4 ms·

I find situations like this extremely difficult to understand. I really don't get it at all. Either we have a system where you are innocent until proven guilty

by nodata 16y ago

I find situations like this extremely difficult to understand. I really don't get it at all. Either we have a system where you are innocent until proven guilty, have a right to a fair trial, good evidence has to exist, you have a right to privacy, a right to trial by jury, no corruption, no torture, etc. etc. or we don't. That's it. We are continually chasing our tail re-asking questions about when each of these things is appropriate and when they are not. So here's my solution: we make a list. Each time people ask these same questions again and again and again, we point at the list. It'd save billions of dollars too, I bet.

kiba 16y ago
If people believed copying is stealing, then they believe it is in their moral right to shut down filesharing networks and all sort of things. There are lot of people here that support anti-piracy effort of some kind and they won't be easily persuaded that people can make a living without copyright.
- nodata 16y ago
  taps a bullet point on his imaginary list * Due process [explanation why this exists goes here] Doesn't matter whether you're pro or anti-copyright. Due process, limits on power, innocent until guilty are all relevant here. So let's use them. You either apply these ideas consistently or you lose them to exceptions.
cookiecaper 16y ago
It's the perpetuation of a fraud. Even if we presume our people were committed to these ideas, which they aren't anymore, the commitment quickly erodes once you become the one with the power to "expedite" or skirt these protections. Until the character of all those involved in government is pure, government is going to attempt to make "special exceptions" (read: not really that special) and fear monger the whole way so that people stay off their backs. It is crucial to the preservation of our liberties that The People frequently reassess how well we are following these principles and that they exert their sovereign authority to ensure that they are followed by our representatives and administrators as closely as possible. Now, does our populace do this anymore? I don't think they do. I think they are mostly concerned with and distracted by social issues (which are important, but have become a huge distraction to all other forms of policy) and let everything else slide until Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann feign outrage to further political or commercial agenda. It's all a lost cause in my opinion. The People are corrupt and the Government is certainly corrupt. What can we do now? We just have to wait for the inevitable implosion.
- daeken 16y ago
  > It's all a lost cause in my opinion. The People are corrupt and the Government is certainly corrupt. What can we do now? We just have to wait for the inevitable implosion. You know, you're probably right. In all likelihood, it's going to get much worse before it gets any better. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make it better. We may fail, but at least we tried.
  - cookiecaper 16y ago
    I agree that it's worth preaching an informed and intelligent political platform to those who are willing to receive it, and I agree that at least tokens of attempt are useful. I just think the expectation that things will change when our people are so hypnotized and over-exertion of energy to try to bring about sensible policy in these circumstances are futile. Call me a cynic, I guess.
  - Estragon 16y ago
    We may fail, but at least we tried. That's the main thing, isn't it? </sarcasm>
    - AndyKelley 16y ago
      I don't appreciate this type of humor, but Estragon is correct. A programmer, especially of the startup nature, should know this fact all too well: In the real world it's not about how hard you tried, it's about results. Work smarter, not harder.
      - daeken 16y ago
        It's not the fact that you tried that's important. It's that if you try, you have at least some chance of success; if you don't try, then failure is implied.
        loltar 16y ago
        This is only true if you try at the right things. Your goal appears to be an effort to demonetize content creation, thus disincentivizing the creation of valuable, interesting content. Your secondary goal appears to be making it easier for people who violate laws to get away with it without penalty, thus incentivizing lazy, value-stealing, criminal activity. Your goals are horrible. I'm just glad that you're horrible at pursuing them.
tzs 16y ago
Persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty. I don't think that presumption applies to non-persons. So, if the government is going directly after some thing used to commit an offense, as opposed to going after the people who used that thing, the standards might be different. And yes, the government can go after things. This leads to some amusing court cases, typical dealing with smuggling attempts, where you'll have cases with amusing names like "United States vs. 34 Cases of Wine" or "United States vs. $150,252.32".

by nodata 16y ago

kiba 16y ago

If people believed copying is stealing, then they believe it is in their moral right to shut down filesharing networks and all sort of things. There are lot of people here that support anti-piracy effort of some kind and they won't be easily persuaded that people can make a living without copyright.

nodata 16y ago
taps a bullet point on his imaginary list * Due process [explanation why this exists goes here] Doesn't matter whether you're pro or anti-copyright. Due process, limits on power, innocent until guilty are all relevant here. So let's use them. You either apply these ideas consistently or you lose them to exceptions.

cookiecaper 16y ago

It's the perpetuation of a fraud. Even if we presume our people were committed to these ideas, which they aren't anymore, the commitment quickly erodes once you become the one with the power to "expedite" or skirt these protections. Until the character of all those involved in government is pure, government is going to attempt to make "special exceptions" (read: not really that special) and fear monger the whole way so that people stay off their backs. It is crucial to the preservation of our liberties that The People frequently reassess how well we are following these principles and that they exert their sovereign authority to ensure that they are followed by our representatives and administrators as closely as possible. Now, does our populace do this anymore? I don't think they do. I think they are mostly concerned with and distracted by social issues (which are important, but have become a huge distraction to all other forms of policy) and let everything else slide until Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann feign outrage to further political or commercial agenda. It's all a lost cause in my opinion. The People are corrupt and the Government is certainly corrupt. What can we do now? We just have to wait for the inevitable implosion.

daeken 16y ago
> It's all a lost cause in my opinion. The People are corrupt and the Government is certainly corrupt. What can we do now? We just have to wait for the inevitable implosion. You know, you're probably right. In all likelihood, it's going to get much worse before it gets any better. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make it better. We may fail, but at least we tried.
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  I agree that it's worth preaching an informed and intelligent political platform to those who are willing to receive it, and I agree that at least tokens of attempt are useful. I just think the expectation that things will change when our people are so hypnotized and over-exertion of energy to try to bring about sensible policy in these circumstances are futile. Call me a cynic, I guess.
- Estragon 16y ago
  We may fail, but at least we tried. That's the main thing, isn't it? </sarcasm>
  - AndyKelley 16y ago
    I don't appreciate this type of humor, but Estragon is correct. A programmer, especially of the startup nature, should know this fact all too well: In the real world it's not about how hard you tried, it's about results. Work smarter, not harder.
    - daeken 16y ago
      It's not the fact that you tried that's important. It's that if you try, you have at least some chance of success; if you don't try, then failure is implied.
      - loltar 16y ago
        This is only true if you try at the right things. Your goal appears to be an effort to demonetize content creation, thus disincentivizing the creation of valuable, interesting content. Your secondary goal appears to be making it easier for people who violate laws to get away with it without penalty, thus incentivizing lazy, value-stealing, criminal activity. Your goals are horrible. I'm just glad that you're horrible at pursuing them.

tzs 16y ago

Persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty. I don't think that presumption applies to non-persons. So, if the government is going directly after some thing used to commit an offense, as opposed to going after the people who used that thing, the standards might be different. And yes, the government can go after things. This leads to some amusing court cases, typical dealing with smuggling attempts, where you'll have cases with amusing names like "United States vs. 34 Cases of Wine" or "United States vs. $150,252.32".