The only way to avoid technical surveillance is to keep everything sensitive away from email or phone calls or instant messages.
"Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink."
It was good advice before the electronic era and remains so today. For reasons a lot more applicable to us mere mortals than NSA and CIA.
Remember that your vote counts just as much as the vote of the average youtube/facebook/twitter comment writer.
Depends on which State you live in......
mein kampf. What was going on in that man's mind?
Mein Kampf can be found in virtually every library in the United States. I had assumed it was the same in every country that values free speech. You should read it; it's a painful slog of atrocious writing but it's an important read nonetheless.
What if someone close to me, or not, died, and I was the last person who read information online about the manner in which they died? If someone commits suicide, and I recently looked it up. That could be "evidence" of a murder! Should I become a suspect, based on that alone?
This is at best a fundamental misunderstanding of how law enforcement actually works, at worst a total straw man.
1. The NSA doesn't concern itself with murder. The overwhelming majority of murders in the United States are handled at the State level.
2. Local law enforcement isn't going to put you on the radar because of a Wikipedia search. They won't even know about your search history unless you appear on their radar for other reasons and the investigation develops enough for search warrants.
3. If an investigation does progress that far and you have a search history that suggests a furtherance of the crime being investigated..... well, probably time to call a lawyer.
What if, while in the course of designing a videogame, I looked up information about how weapons work? Everything from handguns to atom-bombs - for accuracy's sake? Do I deserve to be on a watchlist because I could be planning something?
It takes more to get on a watchlist than Google searches. Watchlists are pointless if the signal to noise ratio is too low. Filling them with people who Googled atomic weapons design is self-defeating. Go ahead, click on the link, it's not going to pop up on a screen at NSA. As much as it may pain our egos, the lion's share of us are fat and unimportant.
If people look over their shoulders before searching, pause before contributing to controversial articles, or refrain from sharing verifiable but unpopular information, Wikimedia and the world are poorer for it.
I suspect that the Wikipedia group think suppresses more contributions than any real or imagined fear of the NSA.
Glad they're using my donation for server costs though, which I believe was the headline the last time they pestered me for money. At least when my local PBS station begs me for money they spend it on things that are more than tangentially related to delivering the product that I use and love.
No, those fraternities hate all other races, and thats ok.
Are you fucking serious? So, "We're the master race." is okay but "Niggers are inferior." is not?!?
Racism is fucking racism. If you're going to call it out don't get selective about it.
So we're now at the stage of "banning it"?
The left recently stopped using "illegal immigrant" in favor of "undocumented immigrant." The GWB administration tried to replace "suicide bomber" with "homicide bomber." One side of the abortion debate describes foes as "anti-choice" rather than "pro-life." People in politics play word games. This is not new, news for nerds, or limited to the State of Florida.
Thanks for the flamebait Slashdot, it was a slow evening and I've got lots of popcorn.
it's pretty well documented that Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy
And yet you couldn't provide a single link. Not even to Wikipedia.
Most credible historians shoot down such notions, FYI.
It doesn't matter how the government is structured. You will never find one agency working at cross purposes with another for very long.
Ah, if only Government was half as organized as you think it is....
All the conditions you give above, are circumstances under which people are considered to have waived their rights as ordinary citizens
Irrelevant. The point was in response to the GP's ridiculous assertion about the "current understanding" of gun rights in the United States. It is not and never has been an "understanding" in the United States that everybody should or can have firearms.
I had to get permission from our County Court Judge before I could legally touch a handgun, never mind own or carry one. He could have said no for almost any reason that he wanted. The law says I can't have a license unless I have "proper cause" but does not define what proper cause is.
It is literally a felony to pick up a handgun in New York State without a license. If you so much as touch a pistol without a license you go directly to jail without passing go or collecting $200. That's been the "current understanding" in New York State since 1911, so you'll forgive me if I can't take people like the GP seriously.
And I could be wrong, but item 8, as I understand it, is a State issue, not Federal.
Or even gay people kissing in public.
Shouldn't be done anywhere it's inappropriate for a heterosexual couple to do the same. I really don't feel like watching anybody go to first base while I'm trying to eat dinner, thank you very much....
Gun nut logic.
Ah, gun nut, one of the favorite insults of the anti-rights crowd. Much easier to demean those that disagree with you rather than respond to their points, eh?
You're the one who claimed, emphasis mine: "the current understanding of gun rights in the USA is a late 1900s dirty harry style invention of anyone should have a gun
I could respond to your silly training argument by pointing out:
1. Driving is a privilege, not a constitutionally recognized right.
2. The prefatory clause is not a limiting clause. It was not imagined as such by the people who wrote it nor ever interpreted that way by a court.
Of course, what's the point of having that discussion? You've got the facts so hopelessly wrong that I believe your ignorance is willful. One bloody Google search would have been enough to dispel your misinformed belief about the "current understanding of gun rights in the usa" and you couldn't even be bothered to do that.
Automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since the 1930s, were further regulated in the 1980s, and the civilian ownership thereof is exceedingly rare.
You're thinking of semi-automatic weapons, like the AR-15 which look like their automatic counterparts, but are in fact no deadlier than any semi-automatic firearm. The United States Government has been selling surplus semi-automatic military issue firearms to the general public for decades, so it's a bit late to claim that semi-automatic firearms represent a level of firepower that should be unavailable to civilians.
I will concede that the provocative asshats who open carry AR-15s into Starbucks are just that, provocative asshats trying to piss people off for no reason. I view them the same way I view gay couples that engage in PDA in inappropriate settings (read: anywhere it would be inappropriate for a heterosexual couple to do the same) solely to piss people off.
the current understanding of gun rights in the USA is a late 1900s dirty harry style invention of anyone should have a gun
1. Are a convicted felon.
2. Are a convicted domestic abuser.
3. Are currently charged with any crime punishable by a year or more in prison.
4. Are an unlawful user of any controlled substance.
5. Are addicted to any controlled substance, even one lawfully proscribed.
6. Have been dishonorably discharged from the United States military.
7. Have renounced your American citizenship.
8. Are the subject of an order of protection.
9. Are a fugitive from justice.
10. Are in the United States illegally.
Those are just the people proscribed from ownership under Federal law. Many States have tougher laws and add even more people to the list. Some (my home state, New York) go further and treat gun rights as a privilege, requiring a license, which is doled out at the whim of local bureaucrats who can deny you for virtually any reason they wish.
Point being, nowhere in the United States does the "current understanding" of gun rights say anyone should have firearms. Do you actually know what the existing body of Federal, State, and Local law has to say on this subject or are you just repeating talking points you read somewhere?
New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman
