Interception in the UK 131
An anonymous reader sent in the following: "A story on Techwire discusses the
UK government proposal to require providers of digital communications services to make available interception capabilities for
all pagers, IP telephony, email etc. As usual, the US Feds have some involvment in this.
" Quite distressing. Even VPNs are covered.
Re:Interception - the other side of the coin (Score:1)
Yes, I currently have nothing to hide, yet that is no reason for me to arbitrarily give my privacy rights to someone else.
See, eventually, if all this "listening" goes into effect, some day, some crazy (Hitler, Big Brother, or probably something worse) will get into a leadership position of world government and will abuse the shit out of that power, and for the first time in human history, the general population, once it becomes enraged by the atrocities, will be unable to coordinate to change/overthrow this sick person as the minute they try to discuss it, they are instantly "listened" and then the secret police show up and kill you and your family.
Don't say it wont happen. Study the history of EVERY government that has ever existed. Sadly, it always happens.
Re:A virtual line in the sand... (Score:1)
When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, and when they came for the Gays, I said nothing...
etc...
And when they came for me, there was no one to say anything,,,
Where IS the line? I think it is right here and now.
http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/
Re:Yep (Score:1)
Re:This is out of control... (Score:1)
Re:Interception - the other side of the coin (Score:1)
Thus, the police only get to monitor legal activities, and small time criminals who don't know what they're doing.
And you do have plenty to hide. The fact that your mother has piles, your credit card details, your little brother Billy's problems with women. I don't see why we should tell our governments these things while the criminals still get to hide their activities.
I don't a fuck for SS, gov't ed, drug war (Score:1)
Ayn Rand/Orwell aside, the gov't is not Big Brother. WE ARE when we are too scared to read an article that disagrees with us, when we wait for news to slap in the face instead of giving it some thought and realizing how fucked up the media really is, when we're more afraid of being assaulted than living a life as numb-souled husks gasping for air in towns where there's a church at the end of every damned street.
Hello you're ignoring Political Memetics... (Score:1)
Re:A virtual line in the sand... (Score:1)
there's a link in slashdot somewhere if you're interested.
Orwell forgot to mention Big Brother is the public (Score:1)
Beware of O'Brien (Implies reading man's and info's and html's to stay ahead of the bastards who tell you they're on your side.)
And big brother is not the gov't. Big Brother is the disorganized but effective collective of parishioners taking their kids CD's and throwing in the street in front of a bulldozer.
The gov't is just a blood sucking beast serving them.
HOME sweet HOME Oceania. When does the 13 minute hate start I wannabe obnoxiously late.
The Taliban's argument. Paper coins burn fast. (Score:1)
This is rather distressing (Score:1)
Btw, I think this is first comment
Re:This is rather distressing (Score:1)
But, if evey ISP has this, then they can see the connection at both ends. They can still find out who you're talking to, if not what you're saying.
Maybe if the EFF built a really really really big server in some country without a net-paranoid/ignorant government, anyone who wanted to could have an e-mail account with them.
Then, all mail sent is sent to that server, and all mail can only be traced as far as there. Even knowing the destination of your packets won't help your ISP
Can't governments go and harass some other group of people
Bah.
let's see (Score:2)
Well, just run IIS, right guys?
You do have to wonder, though. Any system that lets technoignorant lawenforcement snoop is bound to have lots of holes for normal malicious citizens to exploit. Or is it just a matter of handing out root to the local constable.
But then, the English populace never did have many guarantees of privacy or speech or anything, really. At least here in the US, we make the pretense of having such guarantees.
And never mind that police can't be trusted not to torture and mutilate innocent people. I'm not prepared to trust anyone with my online communications whom I can't even trust not to assault my rectum, to put it bluntly.
This makes my skin crawl ... (Score:1)
Before, when governments/law enforcement wanted to subvert the enemy, wouldn't they take pride in being more clever than the enemy, rather than civil rights groups? I think in the era of burgeoning regulation and legislation, law enforcement is taking the easy way out and in the process taking a cheap shot at everyone's rights.
Maybe I'm just a libertarian demagogue, but I don't see how owning bulletproof encryption technology hurts anyone except the lazy intellegence agent who wants to avoid the hassle of getting a search warrant for the physical data repository, i.e. the physical server.
Pardon me for my outburst ...
A virtual line in the sand... (Score:1)
Where is it?
Who are you?
Who is that?
What did he say?
What does he want?
Who is he with?
Did you hear?
Did you hear that?
"I am a law student. I spend a lot of time on this new communications medium that no one owns yet.
"The men are trying to buy it. If they can't buy it, they want to control it. If they can't control it, they will make the speakers fear.
"I believe war has been declared against me. They want me to tell them how to break into my network and monitor my friends.
"Attorney-client privilege mutha fucka; just like the NSA mutha fucka, attorney-client privilege!!!"
eschelon, EU concensus or lack thereof? (Score:1)
As far as monitoring within the EU, I can see a number of memeber nations throwing hissy fits. Wasn't it just within the last decade that Germany started allowing for electronic survailence by domestic authorities? (someone please correct me there)
Re:This is rather distressing (Score:1)
enfopol (Score:2)
This law were redrawn only at the beginning of this month after the European Parliament had already agrred on the law a month before. Now the UK will go their own way, as will many other countries in the European Union that are quite eager to know what people think, do, and feel.
Being a criminal might give an edge then. Thanks! (Score:1)
Dump a server keep the content. Just have a little faith in the Internet community.
Oceania (Score:1)
Re:let's see (Score:2)
Re:Interception - the other side of the coin (Score:1)
It might seem like a good idea now, to give up some civil rights, but what about later...
Once a government (of any kind) determines that it can trick the population into denouncing some civil rights for a "good" purpose another enemy will be found, this enemy could be you for perhaps disagreeing with having all your rights crushed, and another civil right can and most likely will be crushed, because now the people are accustomed to it, it didn't "really" cause any problems last time, why should it now?
Where does this end?
It should end with the first attempt to trample on our (your) civil rights.
Reminds me of a parable (Score:1)
A Quarrel had arisen between the Horse and the Stag, so the Horse came to
a Hunter to ask his help to take revenge on the Stag. The Hunter agreed, but
said: "If you desire to conquer the Stag, you must permit me to place this
piece of iron between your jaws, so that I may guide you with these reins, and
allow this saddle to be placed upon your back so that I may keep steady upon
you as we follow after the enemy." The Horse agreed to the conditions, and the
Hunter soon saddled and bridled him. Then with the aid of the Hunter the Horse
soon overcame the Stag, and said to the Hunter: "Now, get off, and remove
those things from my mouth and back."
"Not so fast, friend," said the Hunter. "I have now got you under bit and
spur, and prefer to keep you as you are at present."
Regarding VPNs... (Score:1)
So it seems to me that an organization wishing to protect itself from government snooping could simply implement a non-tappable VPN using strong encryption of its own choosing. This means that CSPs can't implement truly secure VPNs for their customers, but there is nothing which prevents a customer from implementing a secure VPN for itself.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Score:1)
What to really worry about (Score:1)
So what we need is effective safeguards against abuse. Acknowledge that spying will happen no matter what, but make it accountable.
The fact that the government could be spying on me RIGHT NOW, in my conversations on the phone for example, doesn't make me lose sleep. I haven't seen a lot of demonstrations by concerned citizens saying this has to stop now. If I had something to hide I'd find a way to hide it, and I don't mind if stupid criminals get caught by this process. Basically, I trust the government with this, partly because I have to and partly because I always have. I don't see why, just because there's a new technology that could shut out spying, we should use it that way.
There was a thread [slashdot.org] about this a few months ago, prompted by an interview [zdnet.com] with David Brin. Basically he says there's a problem and an opportunity. The problem is that with new technologies, privacy is threatened (as it always has been, in one way or another). The opportunity is what he calls "two way transparency" -- make sure the spies can be spied upon.
We know the value of Open Source -- similarly there's value in an Open Society. Neither of which prohibits the proprietary/privacy -- it just makes more sense to be Open.
No doubt used against terrorism. Look at China. (Score:1)
Re:You just don't get it (Score:1)
Moon, anybody?
Re:What does guns have to do with anything? (Score:1)
You're wrong.
The right to keep and bear arms is a symbol. It means that the government has the right to take your life, if you have done something to require it, but they do not have the right to make you lie down and take it like a good boy or girl.
Banning guns does not prevent violent crime. It expands it, because criminals know that all law-abiding citizens are now unarmed. The criminals can still get guns of a sort - they are not difficult to make, even without buying one - and now, they don't have to worry about the victim producing a shotgun and blowing their head off. If you think differently, then it's quite simple; don't keep guns. DO NOT tell me not to. The US was founded on this principle; it was a sad, sad day when we forgot it.
As for education, you're quite right. The US public school system sucks rocks. Which proves MY point, not yours. Here, we have the right to simply pull our children from the school system and teach them at home, or in smaller private schools. And if you compare those homeschool and private school children to your schools, we've got YOU beat, not the other way around. Pity you don't have the right to force the same concession, isn't it?
The reason we say it will happen here is that the government is continually trying to force more controls. Remove those freedoms. To the detriment of us all.
"Is it freedom if your cage is larger than the distance you wish to fly?"
"When a place is so crowded as to require IDs and traffic cops, it is time to go elsewhere." The problem being that there is nowhere else to go.
Re:This is rather distressing (Score:1)
Say "baaaaa" like a good little sheep and provide more wool for the government to pull over your eyes.
Re:A virtual line in the sand... (Score:1)
"When they took the Second Amendment, I said nothing because I had no guns.
"When they took the Fifth Amendment, I said nothing because I was not on trial.
"When they took the Fourth Amendment, I said nothing because I was not guilty.
"When they took the First Amendment, I couldn't say anything."
Get the point?
For the British and others who may not know, 2nd Amendment - right to keep and bear arms.
Currently under debate due to Littleton.
5th Amendment - right to refuse to answer at trial.
Currently worthless because the media declares you guilty for its use. And so do the courts.
4th Amendment - Protection unless unlawful persecution from law enforcement (search & siezure, writ of habeus corpus, etc.)
See today's newspapers regarding NYPD or LAPD or FBI.
1st Amendment - Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, movement, etc., etc.
Contrary to popular opinion, this one never existed. Don't believe me? Try burning a flag, being an atheist, loitering with "suspected gang members," or leaving the country.
Re:Problems with your argument. (Score:1)
I think the North Vietnamese would disagree with that argument.
And problems with your argument. (Score:1)
The mistake you're making, and that many others make, is that the right to bear arms has nothing to do with the ability to overthrow the government. That was proven @200 years ago, with John Brown and the Whiskey Rebellion. The weapons John Brown and his associates used were the same weapons as the military had, and all were trained. They still lost; the military had more men, more ammunition, and more supplies. John Brown knew this going in; at his trial, shortly before hanging, he made it clear that he never planned to survive, nor even to win a battle.
So what did it prove?
It proved that the last, true right that every man (and woman) has is the right to fight for your beliefs. And die for them. Alright, so he was fighting against the taxation of liquor. The point is, at that time, it was your right, guaranteed in the Constitution, to protest the actions of the US government by any means at your disposal, including armed rebellion, on the principle that by drawing attention to your cause, the government would be forced to change the rules or face the possibility of a general uprising.
Today, the government has taken away almost everything else. The Montana Freemen faced the same problem; so, in their way, did David Koresh and his followers. With less success, thanks to the vagaries of modern government, the illiteracy of the people and the stupidity or ignorance of the media. As of this week, Congress is (once again) trying to remove the right to physically desecrate the American flag. One more form of political protest gone.
And don't be so sure that modern weaponry makes a fight against an army pointless. There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people. People have been making your assumptions since the Greeks fought the Persians; they were wrong then. You still are. A single, lone fighter, fighting for his home, with only a knife, can be as dangerous and as important as a platoon of soldiers with every weapon known to man.
And your second argument; that proves my point. Rebellion was possible because it wasn't worth the effort to try and hold the colonies; the war with France was more important, much closer to home. That's why we won, certainly. The British thought they could easily reconquer the territory later, say about 1812; it didn't prove to be so easy. The revolution did not succeed so much because Britain didn't fight; it succeeded because the Rebels picked their time, picked their tactics, and picked their battlefield. The same tacts would work today.
freedom..... (Score:1)
And I personally don't see the point. I'm sure there are valid uses for being able to intercept some forms of communication, or to intercept all forms at certain levels, but I see no purpose in imposing upon others your "desire" to be able to intercept all communications at all levels. It smacks of violation of basic human rights, and I don't see how they (the public, the legislators, whomever) are not stomping it into the ground as we speak (unless of course, there is/are completely splendid reasons for this interception business, in which case, I apologize, and I'd certainly like to know what those splendid reasons are).
Other than that, I say: give me privacy or give me death!
Re:Regarding VPNs... (Score:1)
In the Netherlands, about about every ISP is a CSP as well. Not that they supply any kind of telecom service, but they give access to a public network (in casu the Internet).
Dutch CSPs are likely to be forced to give the DoJ some tapping possibilities. But it's likely that those ISPs will advice their customers to use encrypted connections - it the DoJ's challenge to decrypt the stuff again, I think (which is unlikely to happen).
Re:Problems with your argument. (Score:1)
Re:What does guns have to do with anything? (Score:1)
Speaking as an armed agent of the state, I am all for gun control. I already have all the guns I could ever need. I legally bought and confiscated them years ago. Additional gun control laws won't bother me in the least, but will help to ensure my safety while carrying out my 'business'. I FEAR armed citizens.
One of the advantages of being an agent is that I did not have to get my guns 'legally', so nobody (including my governors - the people of this land) knows what guns I have and where I have them so they will never be able to take them away from me.
Now that I hear about this enforced lack of privacy, I couldn't be happier. Soon I will have access to this fine technology too. Legally, of course. And since slashdot wants to remain a good law abiding website, I'll have all its data too. I'll soon know who you all are and where you all live. And thanks to your expressed beliefs, I now know which of you are for gun control too. Chances are, you gun control supporters don't own guns yourselves (especially you, Lars). You'll make things easier for me.
Then I'll be able to do whatever I want with you.
Be seeing you.
Rough, but there you go.
Re:You just don't get it (Score:1)
Yep, you can leave the country. In Libertarian theory, the owner of property can set just about any rules on anyone who wants to stay on that property, a la neighborhood HOAs. Consider the Constitution et al as a super HOA agreement covering the U.S., and everything is *perfectly* Libertarian.
Deeds to property are granted by Federal and/or State authorities. Don't fall under the foolish assumption that any individual owns property outright.
Re:eschelon, EU concensus or lack thereof? (Score:1)
The future of the internet... (Score:1)
Or maybe I made the wrong statement. The future of the internet doesn't hinge on these events, since everyone will download a slightly older version of PGP (So we know it hasn't been tampered with) and sign/encrypt all messages with 2048bit keys. The correct statement is the future of *NIXs hinge on these events. Nothing would bring the evolution of Linux quicker than a public need/outcry for an operating system where nearly everything is encrypted and secured by the operating system. Plus, since Linux (Not necessairly *BSD) isn't owned by a corporation, the gov't can't force anyone to allow security holes. Even if Linus is forced to make changes to the kernel, all we would have to do is take the existing secure kernel code and have someone else work on it. The gov't can't stop information once it is disseminated to the masses.
Re:Smirk...the special friendship between the nati (Score:1)
I have no problems with you. You have no problems with me. Our governments are acting like spoiled children, yes. So, let's solve that. There's a reference up above to oceania.org [oceania.org]; it is, in fact, defunct/bankrupt. At any rate, no one is doing anything with the page or with anything else. So, let's do it ourselves.
Re:What does guns have to do with anything? (Score:1)
The USA has the unenvious world record for unvoluntary children homicides by guns.
Bannings Guns? Yes. When you need one to negotiate property boundaries, you are in serious trouble: call it social cancer if you want.
FYI: for many of us (other carbon based life forms) the simple idea of using a weapon of some form to harm a fellow lifeform is nauseating.
Re:Interception - the other side of the coin (Score:1)
Just use anonymous remailers (Score:2)
Re:Don't know about you but.... (Score:1)
These guys are morons. Nobody owns the world of numbers. And nobody understands numbers better than geeks (us) do.
Game's already over. We won. There's no way to enforce this shit in the US without a soviet-style Surveillance scheme, where everyone is monitored all the time.
We also have a very cool 2nd amendment. (guns for everyone) We may soon have to excercise it, if this stuff continues.
Re:What does guns have to do with anything? (Score:1)
Seriously, I agree with you that we can both find numbers to back ourselves up. I will, however, counter a few points you made:
To me, that sounds like a big price to pay for a symbol.
Is it? Men (and women) will often die for symbols but not for real, tangible goals. Nobody ever jumped off on an assault certain to bring heavy casualties shouting "A higher standard of living!" or "A better socio-economic landscape!" No, they charge into machine gun fire shouting "Remember the Alamo!" and reciting phrases like "Duty, Honor, Country."
No, I know that's not what you meant. There are, of course, costs associated with widespread gun ownership. There are also costs associated with freedom of religion - such as having to listen to evangelical "Christians" hounding me about my faith. (Now THERE's a use for a handgun!) As a matter of fact, there are costs for every single "right" and privelage we have.
I think that is bull, but both of us will have problems finding hard numbers to prove our points.
I think you're right, we will have a hard time finding hard numbers. I could show statistics from the US showing that crime rates rise every time guns are restricted; but then there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics." Besides, I don't feel like it. ;) Instead, I will simply state that the argument of removing guns from law-abiding citizens will reduce crime makes no sense to me or anyone who got a C+ or better in basic logic. My main reason for arguing against restricting guns is that no society, going back to ancient greece, has ever survived such a restriction. Sure, sure, modern times are different, this situation has never happened before, and this time it won't happen. Uh-huh. And I'm sure the Spartans argued the same point, and I'm sure they lost as thoroughly as I probably will. Doesn't mean I'm wrong. They weren't.
Hmmm... no. Although you remind me of someone... oh yeah, me! ;)
If the victims didn't have guns, criminals would be less inclined to carry or use them as well since they didn't have to worry about having their heads blown off, ever consider that? It's a good circle! :-)
Stupid ones might. Smart ones would say "The more ability I have to threaten my victim, the less likely they will be to make a fuss. A gun is the greatest means at my disposal. Therefore I will use a gun." At least I would.
Besides, I believe manufacturing a good handgun is more difficult than you claim, especially if sales of ammo and gunpowder was limited as well. I would much prefer to face a criminal armed with some home made pipe gun than a state of the art semi-automatic military issue thingy.
I didn't say "good" nor did I say "handgun." I speak from experience; as a child I made a black-powder musket from information at the library. Ground my own powder, fired a ball-bearing through a lead pipe. Crude, yes, but it worked. I would never use one against someone armed with an assault rifle, but if the government took away all guns, I wouldn't need to worry about it, now would I?
No, but seriously. I might have been a bit careless. When I said "ban guns" above, I did not mean the complete banning of guns. I meant banning the sale of stuff like assault rifles and armour piercing bullets, strict background checks at all times (including gun shows), and bans against carrying firearms in public. That's my view. But we live on different continents, and if someone is in the position to limit anyones rights, its you who can harm me, so the point is moot anyway.
Good, point's moot, I win. ;) Seriously, I would agree with the assualt rifles and armor-piercing rounds bans, although I would prefer restrictions. Levels, perhaps. Convicted felons - not so much as a pea shooter. Kids - likewise. Permitted to get a permit with their guardian's permission, provided the guardian accepts total responsibility. Adults - rifles, handguns, and so on, provided they pass firearms safety tests and background checks. And one other level, perhaps members of a militia such as the national guard, allowed to purchase assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons.
The point is that as far as firearms go, there's a sharp and harsh curve where the stupid and foolish will inevitably cause problems. Which is not a sufficient argument for restricting them.
Do you think it's OK if only the kids of a rich elite gets a good education in the US? What good does it do if 5% are very intellectual if the remaining 95% are ignorant and easy to manipulate?
No, of course not. But that's not what happens. So far as grammar and high school goes, that is to the age of 18, most of the home-schooled children are middle-class. Rich kids are almost invariably sent to public schools, since they don't need intelligence to get ahead, or sent to expensive boarding schools. I would infinitely prefer for public schools to improve to the point that I would trust my child's education to them, but I don't see it happening. Therefore I value my right to avoid it.
Then we agree. Only not on the details. :-)
Basically. This is getting longer than I had planned, but I think we agree more than we disagree. The disagreements are important, but not critical.
I would like to make one last point. In the wake of the Littleton shootings, there has been a wave of anti-gun laws being rushed into legislation. Considering that the guns used were purchased illegally from someone who got them under conditions that would be legal even under the new laws, I fail to see the point. There will always be illegal weapons. There will always be murders. Trying to stop them is like trying to stop the tide with a broom; you get wet, tired, and a bad taste in your mouth, but you don't get anywhere.
Re:What does guns have to do with anything? (Score:1)
1- Algeria (France);
2- The French in Indochina: they got out too late;
3- Vietnam: they got out too late in disregard of DeGaulle's (VLQL) warning to JFK to keep out!
4- Afghanistan: well... they didn't learn the above lessons.
In all these cases, well armed and well trained armies were defeated by (hum) inferior forces!
Moral: Guerrilla warfare is always a lose/lose conflict!
Re:What does guns have to do with anything? (Score:1)
>>against oppression, and the UK beats you hands
>>down there as well in all international tests.
>
>I'm pretty sure that Pol Pot has more than
>proved that arguement is wrong. Please remember
>that one of the first things they did was kill
>all the EDUCATED people. And they killed them
>with guns.
..meaning they were more frightened of educated people than of guns, and rightly so. There were guns in Cambodia. That didn't stop Pol Pot from getting into power, and easy access to guns made it possible for them to continue their reign of terror. So you see, it proves me right.
>Apparently a well educated citizenry doesn't know how to spell 'citizenry'.
Oh, spell flames against someone writing in a foreign language. That's brave.
>Only a few people die in the US from firearms
>each year. Very few of those casualties
>are 'innocent'.
*In 1995, 14 children, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns every day in this country [USA].
*In 1996, 10,744 people were murdered with firearms in this country.
*In 1996, there were only 176 justifiable handgun homicides by private citizens in the United States.
http://www.handguncontrol.org/protecting/D4/d4f
Do you call this few? I call that a lot, and I think it is sick.
>Now compare that to the 13 MILLION unarmed jews
>and others killed by the Nazi's. And the 20
>MILLION unarmed civilians killed by the Soviets.
>And the 20 MILLION unarmed chinese killed in the
>cultural revolution. And the 100 THOUSAND
>unarmed Maya killed in Guatemala. And the 300
>THOUSAND unarmed christian political dissidents
>killed in Uganda.
Oh, so you know they were all unarmed, do you? That's a lot of unarmed people.
>And if you think it can't happen here, please
>tell that to the Black Panthers. Or the
>protestors at Kent State. Or the Native
>Americans for that matter. Especially those that
>died at Wounded Knee (both times).
What do these examples tell me except that appearently Americans believe that violence is a great way to solve problems? It isn't.
More guns just mean more paranoia and more risk that someone on either side will open fire.
Re:What does guns have to do with anything? (Score:1)
>control. I already have all the guns I could
>ever need. I illegally bought and stole them
>years ago. Additional gun control laws won't
>bother me in the least, but will help to ensure
>my safety while carrying out my 'business'. I
>HATE armed victims.
I reiterate: Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.
More guns means more death. Less guns means less death.
>One of the advantages of being a criminal is
>that I did not have to get my guns 'legally', so
>nobody (including your government) knows what
>guns I have and where I have them so they will
>never be able to take them away from me.
When you use them, you will be revealed. If you don't use them, no one is hurt. Also, the hardened premeditaded criminal who stockpiles guns is probably rarer than you think. Compare with the situation in Britain:
"One important effort to tighten domestic controls is the ban on handguns currently being implemented in the United Kingdom. In February 1997, a new UK law banned private possession of handguns of greater than
The February ban on handguns greater than
>Now that I hear about this enforced lack of privacy, I couldn't be happier.
That will be defeated. Believe me.
>And thanks to your expressed beliefs, I now know
> which of you are for gun control too. Chances
>are, you gun control supporters don't own guns
>yourselves (especially you, Lars). You'll make
>easy cash opportunities for me.
Quite right, I don't own a gun. Three times people have tried to rob me, once in Sweden and twice (the same night!) in Barcelona, Spain. The thing is, I didn't have a gun, and neither did the robbers. I managed to get out of the situation all three times without losing my money or getting hurt by using my wits. You see, brains is more important than guns.
I believe if either of us had had guns, and especially both of us had had guns, the chance that I would be sitting here this fine Sunday morning blabbing on the net would have been significantly less.
>Be seeing you.
Neat! You are welcome. Oh yeah...now I remember.
Cheers,
Lars
Re:What to really worry about (Score:1)
Roughly, "Who will guard the guardians?" The problem is that there is no way to do what you suggest. How in the hell are we supposed to monitor the use of the government's power? The only way would be a watchdog comittee. Ooooo, now there's a good idea. Half of these groups are as bad as the government, and the other half are worse. The only person I trust with my secrets is me. And that's the only person who's going to get the chance.
I think we need SSL encryption for /. We also need a forum for encryption techniques. Perhaps even discussion of the best means of protecting our privacy in spite of government controls.
If you actually believe that tripe you're spouting, then go bleat with the other sheep.
Re:What does guns have to do with anything? (Score:1)
>Perhaps you should read up on Lord Cornwallis and his problems in North America circa 1776-1781.
The military situation of 200 years ago has little relevance to modern warfare.
>>A well EDUCATED citizinry is the best tool
>>against oppression, and the UK beats you hands
>>down there as well in all international tests.
>So what happened to you? Or doesn't the
>wonderful British school system teach "America
>kicks Geaorge III's Ass 101" along with
>spelling?
I'm not British, I'm Swedish. I apologize for any spelling errors that might have offended you, but I am writing in a foreign language, see?
I have studied history, but as I said before, and as another poster explained, the military situation in those days were quite different.
Sheep dressed in wolf's clothing? (Score:1)
Let's see how that maps in other spheres...
The only person I trust with my education is me.
The only person I trust with my defense is me.
The only person I trust with my transportation is me.
The only person I trust with my health and safety is me.
I agree that we should have a healthy distrust about government, but it seems to me we do rely on it, whether we like it or not. And the only realistic hope is to make it better, not get rid of it. (BLEAT OFF)
Re:here we go again..... (Score:1)
The cause/effect relationship between gun laws and government monitoring is very simple. When the Bill of Rights was originally instituted as a group of 10 amendments to the constitution, it was a sheer wall, a blanket guarantee of rights. That wall was so high, so sheer, and so strong, that you were safe behind it. You knew that the government would not take away your rights because they had themselves made it illegal. They had little choice; anyone who disagreed with the actions of the government could simply move West and outrun the cloying "protections" of government.
The first breach in the wall was unimportant to most people. Most people can't even remember it. But it was the first.
As time goes by, more rights are abridged and amended. Freedom of assembly? Not if you're a Communist, says McCarthy. Never mind that silly old Constitution, it's time we got rid of that, anyway. Guns? Why would a solid, upstanding citizen need a gun? Only criminals need those. Why, someone could get hurt with one of those things, and then where would we be? Tell you what, since we're sure you're not a criminal and we're sure you're not stupid, we'll take those away from you. You don't need them, after all. We'll let you have these tiny, safe guns instead. You can still hunt with them. You can still target shoot with them. That's all you need it for, right? You don't want to be a criminal, do you? CRACK goes the wall, and big chunks fall out of it. There's now a hole, a breach. Crime rates climb astronomically as criminals now have a marked advantage over their victims. Aha! The government says. Crime is out of control. Obviously, the problem is that the criminals have guns. Well, we can fix that. We should never have let you have those hunting rifles. They're dangerous, you know. Hand 'em over. No, no, can't have you protesting, we know what's best, you know.
CRACK goes the wall.
Crime now climbs even higher. The criminals know that the victims are helpless, now, they can get away with anything because they have all the guns. Cops and police need assault rifles and heavy weapons to be safe on the job, because the criminals are so bold that the police do not frighten them anymore. Law-abiding citizens don't trust the police because they have these weapons, and well, mistakes will happen. Innocent people get gunned down because the police can't afford to wait for proof that the person is dangerous. Citizens stop respecting or helping police. Police stop protecting citizens.
CRACK goes the wall.
Now, the government says, we need to monitor you all 24 hours a day. We're sorry, but we have to, we need to find these criminals. You're not a criminal, right? You've got nothing to hide, right? We won't persecute anyone or any group, we're just after the criminals and the terrorists. As soon as we got all of them, we'll stop. We promise.
And the walls come tumbling down.
And it doesn't end there. Hillary Clinton is running for the Senate, and after that, I bet she'll be after the Presidency. Ever read her book? Ever listen to her speeches? She wants to take away your freedom to teach your children, because, after all, there are some bad parents out there. We need to protect those children, and so we'll just take away your right to raise your children. Surely you were already doing it the right way, right? So it won't matter then, right? Right?
And if you want to look at other countries as relates to crime and guns, OK, let's look at Israel. Lowest violent crime rate in the world, practically. Why? Because at any given time, three or four of those people walking down the street have a loaded sub-machine gun or assault rifle, on their way to or from an army reservist meeting. Who's safer? You, walking alone through Central Park unarmed, or the citizens of Israel, surrounded by assault rifles? Statistics say they are. Wonder why that is?
Clowns! (Score:1)
Speaking as a painted agent of mirth, I have all the cream pies I need. Now that I hear about this enforced lack of privacy, I will invent humiliating practical jokes involving fishes and itching powder. Chances are, I will one day come and go *pfrthththh* in your face!
Be seeing you.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.
Re:A virtual line in the sand... (Score:1)
I know, I tried!
Re:What does guns have to do with anything? (Score:1)
It is, isn't it? But it was actually one pro-gun AC who brought the subject up, not me.
>We are talking here about modern government and
>civil rights. And about how some of us seem to
>have more than others.
Yep. Five countries in the world are primitive enough to execute children. And yours is #1.
If I understand correctly, if you are a black man in the US, chances are that the police will enthusiastically violate your rights.
>Rights are funny things. A lot of people are against them.
Yeah! For instance, I am against your right to kill me. You see, some rights we have to give up if we are going to live together in a working society. We are debating which rights are important enough, right? So "Its too hard", "Let the government decide" "I don't want to think", "I don't want to be responsible" are clearly examples of straw man arguments.
>Most of the violent deaths in the twentieth century were unarmed civilians.
I would like to see some numbers, but either way civilian casualties of war is irrelevant to this discussion.
>Your death row inmate is unarmed by force of his state.
I'm against the death penalty as well, so we can start arguing about that too.
>Some guy posted below how he was afraid of gun
>rights because the ordinary people in the street
>didn't look capable of handling them. What a
>lack of faith in humanity this dude has. What
>cowardice. Its depressing
Lack of faith in humanity? Look, it is YOU who think that unless you have the threat of weapons to back you up, people and goverments will immediately start to do the worst things possible to you.
And yeah, I wouldn't want the average person on the street to be armed. If all were rational beings at all times, maybe, but there are crazy people out there, and normal people can go crazy when angry, drunk, high, depressed or what have you. And that's when you get statistics like "35,957 Americans killed with firearms, in homicides, suicides, and accidents in one year (1995), and 14 CHILDREN 19 years and under EACH DAY."
Now THAT is depressing.
>Any way lets flame and call some names.
Let's not. I think it's childish.
Cheers,
Lars
Re:What does guns have to do with anything? (Score:1)
>thing:
>
>You're wrong.
I am??
>The right to keep and bear arms is a symbol. It
>means that the government has the right to take
>your life, if you have done something to require
>it, but they do not have the right to make you
>lie down and take it like a good boy or girl.
"Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense. The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold."
http://www.handguncontrol.org/firearm_facts.htm
To me, that sounds like a big prize to pay for a symbol.
>Banning guns does not prevent violent crime. It
>expands it, because criminals know that all
>law-abiding citizens are now unarmed.
I think that is bull, but both of us will have problems finding hard numbers to prove our points.
Here are some statistics that I believe support my point:
"In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany and 9,390 in the United States." Again, high prize to pay...
But of course there are an enormous number of factors - economical cultural and others that influence crime statistics. For instance I might cite Japan to support my view (strict gun laws=less crime), and then you might counter by saying that the high and fairly equally distributed wealth in Japan combined with the homogenised and closly knit Japanese society makes crime unlikely in the first place. Or else you might take my own country, Sweden, as an example (lots of guns, more per capita than the US I've heard=less crime) and I would then say that 95% of those guns are hunting rifles, the owners must go through very strict background checks and hunting tests, and there are laws that they must be disassembled and locked up in safes apart from ammo when not in use.
If we had one country to observe over a long period of time (ten years maybe) which had changed its gun laws, and we then had the sociological and statistical education to calculate the influence that for instance economy and distribution of wealth could have on the results, then we might get somewhere (it would be a statistical selection of one though, which is never good). But we don't even have one example, so you will just have to accept that I am right, damnit. You must!
>The criminals can still get guns of a sort -
>they are not difficult to make, even without
>buying one - and now, they don't have to worry
>about the victim producing a shotgun and blowing
>their head off.
If the victims didn't have guns, criminals would be less inclined to carry or use them as well since they didn't have to worry about having their heads blown off, ever consider that? It's a good circle!
Besides, I believe manufacturing a good handgun is more difficult than you claim, especially if sales of ammo and gunpowder was limited as well. I would much prefer to face a criminal armed with some home made pipe gun than a state of the art semi-automatic military issue thingy.
>If you think differently, then it's quite
>simple; don't keep guns. DO NOT tell me not to.
*tease* I forbid you to keep guns.
No, but seriously. I might have been a bit careless. When I said "ban guns" above, I did not mean the complete banning of guns. I meant banning the sale of stuff like assault rifles and armour piercing bullets, strict background checks at all times (including gun shows), and bans against carrying firearms in public. That's my view. But we live on different continents, and if someone is in the position to limit anyones rights, its you who can harm me, so the point is moot anyway.
>Here, we have the right to simply pull our
>children from the school system and teach them
>at home, or in smaller private schools. And if
>you compare those homeschool and private school
>children to your schools, we've got YOU beat,
>not the other way around.
It's not a competition (though I realise I said some ill chosen words in the previous post). I believe that all people should have a decent education, both from a basic human rights perspective of the individual and for the good of the human race. Do you think it's OK if only the kids of a rich elite gets a good education in the US? What good does it do if 5% are very intellectual if the remaining 95% are ignorant and easy to manipulate?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it also so that many of the people in elite schools are in fact foreigners? Many of whom later return to their original countries. Many stay of course, which is lucky for the US.
>Pity you don't have the right to force the same
>concession, isn't it?
There are private schools here (Sweden) as well were you can put your kids if you wish to, but since our education is not an such a bad shape (yet...) most have been started by people who have other needs, for instance moslems.
>The reason we say it will happen here is that
>the government is continually trying to force
>more controls. Remove those freedoms. To the
>detriment of us all.
Then we agree. Only not on the details.
Re:This is rather distressing (Score:1)
*Crash*
- Hello, this is the War on Drugs. We have broken down your door and are unconstitutionally harassing you because we got an anonymous call that you have drugs.
- But I have a gun, and hence rights!
- You have a gun, hence we shoot you just to be on the safe side. *Blam*
Meanwhile, I sit here in "gun-free" Europe and can write whatever I want, vote for whoever I want, etc. with practically no danger of getting shot at in the streets. Because I know that those that _do_ have guns also have responsibility.
Re:What does guns have to do with anything? (Score:1)
>You see, some rights we have to give up if we are going to live together in a working society.
Giving up rights or freedoms should ideally be a moral choice of an individual, not enforced by a majority. The corollary is noninterference with others. But, you suggest the US is dysfunctional? I think it functions very well.
Anyway you might argue for one supposed common good. I hold out for another common good. That's right. A common good of independent responsible citizenry rather than defenceless clients of the law.
>clearly examples of straw man arguments.
Banning the guns is the easy way out. Actually dealing with armed individuals is hard. Most people tend to dislike and ignore hard. The question is whether nations try to deal with it or ignore it. I say leave it to the people to sort out. Governments typically make a mess of whatever they touch.
>>Most of the violent deaths in the twentieth century were unarmed civilians.
>I would like to see some numbers, but either way civilian casualties of war is irrelevant to this discussion.
How about civilian casualities of 'civil unrest'. Like Indonesia - East Timor. Or Rwanda, Kosovo, Germany WW2.
>Lack of faith in humanity? Look, it is YOU who think that unless you have the threat of weapons to
>back you up, people and goverments will immediately start to do the worst things possible to you.
No. I am being rational. Do the math and overcome the sqeamishness. I am arguing for equality. The weapons are not there to threaten, they are there to square the score.
One armed guy can shoot a lot of unarmed guys easy. He will be a little more circumspect if they are armed.
You are plainly too afraid to trust the people living around you every day with your life. Think they are going to shoot you? That shows no faith in your own people. See, we are both being paranoid. Its just I prefer to trust myself.
The murder figures are trivial compared to the results of genocide. Even if it never comes to that, what is the cost of oppression? I am arguing for a positive response, not a retreat from the fact of life that deadly weapons pose.
>childish
Well, the flame was kind of a bait, since this is the twilight of this particular thread. Childish with purpose
As for "Clowns" - well this isn't really a funny subject, but, I did laugh.
--MH
Re:What does guns have to do with anything? (Score:1)
>is the twilight of this particular thread.
>Childish with purpose
>responding.
I still don't agree, but as you said, it is the twilight of the thread, this subtread was a slightly off topic aside to begin with, and also it seems Virtuel was the only poster who agreed with me, so lets move on to fresher pastures. Moo.
Thanks for responding too.
Cheers,
Lars
Re:What does guns have to do with anything? (Score:1)
$.02 more (Score:1)
Who is that military made of? When does it start to crack? Is it when they are being pelted with sticks and stones or
Given the choice (and I am) I choose to not own a gun, but do I think I should have the right to? Most gaddamdefinitely (that's a "yes" for you English as a second langaugers)
TV License not needed (Score:1)
They can intercept all they want... (Score:1)
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
Smirk...the special friendship between the nations (Score:1)
Perhaps the goverment thinks it is a fair trade since they probably get trade secrets stolen from other countries by Eschelon, but I wonder why the British people allows American entities to take away their rights in ways these entities would never get away with at home.
If Britain keeps this up, why don't they just get it done with and quit the EU and become the 51st state of the USA?
I hate to be negative but we're screwed (Score:1)
This is out of control... (Score:1)
Other than the fact that this bites, how exactly would they pull this off? Most sysadmins I know keep a pretty close eye on what goes in and out of systems that they operate. How would you be able to tell if it was the facist^H^H^H^H^H^H "internet" police "legitimately" grabbing something, and not somebody comprimising your system?
*eek*
Time to get serious (Score:1)
This sort of tension has always existed: Henry David Thoreau [math.ku.dk]
But!
We have the technology! We have the talent! We are connected!
What still needs doing: GNU Encryption [gnu.org]
Overall I'm still happy about the way stuff is going.
--MolochHorridus, juvenile rockthrower.
where is our privacy? (Score:1)
do we already lost our privacy? do they force us to encrypt everything in our life style?
Are we for Open Source but Closed Internet? (Score:1)
I may be crazy, but I'm detecting a contradiction in the "Slashdot ideology":
- Open Source is good, hiding code is bad
- Privacy is good, having others see what you do is bad
I mean, I thought information wanted to be free? Or doesn't that include information about what you do?OK, I don't think it's good if the government or big corporations or crazy lunatics use information about me to harm me. But isn't that what laws are for?
By analogy, isn't it our judicial system that allows the GPL (and more lenient copyright-based licenses) to make software truly free?
And doesn't it bother anyone that all this cool information flowing around should be inaccessible? I mean, it's nobody's business how many times I visit whitehouse.com, but I don't know, maybe there just might be some valid use for that information. I feel, in the spirit of openness and convenience, that most things shouldn't be hidden.
I'm scared of the police like anyone, but I feel that it's better and more productive to have laws that try to make sure the police behaves, rather than try to fight them (I know I'll lose).
Or maybe I'm crazy.
Re:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Score:1)
Like a bunch of rednecks militias are going to make a whit of a difference if the US (or Canadian) government somehow would turn opressive against their people and get the military to support them. You are so deluded.
As I said in another post, the health of a country is not measured in the number of guns in the hands of trigger happy citizens, its how many participate in the democratic process and how educated the citizens are. And the US is beaten by just about every goddamn developed nation in the world in those areas.
Re:Sheep dressed in wolf's clothing? (Score:1)
I homeschool my children. They are reading, writing, and doing mathematics at a much higher grade level than other children their age. So I am better than the government at education.
Defense. The US last defended itself by bombing a country many of our citizens would have a hard time placing on a map. I am more concerned with defending myself from my own government at this point.
Ever ride a bus or taxi in the US? No thanks, I'll walk...
And you're damn right on the health and safety.
Too literal, of course. I have family I trust. Also friends. And even some people I pay to perform services and supply me with goods. My objection is not that I and others rely on other people for certain things. My objection is that I am FORCED to rely on other people not of my own selection. Even if I voted for the current president, representatives, and senators, I still did not choose to rely on them to this extent, and had this been part of their platform, they would never have been elected. Which is why it was never part of their platform.
As for changing it rather than getting rid of it; certainly. If you can. The problem is that through all history, it was possible to escape a government you disagreed with by leaving, heading out to the new world, the new territory, or even just to another tribe or country more to your liking. Didn't like England? Go to the Americas. You can't do that anymore. No matter where you go, you are within reach of the government, and no matter whose it is, you are subject to the whims of American government. There is no longer someplace else to go.
Re:let's see (Score:1)
--
Open Internet, Closed life. (Score:1)
I'm scared of the police like anyone, but I feel that it's better and more productive to have laws that try to make sure the police behaves, rather than try to fight them (I know I'll lose).
Shall I explain the contradiction, or can you figure it out? Never mind, I'll explain it, you didn't catch it the first time.
Laws set the rules of behavior, according to you. OK. I can accept that. Who enforces those laws? The police. OK. With you so far.
But you say you are afraid of the police, and that we all are, implying that this is the normal state of affairs. That is a very good reason why laws alone will not work.
Another one is explained by the second contradiction. We already stated that police enforce the law. So what use are laws designed to restrict the police? Who enforces THOSE laws? And then who regulates THEM?
As for Open Source applying to everything; no. It never has, it never will. It can't. Some things will always be restricted, and private. I don't want you or my employer or anyone else to look up my medical history. That's private. My doctor needs it? Fine. I'll give it to him, and I'll have to trust him to keep it private.
Damn lies and statistics. (Score:2)
http://www.handguncontrol.org/firearm_facts.htm
Well now, there's an unbiased source.
The "statistics" are irrelevant bullshit, of course.
Let's take a look in more detail:
Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense
Two major things wrong with that statement, even assuming that the numbers aren't fabricated. (1) the vast majority of "kill a family member or friend" cases are suicides, thus irrelevant here; there are plenty of ways for someone intent on suicide to do so. (2) Most - by orders of magnitude - uses of a gun in self-defense do not involve killing the attacker. Even if we count only the actual confrontations that occur (and ignore the large deterrent value a firearm has), most end with the bad guy being scared off or held until the police arrive, no shots fired at all. In a much smaller incidence, the perp may be wounded - these cases still outnumber those cases in which the perp is killed.
Of course, the whole paragraph is nonsense if taken literally: guns don't kill anybody, don't have family members, and don't defend themselves.
The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.
Heh. Now subtract out the number of those cases in which the gun was acquired with the specific intent to commit murder and/or suicide (which acts can certainly be accomplished without a gun), and what are the numbers?
The facts are, when other influences are factored out (eg socioeconomic background, cultural influences, etc), the crime rate is inversely proportional to the availability of guns. MOst people are neither homicidal nor suicidal. Most criminals, while perhaps stupid, are not suicidal either. The facts also are that women who defend themselves against rape/assault with a gun are more likely to survive than those who don't defend themselves at all or who use some other (less effective) weapon.
Re:Are we for Open Source but Closed Internet? (Score:1)
Voluntary versus enforced disclosure, and consideration of individuals rights.
Open Source is good because it shares workload, improves access, improves code. Its not forced on anyone, (except possibly Microsoft in future, but that remains to be seen).
Also its not like information itself has rights
Think liberation of information versus enforced freedom of information.
OK, I don't think it's good if the government or big corporations or crazy lunatics use information about me to harm me. But isn't that what laws are for?
Your faith in the law is touching. Read the previous post carefully.
But don't say that you are AFRAID, THEY are LISTENING! ROFL!
(A note about the enforcement against Microsoft: In this case there is kind of a contradition. "Enforced" Open Source is probably wrong. The government would be smarter to restrict the use of Microsoft products in its agencies, (on grounds of
--Ab Moloch
And the brits call us backwards.......... (Score:1)
Re:What does guns have to do with anything? (Score:1)
We are talking here about modern government and civil rights. And about how some of us seem to have more than others. And how the citizens of the UK just lost a bit more of their right to privacy.
Rights are funny things. A lot of people are against them. "Its too hard", "Let the government decide" "I don't want to think", "I don't want to be responsible". Giving up all your rights to a higher power might seem like a good idea, until you see what governments did with them in the past. Then you tend to want them back quickish.
Most of the violent deaths in the twentieth century were unarmed civilians. Your death row inmate is unarmed by force of his state.
Some guy posted below how he was afraid of gun rights because the ordinary people in the street didn't look capable of handling them. What a lack of faith in humanity this dude has. What cowardice. Its depressing.
The US is running the show? Very likely. Most of the people really fighting this stuff effectively (cryptography, lobbying) are in the US. It just so happens the US is the focal point. The UK tends to just generate colourful and (obviously) useless street protest.
Any way lets flame and call some names. You are a pussy. Your vaunted liberal education has taught you intolerance of people you don't understand. You desire security. Security is double-edged, a blanket that can be used to smother.
Deconstruct your belief system. Then do it again.
I shall endeavor to do the same, anything else is laziness.
--MH
Re:What does guns have to do with anything? (Score:1)
>to think before responding. They did fear
>educated people, but mostly they feared those
>educated people might ARM THEMSELVES.
How do you know?
>> Oh, spell flames against someone writing in a
>>foreign language. That's brave.
>I beleive the statement was more about the irony
>of mispellings in a statement about the
>importance of education.
It was a spell flame, though perhaps the nicest one.
>What is it with you and false statistics? Here
>are sopm other statistics for you: In 1997, 12
>times as many children (using your false
>definition of children - 19 year olds are
>adults) died of drowning than of firearms. So
>what do we do about that? Ban water?
I believe 19 years old are children. And no, we don't ban water, that is a typical straw man argument I have heard before by the pro-gun crowd. We can't avoid all deaths. Water is a natural occurance that we can't do anything about (except educating children about the dangers), guns are man made death machines, that work very well.
>Ban water? Please stop repeating disproved Handgun Control Incorporated lies.
If you can prove to me they are lies, sure.
>>Oh, so you know they were all unarmed, do you?
>>That's a lot of unarmed people.
>OF COURSE THEY WERE UNARMED YOU IDIOT. OTHERWISE
>THEY WOULDN'T HAVE PASSIVELY BEEN MURDERED, NOW
>WOULD THEY?
Lets see, they were unarmed because they were murdered, and they were murdered because they were unarmed. You are using circular reasoning.
>The Nazi's just took advantage of this, and
>probably would have been stopped had the german
>people been in any condition to prevent them
>(i.e. armed).
The nazis were allowed in several gun fights when they were going to power. The four who were killed in the "beer putz" were declared martyrs and later almost saints by the nazi party. This didn't stop the nazis, it just helped them in their propaganda. The Germans people brought the Nazis to power. It didn't matter if they were armed or not. That brings me back to my original argument - education and democratic participation is important, not the number of guns.
>Get some FACTS moron! These people were all
>killed BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT! BY THE UNITED
>STATES GOVERNMENT.
I don't know who the Kent protestors were. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Wounded Knee was a hundred years ago, not relevant to this discussion. As for the Black Panthers - they had guns. That obviously didn't help them. They died anyway. If they hadn't been armed, perhaps it wouldn't have been a shootout, and they could have been fighting still today for their rights.
>The supposed defender of the free world
We know YOU think so. The rest of the world hasn't been fooled by that for a long time, belive me.
>Only two kinds of people support gun control.
>Evil people and stupid people. Which are you?
False dichotomy. If you want to convince me, use reason instead instead of childish flames.
Cheers,
Lars
Re:What does guns have to do with anything? (Score:1)
>The data contained in it was proved false years ago.
That is interesting. Could you show me any references?
>Please read (and try to comprehend) "More Guns,
>Less Crime : Understanding Crime and Gun-Control
>Laws (Studies in Law and Economics)" by John
>Lott before quoting false statistics.
I searched on the net, but I couldn't find it. Lott seems like a kook though. "the worst thing people can expect from dioxin is a bad rash.", "stop worrying so much about the environment", "[A] nation's wealth [is maximized] if a crime is not deterred when the benefit to the criminal of a particular crime is greater than the total social cost of that crime." indeed. He sounds like a social darwinist. One gun related wievpoint I found about him was that if teachers would have been armed, the Jonesboro shooting would not have occured (and presumably neither the Littleton one). It's just nuts. In Littleton, two guards were armed and opened fire, but when the kids opened up with automatic weapons they had to hide and then ran and phoned the cops. And these were people who were trained.
The absurdity of this view is pretty effectively debunked here http://www.salon.com/co mics/boll/1999/05/06/boll/index.html [salon.com].
I can only agree with this: "Lott has a long and well-documented track record of zealously advocating an extreme anti-consumer, anti-public safety ideology. His view that arming the populace with concealed handguns will reduce crime is just one more extreme view to be added to the list."
>>>Now that I hear about this enforced lack of
>>>privacy, I couldn't be happier.
>>That will be defeated. Believe me.
>God but you are naive AND stupid! Don't think
>for a moment that if it fails now, it won't be
>back again and again untill it passes. And since
>the public is disarmed, they WON'T BE ABLE TO
>STOP IT.
You know there is a conflict between openness and privacy. You wan't openness when it comes to politicians (and we have the most extensive laws on that subject in the world in Sweden) and privacy when it comes to citizens, right? The EU passed directives that said that you couldn't post personal information about living persons on the net without those persons' agreement. Sweden was the only country that made that a law (PUL - the Personal Information Law). Most people consider this a too serious infringement into free speech and there were LOADS of protests. Most people (including me) ignored it completely and continued to post personal information on the net. A political youth organization turned themselves in, to show how absurd the law was. This were examples of peaceful civil disobedience, and guess what? The goverement have realised how absurd the law is, and are going to scrap it.
No guns needed...just rational democratic discourse. And we were able to stop it.
>> The thing is, I didn't have a gun, and neither
>>did the robbers.
>
>So you were targeted by incompetent and ill
>equipped robbers. That proves nothing. Just wait
>untill an armed criminal finds and kills you.
Again, few people are killed by armed criminals in Sweden. That is because we have very strict gun laws.
>> I managed to get out of the situation all
>>three times without losing my money or getting
>>hurt by using my wits. You see, brains is more
>>important than guns.
>
>So you were LUCKY.
I was SMART.
>But please remember, your luck only has to fail
>you once.
Yeah, that's a fact of life isn't it? Sooner or later my luck will run out. An astroid will hit me, or I will trip and fall on a sharp stick, or my heart will give out of old age.
>Also note that these were ill equipped UNARMED
>ASSAILANTS. Therefore, guns were not in the
>situation and don't contribute to these data
>points.
Actually, we don't know that. If I would have pulled a gun on them perhaps I would have found out the hard way. But the odds are good they didn't have a gun, see, in Europe we have these strics gun laws that save a lot of peoples lives each year...
>>>Be seeing you.
>>Neat! You are welcome. Oh yeah...now I remember.
>Are you THAT STUPID?
Are you THAT HUMOURLESS?
>Eventually he probably will be seeing you (or someone very much like him).
Well, MolochHorridus turned out to be a pretty nice guy, even if we disagreed on the subject of gun control. So that is ok.
If you refer to his fictional gun toting criminal or goverment agent - the risk is actually pretty low. My brother is a cop, and he has not been fired at once yet.
>Just not for very long. Enjoy your dirt nap.
Dirt nap? I don't know exactly what that means, but I can guess it wasn't nice. Again, try reason instead of flames if you want to convince me.
Cheers,
Lars
Don't know about you but.... (Score:1)
Re:This is rather distressing (Score:1)
Interception in Germany (Score:2)
The scary thing about it is that it's only a question of implementing existing legislature, namely para. 88 of the telecommunications act. So, the basic laws which require this sort of monitoring are already in place.
Basically, any network provider (ISP, company network, whatever) will have to provide dedicated access to the network at its own cost, in a way that not only enables government to capture any and all data but also leaves the network provider none the wiser.
Cost for the required infrastructure is estimated to be between DM 15.000 for small and DM 100.000 ( US $ 7.500 - 50.000) for large providers (Numbers from german iX magazine, 6/1999). In addition to the complete loss of privacy this offers a perfect infrastructure for hackers..
You can find details (in german!) at http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/ inhalt/te/2793/1.html [heise.de]
Re:let's see (Score:1)
Typoing my own nationality is kinda bad..
At least I spelt Scottish right
What does guns have to do with anything? (Score:1)
*rant*
What absolute bullshit. What gives you "rights, voice and choice"? Carrying weapons or participating in the democratic process? More people vote in the UK than in the US, that is a better sign of a country's health than how easy it is to obtain tools to kill someone. A well armed militia is NOTHING against an army. A well EDUCATED citizinry is the best tool against oppression, and the UK beats you hands down there as well in all international tests.
And who are you to talk about rights? As long as your country continues to execute children in defiance of international human rights, you have NOTHING to say about how other countries run their business.
But if we get back to the issue of right to privacy, it the US which is successfully bullying the goverments of other countries to deny their citizens human rights, as the article shows again.
>And guess what? It WILL happen here.
Banning guns? I certainly hope so. A lot of innocent people lose their lives each year in the US because some gun nuts have a pathological need to play with their phallic symbols.
*rant off*
BTW - here is a pretty amusing link from this weeks issue of the Economist:
The gun commandments [economist.com]. "5. Thou shalt not kill, except when provoked. But if thou dost, remember that thy gun had nothing to do with it."
Cheers,
Lars
Sheep being led to the slaughter (Score:1)
Re:What does guns have to do with anything? (Score:1)
"A well EDUCATED citizinry is the best tool against oppression, and the UK beats you hands down there as well in all international tests." So what happened to you? Or doesn't the wonderful British school system teach "America kicks Geaorge III's Ass 101" along with spelling?