The voltage drop on a perfect inductor is always directly proportional to the rate of change of the current flowing through it. If you remove it from a circuit, there is no change in current, so any state it may have had in an active circuit is always lost when you switch the power off. Perfect capacitors retain state because the change in voltage drop is proportional to the current flowing through it.. so if there is no current, the voltage drop stays constant.
Perfect inductors also retain state because the change in current is proportional to the voltage drop; if you remove a perfect inductor from a circuit by shorting the terminals the voltage drop is zero and the current through the inductor remains constant. Inductors store state via current in the same way that capacitors store state via voltage.
Of course, perfect inductors are a bit hard to find, but a coil made of superconducting material comes very close. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, it is actually possible to create a superconducting coil which stores energy in the form of current flowing through a closed loop.
If you don't like it, move somewhere else. That's the correct free-market capitalist response, right?
That depends entirely on who the aggressor is. A reply of "if you don't like it, leave" when one objects to others violating one's property rights has nothing to do with the free market; that would be the authoritarian/socialist response. In a free market one has no obligation to walk away and permit others to violate one's property rights. It is the correct free-market response when you are offended by others doing something with their own property, without violating your rights. The principle is simple: You decide how your property is used, while others decide how their property is used. That's what it means for it to be "your property" or "their property". Any action requires the unanimous consent of everyone with property rights at stake, and no one else has any right to interfere.
It also only guarantees the right to bear and keep arms, not the right to do so anonymously.
Likewise, the 1st Amendment only guarantees the right to speak, not the right to speak anonymously. Oh wait...
Imposing conditions of any sort on the exercise of a right—including but not limited to identifying oneself—infringes on that right. Also, as part of due process there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The amendment states that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"; as such, if they want to prevent any person from keeping and/or bearing arms, the burden is on them to first prove that said person is not a member of "the People". Until they do, the person must be presumed to have that right, and the government has no authority to infringe upon it.
A proper dictator like Saddam or Stalin would just have levelled the place.
Sure, but even in that case the rest of the world is looking on. Saddam or Stalin might not care, but others will—if the story gets out, which is more likely when tyranny encounters concerted opposition rather than passive acquiescence.
Besides the PR aspects there is also value in making tyranny as expensive as possible. Even an absolute dictator is constrained by limited resources, and the more expensive it is to subdue each source of opposition, the less there is left over to go after the others. In this way you might lose nearly every battle but still eventually win the war, by bankrupting your opponent. In the meantime you force them to dedicate their efforts to quelling rebellions rather than oppressing the rest of the population.
You don't get to decide what other people do with their stuff.
This is exactly right. So how do you reconcile this with your pro-copyright position? Copyright is exactly this: deciding what other people can do with their stuff.
Yes, their stuff, and not yours. Property rights are fundamentally about who has the right to decide how a good is "used up" (consumed), and are exclusive only to the extent that the goods are scarce, i.e. cannot simultaneously be consumed for multiple purposes. It makes no sense to try to apply property rights to ideas, information, media, and/or "content", as these things are not scarce and cannot be consumed, so any right of ownership one might claim over such things could not possibly be infringed. The only "stuff" involved in making a copy to which the concept of ownership can be applied are the physical materials, which belong to the person making the copy, not the copyright holder.
If you want to maintain control over information you produce, keep it to yourself. Don't publish it to the world and then try to claim that this somehow justifies telling other people how to use their stuff. Your exclusive control ends the moment you choose to share the information with others. At that point they have just as much right to copy and distribute it as you do.
You seriously think that's because they would have lost the battle and not because it would have been bad PR?
Of course it was because of the PR aspect, and not because they were afraid they'd lose the fight. So what? It was only a PR nightmare for them because the people on the other side were armed, and thus capable of resisting. An unarmed group could have been evicted without drawing nearly as much attention.
Even if you don't stand a chance of winning the fight, there is value in forcing your opponents to exert themselves and, in doing so, reveal their true principles and priorities for everyone to see.
Those employers never asked what your qualifications were? Never asked how many years experience you had in python or Rust or whatever language they're looking for? They never asked to see examples of your work? Never quizzed you on your knowledge?
What they did is no different than what people being licensed go through. You have to meet some minimum standard set by the employer in the same manner someone has to meet the minimum standard to be a cosmetologist, an attorney or doctor.
Are you seriously attempting to claim that an employer screening applicants according to their own standards is at all similar to State licensing laws which say that you aren't allowed to do that kind of work even if the customer has no issue with your qualifications? The difference is obvious. In one case the paying customer evaluates your capabilities and decides whether to hire you; in the other, a third party with no standing intrudes and imposes their own qualifications in place of the customer's, depriving both customer and provider of a transaction they both deem profitable.
You're correct in one respect: this is all very similar to the way that some guilds (not all) were granted monopolies on certain kinds of work, with the power to require that anyone wanting to perform that work join the guild, pay dues, and pass the guild's qualifications—naturally set with an eye toward restricting unwanted competition from "lower quality" craftsmen. It was wrong then and it's still wrong now.
Just google for 'hair stylist scalp burning' to see why some people would prefer to assure that their hair is being styled by someone with half a clue.
Most people would prefer that any product or service they're consuming be provided by "someone with half a clue". That is no reason to legally mandate that the provider be licensed by the State. Reputation, caveat emptor, and the provider's liability after the fact for any harm which does occur are more than sufficient to ensure quality service without stifling competition and innovation.
Let's be clear: Making money running a torrent site is not an offense that should be responded to by armed men with guns dragging you off to a cage. That is a disproportionate response to the charge of copyright infringement regardless of the scale or motive.
An example of a proportional response would be voiding the copyrights (if any) held by anyone convicted of copyright infringement.
That high you're using as a reference was a short-lived fluke. The price is up compared to where it was at the end of November, or any prior point. The fact that it's down sharply over the last month or so from a temporary high is only a problem if you bought in while the price was peaking. "Buy high" is not a winning strategy in general.
It's much more reasonable to judge an investment by how its current price compares to historical averages, not transient minimums or maximums.
Government can't be an "I" in a democracy. Government in the US is "we." You and me, buddy. We get to vote and we get to convince each other we're right.
And when you fail to convince the other person you're right, you—as the one with power and/or numbers on your side—go ahead and do it your way anyway, never mind the cost to those who disagreed, and then proceed to claim that they're equally responsible for the outcome just because they're part of this "we" you invented as cover for your own selfish choices.
That's your "democracy" in a nutshell.
Civilization is found in unanimous consent, not majority rules.
But preventing exploitation of faults in basic human nature which causes people to harm themselves by acting irrationally is precisely one of the things government should be doing.
You don't want people to be exploited, great. That's a laudable goal. The paternalistic methods the government employs in its attempt to achieve this goal, however, are much less laudable. Baby-proofing the world is not the answer. It's a never-ending task, and you can't do it without infringing on everyone's rights.
If you don't want people to be exploited you should instead offer assistance to the people you think are at risk; warn them about the risk and, with their consent, help them to guard themselves against it, recognizing that not everyone will want your help and that it is not your place to interfere against their wishes.
... if there's going to be new laws it's just as easy to ban transient rentals.
It doesn't matter how "easy" the solution is if it's the wrong solution.
A host is responsible for the behavior of his or her invited guests. You have a problem with the guests, you take it up with the host. This applies whether or not the guests are paying the host to be there, and whether or not the host is physically present. This is basic hospitality and civilized behavior.
The city is focusing on a completely irrelevant aspect of the situation—the fact that the guest is paying to stay there—and ignoring the disruptive behavior which prompted them to get involved in the first place unless it happens to be associated with a paying guest. Why should it make any difference whether the disruptive party is renting the place or simply staying there for free?
So you agree there's restrictions on what I can do with my property- I can't do anything to someone else's property with it.
No, there are no restrictions on what you can do with your property. There are restrictions on what you can do with other people's property, which is not even close to the same thing.
Now understand we can and will restrict it for other reasons if we see it in the best interest of society- just like we restrict me from using it to kill you for the best interest of society.
"Society"—meaning anyone whose property rights are not being infringed—has no standing on the issue. Your actions are not limited by "society's" whims, but rather by the fact that if you deliberately infringe on someone else's property rights then you cannot rationally object to others doing exactly the same thing to you. Other people respect your rights because you respect theirs. You forfeit that protection at your own peril.
They can phone in individual minor complaints to the police or other authorities. That's not going to get them very far. A police officer might show up to a noisy party at 2AM and tell the people to keep it down. The noise will then quiet until, say, 2:05 or 2:10. If the police officer writes tickets, the visitors are likely to tear them up, since they're from out of town, and in any case there will be a new noisy group in the next weekend.
Why are the police handing tickets to the people at the party, and not sending them to the person actually responsible: the owner of the residence? With an approach like that it's no wonder you can't seem to get any results. For that matter, how do you expect them to enforce a prohibition on short-term rentals, if not by going after the property owner directly? If they can fine the owner for renting out the property they can obviously do the same for allowing it to be used disruptively, whether or not the disruptive parties are paying the owner to be there.
Great. I agree. I own a gun. I want to shoot you with it. After all, I should be able to do anything I want with my property.
You can shoot your gun all you want, but you can't shoot him because he isn't your property. That would be doing what you want with someone else's property, not your own.
The lawn is unkept and full of dandelions, there's a noticeable increase in the amount of garbage as you walk past it (sometimes including needles used for shooting up drugs), the house's paint is dilapidated and peeling off, and there are regularly 4-6 cars staying there which overflow onto the street regularly depriving the 4 houses around it of street parking.
It sounds like you ought to focus on those issues and not the fact that it's a rental. The owner, not the renter,
is ultimately responsible for maintaining the property.
Just because FB is a nationwide company headquartered out of state, should it be exempt from campaign finance disclosure laws?
Yes, absolutely! Anyone with no physical presence in a given jurisdiction ought to have zero obligation to follow that jurisdiction's rules. The location of the user of the service should be irrelevant. The local government can try regulating the users and intermediaries within their jurisdiction directly if they have a problem with people accessing an outside service. Of course, there will probably be a certain amount of political fallout should the Seattle government attempt to ban access to Facebook within the city's borders...
One can "have a problem with" something without it being a crime; there is an entire continuum of ethics spanning the range between "acceptable behavior" and "should be considered illegal". However, it is pointless to object to someone merely taking a photo of something they can already see. By itself, stored inertly in the camera's memory, the photograph is no more harmful than their own memory of the scene. If you have a problem with someone taking photographs, don't grant them access in the first place.
In this case it is safe to assume that the offender is violating the terms of their permission to access that space, and thus trespassing. Why focus on photographs when the real problem their presence?
If North Korea tortures you until you provide they key, what's the difference between that and no encryption as far as they are concerned?
Well, there is the fact that they would actually have to torture you, which might cause more diplomatic problems for them than simply seizing your equipment. There is also the possibility that you don't have the decryption key in the first place; the photos could easily be encrypted such that only your superiors in whatever organization you're reporting to have access to the decryption keys.
... but then you die and your pictures never see the light of day. Keeps the source safe, but they've taken risks for no benefit.
They'd be taking far more risk for no benefit if the photos were intercepted without encryption. Of course, the goal is to get the photos out of the country undetected, and for that purpose a prudent photographer would take the steps others have reasonably suggested, like transferring the photos to a secure device—ideally a remote server in a "safe" country—wiping the camera's memory card, and filling it with innocuous "decoy" shots. The purpose of on-camera encryption is to plug the gap which exists between when the photos are taken and when they can be offloaded to more secure storage.
If you are in North Korea taking pictures, you aren't going to get away with "they are encrypted!"
Missing the point. Encryption isn't primarily to protect you, it's to protect your sources. To protect yourself from discovery you'd need plausible deniability, and possibly steganography, which are outside the scope of this proposal.
There is no duality here, because there is no circumstance where the mere capture or possession of a photograph or video should ever be considered a crime.
To prevent this type of data leakage, from Firefox 59, the private browsing option will remove path information from referrer values sent to third parties, effectively stripping out additional data and only leaving the web domain.
Hopefully this is just the first step toward a proper solution. Step 2 is to apply the same policy for intra-site links, to prevent sites from filtering on the exact page address. Step 3 is to always send the requested resource's domain, regardless of the source.
The original question though is, when you are facing imminent death, is it really going to make any difference, to *you*, that there's a duplicate of you out there somewhere that will go on living?
In a sense I think we go through this all the time without even thinking about it. The person who wakes up in my bed and heads off to my job tomorrow morning isn't going to be "me" as I exist right now. That future self will, however, share in my memories and experiences, my hopes and dreams, my principles and interpersonal relationships—in short, someone who is not quite me, but very like me, will be there to continue what I have started. Unless, of course, I die—and that is where the backup clone comes in. My death would no doubt remain a traumatic event in the moment it occurs, but my clone won't remember that part, and in the time leading up to my death I need not worry about all the things that would otherwise be left undone, or the pain my absence would cause my friends and loved ones, because my place in the world will continue to be filled by someone perhaps not quite me, but very like me.
Lets say you manage to make an absolutely atom-perfect indistinguishable clone of yourself. Only thing is, you're both still clearly distinguishable to each other: one is the subjective you, and the other is some other, eerily similar person sitting across the room. Shove a knife though one of their hands, and only that one will scream.
This assumes that both clones are active and aware, and in that case I already agreed that their unique experiences make the clones distinct individuals. There is no continuity from one to the other. However—and I think this is the important part—they would both have equally valid claims to being continuations of the singular individual who existed before the cloning.
We accept that the people we know can change in various ways over time while remaining the "same person", but we have no experience with multiple legitimate claims to the same identity. In the presence of this sort of perfect cloning we would need to allow that there may exist in the present two unique individuals who are both the "same person" as someone we knew in the past. However, this does not imply that they are the same person now, given their dissimilar experiences and interactions since the cloning took place.
Going back to the simpler case where the "backup clone" is held in stasis, your backup and the other clone not kept in stasis can both be considered "you" to someone who knew and interacted with you prior to the cloning, as they are both continuations from that version of yourself. The backup is not the "you" who died, since it lacks those later experiences. However, its relationship to that person is equivalent to the relationship between two versions of the "same person" before and after contracting amnesia, absent any fancy cloning technology.
Even to someone who only knew you after the cloning, the backup could be considered "you" to the extent that it shares most of your history and personality and fits the mental model of "you" which exists in the other person's mind. There may be some jarring differences, but nothing we don't already have experience dealing with in amnesia cases.
Of course, another way to look at it is that it highlights the fact that the entire concept of a coherent "you" extending through time is a perceptual illusion to begin with.
I would certainly agree that the concept of "you" as a persistent entity is an artificial construct, unlike the physical "you" consisting of a particular combination of matter and energy at a specific point in time. If you want to call that an "illusion" then all continuity from one moment to the next could be considered similarly illusory.
Slashdot Mirror
The voltage drop on a perfect inductor is always directly proportional to the rate of change of the current flowing through it. If you remove it from a circuit, there is no change in current, so any state it may have had in an active circuit is always lost when you switch the power off. Perfect capacitors retain state because the change in voltage drop is proportional to the current flowing through it.. so if there is no current, the voltage drop stays constant.
Perfect inductors also retain state because the change in current is proportional to the voltage drop; if you remove a perfect inductor from a circuit by shorting the terminals the voltage drop is zero and the current through the inductor remains constant. Inductors store state via current in the same way that capacitors store state via voltage.
Of course, perfect inductors are a bit hard to find, but a coil made of superconducting material comes very close. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, it is actually possible to create a superconducting coil which stores energy in the form of current flowing through a closed loop.
If you don't like it, move somewhere else. That's the correct free-market capitalist response, right?
That depends entirely on who the aggressor is. A reply of "if you don't like it, leave" when one objects to others violating one's property rights has nothing to do with the free market; that would be the authoritarian/socialist response. In a free market one has no obligation to walk away and permit others to violate one's property rights. It is the correct free-market response when you are offended by others doing something with their own property, without violating your rights. The principle is simple: You decide how your property is used, while others decide how their property is used. That's what it means for it to be "your property" or "their property". Any action requires the unanimous consent of everyone with property rights at stake, and no one else has any right to interfere.
It also only guarantees the right to bear and keep arms, not the right to do so anonymously.
Likewise, the 1st Amendment only guarantees the right to speak, not the right to speak anonymously. Oh wait...
Imposing conditions of any sort on the exercise of a right—including but not limited to identifying oneself—infringes on that right. Also, as part of due process there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The amendment states that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"; as such, if they want to prevent any person from keeping and/or bearing arms, the burden is on them to first prove that said person is not a member of "the People". Until they do, the person must be presumed to have that right, and the government has no authority to infringe upon it.
A proper dictator like Saddam or Stalin would just have levelled the place.
Sure, but even in that case the rest of the world is looking on. Saddam or Stalin might not care, but others will—if the story gets out, which is more likely when tyranny encounters concerted opposition rather than passive acquiescence.
Besides the PR aspects there is also value in making tyranny as expensive as possible. Even an absolute dictator is constrained by limited resources, and the more expensive it is to subdue each source of opposition, the less there is left over to go after the others. In this way you might lose nearly every battle but still eventually win the war, by bankrupting your opponent. In the meantime you force them to dedicate their efforts to quelling rebellions rather than oppressing the rest of the population.
You don't get to decide what other people do with their stuff.
This is exactly right. So how do you reconcile this with your pro-copyright position? Copyright is exactly this: deciding what other people can do with their stuff.
Yes, their stuff, and not yours. Property rights are fundamentally about who has the right to decide how a good is "used up" (consumed), and are exclusive only to the extent that the goods are scarce, i.e. cannot simultaneously be consumed for multiple purposes. It makes no sense to try to apply property rights to ideas, information, media, and/or "content", as these things are not scarce and cannot be consumed, so any right of ownership one might claim over such things could not possibly be infringed. The only "stuff" involved in making a copy to which the concept of ownership can be applied are the physical materials, which belong to the person making the copy, not the copyright holder.
If you want to maintain control over information you produce, keep it to yourself. Don't publish it to the world and then try to claim that this somehow justifies telling other people how to use their stuff. Your exclusive control ends the moment you choose to share the information with others. At that point they have just as much right to copy and distribute it as you do.
You seriously think that's because they would have lost the battle and not because it would have been bad PR?
Of course it was because of the PR aspect, and not because they were afraid they'd lose the fight. So what? It was only a PR nightmare for them because the people on the other side were armed, and thus capable of resisting. An unarmed group could have been evicted without drawing nearly as much attention.
Even if you don't stand a chance of winning the fight, there is value in forcing your opponents to exert themselves and, in doing so, reveal their true principles and priorities for everyone to see.
Those employers never asked what your qualifications were? Never asked how many years experience you had in python or Rust or whatever language they're looking for? They never asked to see examples of your work? Never quizzed you on your knowledge?
What they did is no different than what people being licensed go through. You have to meet some minimum standard set by the employer in the same manner someone has to meet the minimum standard to be a cosmetologist, an attorney or doctor.
Are you seriously attempting to claim that an employer screening applicants according to their own standards is at all similar to State licensing laws which say that you aren't allowed to do that kind of work even if the customer has no issue with your qualifications? The difference is obvious. In one case the paying customer evaluates your capabilities and decides whether to hire you; in the other, a third party with no standing intrudes and imposes their own qualifications in place of the customer's, depriving both customer and provider of a transaction they both deem profitable.
You're correct in one respect: this is all very similar to the way that some guilds (not all) were granted monopolies on certain kinds of work, with the power to require that anyone wanting to perform that work join the guild, pay dues, and pass the guild's qualifications—naturally set with an eye toward restricting unwanted competition from "lower quality" craftsmen. It was wrong then and it's still wrong now.
Just google for 'hair stylist scalp burning' to see why some people would prefer to assure that their hair is being styled by someone with half a clue.
Most people would prefer that any product or service they're consuming be provided by "someone with half a clue". That is no reason to legally mandate that the provider be licensed by the State. Reputation, caveat emptor, and the provider's liability after the fact for any harm which does occur are more than sufficient to ensure quality service without stifling competition and innovation.
Let's be clear: Making money running a torrent site is not an offense that should be responded to by armed men with guns dragging you off to a cage. That is a disproportionate response to the charge of copyright infringement regardless of the scale or motive.
An example of a proportional response would be voiding the copyrights (if any) held by anyone convicted of copyright infringement.
BTC is down 50% from its high
That high you're using as a reference was a short-lived fluke. The price is up compared to where it was at the end of November, or any prior point. The fact that it's down sharply over the last month or so from a temporary high is only a problem if you bought in while the price was peaking. "Buy high" is not a winning strategy in general.
It's much more reasonable to judge an investment by how its current price compares to historical averages, not transient minimums or maximums.
Government can't be an "I" in a democracy. Government in the US is "we." You and me, buddy. We get to vote and we get to convince each other we're right.
And when you fail to convince the other person you're right, you—as the one with power and/or numbers on your side—go ahead and do it your way anyway, never mind the cost to those who disagreed, and then proceed to claim that they're equally responsible for the outcome just because they're part of this "we" you invented as cover for your own selfish choices.
That's your "democracy" in a nutshell.
Civilization is found in unanimous consent, not majority rules.
But preventing exploitation of faults in basic human nature which causes people to harm themselves by acting irrationally is precisely one of the things government should be doing.
You don't want people to be exploited, great. That's a laudable goal. The paternalistic methods the government employs in its attempt to achieve this goal, however, are much less laudable. Baby-proofing the world is not the answer. It's a never-ending task, and you can't do it without infringing on everyone's rights.
If you don't want people to be exploited you should instead offer assistance to the people you think are at risk; warn them about the risk and, with their consent, help them to guard themselves against it, recognizing that not everyone will want your help and that it is not your place to interfere against their wishes.
... if there's going to be new laws it's just as easy to ban transient rentals.
It doesn't matter how "easy" the solution is if it's the wrong solution.
A host is responsible for the behavior of his or her invited guests. You have a problem with the guests, you take it up with the host. This applies whether or not the guests are paying the host to be there, and whether or not the host is physically present. This is basic hospitality and civilized behavior.
The city is focusing on a completely irrelevant aspect of the situation—the fact that the guest is paying to stay there—and ignoring the disruptive behavior which prompted them to get involved in the first place unless it happens to be associated with a paying guest. Why should it make any difference whether the disruptive party is renting the place or simply staying there for free?
So you agree there's restrictions on what I can do with my property- I can't do anything to someone else's property with it.
No, there are no restrictions on what you can do with your property. There are restrictions on what you can do with other people's property, which is not even close to the same thing.
Now understand we can and will restrict it for other reasons if we see it in the best interest of society- just like we restrict me from using it to kill you for the best interest of society.
"Society"—meaning anyone whose property rights are not being infringed—has no standing on the issue. Your actions are not limited by "society's" whims, but rather by the fact that if you deliberately infringe on someone else's property rights then you cannot rationally object to others doing exactly the same thing to you. Other people respect your rights because you respect theirs. You forfeit that protection at your own peril.
They can phone in individual minor complaints to the police or other authorities. That's not going to get them very far. A police officer might show up to a noisy party at 2AM and tell the people to keep it down. The noise will then quiet until, say, 2:05 or 2:10. If the police officer writes tickets, the visitors are likely to tear them up, since they're from out of town, and in any case there will be a new noisy group in the next weekend.
Why are the police handing tickets to the people at the party, and not sending them to the person actually responsible: the owner of the residence? With an approach like that it's no wonder you can't seem to get any results. For that matter, how do you expect them to enforce a prohibition on short-term rentals, if not by going after the property owner directly? If they can fine the owner for renting out the property they can obviously do the same for allowing it to be used disruptively, whether or not the disruptive parties are paying the owner to be there.
Great. I agree. I own a gun. I want to shoot you with it. After all, I should be able to do anything I want with my property.
You can shoot your gun all you want, but you can't shoot him because he isn't your property. That would be doing what you want with someone else's property, not your own.
The lawn is unkept and full of dandelions, there's a noticeable increase in the amount of garbage as you walk past it (sometimes including needles used for shooting up drugs), the house's paint is dilapidated and peeling off, and there are regularly 4-6 cars staying there which overflow onto the street regularly depriving the 4 houses around it of street parking.
It sounds like you ought to focus on those issues and not the fact that it's a rental. The owner, not the renter, is ultimately responsible for maintaining the property.
Just because FB is a nationwide company headquartered out of state, should it be exempt from campaign finance disclosure laws?
Yes, absolutely! Anyone with no physical presence in a given jurisdiction ought to have zero obligation to follow that jurisdiction's rules. The location of the user of the service should be irrelevant. The local government can try regulating the users and intermediaries within their jurisdiction directly if they have a problem with people accessing an outside service. Of course, there will probably be a certain amount of political fallout should the Seattle government attempt to ban access to Facebook within the city's borders...
One can "have a problem with" something without it being a crime; there is an entire continuum of ethics spanning the range between "acceptable behavior" and "should be considered illegal". However, it is pointless to object to someone merely taking a photo of something they can already see. By itself, stored inertly in the camera's memory, the photograph is no more harmful than their own memory of the scene. If you have a problem with someone taking photographs, don't grant them access in the first place.
In this case it is safe to assume that the offender is violating the terms of their permission to access that space, and thus trespassing. Why focus on photographs when the real problem their presence?
If North Korea tortures you until you provide they key, what's the difference between that and no encryption as far as they are concerned?
Well, there is the fact that they would actually have to torture you, which might cause more diplomatic problems for them than simply seizing your equipment. There is also the possibility that you don't have the decryption key in the first place; the photos could easily be encrypted such that only your superiors in whatever organization you're reporting to have access to the decryption keys.
... but then you die and your pictures never see the light of day. Keeps the source safe, but they've taken risks for no benefit.
They'd be taking far more risk for no benefit if the photos were intercepted without encryption. Of course, the goal is to get the photos out of the country undetected, and for that purpose a prudent photographer would take the steps others have reasonably suggested, like transferring the photos to a secure device—ideally a remote server in a "safe" country—wiping the camera's memory card, and filling it with innocuous "decoy" shots. The purpose of on-camera encryption is to plug the gap which exists between when the photos are taken and when they can be offloaded to more secure storage.
If you are in North Korea taking pictures, you aren't going to get away with "they are encrypted!"
Missing the point. Encryption isn't primarily to protect you, it's to protect your sources. To protect yourself from discovery you'd need plausible deniability, and possibly steganography, which are outside the scope of this proposal.
There is no duality here, because there is no circumstance where the mere capture or possession of a photograph or video should ever be considered a crime.
To prevent this type of data leakage, from Firefox 59, the private browsing option will remove path information from referrer values sent to third parties, effectively stripping out additional data and only leaving the web domain.
Hopefully this is just the first step toward a proper solution. Step 2 is to apply the same policy for intra-site links, to prevent sites from filtering on the exact page address. Step 3 is to always send the requested resource's domain, regardless of the source.
The original question though is, when you are facing imminent death, is it really going to make any difference, to *you*, that there's a duplicate of you out there somewhere that will go on living?
In a sense I think we go through this all the time without even thinking about it. The person who wakes up in my bed and heads off to my job tomorrow morning isn't going to be "me" as I exist right now. That future self will, however, share in my memories and experiences, my hopes and dreams, my principles and interpersonal relationships—in short, someone who is not quite me, but very like me, will be there to continue what I have started. Unless, of course, I die—and that is where the backup clone comes in. My death would no doubt remain a traumatic event in the moment it occurs, but my clone won't remember that part, and in the time leading up to my death I need not worry about all the things that would otherwise be left undone, or the pain my absence would cause my friends and loved ones, because my place in the world will continue to be filled by someone perhaps not quite me, but very like me.
Lets say you manage to make an absolutely atom-perfect indistinguishable clone of yourself. Only thing is, you're both still clearly distinguishable to each other: one is the subjective you, and the other is some other, eerily similar person sitting across the room. Shove a knife though one of their hands, and only that one will scream.
This assumes that both clones are active and aware, and in that case I already agreed that their unique experiences make the clones distinct individuals. There is no continuity from one to the other. However—and I think this is the important part—they would both have equally valid claims to being continuations of the singular individual who existed before the cloning.
We accept that the people we know can change in various ways over time while remaining the "same person", but we have no experience with multiple legitimate claims to the same identity. In the presence of this sort of perfect cloning we would need to allow that there may exist in the present two unique individuals who are both the "same person" as someone we knew in the past. However, this does not imply that they are the same person now, given their dissimilar experiences and interactions since the cloning took place.
Going back to the simpler case where the "backup clone" is held in stasis, your backup and the other clone not kept in stasis can both be considered "you" to someone who knew and interacted with you prior to the cloning, as they are both continuations from that version of yourself. The backup is not the "you" who died, since it lacks those later experiences. However, its relationship to that person is equivalent to the relationship between two versions of the "same person" before and after contracting amnesia, absent any fancy cloning technology.
Even to someone who only knew you after the cloning, the backup could be considered "you" to the extent that it shares most of your history and personality and fits the mental model of "you" which exists in the other person's mind. There may be some jarring differences, but nothing we don't already have experience dealing with in amnesia cases.
Of course, another way to look at it is that it highlights the fact that the entire concept of a coherent "you" extending through time is a perceptual illusion to begin with.
I would certainly agree that the concept of "you" as a persistent entity is an artificial construct, unlike the physical "you" consisting of a particular combination of matter and energy at a specific point in time. If you want to call that an "illusion" then all continuity from one moment to the next could be considered similarly illusory.