3 ms·
It would be appropriate to start such a discussion once a single court ever has accepted such an argument and it gets appealed and starts a years-long process w
by PeterisP 5y ago
It would be appropriate to start such a discussion once a single court ever has accepted such an argument and it gets appealed and starts a years-long process where it might become precedent for some wider area; it would be absolutely ridiculous to consider every theory put forth by a litigating lawyer as worth of a public discussion - I mean, there are so many of them and usually the judges shoot many of them down without a discussion because it's not worth a discussion even for the people it directly affects, much less general public.
- notTheAuth 5y agoReplies seems to be of the perspective I was suggesting we target courts proactively. I don’t think anything I wrote constrains public response to lobbying courts. We could lobby to legislate open access to privacy tech and encryption. One of the big papers wrote today how state legislatures are effectively gerrymandered for one party or the other. There’s a whole lot of political effort the public could participate in that would prevent ideas like this specific one from getting beyond a back room rant between elected officials. And frankly it wouldn’t have to impact our real logistics at all; we could collectively take ownership of our own agency and refuse to login unless legal ownership is reassessed. The internet community seems to have forgotten SOPA blackouts worked. The political reality is not accepting the literal one; a real majority with nothing to lose is quickly losing patience with the real minority gaming everyone’s society.