Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now?

At least for now. But they all should be heh? I bet we could finance it out of the education budget. Well they were both over the age of 12.Your contradictions are getting closer together.

I would say that it is primarily an ego gratifying power trip thing. Even if you cooperate you can't cooperate enough because it is not cooperation that they are after. They want submission or worse. The Jews were mostly cooperative and it didn't help them much.You might be able to keep them to the threat of violence by complying but even the threat of violence we call assault. What is the difference between an email and a letter? It seems wrong to me that just because I am communicating in a different medium that all of a sudden my communications should no longer be private. A phone call over a land line is protected by a litany of process and a phone call over the internet is like shouting from the mountain. It used to be that we recognized a citizens right to privately communicate with others and the fact that they wished it to be private did not indicate that they might be a criminal. No it doesn't but the process exists because we recognize that it is a mighty intrusion when the state searches your home. That is why we make extra sure that it really needs to be done.I am not against cooperating with the police and the gov't is not the enemy. Individuals often make mistakes, as we agreed, and it is the system that has been painstakingly established to protect people from those mistakes. Yes there is. In this country it is the line that the Judge or JP signs or does not sign.

So it is the non compliant citizen that causes fascism? Come on ringo that is just nonsense. If the state wants to ignore my rights and search my home or listen to my phone calls it is not my resistance that makes it the act of a fascist state.Fascists place the 'needs' of the state above the rights of the citizen. When the gov't or individuals do that and back it up with the threat or use of violence then they are behaving like fascists. My key point is that we need to maintain an immutable standard of human rights that is not eroded by temporary or imaginary threats. So no matter how safe it may make you feel to have everyone being searched and watched it is not worth the price that we must pay. We cannot protect our freedom by taking it away.Technology has circumvented many of the old safeguards of our privacy. The state finds that it now has the ability to listen to everyone and pretty soon they start thinking that they should be listening to everyone. Just a hop skip and a jump (in terms of the evolution of society) from there to deciding if it is ok for you to know how to make a bomb or study too much biology. I disagree. 6 dudes with badges and guns = the state. It is nothing like your neighbour unless you live in Texas or Baghdad.I get the point about all being on the same side. We should read this as the police also being citizens instead of the citizens all being criminals. There is a necessary disconnect between the police and the policed but it should stay as small as possible. You either have probable cause or you do not. There is a definite authority to determine that and it does not lie with the individual who is doing the search. We call this a safeguard and it is there to protect the individual from the state. It should not be ignored even if it is legal to do so.

Sure it is and even in my objection I do not discard the demand for law and order. Objecting to the method or cost does not require rejecting the goal. A little freedom yes. A lot of freedom no. Where is the line between a little and a lot? It is a process of balance and all I can do is throw my weight where I think it belongs. The fascist augments their weight with the force of violence. Perhaps if we banned them our privacy would be secure.If all of a sudden we find that we can be a fly on the wall at any place or time the temptation to do so is great. The only thing preventing that disaster is the principal that it is wrong to do so. So much the better but certainly not true for most.I get along fine with my neighbours but that does not mean that I want them assessing all the information stored on my computers. While I have no problem with my neighbour walking into my garage and borrowing a pipe wrench I would object to his inspecting the drawings on my drafting table had I not invited him to do so. Just for perspective I think that we live in one of the best states in the world. What makes it great is that it's citizens can push back when they feel the need without fear of reprisal. Pushing back against the state should not be seen as sedition or evidence of criminal behaviour but rather as a normal function of the system.

As with every contract there are conditions. We are obliged to obey the law in exchange for the protection of our civil rights. If our rights are abused by those who are charged with protecting them then the contract has been broken and not by the citizen. The citizen is obliged then to defend the contract. As a citizen who has enjoyed the benefits of civil rights I am obliged to protect them in return. The whole fascist thing came up with the idea of controlling every aspect of society from the top and with force if necessary. When officers of the court with badges and guns inspect your bookshelves and make a judgement as to their acceptability that is the act of a fascist state. The line is drawn by your conscience as the case requires. You should resist whenever you feel the need. The manner of your resistance should depend on how well the state accommodates your objection. We are bound by our conscience before we are bound by the law. They are using guns because the system was/is broken and not accommodating the objections of the citizens. This supports the fact that the law must and does come from the people before they will be subject to it. The key to democracy is having an infrastructure that will allow for dissent.

But you are disputing it by questioning if the citizen should ever resist when they feel that their rights have been abused. Normally if a contract is broken then you are no longer bound by it's terms. If the state's rep feels that the citizen has broken the contract then they come in heavy and with lethal force if necessary. Suspending your civil rights if they suspect that you have broken the contract. What acceptable recourse does the abused citizen have?What constitutes abuse is the question. As with all other judgements it comes down to a personal frame of reference. Take the fact that the state can collect your garbage and inspect it. What would you think if your neighbour came over and inspected your garbage? If you were looking through your neighbours garbage wouldn't you feel like you were invading their privacy?What if a letter was inadvertently delivered to your mailbox. Would it be ok for you to read it?Say you are dining out with a significant other. You are in a public place so would it be ok for me to come and join you and listen in to your conversation? Is it ok for me to listen in to your conversation from across the room with my sound amplifying spy glasses?You had said earlier that you consider all of your internet activity to be public. Would that include your banking or shopping info. What about your credit card # or spending history or power use? All of your travel history. That is all online even if you didn't put it there. Is it ok for me to go and seek out that info?Now that you have searched for how to build your own hydrogen bomb should all of your personal information that has been stored electronically be open for scrutiny by the state? Do you forfeit any right to privacy if you have made someone nervous with your reading choices?So the line should be where you would draw it yourself. In this case the state has far exceeded the behaviour that any reasonable person would approve were it directed at them. I believe that you are correct. There are apparently some restrictions regarding the smoking of joints in police stations. There are no such restrictions regarding which books you are allowed to keep on your bookshelves. Sure and that is why we need the law but it doesn't change the fact that it is true. There is no problem in that case. The problem comes when the laws that are being enforced are not the laws that you willingly subjected yourself to.

The police and the court are essentially the same thing and we are not talking about throwing either of them out. We are talking about influencing their behaviour. Absolutely, the system protects everyone and that is why nobody should be trying to work around it. It isn't really the garbage that is private but the information that it contains. Like you might want your empty viagra or vagisil bottles to remain unseen. I don't think of my garbage as private either but if someone were looking through it searching for information about me I would take that as an invasion of my privacy. Why is it that a folded piece of paper can exceed the privacy offered by the best encryption in the world? Right so it would be something that you would not do to somebody else. Bullshit. The point is that you expect privacy. The question is not whether or not someone can thwart your security. The question is if they should even try. Especially regarding the state. Why should the police be looking to see if we possess something that it is legal to possess? If that is true then probable cause aint what she used to be.

Yeah I sure agree with that and both the letter and the spirit of the law say that people have rights that should not be suspended without probable cause.The spirit of the law in every case is to prevent harm and to protect the rights of the individual. By protecting the individual's rights we protect society. An email is hardly comparable to a billboard. This is a good example of the authorities abusing the spirit of the law because the letter of the law allows them to read your email as it is not wrapped in paper even though the contents are exactly comparable to an old fashioned letter. The spirit of the law demands that the protection be extended to all private communications. The letter of the law is dated and fails to do that. I guess that I cannot say how you value your privacy but everyone I know would object to having a conversation that they thought was private being listened to by some uninvited third party. I would at least expect the state to lend a hand in safeguarding my privacy and it should certainly not be the state that I have to guard against.(Edit; The fact that you expect privacy is enough to make any attempt to intercept that communication an invasion of your privacy.)Did you know that it is illegal, in the US at least, to have an encryption method that the gov't cannot break?

quote:

---

Until 1996, the U.S. government considered anything stronger than a 40-bit encryption to be a �munition� � hence, the export of any piece of information with that level of encryption was illegal. [14]� Since then, the government has relaxed its standards and allows the export of 56-bit encryption, with some restrictions. [15]� 128-bit encryption has now emerged as the standard of illegality.

---

SourcePerhaps I am under the illusion that I have anything more than the right to the illusion of privacy. I suppose that is true but all you are doing is pandering to their fears. If we took away everyone's civil rights I am sure that we could catch a few more criminals but I doubt that we would prevent more harm than we caused.Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.

Ah yes that is true. So you may not use it to talk to someone in another country. I wonder if they would charge you if your email from Alaska to Hawaii was routed through foreign servers?I am not sure about the letter of the law but the intent is definitely to ensure that the gov't can read your mail. Essentially they are taking the position that anyone possessing a very high level method of encryption is worthy of suspicion.Apparently it is ok to feel like you are having a private conversation but it is not ok to actually have one.

I just mean that if you want to use 128 bit encryption software to communicate with me in another country then I must also have the software. If the software is of US origin and you send it to me then that is illegal is it not?My main point was that those who support this kind of restriction are taking the fact that you wish to keep something private as evidence that you are committing a crime. The belief is so strong that they push to make the very keeping of secrets a crime. I think that the fact people resist the idea is good evidence that a free and reasonable person naturally claims the right of privacy.The principal that you have the right to privacy is really at the heart of a free society. The default position is that people are free and not that they are criminals. It is the freedom that should be assumed and only restricted where positively indicated. It is the free and unrestricted flow of ideas that makes the free world as free as it is and allows us to achieve what we can. To carry on as if everyone is a criminal is to be led by your fears.Again at the back of my thinking is the idea that society evolves and that these are small changes that cumulatively lead to some dark future.

It is true that society requires an investment from it's members but societies only work because they benefit the individual. You can not speak in terms of benefiting society without demonstrating specifically how the benefit applies to it's members.Society works because there is a net gain for the individual and that is why they willingly contribute. So if we want to ensure voluntary compliance then we need only look at how well our system benefits the individual. Society is built on individual rights. You see now that is damn near fascism right there. The ideological start of it anyway.The police are there to protect individuals from harm which usually comes from other individuals. Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals and has no rights of it own. Only obligations. The fact that you find the behaviour rude or offensive is the basis for it's being against the law or being recognized as an affront. We have social convention that prevents me from joining your intimate dinner and we have laws that prevent me from listening to your phone conversations. Both of these restrictions based on the fact that any reasonable person would find the behaviour offensive. I am saying that the state should be bound by the same standard and should not be allowed to act offensively without probable cause. Yes but that is not freedom.I reject the arms race of privacy. There is no way that I can compete with the NSA regarding the privacy of my communications. They can only be resisted with the principal that it is wrong for them to be looking instead of trying to make it impossible for them to look. Similar to the paper that surrounds your letters. I just want them to not be the biggest threat to my privacy.

I am not sure that I have the pheromonic capacity. Also, while I am sure that there are similarities, I am not sure that I would accept being equated with an insect. You are welcome to sacrifice your rights as you see fit. The state, however, should not even be asking you to nor taking advantage of any ignorance that you may have. Well you are succeeding. Pfft. It most assuredly is not. The basic unit of humanity is a human. Well I see it a different way. People have the rights that they claim and that they can defend. History shows us the long list of people who have claimed their rights and then defended them. Society is the mechanism that they use to defend their rights after they have fought for them. And they are. Insult is just the first measure of harm. My point is that the affront that some feel to their security from my web searches is far less reasonable than the affront that I feel by their looking at my web searches. Well that is completely beside the point. There is no similarity between intercepting a private communication and one of the parties betraying the privacy of a communication. The information belongs to the two parties involved and not to any third party. For a third party to access the information they should have some probable cause that legitimises the intrusion. Being afraid of what we are talking about or reading is not a legitimate reason.