Having created a bunch of bogeymen, the DEA, et al, have and abuse the power to do far more harm than the substances they are at war with. Just remember that we, the citizens of the nation, are the battleground.
Let us note that the FBI was only able to break into TOR by collecting all of the data that passed through nodes. Just like listening to all telephone conversations without a warrant. Yes they do it, but that does not make it Constitutional.
Why would anyone trust a third party (someone other than an MD or defense attorney) with proof of the faux pas that their children make in the early phase of their life. This data can be used to blackmail them for their entire lives.
The FBI is so honest and true blue. Among many other crunes, the FBI is telling LEOs that a no disclosure agreement signed with a company has a stronger legal basis than the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Judges and Juries.
You may think that is just dandy, but I see these behaviors as worse than merely criminal. They are destructive of the nation as a whole.
You are speaking of old laws, and a task force set up to provide sexual satisfaction for those who can't admit to experiencing it any other way.
Gonzales is meaningless. Nothing more than a condom pocket for a war criminal.
It is obvious that such methods have bit worked, as there is no dearth of erotica available today. There is something seriously wrong with people who want to control the sex lives off others. Here is a beauty.
Erotica, with the few exceptions I noted, is legal. So sayeth the Supremes. Calling it porn doesn't make it illegal. There may be statutes on the books of some states and municipalities that claim it is illegal, but they have no more force of law than the anti-miscegenation laws of the 1800s.
SCOTUS has ruled that the First Amendment applies to erotica, and that is that, unless of course you are opposed to the concept of the Bill of Rights.
People love to be censored, DRM'd and controlled by inane copyright, patent and trademark laws. They continually feed the IP machine with cash. Going without their chains for a day, never mind a year is just more than they can bear.
I suspect that we are talking about two different facets of the same problem. There is no "legal" or ethical basis for punishing anyone possessing written, sonic or pictorial depictions of consulting adults engaging in sexual activities. No one deserves to have any more notice taken of this by the authorities, than say a book on how to build your own patio.
My point is that the law has become arbitrary and capricious in its application. That it no longer has meaning other than causing pain through the the ability to wield raw power over others. That "deserve", "appropriate", "commensurate", "culpability" and similar terms have lost all meaning in the exercise of present day law. That law today has been reduced to letres de cachet without the need for the letter or the signature. The exercise of position, wealth, class, race and power have taken the place of justice.
When a SCOTUS judge can't provide a legal definition of porn beyond "I know it when I see it," I don't know what porn is either. With the possible exception of Kiddie Porn, which is illegal, and if they ever existed outside Law Enforcements fervid imaginations -- snuff films.
But that does not stop LEOs from arresting anyone for acts which are perfectly legal. Even the courts have ruled that to be the case. Charging, prosecution, trial, sentencing and incarceration are a little bit much, but it happens every day. I was in voir dire when I saw a judge make up a law to harass a fellow prospective juror. Fortunately, the ADA and Defense Atty jointly excused the juror.
My point is that it doesn't matter much whether a violation of the law exists or not. You can still be punished for breaking imaginary laws -- whether with imaginary porn or something else.
What does "legal" have to do with anything. Many actions that are perfectly "legal" will get your stuff forfeited or destroyed, and you detained, harassed, beaten, arrested, charged, tried, convicted or murdered. If you read Techdirt, you should know this.
Here is a current case in point where a citizen recorded cops in public (legal,) and warned of a checkpoint (legal,) yet got 240 days for it. Was immediately remanded to jail, and the Judge indicated the sentence should have been far worse.
1) You still stand the chance of being strip searched. 2) The SD card can shift in you sock, and become damaged and unreadable. 3) Far easier and safer to put a copy in a cloud or private account from where you start, read it back when you are where you want to be. No messing around with dirty unreliable physical objects.
Almost all parts of government, and all governments practice censorship. I first became aware that the US did so when an entire issue of Sandoz's journal "Triangle" was censored in the late '70s or early 80's.
This occurred because the issue contained research on a particular use of a pharmaceutical that had not been approved by the FDA.
Yes, Sandoz is big pharma. But how can the US justify censoring apolitical data? Yet it has been going on for decades and centuries. Keep 'em ignorant and happy.
The last TSA audit demonstrated that 97% of guns, arms and bombs made it through the whale catching nets of the TSA check points. The solution to this is to focus fear and attention on something new, and still somewhat mysterious to most people.
On the post: San Bernardino DA Tells Judge To Side With FBI Over Apple Because iPhone May Have Mythical Cyber Weapon
On the post: 2002 Legal Rationale For Warrantless Surveillance: Because The President Can Do It, Shut Up
Yoo's rationale should win him a vacation
On the post: Leaked! Details Of The New Congressional Commission To Take On The Encryption Issue
On the post: Want To Report A Dangerous Drug Dealer? Just Enter Your Personal Info Into The DEA's Unsecured Webform
On the post: White House Asked Google & Facebook To Change Their Algorithms To Fight ISIS; Both Said No
On the post: Courts, DOJ: Using Tor Doesn't Give You A Greater Expectation Of Privacy
Re: Those who do not use Tor, have no rights
On the post: South Korea Embraces Ridiculous Right To Be Forgotten As Well
On the post: CIA And NSA Directors Blame The Media For Terrorists Using Encryption
On the post: FBI Claims It Has No Record Of Why It Deleted Its Recommendation To Encrypt Phones
Or if stored on a mainframe, perhaps in reverse EBSDIC where it would never be found with a search tool only using EBSDIC.
On the post: Child-Monitoring Company Responds To Notification Of Security Breach By Publicly Disparaging Researcher Who Reported It
Trust?
On the post: FBI Director: We're Only Forcing Apple To Undermine Security Because We Chase Down Every Lead
Re: The FBI isn't forcing anyone, it's the court.
You may think that is just dandy, but I see these behaviors as worse than merely criminal. They are destructive of the nation as a whole.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Taking data on aircraft
Gonzales is meaningless. Nothing more than a condom pocket for a war criminal.
It is obvious that such methods have bit worked, as there is no dearth of erotica available today. There is something seriously wrong with people who want to control the sex lives off others. Here is a beauty.
http://boingboing.net/2015/12/16/cop-who-demanded-photo-of-sext.html
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Taking data on aircraft
SCOTUS has ruled that the First Amendment applies to erotica, and that is that, unless of course you are opposed to the concept of the Bill of Rights.
On the post: Sony Music Issues Takedown On Copyright Lecture About Music Copyrights By Harvard Law Professor
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Taking data on aircraft
My point is that the law has become arbitrary and capricious in its application. That it no longer has meaning other than causing pain through the the ability to wield raw power over others. That "deserve", "appropriate", "commensurate", "culpability" and similar terms have lost all meaning in the exercise of present day law. That law today has been reduced to letres de cachet without the need for the letter or the signature. The exercise of position, wealth, class, race and power have taken the place of justice.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Taking data on aircraft
But that does not stop LEOs from arresting anyone for acts which are perfectly legal. Even the courts have ruled that to be the case. Charging, prosecution, trial, sentencing and incarceration are a little bit much, but it happens every day. I was in voir dire when I saw a judge make up a law to harass a fellow prospective juror. Fortunately, the ADA and Defense Atty jointly excused the juror.
My point is that it doesn't matter much whether a violation of the law exists or not. You can still be punished for breaking imaginary laws -- whether with imaginary porn or something else.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Taking data on aircraft
Here is a current case in point where a citizen recorded cops in public (legal,) and warned of a checkpoint (legal,) yet got 240 days for it. Was immediately remanded to jail, and the Judge indicated the sentence should have been far worse.
https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/02/12/ohio-man-sentenced-to-240-days-for-recording-cop s-and-holding-up-sign-warning-drivers-of-dui-checkpoint/
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Taking data on aircraft
2) The SD card can shift in you sock, and become damaged and unreadable.
3) Far easier and safer to put a copy in a cloud or private account from where you start, read it back when you are where you want to be. No messing around with dirty unreliable physical objects.
On the post: How A Treasury Terror List Is Preventing Americans With 'Scary' Names From Using Online Services
Censorship
This occurred because the issue contained research on a particular use of a pharmaceutical that had not been approved by the FDA.
Yes, Sandoz is big pharma. But how can the US justify censoring apolitical data? Yet it has been going on for decades and centuries. Keep 'em ignorant and happy.
On the post: Techdirt Crowdsourcing: How Will The TSA Idiotically Respond To The Laptop Terror Bomb?
More and more to fail at
Next >>