"Censorship" isn't unconstitutional (e.g. obscenities laws). Certain kinds of censorship may be, and they have specific names.
That's an interesting statement. I regard obscenities laws to be unconstitutional. Specifically, to be extremely anti-free speech and anti-free press (depending). All forms of censorship are unconstitutional and blatant violations of the first amendment. Given the countless flawed or flat-out wrong positions the Supreme Court has taken over the centuries when it comes to individual rights, I think we can likely agree…
>In Rosen v. United States (1896), the Supreme Court adopted the same obscenity standard as had been articulated in a famous British case, Regina v. Hicklin (1868). The Hicklin test defined material as obscene if it tended "to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall."
They weren't trying to constitutionally base it. Does that help?
Congress will only stop renewing it if the voters demand it.
Hong Kong, as the most recent example, has once again shown us that whenever "the voters" demand something, the government's response is tear-gas and batons. But hey, governments are "by the people" and "for the people" of course, and to think otherwise would be tantamount to.. actually seeing what's happening!
If you believe China is a democracy I have a bridge to sell you.
For companies like Twitter, being based in the US seems to have become something of a liability. There's Google, Apple, et al attempting to quell international concerns with promises of better encryption... I wouldn't be surprised if one of them just up and moves their operation overseas. After all, some of the up-and-coming open-source competition is a decentralized, globally distributed organization and not under the thumb of any nation state per se. They have the luxury, I think, of cherry picking the best privacy and security policies, and can open the kimono on their source code to prove it.
As a person who lives in a small town with a small town airport, my self-interest implores you to not talk about that sort of thing. I really like getting out of bed at 7:15 for an 8:00 flight - getting to the airport 15 mins before departure time and being at the gate right when boarding starts is fantastic.
I don't blame you at all. I've been trying to move to a smaller town for awhile. Massive metropolises are nice and all but I'm kinda bored of it. Would you say I am wrong tho?
At the same time, though there is very little evidence that that sort of security stuff does much to help. Adding the extra security doors to the cockpit helped a lot, but most of the other post 9/11 changes do not have a clear benefit security wise.
Back when I was in 8th grade, there was a guy who claimed he had a girlfriend. She lived in [two towns over]. But no one believed him because they never saw her. Never got her last name. There were just claims that "she's from [town], and she's awesome". I have the same reaction to the national security theatre that we're always presented with from classified space. "Trust us there's a real threat, but you don't know…
This is pretty much it. I boarded a commuter plane (prop plane, less than 50 seats) last month at a small town airport. It had pre-9/11 security in place and a broken metal detector. I got a quick pat down that didn't even cover all my pockets. From there, I got on a cross country jet identical to the ones that hit NYC or the Pentagon on 9/11. It is pretty clear either: A) The government is so incompetent they can't…
They fuck up at big airports too. I was flying from Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson to Miami, FL. I was traveling with two parrots in a kennel that were going with me in the cabin. I told security that they needed to be screened in a separate room because I didn't want to risk them getting startled and flying when out of the cage around a bunch of strangers. They took the kennel and told me to follow them. We walked on the side of the scanners and into a separate room. They made me take the birds of the kennel and proceeded to wipe down the cage and put the piece of cloth in the explosive detector machine. Once it came back ok I was clear to go. I never walked through a metal detector or the body scanner. I informed them of this and they were like 'oh shit' and gave me a quick patdown. I could have not told them and been on my way but didn't want them to realize their mistake and then have to clear out the whole secure area.
"Censorship" isn't unconstitutional (e.g. obscenities laws). Certain kinds of censorship may be, and they have specific names.
That's an interesting statement. I regard obscenities laws to be unconstitutional. Specifically, to be extremely anti-free speech and anti-free press (depending). All forms of censorship are unconstitutional and blatant violations of the first amendment. Given the countless flawed or flat-out wrong positions the Supreme Court has taken over the centuries when it comes to individual rights, I think we can likely agree…
The point is that the constitution doesn't mention "censorship". You may be right that censorship does violate the first amendment, but there are precedents that establish that censorship is permissible in certain circumstances.
Twitter's best line of argument is to go directly to violation of their First Amendment rights, and avoid getting side-tracked on questions of "is this censorship" and "is censorship constitutional in the general case".
This is pretty much it. I boarded a commuter plane (prop plane, less than 50 seats) last month at a small town airport. It had pre-9/11 security in place and a broken metal detector. I got a quick pat down that didn't even cover all my pockets. From there, I got on a cross country jet identical to the ones that hit NYC or the Pentagon on 9/11. It is pretty clear either: A) The government is so incompetent they can't…
They fuck up at big airports too. I was flying from Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson to Miami, FL. I was traveling with two parrots in a kennel that were going with me in the cabin. I told security that they needed to be screened in a separate room because I didn't want to risk them getting startled and flying when out of the cage around a bunch of strangers. They took the kennel and told me to follow them. We walked on th…
Oh, I'm sure they do. But there is a difference between "fuck up in unusual circumstance" and "Hey, lets board an entire plane of people without any of the security procedures".
For companies like Twitter, being based in the US seems to have become something of a liability. There's Google, Apple, et al attempting to quell international concerns with promises of better encryption... I wouldn't be surprised if one of them just up and moves their operation overseas. After all, some of the up-and-coming open-source competition is a decentralized, globally distributed organization and not under t…
But where would these multinationals go? Haven't we seen that the arms of the US Government stretch across the globe? Wouldn't continued lobbying of the government and eventual reform be a simpler and cheaper solution?
For companies like Twitter, being based in the US seems to have become something of a liability. There's Google, Apple, et al attempting to quell international concerns with promises of better encryption... I wouldn't be surprised if one of them just up and moves their operation overseas. After all, some of the up-and-coming open-source competition is a decentralized, globally distributed organization and not under t…
But where would these multinationals go? Haven't we seen that the arms of the US Government stretch across the globe? Wouldn't continued lobbying of the government and eventual reform be a simpler and cheaper solution?
It's extremely unlikely imho that surveillance capabilities will be ceded by any of the nations that now possess them. More importantly, the trust that's been lost can't be regained even if the wheels of politics eventually grind out some kind of compromise. So waiting for a political resolution doesn't look like a great option. What I expect to happen is for the engineering community to push more secure protocols forward (for example, a rejuvenation or successor of IPsec) to guarantee more secure communication. Individual nations will then need to decide if their citizens have a right to real privacy, or just the right to be lied to about privacy. Multinational corporations have some flexibility in terms of where and how they do business, but they have to acquiesce to whatever local laws apply in the countries where they operate - with their own statement of ethics being some kind of baseline, hopefully. One protection afforded companies based in say, the EU, is that they're under less obligation to backdoor their products under threat of the US et al. That gives them a better position of trust with the EU market base. Of course, their products destined for the US market may well be customised to accommodate CALEA etc. Open source projects and foundations on the other hand operate practically outside the purview of traditional government, it seems. They're decentralized, and the source is open, so... although it has happened but it's quite hard to get a backdoor into the codebase. It will take a long time to sort out but basically I expect things like Firefox OS, Ubuntu Mobile, and self-hosted "cloud" solutions (cozy.io) to take at least some market share from proprietary predecessors.