If the government intervened they would probably require that all such personal information be registered with the government so that they could "protect" you. If the government intervened they would probably demand that a copy of all retrieved personal information be sent to the FBI just to make sure a criminal wasn't online.
Remember the government does not want privacy on the internet. They want the exact opposite. They need to be able to mine as much data about their subjects as humanly possible. Anything preventing this is detrimental to their goals.
Stuart Eichert
I just donated $20 with paypal and the process took less than 1 minute. Compare that to the time to write out a check, print out an envelope, put on a stamp. I think that it should be easier for various non-profits and for-profits to increase their donations in this manner as the cost in time to the donor goes down substantially.
Stuart Eichert
Rackable systems at www.rackable.com has half width 1 U machines. They can get 80 machines in a standard rack plus a 4U network switch on both sides. Very impressive. They are used by google and others.
Stuart Eichert
I don't think America's politicians are working for anyone but themselves. Even if they mean to do good, there is no way central planning is going to solve problems in healthcare, electricity, labor, the environment, etc. Successful large corporations have learned the power of distributed decision making. Without it, a corporation will fall apart. No matter how brilliant (or evil) you think Gates, Ellison, McNealy, Gerstner, etc. are, they know that no one man can have complete control over every aspect of their company. We would be much better off if we had an incredibly small federal government, much smaller state government, and a reasonable size local government. Society has many problems and one centrally planned solution is not the right idea. Of course, this decentralization would take a tremendous amount of power away from the politicians. They certainly do not want this. Stuart Eichert
Ever think that maybe government involvement in space research is a bad idea. Check out Cato's
conference on Space: The Free Market Frontier. Certainly a different perspective than would you get around here. Stuart Eichert
Ideas are not tangible property. My use of an idea does not prohibit you from using it as well. You cannot steal an idea. You can steal a television. If I steal your television, you cannot use it anymore. If I steal your idea, you can still use it.
Stuart Eichert
Dear Carl S. Kaplan,
I read your Times article online. Thank you for taking the time
to bring to light Professor Solove's work. I look forward to his
final draft.
I am very concerned about privacy myself, not just online but
offline as well. Solove's conclusion calls for government
regulation to address our society's privacy concerns. I believe
the exact opposite would be more beneficial. If the federal,
state, and local governments would stop requiring me to use my
social security number for nearly everything I do, I feel I could
protect my privacy quite easily.
The government does not want privacy. How could they? True
privacy would mean not reporting my financial activities to the
IRS. True privacy would allow me to obtain a driver's license in
California without having to give a thumbprint. True privacy
would allow me to buy a firearm without a background check.
Why would the government want this? Privacy will only decrease
the amount of power and control they have in society.
All of these problems and disputes arise from the central idea that you can own an idea. You cannot own an idea. It is not tangible property. My use of the idea does not prohibit you from using it. This is not true with tangible property. These IP laws do nothing but put the government and well connected people/corporations in a position of power to decide who can earn money. IP never should have made it into the US Constitution. Our concepts of business, service, innovation and the such would be far more evolved by now if we had not made that mistake. Stuart Eichert
Re:Been done here for ages, and it works.
on
The Unblinking Eye
·
· Score: 1
These types of systems are permeating the UK at an amazing rate, and they are really showing results. As long as they are controlled by
the police, and used in a responsible manner according to the law, I really have no problem with it at all. You have to be incurably paranoid
to have a problem, I think. Its just a question of trusting the authoriteies. If they abuse this power, unlikely, you can just vote them out. That
is what a democracy is for.
What if the majority likes having my rights violated because of my (skin color, religion, political affiliation, operating system preferences, speech, etc.) I guess that would be okay, because the majority thinks it is. Democracy does not guarantee rights. Quite the opposite usually. Individuals guarantee their rights by not putting up with infringements. Stuart Eichert
People will pay for something that has value to them if they have to. For example, I value the chicken in the supermarket and as the chicken is currently the store's property I must pay them to acquire it and consume it. You may not value chicken and thus do not have to acquire it. I also value the recorded music of the band Metallica. I don't particularly value the stamped CD or the jewel case. I can acquire the recorded music for relatively no marginal cost (note I made a fixed investment in a computer, audio card, speakers, ethernet card, DSL service, and electricity). My only true marginal cost is my time and effort to seek out and download this music. I would be willing to pay a business to make this process easier for me. Saving me time and effort has value.
But what about Metallica. Clearly they have invested countless hours and dollars in the creation of the prerecorded music that I value. Should I be forced at gunpoint (forced by law) to compensate them with my money? Should the business that helped me save time in the downloading process be forced by law to compensate them?
I think the answer is clearly NO. But then how can Metallica possibly make any money by creating prerecorded music?
Several ways. First they can use the pre-recorded
music as a loss-leader (open up your marketing 101 books) to bring more and more people into their for-pay concerts. A live performance is still valued by most music fans and is a unique once in a lifetime service (either you were there or you were not, and no watching it on pay-perview is not just as good (unless the band stinks)). Besides performance the band can hold other special events and charge for admission. If they truly want to be compensated for their pre-recorded music then they can release their songs serially and demand a ransom to release the next one (or next set, whatever they want to). Basically this is the street performer protocol and would work well.
This is long-winded, but my point is that times are changing and the internet allows for the sharing of information between people for virtually no marginal cost. Business models based on government enforcement of IP monopolies will not last as people will find a way to get what they want. Stuart Eichert
I think it is important to look at what services unions provided to their clients. Unions often provide many services including contract negotiation, retirement planning, skills development, etc. For these services their members pay dues and agree to allow the union to make many decisions regarding their employment situation.
Is this so different from a consulting firm that sends workers out for contract assignments? Well, maybe a little. But the idea is still there.
A union is almost like its own contracting firm. Basically you join the union and then the union hires you out to the employer. The union is responsible for getting you a good wage, retirement plan, benefits, etc. If the union fails to provide you with what you want you quit the union and go it on your own.
The problems traditionally associated with union usually stem from violence and government meddling. Most union members are not violent and would never bring violence upon a scab or management they did not like. A small number of union members have attacked scabs or management as a means of negotiating. Historically the problem has been that the local police have looked the other way(much the way they used to look the other way when management would club strikers, seems things don't change I guess) for political or whatever reason.
The government has gotten involved by creating the NLRB(National Labor Relations Board) and various other agencies to deal with unionized labor. Whether you think the government is on the side of unions or management, it doesn't matter they are involved. They do not level the playing field. They get in there and try to interfere with negotiations between two business organizations (unions and management). The only role for government is to make sure that a) no one gets away with using violence as a tool for negotiation, b) no one commits fraud during the negotiation process, and c) contracts are enforced in the courts.
If you want to join a union go for it. But consider your other options like negotiating for yourself, quiting your job, joining a consulting shop, starting your own firm. Also consider that you don't have to join a formal union with government recognition and all the hoopla. You could organize with your co-workers, get legal counsel, and start working on a negotiating plan.
Above all, never lower yourself to use violence to get what you want. If US tech workers become known for violence then all of the IT jobs will head for foreign countries.
Stuart Eichert
Libertarian theory most certainly deals with the free market and how to deal with Microsoft. If Microsoft is using force or coercion for any purpose then it is the place of the government to stop them. Anti-trust laws are irrelevant. Anti-trust is just that: laws against trusts or successful corporations. If the government forced you to use Microsoft products then I would say they have an unbreakable monopoly. Until that point, let the market function. Stuart Eichert
Of course you pick the extreme, murder. The reason you lock a murderer in jail or execute him is because his very prescence in free society poses a real risk that someone else will lose their life through his violence.
I am not worried about losing my life to Microsoft's market position.
So I guess I could argue that copyright cases are a waste of time, because the copy has already been made and any attempt to make things right is just a waste of time and money. You would probably agree that the enforcement of copyright is a waste legally, economically, and technically. Many people feel the same way about anti-trust laws.
I am sick of all of this regulation. Government is suppossed to prosecute and hunt down violent criminals, thiefs, perpetrators of fraud. Not regulate peaceful activities like commerce and medicine. Stuart Eichert
Real child porn is photographic or perhaps audio evidence that a crime was committed against a child. When you buy such material or pay to have such material made you are in effect soliciting the commission of a crime, much the way if you pay a hitman to commit murder.
Virtual child porn, i.e. computer generated images or sounds, are in no way evidence that a crime was committed. They are merely the product of free expression. Granted a large percentage of the population would consider this expression disgusting and vile and do not want it in their own homes. The first amendment does not require that the vast majority of the population like your expression, just that they respect your right to look at whatever garbage you want so long as you do not infringe on their right not to.
Stuart Eichert
That is the last thing I need. What I need is the right to communicate my thoughts to anyone even if that includes trying to get them to buy something. Instead of coming up with creative solutions to problems so many jump to "have the government regulate it". The junk mailers will just find a new way that bypasses the government censorship. Come up with a better solution! Stuart Eichert
If you are really concerned that NASA doesn't have a large enough budget then how about donating some money to them? or working as a programmer for free for a few months? or if you are more the business type helping them form a fund raising group that solicits private donations? There is a lot you can do to help out NASA without being dependent on Dubya. Stuart Eichert
Yes, Australia has fairly high income and corporate taxes. We have correspondingly higher 'socialist' programs like decent state-sponsored
Education, Medical care and Welfare. Australians are, on the whole, happy with this situation. Similar to Canada, in many respects. Multinationals
don't like high taxes, though.
Later you complain of brain drain to US/UK. The only people who like all of this socialism are those who receive the redistribution of wealth. Since the socialism in the US is slightly less than that of Oz you will see those who can produce leaving for better opportunities. Don't worry though the US is trying to catch up to Canada and Australia's standards for the welfare state. Stuart Eichert
he second reason is political - the libertarian credo is that the market will resolve all such behaviors. Admitting that the market couldn't do so in
any given situation would be a sort of sacrilige, and could lead to such horrors as the European privacy legislations, trade practice controls and
other frightening instances of useful public policy.
The libertarian credo does not in anyway imply that the market will always give you exactly what you want. However, it does imply that this disgruntled customer has the right to stop patronizing eBay and consider patronizing a competitor. There is no guarantee that this customer will ever find the "perfect" online auction site. It is hard to find any perfect product or service. However, in a free market there are many alternatives and I am therefore free to chose the one that I consider best.
Government, on the other hand, offers no such choice. If I think that my government run schools are poor I can't withhold my tax money. I still have to pay, regardless of the quality I perceive in them. The more control the government asserts over the market the less choice I have. Stuart Eichert
The great thing about professional sports is that is probably the only industry in the USA where you can hire and fire people based totally on job performance and get away with it. People can be paid money based on how good they are. There are no quotas, no EEOC, none of that BS. If someone doesn't perform they are gone.
In most industries you can't fire anyone. They will sue and usually for discrimination. I can think of a case of a white guy suing his company because he was fired by his female white manager, who spent 2 years documenting how incompetent he was. Whatever happened to employment at will and the freedom of association? If it is my company then I feel it is my right to hire/fire someone based on anything I want. If I am employee it is my right to quit my job based on anything I want.
Odd, that we have never heard of a case of company suing a former employee who quit because his manager was a minority. Why doesn't this happen? Simple, large corporations have money and many people are quite content to use the courts to acquire their fortune.(the same can be said for many large corporations who sue others).
This is all a sign of a larger societal problem. Basically we are a nation with far too many people who try to use the courts and the legislature to acquire wealth.
Stuart Eichert
Deregulation of electrical power supply in California is perhaps leading to higher electrical bills in the long run.
There is not real deregulation of electric power in California. I live here, I read the articles, I buy UPSs for all my computers(god this summer was fun wasn't it). In California the power companies still have to sell everything through a government controlled clearing house. This clearing house can basically regulate the price. In addition it is almost impossible to get permits to build new generating facilities because all of the environmentalists scream about anything to do with power generation(yet want us all to drive electric cars). Basically this de-regulation has been poorly managed by the state and the state has never really let go. Why would the governor want to? By being able to control the electricity he is in a greater position of power.
Secondly, corporations abuse power. They help their friends and burn their enemies, with the consumer left as the meat in the sandwich.
Bureaucracy is bureaucracy, private or public.
Absolutely. I in no way disagree with you. The fundamental difference is that by law I do not have to buy a particular company's products. I have to abide by whatever laws the government sets. If a bunch of bureacratic slimy corporations do not provide what I am looking for I can buy something from a small business. The most disgusting things that corporations can do is to basically make themselves a part of the government by lobbying them to influence legislation that interferes with the free market. Remember that corporations and their CEOs are not necessarily interested in the free market.
Stuart Eichert
Who created the AT&T monopoly? Why, the natural laissez-faire forces in a market that is inherently a natural monopoly, that's who. Sure, the
government *regulated* the monopoly, but don't kid yourself for a second into thinking that the monopoly would have been nonexistant if the
government had let things run their own course. Once Ma Bell had the first phone poles up, the first phone network, nobody else could possibly
compete, because it would be impossible to find somewhere to start small. Nobody is going to sign up for some new tiny phone company that
doesn't hook up to the rest of the phones in the country yet. Government regulation forces telcos to let other telcos connect to them. Take that
away and nobody could ever break into the market once one company has the majority of customers, no matter what the quality of their service
might be, or the price, or any of those other factors that companies normally use to compete with each other.
I once lived in CT, home of SNET. A phone company that existed since the time of AT&T and never was a part of their network. After AT&T got on a roll the government agreed to their monopoly so long as they give "universal service". The government should have stayed out of it. So what if AT&T naturally became the largest network provider as long as people were free(from government regulation, not market forces) to setup their own phone systems there is not a problem. In a free market there is no guarantee that every single individual will be 100% satisfied, only that they have the opportunity to try to satisfy their needs without government interference. With a government regulated market you guarantee that some people (politically well connected) will be 100% satisfied and the rest of us will be forbidden by law from even trying. I'll take my chances with the market, because I don't feel like bribing politicians. Stuart Eichert
Yet again, a bunch of academics calling for more government regulation. Can't they realize that government regulation gave us the AT&T monopoly. If it were not for deregulation and the relatively little regulation of ISPs I would not be able to connect to the Internet in so many ways ( DSL, cable, dial-up, cell phone, pcs cell phone, sprint broadband(wireless), two way satellite, t-1, t-3). People are foolish to think that if you give the government more regulatory power that they won't use it favor their friends and hurt their enemies. Leave the free market alone. Stuart Eichert
Now, I know that a lot of people around here are going to go off and start screaming about having your rights violated, but the fact of the matter is
that the FBI had a court order here! They had every right to tap this guy's computer.
To be clear , they met the constitutional
requirement to search and or seize this man's property. To say they have "every right" is a bit strong as we do not know what this individual is suspected of. Perhaps he is guilty of circumventing the DMCA and this is yet another law that many do not believe in.
If the FBI couldn't do things like this, they'd have no power to enforce the laws of this country, we'd have total anarchy, and having someone
monitor your keystrokes would be the least of your problems!
Many laws are unjust. Many laws give government powers not allowed in the constitution. Making it harder for the FBI to enforce these laws sounds like a good idea to me. In doing so I will have to bare the risk that it makes it easier for real criminals (murders, rapists, thieves) to get away with their crimes. Remember that you are your first and last line of defense. Don't rely on the FBI or local police to protect you from violent criminals.
So ask yourself, which is more important to you, seeing mob bosses, terrorists, and child pornographers get caught before they can hurt anybody,
or protecting yourself from having some FBI bureaucrat reading over your shopping list?
Honestly, the latter. I value my own rights and my own privacy over catching criminals. I believe there is a famous historical phrase about trading freedom for security (i.e. you will end up with neither if you do).
Stuart Eichert
Remember that the U.S. has many restrictions on hiring foreign workers. All European nations have restrictions on hiring foreign workers. Realize that as a foreigner in Europe you will be subject to laws that native Europeans are not. Do some research to see how easily it would be for the French or Italian government to remove you from their country should domestic IT workers start screaming for protection from the foreign invasion. Stuart Eichert
Slashdot Mirror
Remember the government does not want privacy on the internet. They want the exact opposite. They need to be able to mine as much data about their subjects as humanly possible. Anything preventing this is detrimental to their goals.
Stuart Eichert
I just donated $20 with paypal and the process took less than 1 minute. Compare that to the time to write out a check, print out an envelope, put on a stamp. I think that it should be easier for various non-profits and for-profits to increase their donations in this manner as the cost in time to the donor goes down substantially.
Stuart Eichert
Rackable systems at www.rackable.com has half width 1 U machines. They can get 80 machines in a standard rack plus a 4U network switch on both sides. Very impressive. They are used by google and others.
Stuart Eichert
I don't think America's politicians are working for anyone but themselves. Even if they mean to do good, there is no way central planning is going to solve problems in healthcare, electricity, labor, the environment, etc. Successful large corporations have learned the power of distributed decision making. Without it, a corporation will fall apart. No matter how brilliant (or evil) you think Gates, Ellison, McNealy, Gerstner, etc. are, they know that no one man can have complete control over every aspect of their company. We would be much better off if we had an incredibly small federal government, much smaller state government, and a reasonable size local government. Society has many problems and one centrally planned solution is not the right idea. Of course, this decentralization would take a tremendous amount of power away from the politicians. They certainly do not want this.
Stuart Eichert
Ever think that maybe government involvement in space research is a bad idea. Check out Cato's conference on Space: The Free Market Frontier. Certainly a different perspective than would you get around here.
Stuart Eichert
Ideas are not tangible property. My use of an idea does not prohibit you from using it as well. You cannot steal an idea. You can steal a television. If I steal your television, you cannot use it anymore. If I steal your idea, you can still use it.
Stuart Eichert
Dear Carl S. Kaplan,
I read your Times article online. Thank you for taking the time
to bring to light Professor Solove's work. I look forward to his
final draft.
I am very concerned about privacy myself, not just online but
offline as well. Solove's conclusion calls for government
regulation to address our society's privacy concerns. I believe
the exact opposite would be more beneficial. If the federal,
state, and local governments would stop requiring me to use my
social security number for nearly everything I do, I feel I could
protect my privacy quite easily.
The government does not want privacy. How could they? True
privacy would mean not reporting my financial activities to the
IRS. True privacy would allow me to obtain a driver's license in
California without having to give a thumbprint. True privacy
would allow me to buy a firearm without a background check.
Why would the government want this? Privacy will only decrease
the amount of power and control they have in society.
Stuart Eichert
All of these problems and disputes arise from the central idea that you can own an idea. You cannot own an idea. It is not tangible property. My use of the idea does not prohibit you from using it. This is not true with tangible property. These IP laws do nothing but put the government and well connected people/corporations in a position of power to decide who can earn money. IP never should have made it into the US Constitution. Our concepts of business, service, innovation and the such would be far more evolved by now if we had not made that mistake.
Stuart Eichert
What if the majority likes having my rights violated because of my (skin color, religion, political affiliation, operating system preferences, speech, etc.) I guess that would be okay, because the majority thinks it is. Democracy does not guarantee rights. Quite the opposite usually. Individuals guarantee their rights by not putting up with infringements.
Stuart Eichert
But what about Metallica. Clearly they have invested countless hours and dollars in the creation of the prerecorded music that I value. Should I be forced at gunpoint (forced by law) to compensate them with my money? Should the business that helped me save time in the downloading process be forced by law to compensate them?
I think the answer is clearly NO. But then how can Metallica possibly make any money by creating prerecorded music?
Several ways. First they can use the pre-recorded music as a loss-leader (open up your marketing 101 books) to bring more and more people into their for-pay concerts. A live performance is still valued by most music fans and is a unique once in a lifetime service (either you were there or you were not, and no watching it on pay-perview is not just as good (unless the band stinks)). Besides performance the band can hold other special events and charge for admission. If they truly want to be compensated for their pre-recorded music then they can release their songs serially and demand a ransom to release the next one (or next set, whatever they want to). Basically this is the street performer protocol and would work well.
This is long-winded, but my point is that times are changing and the internet allows for the sharing of information between people for virtually no marginal cost. Business models based on government enforcement of IP monopolies will not last as people will find a way to get what they want.
Stuart Eichert
Is this so different from a consulting firm that sends workers out for contract assignments? Well, maybe a little. But the idea is still there.
A union is almost like its own contracting firm. Basically you join the union and then the union hires you out to the employer. The union is responsible for getting you a good wage, retirement plan, benefits, etc. If the union fails to provide you with what you want you quit the union and go it on your own.
The problems traditionally associated with union usually stem from violence and government meddling. Most union members are not violent and would never bring violence upon a scab or management they did not like. A small number of union members have attacked scabs or management as a means of negotiating. Historically the problem has been that the local police have looked the other way(much the way they used to look the other way when management would club strikers, seems things don't change I guess) for political or whatever reason.
The government has gotten involved by creating the NLRB(National Labor Relations Board) and various other agencies to deal with unionized labor. Whether you think the government is on the side of unions or management, it doesn't matter they are involved. They do not level the playing field. They get in there and try to interfere with negotiations between two business organizations (unions and management). The only role for government is to make sure that a) no one gets away with using violence as a tool for negotiation, b) no one commits fraud during the negotiation process, and c) contracts are enforced in the courts.
If you want to join a union go for it. But consider your other options like negotiating for yourself, quiting your job, joining a consulting shop, starting your own firm. Also consider that you don't have to join a formal union with government recognition and all the hoopla. You could organize with your co-workers, get legal counsel, and start working on a negotiating plan.
Above all, never lower yourself to use violence to get what you want. If US tech workers become known for violence then all of the IT jobs will head for foreign countries.
Stuart Eichert
Libertarian theory most certainly deals with the free market and how to deal with Microsoft. If Microsoft is using force or coercion for any purpose then it is the place of the government to stop them. Anti-trust laws are irrelevant. Anti-trust is just that: laws against trusts or successful corporations. If the government forced you to use Microsoft products then I would say they have an unbreakable monopoly. Until that point, let the market function.
Stuart Eichert
I am not worried about losing my life to Microsoft's market position.
So I guess I could argue that copyright cases are a waste of time, because the copy has already been made and any attempt to make things right is just a waste of time and money. You would probably agree that the enforcement of copyright is a waste legally, economically, and technically. Many people feel the same way about anti-trust laws.
I am sick of all of this regulation. Government is suppossed to prosecute and hunt down violent criminals, thiefs, perpetrators of fraud. Not regulate peaceful activities like commerce and medicine.
Stuart Eichert
Virtual child porn, i.e. computer generated images or sounds, are in no way evidence that a crime was committed. They are merely the product of free expression. Granted a large percentage of the population would consider this expression disgusting and vile and do not want it in their own homes. The first amendment does not require that the vast majority of the population like your expression, just that they respect your right to look at whatever garbage you want so long as you do not infringe on their right not to.
Stuart Eichert
Cato published an alternative viewpoint on the UN report in the 01/22/01 Daily Dispatch. In this short article they sight an important work by Patrick J. Michaels explaining why the threat from global warming is overrated. That work, co-written by Robert Balling is called The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming.
Stuart Eichert
That is the last thing I need. What I need is the right to communicate my thoughts to anyone even if that includes trying to get them to buy something. Instead of coming up with creative solutions to problems so many jump to "have the government regulate it". The junk mailers will just find a new way that bypasses the government censorship. Come up with a better solution!
Stuart Eichert
If you are really concerned that NASA doesn't have a large enough budget then how about donating some money to them? or working as a programmer for free for a few months? or if you are more the business type helping them form a fund raising group that solicits private donations? There is a lot you can do to help out NASA without being dependent on Dubya.
Stuart Eichert
On Taxes:
Yes, Australia has fairly high income and corporate taxes. We have correspondingly higher 'socialist' programs like decent state-sponsored Education, Medical care and Welfare. Australians are, on the whole, happy with this situation. Similar to Canada, in many respects. Multinationals don't like high taxes, though.
Later you complain of brain drain to US/UK. The only people who like all of this socialism are those who receive the redistribution of wealth. Since the socialism in the US is slightly less than that of Oz you will see those who can produce leaving for better opportunities. Don't worry though the US is trying to catch up to Canada and Australia's standards for the welfare state.
Stuart Eichert
The libertarian credo does not in anyway imply that the market will always give you exactly what you want. However, it does imply that this disgruntled customer has the right to stop patronizing eBay and consider patronizing a competitor. There is no guarantee that this customer will ever find the "perfect" online auction site. It is hard to find any perfect product or service. However, in a free market there are many alternatives and I am therefore free to chose the one that I consider best.
Government, on the other hand, offers no such choice. If I think that my government run schools are poor I can't withhold my tax money. I still have to pay, regardless of the quality I perceive in them. The more control the government asserts over the market the less choice I have.
Stuart Eichert
In most industries you can't fire anyone. They will sue and usually for discrimination. I can think of a case of a white guy suing his company because he was fired by his female white manager, who spent 2 years documenting how incompetent he was. Whatever happened to employment at will and the freedom of association? If it is my company then I feel it is my right to hire/fire someone based on anything I want. If I am employee it is my right to quit my job based on anything I want.
Odd, that we have never heard of a case of company suing a former employee who quit because his manager was a minority. Why doesn't this happen? Simple, large corporations have money and many people are quite content to use the courts to acquire their fortune.(the same can be said for many large corporations who sue others).
This is all a sign of a larger societal problem. Basically we are a nation with far too many people who try to use the courts and the legislature to acquire wealth.
Stuart Eichert
Secondly, corporations abuse power. They help their friends and burn their enemies, with the consumer left as the meat in the sandwich. Bureaucracy is bureaucracy, private or public. Absolutely. I in no way disagree with you. The fundamental difference is that by law I do not have to buy a particular company's products. I have to abide by whatever laws the government sets. If a bunch of bureacratic slimy corporations do not provide what I am looking for I can buy something from a small business. The most disgusting things that corporations can do is to basically make themselves a part of the government by lobbying them to influence legislation that interferes with the free market. Remember that corporations and their CEOs are not necessarily interested in the free market.
Stuart Eichert
Who created the AT&T monopoly? Why, the natural laissez-faire forces in a market that is inherently a natural monopoly, that's who. Sure, the government *regulated* the monopoly, but don't kid yourself for a second into thinking that the monopoly would have been nonexistant if the government had let things run their own course. Once Ma Bell had the first phone poles up, the first phone network, nobody else could possibly compete, because it would be impossible to find somewhere to start small. Nobody is going to sign up for some new tiny phone company that doesn't hook up to the rest of the phones in the country yet. Government regulation forces telcos to let other telcos connect to them. Take that away and nobody could ever break into the market once one company has the majority of customers, no matter what the quality of their service might be, or the price, or any of those other factors that companies normally use to compete with each other. I once lived in CT, home of SNET. A phone company that existed since the time of AT&T and never was a part of their network. After AT&T got on a roll the government agreed to their monopoly so long as they give "universal service". The government should have stayed out of it. So what if AT&T naturally became the largest network provider as long as people were free(from government regulation, not market forces) to setup their own phone systems there is not a problem. In a free market there is no guarantee that every single individual will be 100% satisfied, only that they have the opportunity to try to satisfy their needs without government interference. With a government regulated market you guarantee that some people (politically well connected) will be 100% satisfied and the rest of us will be forbidden by law from even trying. I'll take my chances with the market, because I don't feel like bribing politicians.
Stuart Eichert
Yet again, a bunch of academics calling for more government regulation. Can't they realize that government regulation gave us the AT&T monopoly. If it were not for deregulation and the relatively little regulation of ISPs I would not be able to connect to the Internet in so many ways ( DSL, cable, dial-up, cell phone, pcs cell phone, sprint broadband(wireless), two way satellite, t-1, t-3). People are foolish to think that if you give the government more regulatory power that they won't use it favor their friends and hurt their enemies. Leave the free market alone.
Stuart Eichert
To be clear , they met the constitutional requirement to search and or seize this man's property. To say they have "every right" is a bit strong as we do not know what this individual is suspected of. Perhaps he is guilty of circumventing the DMCA and this is yet another law that many do not believe in.
If the FBI couldn't do things like this, they'd have no power to enforce the laws of this country, we'd have total anarchy, and having someone monitor your keystrokes would be the least of your problems!
Many laws are unjust. Many laws give government powers not allowed in the constitution. Making it harder for the FBI to enforce these laws sounds like a good idea to me. In doing so I will have to bare the risk that it makes it easier for real criminals (murders, rapists, thieves) to get away with their crimes. Remember that you are your first and last line of defense. Don't rely on the FBI or local police to protect you from violent criminals.
So ask yourself, which is more important to you, seeing mob bosses, terrorists, and child pornographers get caught before they can hurt anybody, or protecting yourself from having some FBI bureaucrat reading over your shopping list?
Honestly, the latter. I value my own rights and my own privacy over catching criminals. I believe there is a famous historical phrase about trading freedom for security (i.e. you will end up with neither if you do).
Stuart Eichert
Remember that the U.S. has many restrictions on hiring foreign workers. All European nations have restrictions on hiring foreign workers. Realize that as a foreigner in Europe you will be subject to laws that native Europeans are not. Do some research to see how easily it would be for the French or Italian government to remove you from their country should domestic IT workers start screaming for protection from the foreign invasion.
Stuart Eichert