In terms of costs and benefits, I would rather be "responsible" for the next terrorist attack because I complained, instead of responsible for the next step into an Orwellian dystopia because I did not complain.
+1 on this. I'm a fan of John Green. It took him a little under an hour to apply for coverage under the ACA, even with multiple server failures. He only had to answer a few questions. On the other side, took him over 2 hours to apply on a site that was available both before and after ACA, he had to answer pretty much every health question imaginable and describe every visit or discussion with a doctor for the past 10 years.
So yes, the website has issues. Yes, it should've been done by a company that had more experience on the web. It is far from perfect. But despite all that, it is still better than what was there before (just like the law itself). Which for a government as disfunctional as ours, is almost amazing.
Another result is that the Feds have lots of sites to now hold up and evidence that they need massively more powerful tools to stop them.
In addition to tools, they need funding. Massive funding, and resources, and people, and beauracracy.
When you are in government, you need to understand the "game" you're playing. Winning does not involve solving a problem. If you solve a problem, you've put yourself out of a job. The object is to manage a problem, such that you can continue to manage it for years or decades.
"The point is that a government inept enough to have the kind of laughable security for legal proceedings sure as hell can't be trusted with my phone records. Period, paragraph, end of story."
1000 times this. Huge amounts of data like the NSA has on people would be a treasure trove for identity thieves and hackers using social engineering. It's bad enough the government has it, let alone that they can't secure it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOR could Techdirt's "report" button, eh?
You're making the assumption that OOTB is trying to add to the discussion in his own misguided way.
He's not. He is trolling and intentionally trying to disrupt the conversation. That's why nearly all of his comments get hidden, because most of the community has wised-up to his methods.
If he actually wants to have a conversation about the merits of any particular viewpoint, he can do so by stopping the trolling and spamming. Since he's poisoned his name so badly, all he's gotta do is stop using the one we skip over as soon as we see the author.
The line of thought you're exspousing sounds an awful lot like the mirror image of the fear-mongerers. Discussion of issues, and introduction of legislation, no matter how stupid, is not anti-American. The legislation itself may be, but we should never stoop to their level and start labeling people as anti-American. Let them introduce the legislation, and then in a functioning democracy, the people can object to kill or fix it, and vote them out of office for being stupid at the first oppurtunity.