51–60 of 83 posts
It's ironic that this article is on google docs, which means I have to declare my identity by logging in to google in order to read it.
God says... forth as the lightning: and the LORD God shall blow the trumpet, and shall go with whirlwinds of the south.
9:15 The LORD of hosts shall defend them; and they shall devour, and subdue with sling stones; and they shall drink, and make a noise as through wine; and they shall be filled like bowls, and as the corners of the altar.
9:16 And the LORD their God shall save them in that day as the flock of his people: for they shall be as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon his land.
9:17 For how great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty! corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new wine the maids.
10:1 Ask ye of the LORD rain in the time of the latter rain; so the LORD shall make bright clouds, and give them showers of rain, to every one grass in the field.
10:2 For the idols have spoken vanity, and the diviners have seen a lie, and have told false dreams; they comfort in vain: therefore they went their way as a flock, they were troubled, because there was no shepherd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not a helpful comment. The anecdote is not suggesting that everyone who commits an accidental crime is trafficking Tylenol One. It's a story about how a small action can turn out to be a felony. This has been true in other cases that have nothing to do with Codeine.
The anecdote relies on it being possible or such a situation to occur.
The point of the anecdote is that it is possible to commit a very serious crime without any mens rea or even realization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not a helpful comment. The anecdote is not suggesting that everyone who commits an accidental crime is trafficking Tylenol One. It's a story about how a small action can turn out to be a felony. This has been true in other cases that have nothing to do with Codeine.
The anecdote relies on it being possible or such a situation to occur.
Let me try to present the other side of this argument in a way that doesn't sound crazy: When one of your people dies, it really hurts. If you were the one in charge of guaranteeing the safety of that person, its a failure much deeper and more profound than the worst startup company failure. Most people will be willing to do anything to prevent the loss of another life on their watch. The monitoring of communications…
Bad governments has existed even longer.
Especially some of them like, you know, the one at constant warfare with other countries, the nuclear-bomb dropping on civilians one, the McCarthyism and J.E Hoover one, the still having the death penalty in 2012 one, the bible yielding one, the BS marijuana prosecutions one, the Rodney King one, the Kent State shootings one, the world leader in incarcerations one, the BS WMD pretext one, the Watergate one, et al.
>Listening to their communications is the best way to stop them, or at least to ensure that they can't act openly.
The second phrase contradicts the first. They quickly assume they cannot talk openly and they don't, so listening to public, unencrypted communications has no use at all. You might catch some naive idiots that way but never the well organised big fish.
Plus, it's all a pretext. It was never about the terrorists, it's about the government having more control, and especially the secret services and such inventing more responsibilities and work for themselves, to ensure bigger budgets and role.
>Very few innocent people will ever know that they're being monitored, and the risks to those people are very small.
Define innocent. In my eyes, John Lennon was bloody innocent. And he has a ten thousand pages FBI file. Same for Martin Luther King. Same for thousands of activists, politicians, and change-makers.
When those people are trapped (and throughout history government has shown the will to trap them and stop them, by any means necessary, from blackmail to imprisonment), all of society is harmed and trapped, because change is resisted.
So it's not privacy, it's ignorance and corruption we should fight for/against.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not worried about a down vote here? I wrote out a big old reply to this article, and canned it. I was worried about a load of down votes. I didn't want to be judged badly by a decent community. I was worried my opinion would be a downer or some how anti-American / Capitalist / Western. So I self censored. And that's just a hacker's news aggregation site. Dunno what point Im trying to make, but were we ever really fre…
This is exactly the point that I was trying to make: when we write here, its in public. We have the expectation to be judged for what we say. Could you imagine if you had that feeling writing to your friends in private?
This looks a lot like what religion can induce, and I would really like to see what happens once you ask people to "confess".
I was about to say bad things about this all, but I won't. I'm not sure who's listening in, and who knows who will, tomorrow...
He has a book out: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0300172311 Giving to my father for Christmas. He is in the "nothing to hide" camp.
Both a and b open my life to problems out of my control. Irrelevant of the life I am living. Thus the need for privacy.