It's kind of funny how copyright might be used to force one to divulge information. Copyright is supposed to provide property rights over information, yet here it's being used to attempt someone to divulge a secret. If there was ever a right over information the right to keep it to yourself is it. Not that I care much about someone else's supposed right to keep a secret as I sit here using GPL software that I didn't pay for. As long as nobody stops me from doing something I want to do, or makes me do something I don't want to do, I guess I don't have skin in this.

Some sites will honor it. I don't see the harm. Especially the sites I use chrome for: All my non pseudonymous stuff like my Gmail account and my credit union. Actually I can't use chrome for some features at my bank because I can't find a way to enable popups for even a whitelisted site. I don't really hope Chrome will change. I would rather my bank change to not require popups. I notice chrome asks me for my gnome keyring password. I am not sure what that is but I believe it's some data stored in my home directory in a dot folder where chrome stores my passwords in encrypted form. I haven't looked into it. Maybe that's not what it's doing. Still I don't think google is going to raid my bank account. I used to use opera for my on the up and up browsing and online purchases, but I'm trying chrome. I very well may go back to opera.

Most of my browsing is pseudonymous with convienience placed higher on the priority list than privacy, and is done with firefox. I have ghostery, abp, betterprivacy, smartreferrer, maskingagent, and use polipo as a proxy ( no tor, cache off, just remove identifying info ). Some of this is probably redundant. I also had the RequestPolicy add on to deal with webbugs, but it broke too much stuff, so I disabled it. Using it for a while reminds you just how buggable you are. Real privacy even from random sites ( not talking about the government here ) seems almost lost cause unless you're going to use Tor, but you can still try to be in the 10% they don't bother with because it's a slight pain. It's easy to show up in reports, but it's easier to be missing some key and be ommited from a query. If there's a serious effort to finger you, your're probably hosed, but if there's a casual sweep, you might get lucky be missed.

I think I like firefox sync's password store better than whatever chrome is doing as it's stored off my hard drive 'in the cloud'. I haven't wiped my hard drive since using chrome, but I have a feeling I would lose my chrome passwords if I wiped my drive without backing up my gnome keyring. I wrote down my firefox recovery key and have already used it to recover my firetox passwords. The stuff is supposedly stored in encrypted form. I trust that it's true. The only thing I wish is that you could add annotations to the passwords you store such as eg; passphrases. Some sites ask you for additional information the first time you log in, often on a different screen. I also wish you could write yourself private text notes of stuff to be stored encypted in the cloud with your firefox passwords, maybe a MB of space or so. Maybe you can, and I haven't run into it.

The problem with tracking everything is that criminals know they are being tracked, and so use subterfuge when they are committing crimes with the added benefit of having a squeaky clean (boring) tracking record for an alibi, and everyone else is afraid of LOOKING like a criminal because of the possible hassle so they don't do anything interesting.

You need privacy to be able to let your hair down and be yourself. Without privacy there's no keeping it real.

Tracking won't stop anyone from doing anything illegal. But privacy is a quality of life issue.

I'm not sure what you are talking about - not saying your're making it up, but I've never seen it. Usually people just get a magnet link from pirate bay, and voila, there's the file.

I don't think bankruptcy fixes having been sued, or fines.

Maybe he figures on going on a revenge shooting rampage and dying in a hail of bullets from the cops, ( since he recieved the financial death penalty and may not fancy being destitute for the rest of his life ).

But his crime was not watching porn. His crime was sharing it illegally. So his addiction would have to be not feeling guilty about being a bittorrent porn leach.

In a civil suit isn't the burden of proof only 51%?

If you are going to sign in to something in a way that can identify you, and then share possibly watermarked files, it doesn't matter what you use to share the files. The files can be traced back to you. Of course you could say you were hacked if the files were not shared from an IP associated with you. I'd say the two - your ip, and the watermark are enough to say it was probably you. Though if you have others in your family, it could have been them. For instance what could they do to two roommates that share a computer? Each could say it was the other one who shared the file.

If a long jail sentence is as bad or worse than death ( and I would say it is ) then wrongly inflicting captial punishment is no worse or maybe more humane than wrongly incarcerating someone for a long time. I don't buy the idea that incarceration is better than capital punishment because a bad decision can be reversed. If there's any significant risk that the incarceration is unjust then it should not happen. The mistakes that are fixed, could very well dwarf the mistakes that aren't fixed in number.

We don't want a situation where the authorities would incarcerate the robber for 50 years, but they are only 10% sure the suspect did it so they get sentenced to 5 years ( maybe they get them to plea to a lesser crime carrying that sentence, or the jury doesn't mind convicting them on that lesser crime given the substantial 10% chance they in fact committed the worse crime carrying the 50 year sentence ).

It would be better to let some guilt go unpunished so as to live under the rubrick of either they're sure you did it and you get the penalty or they aren't sure and you go free.

Have a search on youtube for Ayaan Hirsi Ali . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFvklPpGZtA

Look the Berne Convention dispite sounding like some kind of intergalactic treaty from the Whovian Universe, no wait, that's the Shadow Proclaimation, has to do mainly with protecting copyrights abroad. I doubt France produces more things demanded abroad than it consumes. Therefore, it would seem, the arrangement is a net negative to France.

I fail to see the downside.

Maybe it would have desirable consequences. Just start violating the treaty and say why, and say that they want it renegotiated to allow for the sort of thing they are doing, or they'll just keep doing it anyway. If anyone values the treaty enough to renegotiate, then it might continue to be a treaty, otherwise it becomes defunct.

Then again if it just made people sterile, and didn't kill them, they wouldn't be so careful about not getting it, so it might be more effective long term. But that seems totally incompatible with the B grade horror movie side objective I sorta had.. Meh..