You emailed me and I responded. No reason to complain here.

I complained here first — after e-mailing multiple times to no avail.

I then decided to try e-mailing a different address (feedback@ rather than slashdot@) and finally got a response...

I already fixed your account.

Thank you.

And then you'll disable more accounts on the "spam" accusation? Thanks...

Where are the Illiberals going to flee now, should a Republican win elections?

Besides, moderators are surprisingly fair - I have gone against the grain plenty of times, and extremely often these reached +4 or +5.

Though I've had seen my Karma drop into "Negative" from coordinated attacks a couple of times, my account was also generally in the "Excellent" area. I too am a fan of /.'s moderation system — as far as the non-sentient systems go, it is the best I've encountered. (And, as Facebook and Twitter fiascos show, sentience-based systems can be worse.)

Unfortunately, Slashdot has given the haters a new tool — by marking a submission (such as this one) as "Spam", you disable the user's access for good — and you only need a few accounts to do that, they don't even have to have Mod-points...

There is no appeal, no judge and no jury... I have written several e-mails to Slashdot editors, but my account remains suspended — I can not offer new submissions, start new threads, or even reply.

According to The Intercept, the NSA in 2012 monitored Fullman's communications through the Prism program and passed on information to the New Zealand intelligence services.

Well, of course, with a RethugliKKKan in the White House the Big Brother has free reign...

If only a Progressive Democrat — preferably a Person of Color himself — has won the Presidency in 2008, the healing could've begun and the world would've had a chance to become such a better place by now...

And yet, his local laws allow for seizures of his New Zealand property at the behest of Americans. To New Zealand's credit, they would not do it merely on the request from American Executive branch (a prosecutor) — but the countries do recognize each other's Judiciary.

Again, American civil forfeiture laws and procedures — which, scandalously, allow the Executive to confiscate property without even making (much less proving) an accusation — are irrelevant to Dotcom's case and should not have been mentioned in the write-up.

If some kook of a prosecutor in yourassismineistan filed charges against you, would you go over there on your own dime (no less) to answer them?

If that's what my local laws say — and New Zealand does have the necessary treaties with the US — I will...

The point was — and remains — Dotcom is not suffering from the "civil forfeiture" laws as the term is usually understood and the write-up is incorrect in this part.

Amazing to think that US civil forfeiture laws apply even if the alleged crimes were committed by a German/Finnish citizen, living in New Zealand.

Except this part of the write-up is bullshit:

Civil forfeiture in the United States allows law enforcement to seize one's assets if they are believed to be illegally acquired -- even without filing any criminal charges.

The above is completely irrelevant. Although this part of the US law is an outrage, Mr. Dotcom is not affected by that.

First, plenty of charges against him were filed. And, second, he may lose his property not because some cop on a highway decided, his trunk-full of cash is "suspicious" (and can be much better used to pay for his Department's parties too), but because he chose to not answer criminal charges against him in the US.

The outrage of "civil forfeiture" is that it can happen on the Executive-branch's say-so — no judge, no jury. In Mr. Dotcom's case, the loss of property is approved by the Judiciary. It may or may not still be wrong, of course.

Cold War was a gift to mankind

How did those "transmitted images" help mankind? Had we spent the billions on cancer-research or longevity or what have you instead, our lives today could've been much better. Yes, the lives of everyone, not just hobbyists interested in conditions on unreachable space-rocks.

And, in due time, we would've reached those rocks too...

It's awful because it judges people to be dangerous based on a small number of bad individuals.

Small? 51% of America's Muslims would rather be governed by Sharia. That's huge, not small.

existing fences do next to nothing

Huh? Would you care to substantiate this?

what works for Israel and their much, much smaller border is unlikely to work for the US-Mexico border

Why is it "unlikely" to work? And mean work as in "make crossing harder and policing easier" — it does not have to eliminate the problem, the wall just has to reduce it.

the reasons for crossing are different - there's too much money and opportunity in border crossings

The reasons are different, but the difference is in favor of my (and Trump's) argument: terrorists trying to cross into Israel are highly motivated men bent on murder. Folks crossing into the US are (mostly) coming here for economic opportunities. If the crossing is too difficult (hence too expensive) far fewer of them will be crossing. And they'll be less likely to bring their pregnant wives with them, thus reducing the problem of "anchor babies".

Ah, so legal immigrants only have to not send money back home

Yes. It is — and always has been — legitimate for governments to tax, what they wish to discourage. Trump may even simply freeze the remittances — the way Iran's accounts were frozen — until Mexico agrees to do, what he wishes. And then unfreeze the monies...

But when you have large, nonpartisan agreement, and actual empirical proof

All you've shown were publications in popular press. I don't blame you — neither of us is an economist. But, given the profession's failures, susceptibility to opinions and tendency to be politically-influenced, I wouldn't be basing a decision on the opinions of those "experts".

That doesn't mean we should double down on them and vow to kill even more innocents

The point is, we may end up killing far fewer if we threaten to target not bystanders, but the terrorists' kin. But killing may not be necessary — simply seizing these people may be sufficient.

I'm saying even if it is effective, we shouldn't do it.

Your sentiment does credit to your morality. And yet, it is akin to the sort of misguided pacifism, that frowns on "killing" until it is too late and the pacifist's own blood reddens the sand...

Would you accept demolishing the terrorists' homes and detaining their children (up to age 3) for an anonymous adoption in the US?

I dislike the "give serious consideration" to funding yet more research in areas that have been thoroughly debunked

What research "debunked" the idea, that porn — in the amounts available today — is harmful? What makes you dismiss the idea, that it may be a reason (at least partial) today's youth aren't interested in sex, for example?

are harmful to free expression

Are you saying, production of pornography is protected by the First Amendment? If so, even child pornography is protected... But, if we can exempt certain kinds of "expression" based on the harm it is causing, it would be legitimate to evaluate the harm — or lack thereof, would it not be?

Either way, this pornography thing is minuscule compared to the rest of your "beef" with Trump, it is hardly worth discussing.

Or I could vote third party

The person taking oath in January 2017 will be either Clinton or Trump. Voting for anyone else in a state with any chance of "swinging" is dodging. Don't kid yourself.

Wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country simply on the basis of their religion is pretty awful.

Why is it awful? You may or may not agree, that it would help, but what is "awful" about it? It is not "simply" a religion — no other religion that I know of specifies a particular form of government as the only one acceptable. Most are mum on it, while Christianity explicitly leaves "Cæsar's to Cæsar". Donald Trump's page, to which you linked yourself, has links to results of a poll of Muslims already in the US showing, they would like to be governed by Sharia rather than the Constitution. Arguably, a President — who's solemn responsibility is upholding the document — would be derelict of his main duty, if he allowed even more people with such opinions to enter the country and become citizens. This is not much different than blocking Communists and Nazis from immigrating...

And before you say "First Amendment" — stop. Insults against Islam are already deadly dangerous — and even the "moderate" Muslims would like it to be illegal. When Iran called for murder of Salman Rushdee, Margaret Thatcher gave the man state's protection. Today we are more likely to see the victim blamed for his own "intolerance". For example, instead of the state's protection, the would-be Koran-burner was asked to pay for additional police presence out of his own pocket in order to exercise his First Amendment rights. Trump is more likely to reverse this unfortunate trend, and that is a good thing...

reject Islamism, but we should do it without blaming all Muslims

It is increasingly hard to make a distinction. But the ban Trump is proposing is not permanent — rather it is "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". That is, until reliable methods of separating "Islamists from Muslims" (your choice of terms, not mine) can be developed.

And, of course, there's his ridiculous wall idea

Why is it "ridiculous"? When Israel implemented their wall — which critics were calling ridiculous and evil too — the number of terrorism-related deaths inside Israel plummeted.

Seizing the remittances earned by people working here is very disagreeable to me; that's effectively a large tax on people who are, generally, low income.

As Trump points out, most of the remittances originate from illegal immigrants. Now, such illegality might not warrant death penalty or even incarceration, but any and all financial penalties are perfectly justified. What of the legal immigrants? Well, they too can easily avoid this "tax" you disapprove of by holding on to their monies — it will achieve Trump's goal anyway. Because the goal is not to rob these folks, but to compel Mexico to (help) pay for the wall construction.

His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general is not supported by most economists

Economics are a scandalously unscientific discipline. Frustrated Harry Truman once demanded to see a "one-handed economist" — so exasperated he became of the endless "one the one hand/on the other hand" coming from his economic advisers.

Now I am for free trade — not because it is effective, but simply because I think it is a human right to be able to trade with anyone you please. However — and this is Trump's point — we have not had free trade. China actively helps their corporations for example, while demanding any foreign ones to manufacture a large portion of their products in China. On the other hand, America's own government — while suffocating American corporations with environmental, safety, and non-discrimination regulations — has allowed foreign ones to practice far worse abuses in foreign lands.

Oh, and how could we forget that he wants to kill the families of terrorists

Israel has not been killing the families of terrorists, but merely demolishing their homes. Even that has caused so much outrage, they may as well have been killing them... I am joking, but each joke is (only) part joke. Here is the current administration's policy (emphasis mine):

John Brennan, Obama’s CIA director, told me recently that he and the president have similar views. One of them is that sometimes you have to take a life to save even more lives. We have a similar view of just-war theory. The president requires near-certainty of no collateral damage. But if he believes it is necessary to act, he doesn’t hesitate.”

That same article — by an Obama supporter (!) — then goes further to claim:

The notion that the Obama Administration has carried out drone strikes only when there is “near-certainty of no collateral damage” is easily disproved propaganda. America hasn’t killed a handful of innocents or a few dozen in the last 8 years. Credible, independent attempts to determine how many civilians the Obama administration has killed arrived at numbers in the hundreds or low thousands. And there is good reason to believe that they undercount the civilians killed.

Suddenly, Donald Trump's proposal seems far less controversial... Obama killing hundreds of innocent bystanders may, indeed, be creating new terrorists en masse — without making the bad guys hesitate for a second. On contrast, targeting (for killing or even detention) families of the same bad guys may give them a pause.

Oh, and how could we forget that he wants to kill the families of terrorists [...] He wants to put ground troops in Syria to fight ISIS

So, you would not go after terrorist's families (the way they would go after yours) and you would not send soldiers into Syria (though Obama already has). How would you fight ISIS?

He also pledged to crack down on internet porn

Seriously? That's more like a joke...

Now, parts of this pledge are great - specifically, sections 1-3 I like. Section 4 is a crock of shit,

So you liked the concrete promises, but dislike the promise to "give serious consideration" to something? Boy, aren't you hard to please...

All that being said, I won't be voting for Hillary either. Neither major party candidate is, in my opinion, fit to be POTUS.

And yet, one of them will be. You can vote for the insufficiently perfect Trump, or for a crooked liar Clinton. Make up your mind and don't you dare to dodge the choice come November.

You can encourage creation of multiple software vendors so that the competition between them keeps them all user-friendly and honest.

Or you can declare a "market failure" and establish a single-payer anti-virus protection for all — even the poorest and the otherwise disadvantaged.

Up to you, really...

I'd say Trump would be way, way worse for the US than Hillary would be

And what, pray tell, is so awful about Trump? Please, enumerate a few things you find particularly disagreeable. If you are going to list any promises or statements by him, please, be sure to include links to where he made them (not somebody else building a strawman or two).

America's media — only 7% of them being Republicans — would try to help a Democratic nominee against any Republican. Had the party nominated anyone else — Cruz or Rubio or Bush or whoever, they would've attacked him just as viciously.

Chances are, your own anti-Trump opinions are subliminally formed by these guys' efforts rather than something especially bad he did or said... Hence my question and the insistence on evidence.

People are incompetent in computer security and dishonest? Give me a break. GOOGLE and MICROSOFT are fucking incompetent at computer security.

Have there been corporate e-mails leaked from Google or Microsoft? I don't think so...

Humbler people recognize their incompetence and use services provided by experts. Hillary Clinton, evidently, is not one of them — in her desire to hide her official communications from the future FOIA-requests, she put it all (including the national secrets) on her own server (and chose the worst platform imaginable for it too).

And people are dishonest all over. [...] Trump is a fucking idiot.

So, you are justifying the dishonesty of the DNC in general and Hillary Clinton in particular by Trump being "idiot"? Is that your argument?

Trump is infinitely worse

-1 Offtopic.

Or, maybe, you are trolling? That must be it... And I almost fell for it...

The idea, that Russians are behind this is a red herring. Put out by anonymous sources it serves only to change the topic — from the contents of the e-mails and the negligence of the Democratic officials (including their Presidential nominee).

According to Assange, for example, Wikileaks got their data from DNC-sources including the misteriously murdered Seth Conrad Rich.

Maybe, Russians were involved too, maybe not. But the facts remain: DNC officials (including Hillary Clinton herself) are incompetent in computer security and dishonest.