SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd
UPDATE, March 23, 2018: President Donald Trump signed the $1.3 trillion government spending bill—which includes the CLOUD Act—into law Friday morning.
"People deserve the right to a better process." Those are the words of Jim McGovern, representative for Massachusetts and member of the House of Representatives Committee on Rules, when, after 8:00 PM EST on Wednesday, he and his colleagues were handed a 2,232-page bill to review and approve for a floor vote by the next morning.
In the final pages of the bill—meant only to appropriate future government spending—lawmakers snuck in a separate piece of legislation that made no mention of funds, salaries, or budget cuts. Instead, this final, tacked-on piece of legislation will erode privacy protections around the globe.
[...] As we wrote before, the CLOUD Act is a far-reaching, privacy-upending piece of legislation that will:
- Enable foreign police to collect and wiretap people's communications from U.S. companies, without obtaining a U.S. warrant.
- Allow foreign nations to demand personal data stored in the United States, without prior review by a judge.
- Allow the U.S. president to enter "executive agreements" that empower police in foreign nations that have weaker privacy laws than the United States to seize data in the United States while ignoring U.S. privacy laws.
- Allow foreign police to collect someone's data without notifying them about it.
- Empower U.S. police to grab any data, regardless if it's a U.S. person's or not, no matter where it is stored.
Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/responsibility-deflected-cloud-act-passes
See also: As the CLOUD Act sneaks into the omnibus, big tech butts heads with privacy advocates
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26 2018, @11:21PM (40 children)
The trajectory is the same regardless of whose in power; it matters not whether the Democrats or Republicans claim control of the levers and buttons—hell, 4-to-8 years ain't enough for any one President to do anything impressive.
The Deep State has been engaged in a century-long effort (started with the introduction of the Federal Reserve) to craft a framework for global authoritarianism.
The biggest wrinkle in that plan is the 2nd Amendment, which is why there has been such an enormous and sustained push to curb the Common Man's ownership of that tool of liberty which is so aptly named: "The Great Equalizer".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Weasley on Tuesday March 27 2018, @12:00AM (4 children)
The 2nd Amendment isn't thwarting shit. America has already been conquered by cheap luxuries. Nobody will raise a hand against the government because they're holding cheeseburgers, cell phones, and remote controls.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:45AM
Clearly, the degree of Tyranny isn't that bothersome yet.
Let those in power feel they have control; they'll regret their choices should they go too far.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:56AM (2 children)
Clearly you don't appreciate the simple pleasures in life. Coffee in the morning and a good cheeseburger for lunch make me feel that I'm living like a king. So it would be better if the populace was angry because they have to eat thin gruel? It would be better if they were smart critical thinkers, which is not at odds with eating cheeseburgers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:51AM (1 child)
The cheeseburgers aren't the oppression. The oppression is that you can't get sriracha [wikipedia.org] to put on the cheeseburgers. Usually it's only ketchup. Sometimes mustard (but just that bland yellow crap, not dijon or brown mustard), but usually just catsup. It's so wrong. There isn't even a standard way to spell ketchup/catsup. Grrr! That's the real oppression!
I'd even be okay with Frank's or Trappey's. But NOOOOO! Only catsup. That's the man keeping us down!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @11:25AM
The lack of HP Sauce has been a thorn in our sides for far too long. It'd seem the Queen is holding it back as part of her grudge for the colonies leaving the empire.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Virindi on Tuesday March 27 2018, @12:34AM (2 children)
People in power in an organization work to give that organization more power, news at 11!
Rather than being a sinister plot, it is more a result of human nature, and the trajectory all governments follow. The United States was created as an experimental attempt to restrain this seemingly unstoppable force...the attempt failed.
No solution has yet been found for the problem that power tends to centralize over time. Worse yet, the population is barely even aware that it is an issue.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:14AM
As usual, well over 95% of the population will just live their lives, consumer, raise their children, regardless of the type of power at the top.
As long as people have something to lose and haven't lost tangible things, they will bitch, moan, and remember that, until the time is ripe because the tank is getting empty. the tallest blade gets the mower.
Also, I really want a formal conspiracy mod (make that +0 or -1, with my vote being that blatant conspiracies are a bad thing for this place, so -1)
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday March 27 2018, @10:13AM
>Rather than being a sinister plot
evil forms a system under any condition, this is why I consider meaningless the question "Does satan exist", akin to "can a multicellular meatbag be called a person"
having said that, there is NO FUCKING WAY different governments in different conditions all pick one of the possible courses of action, harmful for their own feuds, without a layer of coordination.
There are no conspiracy theorists, there are conspiracy verifiers. The theorists can only be anti-conspiracy, and all their framework is built on the "never attribute to malice..." sentence that fits a fortune cookie more than a political analyst.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:31AM (30 children)
Where's that '-1 naive' mod when you need it?
Given that the NRA spends large sums every election cycle [opensecrets.org] to limit any gun regulation and is quite successful at it.
If you think your arsenal of guns will stop your state police, let alone federal law enforcement, your state's National Guard, or the US military) from taking you down if they wish to do so, you're delusional.
The second amendment isn't under siege, nor is the evil gub'mint trying to "take away your guns."
Trying to make sure that violent nutjobs find it difficult to arm themselves with semi-automatic weapons with huge (30-100 rounds) magazines and bump stocks is perfectly reasonable.
No hunter, target shooter or even a citizen protecting himself and/or his property has a need for such things.
Should we sell such stuff, as well as RPGs, .50 cals, Claymores, C-4, Stingers [wikipedia.org] and the like to anyone who can put cash on the barrel head?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:43AM (10 children)
Uncle Sam also capitulated to the Gooks in Vietnam.
That is, your point doesn't stand. A guerrilla insurgency of common folk will be able to fuck with Uncle Sam's firepower for a LONG time.
On top of that, large swaths of the American military would defect, taking their munitions and training with them in aid of the militias.
So, fuck off with your naysaying.
American governance is based on Checks and Balances.
The 2nd Amendment is one such check and balance: It's not for protecting your family from hooligans, and it's not for shooting deer; rather, the 2nd Amendment is for shooting tyrannical politicians and their families.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:02AM (7 children)
Uh huh. What was I thinking? Of course you're absolutely right. The people are with you. So go ahead and start your insurgency. I'm sure that *millions* will immediately join you against the evil gub'mint.
I'd start with your local town hall. Kill the mayor and the city/town council, then round up and kill their male relatives and then gang rape the females. Let a few of the females go so they can warn others about how powerful and fearsome you are.
Then you can move on to the state capitol and do the same there. By the time that's done, you'll be so popular that the entire nation will rise up and decapitate the beast with many heads! No more government! No mayors or county executives, no town/city councils, state legislatures/governors.
Then you can turn your attention to Washington, DC (you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy), where those cowardly, traitorous scumbags will flee for their lives.
Only then can we have real liberty. Only then can we have the freedom we deserve. Right on! Death to representative government! Death to the Constitution! Death to the politicians! Death to...well, anyone we decide needs to die! FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM!
And most of all, Death to the most evil of entities, the Homeowners Association! There is a special place in hell for them, after we torture them for months, then disembowel them alive and force them to eat their own guts.
I await your triumphant victory over the evil oppressors who stamp on our faces with the boots of unbridled government power.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:21AM (6 children)
I stopped reading pretty quickly; I hope you had fun writing that drivel.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:39AM (5 children)
What other conclusion could I draw from your statements?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:50AM (4 children)
You should have concluded that the 2nd Amendment is an important principle and an effective means by which to thwart an enormous, global, deep-pocketed drive to crush individual liberty for the benefit of a small group of elite.
Nobody is calling for an insurgency; the mere threat of the possibility of a violent uprising against the the global Authoritarians is quite effective enough, as evidenced by the endless push to disarm the populace—by the endless push to transfer strength from the weak (the individual) to the strong (the State).
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:08AM (3 children)
It has its uses. I have no issue with it myself.
There is where you're just embarrassing yourself. Your Glock or AR-15 is no match for a squad of regular army infantrymen. Not that anyone is sending such folks, because no one is trying to take your guns away.
All that normal, reasonable folks are saying is that we should be able to limit the ability of violent crazies to obtain firearms.
Have you considered stand up comedy? I nearly busted a gut reading that.
No one is trying to disarm the populace. Rather, reasonable people want to keep guns out of the hands of folks who are *likely* to commit mass murder.
Any steps taken won't stop all the crazies, but if we can keep folks like the Parkland high school shooter from *legally* obtaining semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines (who needs high-capacity magazines? For what purpose?), we can reduce that threat.
Has the local sheriff's office, police, ATF or other gub'mint agency come by your house to take your guns? Have they come by to inspect them? Has any LEO ever (except in an adversarial situation) even asked if you have/own guns?
I'm betting the answer is "no." So who are these "global authoritarians" who are so aggressively trying to take your weapons? They don't exist, except in your mind.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:14AM (1 child)
Just take the guns away from the Government.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:19AM
I have no issue with forbidding "law enforcement officers" from carrying guns all the time. In fact, I think it would be a very good thing.
It would encourage the police to use force only as the last resort rather than the first, as happens far too often.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:20PM
Don't fool yourself. If you don't think anyone wants to disarm the populace, you've likely never come to Massachusetts.
But it is always nice to be reminded that at least there's enough people in the rest of the country to keep these lunatics from having too much power. Now, if only the SCOTUS would remind them that it's unconstitutional to require licensure to simply OWN a SHOTGUN (not talking transporting, hunting, or anything else other than having one in one's home for protection), we'd almost be doing okay.
There are some safeguards we should probably have to address mass shootings, though I'd rather see the root of that problem addressed than merely tackling the symptoms. In the meantime, there's absolutely such a thing as going too far, and it does get done in some places. For another well known example, see Chicago's old hand gun ban that did finally get overturned by the SCOTUS.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @09:29AM
So when will you execute Trump and his gang? So far I only see you people mowing down school children.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday March 27 2018, @12:59PM
FTFY - the finest democracy money can buy.
Say ain't so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by black6host on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:49AM (10 children)
Well, I was following along until the end there... I don't believe the NRA, or anyone else with any clout, is pushing for the free sale and acquisition of Claymore mines. At least not here in the states.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:14AM (8 children)
A fair point. However, that's just a logical consequence of what AC was saying (and seconded by this AC post [soylentnews.org]):
By that reasoning, it's clear that a shotgun or a rifle won't equalize anything against tanks, jet bombers, cruise missiles and tactical nukes. If what the AC is advocating ("the great equalizer") is truly necessary, free access (well, if you can pay, that is) to such things are critical to ensuring that an oppressive government can be countered and removed.
If those who believe that arming themselves against the day that they need to rise up against their tyrannical oppressors, they will need appropriate arms to do so. And rifles, shotguns and handguns are little use against cruise missiles, howitzers, smart bombs and tactical nukes.
If what you say is true, it's clear that support for gun ownership has nothing to do with guarding against government oppression. If it was, those patriotic, freedom-loving folks would be demanding access to those sorts of things under the second amendment.
If I misunderstood your point, please enlighten me and accept my apologies.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:23AM (7 children)
Uncle Sam's advanced technology is worthless against an ideological guerrilla militia; Uncle Sam just can't seem to win a war.
"See you in Paradise."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:42AM (5 children)
Go ahead and prove me wrong. And when I see your photo in a news report about our glorious new leader who will lead us out of oppression from the evil gub'mint, I'll know I was wrong.
More likely, that same photo will be in a piece about some "nutjob militia" guy being killed or imprisoned, and I'll know I was right.
So go ahead and surprise me. I guess I'll be one of the first "up against the wall' but I'll take that chance.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:53AM (4 children)
I didn't bother finishing your comment. You're arguing a fake point.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:14AM (3 children)
What other conclusion could I draw, based on the assertions provided?
Calling my snark a "straw man" and a "fake point" just shows that you have nothing useful to add to the discussion.
Why are my sarcastic comments straw men and fake points? What arguments do you have to support those assertions?
Do you have any evidence to support such arguments?
I suspect that I'll get another response devoid of semantic value from you. Or none at all. Which are equivalent anyway.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:21AM (2 children)
See here. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:30AM (1 child)
A weak argument, easily refuted (which I already did [soylentnews.org]).
See. I can link to previous comments too. I see you learned something new. Maybe we can work on teaching you to tie your shoes next.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:36AM
I can't find a refutation anywhere.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @10:12AM
In the Middle East, Uncle Sam has spotty intelligence and few people that it can trust. Same with Vietnam and other places. Killing these people is not hard at the outset, but open-ended and impossible objectives related to occupation make losing a war inevitable.
On the Home Front, Uncle Sam is able to effectively infiltrate domestic extremist/militia/political groups with undercover officers and paid informants. The feds are able to exploit the natural weaknesses, inadequacies, and internal divisions of these groups. They have had practice doing this for decades despite these groups being very minor threats. For controlling everyone else, there's bread and circuses.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday March 27 2018, @12:05PM
> I don't believe the NRA, or anyone else with any clout, is pushing for the free sale and acquisition of Claymore mines
darn
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:02PM (4 children)
Great, another person telling shooters what they do and don't need who doesn't shoot or know anything about it.
Lets ban 90% of the guns in the US (semi-auto) and whip out hyperbole about claymores. And god forbid anyone who went for help with anxiety or depression should keep doing their hobby. Better to have them avoid going to the doctor while suffering in silence.
Why does anyone need more than a 500sq ft home, a large truck or a big screen TV. 640k is enough for everyone. Large hard drives facilitate piracy. Calorie limits now, everyone is fat.. if it just saves one life.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday March 27 2018, @01:57PM (3 children)
Who was it that said anything even remotely like that? It certainly wasn't me.
The vast majority of gun owners are responsible with their weapons.
What's more, I never suggested that any particular type of weapon be banned, or that anyone should have their firearms confiscated.
I did ask what the use case for high-capacity magazines and devices like bump stocks. Under what circumstances is a bump stock or a 100 round magazine useful, other than to mow down large numbers of people as quickly as possible?
My point WRT to .50 cals and claymores pertains to the ridiculous assertion that having a gun is real protection against a tyrannical government. Given the state of weapons technology, having an AR-15 and/or other similar weapons aren't going to stop even local/state police from taking you down, let alone the US government, should they choose to do so.
I suppose you could run away and live in the woods ala Red Dawn [wikipedia.org] and stay out of government custody with an AR-15, but that doesn't fit the narrative that such weapons can and will keep an out of control government at bay.
If your argument is that the "right to bear arms" (not scare/sarcasm quotes, just being specific) is to make sure that the good citizens of the US can, as a last resort, use those arms to control/remove a tyrannical government, then it makes sense to advocate for access to arms that *could* achieve that goal.
It's pretty clear that guns (handguns and long guns both) aren't anywhere near sufficient to the task. As such, it would make sense to advocate for free access to large caliber guns, rocket-propelled grenades and launchers, stinger missiles, claymores and other ordnance. Given that no one is doing so, it seems that "keeping tyrannical government at bay" isn't the real concern.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:18PM (2 children)
You think any government that uses missiles against it's own citizen could last? The best thing for any rebellion would be for the government to send in the military to bomb them. We can't bomb people in the desert without killing noncombatants, you think it would be easier at home? .gov kills 100k innocent children with a tactical nuke, I'm sure that will look good on the front page of the newspaper.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @02:47PM
Well look at Syria currently ... and in this time of mass surveillance, how many bullets do you think it takes to crush a rebellion? I tell you now, 1.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @05:38PM
> .gov kills 100k innocent children with a tactical nuke, I'm sure that will look good on the front page of the newspaper.
"Terrorists detonate a nuclear weapon in #city; martial law declared; Internet services suspended; elections postponed until crisis is over"
You severely underestimate a government's ability to control the narrative, at least for a limited time (measured in years or decades). See China, North Korea, Russia...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @03:49PM (1 child)
stopping *actually insane* people from owning *any* gun is perfectly constitutional. unfortunately, you seditious morons want to use oppositional defiance disorder(ODD) and other tactics to infringe on people's rights.
not if you allow them to isolate you and pile up outside your house like waco or ruby ridge, so they can murder your children. besides that? collectively? of course 100 million armed citizens can defeat 1-2 million(assuming it was so cut and dry, which it wouldn't be).
of course they/you are. see above and all the infringements you seek.
irrelevant, slave. "of current military and police use" is what type of arms the people have the inalienable right to. for the purpose of killing enemies of freedom.
yes. there is no "we" with more rights than me. i am the militia. (don't waste everyone's time with your lies about the "well regulated militia" part) i have the rights. "we" are supposed to be protecting those rights, not trying to find excuses to infringe them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:03PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9rfAMDRD_A [youtube.com]
the first video.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday March 27 2018, @07:48PM
You really are a retard aren't ya.
That ain't real money. The NRA's whole budget ain't real money. You want to see real money in politics, look at how much the NEA or Planned Parenthood dump. The fear of the NRA comes from millions of paying members and millions more who closely watch their scorecards who become single issue voters anytime the 2nd Amendment is under threat. And there is nothing sinister about the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the county doing what it was founded to do.
You picked the wrong day for repeating that lie. Former SCOTUS Justice Stevens has an op-ed today calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Stupid senile old fool doesn't realize it would do nothing. Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms doesn't come from the 2nd Amendment, it is one of the organizational ideas that America operates on, it predates the Constitution and would exist exactly unchanged without it, as it did before the Bill of Rights was adopted. Infringing those inalienable rights would put a moral duty on every loyal American to resist the attempt by any means up to and including another Revolution.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 27 2018, @04:25AM
It's authoritarian oligarchs, some aristocratic, some old money, some new, money, all working to consolidate costs and centralize ownership so they can focus more on stabbing each other in the back or rubbing their superiority in each other's faces without having to risk global shifts in power happening that would require their attention and management instead.
As far as the US is concerned, this is what happens when when you don't put the right politicians or lobbyists in a bodybag to set an example of what will happen if they continue doing things against the American People's interest. Voting them out would work too, except they have carefully divided the country into two teams, with just enough flipfloppers to push them in the desired direction for their next round of policy changes, while both fanbases are too distracted to see they are all getting equally played.