from the can't-they-find-a-new-excuse-to-steal-my-rights dept.
You have too many rights, so it's time for a little rebalancing:
Internet anonymity should be banned and everyone required to carry the equivalent of a license plate when driving around online. That's according to Erik Barnett, the US Department of Homeland Security's attaché to the European Union.
Writing in French policy magazine FIC Observatoire, Barnett somewhat predictably relies on the existence of child abuse images to explain why everyone in the world should be easily monitored. He tells a story about how a Romanian man offered to share sexually explicit images of his daughter with an American man over email. The unnamed email provider uncovered this exchange and forwarded the IP address of the Romanian to the European authorities and a few days later the man was arrested. Job well done.
Before we have an opportunity to celebrate, however, Barnett jumps straight to terrorism. "How much of the potential jihadists' data should intelligence agencies or law enforcement be able to examine to protect citizenry from terrorist attack?", he poses. The answer, of course, is everything. Then the pitch: "As the use of technology by human beings grows and we look at ethical and philosophical questions surrounding ownership of data and privacy interests, we must start to ask how much of the user's data is fair game for law enforcement to protect children from sexual abuse?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 01 2016, @05:29AM
There is no "balance" between poeple's rights, and whatever the hell else officials might be concerned about. Each and every one of us HAS our rights. It's not something to be bartered away.
”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.” Benjamin Franklin
If you are so very insecure that you are willing to barter your rights in exchange for some elusive security, then you should go live in one of the Islamic countries. You can be very secure there, provided that you don't offend an ayatollah or an influential imam.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by captain normal on Monday February 01 2016, @05:40AM
Speaking of Benjamin Franklin, Silence Dogood could have been considered a threat to the ruling class. Which indeed did turn out to be true 45~50 years later. Anonymity is a great American and British tradition and should not be messed with by those who would force their power upon the people.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @07:28AM
If it's to protect the interests of cunt women, men's liberties go right out the window.
Women ARE society.
Men are just dogs.
We used to marry girl children.
Now for even liking young girls it's prison.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @05:45AM
The only "balance" to be achieved is for the government to follow the constitution completely. If they did this, they would realize that they cannot force encryption backdoors into existence.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by anubi on Monday February 01 2016, @06:19AM
Absolutely right. They cannot force encryption backdoors by law any more than they could keep anyone from cooking up a batch of hooch during prohibition.
Oh, yes, the law abiders would obey.
And anyone using "legal" protocols are basically in public with their pants down.
This will only drive "illegal" communication further underground. My guess is the next big wave of covert communications will be steganographic.
The people who wish to communicate covertly will pay no attention to the wagging of Congressional pens.
All Congress does is enrich the people who are more than happy to profit from the artificial monopolies created by Congress.
I can guarantee you, that while the law abiding citizen may have everything known about him ( especially the marketer's holy grail of knowing exactly how much anything is worth to him ), the people who want to communicate anonymously will continue to do so.
( economics: producer surplus vs. consumer surplus )
Life, as I know it, is a lot like poker. You come to the table. They want something. You want something. If he already knows you will pay $5 for something he paid 25 cents for, his price is $5. However he will sell the same thing to someone else for $1 if he knows the other guy will only pay $1 for it. He gets all the "producer surplus" and the consumer gets zero. Now, if I would have paid $5 for something, but I could get it for $1, then I was the one who got $4 consumer surplus, as it was worth $5 to me and I got it for a buck. This is one of the holy grails of market research... just how much will any given individual pay for something? And that's what you ask of that individual.
Having business know everything about me is almost like playing poker with transparent cards.
This law is just about as enforceable as a law about peeing in the pool or farting in the theater.
All it will do is foment less respect for all law... with all this IP stuff out there right now, I am already seeing respect for law and internal ethics taking one helluva hit.
The rich man takes what the little guy has... eminent domain ... the little guy takes what the rich man has ... theft! But it was the very same act!
How many other things are "criminal" for one guy to do, but perfectly legal for another entity to do?
The first three words of a famous pledge go "I pledge allegiance", and the last three words: "justice for all."
Just as I expect the laws of physics to be no respecter of persons, to me, "justice for all" means the other laws I am expected to comply with are also no respecter of persons.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @10:17AM
I disagree. Politely. The next wave will be massive data and metadata generation alongside Posion The Well.
I see a future where every user has multiple online identities, multiple simultanious proxies, etc etc so much so no one will be able to see anything in the muddy datastreams clearly enough to know for sure what anyone is doing without throwing significant resources at it. Multiplied by billions of people randomly bouncing connections off each other and punching through semistatic bridges and through local networks and they will have a hard time finding anything.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday February 01 2016, @05:28PM
I see a future where every user has multiple online identities, multiple simultaneous proxies, etc etc so much so no one will be able to see anything in the muddy data streams clearly enough to know for sure what anyone is doing without throwing significant resources at it. Multiplied by billions of people randomly bouncing connections off each other and punching through semi-static bridges and through local networks and they will have a hard time finding anything.
But they WILL throw significant resources at it. You make the mistake of thinking it actually is about keeping us safe and/or keeping us in line. It is not. It is about profit, and there are those that will profit greatly from the spending required to perform this surveillance, effective or not.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @10:53AM
> The only "balance" to be achieved is for the government to follow the constitution completely.
You sound like a biblical literalist. Seriously. If it were that simple, this wouldn't be up for debate. Unfortunately the constitution, like all documents created by man, has plenty off ambiguity in it. Just like the bible, a literalist interpretation of the constitution leads to contradiction. That's why we have a judicial branch of government.
But that requires hard work and thoughtful judgment. So much easier to ignorantly stamp your foot and 'demand' that people follow an impossible standard. In the meantime the practical result is that by demanding the impossible you end up enabling the very people you say you oppose. But at least you can feel good and righteous, because that's what really matters to people like you.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Monday February 01 2016, @06:26PM
a literalist interpretation of the constitution leads to contradiction
Could you provide some examples?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @07:21PM
You sound like a biblical literalist.
No, I just want a government that actually respects the fact that we're supposed to be a constitutional form of government. I want a government that does not have unlimited power.
Unfortunately the constitution, like all documents created by man, has plenty off ambiguity in it.
So what? Err on the side of individual liberties.
Just like the bible
I don't see what a book of fairy tales has to do with the constitution. The bible has contradictions no matter what you do, unless you deliberately ignore its contents.
a literalist interpretation of the constitution leads to contradiction.
Such as?
That's why we have a judicial branch of government.
And the judicial branch of the government often fails when it comes to getting the government to follow the constitution.
But that requires hard work and thoughtful judgment. So much easier to ignorantly stamp your foot and 'demand' that people follow an impossible standard.
You shouldn't try so hard to play the part of some imaginary 'Reasonable Man Who Knows The Truth'; some fantasies only cause you to ignore reality.
In the meantime the practical result is that by demanding the impossible you end up enabling the very people you say you oppose.
Where's your evidence that I specifically have enabled the very people I say I oppose?
But at least you can feel good and righteous, because that's what really matters to people like you.
Do you feel good and righteous trying to play the part of a 'Reasonable Man'? That's what really matters to people like you.
See how easy it is to be a pretend mind reader? Sure, my conclusions are probably completely incorrect like when a theist says that atheists really believe in god in their hearts, but who cares about that?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @10:43AM
> ”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.” Benjamin Franklin
How old are you?
How long have you been on the interwebz?
Yet you can't even be arsed to actually get the quote right.
> then you should go live in one of the Islamic countries
Are you trying to make the people who actually have a principled stand look like juvenile bigots?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 01 2016, @11:59AM
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775
NOTES
In 1755 (Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, Tue, Nov 11, 1755), Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
This phrasing was also the motto in Historical Review of Pennsylvania, attributed to Franklin
It's important to note that this sentiment, with many variations, was much used in the Revolutionary period by Franklin and others.
franklin: liberty/ security
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" is, I believe, the correct quote but it is often quoted as, "Who give up liberty for safety, deserve neither."
This expression seems to have mutated over time. Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations (1989) cites it as:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin, "Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor", November 11, 1755; as cited in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 6, p. 242, Leonard W. Labaree, ed. (1963)
It shows up four years later in a slightly different form, according to Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919):
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759); included in the work and displayed as the motto of the work, according to Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413, Richard Frothingham (1873)
Back to Respectfully Quoted, we find yet another version inscribed in a famous monument:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin; stairwell plaque in the Statue of Liberty
It's possible that Franklin said this in different ways at earlier times, but so far, the 1755 letter is the earliest source I've found. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Those that are willing to give up a little temporary safety for essential liberty are not going to get much of either safety or liberty. - Myself
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 01 2016, @12:00PM
Oooops - forgot to attribute the second half of my post - http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2012/05/those-who-use-this-benjamin-franklin-quote-deserve-not-to-be-taken-seriously.html [typepad.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @02:01PM
Did you just cite a web page that literally says you should not be taken seriously?
Oh runaway, maybe you should change your name to unaware1956....
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 01 2016, @03:26PM
ROFLMAO - obviously I discount that person's OPINION. He did, however, explain quite well why there is no single version of the quote which you claimed to be flawed. The saying was common, and it was phrased in many ways, even by Franklin, to whom it is attributed. In fact, I could alter the phrasing an any number of ways, and it would still be "authentic".
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @01:50PM
Franklin wasn't a "pedantic" but your post proves you are.
The way your misquote differs from all of Franklin's variations is in the most important way - lack of the terms "essential" and "little." You've demonstrated your pedantry by thinking that minor variations in what Franklin wrote excuse your ignorance of the actual meaning of what he wrote.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @05:35PM
”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.” Benjamin Franklin
I hate when people trot out that tired old line without fully understanding it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 01 2016, @05:53PM
And, I hate when revisionists attempt to re-define the English language. Our constitution's entire purpose was to delineate and restrict government's powers and authorities. The people who wrote that constitution were quite clear - liberties trump security. You've heard the state motto, "Live free or die!"
Understanding. You be understanding, and surrender your freedoms to the unconstitutional "Department of Homeland Security". I have no intention of bowing to any of their claimed authority.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @11:33PM
You're right only as long as you know what your "rights" are. These days everyone has all sorts of "rights" that don't seem to be written anywhere but in their heads.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by gman003 on Monday February 01 2016, @05:33AM
Okay, so if hiding things is causing problems for society, let's get rid of all privacy. So step one, let's open up all government computer networks. I want a read-only account on every single server, desktop, laptop and phone, with read access to literally everything. After all, those top-secret weapon schematics could contain child porn - if the pedos were at all smart about it, they'd try to hide it somewhere where only a few people could look, and where it would be embarrassing for the government to prosecute over it. Think of the children!
Oh, what's that? Secrets are important when *you* keep them? Then I'll be keeping mine, as best as I'm able, thank you very much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @05:36AM
All of the jihadists and child molesters could be caught if they could just capture and record everyone's phone calls and mail also!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 01 2016, @06:09AM
No. Go to Hell. Go directly to Hell. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @07:25AM
>In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.
>Also: see: Deuteronomy chapter 22 verses 28-29, hebrew allows men to rape girl children and keep them: thus man + girl is obviously fine. Feminists are commanded to be killed as anyone enticing others to follow another ruler/judge/god is to be killed as-per Deuteronomy. It is wonderful when this happens from time to time: celebrate)
Man traded a picture that upset adult women.
Men must not have freedom or anonymity.
Cunt women logic.
Previously men traded the girls themselves (child marraige),
that was the first thing the cunts banned,
We live in cunt states (cuntries).
Men have ZERO power: always outvoted by cunts (by design)
(Score: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 01 2016, @07:41AM
Men who use "cunt" as an insult, I find, very often do not like vaginas, Mr. Kvaratskhelia. Maybe that's your problem: maybe you actually want a big dominant man to put you in your place. It would explain so much of your internet presence.
I'm not saying this to counter-troll or to be insulting; I am seriously suggesting that you date another man and see if that works for you.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @08:03AM
This is bullshit. Cunt is a lovely word. Only assholes use the term "vagina" which has all the linguistic appeal of "gangrene".
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 01 2016, @08:40AM
If you hadn't already proved yourself an idiot, "vagina" is a pretty cool word. I wonder - can you name the rest of the female genitalia? Or, is "cunt" and "pussy" the only words you know? Are you at all familiar with female anatomy, or is it all just some deep, dark, forbidden sphere of knowledge? You're really not much of a geek, or nerd, if "cunt" is the best word you can think of to describe women. FFS, you're an embarrasment.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday February 01 2016, @09:55AM
Please note that I'm not trying to validate MikeeUSA or whatever name that moron is using these days. For the record, you're a jerk.
That said, some folks don't feel that "vagina" is inclusive enough [huffingtonpost.com].
I find it interesting (and rather disturbing) that a vocal few seem to want to control what words we use and in what context. I disagree with that idea. At the same time, I also believe that if one finds speech offensive, one should respond with appropriate vitriol. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
I'm going to go off on a bit of a tangent here, but it's something I've been thinking about.
In keeping with my above comments, feel free to tell me I'm wrong, but, please, pretty please with sugar on top, for the love of all that's good in this world, tell me why you think so.
There are some people who, upon meeting and getting to know me, would identify me as a "cis-gendered MAAB" or something similar.
I am *not* a cis-gendered MAAB. I am a human with a Y chromosome. That is how I define myself.
I don't wish to restrict anyone from identifying as anything they feel is correct. However, I do not identify as a cis-male or a cis-gendered MAAB. I don't attempt to identify others in ways they don't wish to be identified. As such, I would prefer that others don't try to identify me in a way other than I wish.
I realize that it may seem as if I'm aligning for or against one or more groups to which some or all of you feel aligned. That's not my intention. Rather, it's to define *my identity* for myself.
Moreover, I strongly believe that each individual should be judged on their actions and quality of their character, not based upon how they define themselves or, more importantly, now others define them.
You might ask, "if someone takes issue with how I define myself, why shouldn't I do the same?" In my view, that's because I prefer that each of us be given the freedom to define ourselves.
As such, even if you dislike how I define myself, I don't mind how you choose to define yourself. Ever. Please give me the same respect.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday February 01 2016, @04:27PM
Re: link. Hoo boy. Going way off topic here. As usual, I never really cared about what people whose identities are defined by which body parts they were born with are up to. They're pretty much talking apes in my mind if they cannot imagine any kind of separation between biology and identity.
Let me clarify. You've made an observation about your biology. I don't think you're the type to go around claiming that your Y chromosome is responsible for everything bad that's ever happened to you and that anybody who does not have a Y chromosome is an inferior, inauthentic being. People who do that are the reason that I have always been uncomfortable with The Vagina Monologues. It just strikes me that somebody who finds any truth there is just doing something horribly wrong.
I'm surprised to now learn that even The Vagina Monologues is under attack. As I understand it, there are trans productions of the work, even though that strikes me as being akin to a Jewish or homosexual person putting on a production glorifying Mein Kampf. (Godwined! boo ya!) Note: Mount Holyoke College is a women's college in Massachusetts. I can see how women who were assigned the male gender at birth would be problematic for them. According to the article, they began admitting women who had been assigned the male gender at birth in 2014.
In general, everything that's “women only” will suffer these problems. It's no different from things that used to be “men's only” with the exception that we laugh at MRAs while many people are afraid to question TERF/Michigan feminism for fear of being seen as a misogynist.
However, I would like to make the observation that things like The Vagina Monologues and the defunct Michigan Womyn's Music Festival are frankly downright toxic in effect (think macroaggressions), at least the way that Michigan feminists brandish them like weapons. People I should be allies with, namely “lesbians”—I count this as a different category from women who happen to be homosexual or bisexual due to recent events (“lesbians” would include women who are ashamed of and in the closet about being heterosexual [lol, yeah, I know, Bizarro world and all that])—, have decided that people like me are a valid target for retaliation thus creating needless conflict.
I mean, hey, they view me as a rapist and an invader. For some reason, the fact that I have the hormones I do in my body, have the body parts I do, and am even lucky enough to get gendered as female by strangers, combined with the fact that I have excellent computer skills and can fix my own appliances unless something goes catastrophically wrong, utterly infuriates them. That's fine with me, even though I truly don't get it since I have no interest in attempting to date any of them, and I really don't care what festivals or plays they want to exclude me from (nothing of value was lost). If they want to continue publicly celebrating their bigotry, that makes it all the easier for me to make my case.
Instead the hatred goes underground.
As for MikeeUSA, let's just ignore her outside of making sure she's at -1. (I also deeply suspect for about the past year that MikeeUSA is a “lesbian” who for whatever reason thinks that posting that crap will be as effective towards her goals here as it was with Debian Women. I haven't checked Geek Feminism Wiki [again the I don't give a shit thing], but I'm betting this site is even more maligned than the green one is. It's probably just a bunch of /b tards though. I seriously doubt there is an actual MikeeUSA who honestly believes the things that persona posts. If there is… that person is a truly sad individual.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @04:07PM
You forgot the "twat" and the "hoo-hah". I think those are located somewhere around the labia.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @08:33AM
"Vagina"
Get the fuck out of here USA faggot.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @08:38AM
Men who complain about cunt as an insult, I find, do not like young girls.
They like old busted whores.
Go fuck yourself.
Pro-feminists should be slaughtered.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 01 2016, @05:47PM
I am (almost) everything you hate, sweetie. I am a feminist (though not a TERF; think "moderate second-waver" here), a lesbian, and also certainly having more sex than you are :) Not to mention laughing at you, rather than scared or intimidated. You made a death threat against me a few months ago; how about you follow up, if you have the guts? ...yeah, didn't think so.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @06:17PM
not a TERF… a lesbian
Whoops! I'll adjust my rhetoric. Apologies.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday February 01 2016, @06:17PM
(forgot to log in)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @10:46AM
> Men who use "cunt" as an insult, I find, very often do not like vaginas
Does that mean men who "dick" as an insult are self haters?
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday February 01 2016, @11:26AM
Probably. I never grasped the concept of using a genital-name to insult someone. But generally/conceptually, if I relate someone to a substantive in order to express my contempt, it is a strong indication that I don't like the item linked usually referred to by the same substantive.
(Ok, "dick" might try to mock someone with no hair left, who either got bad sunburn on his had (circumcised dick) or someone who always wears turtle-necks with turtle rolled up covering half the head most of the time. But it's also quite shallow to mock people because of their outlook.)
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @01:54PM
> Probably. I never grasped the concept of using a genital-name to insult someone.
Which you've just gone on to demonstrate.
Here's the thing about people - we love having multiple meanings that are context dependent. You can call someone a dick for the same reason men keep their dicks hidden from public view - because no one wants to see that.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday February 01 2016, @02:09PM
What do you base this assumption on? I expect there are enough woman who would like to see a dick once in a while. Maybe not yours, but generally...
BTW: Limited to your little personal universe you do prove my point. You do apparently have a quite difficult relation to sexuality, and if you call women "cunts" because you don't like to see vaginas, it imo kinda proves Azumas point. Do you prefer to see dicks? Or is it sexuality altogether which makes you uneasy?
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday February 01 2016, @08:35PM
See this is why I just use "asshole:" it's unisex, and actually rather vile, plus it lends itself to an intensifier ("full of shit"). Gendered insults are dumb. I have problems with people because of what's between their ears, not their thighs.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday February 01 2016, @09:40PM
I'm not sure I agree that an asshole (in the sense of the body-part) deserves to be used as swear-word/insult as well, a butt can be quite sensitive as well, I've been told. (I'm straight, so I never got mine penetrated nor do I intend to. I'm just trying to apply my previous logic here as well. I'd concede that "dirty asshole" would be a swear-word, or the "full of shit"-part.
I try not to have problems with people at all. I'd rather them having problems with me :-) But I think I do see your point.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @10:09AM
Sigh.
Why don't you go over to this lovely site [wordpress.com] and let those folks know what's up.
I imagine you'd be welcomed at least as warmly there. They seem very much like you. Perhaps you'll fall in love.
(Score: 2) by rob_on_earth on Monday February 01 2016, @09:19AM
OK I can see that from his and certain others view points but the key thing here is you cannot force this on existing internet users, horse bolted etc.
So setup you magical pixie land where everyone registers to use it and see how many people trade from full fat *free* internet to your walled garden where everything is skewed in favor of companies.
"Oh but its safer and think of the children", I am
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @04:04PM
You think it won't work, but consider how many people own Apple products. People love walled gardens, they love being "kept safe from Bad Things".
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 01 2016, @04:22PM
There is nothing to indicate that one walled garden can overlap another walled garden with any success. Meanwhile, there are a lot of us who avoid the one seemingly successful walled garden that you mention. I don't believe that you can move the entire population of the United States into any walled garden, much less the entire population of the world.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @09:28AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Monday February 01 2016, @09:40AM
It could go something like "Anyone who says 'Dear God, will no one think of the children!' forfeits the argument".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 01 2016, @09:11PM
Lovejoy's Law [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Demose on Monday February 01 2016, @11:32AM
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Advocating the end of online anonymity for people in the U.S. is advocating giving enemy combatants detailed information on the thoughts and movements of U.S. citizens and congressmen. This would allow detailed planning of mass murders and subversion of U.S. infrastructure. Sure sounds like treason to me.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday February 01 2016, @12:59PM
I have a different suggestion. Let's require Erik go everywhere completely naked and sit in a fishbowl office all day long, with his emails displayed on screens outside and his phone conversations broadcast over loudspeakers. Then, when he returns home he'll sit in a stress position and be occasionally hit with cattle prods.
It's all to make sure he doesn't do anything wrong, you see. If he were wearing clothes, he could be concealing child porn in them. If his office and dwellings were not transparent, there could be child porn hidden in them. After all if he has done nothing wrong he surely has nothing to hide, right?
Think of the children.
(on a separate note, we should start a Kickstarter project to have a performance artist do exactly that in front of the Capitol Building.)
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by WillR on Monday February 01 2016, @09:02PM
Get a warrant, or GTFO.