SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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?