional things such as the NSA's mass surveillance and the TSA, or are apathetic about them.
If they cannot or will not profit from their work, that is their problem.
That's how it should be. Instead, we end up with monopolies enforced by government thugs that violate our right to freedom of speech and/or our private property rights.
Find a better solution to the free rider problem and there is no need whatsoever for patents or copyrights.
Freedom is more important than solving the "free rider" problem, but even if it weren't, there is no hard scientific proof that copyrights or patents are actually effective in the first place, and absent any proof, there should be no restrictions. So, either way, I will reject your 'solution,' just like I would reject the TSA and NSA mass surveillance even if it were effective.
In a society that utilizes copyrights and patents, businesses and artists will make use of any advantage it grants them. Absent copyrights and patents, businesses and artists may or may not find other ways to prosper. Our society now is far different from any society in the past that did not have copyrights or patents, so baseless speculations do not qualify as scientific evidence.
I could see temporarily giving up some of our freedoms for security.
Nope. I couldn't. The government has no legitimate authority to violate the constitution. If it does, then it's just a group of thugs that need to be stopped one way or another.
As "the land of the free and the home of the brave", we must reject the 'safety is more important than freedom' arguments. Plenty of awful things happened during WW2, and it wasn't just the enemy's doing. The government violated the constitution numerous times, and even went as far as placing citizens of Japanese descent in internment camps. Maybe that was "temporary," but it was intolerable and should never be allowed to happen again.
Temporary or not, we should not tolerate the violations of our liberties.
It's more just for random people to violate others' rights than for a government that's supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people to engage in a mass violation of people's rights.
What if those thousand people would include some of those friends you want to communicate with? How "human" would you feel then?
Mass surveillance is wrong and unconstitutional, and it will always be wrong. The government has no legitimate authority to ignore the constitution.
I feel most human when I have my freedoms respected by my own government.
What I don't understand are people who generally love government then complaining about the government invading your privacy.
I don't really love government generally, but I think it's a matter of believing that the government should have certain powers and shouldn't have other powers. It's not a matter of big vs small, but a matter of whether or not the government should have a specific power. Some powers are easily abused and would affect our fundamental liberties, so people reject the idea that the government should have them.
Even considering that, people who believed some of the things you listed while still pretending to believe in the constitution and freedom would be hypocrites.
Want the power to scan my emails in the hopes of catching terrorists? AAAAAAAAAAAAH, invasion of privacy, slippery slope, my rights are infringed...
People in favor of the war on drugs tend to also be in favor of just about every authoritarian policy imaginable.
Our fundamental liberties and constitution are far more important than any 'safety' any of this brings us. The president swore an oath to defend the constitution, and has obviously failed. It would be nice to have someone with principles, but fools keep voting for Republican and Democrat scumbags.
False dichotomy, moron. There can be multiple people at fault for different things. The intruders for an obvious reason, and the company for not using reasonable levels of security.
If someone smashes a window and burglarizes your home is it your fault because you didn't put bars over your windows?
There is such a thing as negligence, and in this context, it occurs when even multi-million (or billion!) dollar companies fail to use even a minimal level of security. You seriously can't tell the difference between a reasonable level of security and absolutely perfect security? Yes, I'm going to put forth the *outrageous* idea that companies should protect data with a reasonable level of security, and that they shouldn't ignore reality and put everyone's data at risk with absolutely laughable security practices. Wow, the poor babies!
And Snowden must enjoy living in Russia because he is digging his own hole everytime he release information on the US counter intelligence services that have nothing to do with the average US citizen.
As a US citizen, I care very much about things like ethics and justice; those are things which the US is supposed to aspire to, but doesn't, and no thanks to ignorant fools like yourself. Someone isn't subhuman just because they're born outside the US, and they deserve protections from indiscriminate surveillance as well. An organization like the NSA which has committed so many wrongs does not deserve any sympathy from anyone.
and obscuring the fact that the US is by no means the only country on the planet with espionage and counterintelligence operations across the globe.
"Everybody else is doing it, so it must be okay!" If we're such an excellent country, then maybe we should set an example for other countries by not doing evil things. Seriously, you people spew forth this nonsensical justification almost every time it comes out, and it gets tiring pointing out the fallacy.
Yeah, how dare they care about the constitution and the principles this country is supposed to aspire to. What morons! They should be walking around with one leg, which is totally relevant to the government violating people's liberties!
I don't have to imagine that I live in a free country, as I don't live in the US.
Every country in the world, including the US, violates people's freedoms, and often in different ways. Unjust surveillance is a common problem, and something we must reject if we wish to have actual freedom.
Linking to random, arbitrary freedom indexes will not convince me of a single thing. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you trying to say, "This freedom index says these countries are better than some other countries, and as we all know, being better than something else means that you're overall good!"? I'm just not sure what your point is.
Sabotaging encryption alone will not make the US a police state. But the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, making encryption worthless, and many other privacy-invading measures sure will help the US become a police state. And every single time something bad happens, politicians suggest we give the government more power to violate our privacy.
You honestly don't see where this is going? You are blind.
Second, the "1000 terrorists go free than see a single innocent person have their privacy, security, civil liberties or constitutional rights violated" line is self-contradictory, because 1,000 free terrorists are sure as heck going to violate the security and civil liberties of a lot more than one person.
It's not contradictory in the least. You need to recognize the difference between random people hurting you and a government that's supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people infringing upon your *fundamental liberties*. I'll give you a hint: One is far worse than the other. One should not be allowed to happen.
This is why it is not contradictory in the least. I am fine with taking the risk of some random fool violating my liberties, but I'm absolutely not fine at all with allowing the government to violate my country's constitution and my fundamental liberties to protect me from these random fools.
And by security, he obviously meant the inherent problems that sabotaging encryption will create. You weren't thinking when you called any of this contradictory.
You are engaging in "black and white thinking"
And? I believe what I say is correct because I am on the side of freedom, no matter how you decide to arbitrarily classify that. But go on and pretend to live in a free country as you surrender your fundamental liberties for safety, real or imagined.
1) if you don't want anyone to hear what you say, don't say it. 2) if you don't want anyone to read what you write, don't write it down.
Don't want the government molesting you at airports? Don't fly on a plane. Don't want government thugs molesting you for getting on buses or trains? Don't get on buses or trains. Don't want government thugs randomly searching you if you leave your house and walk around? Don't leave your house and walk around. If you don't want the government to violate your rights, move to another country. The government obviously should have the power to make you surrender your rights if you want to do something completely innocuous, because you're always free to not do it, so it's okay!
The land of the free and the home of the brave! A land full of courageous people who are free to move elsewhere if they don't want the government violating their constitutional rights. Truly a courageous nation filled with freedom.
The USA founding fathers lived with the knowledge that they would be held accountable for what they said and wrote, and today it's no different.
It's about privacy, not being held accountable. Government thugs shouldn't be spying on my communications without warrants.
I am still here, still free, and still have my privacy.
Unless you've missed the whole thing about the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA molesting people at airports, the government doing loads of unconstitutional spying, and tons of other privacy-violating issues, you should know that that is simply false. You don't have privacy if government thugs are spying on you, or using automated tools to do so.
I would fail the polygraph even if I was telling the complete truth. If you're a nervous person (and I can't imagine many people wouldn't be under those conditions), then you're screwed. Polygraphs are good for absolutely nothing; mere pseudoscience.
Nope. Even if they did that, forcing in backdoors would still be unacceptable. Even if we assumed that normal criminals couldn't use these backdoors, I value my freedom and privacy more than safety to begin with.
I don't. He's absolutely right: Freedom and the constitution are more important than safety.
Besides, there's already tons of stuff that isn't private because of individual's actions.
Yes, because of individuals' actions. It's a choice that they make, and one I barely ever make. That doesn't mean that everyone (even people who are careful with their information) deserve to have information they don't put out in public spied on by the government.
Slashdot Mirror
but these deviations tend to be based on rather awful historic facts and are very much targeted.
Perhaps people should fight lies with truth rather than getting government thugs to censor information they don't like.
But when your own Western countries decide to block IS websites which encourage violence and mayhems to Europe / America why you guys never cry foul?
Who is "you guys"? I assure you that not everyone is part of some sort of mindless hivemind just because they live in a certain country. I'm against all censorship, whether it's the US, the EU, or China doing it.
YOU'RE IN PUBLIC AND NO EXPECTATIONS OF PRIVACY!
Repeated often, but false. A human being spotting you in public is absolutely different from surveillance cameras spotting you everywhere and recording everything for some organization. Human memories are unreliable, private, a single human can't be in so many places at once, and using humans for surveillance is more expensive. This is why I think people should have privacy from mass government surveillance in public places. That's a type of privacy.
You also wouldn't want someone looking up other people's skirts just because they're in public. Lots of people don't want to be randomly recorded by some ignorant privacy-hating tool.
I don't speak of an expectation of privacy (though I expect privacy in many cases), but about whether or not it's ethical for someone to violate your privacy in certain instances. That whole "expectation of privacy" thing is eradicated the minute you get the ignorant majority used to surveillance. I 'expect' that the NSA is collecting most people's communications, and yet it's still immoral.
Which Americans are sick of this? Because from what I see, most support unconstitutional things such as the NSA's mass surveillance and the TSA, or are apathetic about them.
And the NSA COULD use mass surveillance to help catch actual terrorists... but the ends don't justify the means. Get a warrant or screw off.
And finding indoor pot farms isn't even a good thing; the war on drugs is garbage.
If they cannot or will not profit from their work, that is their problem.
That's how it should be. Instead, we end up with monopolies enforced by government thugs that violate our right to freedom of speech and/or our private property rights.
Find a better solution to the free rider problem and there is no need whatsoever for patents or copyrights.
Freedom is more important than solving the "free rider" problem, but even if it weren't, there is no hard scientific proof that copyrights or patents are actually effective in the first place, and absent any proof, there should be no restrictions. So, either way, I will reject your 'solution,' just like I would reject the TSA and NSA mass surveillance even if it were effective.
In a society that utilizes copyrights and patents, businesses and artists will make use of any advantage it grants them. Absent copyrights and patents, businesses and artists may or may not find other ways to prosper. Our society now is far different from any society in the past that did not have copyrights or patents, so baseless speculations do not qualify as scientific evidence.
I could see temporarily giving up some of our freedoms for security.
Nope. I couldn't. The government has no legitimate authority to violate the constitution. If it does, then it's just a group of thugs that need to be stopped one way or another.
As "the land of the free and the home of the brave", we must reject the 'safety is more important than freedom' arguments. Plenty of awful things happened during WW2, and it wasn't just the enemy's doing. The government violated the constitution numerous times, and even went as far as placing citizens of Japanese descent in internment camps. Maybe that was "temporary," but it was intolerable and should never be allowed to happen again.
Temporary or not, we should not tolerate the violations of our liberties.
How is that "just"?
It's more just for random people to violate others' rights than for a government that's supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people to engage in a mass violation of people's rights.
What if those thousand people would include some of those friends you want to communicate with? How "human" would you feel then?
Mass surveillance is wrong and unconstitutional, and it will always be wrong. The government has no legitimate authority to ignore the constitution.
I feel most human when I have my freedoms respected by my own government.
Get some perspective.
Get some principles or move to North Korea.
What I don't understand are people who generally love government then complaining about the government invading your privacy.
I don't really love government generally, but I think it's a matter of believing that the government should have certain powers and shouldn't have other powers. It's not a matter of big vs small, but a matter of whether or not the government should have a specific power. Some powers are easily abused and would affect our fundamental liberties, so people reject the idea that the government should have them.
Even considering that, people who believed some of the things you listed while still pretending to believe in the constitution and freedom would be hypocrites.
Want the power to scan my emails in the hopes of catching terrorists? AAAAAAAAAAAAH, invasion of privacy, slippery slope, my rights are infringed...
People in favor of the war on drugs tend to also be in favor of just about every authoritarian policy imaginable.
Our fundamental liberties and constitution are far more important than any 'safety' any of this brings us. The president swore an oath to defend the constitution, and has obviously failed. It would be nice to have someone with principles, but fools keep voting for Republican and Democrat scumbags.
The intruders are 100% to blame.
False dichotomy, moron. There can be multiple people at fault for different things. The intruders for an obvious reason, and the company for not using reasonable levels of security.
If someone smashes a window and burglarizes your home is it your fault because you didn't put bars over your windows?
There is such a thing as negligence, and in this context, it occurs when even multi-million (or billion!) dollar companies fail to use even a minimal level of security. You seriously can't tell the difference between a reasonable level of security and absolutely perfect security? Yes, I'm going to put forth the *outrageous* idea that companies should protect data with a reasonable level of security, and that they shouldn't ignore reality and put everyone's data at risk with absolutely laughable security practices. Wow, the poor babies!
And Snowden must enjoy living in Russia because he is digging his own hole everytime he release information on the US counter intelligence services that have nothing to do with the average US citizen.
As a US citizen, I care very much about things like ethics and justice; those are things which the US is supposed to aspire to, but doesn't, and no thanks to ignorant fools like yourself. Someone isn't subhuman just because they're born outside the US, and they deserve protections from indiscriminate surveillance as well. An organization like the NSA which has committed so many wrongs does not deserve any sympathy from anyone.
and obscuring the fact that the US is by no means the only country on the planet with espionage and counterintelligence operations across the globe.
"Everybody else is doing it, so it must be okay!" If we're such an excellent country, then maybe we should set an example for other countries by not doing evil things. Seriously, you people spew forth this nonsensical justification almost every time it comes out, and it gets tiring pointing out the fallacy.
Yeah, how dare they care about the constitution and the principles this country is supposed to aspire to. What morons! They should be walking around with one leg, which is totally relevant to the government violating people's liberties!
I don't have to imagine that I live in a free country, as I don't live in the US.
Every country in the world, including the US, violates people's freedoms, and often in different ways. Unjust surveillance is a common problem, and something we must reject if we wish to have actual freedom.
Linking to random, arbitrary freedom indexes will not convince me of a single thing. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you trying to say, "This freedom index says these countries are better than some other countries, and as we all know, being better than something else means that you're overall good!"? I'm just not sure what your point is.
Supposed to mean? Says who?
Says anyone with a god damn brain. Being "held accountable" does not mean the government has to violate people's privacy ahead of time.
Sabotaging encryption alone will not make the US a police state. But the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, making encryption worthless, and many other privacy-invading measures sure will help the US become a police state. And every single time something bad happens, politicians suggest we give the government more power to violate our privacy.
You honestly don't see where this is going? You are blind.
Have you ever heard the term slippery slope?
Indeed. Many slippery slopes are, in fact, real. Or do you have the misconception that all slippery slopes are fallacies?
Second, the "1000 terrorists go free than see a single innocent person have their privacy, security, civil liberties or constitutional rights violated" line is self-contradictory, because 1,000 free terrorists are sure as heck going to violate the security and civil liberties of a lot more than one person.
It's not contradictory in the least. You need to recognize the difference between random people hurting you and a government that's supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people infringing upon your *fundamental liberties*. I'll give you a hint: One is far worse than the other. One should not be allowed to happen.
This is why it is not contradictory in the least. I am fine with taking the risk of some random fool violating my liberties, but I'm absolutely not fine at all with allowing the government to violate my country's constitution and my fundamental liberties to protect me from these random fools.
And by security, he obviously meant the inherent problems that sabotaging encryption will create. You weren't thinking when you called any of this contradictory.
You are engaging in "black and white thinking"
And? I believe what I say is correct because I am on the side of freedom, no matter how you decide to arbitrarily classify that. But go on and pretend to live in a free country as you surrender your fundamental liberties for safety, real or imagined.
Having to lower ourself to 'fascist/anti-liberty' tactics to prevent the rise of these parties, might actually save our liberty.
No, I'd rather people keep their freedoms, thanks.
It's stupid *and* barbaric. Even if it worked, I would reject it completely, as people who value morality and justice do.
1) if you don't want anyone to hear what you say, don't say it. 2) if you don't want anyone to read what you write, don't write it down.
Don't want the government molesting you at airports? Don't fly on a plane. Don't want government thugs molesting you for getting on buses or trains? Don't get on buses or trains. Don't want government thugs randomly searching you if you leave your house and walk around? Don't leave your house and walk around. If you don't want the government to violate your rights, move to another country. The government obviously should have the power to make you surrender your rights if you want to do something completely innocuous, because you're always free to not do it, so it's okay!
The land of the free and the home of the brave! A land full of courageous people who are free to move elsewhere if they don't want the government violating their constitutional rights. Truly a courageous nation filled with freedom.
The USA founding fathers lived with the knowledge that they would be held accountable for what they said and wrote, and today it's no different.
It's about privacy, not being held accountable. Government thugs shouldn't be spying on my communications without warrants.
I am still here, still free, and still have my privacy.
Unless you've missed the whole thing about the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA molesting people at airports, the government doing loads of unconstitutional spying, and tons of other privacy-violating issues, you should know that that is simply false. You don't have privacy if government thugs are spying on you, or using automated tools to do so.
I would fail the polygraph even if I was telling the complete truth. If you're a nervous person (and I can't imagine many people wouldn't be under those conditions), then you're screwed. Polygraphs are good for absolutely nothing; mere pseudoscience.
Nope. Even if they did that, forcing in backdoors would still be unacceptable. Even if we assumed that normal criminals couldn't use these backdoors, I value my freedom and privacy more than safety to begin with.
And when the lawfully signed and delivered warrant results in the obtaining of encrypted data of which the authorities can make no use, what then?
Too bad, that's what.
Methinks you need a bit of perspective here.
I don't. He's absolutely right: Freedom and the constitution are more important than safety.
Besides, there's already tons of stuff that isn't private because of individual's actions.
Yes, because of individuals' actions. It's a choice that they make, and one I barely ever make. That doesn't mean that everyone (even people who are careful with their information) deserve to have information they don't put out in public spied on by the government.