 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/04/sweden_wiretap_bill/
>
> Actually, the scary part is the comments... Jesus, I thought *I* was
> paranoid and delusional... o_O
>
Ain't nothin' wrong with paranoia; it's required for all sysadmins and
related functions. Delusional is also ok 'cos you can delude yourself
into thinking you're doing something really important at 'ork
:-) :-)
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/04/sweden_wiretap_bill/
"The Pirate Party takes no position on the right / left issues, or other
issues which are outside our political program"
I never really thought of that benefit of a parlimentary system. You can
actually run with the intent to get one specific area fixed, such as
copyright law, and you don't have to take any particular stance on
terrorism, abortion, or welfare to get elected. Kewl.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:05:50 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Doctor John wrote:
>
>> ...what sort of intelligence agreements does Sweden have and with who?
>
> Hmm - you have any idea how much data flows through AN ENTIRE COUNTRY
> per day?
>
> Quite a bit.
>
> So they can scan this data - what are they going to DO with it? Not a
> lot, is my guess...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:31:14 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> It's illegal for our government to spy on us,
That reportedly hasn't stopped the current administration from doing just
that...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:31:14 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>
>> It's illegal for our government to spy on us,
>
> That reportedly hasn't stopped the current administration from doing just
> that...
>
> Jim
Agreed. It seems that too often democratically elected governments seem
to think that since they make the laws they are not necessarily bound by
them - a modification of the Leona Helmsley priciple methinks.
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:49:59 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:31:14 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>
>>> It's illegal for our government to spy on us,
>>
>> That reportedly hasn't stopped the current administration from doing
>> just that...
>>
>> Jim
> Agreed. It seems that too often democratically elected governments seem
> to think that since they make the laws they are not necessarily bound by
> them - a modification of the Leona Helmsley priciple methinks.
Yeah. I didn't vote for Bush either time, but I'm constantly amazed at
what I perceive as the "the law can't touch us" mentality in the
administration.
I won't even start on FISA....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John <doc### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Agreed. It seems that too often democratically elected governments seem
> to think that since they make the laws they are not necessarily bound by
> them - a modification of the Leona Helmsley priciple methinks.
I'd say it's more the classical principle of "the end justifies the
means". From the point of view of the gornment bending the law is
justified if the reason for doing it is good enough. For example,
averting terrorism is a good goal, and if reducing people's privacy
(even against existing laws) is necessary to do that, it's justified.
Of course this just causes the moral dilemma of "two wrongs don't make
a right": Trying to avert evil by doing evil yourself might not be the
proper way.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:05:50 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Hmm - you have any idea how much data flows through AN ENTIRE COUNTRY
> per day?
>
> Quite a bit.
They recently acquired number five on this list:
http://www.top500.org/lists/2007/11
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I'd say it's more the classical principle of "the end justifies the
> means". From the point of view of the gornment bending the law is
> justified if the reason for doing it is good enough. For example,
> averting terrorism is a good goal, and if reducing people's privacy
> (even against existing laws) is necessary to do that, it's justified.
I agree with everything except for the "is justified" bit.
Passing constitutionally sound laws to do just that is fine. "I
violated the law to secure the country in the absence of a known threat
that is generally more benign than, say, a war" isn't.
--
If you ate pasta and antipasta, would you still be hungry?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > I'd say it's more the classical principle of "the end justifies the
> > means". From the point of view of the gornment bending the law is
> > justified if the reason for doing it is good enough. For example,
> > averting terrorism is a good goal, and if reducing people's privacy
> > (even against existing laws) is necessary to do that, it's justified.
> I agree with everything except for the "is justified" bit.
I didn't say it's justified. I said that governments usually think it's
justified.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
