Comment Re:Privacy concerns are over stated. (Score 1) 224
I agree with you, but it's not really the corporations who ruin your life (although they help the government do so).
I agree with you, but it's not really the corporations who ruin your life (although they help the government do so).
Region restrictions and closed-down systems.
Problem 2: People who do, focus on the less powerful government and ignore the more powerful corporations
You're generalizing.
Also, while corporations can have a lot of influence, there are few that can ruin your life as well as a government can.
Hm... I didn't know your post was part of this thread. Oh, well; it matters not.
Lol, parroting back my words does not an argument make it only shows that you have no arguments of your own to make or that you're stuck at a mental age below 5.
I merely used the same logic you used and applied it to a different scenario. Are you incapable of understanding what an analogy is? What good is insulting me and attacking straw men going to do you?
Exactly what country is it that you get to decide what is & what isn't unconstitutional?
The one where we have freedom of speech. In practice, the supreme court's interpretations matters the 'most,' but they can be wrong (not that there's much that can be done about it). I am fully capable of asserting that the supreme court is wrong regardless of whether or not I am a normal person; normal people can have opinions, after all, and authority figures can be wrong.
In other words, you're attacking a straw man again. All humans have brains, and I suggest you make use of yours rather than attacking straw men.
One can invoke their 5th amendment right at any time, but must state they are doing so. The court says simply remaining silent does not automatically give you 5th amendment protection.
Seems more like they're simply letting their imaginations go wild with regards to what the constitution actually says.
You can't selectively apply the 5th amendment
Where does it say that?
but by then continuing to answer questions has has by his actions if not statement waived his rights.
I'll go look for that in the constitution.
What the supreme court rules matters, but they can be wrong. If what you said is correct, then they were wrong in that instance. It's unconstitutional.
If all you are doing is
While I do comment on Slashdot, that's far from the only thing that I do.
Sounds more like you're attacking a straw man here. All I said was that authority figures can be wrong, not whatever nonsense you imagined I said.
Of course I can.
I was not referring to your ability to say it.
Whether or not something is constitutional is a matter of opinion, not fact.
1 + 1 = 3, you say? Ridiculous.
And only the courts' opinion matters.
Subjective.
The only opinion that matters is that of the courts (with the Supreme Court getting the last say, if they choose to).
That's subjective.
An action or law is not unconstitutional until judged to be so.
Ridiculous. A law is unconstitutional if it violates the constitution.
The only thing to be said here is that, in practice, what the courts say has the most impact. You cannot say that something can not be considered unconstitutional just because some judges haven't declared it to be so.
Ah, so having a database of telephone numbers of who called whom is the definition of unchecked power?
Yes, allowing them to collect information on everyone in the name of preventing terrorism is one example of unchecked power. Are you dense?
I really wish that you would show up the next time someone inn the US dies from what would have been preventable through analysis of the call records. That way you could say "sucks to be you" the the family. It's the part right after that that I'd enjoy...
I really wish you would show up the next time someone in the US dies from something that could have been prevented had we installed cameras in everyone's homes. That way you could say "sucks to be you" the the family. It's the part right after that that I'd enjoy...
Hey, look how exploitable that 'logic' is! I can use it to justify any policy as long as it saves at least one person!
I have a question. What was the point of your response? What a grieving family feels is completely irrelevant to whether or not the person you replied to is correct. I could punch you in the face for saying "1 + 1 = 2," but that wouldn't mean you'd be wrong. I have no idea what the point of your response was at all; it seems completely illogical to me.
And you know what? We're supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Giving away our privacy and freedoms so we can feel safe hardly makes us look like a nation full of brave, free warriors.
I don't see the database of who called whom as a red line deserving of the rhetoric you're dishing out.
Then you don't understand the issue, and do not see the value in information.
Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?
