961–970 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You didn't have to provide your ID when you enabled alcohol delivery? That's how it works in California, at least.
I have never interacted with the app. I just show ID if those are in the order and I am the one answering the door.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't make something Constitutional or not, especially when they choose to ignore extremely plain and direct language.
By definition, the Supreme Court does decide what is Constitutional. It doesn't decide what is right or moral, but it does, according to the Constitution, decide what laws conform to the Constitution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would call this a "legal overreach". Laws have nothing to do with morals or morality.
Of course they do. Laws are how we codify the subset of morals we can all (well most of us) agree on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In an ideal world, but in this case we're dealing with moral overreach from zealous Christian nationalists.
Again, you have no requirement to recognize this form of neurotic authoritarianism as anything related to either morality or christianity, for that matter. This isn't about morals at all, it's rather nakedly about control and ignorance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you ok with all devices considering the user hostile and coming with heavy encryption and locked bootloaders? > There should be a clear exemption threshold for low volume indie products, build your own PC, and open source self-install like Linux - since the purpose is to protect ignorant/apathetic consumers. Then everyone will just follow a YouTube tutorial to reinstall their operating system and bypass restricti…
This would actually be an effective way to teach kids about technology. If they learn enough to install their own OS, let them have their smut. I’m hearing more and more how younger generations don’t have what people used to call basic computer skills, because everything just kind of works now. Putting up some road blocks that require research and hands on tinkering to solve, is an invaluable part of the learning pro…
One could say the same of server/cloud obstacles, but because those systems are afar and opaque, it's easy to be content copy-pasting scripts. And there is less sense of progression and ownership since it doesn't involve building up your own environment.
Others have said this, I'm sure, but this will move past porn _quickly_. Once there is agreed-up age verification for pornography, much of the professional internet will require identity verification to do _anything_. This is one of the bigger nails in the coffin for the free internet, and this true whether or not you're happy with all the pornography out there.
This doesn't sound so bad. I would much prefer to have discussions about politics, technology, or religion safe in the knowledge that I am not inadvertently communicating with a minor.
Why is that so bad? As a kid I really appreciated participating in mixed-age discussions on many topics. I view that as part of what it means to grow into a "young adult."
Too often I think we (North American society) assume that school, with all it's rigorous age separation, gives kids the space and instruction they need to do well in the world but inevitably we get 18 year olds with no awareness of how the world functions beyond themselves... because they've only ever dealt with people of the same age.
The world is a diverse place; ideologically, racially, and in age. We, adults, need to be comfortable communicating with both children and legal minors because they'll be future citizens of the world [added in edit:] and they need to learn those skills too.
Overall, we keep trying to model a world that filters it's own interactions towards children, which is flawed to begin with, but at some point people stop being children, and where does that leave them w.r.t. their expectations of others? If you've never had to consider that an adult might act in bad faith because your world has been so sanitized, are you prepared for a world with bad actors in it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please, the EU is trying to ban encryption at this very moment, to say the that EU is pro privacy is a bit of a joke really. Privacy from companies maybe, privacy from governments and cops, certainly not.
> privacy from governments and cops It is very much not clear to me that you should have privacy from governments or cops. Aren't the whole point of the government and cops that they are the institutions we have created to entrust with this access?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because 'online' is the entire planet, including sellers in foreign countries. Would you like to have "digital borders" between countries, where data has to show some sort of passport to cross the border?
Again, if I want to import pron from Japan I need to not only prove I'm 18 to the border censors but make sure the pron is legal locally. Plenty of people have been arrested for importing things legal in Japan that are illegal in the West. Plenty of countries have laws on the books that make it a felony to even look at what's on the average Japanese store bookshelf while you're in Japan. Why should the laws be differ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sharing/storing child porn is already illegal and punished far more harshly. So it's not like we've gone from zero to one. We've been censoring things people don't like for a little while now.
Sure, but that is a step from banning because it's harmful to the producer to banning because it's harmful to the consumer
Some go further still. E.g. in Australia, "laws also cover depictions of sexual acts involving people over the threshold age who are simulating or otherwise alluding to being underage, even if all those involved are of a legal age."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1A: Congress shall make no law ... Abridging the freedom of speech. (Note: freedom of speech includes the ability to listen to what you want) 2A: ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Congress making a law that prevents minors from accesing information is a clearly a breach of the first text. Point of sale ID checks for guns are much less clearly "infringing on the right to keep a…
Fine, then ATF Class 3 licenses, which are required to keep and bear some kinds of arms, are a breach of the 2A similar to how the 1A is being breached here.