Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:If true. If. (Score 1) 188

TSA Screenings seem like an awfully petty thing to be concerned about considering the much larger glitches in the US culture.

A massive, egregious, plain-as-day violation of people's constitutional liberties is not and never will be petty. They molest everyone and violate their rights merely for trying to get on a plane. That is absolutely unacceptable.

Also, the logic of, "There are bigger issues than X, so X isn't bad." is nonsense.

Its sort of like the commenter farther below who put Road Side DUI checks on par with mass unwarranted surveillance of phone and email.

They are *all* constitutional violations, and *all* constitutional violations are serious matters.

Comment: Re:If true. If. (Score 1) 188

How does this differ legally from a DUI stop?

The kinds of health inspections you refer to might not be so different, which would make them unconstitutional. Did you think I would reach any other conclusion?

But there are still differences, and that is that the government may not just make you surrender your rights in exchange for being allowed to do something completely innocuous (and often essential) like driving a car. Anyone who supports such things is an authoritarian scumbag of the highest caliber.

Are you also in favor of the TSA ("You implicitly consent to giving up your 4th amendment rights by trying to get on a plane.")? How about we apply this logic to an entire city? "You implicitly consent to giving up your fourth amendment rights by living in or being in city X. If you don't like it, don't live or be there." It's just a bullshit way to get around constitutional restrictions. I will *never* accept this logic, so give up.

I take it that you object to a forced sobriety test, not the stop.

Yes. Whether or not traffic lights were replaced by a human doesn't matter to me. What matters is the sobriety test.

Comment: Re:Legitimate concerns (Score 1) 274

by jeIIomizer (#47584659) Attached to: UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

I think you're proving my point about the black-and-white nature of how people regard free speech in the USA.

How can you say it is black and white when you yourself tried to list an example where it is not?

The US is merely *very strongly* in favor of free speech (except for FCC censorship, obscenity laws, free speech zones, libel, slander, and... holy shit!).

The UK approach is a shades-of-gray one

The UK approaches one where speech is arbitrarily decided to be 'harmful' and is thus banned. It's subjective nonsense that has no place in any free society, much like obscenity laws, or the US's FCC censorship. The idea that speech can be banned for being offensive is simply absurd.

And you say the US is black and white about free speech? Please. We make random, arbitrary, and subjective exceptions to the first amendment all the time, even though it's blatantly unconstitutional.

I'll ignore the idiotic purposeful misreading of the Fire thing...

I didn't misread it.

Comment: Re:Legitimate concerns (Score 1) 274

by jeIIomizer (#47584621) Attached to: UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

If you want to really be a pedantic idiot, you *CAN* shout "Fire" if there is NOT a fire as well, even "under our stupid rules," assuming you have functioning vocal cords, are conscious and breathing, etc. The repercussions will just be different.

That's a very good point, too.

Seriously, you're being an ass here.

I don't think so.

Comment: Re:Legitimate concerns (Score 1) 274

by jeIIomizer (#47579493) Attached to: UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

From your post here, your solution seems to be censorship of "hate speech," and you also go on to make an unfounded claim about how revealing people's identities would halt online bullying, which I have no reason to believe or even care about.

I am 100% opposed to government censorship, and punishing people for "hate speech."

Comment: Re:Legitimate concerns (Score 1) 274

by jeIIomizer (#47579475) Attached to: UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

I never said it should be banned.

Right, so implying the system is not perfect is grounds for shipping me to North Korea? Jumping the gun a little...?

Then why did you suggest a "middle ground" with a "minimal impact" on freedom of speech? What could that be?

Stop being lazy. The situation is not black or white.

The situation is black and white. If you suggest we get rid of anonymity or any other such thing, I oppose you 100%. That's black and white.

What is your suggestion that doesn't impact anonymity or freedom of speech one single bit?

Comment: Re:Legitimate concerns (Score 2) 274

by jeIIomizer (#47579219) Attached to: UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

And meanwhile, as you worry about a hypothetical threat from your government

1) It's not hypothetical; history has shown many thousands of times over that people with power will inevitably abuse it. To say it's merely "hypothetical" demonstrates that you're ignorant of history.
2) Banning anonymity would infringe upon freedom of speech, privacy, and various other rights in and of itself. The government need not 'abuse' it in order for it to harm people's freedoms.

Though I don't expect you to be capable of understanding that infringing upon fundamental freedoms in the name of safety (from fucking bullies, no less) is rather repugnant.

real people with real lives are really having them destroyed by people who put themselves above the law through the mechanism of anonymity.

It's much worse to surrender fundamental freedoms in the name of safety. In the real world, sometimes lives will be lost, and sometimes there isn't a moral solution. Your 'solution' (which won't work anyway) is completely immoral.

I'm happy for you that you're comfortable with a black and white view where there are absolute rights that are the only important things and where any unintended harmful side effects can be explained away somehow

Whereas I am consistently saddened to see that there exist authoritarian fools who would ban something like anonymity merely because it could be abused. That has no business in any free country.

This is why we need ever more advanced tools to make tracking more difficult, and why free software is so important. To make the jobs of you authoritarians that much harder. You will fail, and you will fail hard.

Comment: Re:If true. If. (Score 1) 188

If one agrees that it is within the governments power to license driving, you are compelled to allow inspections to confirm compliance with the license.

Not if doing so violates people's constitutional rights! Once again, this is specifically a violation of the fourth amendment. You are compelled to do no such thing, and especially not by using methods that require searching and/or punishing everyone.

This is what you don't seem to get. You think the ends justify the means. That it's okay to punish innocent people in your pursuit of catching criminals. It is not.

Operating a vehicle on a shared public road is as public as it gets.

The vehicle itself is not public, so this is irrelevant.

Whole different story if there was random road checks to check, for example, for possession of illegal substances. because it does not relate to license compliance.

Except, using your awful logic, they could require *anything* in order to get a license. They could even require that you surrender *all* of your constitutional liberties, including freedom of speech.

This is the same logic used to justify the TSA: "By doing innocuous activity X (driving, trying to get on a plane, etc.), you implicitly consent to giving up some of your liberties." It's absurd, and there is no constitutional basis for this.

Also I don't think "we got along fine" before DUI road checks. I think a lot more families where crushed and maimed.

You said it was essential. I showed you that it's not. The fact is, we accept casualties in the name of freedom all the time, and that's absolutely fine.

So I do understand that it is a nuanced issue, and that YOU don't think they are constitutional. But your supreme court does and your constitution says they are the ones who make that decision right?

The Supreme Court makes many wrong decisions, as you noted. Here is a quote from one of the founders: "You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him.

The Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the executive and legislative to executive and legislative organs." -Thomas Jefferson

Judges can be replaced. The people can try to get the government to follow the constitution if they are not doing so. DUI checkpoints are blatantly unconstitutional, no matter what the Supreme Court says.

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?