An d actually, Macauley was right with absolutely all of his predictions:
And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the words of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.
And, something these "get-rid-of-non-trade-barriers" guys don't seem to factor in, is that these are often the work of democracies. That is, these have sometimes been the work of the actual citizens demanding these barriers, not just some government agency mandating it.
So if the majority of the population is opposed to allowing genetically modified foodstuffs, what do you think the majority of the population will want to eat when the barrier falls?
It is difficult to see how anyone can support such blatant destruction of culture.
Oh yes, I can.
Old works are essentially competition to newly released ones.
So if they can get "Starship Troopers" for free instead of paying for "Ender's Game", that's obviously a situation detrimental to the income of the author of the latter work and fixed by not letting "Starship Troopers" become public domain.
... and how many modern so-called capitalists are vigorously defending government granted monopolies -- as long as these monopolies are called "intellectual property".
Actually, some Danish police officers already saw this as well, and are putting up resistance against the law.
One guy noted: "I've not become police officer to rob refugees" and that his grandparents had been in the Danish resistance (against the Nazis) and would not have appreciated his grandson "breaking gold teeth out of the mouth or extracting valuables out of the underwear of refugees".
You can only launder illegally acquired money. But since this is about copyright, before any copyright violation is proven, you can't have illegally acquired money.
The only solution would be to first have a civil copyright case in a court in NZ.
Because the second "backdoor" (which isn't really a backdoor to the system, but to its traffic), was a NIST standard EC-PRNG, which was deliberately compromised by the NSA.
Somebody at Juniper even changed the curve, so it was not (that?) vulnerable, but later somebody changed it back to the curve the NSA knew was vulnerable. It's impossible the NSA did not notice that.
While it might not have been the NSA which changed it back (but it's likely it was indeed the NSA), at least it knew and put knowingly every other government agency and all people at jeopardy.
they let their assistants who won't be part of any operation carry the phone
Kind of like politicians who thing the internet is totally useless because they let their secretary do all the email, banking, reservations, shopping and so on?
I mean it's an interesting question, insofar as there are actually law-enforcement procedures that rob people of their freedom and make them work.
However, what happens if that "slavery" suddenly isn't applied to convicted people, but against anybody, or even everybody?
This is a very similar situation as we have with surveillance. not only that it robs people of their freedom, but it's also one of those things that only law-enforcement used to be allowed to do, and only on probably cause with a judge signing off, but now, apparently, some people think it's a somehow ok to enslave the whole world. Pardon, put the whole world under surveillance; as if there is a difference...
As far as I can see, the strategy is to have one candidate that the majority considers totally un-electable, so they will instead elect the other jerk, which has basically the same views but hides them better. Within the republican party of course, but not really limited to it:
If it turns out to be Trump vs. Clinton; Clinton will win, and the end-result is just what was intended: The authoritarians win.
Same as happened with Obama vs. Romney. Or Obama vs. McCain (although this one was a bit different: Whereas McCain clearly was a decoy, Obama not only presented the saner choice, but also pretended to be the opposite of what he was or became).
The only remotely interesting situation (which might, just might, lead the USA again away from their path towards fascism) would be something like Sanders vs Stein vs. Rand. Anything else, and the bigger authoritarian (prohibitionist, slave-holder, war-monger, spook, ... ) will win.
A Free Trade agreement? Gosh, that would be a novelty.
It could contain things like - outlawing geoblocking - outlawing price-fixing on a country basis - outlawing the outlawing of parallel imports - mandating maximum inter-bank transfer fees - mandating maximum mobile interconnect fees - mandating maximum limits in duration and scope of artificial government-granted monopolies (like copyright or patents). - mandating minimum standards on privacy protection (like not allowing an entity to collect more data than needed for a business transaction; or like not allowing any government entity to access personal data from other entities without a warrant) - outlawing special treatment of internet traffic on the basis of one of the endpoints.
What a nice idea. Why didn't any of these so-called "free-market" types get that idea yet?
I'm always wondering. Isn't there some law such as "Sachzusammenhang" (the law must only pertain to a certain matter) when making laws?
Because here in most European countries (apparently not the EU), it's usually mandatory that a law only pertains to a certain matter. You can't put a gun control law into an act aimed at guaranteeing pensions.
Armed rebellions and insurrections are quite pointless, unless you get the majority of people on your side. That doesn't mean they have to agree or even participate in your insurrection; but they have to agree with your goal.
And if the majority would agree with you, Obama would not have gotten a second term, and congress would look quite different. Which would completely alleviate the need for any insurrection in the first place.
Of course, this is assuming you want to achieve any goal that can be classified as something involving more freedom.
If you just want to enact some totalitarian state, you don't need the support of a majority. You only need enough forces to overthrow the governments forces. See ISIS.
So the only option really is to get people to think, and to value freedom more than they're getting made fearful by government propaganda.
How can we say that there is no god? We can't. But considering the evidence, it's safe to assume there is none.
I mean I could enact some other theories, like that the universe was created by a great spaghetti monster, or that it was born out of a great snake or whatever. And I can invent as many of those as I wish. None of these can be proven or disproven. So why should I give credence to any other peoples figments of imagination?
So the evidence for any god is about the same as for the existence of Harry Potter, except that the books about Harry Potter are better written.
Governments will exempt themselves from using compromised encryption.
They won't. Because the NSA or the CIA will sure as hell not provide somebody else with it, surely not the DOT, not the DOL, and probably not even the DEA.
And besides, all the millions of people within these departments will still use their Galaxy or MacBook for work, and thus create the necessary proliferation of backdoors for the CIA, the FSB, the MSS and maybe some terrorists to exploit.
On the post: Former UK Bureaucrat Whines About People Happily Looking At Mobile Phones Rather Than Fearfully Spying On Everyone Else
Re: Re: Re:
So compared to those times, the terrorist threat has gone down by 90%. Still, some yokels think we should have more and more "anti-terrorist" laws.
On the post: Former UK Bureaucrat Whines About People Happily Looking At Mobile Phones Rather Than Fearfully Spying On Everyone Else
Re: The boy who cried wolf
And, technically, mass-surveillance is also a security failure.
On the post: And Of Course: Authors Guild Asks Supreme Court To Overturn Fair Use Ruling On Google Books
Re:
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/commentary/MacaulaySpeeches.html
An d actually, Macauley was right with absolutely all of his predictions:
And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the words of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.
On the post: US Department Of Agriculture TAFTA/TTIP Study: Small Gains For US, Losses For EU
Democracy
So if the majority of the population is opposed to allowing genetically modified foodstuffs, what do you think the majority of the population will want to eat when the barrier falls?
They're simply going to vote with their boots.
On the post: Here We Go Again: All The Works That Should Now Be In The Public Domain, But Aren't
Copyright is used to supress competition
Oh yes, I can.
Old works are essentially competition to newly released ones.
So if they can get "Starship Troopers" for free instead of paying for "Ender's Game", that's obviously a situation detrimental to the income of the author of the latter work and fixed by not letting "Starship Troopers" become public domain.
On the post: Homeland Security Admits It Seized A Hip Hop Blog For Five Years Despite No Evidence Of Infringement; RIAA Celebrates
Re: Re: Re:
Both share the same agenda of prohibitionism, surveillance, government-granted monopolies, war-mongering etc.
On the post: House Intelligence Committee Orders Investigation Into Surveillance Of Congress That It Authorized
Re: Re: Hate to tell you:
On the post: Denmark Looking To Asset Forfeiture To Solve Its Immigrant 'Problem'
Re: Reminder
One guy noted: "I've not become police officer to rob refugees" and that his grandparents had been in the Danish resistance (against the Nazis) and would not have appreciated his grandson "breaking gold teeth out of the mouth or extracting valuables out of the underwear of refugees".
On the post: Judge's Opinion On Kim Dotcom Shows An Unfortunate Willingness To Ignore Context
Re:
The only solution would be to first have a civil copyright case in a court in NZ.
On the post: US Gov't Agencies Freak Out Over Juniper Backdoor; Perhaps They'll Now Realize Why Backdoors Are A Mistake
Re: Liability
Because the second "backdoor" (which isn't really a backdoor to the system, but to its traffic), was a NIST standard EC-PRNG, which was deliberately compromised by the NSA.
Somebody at Juniper even changed the curve, so it was not (that?) vulnerable, but later somebody changed it back to the curve the NSA knew was vulnerable. It's impossible the NSA did not notice that.
While it might not have been the NSA which changed it back (but it's likely it was indeed the NSA), at least it knew and put knowingly every other government agency and all people at jeopardy.
On the post: Senator Tom Cotton Slams Apple CEO Tim Cook For Protecting User Privacy; Demonstrates Pure Ignorance Of The Law
Re: So when we break encryption...
Yesyes, and you don't surmise there's something wrong about it?
Because the maxim, obviously not in America, was "gentlemen don't read other gentlemen's mail".
Quite clearly, some people are not gentlemen here..
On the post: Senator Tom Cotton Slams Apple CEO Tim Cook For Protecting User Privacy; Demonstrates Pure Ignorance Of The Law
Re: Re:
Kind of like politicians who thing the internet is totally useless because they let their secretary do all the email, banking, reservations, shopping and so on?
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 55: How Much Surveillance Is Acceptable?
How much slavery is acceptable?
However, what happens if that "slavery" suddenly isn't applied to convicted people, but against anybody, or even everybody?
This is a very similar situation as we have with surveillance. not only that it robs people of their freedom, but it's also one of those things that only law-enforcement used to be allowed to do, and only on probably cause with a judge signing off, but now, apparently, some people think it's a somehow ok to enslave the whole world. Pardon, put the whole world under surveillance; as if there is a difference...
On the post: Trump Calls For Partial Shutdown Of The Internet, Doesn't Understand What He's Saying
Trump is the decoy
If it turns out to be Trump vs. Clinton; Clinton will win, and the end-result is just what was intended: The authoritarians win.
Same as happened with Obama vs. Romney. Or Obama vs. McCain (although this one was a bit different: Whereas McCain clearly was a decoy, Obama not only presented the saner choice, but also pretended to be the opposite of what he was or became).
The only remotely interesting situation (which might, just might, lead the USA again away from their path towards fascism) would be something like Sanders vs Stein vs. Rand. Anything else, and the bigger authoritarian (prohibitionist, slave-holder, war-monger, spook, ... ) will win.
On the post: TPP Ratification Process Grinding To A Halt As Canada Launches 'Widespread Consultations' On The Deal
Re: How about we do a Free Trade agreement?
It could contain things like
- outlawing geoblocking
- outlawing price-fixing on a country basis
- outlawing the outlawing of parallel imports
- mandating maximum inter-bank transfer fees
- mandating maximum mobile interconnect fees
- mandating maximum limits in duration and scope of artificial government-granted monopolies (like copyright or patents).
- mandating minimum standards on privacy protection (like not allowing an entity to collect more data than needed for a business transaction; or like not allowing any government entity to access personal data from other entities without a warrant)
- outlawing special treatment of internet traffic on the basis of one of the endpoints.
What a nice idea. Why didn't any of these so-called "free-market" types get that idea yet?
On the post: Want To Know How Ridiculous The Omnibus Bill Is? It Has A Meaningless Porn Filter Clause Four Times
Re: Re:
Because here in most European countries (apparently not the EU), it's usually mandatory that a law only pertains to a certain matter. You can't put a gun control law into an act aimed at guaranteeing pensions.
On the post: Want To Know How Ridiculous The Omnibus Bill Is? It Has A Meaningless Porn Filter Clause Four Times
Re: Re: Farewll, freedom. We hardly knew ye
And if the majority would agree with you, Obama would not have gotten a second term, and congress would look quite different. Which would completely alleviate the need for any insurrection in the first place.
Of course, this is assuming you want to achieve any goal that can be classified as something involving more freedom.
If you just want to enact some totalitarian state, you don't need the support of a majority. You only need enough forces to overthrow the governments forces. See ISIS.
So the only option really is to get people to think, and to value freedom more than they're getting made fearful by government propaganda.
On the post: Congressman Who Supports Undermining Encryption Says We Need CISA (Which Undermines Privacy) To 'Protect Privacy'
If anything "goes dark"
Surveillance is the enemy of security.
On the post: Law Professor: ISIS Is, Like, Totally Scary, So Let's Do Away With The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean I could enact some other theories, like that the universe was created by a great spaghetti monster, or that it was born out of a great snake or whatever. And I can invent as many of those as I wish. None of these can be proven or disproven. So why should I give credence to any other peoples figments of imagination?
So the evidence for any god is about the same as for the existence of Harry Potter, except that the books about Harry Potter are better written.
On the post: Clueless Press Being Played To Suggest Encryption Played A Role In San Bernardino Attacks
Re: Re: You would think.....
They won't. Because the NSA or the CIA will sure as hell not provide somebody else with it, surely not the DOT, not the DOL, and probably not even the DEA.
And besides, all the millions of people within these departments will still use their Galaxy or MacBook for work, and thus create the necessary proliferation of backdoors for the CIA, the FSB, the MSS and maybe some terrorists to exploit.
Next >>