91–100 of 170 posts
This is basically part of a smear campaign against the government in power (NDA). The law was designed under the previous government and has been in existence before this government came to power. Nothing new was introduced since 2008. As far as constitutional protections go, Indians have a right to privacy which has been held up in the courts as recently as this year. This has been affirmed several times in the rece…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a nice right in theory, but in reality, stop-and-frisk, border control, parallel construction, 'I smelled weed in the car', 'I had a hunch', 'the drug dog gave me a signal', 'we got an anonymous tip (from an illegal search, via parallel construction)' all exist, and are regularly employed in the United States. They also tend to be disproportionately targeted at particular, inconvenient, segments of the populatio…
I consider stop-and-frisk to be in direct volition with the fourth amendment. Boarder control is a little different. I have the intention of extending these rights to all humans, so the boarder shouldn't change the rights of humans. Becoming aware of substance abuse (while say operating a vehicle) has potential for being "reasonable cause" for search... Though I'm not sure I'd entirely buy it. I'm convinced that sinc…
Alternatively, some people are willing to give up some rights for a feeling of security.
Or some people are willing to curtail some rights because it hurts people they don't like a lot more than it hurts them.
Or some people imagine gutting rights they don't regularly seem to need will never come back to bite them. People aren't going to defend things they don't care about.
Or some people seem to imagine that if a certain right doesn't seem to benefit them directly that it's not worthwhile to defend.
Or some people seem to think that maintaining the status quo is a right that they need to defend, no matter how many people are harmed by the inequality in the current landscape.
I mean you're not wrong. But that's certainly not the only issue issue causing the erosion of liberty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they can't surrender keys they don't have (e2e). the only issue is that they may be forced to do a key change. one way around this would be to show a prominent notice if your peer changed keys, which would make it immediately obvious what was going on.
The idea that showing a warning makes it immediately obvious what is going on is ridiculous. It would take a large-scale public education campaign to teach people what it means when they see a warning message that reads "Peer key changed. Are you sure you want to proceed?" If you need to be convinced, go ask your mom or dad whether it's immediately obvious what is going on when they see an insecure connection warning…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Devotion to the quasi-religious idea of “natural rights” is not nearly as surprising as the belief that what are very clearly political compromises of the late 18th Century somehow perfectly captured such rights.
Well are you trying to be surprised, or are you trying to defend your natural born rights? It sounds like you're not interested simply because it's redundant.
False dichotomy much?
I find the idea of natural rights to be of mixed value (beyond perhaps the case of a single natural right to something that might loosely be stated as that degree of liberty which does not intolerably impinge on the liberty of others), and the idea that the particular details of political compromises made by long-dead politicians define the proper scope of such rights actively harmful to efforts to appropriately balance liberty with other concerned for real live people living today.
> It sounds like you're not interested simply because it's redundant.
I'm not interested in efforts to treat political compromise as holy writ.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a nice right in theory, but in reality, stop-and-frisk, border control, parallel construction, 'I smelled weed in the car', 'I had a hunch', 'the drug dog gave me a signal', 'we got an anonymous tip (from an illegal search, via parallel construction)' all exist, and are regularly employed in the United States. They also tend to be disproportionately targeted at particular, inconvenient, segments of the populatio…
I agree that cynicism is warranted, but an alternative view is that rights and freedoms are gradually being offered to a wider and wider percentage of the population. We start off with rights reserved for all wealthy white landowners... along the way we get more rights for people of all races... both males and females... and so on as our reality comes into greater conformance with our ideals. This is the "arc of the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. I recently read a book that explored the history of the Supreme Court and some of its major decisions. I walked away with one thing: the Constitution can mean virtually anything to anyone. It really does come down to the social winds of that particular time.
Well, the alternative is to be an originalist, trying to determine what a bunch of dead white guys in the 16th century -meant- when they wrote it, which is big in a number of conservative circles, and amongst a number of conservative justices. Personally, I find that an unhelpful approach because the world, and yes, society, change. But it -can- be a helpful guiding star. Those who don't learn from history, etc; well…
You are two centuries too early. (I agree with your post overall.)
Things like this is why I think India has a very flawed political system, the executive is having too much power, and the Constitutional guarantees to citizens are flimsy, and courts including the Supreme Court are temperamental and inconsistent. Civil law protections are insufficient as they are presently. Govt can put you in jail on flimsy grounds, but you can't sue for damages on wrongful imprisonment, etc. Most t…
NSA has been doing this for decades.
Though usually the lines are a bit blurry, sometimes secret warrants are issued to access already dragneted data. But those warrants are very far from real oversight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
educated ...reminiscent of contemporary video clip interviews with individuals saying I don't mind if the government reads my correspondence. I have nothing to hide. But for an historic contrarian view: Berlin 1931 (Weimar Republic): I don't mind if the government reads my letters. I've got nothing to hide. Berlin 1936 (national socialism): You writings make you an enemy of the state!
"Nothing to hide", with the centers of power doing what they're doing, pretty much means "I'm obedient, I'm complicit, I swear allegiance.... you go on right ahead and rob that granny blind, take all the organs you want from that child... I'll be over here pretending to find the marble pattern on the wall terribly interesting". Ironically, they are hiding that from themselves.
As someone on /r/sysadmin has correctly remarked - if you are outsourcing to India, you should assume that all data they have access to it is now also freely accessible to the Indian government.
And here is the natural born right to privacy that Americans have, as well as the rest of the world in my own opinion: Bill of Rights, amendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the…