Every technical revolution has its critics. And we need to listen and heed but not fear. The problems will get worked out. Life will continue to improve and mankind will carry on until another extinction asteroid strikes earth.
Sleep easy pal.
The choice is ours as to what we decide to allow a technology to be used for. Technology is a set of tools, nothing more like any other tool set, even including a relatively-simple carpenter's tool set. A claw-hammer can be used to frame a house or brain a spouse.
And I think she got that one right. Circumstantial evidence seems to support her. (A stopped clock, and all that.)
If looked at objectively and taking reasonable account for the times in which it was written, AS gets a lot more "right" than many are willing to admit. If it did not get so much right, it would not incite such strong reactions from collectivists/statists/Marxists/communists/etc at it, or it's author's, mere mention.
I'm dreading the possibility, with the US close to a financial and social collapse, of a "Directive 10-289"-like move by the government when the dollar collapses and the markets tank. If they do that, it won't be just a financial/monetary disaster that might have some possibility of the US coming through eventually, it will mean the end of the US as a free and open society. The "Great Experiment" will be over.
Just moan and pretend to enjoy it, if everyone did this, they may have difficulty finding employees to do it
Heh! Yeah, you go ahead and show us how it's done, we'll watch.
You'd simply be arrested & charged with things like felonious aggravated sexual harassment of a Federal employee, lewd & lascivious public behavior, disorderly conduct, and probably several other charges.
Don't worry, with a good lawyer and some luck with plea-bargaining (assuming they aren't particularly annoyed and determined to hammer you), you could be out in under 3 years. Even if they drop the charges you're still out a ton of money in expenses and lawyer fees (tbh if you're stuck with the public defender you're likely boned regardless unless you can defend yourself), missed paid travel, and have an(other?) arrest on your record.
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against...We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." --- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
How about we wait for a problem to show itself and THEN fix it? Which probably would include having the Federal Trade Commission apply existing laws against anti-competitive behavior. Letting the FCC, amoeba-like, envelop the entire internet in Title 2 just in anticipation that maybe there might be a problem somewhere down the line is nuts.
Hey, cool it Bub!
Ex-nay on the ruth-tay, OK?
I'm ready to make millions selling them tiger-repelling rocks!
Thank God the founding fathers had enough foresight to include the clause "don't hax me bro!" in the constitution.
Yes, and it can be found (not necessarily in order of relevance/applicability) in the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments (depending on individual context) to the US Constitution.
They had the foresight to lay out a design for government based on universal principles that stand regardless of the advances of civilization, technology, & science.
The people want free healthcare, and free housing, and free income. They DON'T want freedom nor the responsibility that comes with it.
There's already a place right here in the US and in every nation on Earth where those people can have all of that free stuff and enjoy a life free from responsibility.
(f) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.
And therein lies the problem. No law, Act, nor Executive Order can allow the government to legally violate the US Constitution. They pretend it's not so, but it is and they are in violation of their oaths of office as well as guilty of numerous and blatant violations of civil rights under color of law and should be incarcerated for the rest of their lives with no chance of parole, at minimum.
An unconstitutional law is no law at all. And no, nine guys in black robes are *not* the final arbiters, the people are.
The officials represent those citizens and serve their needs.
In theory, yes. In practice, not so much, and as government size, scope, and power grows, it becomes even less until a tipping-point is reached, and then that is no longer even theoretically true.
Also, locals only have so much choice how their education taxes are spent, as most things that truly matter are controlled by the Federal government. A county school system would not be allowed to determine the curricula taught outside a narrow range of choices, mostly in subjects not required for graduation.
Of course, regardless of anything else that might be done to improve US public education or how much money is spent, it will all be wasted and for naught until the teacher's unions are banned and the Federal Dept. of Education is eliminated or at minimum seriously reduced in power & scope. (Public-sector unions are a criminal abomination and should be banned in any case.)
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations..." -- FDR
Ultimately, such economies are going to have to face that either they play nice with the rest of the world, or the end result is that they're going to be shut out and have to depend on their local crappy replacements for the goods and services no longer available to them from better companies elsewhere in the world.
More likely, they do what EU nations have always done when their economies and/or governments/leaders fail...start a war. It's the most common form of 'reset' through Europe's past.
Oh well, I guess that what it takes to do business in the EU. Play by the rules, pay the correct taxes, and especially pay the right person. But if you think about it paying a â1B fine for making â100B is just the cost of doing business in those countries.
Sounds kind of like a twisted, modern-day, updated version of "noblesse oblige" for the EU tech market.
Well, they say that old tricks are the best tricks, and what once was old will be new again. Too bad more people everywhere don't pay more heed to "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
That same state paid for the kids education. 12-13 years of public schools paid with state tax dollars to reach graduation.
No, the State did not pay for the kid's public education.
Property taxes paid by local property owners, likely including that kid's parents, paid for his public schooling, possibly with additional funds from taxes and lottery programs at the State level, which also all come from the citizens/taxpayers. Government has no money of it's own, only what it takes from the population.
So, Chicago wants to withhold an educational diploma that this kid of yours has already earned with his educational achievements, and that his parents and community already paid for.
If the Democrats were good people, they wouldnt have to pretend so hard to be good people, and thus wouldnt suggest such a stupid asinine thing as withholding someones diploma from them for obviously fucked up virtue-signaling reasons. This guys plan is actively harmful. He is punching the citizens while pretending that its a good thing.
Students: "Your 'schools' are educationally-meaningless daycare and indoctrination centers filled with chaos, political-correctness, and violence, we don't care whether we 'graduate' from such shitholes."
Rahm Emanual: "You're making us look bad! Beatings will continue until morale improves!"
Then how could the US fall into a fascist oligarchy like you previously asserted?
What is there about a fascist oligarchy that demands that rich/corporations are the ones in charge, and not the government leaders (the ones with the guns, prisons, courts, judges, etc)? How could socialists and communists nationalize businesses and entire industries?
Sorry, but a building full of lawyers is no match for a main battle tank (although seeing it demonstrated would be a beautiful thing and nothing of value would be lost:P). Unless they've had military training and have anti-tank rockets, but I'm not aware of that being a lawyer-requirement.
The short answer is that currently, large corporate interests/agendas and those of the US government align to a greater or lesser degree, depending. Everybody is getting something currently and so are willing to go along for the most part. When their interests/agendas diverge sufficiently that government leaders see more advantage than down-side to a takeover/nationalization or similar, it will happen.
We don't even have a single mainstream progressive party in this country. We have a far right and a moderate party. Even Bernie Sanders is considered far left in the USA. Travel a bit outside this country, or read a non-partisan book every once in a while, and you will see how drastically conservative American politics are.
Well, of course they are! The US was founded on principles totally off the scale by European standards! That was the entire reason the US declared independence! Totally incompatible basic principles!
Why does anyone think that the US should give up it's founding principles that differentiate it from the rest of the world and made it a super-power with the most individual freedom of any nation up to that point, or that it would be a good thing for the US?
What I see is this [UBI] would destroy the Middle Class completely and create a no-mans-land between the Poor and the Rich that the Poor would never be able to cross.
This is exactly what the globalist elite wants.
Essentially, Hunger Games meets Game of Thrones where we all play the starving serfs.
Because one big employer has a government by the balls.
Wrong.
Guns/prisons > money.
Hard to have anyone by the balls from a super-max cell or a grave. These days government can simply seize or freeze assets with the press of a key or click of a mouse.
Government will always have the upper hand as they have a monopoly on the use of force. Fascist, socialist, and communist nations would not have succeeded nearly as often at nationalizing entire industries as they've done, otherwise.
As an employer (who pays above minimum wage anyway, the labour *market* sets the price for software and hardware developers higher than the artificial limit that the mob decides must be the minimum), I can tell you what I do. I have multiple teams where the vast majority of workers are located in countries with a much lower salary expectation and very few employees where the expectation for absolute dollar amounts per hour are high. This allows me to hire more people than I could otherwise. Obviously for a small retail place or a restaurant this does not work yet, they cannot outsource, so they will automate instead (and I will provide some of that automation).
Minimum wage sets a limit on the number of people a business that pays it cab hire. There shouldn't be an artificial minimum wage at all, you don't have to work for a business if you don't like the wage. Of course with the minimum wage present the amount that the businesses have for salaries is strictly limited, so they hire fewer people.
Minimum wage is responsible for lack of grocery baggers, fuel station attendants, cashiers, people answering phones, etc. Minimum wage gives the left a war cry they can employ to rally the troops as a response to the inflation created by the government central bankers and the resulting rising prices. Minimum wage is a convenient ruse for the government unions to push for their pay increases.
Minimum wage actually sets minimum ability of the applicant when hired by a large business and it sets maximum people when hired by a small one
Thank you!
At least *someone* here understands. It's painful scrolling down through all the ignorant comments, but at least somebody posting here has a clue as to how minimum wage laws affect employment!
Parent post should get modded +5 Informative, but I'm sure the/. collectivist hordes will mod it down.
One of the biggest changes in the workforce since 1970 or so is the increase in the number of women working full time, which happened almost entirely because they could specialize and improve their lives more by working outside the home than by working in the home.
Bullshit!
Two-income families have become the norm simply because it now takes two full-time incomes at a minimum to buy a modest house and raise a small family while maintaining a moderately-comfortable standard of living, where in the past a single income would suffice.
...rich people don't hold a significant portion of their wealth in a bank account, but buy real estate, stocks and bonds.
This is true, but I see that as just another way of hoarding money.
Wealth invested in stocks, bonds, and real estate provides the capital for others to start businesses, buy/build homes, build factories, build public infrastructure, and much, much more. This is pretty basic econ-101, I'm puzzled at your lack of understanding.
Government strongly prefers to have a few large corporations to deal with rather than hundreds of thousands of little mom & pop businesses. Much easier to tax, regulate, and manipulate a few large, stationary targets than a multitude of small, moving targets.
There is no 'free market' in the US for many if not most things. The US is dancing on the thin line of becoming a fascist oligarchy, if not already there for most intents and purposes.
The major difference between the NSA and Russia is NSA will want every computer in the USA to keep functioning whereas in a time of war Russia would want every computer in the USA to stop functioning.
Not sure that's been true for some time, if ever regarding the USA (government) wanting every computer in the USA to keep working. I believe just the opposite, that the US government views the US population as at least as much, if not more, of a threat than any foreign state, and wants the ability to hack into and/or shut down any civilian/private/individual network or computer in the US, and is so afraid of the population that it's willing to sacrifice security vs foreign states to obtain it.
So far they've demonstrated a willingness...nay, a blatantly-cavalier attitude towards allowing back-door-able bugs to remain or be deliberately inserted into software to compromise & weaken security sold to and used by the general public.
They keep telling us through their actions that they consider the US population enemies and potential enemies. If they persist, many in the population will begin to believe it themselves, and act accordingly.
How are they going to enforce custom made home built drones to be identified?
Well, if past patterns hold true and they do decide to go all-in on registration/tracking, there's already a convenient blueprint for the politicians to follow.
Welcome to; "The War On (unregistered/untrackable) Drones(TM)"
"Alright, kid! Let's see registration papers for that drone and show me some picture I.D.!"
"But Sir, I'm only 9 years old!?"
"Sure, just an innocent young radical-in-training out for a stroll with an unregistered spy drone! Alright, on the ground, face-down...and don't make any sudden moves, my partner has you covered with his M4 carbine!"
"Mommy!!" [BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG]...[BANGBANG]
After a couple of "tragic incidents", what parent would allow their child to play with a drone? How many adults would want to fly drones as a hobby?
Slashdot Mirror
...Denied!
In first post.
Strat
Every technical revolution has its critics. And we need to listen and heed but not fear. The problems will get worked out. Life will continue to improve and mankind will carry on until another extinction asteroid strikes earth.
Sleep easy pal.
The choice is ours as to what we decide to allow a technology to be used for. Technology is a set of tools, nothing more like any other tool set, even including a relatively-simple carpenter's tool set. A claw-hammer can be used to frame a house or brain a spouse.
Strat
And I think she got that one right. Circumstantial evidence seems to support her. (A stopped clock, and all that.)
If looked at objectively and taking reasonable account for the times in which it was written, AS gets a lot more "right" than many are willing to admit. If it did not get so much right, it would not incite such strong reactions from collectivists/statists/Marxists/communists/etc at it, or it's author's, mere mention.
I'm dreading the possibility, with the US close to a financial and social collapse, of a "Directive 10-289"-like move by the government when the dollar collapses and the markets tank. If they do that, it won't be just a financial/monetary disaster that might have some possibility of the US coming through eventually, it will mean the end of the US as a free and open society. The "Great Experiment" will be over.
Strat
Just moan and pretend to enjoy it, if everyone did this, they may have difficulty finding employees to do it
Heh! Yeah, you go ahead and show us how it's done, we'll watch.
You'd simply be arrested & charged with things like felonious aggravated sexual harassment of a Federal employee, lewd & lascivious public behavior, disorderly conduct, and probably several other charges.
Don't worry, with a good lawyer and some luck with plea-bargaining (assuming they aren't particularly annoyed and determined to hammer you), you could be out in under 3 years. Even if they drop the charges you're still out a ton of money in expenses and lawyer fees (tbh if you're stuck with the public defender you're likely boned regardless unless you can defend yourself), missed paid travel, and have an(other?) arrest on your record.
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against...We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." --- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Cases of judges abusing their power to beat up or shoot a defendant in the court room are... nonexistent I believe.
Cases (or at least "case') of violent beatings are *not* unknown in the US Congress, however.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And it was a Democrat Representative beating a Republican Senator nearly to death for his speech against slavery.
I guess what once was old is new again, as we see violence arising from the same Party once again when their agendas are threatened.
Strat
How about we wait for a problem to show itself and THEN fix it? Which probably would include having the Federal Trade Commission apply existing laws against anti-competitive behavior. Letting the FCC, amoeba-like, envelop the entire internet in Title 2 just in anticipation that maybe there might be a problem somewhere down the line is nuts.
Hey, cool it Bub!
Ex-nay on the ruth-tay, OK?
I'm ready to make millions selling them tiger-repelling rocks!
Strat
Thank God the founding fathers had enough foresight to include the clause "don't hax me bro!" in the constitution.
Yes, and it can be found (not necessarily in order of relevance/applicability) in the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments (depending on individual context) to the US Constitution.
They had the foresight to lay out a design for government based on universal principles that stand regardless of the advances of civilization, technology, & science.
Strat
The people want free healthcare, and free housing, and free income. They DON'T want freedom nor the responsibility that comes with it.
There's already a place right here in the US and in every nation on Earth where those people can have all of that free stuff and enjoy a life free from responsibility.
It's called a "prison".
Strat
You do realize NSA has both a defensive and offensive side of the house right?
You know, you're absolutely right!
Why, just the other day I spotted the NSA defense boys by their van, down by the river!!!
Strat
(f) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.
And therein lies the problem. No law, Act, nor Executive Order can allow the government to legally violate the US Constitution. They pretend it's not so, but it is and they are in violation of their oaths of office as well as guilty of numerous and blatant violations of civil rights under color of law and should be incarcerated for the rest of their lives with no chance of parole, at minimum.
An unconstitutional law is no law at all. And no, nine guys in black robes are *not* the final arbiters, the people are.
Strat
The officials represent those citizens and serve their needs.
In theory, yes. In practice, not so much, and as government size, scope, and power grows, it becomes even less until a tipping-point is reached, and then that is no longer even theoretically true.
Also, locals only have so much choice how their education taxes are spent, as most things that truly matter are controlled by the Federal government. A county school system would not be allowed to determine the curricula taught outside a narrow range of choices, mostly in subjects not required for graduation.
Of course, regardless of anything else that might be done to improve US public education or how much money is spent, it will all be wasted and for naught until the teacher's unions are banned and the Federal Dept. of Education is eliminated or at minimum seriously reduced in power & scope. (Public-sector unions are a criminal abomination and should be banned in any case.)
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations..." -- FDR
Strat
Ultimately, such economies are going to have to face that either they play nice with the rest of the world, or the end result is that they're going to be shut out and have to depend on their local crappy replacements for the goods and services no longer available to them from better companies elsewhere in the world.
More likely, they do what EU nations have always done when their economies and/or governments/leaders fail...start a war. It's the most common form of 'reset' through Europe's past.
Strat
Oh well, I guess that what it takes to do business in the EU. Play by the rules, pay the correct taxes, and especially pay the right person. But if you think about it paying a â1B fine for making â100B is just the cost of doing business in those countries.
Sounds kind of like a twisted, modern-day, updated version of "noblesse oblige" for the EU tech market.
Well, they say that old tricks are the best tricks, and what once was old will be new again. Too bad more people everywhere don't pay more heed to "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Strat
That same state paid for the kids education. 12-13 years of public schools paid with state tax dollars to reach graduation.
No, the State did not pay for the kid's public education.
Property taxes paid by local property owners, likely including that kid's parents, paid for his public schooling, possibly with additional funds from taxes and lottery programs at the State level, which also all come from the citizens/taxpayers. Government has no money of it's own, only what it takes from the population.
So, Chicago wants to withhold an educational diploma that this kid of yours has already earned with his educational achievements, and that his parents and community already paid for.
Sounds legit.
Strat
If the Democrats were good people, they wouldnt have to pretend so hard to be good people, and thus wouldnt suggest such a stupid asinine thing as withholding someones diploma from them for obviously fucked up virtue-signaling reasons. This guys plan is actively harmful. He is punching the citizens while pretending that its a good thing.
Students: "Your 'schools' are educationally-meaningless daycare and indoctrination centers filled with chaos, political-correctness, and violence, we don't care whether we 'graduate' from such shitholes."
Rahm Emanual: "You're making us look bad! Beatings will continue until morale improves!"
Strat
Then how could the US fall into a fascist oligarchy like you previously asserted?
What is there about a fascist oligarchy that demands that rich/corporations are the ones in charge, and not the government leaders (the ones with the guns, prisons, courts, judges, etc)? How could socialists and communists nationalize businesses and entire industries?
Sorry, but a building full of lawyers is no match for a main battle tank (although seeing it demonstrated would be a beautiful thing and nothing of value would be lost :P). Unless they've had military training and have anti-tank rockets, but I'm not aware of that being a lawyer-requirement.
The short answer is that currently, large corporate interests/agendas and those of the US government align to a greater or lesser degree, depending. Everybody is getting something currently and so are willing to go along for the most part. When their interests/agendas diverge sufficiently that government leaders see more advantage than down-side to a takeover/nationalization or similar, it will happen.
Strat
We don't even have a single mainstream progressive party in this country. We have a far right and a moderate party. Even Bernie Sanders is considered far left in the USA. Travel a bit outside this country, or read a non-partisan book every once in a while, and you will see how drastically conservative American politics are.
Well, of course they are! The US was founded on principles totally off the scale by European standards! That was the entire reason the US declared independence! Totally incompatible basic principles!
Why does anyone think that the US should give up it's founding principles that differentiate it from the rest of the world and made it a super-power with the most individual freedom of any nation up to that point, or that it would be a good thing for the US?
Strat
Essentially, Hunger Games meets Game of Thrones where we all play the starving serfs.
Strat
Because one big employer has a government by the balls.
Wrong.
Guns/prisons > money.
Hard to have anyone by the balls from a super-max cell or a grave. These days government can simply seize or freeze assets with the press of a key or click of a mouse.
Government will always have the upper hand as they have a monopoly on the use of force. Fascist, socialist, and communist nations would not have succeeded nearly as often at nationalizing entire industries as they've done, otherwise.
Strat
As an employer (who pays above minimum wage anyway, the labour *market* sets the price for software and hardware developers higher than the artificial limit that the mob decides must be the minimum), I can tell you what I do. I have multiple teams where the vast majority of workers are located in countries with a much lower salary expectation and very few employees where the expectation for absolute dollar amounts per hour are high. This allows me to hire more people than I could otherwise. Obviously for a small retail place or a restaurant this does not work yet, they cannot outsource, so they will automate instead (and I will provide some of that automation).
Minimum wage sets a limit on the number of people a business that pays it cab hire. There shouldn't be an artificial minimum wage at all, you don't have to work for a business if you don't like the wage. Of course with the minimum wage present the amount that the businesses have for salaries is strictly limited, so they hire fewer people.
Minimum wage is responsible for lack of grocery baggers, fuel station attendants, cashiers, people answering phones, etc. Minimum wage gives the left a war cry they can employ to rally the troops as a response to the inflation created by the government central bankers and the resulting rising prices. Minimum wage is a convenient ruse for the government unions to push for their pay increases.
Minimum wage actually sets minimum ability of the applicant when hired by a large business and it sets maximum people when hired by a small one
Thank you!
At least *someone* here understands. It's painful scrolling down through all the ignorant comments, but at least somebody posting here has a clue as to how minimum wage laws affect employment!
Parent post should get modded +5 Informative, but I'm sure the /. collectivist hordes will mod it down.
Strat
One of the biggest changes in the workforce since 1970 or so is the increase in the number of women working full time, which happened almost entirely because they could specialize and improve their lives more by working outside the home than by working in the home.
Bullshit!
Two-income families have become the norm simply because it now takes two full-time incomes at a minimum to buy a modest house and raise a small family while maintaining a moderately-comfortable standard of living, where in the past a single income would suffice.
Strat
Wealth invested in stocks, bonds, and real estate provides the capital for others to start businesses, buy/build homes, build factories, build public infrastructure, and much, much more. This is pretty basic econ-101, I'm puzzled at your lack of understanding.
Strat
Now explain Comcast.
Government.
Government strongly prefers to have a few large corporations to deal with rather than hundreds of thousands of little mom & pop businesses. Much easier to tax, regulate, and manipulate a few large, stationary targets than a multitude of small, moving targets.
There is no 'free market' in the US for many if not most things. The US is dancing on the thin line of becoming a fascist oligarchy, if not already there for most intents and purposes.
Strat
The major difference between the NSA and Russia is NSA will want every computer in the USA to keep functioning whereas in a time of war Russia would want every computer in the USA to stop functioning.
Not sure that's been true for some time, if ever regarding the USA (government) wanting every computer in the USA to keep working. I believe just the opposite, that the US government views the US population as at least as much, if not more, of a threat than any foreign state, and wants the ability to hack into and/or shut down any civilian/private/individual network or computer in the US, and is so afraid of the population that it's willing to sacrifice security vs foreign states to obtain it.
So far they've demonstrated a willingness...nay, a blatantly-cavalier attitude towards allowing back-door-able bugs to remain or be deliberately inserted into software to compromise & weaken security sold to and used by the general public.
They keep telling us through their actions that they consider the US population enemies and potential enemies. If they persist, many in the population will begin to believe it themselves, and act accordingly.
Strat
How are they going to enforce custom made home built drones to be identified?
Well, if past patterns hold true and they do decide to go all-in on registration/tracking, there's already a convenient blueprint for the politicians to follow.
Welcome to; "The War On (unregistered/untrackable) Drones(TM)"
"Alright, kid! Let's see registration papers for that drone and show me some picture I.D.!"
"But Sir, I'm only 9 years old!?"
"Sure, just an innocent young radical-in-training out for a stroll with an unregistered spy drone! Alright, on the ground, face-down...and don't make any sudden moves, my partner has you covered with his M4 carbine!"
"Mommy!!"
[BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG]...[BANGBANG]
After a couple of "tragic incidents", what parent would allow their child to play with a drone? How many adults would want to fly drones as a hobby?
Strat