On the 16th of May you wrote "the NY State law says that the city must respond to my request within five business days". Any word yet? My guess is that they will reply (if they haven't already) with "thank you for your interest, we cannot give you the information you request at the present time because [CITE EXCEPTION PERMITTED IN LAW], we will inform you when the situation changes".
Since this is criminal law, not civil, people will get in trouble about it only if the DA wants them to, so it is basically impossible for ordinary citizens to force the issue. It is blatantly unconstitutional, so we can hope that no one will ever actually go to jail for breaking it, but it remains a threat until it is declared unconstitutional.
And here's the kicker: there is no penalty for lawmakers who enact this kind of trash. Well, unless the voters wake up enough to... No, no penalty.
I vaguely remember a campaign like this from years ago. Since voter turnout in an election is less than 50%, the argument was that nobody actually won a majority-- and that therefore that was exactly whom we had elected. It had slogans like "Nobody for President" and "U.S. Out of North America".
Joking aside, I would really, seriously consider a congressional candidate who swore to vote against everything (shades of Professor Wagstaff).
To recap, we can agree that 1) relying entirely on logic -- or going clean against it -- is dumb, 2) we're talking about actual recordings of real child molestation (and those who broaden the definition are just clouding the issue), 3) child molestation is super bad, and should not be permitted, and 4) nobody's yet presented solid evidence about what suppression of porn does to rates of child abuse either way, but it's safe to say that total liberalization or annihilation of one would NOT lead to the complete cessation of the other.
"So since we are all agreeing that the sexual abuse of children is wrong, can we not also say that allowing anyone... to sexually indulge in depictions of it is wrong too?"
No. It's nasty, but it harms no one and thoughts are free (I feel very strongly about that). War is horrible, but if my neighbors get worked up into patriotic/xenophobic zeal watching archival footage of the carnage at Midway... well, it's troubling, but ultimately not my business.
(The only possible rebuttal I can see is that consumption might create a market, which could drive production, sort of like the ivory trade. I have no idea if this is how it works and I don't think solid evidence exists.)
Fuzzy thinking. First, I am unconvinced that addiction is a useful model for pedophilia. Second, there is a world of difference between an addict deprived and an addict abstaining. Third, rehabilitation/support is valuable even when something is freely available, as we see with alcohol. Fourth, there is an important difference between abusing a child and merely handling records (or fictional depictions) of such acts, which we lose sight of if we use phrases like "combat it" carelessly.
And there's plenty of stuff for sale that turns my stomach, but I've learned to live with it-- astrology, Japanese pop music, celebrity gossip mags... I wish there were no demand for such garbage, but I must not let my gut lead my brain into faulty reasoning.
Let's be fair; copyright maximalists say that new material will not come into being without protection, not that existing material will vanish if it is freely copied (although they seem to wish that it would).
How does suppressing the material provide people with the help they need? And if they get that help, surely the circulation with dry up for lack of demand, so why worry about the material itself (apart from visceral revulsion at the idea that it's out there)?
"Running a Tor node is... [helping] people to hide their [identities] and to obtain what they cannot legally obtain by direct methods.
Cannot or choose not to, but let that pass. Note that "legally obtain by direct methods" is not the same as "legally obtain".
By definition, Tor is a tool to hide or to bypass legal restrictions put in place.
Interesting choice of words. Note that "bypassing legal restrictions" does not necessarily mean breaking the law. (Those who think about "anti-circumvention" will understand this at once.)
"Anyone running a Tor node knows they are aiding semi-legal or illegal actions. It is the risk you take when you decide to help people get around the law."
[YAWN] This argument works just as well if you replace "Tor node" with "classified ad column", "telephone network", "car rental agency", "bar", "sports team", "hardware store", etc., etc., etc.
"As we've said all along, if content is allowed to be stolen for free on the internet, creators will have no incentive to create more content! Kiddie porn is no exception."
Holy crap, that actually makes sense! So those who argue that new content will not be created without copyright must concede that we could put an end to this kind of horrible exploitation just by allowing the existing material to be copied and distributed freely!
(Note: what I have written is a logical statement; please do not take me to task for it unless you can think about this topic in logical terms and criticize my logic accordingly. I have no desire engage in religious bickering or its mental equivalents.)
"We have got to get past the fallacy that rules that existed in the pre-internet era are obsolete because the internet makes it so difficult to enforce them. To obey the injunctions of the courts over privacy, for example, is in principle right, not wrong.
Let's not confuse right/wrong with legal/illegal. I am not in British territory, so I can do many things legally which would not be legal in Britain; in particular I can talk about adulterous footballers regardless of the injunction (not that I care). Is it fundamentally wrong to talk about celebrities' hanky-panky? Well, it's a waste of precious time, but otherwise I don't think so. Is it fundamentally wrong to violate a court's injunction? I think that that's a matter of personal conscience, but that's just my personal conscience talking. If a British court forbids people in Britain to do something, is it therefore fundamentally wrong to do it elsewhere? Hell, no. I'll also read the works of Salman Rushdie if I feel like it-- Adolph Hitler too.
"The fact that the internet makes it possible to circumvent those injunctions does not negate their worth..."
Well... yes it does. (Inasmuch as they had worth in the first place.)
"...It merely makes it imperative to consider the ways in which such constraints can be fairly enforced in the new media."
I think we should first consider whether these constraints should be enforced in the new media -- and the burden is on those who say it should, and "because we have it in the old" is not a good reason. And if we should not, then it is not at all imperative that we consider how. While calling for "discussion", Mr. Kettle is trying to skip over some vitally important first steps.
"Far more important are the questions of internet access to unsuitable material, especially but not solely by children...
Children should not be given unsupervised access to the internet, until and unless they are ready for what they may find there. This our-children-must-have-the-whole-internet-but-it-must-be-clean-and-safe routine is just idiotic. It reminds me of those people who say that sharks and jellyfish should be exterminated so that it will be safe to swim in the ocean.
...The internet was surely not meant to be this way.
Who cares? I could talk about DARPANet and academic research sites and the printing of German bibles and early telephony, but seriously, who cares what was intended? And if it does matter, then Mr. Kettle must concede that since the major components of the internet were American inventions, not British, it is for Americans to say how things should be done; I dare him to put that in his column.
That's a fine statement on PROTECTIP, but I don't like the approach on "interpretations"-- it lends credence to the insidious idea that the Executive branch is free to "interpret" the law in the first place.
Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure [that it could make itself seem necessary to] the safety of passengers and crew.
(More likely it would simply redirect the "opt out" people through a velvet rope maze and a metal detector, out of sight of the scanner line, then quietly send them to the gate.)
Theory: the only purpose of the groping is to get people to submit to the scans, and the only reason to have the scans is because the government made a deal to buy the scanners. The feds now have three choices: fight to keep the groping, fight harder to force people to go through the scanner, or mothball the scanners and admit they were an expensive and pointless indignity (and deal with the bleating of the people who want to be protected from all dangers, real or imagined).
I'll bet that right now, someone sitting in a large and impressive office in a federal building is wishing with all his might that people would just stop paying attention long enough for him to quietly implement option #3.
If members of the executive branch cannot be hauled into court for breaking the law, then it really doesn't matter what the law says, what congress and the courts say, whether the Act is extended or not, or any "interpretations".
If they can be hauled into court for breaking the law, I would love to be in the gallery when the defendant tells the judge how the law should be "interpreted". I'd sit in line overnight for tickets.
"Officials will have to fly a copy of the Patriot Act extension overseas if they are to prevent a range of law-enforcement powers from expiring..."
Apart from the 20th-century retro charm, note that this boils down to "we must race to extend the Act or else it will expire". Flying to Europe really has nothing to do with it.
Or to elaborate: "the deadline is looming, so we must extend the Act without debating whether to let it expire, or else it will expire, because we put off debate until the deadline was looming".
Pardon my gross ignorance, but this has been bothering me for a while. If Senator Reid can attach his bill to the House bill so effortlessly, why can't Senator Paul attach his amendments to the House bill in the same way? Over and over I hear about this trick of attaching bad text to good, but I never hear about it working the other way. Is there some rule of order that gives rise to this pattern, or do the worst lawmakers just get in early in the morning and hoard all the paper clips?
On the post: Homeland Security Appears To Be Stalling On FOIA Requests Concerning Domain Seizures
don't forget NY
On the post: Post A Picture That 'Causes Emotional Distress' And You Could Face Jailtime In Tennessee
a flaw in the rules
And here's the kicker: there is no penalty for lawmakers who enact this kind of trash. Well, unless the voters wake up enough to... No, no penalty.
On the post: Senator Schumer Says Bitcoin Is Money Laundering
Re: Do NOTHING!!!
Joking aside, I would really, seriously consider a congressional candidate who swore to vote against everything (shades of Professor Wagstaff).
On the post: Senator Schumer Says Bitcoin Is Money Laundering
drop box problem
On the post: Polish Prime Minister Says Things Funded With Public Money Should Be In The Public Domain
let us not forget
On the post: Austrian Police Seize Computers From Tor Exit Node
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"So since we are all agreeing that the sexual abuse of children is wrong, can we not also say that allowing anyone... to sexually indulge in depictions of it is wrong too?"
No. It's nasty, but it harms no one and thoughts are free (I feel very strongly about that). War is horrible, but if my neighbors get worked up into patriotic/xenophobic zeal watching archival footage of the carnage at Midway... well, it's troubling, but ultimately not my business.
(The only possible rebuttal I can see is that consumption might create a market, which could drive production, sort of like the ivory trade. I have no idea if this is how it works and I don't think solid evidence exists.)
On the post: Austrian Police Seize Computers From Tor Exit Node
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Austrian Police Seize Computers From Tor Exit Node
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And there's plenty of stuff for sale that turns my stomach, but I've learned to live with it-- astrology, Japanese pop music, celebrity gossip mags... I wish there were no demand for such garbage, but I must not let my gut lead my brain into faulty reasoning.
On the post: Austrian Police Seize Computers From Tor Exit Node
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Austrian Police Seize Computers From Tor Exit Node
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Austrian Police Seize Computers From Tor Exit Node
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Austrian Police Seize Computers From Tor Exit Node
Re:
Cannot or choose not to, but let that pass. Note that "legally obtain by direct methods" is not the same as "legally obtain".
By definition, Tor is a tool to hide or to bypass legal restrictions put in place.
Interesting choice of words. Note that "bypassing legal restrictions" does not necessarily mean breaking the law. (Those who think about "anti-circumvention" will understand this at once.)
"Anyone running a Tor node knows they are aiding semi-legal or illegal actions. It is the risk you take when you decide to help people get around the law."
[YAWN] This argument works just as well if you replace "Tor node" with "classified ad column", "telephone network", "car rental agency", "bar", "sports team", "hardware store", etc., etc., etc.
On the post: Austrian Police Seize Computers From Tor Exit Node
Re:
Holy crap, that actually makes sense! So those who argue that new content will not be created without copyright must concede that we could put an end to this kind of horrible exploitation just by allowing the existing material to be copied and distributed freely!
(Note: what I have written is a logical statement; please do not take me to task for it unless you can think about this topic in logical terms and criticize my logic accordingly. I have no desire engage in religious bickering or its mental equivalents.)
On the post: Can We Kill Off This Myth That The Internet Is A Wild West That Needs To Be Tamed?
shooting fish
Let's not confuse right/wrong with legal/illegal. I am not in British territory, so I can do many things legally which would not be legal in Britain; in particular I can talk about adulterous footballers regardless of the injunction (not that I care). Is it fundamentally wrong to talk about celebrities' hanky-panky? Well, it's a waste of precious time, but otherwise I don't think so. Is it fundamentally wrong to violate a court's injunction? I think that that's a matter of personal conscience, but that's just my personal conscience talking. If a British court forbids people in Britain to do something, is it therefore fundamentally wrong to do it elsewhere? Hell, no. I'll also read the works of Salman Rushdie if I feel like it-- Adolph Hitler too.
"The fact that the internet makes it possible to circumvent those injunctions does not negate their worth..."
Well... yes it does. (Inasmuch as they had worth in the first place.)
"...It merely makes it imperative to consider the ways in which such constraints can be fairly enforced in the new media."
I think we should first consider whether these constraints should be enforced in the new media -- and the burden is on those who say it should, and "because we have it in the old" is not a good reason. And if we should not, then it is not at all imperative that we consider how. While calling for "discussion", Mr. Kettle is trying to skip over some vitally important first steps.
"Far more important are the questions of internet access to unsuitable material, especially but not solely by children...
Children should not be given unsupervised access to the internet, until and unless they are ready for what they may find there. This our-children-must-have-the-whole-internet-but-it-must-be-clean-and-safe routine is just idiotic. It reminds me of those people who say that sharks and jellyfish should be exterminated so that it will be safe to swim in the ocean.
...The internet was surely not meant to be this way.
Who cares? I could talk about DARPANet and academic research sites and the printing of German bibles and early telephony, but seriously, who cares what was intended? And if it does matter, then Mr. Kettle must concede that since the major components of the internet were American inventions, not British, it is for Americans to say how things should be done; I dare him to put that in his column.
On the post: Ron Wyden: Puts Hold On PROTECT IP, Temporarily Withdraws Amendment On The PATRIOT Act
misdirection
On the post: Justice Department Threatens To Ban Flights Out Of Texas If Texas Makes TSA Groping Illegal
Re: ... quick, stop all flights!
(More likely it would simply redirect the "opt out" people through a velvet rope maze and a metal detector, out of sight of the scanner line, then quietly send them to the gate.)
On the post: Justice Department Threatens To Ban Flights Out Of Texas If Texas Makes TSA Groping Illegal
Re: The naked scanners and groping is a farce
I'll bet that right now, someone sitting in a large and impressive office in a federal building is wishing with all his might that people would just stop paying attention long enough for him to quietly implement option #3.
On the post: Senators Reveal That Feds Have Secretly Reinterpreted The PATRIOT Act
long-starving hopes
If they can be hauled into court for breaking the law, I would love to be in the gallery when the defendant tells the judge how the law should be "interpreted". I'd sit in line overnight for tickets.
On the post: Harry Reid Routes Around Rand Paul; Says No Changes To Patriot Act Is 'An Excellent Compromise'
in other words
Apart from the 20th-century retro charm, note that this boils down to "we must race to extend the Act or else it will expire". Flying to Europe really has nothing to do with it.
Or to elaborate: "the deadline is looming, so we must extend the Act without debating whether to let it expire, or else it will expire, because we put off debate until the deadline was looming".
On the post: Harry Reid Routes Around Rand Paul; Says No Changes To Patriot Act Is 'An Excellent Compromise'
a stupid question
Next >>