The public needs to know whether or not these systems, among others, are being used legally and pass constitutional muster. Mass surveillance (a.k.a. "bulk collections") is a pretty bold concept to press (nay, insist) legality.
Or perhaps you would like to submit that we are kept man that can be tapped and tracked at will by a government that has twisted your best interests to serve its own?
Our new Technological Tools of Tyranny are not under the proper lock and key. Trust no one.
A killing? You mean like the type of killing audio and visual arts folks stand to make if fair use actually is allowed to thrive and prosper without the constant barrage of mind-numbingly greed and control based assertions and attacks?
I'm reminded of a good quote I heard the voices in my head say one day: "With nothing but a vote in one hand and a gun in the other how much longer do you think it'll be until you force the other hand?"
.. but I seem to maybe distinctly remember looking around and not having any guns to hold so I started sharpening my chopsticks. .. if you can't get hold of any guns then save your takeout sticks. That's all I have to say.
I came across similar big-government vitriol where I'd read Wheeler's remarks. Your fear of a huge boogey-man government is already here. Ever heard of the list of undeclared wars? Are you aware of the prison population? Those are things your taxes pay for. Are you aware of the large tax money awards that these large providers have taken? Do you know what a utility even is? Common carrier? Broadcast Service? Now if you folks would kindly be so vociferous about the very real, very large and very powerful entities within the already too big government then I'd be obliged. Perhaps stop being afraid that someone is going to take something from you that they haven't earned because it's already happening and you seem to have nary a clue. I do admire the collective enthusiasm though but do hope that future focus groups can better evaluate their respective positions with regards to reality.
let's make drugs illegal because drug use is known to cause some criminal behaviors. brilliant. that would definitely solve the problem of crime. we should've thought of this four decades ago, imagine where we'd all be to be free of drug induced crimes. if only we had more crime we could blame on things instead of the people committing them.
Encryption is the ONLY solution and the public should adopt it at every possible opportunity. Your protect your "goods" from the casual AND targeted hack. Guaranteed government keys are not acceptable, in any way or form. The rule of law is not predicated on government or law enforcement access to communications and content. "Accessorizing" for enforcement purposes stands in direct opposition to the social contract that is law. Military espionage tools have gone too far and the burden on law, the real law, is fracturing the premise.
I think the door was always open. Wasn't that OBL's objective? "Watch me light a huge bag of shit on fire on their doorstep." ... Hook, line and sinker. The free world can't get out of its own way. Budding fascists on one side and some sort of religious doomsday "our way or the highway" head chopping mother fuckers on the other. Who is stuck in-between? Everyone else. Fuck terrorism and fuck the police and fuck content control.
France.. really? What the actual fuck? We can be a smarter world without being constantly tossed by fringe elements. Speech is not one of those elements. Fuck.
I don't know about everyone else but I'm growing pretty tired of the "needs of law enforcement" mantra. We choose to be governed by the rule of law and not by and for the ease of law enforcement. Those are the wrong rules. If you can not fight crime without further elevating the already disproportionately elevated "police powers" because "hard" then we have a problem and people are going to start choosing .. differently.
There should be no allowable evidence where the ways & means to acquire it are not open to the court.
It would seem that any gun charges need to go and any information acquired via these searches needs to go along with it. He gets to be arrested and charged with whatever justified the warrant for his arrest prior to his arrest.
You can't break the law in order to enforce the law. That makes no sense.
I would think that progress, in this context, is realized only by using any given work to create another and so, in effect, your usage of the word progress is entirely and exactly the opposite. Long lengths only has potential to create "profit" - bereft of progress.
For "the life of the author" is progress defeating and that is most clear with regards to that author. His own potential for progress has been unwittingly truncated where that one work is concerned. That defeat of progress increases exponentially the longer works are held from the public domain. That's why "limited" is crucial to "progress".
Specifically, "limited" has been distorted beyond what is reasonable, "Authors and Inventors" has been distorted to include myriad groups of folks and "Progress" has been nonsensically twisted into profit. All of these distortions are detriments to progress.
As for my own ideas of what "limited" might actually mean when "Progress" is, once again, the intention then I might think that 14 years, a single extension of same and then a fee (say a 35% renewal fee based on the previous 14 year period for that work's taxable income) for another 14 year extension. Five 14 year periods maximum granting up to 70 years for any "Writings and Discoveries". 14+14+(35%@14(x3)) - So, either works enter the public domain or one pays for the privilege of a 70 year lock up. ... and no others.
I think we should have this allowance for copyright: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.