Please tell me you're kidding? "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" was the party line in Nazi Germany, the McKarthy Witch hunts of the 1950's and of course the good old "patriot act" of the present day.
What "us guys" are so concerned about it both the invasion of our unalienable right (you'll notice that they are rights, not privledges) and the fact that this circumvents the checks and balences specified in the constitution.
People almost always abuse power, the constitution was drafted with that in mind, hence the three branches of gov't that monitor each others actions.
The current administrations explansion of executive authority is of very questionable legal standing.
"Unlike other search warrants, these warrants do not require the officer to show that evidence of wrongdoing is likely to be found or that the target of its investigation is involved in a crime.
A librarian who is served with a warrant must surrender records of the patron's book borrowing or Internet use and is prohibited from revealing the search to anyone -- including the patron. The Justice Department has refused to tell Congress how the law is being used, saying the information is classified. "
-- I especially like the standards for warrents. The don't need probably cause of evidence, they just need to tell the judge "it's in the interest of National Security". We all know by historical example that powers like that are never abused, right?
I don't disagree with your main point. But I'd also imagine that the prevailing theory will not be anything like our models of today. If anything I suspect that in a few hundred years we'll know how naive our current theories are.
I'm not advocating religious explanations here, only saying that the general hubris of much of the scientific community is laughable. Around the 1900's we thought our study of physics was complete, then relativity turned physics on it's hear... still people thought now we have the answer -- until quantum theory came along.
What makes you think the our "new correct" explanations are any more permanent. Our understanding of the universe is in its infancy.
Terrorism?
- I doubt it seriously, for all the hysteria in the US about terrorism right now It isn't that big of a problem. We lost some 2000 people in the September 11 attacks. That is tragic, as is the loss of any human life. But more people die from car accidents every year than were killed in the WTC attacks. Where are the politicans screaming that we need to reogranize the goverment and ban cars?
Suicide - WTF does this have to do with censorship?
The manufacture of drugs -
Given the disaster that has resulted from the "war on drugs" I don't think this should be banned at all. It's simple supply and demand... as long as people want the shit, someone will make it. You'd think we'd have learned after the prohibition era - no one drank then right?
I can't stand the knee jerk "it's bad, therefore we need to pass laws" attitude. Yes drugs are bad, that doesn't make banning them good.
You're missing the point. The concept of Kiddie Porn turns my stomach as well. No one here is arguing that child pronography is an acceptable thing.
Personally, I think anyone caught producing or directly distributing it should be deal with harshly.
The point is that the PA goverments is ordering a carrier to take full responsibility for the content. If you plot a crime using the phone is the phone company liable?
Wait I forgot, it's just like terrorism. Since I don't support this "I must not care about the children". Well bullshit, I have a five year old I love to death, I think the people who are caught pursueing these site's and certainly the people creating this material should be thrown in prisions so lonely that they'll pay spiders for sex. That doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand
To the point and articulate argument. I wish go-public would read this post.
Re:Good.. we need Ideas, not just complaints
on
"Squishy" DRM?
·
· Score: 1
Your comment suggests the idea that there is a "good idea" with regard to DRM. How about the concept that "any" DRM style restrictions are unacceptable.
Personally, I don't feel the need to justify any of my network traffic to "the powers that be". I paid for me bandwitdh, I'll send what I want.
This is just as offensive as full scale digital rights managment. Replace the corporations involved with "the goverment" and ask yourself if you would find this idea so acceptable?
If the goverment wanted to screen all communications without warrents (not that they aren't trying) "to identify security risks" how would that sit with you.
None of this changes the basic facts, it's my damn computer, I'll do what I want to with it. If I break the law I may be proscueted, but this fact in no way gives authorities any right to "check up on me".
Personally I find the fact that a lot of crime/theft will go undetetected a perfectly reasonable price to pay for living in a free society (if only).
This is just stupid. Either Switzerlan or Sweaden (forget which) requires military service two weeks a year for all males 18 to 40 or so. In order to enable rapid response time, those not on a duty rotation are required to have their military gear, including assault rifle, in their house. Following your logic that weapon accessabliity = gun murders this country should have a huge problem. Guess what - it doesn't
Yes, but subsequent steps in the AA program involved acknowleding a higher power than yourself. (Not a god per se, just a generic "higher power"). Somehow I don't see Microsoft doing this en route to their quest to control the world.
"Winning" in the miltary sense is pretty clearly defined. In Somilia we failed to achieve the primary objective of the mission (the capture), therefore the mission was a failure, our impressive kill ratio nonwithstanding.
Slashdot Mirror
Quite possibly :-) ...the scary thing is that when people spout crap like ths I can't tell if they're joking any more.
What "us guys" are so concerned about it both the invasion of our unalienable right (you'll notice that they are rights, not privledges) and the fact that this circumvents the checks and balences specified in the constitution.
People almost always abuse power, the constitution was drafted with that in mind, hence the three branches of gov't that monitor each others actions.
The current administrations explansion of executive authority is of very questionable legal standing.
"Unlike other search warrants, these warrants do not require the officer to show that evidence of wrongdoing is likely to be found or that the target of its investigation is involved in a crime.
A librarian who is served with a warrant must surrender records of the patron's book borrowing or Internet use and is prohibited from revealing the search to anyone -- including the patron. The Justice Department has refused to tell Congress how the law is being used, saying the information is classified. "
-- I especially like the standards for warrents. The don't need probably cause of evidence, they just need to tell the judge "it's in the interest of National Security". We all know by historical example that powers like that are never abused, right?
Sorry, it was a long day, I failed to catch the sarcasm in your first post.
I'm not advocating religious explanations here, only saying that the general hubris of much of the scientific community is laughable. Around the 1900's we thought our study of physics was complete, then relativity turned physics on it's hear... still people thought now we have the answer -- until quantum theory came along.
What makes you think the our "new correct" explanations are any more permanent. Our understanding of the universe is in its infancy.
Can someone publicise the IPs so that we can all "do our civic duty" and reject all their packets?
- I doubt it seriously, for all the hysteria in the US about terrorism right now It isn't that big of a problem. We lost some 2000 people in the September 11 attacks. That is tragic, as is the loss of any human life. But more people die from car accidents every year than were killed in the WTC attacks. Where are the politicans screaming that we need to reogranize the goverment and ban cars?
Suicide - WTF does this have to do with censorship?
The manufacture of drugs -
Given the disaster that has resulted from the "war on drugs" I don't think this should be banned at all. It's simple supply and demand... as long as people want the shit, someone will make it. You'd think we'd have learned after the prohibition era - no one drank then right?
I can't stand the knee jerk "it's bad, therefore we need to pass laws" attitude. Yes drugs are bad, that doesn't make banning them good.
Personally, I think anyone caught producing or directly distributing it should be deal with harshly.
The point is that the PA goverments is ordering a carrier to take full responsibility for the content. If you plot a crime using the phone is the phone company liable?
Wait I forgot, it's just like terrorism. Since I don't support this "I must not care about the children". Well bullshit, I have a five year old I love to death, I think the people who are caught pursueing these site's and certainly the people creating this material should be thrown in prisions so lonely that they'll pay spiders for sex. That doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand
To the point and articulate argument. I wish go-public would read this post.
Your comment suggests the idea that there is a "good idea" with regard to DRM. How about the concept that "any" DRM style restrictions are unacceptable.
Personally, I don't feel the need to justify any of my network traffic to "the powers that be". I paid for me bandwitdh, I'll send what I want.
This is just as offensive as full scale digital rights managment. Replace the corporations involved with "the goverment" and ask yourself if you would find this idea so acceptable? If the goverment wanted to screen all communications without warrents (not that they aren't trying) "to identify security risks" how would that sit with you. None of this changes the basic facts, it's my damn computer, I'll do what I want to with it. If I break the law I may be proscueted, but this fact in no way gives authorities any right to "check up on me". Personally I find the fact that a lot of crime/theft will go undetetected a perfectly reasonable price to pay for living in a free society (if only).
Just a thought.
Yes, but subsequent steps in the AA program involved acknowleding a higher power than yourself. (Not a god per se, just a generic "higher power"). Somehow I don't see Microsoft doing this en route to their quest to control the world.
"Winning" in the miltary sense is pretty clearly defined. In Somilia we failed to achieve the primary objective of the mission (the capture), therefore the mission was a failure, our impressive kill ratio nonwithstanding.