101–110 of 155 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last time I checked airport security in canada murdered Polish citizen because he did not spoke english.
You are correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_i... The entire 10 minute cellphone video of the incident can be found on YouTube, if anyone is interested.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you put this into action if you're a typical business traveler? It doesn't seem very practical.
The organization should have a number of laptops designated solely for international use. They should be restored to the org's "gold image" and kept "in stock" and available. Prior to leaving on an international trip, the traveler "checks out" a laptop from I.T. for the duration of his trip. No personal or business data should exist on the data at this point. Once destinated, the needed business data can be downloade…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a customs official thought you had contraband in 1789, he could search your person, open boxes on your ship, etc, without a warrant and without probable cause. See U.S. v. Ramsey: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6107136132398268... (616-617). The difference is that this "plenary power" to search at the border has different implications today now that people carry their whole lives around with them on t…
...a fault of the people rather than a fault of the law. An entire philosophy of government, in a nutshell! You know, it's actually OK to change laws that are bad for the people. For example, three of the four Alien & Sedition Acts were allowed to expire within three years (the fourth is only in force during declared wars), since no one actually liked them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The insinuation being that the US is the only country doing this? Can you please make up your mind? Either Americans are "exceptional" and this is "the best country in the world", or not. If not then I don't think its okay to hate on others when they are upset with things happening on this soil. As we all know things in US go downhill since a while. This issue would not suprise in Russia in 80s or on Cuba, but if U…
I bet you'd call Zuck "exceptional" but I'd bet he's dead average athletically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's unfortunate that you're being downvoted. Your statements in this thread are ethically rational. Cheers to a free mind such as yourself who won't be lured into circular reasoning by the happenstance of being born subject to arbitrary policy, and to a free mind who recognizes that borders are inhumane comparatively, in a natural sense, irrespective of the policies of other groups that claim territory and dictate t…
From whence do these universal "ethics" arise? Do the descend from some supernatural deity? Are they a natural phenomenon, like gravity? Can you set up an experiment to detect their existence? There is nothing "free" about a mind that believes and children's fairy tales like universal "ethics."
I did some FOIAs in to this stuff with the EU recently @ http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/information_on_pnr_agreem...
My interpretation was that the picture the response painted was of five eyes nations all hitting up the EU for their passenger data. Right after the US got their claws in Australia was in there and the US utilized its grand experience with bureaucracy to ensure the EU Data Protection Supervisor didn't even have time to review the proposal before it was passed.
After that query, I updated Wikipedia's info over here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_name_record#Internat...
The lesson here is that you are wary of authorities for whatever reason (and we probably all should be), then you should seek to avoid pre-booking flights (or ships) ... just turn up and buy a ticket instead ... and preferably avoid long haul flights at all, certainly those terminating in countries with dodgy authorities, if you can afford to do so.
"DHS lawyers claimed that international travel provides, in and of itself, sufficient Constitutional basis for detention and search of international travellers and the search, seizure and copying of the digital contents of their belongings." Really? Fucking hell.. With every month that goes by, I am less and less inclined to travel to, or do business in, the US.. edit: I'm aware that later in the article they say the…
You should never cross any border, US or otherwise, with a mobile phone, laptop, or any sensitive documents. Neither should your employees, if their device are user for work. This is not a new revelation. Industrial espionage by spy services has been ongoing for a very long time.
If a person or company keeps sensitive files on an insecure computer, then that company/person should be at fault.
If you send sensitive data over the internet then it should be encrypted. If not, then companies, governments, and other organizations could easily grab that data.
In reality though, there are millions of completely insecure computers and devices which carry data that could harm companies, individuals, or governments if compromised. Educating the operators of those machines and ensuring that they properly secure them is very difficult. The best method would be to have hard-drive level encryption on all devices, make sure people know how to properly backup data, and to educate people that they can easily say, "I don't know the password, I'm suppose to call my IT manager after I arrive at my destination and he will provide the password."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of the people controlling a territory, obviously. Control of the territory and the power to legislate rules within it are the two sides of the same coin. The rest of the world doesn't get a vote because they're on the outside, not the inside. Re: anarchy, it's a cute philosophy for sheltered westerners who grew up with the blessings of good government. Ask anyone in rural Pakistan, where government power…
Let's separate "the way it is" from "the way it should be". I agree that the majority of the people controlling a territory get to set the rules they wish to set - that's "the way it is". A warlord gets to set the rules within the territory he's controlling. Putin gets to set the rules in Russia. The banking / military-industrial cartel gets to set the rules in the US. What "should be", however, is an entirely differ…
Exactly. Government (a collective domination) is only more humane the more its architecture is built to transparently protect people from tyranny. Tyranny especially includes itself: tyranny of government, of groups, and of individuals. It might be from a mafia. It might be a Congress. It might be a roving gang. It might be the head of a state. It's subjecting you physically and economically either way.
So begins the complexity of how to have a system of governance that can limit people from claiming power over others. The US didn't achieve this, sadly, compared to the corporate oligarchy it continues to entrench itself into. Having a more humane system than what most dictatorships had was a worthy cause, especially in the 18th century. It's a low bar to set and mentally dwell in now though. Imagine a world where there are no people who want to improve or truly change the systems into which they're violently subjected. It's a scary thought. It looks a lot like reality.