|
|
No. The article explains that the person in question had NOT been arrested
The lesson could not be clearer
If you are not under arrest, get the hell out of the police station instead of doing anything else (being silent, answering questions, etc).
You, sir, are a grade-A asshole
Since you say so, it must be so.
Well, if you are including yourself/your family in the list of possible false-positives, then I probably misjudged you -- my apologies. Still, you would agree that for every single person like you, many others will make such statements with an explicit assumption that no "good" (undeserving) person will ever be hit with a false positive.
As opposed to paralysis by analysis and do nothing about child sexual abuse because ZOMG I might be wrong.
They should be reporting/investigating the image hosters, not image possessors. Doesn't sound like that's what they are doing. In some cases, people have been flagged for hand-drawn or photoshopped CP images. As disturbing as it is, no actual children were involved then. If you include every such case, the number of false positives will no longer be negligible.
As opposed to lives that are not hypothetically ruined, but actually ruined in real life as the result of real child sexual abuse.
Talk about straw-man. By all means, let's do what we can to prevent child abuse, I am all for it. I'd just prefer to focus on, you know, actual people who abuse children and I am not convinced that monitoring and blocking image searches will help that goal.
Turned out to be a false positive? I won't sleep much over it, unless someone genuinely innocent gets destroyed by this. But probabilistically, the chance of such occurrence is so low, not impossible, but so extremely low (truly innocent person in possession of child porn), I'm willing to live with the consequences.
You, sir, are a grade-A asshole
Are you considering the possibility that you might be the target of the false positive (however unlikely)? Because it is mighty kind of you to be willing to live with the consequences of someone else's life being ruined due to false positive.
All of this would be a less horrible idea if the law enforcement found a less damaging way to investigate (i.e. keep the accusation completely private until it is proven in court). Otherwise lives are utterly ruined well before the investigation is concluded.
If they did they'd be tipping off terrorists on how they caught on to them, so the terrorists would revise their communication methods. As they reportedly are doing now, in response to Snowden's revelations.
Brilliant, brilliant plan.
So what you are saying that, in response to Snowden's revelations, terrorists will cease to use all communications (seeing how everything is monitored)? Maybe even move on to other countries that still respect privacy?
It is genius, why didn't anyone think of this before?
The government isn't efficient enough to stop 20 plots by checking only 300 numbers.
These are the same 300 undercover people using NSA-issued phones in all 20 cases. You don't think they stopped any actual terrorist plots??
If they had, they'd be advertising it like there is no tomorrow. Just like if TSA ever catches or stops an actual terrorist accidentally, I assume it will be in the news for months.
USA Politician: Oh, here's a list of personnel and here are the strategies we're using.
Foreign Politician: OK, good to know... we'll work on messing with these people and/or bribing them, and our counter-Intel guys will try to avoid your strategies.
Haha, yeah, I can see it now
USA Politician: We trawl ALL data from EVERYONE
Foreign Politician: OK, good to know... we will only spy in countries that respect privacy and avoid USA from now on
I am sure that's the brilliant strategy developed by NSA, actually.
I wonder how the whole thing will be able to move if there's a tsunami?
"During the last earthquake, Bob's zipcode changed six times"
How would an alien decode the
Let's just send out BluRay streams. Everyone in the galaxy knows that these have to be licensed + players constantly updated, so the aliens will know what to do.
If it's genuinely gotten so bad that it takes an expert to understand the plain words of the constitution, we're screwed anyway.
It doesn't! Many laws are not that hard to read.
Our brave officials have gotten to redefining very plain words in the constitutions/laws in general.
"Spying" is not really "spying"
"Meta-data" is not "data"
"Imminent" danger means "there might or might not be a danger in the future"
"Militant" means "anyone we killed by drone"
"Terrorist" means "someone we don't like"
"Whistle-blower" means "traitor"
Oh, and many of those re-definitions are classified, so it takes years (and a whistle-blower) to even find out that they already happened.
Only terrorists, criminals and spies should fear secret activities of the British and US intelligence agencies.
That statement might have more credibility if it were not for the well documented use of RIPA powers for things unconnected to terrorism and serious crime.
It is all in the definition, my friend.
Only terrorists/criminals/spies should fear secret activities of the intelligence agencies, because once you are target by such an agency, you are a terrorist (and possibly a spy or a criminal too).
Just like drone attacks have no collateral damage because anyone they actually kill is effectively redefined to have been a terrorist all along.
The government admits that the program exists, but says it is being 'mischaracterized' in significant ways
Considering that the government is not saying anything in particular, it is easy to tell the truth here. When they defend the program as a "crucial tool in war on terrorism", that's quite possibly the honest truth since neither that "war" nor "terrorism" has been defined to any degree. Thus anything could be a crucial tool.
Not if you consistently vote in people who aim for reduced spending and smaller government.
As you say, all roads lead to the same place. But a smaller government with a smaller budget can simply only do so much
Oh, that may be true, but wherever can I find people who aim for reduced spending and smaller government?
Surely, you don't mean Republicans, do you? Because they remember about the noble goal of smaller budget/smaller government only while Democrats are in power. And who's idea was it to keep wars in Afganistan and Iraq off the budget (as "emergency supplemental appropriations bills")? Brilliant strategy to keep a low "budget"
So before, Amazon was unfairly competing with local brick & mortar stores because they didn't have to pay the same sales tax.
And now you're saying that they're unfairly competing because they do have to pay the same sales tax?
No, Amazon will unfairly compete with other online stores, because small online stores will not be able to afford a dedicated department (with several attorneys) for the sole purpose of online tax collection.
The playing field with brick&mortar stores may even out a bit as a result, but B&M stores probably still wouldn't have enough in-stock items to remain competitive.
Easy for a large multinational with full-time tax attorneys on staff to implement.
Painful for small businesses.
Isn't it funny how that works?
Same with tax-code -- theoretically, everyone is subject to the same tax codes. However, people with several full-time attorneys on staff seems to do a lot better in minimizing their tax bills.
Coincidence?
Although the X-ray versions have been removed, the equally invasive millimeter-wave versions are still there.
I am pretty certain that the only reason they have admitted that X-ray devices are "bad" is because they were ready to sell the new and improved millimeter-wave devices (without paying back the money or compensating the victims for defective X-ray devices).
I give it a couple more years -- and then the privacy/health risks of new millimeter-wave devices will probably come into question so that they can replaced by super-particle-wave devices.
It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster. - Voltaire