111–120 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
When you laughed at the idea that the government has no speech rights, I almost thought you were about to say something coherent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Rights are 'god given.' IMO. > Although it's a good thing that a good deal of Americans have plenty of guns to defend themselves (unlike us, who reside outside of the US) Getting a gun is trivial about anywhere, btw, and in EU or latam ammunition enough for self defense is little trouble either. The fgc-9 and 'but what about ammo' are excellent education for curious Europeans. In practice I assure you people don't no…
I'm not religious anymore, but wasn't it Paul who made the argument that we should respect temporal authority and their temporal laws, because it was God Himself who allowed them to become an authority in the first place?
>fgc-9
Isn't it a bit too big to carry concealed for self-defense purposes?
That aside, don't 3d printed guns jam much more frequently than "real" guns?
So, for example, if you're in a life and death situation, and you live in a country that doesn't allow the concealed carrying of guns, and your opponent is a mafia member - who is, for all practical purposes, untouchable by the corrupt class of bureaucrats who are there to purportedly enforce and carry out the law (like the beauty of a country i find myself in) - and has a "real" gun pointed at you, and all you have is little better than a glorified plastic bb gun (because these days, unless you have a father or grandfather who had bought a gun 20 years ago to give to you today, buying a real gun is not as trivial as you make it sound, at least where I am), who wins nine times out of ten?
Like, sure, I've read articles about how there are resistant forces in some south east asian country (I forgot which one exactly and im too lazy to look it up right now, nor is it important to what im about to say) that are fighting a dictatorial military regime, and the resistant forces do use 3d printed guns; but the only reason they're doing so is because, one, before the conflict happened the citizenry didn't have a legal "right" to buy guns and so at the beginning of the conflict they had no real amount of "real" guns to use, and, two, they kill the oppressive military officers and take their "real" guns because they're just better.
But keep in mind, they're fighting an actual war, and don't have to conceal their guns (3d guns are too big to conceal in everyday settings), and two, even if someones 3d gun jams, there will be someone else with them to shoot at the opposite side trying to kill you (i.e not something likely to happen in a country that is not the US, where people aren't allowed to carry around guns for self-defense purposes)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't "appalled" but definitely felt uneasy about it. I am aware I could opt out and read all the discussions about it here on HN. I didn't do anything about it, despite being a very privacy conscious person (using firefox, use max adblocking/anti tracking etc). Why? I don't want to be an asshole, hold the queue and cause trouble for a TSA agent who is just doing the job and likely have no idea what "opt out" mean…
I had a perfectly pleasant experience opting out. The agent simply smiled at me, asked a question to verify that I was the person on the ID I had handed him, and off I went. It was much easier and less gropey than opting out of the mm wave scans.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41052152
It is possible that people's experience vary. But unless we know opt out is something that is done quickly as a routine, and running into clueless TSA agent is a rare exception, I would not try that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rights are 'god given.' IMO. > Although it's a good thing that a good deal of Americans have plenty of guns to defend themselves (unlike us, who reside outside of the US) Getting a gun is trivial about anywhere, btw, and in EU or latam ammunition enough for self defense is little trouble either. The fgc-9 and 'but what about ammo' are excellent education for curious Europeans. In practice I assure you people don't no…
>Rights are 'god given.' I'm not religious anymore, but wasn't it Paul who made the argument that we should respect temporal authority and their temporal laws, because it was God Himself who allowed them to become an authority in the first place? >fgc-9 Isn't it a bit too big to carry concealed for self-defense purposes? That aside, don't 3d printed guns jam much more frequently than "real" guns? So, for example, if…
Given the alternative is a glorified bb gun as you put it, or dealing with the same mafioso, it's not clear to me the calculus is so clearly dismissed as you put it. Certainly wasn't to the German Kurd 'Jstark' who invented it and indeed concealed it on German soil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had a perfectly pleasant experience opting out. The agent simply smiled at me, asked a question to verify that I was the person on the ID I had handed him, and off I went. It was much easier and less gropey than opting out of the mm wave scans.
My comment was based on previous discussions like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41052152 It is possible that people's experience vary. But unless we know opt out is something that is done quickly as a routine, and running into clueless TSA agent is a rare exception, I would not try that.
- A few people report they’ve had issues opting out
- Most people report they have no issues at all
Personally, I’d feel like I’m perpetuating the problem (of privacy violation/overreach) by not opting out. Even if most people don’t care, it seems critical to have at least some portion of the population holding back the tide somewhat.
If nothing else, a consistent stream of people opting out helps us understand how big the problem has become, i.e. if discussions about this flip over time and most people are getting hassled.
The issue with governments implementing mass warrantless surveillance is not training or standards, NIST or otherwise. It should be straight-out illegal. Governments do not have "free speech" rights. As for private citizens doing it: I think there are already sufficient laws about recording people without their consent. You can hire someone to stand on a corner and watch for a specific person to walk by, but a law pr…
Generally something that's okay to do to one person is okay to do to a billion in the law. Something legal applied a billion times doesn't make it illegal. That's also one of the legal principles underlying mass warrantless surveillance with the third party doctrine.
Carpenter v. United States I think is one of the landmark cases that has started to signal the impending curtailment of unabridged third-party doctrine. Kyllo v. U.S. laid some groundwork as well, I believe unless I've mixed it up with another case in which the court recognized it must balance the ever expanding capabilities granted to law enforcement by new technology against the right of the populace to maintain their expectations of privacy. In part, those tests have to take into account the impact of the particular means being employed. In the Kyllo case, a thermal imager being used to see through the walls of a structure without a warrant constituted an infringement of the 4th Amendment because accepting that law enforcement could do this would be to let law enforcement intrude through artifice where historically they would not have been allowed to tread without warrants. Applied to the entirety of the population, this would represent a wholesale nullification of the 4th Anendment by mere accident of now having a sensor exist that could make that previously private, public. Based on said analysis, your assertion talls short. It is in fact the goal of the Court to specifically not infer that just because something is authorized for use in a singular instance, does not mean it's character does not change when applied a billion times.
Courts are not computers. They are not stupid. They business of weighing nuance is sorta their thing, in spite of how annoying they can be at utterly torturing language when they want to do something a plain reading won't let them do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Rights are 'god given.' I'm not religious anymore, but wasn't it Paul who made the argument that we should respect temporal authority and their temporal laws, because it was God Himself who allowed them to become an authority in the first place? >fgc-9 Isn't it a bit too big to carry concealed for self-defense purposes? That aside, don't 3d printed guns jam much more frequently than "real" guns? So, for example, if…
Fgc-9 jams more frequently than a Glock. The barrel and ballistics were found to be near that of a Glock at least at lower round counts. Functionally it is a 9mm pistol which is what most law enforcement carry in my country. It is large but not unreliable at least in sub-1000 round counts. Given the alternative is a glorified bb gun as you put it, or dealing with the same mafioso, it's not clear to me the calculus is…
> Certainly wasn't to the German Kurd 'Jstark' who invented it and indeed concealed it on German soil.
Okay, I don't know much about him aside from just now doing a quick search on him, but he didn't conceal carry the fgc9 when out in public did he (correct me if im wrong)? And that's what im trying to say, the gun he made - while it is better having something than nothing - you cant conceal carry as you could a glock or any other pistol; or are there small, relatively decently reliable 3d guns that you can that im unaware of?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you laughed at the idea that the government has no speech rights, I almost thought you were about to say something coherent.
I almost thought you were going to present an argument as to how the government could possibly have no speech "rights" in the first place
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a difference between recording everyone entering your space, and recording everyone in a public space.
Not really, it's antisocial behavior either way. This is just splitting hairs anywhere but a courtroom. Anyway, a mall is a public space in the context of recording without consent. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The law needs to be updated to reflect the vastly more invasive technology we have now compared to when these statutes were written to reflect actual social mores.
we were talking about the law, as I recall.
> Anyway, a mall is a public space
malls have been held to be public spaces, but not the insides of the stores.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally something that's okay to do to one person is okay to do to a billion in the law. Something legal applied a billion times doesn't make it illegal. That's also one of the legal principles underlying mass warrantless surveillance with the third party doctrine.
The hell are people down voting that for? It's not an endorsement of the legal principle. This is the world we live in. But I'm sure many of you have money - why not try organizing and changing the law.