> I find it helpful to [...] draw up finite state machines.
Unless his entire code is written in regular expressions (which, albeit, *would* be a total bitch to maintain), I don't think finite state machines are going to be very helfpul.
> Lol. Yeah, I know, those poor pedophiles and terrorists
> (both of which by definition imply a law being broken)
> are so tormented.
"Pedophile" does not imply that a law has been broken. It is not illegal to be a pedophile, it is illegal to engage in a sexual encounter with a minor. You can fantasise about it all you want.
As far as "terrorist" goes, that is one of the most vague and poorly-defined terms in America. People _are_ getting oppressed by having those terms placed on them and then not having any politician dare take a stand for fear of being ostracised.
> They should be "exterminated".
What, so, you should be killed for your own private thoughts? That's a little harsh, isn't it?
> That's that other part of the Constitution, you remember the
> one about double jeopardy. If someone got convicted and sentenced
> for lewd behavior, they can't increase the sentence afterward even
> if they discover that the person may have committed several
> rapes 15 years prior.
Are you bloody serious? Do us all a favour and look up terms before using them. Double jeapordy refers to being tried on the _same charge_ more than once. If you rape someone fifteen years ago and then get charged on some unrelated crime, you can still be charged on the original rape. They were never part of the sentence.
> So then the person goes free with little more than a slap on the wrist
> and the public feels they were let down by the Constitution and
> the system in general.
This is a much more nebulous statement, but I will dignify it by pointing out that if "the public feels let down by the constitution", that's no reason to break it, that's, at best, a reason to change it.
> This is why we have vigilante justice and people thinking like the GP,
> and for good reason. Sorry, I know the founding fathers meant well but
> the Constitution doesn't protect us from the real world as it is today.
That's not a reason to ignore it, that's a reason to fix it.
> Currently it serves to protect a criminally insane President and tons of
> his cronies but does nothing to protect us from the government itself
> so long as we continue to think that little piece of paper in D.C. is our
Actually, the constitution doesn't protect this "criminally insane President". If anything, it limits his power. Tons of laws passed while he was in office do serve to protect him, but they are unrelated to the constitution and, in some cases, arguably directly infringing on it. And yes, I would like to think of "that little piece of paper in D.C" as my saviour. Or, more accurately, honest judges intelligently interpreting it.
I have to say, you missed the grandfather's point completely. I personally agree that comparing rapists and Jews is stretching it more than somewhat (I am ethnically Jewish, for the record, not that that's especially relevant) but that's all it is -- a bit stretching it. His point was that this is still unconstitutional and a slippery slope. Just because something is democratically decided doesn't make it constitutional. This is, IMHO (and IANAL, etc.) a clear violation of fourth amendment privacy rights, and a dangerous one at that.
What's really quite disturbing about all this is that it hardly stops the problem. Think about it -- what are some of the most "questionable" places on the Internet? IRC and 4chan come to mind as the top examples, and neither require passwords (for the most part). Besides, how are you supposed to know _which_ passwords to hand over? The court won't know about that password you set on your handle on Freenode and they're likely not going to know what to do with it if they had it ("There's no form! Oh noes!"). If these people still pose danger to society, then you should imprison them. All this will accomplish is give the government an easier way of oppressing people.
In a truly free country, all have to be protected, even child molesters (note, by the way, that the main discussion concerns "sex offenders" which is hardly the same thing). The problem is that we have a representative democracy and so the senator that's going to stand up for them is going to get his carreer ruined. With something as delicate as this, it might just be some guy who looked a girl the wrong way.
"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry