Portrait of the young average joe as a downhill bicycle race
average_joe used to claim Real Human status, though. He/she/it said he/her/they were a law student, and that his/her/its motivation was a Love of The Law.
I think we've seen enough to judge this a false claim, however. The real love here goes to Strict Authority. And with that, Away with Real Human Status, and welcome to Trolldom!
If I'm free to carry a toadsticker on a jet, I don't fear anyone with a box cutter.
If I'm free to videotape TSA TSO's, them I'm secure against petty abuses.
If I'm free to travel without identifying myself, I'm secure against an awful lot of governmental and corporate abuses, like that weird "residency permit" thing the PRC has.
If I'm free to "blow the whistle", I'm secure from a different set of governmental and corporate abuses.
What freedoms did you trade for your false security?
"Can you really suggest some reasons why people would want a VPN or encrypted service for normal web use?"
A VPN could keep trade secrets secret. Suppose you're a beta tester for Microsoft. MSFT might want you to download the beta of Windows 2012 via a VPN to keep those Dirty Pirates away from it.
If you're a CEO, and you're keeping costs low by outsourcing IT or other "knowledge work", you want a VPN in place to protect your invaluable Intellectual Property from pirates and competitors. In fact, you may have a duty to do this so that shareholder's value doesn't decrease.
I certainly want to do on-line banking via encryption. Putting all that stuff in plain text is madness. That goes for dealing with credit card companies via TCP/IP, too. Now that I think about it, if I traded on the stock market, I'd want all that info encrypted as well.
How about dealing with pharmacies? Do you want everyone to know you take Xanax or Prozac? Or that you're undergoing Estrogen therapy for prostate cancer? That's a good reason to want VPNs with your pharmacy right there.
How about filing taxes on line? Communication with your lawyer about a civil suit you're filing against the Pirate Bay, or some trademark-infringing pirate importer of handbags or other fashion materials?
What about salary negotiations when you change employers? Or when you're negotiating with a potential rockstar employee? Do you want all that out in public?
I'm not reaching with any of these. They all happen every single day.
Look, I pointed out a persistent problem in how you argue. If you think that's indicative of paranoia on my part, then fine, go ahead and call me some names. This is The Internet, where all you've got is how you present yourself. You want to waste "average joe's" reputation and credibility on name calling, go right ahead.
Myself, I'd like to see you reconicle the two bases for argument that you've used. After your "hold the TSA to the law" post, I was beginning to think that maybe you actually had some kind of underpinnings for what your wrote, but now, I'm thinking you're just another "what the authorities do is Right" sort of guy, and possibly just a better quality troll.
Now we're getting somewhere. "When evidence shows" is now allowed in arguments? We're allowing something other than a particularly narrow legal reading? Because the latter is what I usually see you advocating. Yeah, like back in that thread on "stalking", where you wanted the word "stalking" to mean "illegal stalking" or something, and everyone else wanted it to mean the vernacular usage.
Or is it a case of "where evidence shows" when the evidence shows something that Legal Authority likes, and it's a case of "strick legality" where Legal Authority doesn't like the evidence? Like maybe in copyright law?
You forget the DCS-3000 (DCS-6000 now?) that's installed at each and every phone company.
I think they need a warrant to start scarfing up packets, but I'm not 100% certain, and in this day and age of NSA hoovering and "National Security Letters" who can say? Also, there's persistent rumors that phone phreaks and other dodgy characters have hacked DCS-3000 (a.k.a. "Carnivore") and used it for their own purposes. This has happened in Greece: type "The Athens Affair" into Google for a good time.
Ah ha! The old "The whole of morality is confined within the law" argument.
Given that "stalking" has a common, vernacular, idomatic meaning, I would have say that you're quibbling when you say stalking referring to illegal conduct. In the vernacular, the Police can certainly stalk you legally. Maybe so can anyone else.
You might have to award that by gravatar, as it's probably done by "Anonymous Coward", and have a separate category for "Most Reported not by Anonymous Coward".
Also, I'd like to propose that you have a pseudonym generator, and instead of "Anonymous Coward", you have the comment-handling-code assign a nom-de-plume to anonymous posters. It's quite confusing to deal with all the Anonymous Cowards. The gravatars have been quite a success in revealing trolls using multiple pseudonyms, so a nom-de-plume generator might have a similar effect.
Microsoft *advertises* Bing as a decision engine, not a search engine. Microsoft advertises Bing as not providing as many crazy-making links as Google provides.
Who am I to believe? Microsoft's own ads, or an apparently under-informed internet troll such as yourself?
I think we can all agree what the police probably had in mind with this action, which appears to have been coordinated with a similar mass arrest in the UK. I'm sure that the motivation was to "round up twice the usual number of leaders, and make an example out of 'em!".
I think you're willfully missing the implications that this amount of probably mis-guided effort holds.
The first thing that jumps to my mind is "Why did they put so much effort into this?" The material that has leaked so far isn't metaphorically explosive. Apparently, nobody has been killed, nobody has had their cover blown.
The second thing is "What opportunity cost does this have?" That is, why not expend this amount of effort to go after spammers and other internet psychopaths? The spammers and botnet herders probably have more real economic impact than the LOIC had, so WTF?
If this is the best trolling that you can do for your Evil Corporate Overlords, why are they paying you? "Eat the meatloaf their mom cooked for them." Deliberately underplaying or denigrating things that people have direct experience of really doesn't work as propaganda in the Internet Age. Astroturfers and Shills are almost universally recognized and publicly called out these days.
So, we should leave Google and start using "Bing" the DECISION ENGINE?
Since the DECISION ENGINE does the deciding, I think I'll be sticking with Google and making my own decisions. I rather like lots of links, too, instead of just a few, corporate sponsored links.
Referencing the author of the speech himself, who posted just a few items up (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110124/04164812796/music-industry-trying-to-store-iceberg-sahara .shtml#c661) you seem to have made a huge mistake as well, possibly deliberately.
I'd read what Hans Bousie himself has to say about his main point, rather than relying on what Anonymous Coward has to spin about it.
Can you elaborate on why we (society as a whole) should grant someone those rights? After all, we, the taxpayers, which is most of society as a whole, gets to pay for rights enforcement.
But this "creative right" is morality-based, not economic-efficieny based, correct?
In the case of a right to creative income, I'd have to say that mixing this moral right with the economic-efficiency based idea of "transfer of rights" is dreadfully inconsistent, and open to abuse.
You're saying that something very, very special about the act of creation entitles someone to a right to get paid for that act of creation, should the audience/market decide to use that specially created something.
That distinguishes a "creator" very clearly.
Allowing transfer of rights to someone not a creator would seem to degrade the specialness of the creativity, or at the least put into question why the creator gets granted specialness.
I wish you Cowards would distinguish yourselves. Because in this case you're essentially applying some kind of "universalism" to the situation. I believe, but have no proof due to the use of anonymous accounts, that in the past you have advocated exactly the opposite: denying a voice to other participants.
This smacks of hypocrisy, and you're avoiding it only by the confusion with other anonymous posters.
Care to elaborate a bit? I mean, it's something of an open secret that US police abuse their power, from petty things in some jurisdictions all the way up to totally major things like huge cover-ups, with a side does of having it in for obvious members of racial minorities. But you sound like you're talking about something else altogether.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Portrait of the young average joe as a downhill bicycle race
I think we've seen enough to judge this a false claim, however. The real love here goes to Strict Authority. And with that, Away with Real Human Status, and welcome to Trolldom!
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I'm free to carry a toadsticker on a jet, I don't fear anyone with a box cutter.
If I'm free to videotape TSA TSO's, them I'm secure against petty abuses.
If I'm free to travel without identifying myself, I'm secure against an awful lot of governmental and corporate abuses, like that weird "residency permit" thing the PRC has.
If I'm free to "blow the whistle", I'm secure from a different set of governmental and corporate abuses.
What freedoms did you trade for your false security?
On the post: Does Your ISP Care About Protecting Your Privacy?
Re:
A VPN could keep trade secrets secret. Suppose you're a beta tester for Microsoft. MSFT might want you to download the beta of Windows 2012 via a VPN to keep those Dirty Pirates away from it.
If you're a CEO, and you're keeping costs low by outsourcing IT or other "knowledge work", you want a VPN in place to protect your invaluable Intellectual Property from pirates and competitors. In fact, you may have a duty to do this so that shareholder's value doesn't decrease.
I certainly want to do on-line banking via encryption. Putting all that stuff in plain text is madness. That goes for dealing with credit card companies via TCP/IP, too. Now that I think about it, if I traded on the stock market, I'd want all that info encrypted as well.
How about dealing with pharmacies? Do you want everyone to know you take Xanax or Prozac? Or that you're undergoing Estrogen therapy for prostate cancer? That's a good reason to want VPNs with your pharmacy right there.
How about filing taxes on line? Communication with your lawyer about a civil suit you're filing against the Pirate Bay, or some trademark-infringing pirate importer of handbags or other fashion materials?
What about salary negotiations when you change employers? Or when you're negotiating with a potential rockstar employee? Do you want all that out in public?
I'm not reaching with any of these. They all happen every single day.
On the post: European Commission Sued By European Parliament Member Because Of ACTA Secrecy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lawsuit vs ACTA
I don't think I've ever seen a BitTorrent pirated movie, so I don't know if that's typical or not.
However, I have, and do, use BitTorrent for legitimate, legal purposes: I've downloaded many Linux distros via BT.
Come up with a scheme for limiting piracy without limiting my legal actions, and I just won't care.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Myself, I'd like to see you reconicle the two bases for argument that you've used. After your "hold the TSA to the law" post, I was beginning to think that maybe you actually had some kind of underpinnings for what your wrote, but now, I'm thinking you're just another "what the authorities do is Right" sort of guy, and possibly just a better quality troll.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or is it a case of "where evidence shows" when the evidence shows something that Legal Authority likes, and it's a case of "strick legality" where Legal Authority doesn't like the evidence? Like maybe in copyright law?
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re:
I think they need a warrant to start scarfing up packets, but I'm not 100% certain, and in this day and age of NSA hoovering and "National Security Letters" who can say? Also, there's persistent rumors that phone phreaks and other dodgy characters have hacked DCS-3000 (a.k.a. "Carnivore") and used it for their own purposes. This has happened in Greece: type "The Athens Affair" into Google for a good time.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Given that "stalking" has a common, vernacular, idomatic meaning, I would have say that you're quibbling when you say stalking referring to illegal conduct. In the vernacular, the Police can certainly stalk you legally. Maybe so can anyone else.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week
How about the "Most Reported" comment?
Also, I'd like to propose that you have a pseudonym generator, and instead of "Anonymous Coward", you have the comment-handling-code assign a nom-de-plume to anonymous posters. It's quite confusing to deal with all the Anonymous Cowards. The gravatars have been quite a success in revealing trolls using multiple pseudonyms, so a nom-de-plume generator might have a similar effect.
On the post: Will Google's New Hamfisted Censorship On Autocomplete Raise Questions Of Human Meddling?
Re: Re: Re: Don't Sing it - - - B I N G IT...
Microsoft *advertises* Bing as a decision engine, not a search engine. Microsoft advertises Bing as not providing as many crazy-making links as Google provides.
Who am I to believe? Microsoft's own ads, or an apparently under-informed internet troll such as yourself?
On the post: Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'
Re: The Point of the Police Action
I think you're willfully missing the implications that this amount of probably mis-guided effort holds.
The first thing that jumps to my mind is "Why did they put so much effort into this?" The material that has leaked so far isn't metaphorically explosive. Apparently, nobody has been killed, nobody has had their cover blown.
The second thing is "What opportunity cost does this have?" That is, why not expend this amount of effort to go after spammers and other internet psychopaths? The spammers and botnet herders probably have more real economic impact than the LOIC had, so WTF?
If this is the best trolling that you can do for your Evil Corporate Overlords, why are they paying you? "Eat the meatloaf their mom cooked for them." Deliberately underplaying or denigrating things that people have direct experience of really doesn't work as propaganda in the Internet Age. Astroturfers and Shills are almost universally recognized and publicly called out these days.
On the post: Will Google's New Hamfisted Censorship On Autocomplete Raise Questions Of Human Meddling?
Re: Don't Sing it - - - B I N G IT...
Since the DECISION ENGINE does the deciding, I think I'll be sticking with Google and making my own decisions. I rather like lots of links, too, instead of just a few, corporate sponsored links.
On the post: Spanish Film Academy President May Be Fired For Listening To Fans Who Don't Like New Copyright Law
Re: Re: Here we go again ,,,
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re: Re: Better how???
I'd read what Hans Bousie himself has to say about his main point, rather than relying on what Anonymous Coward has to spin about it.
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re:
The best (GAO) research on this says piracy really isn't a problem. Merely repeating an unsupported opinion thousands of times doesn't make it true.
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re:
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the case of a right to creative income, I'd have to say that mixing this moral right with the economic-efficiency based idea of "transfer of rights" is dreadfully inconsistent, and open to abuse.
You're saying that something very, very special about the act of creation entitles someone to a right to get paid for that act of creation, should the audience/market decide to use that specially created something.
That distinguishes a "creator" very clearly.
Allowing transfer of rights to someone not a creator would seem to degrade the specialness of the creativity, or at the least put into question why the creator gets granted specialness.
On the post: Video Of Last Week's Thoughtful Discussion On Wikileaks
Re:
This smacks of hypocrisy, and you're avoiding it only by the confusion with other anonymous posters.
On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her
Re: Re: Re: Business As Usual
Next >>