How do people still believe that tradition or common practice justifies a terrible practice?
We also torture and throw wrongful convictions by the hundreds into inhumane prisons. Not that I'm saying that DRM on a computer game is of the same caliber of heinous crime as wrongfully imprisoning people into dungeons. But the notion of that's just the way it's done is an appeal to the continuation of madness.
In my head this keeps coming back to the Capone case. We couldn't peg him on anything so we engaged in a very creative interpretation of the law (Tax Evasion and then with some fuzzy logic to extend the statute of limitations so that Capone was still culpable).
It's okay because we know Capone was a dirtbag, right?
Except that it served as a precedent for practice that now extends to non-dirtbags. The state decided it could get away with creative interpretation and now it's abused all. the. fucking. time.
Back to the present, Dotcom's case is showing a corruption of justice. The DoJ's actions against Dotcom is (amongst a ton of other incidents) raising the validity of the US Courts to fairly adjudicate.
And that means that all our prisoners, much like the prisoners in North Korea, are not criminal prisoners but political prisoners. Right down to the psycho-killers and terrorists that we know did it.
That means that Mansion and Kaczynski may yet get their reprieve, on USA Bastille day.
That it would be if it was argued that it was done in error or thanks to a convoluted interpretation of the law.
Like when we decide that torture is legal and that mass surveillance is legal and denying human beings rights without due process is legal it weakens the notion that legal in the US has anything to do with what is right or good.
And then when a person advocate that the legality of such things is based on it being right, that would raise question as to that person's own sense of morality.
Let me guess: you figure that since Leaseweb deleted the servers since the DoJ wouldn't cover the cost nor would they release Dotcom's assets so that he could out-of-pocket, that the DoJ wasn't culpable?
Or were you just trying to deny the events as they happened?
Relying on such semantics is sleazy. Don't do that.
First, we have sucky laws. People commit three felonies a day on average, thanks to sucky laws.
Then we have sucky due process. Someone's abducted by the police at the wrong place at the wrong time and then they lie about it to secure a conviction. Judges favor police testimony over video that contradicts it. This is so common that we probably have more false convictions in the prison system than those actually guilty (we don't know -- due process is the means by which we measure such things).
And then, the reason that guns are in the hands of people is to discourage and if necessary to retaliate when our laws and due process get too sucky. Our Bill-of-Rights framers knew that human liberties only had a half-life and that only the Sword of Damocles would keep our administrators in line.
Every dissenter who would dare to take action would fall out of that subset you call law abiding citizens.
To be fair, I'm ranting. You only described gun control and inferred that you're advocating it.
Somehow I get the feeling you're speaking in a hypothetical, pretending that such a contact would be easy to locate, but don't really know.
But also, considering that those who might own the IP won't deal legitimately but are hot to litigate if someone even tries, maybe this is a situation where bootleg developers should have their chance.
Acting like a jackass within the law is still acting like a jackass.
If we treated acts of terrorism not as a political act but as a criminal act (say, the way we did the Oklahoma City Bombing or the assassination of George Tiller) then terror as a means of affecting political change would fail.
By giving terrorism recognition as a political action, our society enables terrorism to affect political change.
Of course that does facilitate the military-industrial complex who profits heavily from the war on terror, which is why we have one, even through a war on slippery bathtubs would save more lives.
So no, I'd say we shouldn't do anything against terrorism at least no more than we regard any other heinous crime.
Sadly that would also remove all accountability by representatives to their constituents. The voter would genuinely voting for the person as he is with his own conscienc, rather than the person he campaigned and promised to be.
Not that campaign promises matter much currently.
A late solution would be to develop secure internet voting and create a participatory democracy. But that is many, many steps from the US system today.
Which is a risk that every other one of us takes every day in the US, and in other nations you have to risk every time you leave your home that other people won't intentionally stab you or run you over with their motor vehicles.
If the per-capita lost of life of on-duty police officers was more than, say, then number of store clerks who die on the job, they might have a point. But it's not. And yet they're doing drive-by shootings of children in the park.
Police seem to already believe that the people of the US are united in revolt against them and their authority. I suspect that eventually that's going to serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy.