Actually, you know what might be a great idea? Anytime there is a potential crime involving a law enforcement officer, a special prosecutor is appointed. Someone who is not normally a DA. Perhaps even someone who's normally a Defense Attorney. That way, there's no conflict of interest regarding the DA prosecuting cops.
They claimed all kinds of things that taxation supposedly paid for. I posted a link with a different story to tell. If you couldn't tell the difference, then I'm sorry for your reading comprehension skills, and you should apologize to your teachers.
No, your teachers need to be beaten with a stick for the poor job they did with you. Read it again. He had an OPTIONAL FEE that he would have had to pay to get fire protection. He was NOT paying taxes to get fire protection like most people.
it was a fee levied by the fire department for "protection". Any other "protection" schemes ring bells?
Yeah. The EXACT SAME THING a private fire department would levy on people. Do you honestly think that a private fire company would not do the same?
Imagine how that felt, to see the fire trucks pull up, sirens and lights blaring, and then all the firefighters get out and stand there watching everything you own burn down, while you beg and plead with them to save some fraction of it.
I would imagine it'd feel the exact same as when a private fire company does it. Oh wait, because they're private, they're saintly and holy, and would put the fire out for free.
Ahh yes. The story which shows how PRIVATE FIREDEPARTMENTS WORK.
The story is about a family who didn't pay their Fire Department fee, and so paid for it. Something that you idiots clamoring for private fire departments seem to forget would be happening.
No it isn't. No more than any other law or agreement is enforced.
Do you honestly think that if you didn't honor your agreement to pay for the gasoline you pumped into your car, that there would not be a use of force to compel you to?
No. Fucking no. Private enterprise is good for most things. Functions of government are NOT one of them.
Taxation is exactly a form of theft when you look at it for what it is.
An agreement whereby I agreed to pay a portion of my income or purchase to the government in exchange for the ability to live there and many services it provides? Yeah, totally sounds like theft.
Lets say a man comes up to you and demands your car and threatens you with bodily harm, surely we can call him a thief. Lets say 2 men come up with you and do the same thing. Does it stop being theft? Lets say 3 men come up to you, take a vote on if you should have your car, and all three of them vote to take your car and you are the lone dissenter. Is it still theft? What if 10 people came in much the same way and took your car and left you a bicycle. Is it still theft? How many people need to be in a mob for it to stop being theft? Surely even if 100 people came, took your brand new 2011 Porsche and replaced it with a 1988 Honda, it would still be theft, correct? Taxation is much the same thing, it is still theft no matter how many people are in the mob trying to take your property. --
None of that is anywhere close to applying because... YOU AGREED TO PAY TAXES WHEN YOU MOVED INTO THE AREA You agreed to follow the laws of the locality when you moved there. Those laws include taxes. If you don't like it, then you're saying that a localities laws shouldn't apply to you. If they shouldn't apply to you, then why should you get to live there and enjoy the benefits, protections, and services that they provide? Why do you get to prevent the right of a people to rule themselves?
Do you actually have a right to be heard? What if I don't want to listen to you? Should I be barred from changing the channel, or walking away, or simply zoning you out?
Why not? Because an exit node operator can't originate that traffic either? Also, ISPs keep logs. That's why they are given that leeway. Tor node operators usually don't.
A competent investigation would have quickly determine that he was running a Tor exit:
No, a competent investigation would not assume that, just because he's running a Tor node, doesn't mean he couldn't have done it. A competent investigation would still investigate his equipment, but quickly come to the conclusion that it wasn't his traffic.
No equipment seizure needed, and Mr. King may have even been willing to cooperate with ICE to try to catch whoever it is that they were looking for (if ICE had any clue who exactly they were looking for).
Or, had Mr. King been the originator of the traffic, it would give him time to destroy evidence. But of course, you don't care about that. You just want to bitch and moan about "da gubbmit takin my stuff!"
Meanwhile, he does not have a computer -- for some people, that means losing the ability to work. Will the government compensate him for the lost computer time, lost work hours, expired stock options, etc.? Will the government give him another computer to use, while they are examining the equipment they took from his home?
You're acting like he can't get access to another computer. Besides, he knew the risks he was undergoing when operating a Tor node. That's like saying it's unfair that someone had their luggage taken for investigation because they agreed to take a package from a stranger, and now they have no spare clothes.
You are VASTLY overreacting about this entire thing. This was a legal, run of the mill search warrant. There was nothing different about this than about any other search warrant out there.
Go read your contract. It's in there. If you can prove that it was someone else using your connection, then you're off the hook. But until then, you are the one responsible.
And because he's running an exit node, there's no possible way he could have also been downloading kiddie porn. Nope, running an exit node means you're practically a saint.
They had PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that computers connected to that IP were the source of illegal traffic. They got a warrant. They served it, and they investigated the machines he had.
There is absolutely no reason to believe this was bad police work.
It doesn't identify a specific person, but it does identify a household and a person responsible for the connection. It's not enough for charging someone, but it is enough for the start of an investigation.
You still have not answered the question: Why should operating a Tor exit node absolve you of any wrongdoing you might have done? Because that's what you're advocating. You're saying that someone who's running Tor should be immune from any investigation involving their internet connection.
The point here is that an IP address does not identify a person
No, but it identifies a household, and a person responsible for that connection. It's a start to an investigation. While an IP alone should not be used to charge someone, having an IP means that you probably have the location of a number of computers that probably have evidence. So it's worth it to investigate.
You've made this argument several times, and it still doesn't hold water. You're saying that there is no reason to investigate, when that is blatantly false. His computer was used in the transmission of kiddie porn. His IP was in the logs. It's completely reasonable to want to investigate whoever had that IP at that time.
Note that I said INVESTIGATE; I'm not saying he should have been accused or arrested. They should have gotten a warrant, investigated the machines he had, and when no evidence came up, returned the equipment, and sent him on his way.
The way you know that this has nothing to do with legitimate investigatory techniques is that ICE threatened the guy when they returned his equipment, telling him that he have to deal with more law enforcement harassment in future should he continue operating a Tor exit.
That doesn't sound like threats; that sounds like reality. Operating an exit, your IP is going to show up in a lot of places where you probably don't want it to. Which means it's going to get investigated. A lot.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they don't. They have the right to petition the government, but that doesn't extend to making other people listen.
No, Apple has shown that selling Apple computers, at good margins, is profitable. PC margins are extremely thin.
Actually, you know what might be a great idea? Anytime there is a potential crime involving a law enforcement officer, a special prosecutor is appointed. Someone who is not normally a DA. Perhaps even someone who's normally a Defense Attorney. That way, there's no conflict of interest regarding the DA prosecuting cops.
However, at the same time, they are citizens just as you are, and they have the right to speak on public lands, just as you do.
The thing is that taxes are compulsory.
If by compulsory, you mean compulsory in the way that not committing rape and murder are compulsory, then I guess so.
They claimed all kinds of things that taxation supposedly paid for. I posted a link with a different story to tell. If you couldn't tell the difference, then I'm sorry for your reading comprehension skills, and you should apologize to your teachers.
No, your teachers need to be beaten with a stick for the poor job they did with you. Read it again. He had an OPTIONAL FEE that he would have had to pay to get fire protection. He was NOT paying taxes to get fire protection like most people.
it was a fee levied by the fire department for "protection". Any other "protection" schemes ring bells?
Yeah. The EXACT SAME THING a private fire department would levy on people. Do you honestly think that a private fire company would not do the same?
Imagine how that felt, to see the fire trucks pull up, sirens and lights blaring, and then all the firefighters get out and stand there watching everything you own burn down, while you beg and plead with them to save some fraction of it.
I would imagine it'd feel the exact same as when a private fire company does it. Oh wait, because they're private, they're saintly and holy, and would put the fire out for free.
Ahh yes. The story which shows how PRIVATE FIREDEPARTMENTS WORK.
The story is about a family who didn't pay their Fire Department fee, and so paid for it. Something that you idiots clamoring for private fire departments seem to forget would be happening.
taxation is done by force or threat of force.
No it isn't. No more than any other law or agreement is enforced.
Do you honestly think that if you didn't honor your agreement to pay for the gasoline you pumped into your car, that there would not be a use of force to compel you to?
You do when those facts are completely wrong. You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.
So? How does that change things in the least? Or are you still too stubborn to admit that government can actually do things, and do them efficiently.
No. Fucking no. Private enterprise is good for most things. Functions of government are NOT one of them.
Taxation is exactly a form of theft when you look at it for what it is.
An agreement whereby I agreed to pay a portion of my income or purchase to the government in exchange for the ability to live there and many services it provides? Yeah, totally sounds like theft.
Lets say a man comes up to you and demands your car and threatens you with bodily harm, surely we can call him a thief. Lets say 2 men come up with you and do the same thing. Does it stop being theft? Lets say 3 men come up to you, take a vote on if you should have your car, and all three of them vote to take your car and you are the lone dissenter. Is it still theft? What if 10 people came in much the same way and took your car and left you a bicycle. Is it still theft? How many people need to be in a mob for it to stop being theft? Surely even if 100 people came, took your brand new 2011 Porsche and replaced it with a 1988 Honda, it would still be theft, correct? Taxation is much the same thing, it is still theft no matter how many people are in the mob trying to take your property.
--
None of that is anywhere close to applying because... YOU AGREED TO PAY TAXES WHEN YOU MOVED INTO THE AREA You agreed to follow the laws of the locality when you moved there. Those laws include taxes. If you don't like it, then you're saying that a localities laws shouldn't apply to you. If they shouldn't apply to you, then why should you get to live there and enjoy the benefits, protections, and services that they provide? Why do you get to prevent the right of a people to rule themselves?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
No it fucking isn't. You agreed to pay those taxes when you moved into the area. Ignoring that fact shows you to be a fucking retard.
Good. Why should you be able to make loud enough noise to where I can't sleep?
Do you actually have a right to be heard? What if I don't want to listen to you? Should I be barred from changing the channel, or walking away, or simply zoning you out?
Why not? Because an exit node operator can't originate that traffic either? Also, ISPs keep logs. That's why they are given that leeway. Tor node operators usually don't.
A competent investigation would have quickly determine that he was running a Tor exit:
No, a competent investigation would not assume that, just because he's running a Tor node, doesn't mean he couldn't have done it. A competent investigation would still investigate his equipment, but quickly come to the conclusion that it wasn't his traffic.
No equipment seizure needed, and Mr. King may have even been willing to cooperate with ICE to try to catch whoever it is that they were looking for (if ICE had any clue who exactly they were looking for).
Or, had Mr. King been the originator of the traffic, it would give him time to destroy evidence. But of course, you don't care about that. You just want to bitch and moan about "da gubbmit takin my stuff!"
Meanwhile, he does not have a computer -- for some people, that means losing the ability to work. Will the government compensate him for the lost computer time, lost work hours, expired stock options, etc.? Will the government give him another computer to use, while they are examining the equipment they took from his home?
You're acting like he can't get access to another computer. Besides, he knew the risks he was undergoing when operating a Tor node. That's like saying it's unfair that someone had their luggage taken for investigation because they agreed to take a package from a stranger, and now they have no spare clothes.
You are VASTLY overreacting about this entire thing. This was a legal, run of the mill search warrant. There was nothing different about this than about any other search warrant out there.
Go read your contract. It's in there. If you can prove that it was someone else using your connection, then you're off the hook. But until then, you are the one responsible.
And because he's running an exit node, there's no possible way he could have also been downloading kiddie porn. Nope, running an exit node means you're practically a saint.
Bull Fucking Shit.
They had PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that computers connected to that IP were the source of illegal traffic. They got a warrant. They served it, and they investigated the machines he had.
There is absolutely no reason to believe this was bad police work.
It doesn't identify a specific person, but it does identify a household and a person responsible for the connection. It's not enough for charging someone, but it is enough for the start of an investigation.
As would I. However, that doesn't mean that law enforcement shouldn't investigate when they have a probable cause to.
You still have not answered the question: Why should operating a Tor exit node absolve you of any wrongdoing you might have done? Because that's what you're advocating. You're saying that someone who's running Tor should be immune from any investigation involving their internet connection.
The point here is that an IP address does not identify a person
No, but it identifies a household, and a person responsible for that connection. It's a start to an investigation. While an IP alone should not be used to charge someone, having an IP means that you probably have the location of a number of computers that probably have evidence. So it's worth it to investigate.
You've made this argument several times, and it still doesn't hold water. You're saying that there is no reason to investigate, when that is blatantly false. His computer was used in the transmission of kiddie porn. His IP was in the logs. It's completely reasonable to want to investigate whoever had that IP at that time.
Note that I said INVESTIGATE; I'm not saying he should have been accused or arrested. They should have gotten a warrant, investigated the machines he had, and when no evidence came up, returned the equipment, and sent him on his way.
The way you know that this has nothing to do with legitimate investigatory techniques is that ICE threatened the guy when they returned his equipment, telling him that he have to deal with more law enforcement harassment in future should he continue operating a Tor exit.
That doesn't sound like threats; that sounds like reality. Operating an exit, your IP is going to show up in a lot of places where you probably don't want it to. Which means it's going to get investigated. A lot.