The question might better be phrase 'is it unreasonable to require breakable encryption that may expose all of a person's 'papers and effects' despite their intention to be private in such?'
Because we recognize a right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Among the protections that are not going anywhere:
Protected Designation of Origin - feta cheese being an excellent example, able to be so named and produced only if done so in Greece. Protected Geographical Designation - a variety of German beers, French champagne and munster cheese being examples. Traditional Specialties Guaranteed - Italian Prosciutto di Parma a great example.
Some make certain sense, such as Champagne, but cheeses for instance are sometimes able to be produced elsewhere and are indistinguishable from any pother source.
But the EU values cultural identity when it's a market or money. Not so much when it's merely human rights.
Since most states in the US prohibit video displays within sight of the driver, this will not be a video ad feature. Audio ads are, well, like radio, and that's pretty well ubiquitous and already happening, so this competed with OTA and Internet sources.
"And of the 1500 or whatever channels, without a formal survey, I think 1000 of them are fly-by-night churches and other whackos who believe in invisible boogeymen who watch you while you're taking a dump."
Or, put simply, a lot like Cable TV. Same problem, same solution.
"In other words, these may be "channels", but the only people watching them are mentally infirm, scientifically ignorant and gullible to religious BS"
And then you go and promote your own religion. You were doing so well...
You've gotten almost all of my comments about Putin wrong.
I wasn't condoning or accepting his actions, was identifying them and offering a rational basis for understanding them. There is something wrong with acting in your self-interest only for your opponents, be they real or imagined.
And acting in his own self-interest does, I believe, assure us that his actions are hostile towards us. And it's amazing to me that Putin, when accused of favoring their opposition, suddenly becomes the enemy... Not so much when they had power and the prospects of continuing power. It's part hypocrisy and part there flexibility of not having any clearly defined principles to guide policy, except at the very top, and then you end up following your leadership off the cliff.
But that's politics. Mine are not based on identity but principles. This is often mistaken for identity politics, since there is so much of that, and most who practice identity politics can't imagine how there is any other way.
"Liberals in Europe (perhaps with the exception of the UK) usually are strong supporters of the free market, deregulation, free speech and self determination in general."
Huh? The most obvious proof that this is false is agricultural protections. Just because its food doesn't excuse it.
"Courts work independently from the government in most of Europe's countries (Poland being an exception in the near future). Judges are not appointed by politicians. They do not inherently support the incumbent 'government' as in the legislature. It's called separation of powers."
And does that actually work that way? Really? You believe that?
"And of course we're completely ignoring the root of all this nonsense - interference from Vladimir Putin."
Do you claim that this is either new, unexpected, or improper? Putin may well do whatever he believes is necessary or even justifiable to protect his interests and those of his nation. That is rational. To not be prepared for that is everyone elses' failures. To not recognize it is also a failure. To disguise your own intentions by misleading others that Putin is not your ally when in fact your leader actually told Putin's President he would have 'more flexibility' after an election, and then to pretend the opposition was the only political force in the US willing to 'work with' Putin is not merely disingenuous, but actually a lie...
"That's where the real enemy is in this, but we rather stay divided against ourselves and keep fighting."
In the US, IMHO, I see a different movement and different individuals engaged in this divisive tactic. They are generally identified by me as the Left.
"censoring the web does not work regardless of reason"
Currently this is only true because censoring the Web is virtually impossible. You might more accurately state "attempting to censoring the web does not work regardless of reason".
But it isn't impossible to censor the Web. The EU made the first attempts at this with the EC ruling that there is a 'right to be forgotten'.
That's actually a 'right to have negative information removed'.
I don't need to provide examples of how this could lead to not merely abuse, but ultimately to wholesale corruption and dictatorship, anywhere. Or do I?
What stands our about your argument is the concern that free speech, if 'abused' (my term), could be dangerous in that it could spur some to commit despicable crimes.
More amazing that that, which is possible a genuine problem, is that it is ALREADY HAPPENING IN THE US.
The response to Trump's inauguration? Riots, violence, looting in Washington DC. College campuses are now the sites of violent demonstrations against, and even attacks upon, non-Leftist speakers.
A man actually went to a baseball field and shot Republican members of Congress, with the intent to murder them.
Which side of this argument both intended to and may have suppressed free speech, and also used physical violence to both suppress speech and attempt to murder the opposition?
Which side needs to be recognized as sufficiently dangerous that it needs to be identified as such and defeated at the polls?
Which side needs to be held accountable for the rhetoric they spread that leads to this unacceptable violence?
I was alive during that period of time, and not only able but did in fact read the 'news', from many sources, including what we now call 'fake news'. I also paid attention to and read about the various events, government and non-government statements and actions, and candidate statements and actions.
If you are claiming that it could have been worse, and the government could have somehow had more of "its rains (sic)" over the news and information distributed during the campaign, you are plainly deluded. Our government did things that a decade before would have been recognized as either corrupt or merely illegal. The actions we now know occurred should alarm any citizen. Our federal government could have been characterized during that period as entirely partisan, save for Congress and half the SCOTUS, and Congress is expected to be partisan.
And the 'news' during that time was largely orchestrated and focused on favoring one candidate over all others. Not exclusively, but overwhelmingly so.
To think otherwise is to ignore or discredit plain facts.
"what you know is true and the NSA contradicts it"
Actually, this has nothing to do with why most of the people I hear denigrate the NSA do so. their complaints include:
- Excessive collection; they get everything, even things there is not a clear legal permission for. - Unwarranted distribution; Some of what they get is given out where it ought not be. Some of this is legal, so the real complaint here starts with laws permittign excess collection and distribution, of course.
Not about the quality or veracity of the information, though that's important, but challenging the NSA's collection of domestic intelligence in particular, is apparently offending many of the NSA employees who are leaving. Some are disappointed that their mission and actual actions are being challenged, and they don't believe they should be questioned so.
A quick check reveals that there are approximately 12,989 federal employees making salary more than the VP, in fact.
Virtually all work for the VA and are medical officers, doctors, or dentists. Many are employed by NIH as medical officers. A few by the military as, you may have guessed, medical officers, and a stray here and there by the FDIC, SEC, etc.Six federal employees make $400,000 or more. I do not include awards, which boost pay, but we're talking salary here.
Mind you, 13,000 employees in the US government is a relatively minuscule sample. You're not out earning the VP even for typical agency executive positions. But for doctors you have to compete, since asking a skilled MD to take an 80% pay cut isn't realistic, and a variety of skilled workers such as attorneys or financial experts likewise.
I'm not yet as concerned about the NSA being unable to retain experienced talent as I ought to be, because the mission of the NSA has been so perverted that a certain level of incompetence is appealing. But selective incompetence is what I would like, and that doesn't work either.
Time to restrain the surveillance state. A valuable but appropriate mission might attract good candidates. Restraining the self-righteous or over zealous might be part of the impetus for this exodus...
" then you stack the courts with your people at record pace."
Bill Clinton appointed 2 Supreme Court Justices, 66 Federal Appeals Court Judges including 14 to the Ninth and 10 to the Second, and 305 Federal District Court judges.
Obama's record is similar. So is George W Bush's. HW served only one term, but had confirmed a commensurate number of judges.
So far, Trump has appointed and had confirmed one Supreme Court Justice, 12 Federal Court of Appeals Judges, and 6 Federal District Court Judges. He is on pace, given two terms, and assuming the Senate approves ALL his nominees, to appoint perhaps a total of 2 Supreme Court Justices, 38+ Court of Appeals Judges, and 50+ Federal District Court Judges. To match Clinton;s pace, he will need to double his Appeals Court nominees and more than quadruple his District Court nominees. And get a relatively unfriendly Senate to go along.
Compared to Bill Clinton, he's not keeping up at all. Obama's record, slightly lower than Clinton's, is also daunting.
Packing the courts is not an exclusively Republican endeavor, and claims that Trump is more active and successful than recent Republican Presidents is yet unwarranted and unsubstantiated. In fact, Presidents since Reagan have had relatively consistent numbers of judges confirmed, with Carter an exception. Of course, Trump's term is still young. Who knows, he may yet come close to matching his predecessors.
Slashdot Mirror
The question might better be phrase 'is it unreasonable to require breakable encryption that may expose all of a person's 'papers and effects' despite their intention to be private in such?'
Because we recognize a right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Among the protections that are not going anywhere:
Protected Designation of Origin - feta cheese being an excellent example, able to be so named and produced only if done so in Greece.
Protected Geographical Designation - a variety of German beers, French champagne and munster cheese being examples.
Traditional Specialties Guaranteed - Italian Prosciutto di Parma a great example.
Some make certain sense, such as Champagne, but cheeses for instance are sometimes able to be produced elsewhere and are indistinguishable from any pother source.
But the EU values cultural identity when it's a market or money. Not so much when it's merely human rights.
Which one plays video?
Since most states in the US prohibit video displays within sight of the driver, this will not be a video ad feature. Audio ads are, well, like radio, and that's pretty well ubiquitous and already happening, so this competed with OTA and Internet sources.
Feh. This is a nonstarter for me. Not a big deal.
"And of the 1500 or whatever channels, without a formal survey, I think 1000 of them are fly-by-night churches and other whackos who believe in invisible boogeymen who watch you while you're taking a dump."
Or, put simply, a lot like Cable TV. Same problem, same solution.
"In other words, these may be "channels", but the only people watching them are mentally infirm, scientifically ignorant and gullible to religious BS"
And then you go and promote your own religion. You were doing so well...
You've gotten almost all of my comments about Putin wrong.
I wasn't condoning or accepting his actions, was identifying them and offering a rational basis for understanding them. There is something wrong with acting in your self-interest only for your opponents, be they real or imagined.
And acting in his own self-interest does, I believe, assure us that his actions are hostile towards us. And it's amazing to me that Putin, when accused of favoring their opposition, suddenly becomes the enemy... Not so much when they had power and the prospects of continuing power. It's part hypocrisy and part there flexibility of not having any clearly defined principles to guide policy, except at the very top, and then you end up following your leadership off the cliff.
But that's politics. Mine are not based on identity but principles. This is often mistaken for identity politics, since there is so much of that, and most who practice identity politics can't imagine how there is any other way.
"Typical liberal response - limit free speech."
No, the typical liberal response is to limit their opposition's speech.
"I think some kind of regulation wouldn't hurt, especially during elections. I'm not entirely sure if this is the right move, though."
And so goes that right... 'some kind'is still regulation.
"One appropriate solution is for google to rank results that are bs way down in their listings,"
So the solution is corporate censorship?
"Better to serve in heaven than reign in hell."
- Me
Not actually paying attention to current evens, are you?
Our government was founded on principles that imply government cannot ever be trusted. And they were indeed correct.
Newspapers in the US are what you use to distribute the news a day or several days later.
I see what you did there...
What?
"Liberals in Europe (perhaps with the exception of the UK) usually are strong supporters of the free market, deregulation, free speech and self determination in general."
Huh? The most obvious proof that this is false is agricultural protections. Just because its food doesn't excuse it.
"Courts work independently from the government in most of Europe's countries (Poland being an exception in the near future). Judges are not appointed by politicians. They do not inherently support the incumbent 'government' as in the legislature. It's called separation of powers."
And does that actually work that way? Really? You believe that?
"And of course we're completely ignoring the root of all this nonsense - interference from Vladimir Putin."
Do you claim that this is either new, unexpected, or improper? Putin may well do whatever he believes is necessary or even justifiable to protect his interests and those of his nation. That is rational. To not be prepared for that is everyone elses' failures. To not recognize it is also a failure. To disguise your own intentions by misleading others that Putin is not your ally when in fact your leader actually told Putin's President he would have 'more flexibility' after an election, and then to pretend the opposition was the only political force in the US willing to 'work with' Putin is not merely disingenuous, but actually a lie...
"That's where the real enemy is in this, but we rather stay divided against ourselves and keep fighting."
In the US, IMHO, I see a different movement and different individuals engaged in this divisive tactic. They are generally identified by me as the Left.
"censoring the web does not work regardless of reason"
Currently this is only true because censoring the Web is virtually impossible. You might more accurately state "attempting to censoring the web does not work regardless of reason".
But it isn't impossible to censor the Web. The EU made the first attempts at this with the EC ruling that there is a 'right to be forgotten'.
That's actually a 'right to have negative information removed'.
I don't need to provide examples of how this could lead to not merely abuse, but ultimately to wholesale corruption and dictatorship, anywhere. Or do I?
What stands our about your argument is the concern that free speech, if 'abused' (my term), could be dangerous in that it could spur some to commit despicable crimes.
More amazing that that, which is possible a genuine problem, is that it is ALREADY HAPPENING IN THE US.
The response to Trump's inauguration? Riots, violence, looting in Washington DC. College campuses are now the sites of violent demonstrations against, and even attacks upon, non-Leftist speakers.
A man actually went to a baseball field and shot Republican members of Congress, with the intent to murder them.
Which side of this argument both intended to and may have suppressed free speech, and also used physical violence to both suppress speech and attempt to murder the opposition?
Which side needs to be recognized as sufficiently dangerous that it needs to be identified as such and defeated at the polls?
Which side needs to be held accountable for the rhetoric they spread that leads to this unacceptable violence?
I don't believe France enjoys the benefits of protected rights to free speech. So this is quite likely legal there.
Another reason to defend the rights you have, wherever you are. Whatever they are. For all.
I was alive during that period of time, and not only able but did in fact read the 'news', from many sources, including what we now call 'fake news'. I also paid attention to and read about the various events, government and non-government statements and actions, and candidate statements and actions.
If you are claiming that it could have been worse, and the government could have somehow had more of "its rains (sic)" over the news and information distributed during the campaign, you are plainly deluded. Our government did things that a decade before would have been recognized as either corrupt or merely illegal. The actions we now know occurred should alarm any citizen. Our federal government could have been characterized during that period as entirely partisan, save for Congress and half the SCOTUS, and Congress is expected to be partisan.
And the 'news' during that time was largely orchestrated and focused on favoring one candidate over all others. Not exclusively, but overwhelmingly so.
To think otherwise is to ignore or discredit plain facts.
"what you know is true and the NSA contradicts it"
Actually, this has nothing to do with why most of the people I hear denigrate the NSA do so. their complaints include:
- Excessive collection; they get everything, even things there is not a clear legal permission for.
- Unwarranted distribution; Some of what they get is given out where it ought not be. Some of this is legal, so the real complaint here starts with laws permittign excess collection and distribution, of course.
Not about the quality or veracity of the information, though that's important, but challenging the NSA's collection of domestic intelligence in particular, is apparently offending many of the NSA employees who are leaving. Some are disappointed that their mission and actual actions are being challenged, and they don't believe they should be questioned so.
Oh, January 20, 2009.
A quick check reveals that there are approximately 12,989 federal employees making salary more than the VP, in fact.
Virtually all work for the VA and are medical officers, doctors, or dentists. Many are employed by NIH as medical officers. A few by the military as, you may have guessed, medical officers, and a stray here and there by the FDIC, SEC, etc.Six federal employees make $400,000 or more. I do not include awards, which boost pay, but we're talking salary here.
Mind you, 13,000 employees in the US government is a relatively minuscule sample. You're not out earning the VP even for typical agency executive positions. But for doctors you have to compete, since asking a skilled MD to take an 80% pay cut isn't realistic, and a variety of skilled workers such as attorneys or financial experts likewise.
I'm not yet as concerned about the NSA being unable to retain experienced talent as I ought to be, because the mission of the NSA has been so perverted that a certain level of incompetence is appealing. But selective incompetence is what I would like, and that doesn't work either.
Time to restrain the surveillance state. A valuable but appropriate mission might attract good candidates. Restraining the self-righteous or over zealous might be part of the impetus for this exodus...
And that changed when?
If your answer references a date before January 20, 1981, you are wrong.
" then you stack the courts with your people at record pace."
Bill Clinton appointed 2 Supreme Court Justices, 66 Federal Appeals Court Judges including 14 to the Ninth and 10 to the Second, and 305 Federal District Court judges.
Obama's record is similar. So is George W Bush's. HW served only one term, but had confirmed a commensurate number of judges.
So far, Trump has appointed and had confirmed one Supreme Court Justice, 12 Federal Court of Appeals Judges, and 6 Federal District Court Judges. He is on pace, given two terms, and assuming the Senate approves ALL his nominees, to appoint perhaps a total of 2 Supreme Court Justices, 38+ Court of Appeals Judges, and 50+ Federal District Court Judges. To match Clinton;s pace, he will need to double his Appeals Court nominees and more than quadruple his District Court nominees. And get a relatively unfriendly Senate to go along.
Compared to Bill Clinton, he's not keeping up at all. Obama's record, slightly lower than Clinton's, is also daunting.
Packing the courts is not an exclusively Republican endeavor, and claims that Trump is more active and successful than recent Republican Presidents is yet unwarranted and unsubstantiated. In fact, Presidents since Reagan have had relatively consistent numbers of judges confirmed, with Carter an exception. Of course, Trump's term is still young. Who knows, he may yet come close to matching his predecessors.
...this seems like either teaching kids HOW to think or WHAT to think.
Guess which the government would like to choose.
Guess which one rational people should demand.