A mini Linux computer should have TWO ethernet jacks. Some project ideas are harder to implement without two ethernet jacks.
Software could bridge the two ethernet jacks so that all packets flow transparently between them as if it were an ordinary cable. Thus, it can be placed inline between the wall jack and an unsuspecting office PC. Call it a "hard drive optimizer" or something like that. The user is supposed to install it.
The device can look for interesting traffic passing through, and log it.
Later, at convenient times, the device can phone home with data. The phone home part can be made to look pretty innocent. It could use the MAC address and IP address of the PC that it already knows it's attached to. Be sure not to stomp on ports or connections that might be ongoing from the PC. It would also make sure response packetes to it's own connections do not make it back to the PC it sits in front of. Make simple, innocent HTTPS connections to the mother ship and ex filtrate the data collected.
MITM attacks may also be possible. Especially if you can persuade the user to insert a USB stick that installs a new trusted root CA cert.
The device can try to launch phishing or other attacks against the PC, but without introducing any of that traffic onto the rest of the office's network.
This project could be enhanced by having a transparent network proxy so that all HTTP requests for images return Lol Cat images of the same dimensions.
Youngsters can have all sorts of fun with an inexpensive toy like this. Not to mention the education potential.
A killer may have a valid justification, at least in his own mind.
But there are social norms. There are a few, specific reasons that society generally accepts as justification for killing.
There are other norms about what is acceptable speech. Surely an idea, like a policy idea can be fashioned in a way that is not hate speech. That said, others can take offense to anything that anyone says. But again there are norms. This particular post, nor your post above it would be considered hate speech by most people.
I suppose a religion can express its doctrines. Nobody should be forced to listen. Probably adherents of any sane religion would accept that nobody should be forced to listen.
You raise interesting questions that make things less clear cut. But clearly speech advocating violence or diminished rights against any group should be a problem.
I do think hate speech and political speech are two different things. And neither one should be labeled as the other. Expressing policy ideas can be done in a coherent manner, using complete sentences, and not be hate speech. It's been done for ages.
> Funny how disagreeing with anything the left says is hate speech now.
I think hate speech has a definition. Even the name of it is a very brief definition. If I were to try to sum it up, I would say it is speech that is hateful, threatening or discriminatory towards identifiable groups of people -- whether minorities or not. For example, it is also possible to have hate speech against a majority group.
It has nothing to do with 'right' or 'left'.
If you want to spew hate towards certain groups, then go find your own 'safe zone' to spew it. Good luck trying to get the victims or targets of your hate to come into your 'safe zone'.
You can disagree with people without having to engage in hate speech. If you don't know the difference, then shut up.
You use your own platform to talk and communicate any way you want.
Facebook or any other platform does not have any obligation to host it.
The beauty of the internet is that everyone has a printing press. You don't have to use someone else's press. You can set up your own. And nobody else should be required to "print" your speech if they don't wish to.
Your talking and communicating isn't in danger. Only your ability to force it upon other people.
I would point out FoxNews, CNN and others as an example. Each of them can publish what their owners want. They aren't forced to publish certain views. And if you don't like what they say, you're not forced to watch it any more than you are forced to go to facebook.
Clue: some of us don't even have FaceTwit accounts and never will.
I don't think it is workable to try to go after criminal thoughts. But once expressed into language, it is possible to protect from hate speech.
It is definitely possible to go after criminal actions. That includes hate crimes. Criminal actions begin with criminal thoughts, but the actions are externalized, affect other people, recognizable and actionable.
I don't think Donald Trump, or any other candidate should get special treatment on this.
It is not so much the number of police interactions that disturbs me. It's the nature of them.
Once upon a time, police interactions were more of the form "how are you doing?", "have a nice day", etc.
Police acted like members of a community rather than an occupying military invasion force against a domestic insurgency.
Remember the saying, if you treat people like children, they'll act like children? If you treat people like a military enemy (including shooting them with military gear), then they'll start to act like a military enemy.
Ad networks should have to pay their own freight. If they're going to start playing a video through the ad, they darn well ought to be paying for that bandwidth.
How about the ISPs charge ad networks to be zero rated?
And ad networks that aren't zero rated are blocked by the ISP.
I think I like that plan.
My ISP gets more money from the advertiser.
If the advertiser is paying to be zero rated, then my user agent will block the ad at my own browser. So I'm still safe and secure and oblivious to having web pages polluted with twitching screaming blinking seizure inducing ads.