or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by emoeric87

Generally, using quotation marks means that it's a direct quote, and not a paraphrase. Especially when you put a credit with a named person afterward. See: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/
Not necessarily: http://www.npr.org/2014/10/05/353893046/you-have-the-right-to-remain-silent-or-do-you
Are you serious? Go shout to yourself in your own personal discussion forum. This one is for people to talk like the other posters are people, not just text on a wall.Oh, and Americans can't do or say whatever they want, which is the heart of the discussion here. That's the whole point of being a nation. There is some kind of order the other people agree to follow so that society can be a beneficial thing.Being able to commit a crime shouldn't come down to just being able...
Not necessarily: http://www.npr.org/2014/10/05/353893046/you-have-the-right-to-remain-silent-or-do-you
I'm not saying that people's privacy should just fall open when the government wants it to. But I am saying there's a problem when criminals can't be tracked or eavesdropped in any way, because nobody can. Digital anarchy. That's what may be coming.
He does acknowledge, though, that there is a problem with inaccessible data. Computer information is, indeed, so very different from physically stored documents and papers. And how we treat computer information can't be totally equivocated from how we treat physical documents/information. The medium makes it different.
Yeah, also. I'll get right on teaching my newborn jujitsu. Also, surveilling him at all times, with my own physical eyes, and never take any possible sensory-altering drugs to make sure he can never be abducted. Oh, and immediately divorce my wife so she can't possibly be around him to take him anywhere he could be harmed. Oh, and handcuff myself to a somewhat distant location so that I can't harm him either. Keyword: A LITTLE paranoia is justifiable. But a little paranoia...
Regardless, you can't argue that having more tools wouldn't save someone from a life-threatening situation. Again, no need to be black-and-white. There really is a new frontier here that needs to be discussed (i.e., not just written off as something we've already figured out).
It is interesting to think that something that protects someone from an oppressive government can be turned around and used to actually harm me. Protection from one entity means being un-protected from another entity.
 To play the devil's advocate, your incentive only works while a suspect is in custody. What about while the crime is being committed...while people are (hypothetically) being killed/maimed/abused/exploded?
New Posts  All Forums: