People with problems like ocd, where things have to be just so, will not appreciate this. Nor will people who like tidy spaces.

It's called clutter, and there is a really good reason why neatly every infomercial uses the word. People get bothered by clutter.

When the perp wins, it is not a moral victory, but a national one.

From the article, I gathered that he was trading known images, not creating new ones. The plea to "protect the children" would be a plea to prevent sharing images that already exist, not preventing further abuse. We can make all kinds of arguments about what he might do, but he is not accused of hypotheticals.

That should make it easier to be okay with this decision, for people who aren't already. Possession of CP and transmission of CP are meant to stop people from producing, and in any way benefiting from producing, such images. And in that sense, we can guarantee that this guy, who is looking at 20 years in jail, is going home and wiping his drive, and will stick to the "barely 18" porn in at least the near future. Therefore, Mission Accomplished.

The perp did not win. Especially given your last sentence.

... he will always be painted with the brush of a 'child abuser'.

That's not winning. He is legally innocent, but factually guilty.

Unless you want to build a time machine, go back to 1775, and tell everyone to hold off and make some changes to the Constitution, this is not tough.

You: "Hey guys, what you're about to write means that some guy trading pictures of what most of you are doing with your slaves in real life is going to be freed because an asshat is going to go all England on him and violate his Constitutional rights."

Them: "Good, now die you redcoat."

The Constitution defines how the country operates. The legal framework for everything that happens. If the evidence was not gathered constitutionally, then it cannot be applied.

If we allow punishments from unconstitutional evidence gathering to stand, then we are basically saying that it's not important. The ends justify the means and all of that. Ignore the Constitution, and all of the reasons that the American colonies told England to fuck off, and all of the people who died, and all of the ideas put into creating a Constitution that made sure people could not be abused in the way the colonies were abused. All of those smart ideas don't mean anything because this one guy should be punished.

That's not how the country works. If you want it to work that way, you are against the American Constitution, against the American people, and therefore a terrorist. You might as well be in the desert chopping journalists' heads off. The ones that reported this story, because obviously it undermines how you feel America should be. Why not, if the ends justify the means?

If the way to a better America is to require Americans to quarter troops at home, and the troops can go through their hosts' belongings looking for any crime at all, it's fine, because the ends justify the means, right?

It is a tragedy that this guy goes free. But it is one tragedy. To think that sidestepping the way things are done here is a good thing is to desire an end to America. This is not hyperbole. That's why you will find Mencken quotes scattered about.

The Troll moderation on parent is not appropriate. This is probably a genuine concern, and deserves to be moderated up. Likewise, I put the time into illustrating just why, even though it sounds good, it cannot be allowed to stand, for the express reason of explaining just how contrary to the foundation of the entire American government this idea is. The idea should not be buried as a troll - it should be shouted widely, and ridiculed all the while.

And the only thing worse than "hang him anyway" would be "lol they are shitting on the Constitution anyway" because, while you aren't calling for the Constitutionally innocent to be punished, you are actively dismissing a chance to rein in bad actors before they spread.

They can search all of Gnutella live for people currently sharing filenames and/or hashes known to be illegal. Just like people and p2p indexers and really the whole goddamned internet.

What does that mean? That Gnutella is operating like it should?

Here's your API - search for anything that ends in jpg or mov or avi or whatever else. With the list of hashes you get back, see if you get any matches. If so, return the result.

Law enforcement has piles of lists of hashes and filenames, and if a new p2p technology came out with a new hash, they wouldn't mind generating new hashes. I think it's the national missing child something project that maintains those, so if you want to argue about law enforcement maintaining a hard drive full of abuse images we've already had that discussion.

How do we identify the correct person to fine or educate? Because this scheme doesn't, and without a solution your statement is no more than rhetoric.

Fining the wrong person will not be effective.

First came speed limits, then bring stuck in our ways, then money making.

Your psychotic revisionist description is a clear case of attribution error.

And given the context of this thread, it looks like a knee jerk pet peeve response instead of part of a discussion. Like you're talking but not listening.

One bad patent has significant financial impact for the country. We will give you a break when you can cover the loss. Each time.

Sure, she is one of the people to blame, if you have a reductionist view that all government members have the same goal and opinions.

And if you have no idea how the supreme court works.

Given that, you're totally correct. How about specific cases?

Show your work?

I'm not wasting time proving you wrong if you have put zero effort in.

Start with any article on blackouts due to pricing disagreements, and work your way up.

Did you read the article? Yahoo tried it, and pretty much failed.

Yahoo is a public company, and did not want to have a $91 million loss in addition to their already failed everything else.

How do you have a successful business with every page redirecting to static text?

And no one uses Yahoo, at least intentionally. How the shit do they fight back with a barely captive audience?

It's almost like you took your barely functioning understanding of the economy, and applied it to a minimalistic understanding of how economics actually works.

So Yahoo takes the burden, what happens to the rest of the companies? The competition? They learn not to oppose the government. Yahoo, from the article, was the first to comply. If they did not, and died as a company, would anything be different other than fewer @yahoo.com email addresses?

I can't find LavaBit stock quotes. I can find Yahoo stock quotes very easily back 5 years and more.

That makes a huge difference.

Initially, Yahoo was betting on public perception to buoy the reputation and therefore the stock. That failed with the threat of fines, because those losses are reportable to investors.

Initially, LavaBit was betting on public perception. They apparently folded before fines could be levied.

Yahoo was public, and could not "pull a LavaBit". There are vast differences between the LavaBit options and the Yahoo options. You are comparing apples to SchrÃdinger's cat because of ignorance. Stop that.

Really?

Are they instead nominated by the Executive and then confirmed by the Legislative?

Or are they

made up of 11 federal district court judges who are selected by the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Maybe they are given magic powers by Leprechauns and allowed to vote by the number of Trolls they fellate?

Because of fear.

Yes, we lost freedoms, and people forecast that we would.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Yeah, he was a smart mutherfucker.

Why did the Constitution have any power? Because it was the description of how we put the country together. It was the description of who had power, and which powers they had. Was is the operative word.

That stopped when people shit their pants because a few small percent of people died.

And yes, I know someone who had a lifetime of earnings in boxes that were destroyed from fire. Screw the conspiracy shit, even without that they would still be at zero earnings as of 9/11. It was a major impact for a very large number of people. I'm not minimizing it. But there were a small number of people affected, unless you count the number of people who knew the dead. And even then, the percentage is still small.

You paraphrased Franklin, yet did not learn from him. You don't understand the basic human psyche. Yet you ask of us some answer?

It is because of people like you. Go share your knowledge among the people you know personally. Then get back to us.

Fuck them all if you must, and if you have the stamina.

The FCC is responsible for ensuring that desired communications reach their destination, and undesired communications do not. If a radio station has a license, and your jackass neighbor buys a giant antenna, you have the right to ask the FCC to shut your asshole neighbor down. If community standards say that you cannot "fuck" them all, and that you must "f$%#" them all, then you should live in a different country. Unless you have an argument that applies to your country. Which you apparently do not.

FBI likewise is asked to protect the country from internal threats. Total information awareness seems to be a really good way to do this.

CIA spies on foreigners. Is this forbidden?

And I don't really care where you live - you have to make a good argument supported by facts, or you can eat a dick and die in a fire and all of the most wonderful greetings from Tisdale, Saffronica. Talk sense or only the nonsensical will support you.

For the record, I don't disagree. But you sound like a retarded hermaphroditic swing voter with anger issues. Convince me.

Has the government, and keep in mind this relates to all three branches, refused to admit that a FISC exists, or that the FISA was passed?

Specifically, which parts do "the government" refuse to admit exist?