Seems you missed the word "fraudulently" -- hollowing out a coin is not attempting to defraud anyone. It's only a crime if you're trying to commit fraud by your actions. Since 1965 (1970 for half-dollars), that's been pretty tough to do...

You're right, you can't teach it, but you can kill it.

Lots of redundant copies that the family moves from system to system over time will probably give you the best chance of recovery. You can maintain the time capsule effect by password protecting that zip file and putting the password in the time capsule (engraved on something) along with the other standard time-capsule type stuff. She'll have that file kicking around on her computer for years, driving her nuts while she waits to get the password. I like it.

I couldn't agree more. After a long history of sketchy routers that I had to reboot every other day, I bought the WRT54GL just so I could put third-party firmware on it. The rave reviews led me to Tomato. Simple to set up, great interface, lots of cool stats and graphs, and -- most importantly -- my up time is now determined by power outages.

Due to significant gerrymandering, my representatives have never represented me. I would find it to be a significant improvement if I could choose one of the other representatives to represent me, and have his vote count that much more. If representatives represented actual people rather than the average person in their district, they might start acting right. If your representative doesn't vote the way you want, you have 434 others to choose from. Of course, Ron Paul's vote would end up being 20 times more powerful than most others, but it's a start.

Only the government can violate the 4th amendment, if the RIAA was doing it directly, it would be called theft.

The RIAA accuses many innocent people of copyright infringement, and then because of civil forfeiture laws, the government confiscates their computers.

- The RIAA attempts to stop file sharing.
- Innocent people have their rights violated.

There is a cause and effect relationship.

The implication is that if the RIAA gave up the fight (maybe because of private file sharing!) then these rights violations would cease.

I'm not disingenuous. Increased privacy is important to keep government out of private life. If they don't know what I'm doing, it can't be mistaken for something illegal, with my person or property locked up until it's all sorted out. Read up on civil forfeiture; it happens all the time.

I didn't say the RIAA was violating the 4th amendment, but it is because of their influence ($) that the government agencies act on supposed probable cause that couldn't exist if privacy were guaranteed. Call it enforcement of civil forfeiture laws or whatever you want--innocent people have their computers seized and have to fight in court to get them back. That's not my idea of freedom.

I fully support the rights of the RIAA and despise criminal copyright violation, but if the only way they can find to fight it is to trample the rights of everyone else, then I personally don't find that to be acceptable. Your right to swing your fist--even at the guy who offended you--ends when you start punching the innocent.

You won't believe me, or care, but I own a publishing company with a couple young adult fiction titles in print.

Perhaps I am malicious, incompetent, lying, or a disgruntled criminal. It doesn't really matter. In any case I'm a relatively private person, and would generally like it to remain that way.

What you see as an "attempt to make it safer to violate other people's rights," I see as an attempt to keep other people from violating my rights.

Hundreds--maybe thousands--of innocent people have had their 4th amendment rights violated in the RIAA's attempts to stop file sharing. Many (who are innocent) settled out of court to avoid the costs of trial. If all file sharing is completely anonymous and private, these rights violations end.

Do some guilty people share files in a way that infringes copyrights? Sure. Should the rest of the country accept violations of their rights or privacy because of this? No way.

FWIW, I have never used torrents and I own the rights to several copyrighted works--freedom is more important and no one should ever give up any of it.

I would argue that the ability to share data in a hidden manner IS vital to freedom.

If I want any communicated private data to remain private--if for no other reason than I value my privacy and I don't want you looking at it--then the ability to share files (lots of data) anonymously is simply a byproduct of freedom.

There are plenty of valid reasons to hide the source of information or the information itself. Maybe it's embarrassing, proprietary, easily misinterpreted, or scandalous. Maybe it's boring. It doesn't really matter. The fact remains that I (and most people) value privacy and freedom.

I close the blinds at night not because what I'm doing in my house is wrong or shameful (or even private), it because it isn't anybody's business but mine. Making it illegal to close my blinds because law enforcement agencies might want to see what's going on is NOT OK with me.