Since the US policy of generating foreign born terrorists to justify its military industrial complex has worked so well, why not try the same thing at home and justify the dismantling of the constitution in the homeland. Very soon you'll start hearing about how all this action against citizens is protecting you from home-grown crazies.
Say this actually works. We create a brain and start down the long path of "teaching" it just like with new-born humans.
What happens when we detect that the brain is "experiencing pain" (we already know that pain has a detectable neurological basis right?)
What happens when we detect the brain is experiencing depression?
What are our responsibilities then? Is this thing a human, a lab-rat, or a machine?
A. This was done openly.
B. The guy was popular and never lost an election.
Maybe the citizens of his country value different things to the citizens of your country. Which I can see might be a problem if one of the things valued in your country is telling everyone else what they should value.
I think you have it confused with Vogonium.
Just like the nuclear power industry.
> But I don't have a cassette deck either, so I use my brand new laptop as the storage by plugging the Apple into its audio ports.
Well done! Hats off to you sir.
You still haven't answered the parent's question. Irrespective of whether Manning is guilty or not, when do the generals who ordered illegal actions get charged?
Why that's crazy talk!
You young people and your logic...
Hey there soldier! Worried about PTSD? Afraid your conscience may interfere with your patriotic duty? No need to worry! With our new treatment you'll never have to worry about flashbacks, or fear that you may have to turn whistleblower. War-crimes trials? No fear. We'll make sure you will always be the most reliable and entirely truthful un-witness.
> when a warrant has been issued by a judge
Seriously? We live in a world where even "after the fact" FISA warrants are not enough for some. Hell, there is currently legislation mooted in various countries that would allow corporations the same kind of powers just because you MIGHT be sharing a movie.
And you think I'm deluded...
Where freedom of speech is illegal Tor use is illegal. Yet there are still those that would exercise their free speech regardless of the risk. Dissidents who use Tor to get their message out or to listen to anothers' message don't do it because it is no risk. They are usually very well aware of the risks they take.
The world is replete wih people willing to commit "crimes" if sufficiently motivated.
I'm sorry. What's you're point?
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government...except for every other form that's ever been tried.
I have written no laws. I support politicians and parties that on balance seem to give the best outcome for my vote compared to the other candidates.
Perhaps I was a bit clumsy. What I tried to say to the parent poster (who asked "what if I don't like what the majority choose") was, either accept the outcome or change the government. I didn't specify how the latter might be achieved.
Define "valid", "reasonable", "limited". Describe how you would limit the expansion of those terms' meanings.
Describe for what purpose the collected information might be limited to. Define how long the data will be held for and what safeguards you would have in place to ensure your speech doesn't mark you as an enemy of the state under some future statute.
Define "bad guys".
Tor is not illegal in the USA, or any other "freedom loving" country, but neither is free speech. so the idealist purpose of Tor is not needed there
Some might disagree with you.
Isn't your post self contradictory?
If a government detects and blocks the protocol then it's blocked for both good and bad guys and Tor is rendered ineffective.
If however its possible for the bad guys to bypass these blocks the it's possible for the good guys too in which case Tor is achieving its purpose. I'd be grateful for anyone more familiar wih the tech to chime in at this point.
Just to be clear, it's purpose is not to "help the good guys". It's to provide a technology that enables uncensorable speech. With respect to my original post it is firmly on the side of "freedom of speech", with all the ugly consequences that entails.