"Some" is the key word. Older second wave groups (ones likely to have political power) often do, but they are not all that well though of in feminism, even among other 2nd wavers. They are the equivalent of those grouchy old anti-video game politicians... not exactly representative but really loud.
Plea bargaining is normally actually a pretty good tool, allowing both sides to make things a bit better for themselves, but like any tool it can be abused.
Actually, if you read many of the original debates, many of the 'founding fathers' were trying to counter each other since many states were jumping at the oppurtunity to become repressive regimes themselves, and many of the debaters could recall when their particular group was oppressed in one state or another, so there was this weird 'hey, we get to be crappy to XYZ, but wait, we need to stop other states from being crappy to ABC' stuff going on.
There is that. Anyone who tried would probably would probably fail based off 'lack of standing'. Since only the person who was assassinated was actually 'impacted' the court would probably claim no one else could bring suit.
Unfortunately, looking at how the FBI abused its powers decades ago, we would more likely see such powers used against various college kids. Hoover was infamous for using government powers to crack down on civil rights activists, including going as far as to orchestrate at least one high profile smear campaign to cover up an agent's role in the murder of an activist. All under the idea that civil rights leaders were threats to America and thus enemies of the state.
So it wouldn't be the Jane Fondas of the world that would suffer, it would be no-name nobodies that do not have enough of a public personality to survive the 'they were enemies' rationalization.
Ah, but there is the crux. Under current law yes, you can kill, but the person has to be an immediate threat. The way drones are being used, not only are they killing people who are not an immediate threat, but they are starting to abstract it to people who are not field agents in the first place including simple 'material support'.
I think when people say it should be a private affair, they are referring to the RIAA/MPAA not having special access to FBI resources that other types of civil crimes have. For instance if I was upset that a neighbor's dog was crapping on my lawn, I think we can agree that if I somehow pressured the FBI into going around and taking DNA samples of all my neighbor's dogs and then threatening them with fines well in excess of their lifetime earning potential, we could agree that I was getting disproportionate government assistance on my private matter, even though that private matter could leverage reasonable government support like getting the local police involved with minor fines and a warning.
Problem is, it is not about the money, it never was. It is about power, personal power. On rises through the ranks of the industry by being perceived as someone who gets their way. It does not matter if that way actually helps the company or even matters, what is important is that the particular executive demonstrates that they get what they want in negotiations. That results in higher personal wealth and, at the end of the day, these people are in it for what it gets them personally, not some abstract 'my industry does better'. Part of the problem is that the personal rewards and industry benefits are out of sync.
I have watched contracts fall apart because someone wanted to ensure that they were perceived as the dominant party, preening for their own people. Looking weak or making concessions, even if it resulted in a lucrative contract, hurt people's personal status within their company.
It has been argued that civil courts have a similar problem associated with them. Many do not let you defend yourself (or, through sheer complexity, make defending yourself impractical) and thus you have to eat the cost of paying someone to represent you, which can be very expensive. But at minimal, if you show up even without a lawyer, they generally can not do a summary judgement against you thus the opposing council needs to do SOMETHING to prove that you are guilty.
Meh, that gets into the sheep buffer problem. There are enough users who can be scared into 'behaving' or are simply good consumers that I doubt they will have to worry about running out of people. If nothing else, since there is no where to flee too, customers are backed into a corner if they want to continue to have access to the internet.
If the legal system were actually being used it would be one thing, but what we are generally seeing is a combination of systemic and asymmetric abuse and an increased push for 'private' legal systems. Part of the problem is the RIAA/MPAA does not want to use the legal system, they want extrajudicial powers that are normally reserved for groups like the FBI, but they want them as a private trade group. When that did not pan out to the extreme they wanted they leveraged the monopoly status of ISPs to implement a system where they did not have to worry about things like judges, due process, or extraordinary punishments... things that were already strongly in their favor in the court system but it just was not good enough for them.
These are people who are accustomed to being above the law and having the law be a tool they can use on parties weaker then they are. That is what pisses people off. If the legal system were fair and even began to address some of their actions people would complain a lot less...
My thoughts exactly. I thought that was a bit of pseudoscience we had seen the last of...
Then again, the whole 'reading' people seems to be a new fad that has really picked up over the last few years. Books, TV shows, newsertainment, all trying to claim you can magically tell what someone is really thinking/intending without them knowing.... and even today they teach this garbage to LEO as if it was actually accurate.
*shrug* legality is irrelevant here. Yeah, they end up in over their heads, but I can not fault them for failing to realize just how rotten and corrupt things are, esp when they were just trying to do good. If nothing else, who gets slammed and who does not is pretty random, so young activists can look around and see 99 people like them doing fine yet still be that hundredth person who gets the 'special treatment'.
Yeah, but many activists (and those who support them) are really not prepared for how far interested parties are willing to go to teach them a lesson. Many do not find out unti too late how minor (or non) crime can be turned into life destroying elements if they say the wrong thing publicly... many just think '1st amendment' and assume that the people charged with enforcing the laws actually play by them.
Odd, looking at the history of telcos, the vast majority of the innovation occurred after regulation.... the industry was pretty stagnent before it was forced to compete.
Not only that, but people are not really taking the APT element into account. The security that is appropriate for a computer siting around that no one knows about is pretty different from the security useful for when you have a targeted attack by a motivated entity. Even if you are just some random individual, a persistant attacker would probably do things like break into your house...
I think all that would result in is an even more vicious PR battle. Having the mob decide if someone lives or dies has never been very just, and today it would pretty much come down to whoever had a more effective PR machine and can get enough people riled up would decide who lives and dies.
What makes you think they have no bias? Seems like they would have the bias of whoever programmed them, and even less ability to examine it in the field.
Slashdot Mirror
"Some" is the key word. Older second wave groups (ones likely to have political power) often do, but they are not all that well though of in feminism, even among other 2nd wavers. They are the equivalent of those grouchy old anti-video game politicians... not exactly representative but really loud.
Plea bargaining is normally actually a pretty good tool, allowing both sides to make things a bit better for themselves, but like any tool it can be abused.
DAs as used cars salesmen... now there is a scary image....
Actually, if you read many of the original debates, many of the 'founding fathers' were trying to counter each other since many states were jumping at the oppurtunity to become repressive regimes themselves, and many of the debaters could recall when their particular group was oppressed in one state or another, so there was this weird 'hey, we get to be crappy to XYZ, but wait, we need to stop other states from being crappy to ABC' stuff going on.
There is that. Anyone who tried would probably would probably fail based off 'lack of standing'. Since only the person who was assassinated was actually 'impacted' the court would probably claim no one else could bring suit.
I shutter to think what copyrighted crap would look like...
Heh.
Unfortunately, looking at how the FBI abused its powers decades ago, we would more likely see such powers used against various college kids. Hoover was infamous for using government powers to crack down on civil rights activists, including going as far as to orchestrate at least one high profile smear campaign to cover up an agent's role in the murder of an activist. All under the idea that civil rights leaders were threats to America and thus enemies of the state.
So it wouldn't be the Jane Fondas of the world that would suffer, it would be no-name nobodies that do not have enough of a public personality to survive the 'they were enemies' rationalization.
Ah, but there is the crux. Under current law yes, you can kill, but the person has to be an immediate threat. The way drones are being used, not only are they killing people who are not an immediate threat, but they are starting to abstract it to people who are not field agents in the first place including simple 'material support'.
The problem is we are constantly arguing about right and wrong, and how right and how wrong, and how much wrong is ok if it is for a greater right.
I always liked 'the enemy of my enemy is my enemies' enemy. No more, no less'
I think when people say it should be a private affair, they are referring to the RIAA/MPAA not having special access to FBI resources that other types of civil crimes have. For instance if I was upset that a neighbor's dog was crapping on my lawn, I think we can agree that if I somehow pressured the FBI into going around and taking DNA samples of all my neighbor's dogs and then threatening them with fines well in excess of their lifetime earning potential, we could agree that I was getting disproportionate government assistance on my private matter, even though that private matter could leverage reasonable government support like getting the local police involved with minor fines and a warning.
Problem is, it is not about the money, it never was. It is about power, personal power. On rises through the ranks of the industry by being perceived as someone who gets their way. It does not matter if that way actually helps the company or even matters, what is important is that the particular executive demonstrates that they get what they want in negotiations. That results in higher personal wealth and, at the end of the day, these people are in it for what it gets them personally, not some abstract 'my industry does better'. Part of the problem is that the personal rewards and industry benefits are out of sync.
I have watched contracts fall apart because someone wanted to ensure that they were perceived as the dominant party, preening for their own people. Looking weak or making concessions, even if it resulted in a lucrative contract, hurt people's personal status within their company.
It has been argued that civil courts have a similar problem associated with them. Many do not let you defend yourself (or, through sheer complexity, make defending yourself impractical) and thus you have to eat the cost of paying someone to represent you, which can be very expensive. But at minimal, if you show up even without a lawyer, they generally can not do a summary judgement against you thus the opposing council needs to do SOMETHING to prove that you are guilty.
Meh, that gets into the sheep buffer problem. There are enough users who can be scared into 'behaving' or are simply good consumers that I doubt they will have to worry about running out of people. If nothing else, since there is no where to flee too, customers are backed into a corner if they want to continue to have access to the internet.
If the legal system were actually being used it would be one thing, but what we are generally seeing is a combination of systemic and asymmetric abuse and an increased push for 'private' legal systems. Part of the problem is the RIAA/MPAA does not want to use the legal system, they want extrajudicial powers that are normally reserved for groups like the FBI, but they want them as a private trade group. When that did not pan out to the extreme they wanted they leveraged the monopoly status of ISPs to implement a system where they did not have to worry about things like judges, due process, or extraordinary punishments... things that were already strongly in their favor in the court system but it just was not good enough for them.
These are people who are accustomed to being above the law and having the law be a tool they can use on parties weaker then they are. That is what pisses people off. If the legal system were fair and even began to address some of their actions people would complain a lot less...
Well, that is how privately run legal systems work....
My thoughts exactly. I thought that was a bit of pseudoscience we had seen the last of...
Then again, the whole 'reading' people seems to be a new fad that has really picked up over the last few years. Books, TV shows, newsertainment, all trying to claim you can magically tell what someone is really thinking/intending without them knowing.... and even today they teach this garbage to LEO as if it was actually accurate.
*shrug* legality is irrelevant here. Yeah, they end up in over their heads, but I can not fault them for failing to realize just how rotten and corrupt things are, esp when they were just trying to do good. If nothing else, who gets slammed and who does not is pretty random, so young activists can look around and see 99 people like them doing fine yet still be that hundredth person who gets the 'special treatment'.
Yeah, but many activists (and those who support them) are really not prepared for how far interested parties are willing to go to teach them a lesson. Many do not find out unti too late how minor (or non) crime can be turned into life destroying elements if they say the wrong thing publicly... many just think '1st amendment' and assume that the people charged with enforcing the laws actually play by them.
poe's law strikes again....
Odd, looking at the history of telcos, the vast majority of the innovation occurred after regulation.... the industry was pretty stagnent before it was forced to compete.
Not only that, but people are not really taking the APT element into account. The security that is appropriate for a computer siting around that no one knows about is pretty different from the security useful for when you have a targeted attack by a motivated entity. Even if you are just some random individual, a persistant attacker would probably do things like break into your house...
keyboard?
I think all that would result in is an even more vicious PR battle. Having the mob decide if someone lives or dies has never been very just, and today it would pretty much come down to whoever had a more effective PR machine and can get enough people riled up would decide who lives and dies.
What makes you think they have no bias? Seems like they would have the bias of whoever programmed them, and even less ability to examine it in the field.