21–30 of 49 posts
It's also impossible. "I'm going to kill some soldiers when I get back" might refer to my super secret terror plot, or my PlayStation-related plans for the evening.
Welcome to The Database.
Related: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...
Why not? We expect and demand that banks monitor billions of transactions between 100s of millions of customers for evidence of money laundering and terrorism financing - and fine them billions of dollars when their controls or oversight are deemed insufficient. I expect most us agree that banks _should_ be held accountable for the legitimacy of their customers behaviour. Why should the same standards not be demanded…
Maybe after that ends with a revolution to be remembered, such nonsense would stop being proposed at least for another century or two.
Many Americans seem to quick to agree with mass surveillance and absolute power of the state if it they promise (without even proof of it) that such power will stop some common crime - without taking a second to recognize that if the state is so powerful so many more crimes will be done by that government against the population.
It seems many Americans have lost forgotten why their rights are important. That's why I think maybe they need to go through a really oppressive time, to remember.
It's also impossible. "I'm going to kill some soldiers when I get back" might refer to my super secret terror plot, or my PlayStation-related plans for the evening.
It's also impossible. "I'm going to kill some soldiers when I get back" might refer to my super secret terror plot, or my PlayStation-related plans for the evening.
Here's my solution to that. Gather all the information possible, including things you've purchased so that I know whether or not you actually have those games or any of your friends do (and whether you actually play them). Assess, whether any major life changes have occurred for you based on all my data-mining and algos and assign a risk-factor for that particular statement. Monitor/filter your subsequent (or even pr…
Why not? We expect and demand that banks monitor billions of transactions between 100s of millions of customers for evidence of money laundering and terrorism financing - and fine them billions of dollars when their controls or oversight are deemed insufficient. I expect most us agree that banks _should_ be held accountable for the legitimacy of their customers behaviour. Why should the same standards not be demanded…
I've been thinking for a while about something: Americans really need to live through a Communist/Stasi era that brings them to their knees and to live in fear of their neighbors or anyone working in the government for at least 2 decades or so. Maybe after that ends with a revolution to be remembered, such nonsense would stop being proposed at least for another century or two. Many Americans seem to quick to agree wi…
The good thing about this point of view is that you will be happy whatever happens.
Why not? We expect and demand that banks monitor billions of transactions between 100s of millions of customers for evidence of money laundering and terrorism financing - and fine them billions of dollars when their controls or oversight are deemed insufficient. I expect most us agree that banks _should_ be held accountable for the legitimacy of their customers behaviour. Why should the same standards not be demanded…
Did you even read the article? We shouldn't demand it because of privacy concerns. Same reason we don't have phone companies screen all of our phonecalls. Because we're not guilty until proven innocent. Besides, then things like encryption become questionable. If the ISP can't screen your data, what's to stop them from kicking you off their network? Who knows what illegal things you're doing if they can't validate it…
Privacy is a continuum.
It's also impossible. "I'm going to kill some soldiers when I get back" might refer to my super secret terror plot, or my PlayStation-related plans for the evening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you even read the article? We shouldn't demand it because of privacy concerns. Same reason we don't have phone companies screen all of our phonecalls. Because we're not guilty until proven innocent. Besides, then things like encryption become questionable. If the ISP can't screen your data, what's to stop them from kicking you off their network? Who knows what illegal things you're doing if they can't validate it…
It's the same. In you're making a big enough transaction your bank is going to get flagged and look into your banking activity. How is that not a breach of privacy too ? Privacy is a continuum.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/us/law-lets-irs-seize-acco...
Accompanying HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8509500
It's also impossible. "I'm going to kill some soldiers when I get back" might refer to my super secret terror plot, or my PlayStation-related plans for the evening.
Here's my solution to that. Gather all the information possible, including things you've purchased so that I know whether or not you actually have those games or any of your friends do (and whether you actually play them). Assess, whether any major life changes have occurred for you based on all my data-mining and algos and assign a risk-factor for that particular statement. Monitor/filter your subsequent (or even pr…
We used to have a saying for this, which was "high on their own bullshit".
Career politicians are just that - in politics, for their career. Not for your sake. Not because they want to change things. Because they see a trough, and daddy stuck his nose in it and did alright, so why can't I too? This doesn't require any particular knowledge of the world around you, or empathy, just a machiavellian drive to clamber on corpses until you reach the top, where you can crown yourself king of the ashes.
Why not? We expect and demand that banks monitor billions of transactions between 100s of millions of customers for evidence of money laundering and terrorism financing - and fine them billions of dollars when their controls or oversight are deemed insufficient. I expect most us agree that banks _should_ be held accountable for the legitimacy of their customers behaviour. Why should the same standards not be demanded…
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
(The US has similar wording split between amendments 1 and 4).
The word "necessary" is where all the argument rests, as well as "in accordance with the law". Proportionality and transparency must be taken into account. Generally pure speech acts are not in themselves illegal, and we want to be very careful about creating offences which could make engaging in unconventional politics illegal.
In some ways the "report terrorist button" could be the most reasonable implementation of this. Leave private correspondence alone, but if someone sees threatening content there should be a mechanism for turning that in to evidence which could result in the poster being banned from the service.
Evidence is important. Legal processes generate evidence which can be used in trials. Secret services generate "intelligence" which is classified and cannot be used in public trials, resulting in pressure for secret trials.
Edit: getting downvoted for citing ECHR? I knew it was unpopular ...