121–130 of 154 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the sentencing guidelines based on the maximum penalty? In other words, the absurdity of 50 years in theory is what creates the absurdity of seven or ten years in practice. If the maximum penalty was one year or less then the guidelines would have discounted that to something entirely rational for cases like Aaron Swartz, but it wasn't, causing the disproportionality. Buying a $1 l…
As far as I understand them, the sentencing guidelines group related charges into a single charge. E.g. the "computer fraud" and "wire fraud" charges that are for some reason separate under CFAA would count as just one conviction under FSG. So even if we was convicted for 1 or 5 charges relating to the same underlying accusation you should still get the same recommended sentence. Since I'm not a lawyer I don't want t…
Even so, I believe the maximum penalty under the CFAA is still 20 years on its own. The fact that there are multiple possible charges with such disproportionate penalties for a single underlying action just underscores the need for systematic reform.
>There is a reason to add charges though: It can make the jury more likely to convict by helping along their sense of "splitting the difference", makes the court of public opinion turn that much more against you, etc.
In other words there isn't a legitimate reason to add charges but there are a number of cynical and illegitimate reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It worked out with the Arab Spring didn't it? "Manning and WikiLeaks were credited as catalysts for the Arab Spring that began in December 2010, when waves of protesters rose up against rulers across the Middle East and North Africa after the leaked cables exposed government corruption" [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning
Manning and WikiLeaks may have been credited by some as catalysts for the Arab Spring, but they were not. Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation was the catalyst for the Arab Spring. It's not as if Tunisians needed anyone to tell them how corrupt their government was. Once Tunisia looked like it might fall, revolutionaries in other countries started planning their own protests.
That said, you really need to learn the difference between proximal and ultimate causes.
[Shakes his head in disgust.] Hackers, it's time for me to hack the discussion. You and your first world problems have NO IDEA how to fight for freedom. This is the wimpy way to protest whatever it is you are protesting. Unlike most people who post here, I have actually lived under a dictatorial regime that ruled a territory that later had a peaceful transition to democracy and legally protected civil rights. Anonymo…
TO start: I am not saying what they did is right, but I am saying you do not have a right to call it "Cowardice". >The biggest problem with website-defacing movements is their cowardice (no one in Anonymous seems courageous enough to go to prison) There is no right or wrong way to fight for freedom. IT is a fight a fight is a war. There are very few rules in war. Many actual freedom fighters have died in places like…
There are two wrong ways to fight for freedom (or any noble cause): (1). to fight unjustly and (2). to fight ineffectively. Starting a fight is not without a cost to a side that loses the fight, that cost may be in lives, money or emotional energy. To fight ineffectively for a noble cause is to fight unjustly since you hurt your chances of winning, to fight unjustly but effectively for a noble cause turns a noble cause into an unjust cause.
>IT is a fight a fight is a war.
Not all fights are wars, nor are all wars fights (for examples wars have been fought to pump up nationalism or to test a doctrine with neither side actually engaging in real fighting. If you read 'The Prince' much of the wars between the cities of Italy are not fights).
>There are very few rules in war.
The appeal to a war mentality you are making is an appeal to as you say "few rules". This is both untrue in that most wars are fought within a large number of rules and limited in scope, most wars are not absolute wars, and absolute wars tend to consume the original causes for the war. Absolute wars are wars for the sake of war rather than wars for the sake of principal. To advocate a war mentality for the purpose of arguing that few rules apply is completely self-defeating since such a war destroys the original purpose you are attempting to achieve.
>make no mistake if there is a fight - there will only be one winner.
This is certainly not true, you can have all losers, all winners or any combination thereof. Who wins in a absolute nuclear war? Maybe invertebrates, maybe not.
Do not take this post as defense of the earlier poster.
Dudes. This is not at all helpful. Website defacements just create more of an excuse for a crackdown. If you're going to risk your life and freedom hacking things; make it worth your goddam time. Hack the prison industrial complex and get the evidence that shows that crimes are being created so that prisoners can be kept at a profit. Expose the email trails of corrupt judges who put away kids for kickbacks. Dox the m…
Dudes. This is not at all helpful. Sitting at the front of the bus just creates more of an excuse for a crackdown.
Anonymous is not Rosa Parks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TO start: I am not saying what they did is right, but I am saying you do not have a right to call it "Cowardice". >The biggest problem with website-defacing movements is their cowardice (no one in Anonymous seems courageous enough to go to prison) There is no right or wrong way to fight for freedom. IT is a fight a fight is a war. There are very few rules in war. Many actual freedom fighters have died in places like…
>I am saying you do not have a right to call it "Cowardice". HN is is located in the U.S. so he has the right to say anything he damn well pleases.
[Shakes his head in disgust.] Hackers, it's time for me to hack the discussion. You and your first world problems have NO IDEA how to fight for freedom. This is the wimpy way to protest whatever it is you are protesting. Unlike most people who post here, I have actually lived under a dictatorial regime that ruled a territory that later had a peaceful transition to democracy and legally protected civil rights. Anonymo…
[Shurgs].
> You and your first world problems have NO IDEA how to fight for freedom.
Flaunting your experience living in a totalitarian regime to scold those first world kids might not be as convincing, than, say, if you just skipped that part.
Someone else can always trump that "well, my family members were tortured" so "don't tell me about your experience".
> If you really want to learn about effective popular action to bring about more freedom, point your Web browser to the Albert Einstein Institute publications
Those are good resources and it is good to point them out. However the situation and the initial conditions in each country are different. What works in Burma might not work in US.
> ... before they were adopted, on the example of Minnesota's sentencing guidelines, federal sentences were just about wholly indeterminate,
Ok so how do you explain what happened and how downloads of scientific articles can result in threatening someone with 35+ years in prison. Isn't this exactly the area to attack, just because it was random before now it is predictably horrible. I would take the randomness again. At least then someone can point to the judge and say, this judge is out of control, they are responsible, they are ruining lives and wasting tax dollars.
Now they have a list of minimum requirements and they can all point their finger too everyone dismisses the accusations with "But I am just a part of the system".
The goal is not necessarily to remove the sentencing guidelines but to make them sane. You assume it the goal is to remove them.
> I know actual freedom fighters, that is publishers of opposition magazines and organizers of nonviolent protests, from Taiwan.
Again, Taiwan is not US. By comparing the two you are also implicitly lowering the standard and expectation for US. The assumption being "US is just like Burma and Taiwan, what works there should be applied here". I think first we should examine that assumption. Pretty scary. Here is a country that managed to convince most of the its population and those from other countries that it is qualitatively superior. Founded on unbiased justice, representative democracy, everyone has a right to happiness. There is freedom to prosper. And now we are left comparing it to Burma. That is interesting.
Absolute comparisons are good to conduct (when possible). We are still better than North Korea or Eritrea. So we are looking good there. But there is also a relative comparison -- between the image a country projects of itself (via propaganda, or what most people expect from it) and its reality. There is also comparison between the countries at roughly the same level of development (comparing Burma to Taiwan) but then also comparing US with say Norway.
In this case the most important is comparing US to the image most expect from US. Here the situation is not pretty.
Also, I don't necessarily agree with attacking websites, but I don't necessarily disagree it. If it reveals corruption, good, make those servers burn. We don't know what it will reveal, so I can't say if this is effective or desirable.
Self-righteous idiots. Who made them judge and jury of the world? Do something positive.
Essentially it's a form of terrorism. They are saying do things our way or we burn your house down. They don't believe in democracy and so what's left? A world where the best people at malicious hacking rule? The same skills they used to do this can shut down power plants, bring down air planes, and wreck general mayhem. They are saying the people in power are corrupt. Some how we have to trust they will never become…
No, they are protesting events that are generally perceived as a gross injustice of the judicial system.
>> They don't believe in democracy and so what's left?
Says who? To me, they seem to be the very embodiment of civil disobedience (and thusly of democracy).
>> The same skills they used to do this can shut down power plants, bring down air planes, and wreck general mayhem.
I don't understand how is that related to anything. Yes, a variety of things can be used for good AND BAD purposes.
>> They are saying the people in power are corrupt. Some how we have to trust they will never become corrupt.
In other words, let's not remove the corrupt people because the people who would replace them COULD be corrupt as well.
>> Before I posted my original comment. I had a moment of fear.
The thing about fear is that it's not necessarily rational.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TO start: I am not saying what they did is right, but I am saying you do not have a right to call it "Cowardice". >The biggest problem with website-defacing movements is their cowardice (no one in Anonymous seems courageous enough to go to prison) There is no right or wrong way to fight for freedom. IT is a fight a fight is a war. There are very few rules in war. Many actual freedom fighters have died in places like…
>There is no right or wrong way to fight for freedom. There are two wrong ways to fight for freedom (or any noble cause): (1). to fight unjustly and (2). to fight ineffectively. Starting a fight is not without a cost to a side that loses the fight, that cost may be in lives, money or emotional energy. To fight ineffectively for a noble cause is to fight unjustly since you hurt your chances of winning, to fight unjust…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TO start: I am not saying what they did is right, but I am saying you do not have a right to call it "Cowardice". >The biggest problem with website-defacing movements is their cowardice (no one in Anonymous seems courageous enough to go to prison) There is no right or wrong way to fight for freedom. IT is a fight a fight is a war. There are very few rules in war. Many actual freedom fighters have died in places like…
>There is no right or wrong way to fight for freedom. There are two wrong ways to fight for freedom (or any noble cause): (1). to fight unjustly and (2). to fight ineffectively. Starting a fight is not without a cost to a side that loses the fight, that cost may be in lives, money or emotional energy. To fight ineffectively for a noble cause is to fight unjustly since you hurt your chances of winning, to fight unjust…
>Not all fights are wars, nor are all wars fights (for examples wars have been fought to pump up nationalism or to test a doctrine with neither side actually engaging in real fighting. If you read 'The Prince' much of the wars between the cities of Italy are not fights).
A majority of wars are fights, in the case of your example the war may be doctored up but there is a fight, not a fight of weapons, a fight to control the population and to bring them together for one reason or another. But every war has a fight in it which, may or may not be clear and only revealed with the passage of time. And a fight is a manifestation of war. Not always guns drawn, but of minds, and some higher interest. The fight is not always apparent as I said or vice versa. But highly likely that one contains the other.
>There are very few rules in war.
Yes you are correct and I am aware most wars are not absolute wars. But rules are on paper and historical evidence such as, bombing of Dresden, Osaka or Pforzheim in WW2 are small examples of how rules get thrown out the window when in desperation. Or how banned weapons come out when on dire straits. Wars will start with rules, and rules will only stay when they are of interest to both sides. Or rules of torture? How quickly lawyers and the law makers can overturn rules when they need to ? This statement is 100% true, do not fool yourself to believe otherwise.
>make no mistake if there is a fight - there will only be one winner.
>This is certainly not true, you can have all losers, all winners or any combination thereof. Who wins in a absolute nuclear war? Maybe invertebrates, maybe not.
Evil wins.