[OT] but concerns all of us

Rod Person rodperson at rodperson.com
Thu Nov 17 14:02:41 UTC 2011

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:38:49 -0500
Jerry <jerry at seibercom.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:00:04 -0500
> Rod Person articulated:
> > > Theft is theft no matter how a socialist/fascist tries to color
> > > it.
> > > 
> > 
> > So what you are saying then is that there should be roadblocks on
> > ever street to make sure that all cars and drivers have proper
> > documentation to make sure car theft does not occur?
> Well, now we are into the "car" analogy which really doesn't scale

Sorry, it was suppose to be more of a right of free travel analogy,
than a car thing.

Or possibly analogy of traffic follow and bottlenecks created by the
stopping and checking of every vehicle. 

> well for this discussion. However, lets visit this concept. It is
> already required in the US and I would assume many other countries
> that a vehicle must process the proper tags and documentation to be
> operated on a public street. The operator of said vehicle must also
> process proper documentation that he/she is legally allowed to
> operate said vehicle. Neither of these two requirements is a handicap
> to the honest individual. Many states, including New York State now
> equip their police vehicles with devices that can scan the tags on
> vehicles as they are traveling and can ascertain whether the vehicle
> is properly insured and registered to be operated on the highway.
> This non intrusive method of law enforcement has resulted in hundreds
> of illegal vehicles being removed from the highway. At present, I
> know of no method to determine the legality of the driver without the
> police officer physically checking the drivers identification. It has
> been proposed that such devices be installed at regular intervals
> along federal highways in the US. As usual, the regular scumbags have
> instigated legal action to stall the use of such a system on a pseudo
> "invasion of privacy" concept. In essence, the only privacy that would
> be invaded would be those of the user of said illegally operated
> vehicle.
> So to answer you question, yes I believe in strict enforcement of laws
> and regulations. Only a felon has a reason to fear such enforcement. A
> non intrusive method of enforcement of said laws is a bonus.
> Only those who break laws have a reason to fear them.

I do agree in the enforcement of existing laws. But I don't see the as
non intrusive. If your going to check all packages coming through the
root servers then there is going to be intrusion into your privacy.
Otherwise how would they check you allowed to use the content?

What happens in a case where someone has hacked you network and is
using it to transfer the their stolen content, such as in the mp3
downloading cases?

Then once a new law is on the books, the officials find ways to use the
laws in way the were not intended as in the case of the "Patriot Act"
were it's use is over 90 some percent of the time has nothing to to
with terrorism. 

As someone that has been stop because of how I look and where I live, I
find the 'only those that break laws have reason to fear them argument'
extremely naive.


More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list