111–120 of 189 posts
Reminds me of the time some politicians thought it would be a good idea to establish mathematical truth by legislative fiat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/tomato-sauce-p...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The typical cry is "We should do the same". Well, we can't. Government did not grant, nor does it own that right. No, we can do that. The government can merely assume the power, as governments so often do. Paper is not a defense. A "Bill of Rights" containing only a single right would be of zero value. What is a defense is the bundling of recognized rights, as in the Bill of Rights. It's like an alliance: an assaul…
No argument there. I never understood the obsession with AR-15's when their contribution to crime, over, say, the last 20 years, is basically a rounding error. The only answer is: politics taking advantage of emotion for political gains. The best example of just how stupid the whole "assault ban gun" idea is found in Chicago, where the weekly carnage has not relented in years and the weapon of choice is nearly 100% h…
Cryptographic software is protected under the 1st amendment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's unfortunate to leap from the right to privacy to the right bear arms. These are both good topics for debate and I actually support gun rights but they are different, large questions and this leap is effectively a thread derail.
On the other hand, some types of cryptography are classified as weapons by the US government. But I do favor a 1st amendment view of "right to cryptography" rather than a 2nd amendment view of it.
Go through each of the Bill of Rights, and for each produce a scenario where that right would be used by a criminal to protect him or her from planning, executing, and avoiding detection of a crime. All individual rights are carved out from the default government, which is the one that takes absolute authority over all within its domain. North Korea is closest to this ideal today, but most vanilla monarchies were lik…
Leaving the technical details aside such as the fact that it's not possible to have a "secure backdoor" that won't ultimately be used by the (other) "bad guys", this is important because they make it seem as if this is the only way they'd ever use this power -- with a warrant.
And THAT is beyond FALSE and a BIG FAT LIE, and they know it. Watch Bush's speech about the Patriot Act when he signed it. He said the bill will be used to "read the terrorists' emails" and other digital communications. Now we know that in 97-99% of the cases, the Patriot Act is used for crimes other than terrorism, usually drug related. But the FBI also absolutely loves to abuse the National Security Letters for at least half of their data requests to big data companies. And the best part is those come with gag orders so the public will almost never find out about those requests.
Worse yet, since these were past, these powers were further expanded, usually days before Christmas, so now the FBI gets access to RAW internet data just like only the NSA did previously. So does DEA, and about 15 other agencies. No warrant needed, for just about any crime they'd like to investigate.
And you can bet this is their plan with the encryption backdoors, too. I guarantee it. They'll continue to talk in public about warrants and how they will only use it with a warrant, and then somehow the bill will be written to include all sorts of ways for them to access the encrypted data WITHOUT a warrant.
Even when the criticism against a surveillance bill is very strong, they still somehow end-up "compromising" by only getting warrantless access in "emergency situations" (where emergency isn't defined too specifically) or for "serious crimes" (often not well defined in the bill either). Or they manage to sneak a serious crimes "and other type of crimes" in there, too, as they've done in some bills in the past.
So let's not be naive with the whole "warrantproof" talking point. They're trying to distract and mislead us. Ultimately, even if the bill is very specific about a warrant, they just know they can expand it later after one or two renewals, as they've done with FISA 702 to now give other federal agencies much of the same data access NSA gets, even though that wasn't supposed to be the original plan at all.
Go through each of the Bill of Rights, and for each produce a scenario where that right would be used by a criminal to protect him or her from planning, executing, and avoiding detection of a crime. All individual rights are carved out from the default government, which is the one that takes absolute authority over all within its domain. North Korea is closest to this ideal today, but most vanilla monarchies were lik…
> All individual rights are carved out from the default government Not sure this is how you meant it. If you mean to say that rights come from governments that is not quite correct, at least not in the US. Rights, in the US, are not GRANTED by government, they are RECOGNIZED by the US Constitution to exist OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT (upper case is for emphasis only). In other words, these rights don't require government i…
= no shirt (or just a singlet?)
Bear arms = wander around with weapons. (Alternatively, have [black|brown|polar|panda] bears for your upper limbs/arms?)
I love English.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Law enforcement not being able to access encrypted data severely limits our ability to prosecute and convict criminals who use these secure communications to conduct their business, and brings the creeping threat of social decay ever closer. The impact of organized crime pales in comparison to that of authoritarian regimes. The "creeping threat of social decay" argument gives me chills; it's exactly the slogan I im…
And yet, just last year over 100 Mexican politicians were murdered by cartels. The Mexican army itself has lost battles to the cartels as their influence steadily grows. Many municipalities in Mexico defer to the cartels in which true power and influence resides. So while you speculate on some made up authoritarian movement subverting democracy in America, I look on in horror as democracy in Mexico is being subverted…
Basically, I'm not sure you've correctly mapped your desired outcomes onto the policies you advocate. The things you're arguing for don't appear to help with the problem that scares you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin No one likes to say this but your average citizen is either not smart enough or doesn't care enough to understand statistics... so sensationalism wins.
Ben Franklin would have done well on Twitter, but this is in essence a snappy Revolution War slogan, nothing more. It makes a false binary distinction and real world decisions are more complicated.
This argument is dismissive without actually addressing the argument.
It's literally a logical fallacy called 'appeal to the stone'.
Where's the nuance?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ben Franklin would have done well on Twitter, but this is in essence a snappy Revolution War slogan, nothing more. It makes a false binary distinction and real world decisions are more complicated.
"real world decisions are more complicated" This argument is dismissive without actually addressing the argument. It's literally a logical fallacy called 'appeal to the stone'. Where's the nuance?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"real world decisions are more complicated" This argument is dismissive without actually addressing the argument. It's literally a logical fallacy called 'appeal to the stone'. Where's the nuance?
The nuance is that Ben Franklin was warning against the temporary safety of personal liberty versus the freedom provided by a more robust Federal security apparatus (specifically against native Americans.) He wasn't warning that trust in government is an act of cowardice or fool's errand, rather that government is often necessary as a force multiplier to safeguard individual liberties against an opposing force multip…
The difference between who you're being made 'safe' from and who is being repressed is merely a labeling issue, and its the same forces that do the repression that keep the safety.
You could be the one being protected one one day, then the next day, you're the 'Native American' and the one others need safety from, because a label changed.
Freedom fighter or a terrorist? Speaking up for what you believe or spouting anti-government propaganda?
That concept is what the quote is conveying.
It's a very powerful and important quote that applies to numerous situations.
That's why it's a fricking timeless quote. Insane this isn't agreed upon by everyone.