“No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.”—John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States
“How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and … forcibly enter?”—Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the lone dissenter in Kentucky v. King
If the government can tell you what you can and cannot do within the privacy of your home, whether it relates to what you eat, what you smoke or whom you love, you no longer have any rights whatsoever within your home.
If government officials can fine and arrest you for growing vegetables in your front yard, praying with friends in your living room, installing solar panels on your roof, and raising chickens in your backyard, you’re no longer the owner of your property. If school officials can punish your children for what they do or say while at home or in your care, your children are not your own—they are the property of the state.
If government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family, your property is no longer private and secure—it belongs to the government. Likewise, if police can forcefully draw your blood, strip search you, and probe you intimately, your body is no longer your own, either. …
Except we all agreed to have electricity, buy groceries, and pay rent. We decide what services we want and we pay for them. If the services suck, we can stop paying and find someone else to supply them, or maybe just opt out altogether.
But if the government’s services suck and we stop paying taxes, they come and stick us in a cage. But hey, that’s what we get for living in a civilized society, right? (via thevoluntaryistpunk)
totalitarian dystopian future lit is like “what if the government got so powerful that all the bad stuff that’s already happening ALSO HAPPENED TO WHITE PEOPLE?”
Just going with some fairly popular dyslit themes
Apparently today all non-white people and exclusively non-white people
• are raised nationalistic and patriotic and trained to be loyal to the state
• are the typical ‘complacent idiot masses’ kept quiet and entertained
• are under constant surveillance and are killed for contradicting the state
- Is he really STILL trying to convince us of this BS? No one who has had any contact with the news in the last six months believes the NSA “does a very good job about not engaging in domestic surveillance.” No one. Everyone knows the NSA is all up in our business, all the time, everywhere, for no good reason. In fact, at this point, I think even if Edward Snowden hasn’t revealed that the NSA is doing a specific type of surveillance on us, we all pretty much assume that it’s happening anyway. (For his next revelation, my money is on “The NSA is watching you through your webcams, so definitely put a Post-It up there.”)
- "It’s not constrained by laws." It’s not. Constrained. By laws. I mean, I appreciate the honesty, but damn. Isn’t Rule #1 of Being President something like “Don’t straight-up tell people you’re letting an insanely powerful and invasive government agency run rampant worldwide without any constraints of law”?
All joking aside, this is an incredibly revealing quote. And you know what? In 2001, it might have worked.
Maybe if most of us didn’t have the modern internet — constant access to a wide variety of news sources and commentary — we wouldn’t instantly dismiss the President’s blatant lie about domestic surveillance.
Maybe if we weren’t at an all time high of public opinion in favor of minding our own business internationally (whjle building friendly trade relations abroad), we wouldn’t care about our government savaging the rest of the world’s privacy.
Maybe if trust of government hadn’t been on a steady decline of 40 points in the last decade (currently just 19% of Americans trust the government), we’d simply accept this line at face value.
Maybe we’d buy this spin.
But it’s not 2001, and only the most absurd Democratic partisans can take this statement from the President as a convincing or moral.
For the rest of us, it’s a three-sentence encapsulation of an imperial presidency with no respect for the rights or wishes of American citizens — and the rest of the world.
And with access to all of this information through the powers of the internet, it should come as no surprise that policy shifts within the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or regarding censorship legislation along the lines of SOPA, demonstrates that the government continues to actively undermine our access to this information and technology.(via priceofliberty)
For those concerned about National Security Agency interception of commercial data—information that you might share with Facebook, Google, and other online outfits—the Electronic Frontier Foundation keeps a running tally of encryption measures implemented by such firms. Since the NSA often hacks into data links without any legal niceties, such encryption has the potential to dramatically improve security. Even when government officials come with rubber-stamp court authorization in hand, or other tools for compelling compliance, tools like the perfect forward secrecy recently implemented by Twitter can limit the snoops’ take. It can even make it impossible for companies to do as the official eavesdroppers ask. That’s important for American firms that find their ability to compete both locally and globally seriously hindered by assumptions that their data storage systems are effectively reading rooms for the NSA.
According to the EFF, the table above shows where major online firms stand at the moment in their encryption efforts. This is a moving target, of course, so keep checking back with the EFF for new developments.
Definition-wise, encrypted data center links are important, because the NSA has been tapping into the free flow of information between servers owned by companies like Google. Encrypting that flow means snoops will nab scrambled and incomprehensible information (unless they crack the encryption).
HTTPS provides a secure connection to Web pages, so that your activity is less easily observed.
HSTS is basically a more secure form of HTTPS.
Perfect Forward Secrecy encrypts each session you spend on a service like Facebook independently, so that even if snoops or hackers get access to one encryption key, they can’t retroactively decrypt everything you’ve done in the past.
STARTTLS is a means on encrypting communications between email servers. Those with their status listed in red, above, provide email to the public, making it a bigger deal than those whose status is in grey, and provide only internal email.
Of course, all of this could be bypassed if the government forces online companies to build in technology that eases wiretapping, which it has already done to telecoms. In that case, look to overseas services—or implement your own encryption.
- German police used a total of 85 bullets in all of 2011
- Iceland is currently grappling with the first officer involved shooting in the nation’s history.
In the U.S. however…
America’s gun use is a joke. Their gun entitlement attitude is embarrassing and dangerous. Fuck guns.
Guns aren’t the issue here. It’s the monopoly of and use of violence that is at issue here. The areas throughout the world with the highest incidence of violent crime are also those areas with low levels of gun ownership.
The danger stems from disarming people. Making it harder for people to defend themselves does not make dangerous people less dangerous. The link above regarding Iceland even states that Iceland is 15th in the world in gun ownership and yet violent crime is virtually non-existent.
You’re letting your personal mores and judgements blind you. If you don’t like guns that’s fine no one is forcing you to buy them or use them. But don’t impinge on other’s right to do as they wish with their life.
And I’d like to add that there isn’t a sense of entitlement amongst the gun owning population in the U.S. We aren’t saying other people should subsidize our lifestyles. We are simply arguing that the right to defend oneself and own a gun should not be interfered with. This is different from say advocating for the government to provide us with contraception or unemployment insurance or education. Those are entitlements. Those “services” are funded by expropriated tax dollars and are spent without the consent of those stolen from.
And one more thing. You aren’t really anti-gun. You’re anti-private gun ownership. You’re perfectly comfortable sending the State with their guns to force others to live by your world-view. You’re fine using the State’s violence to exact your will on those you disagree with. In reality, you’re the dangerous one. My guns never killed anyone. But the State and the masses that condone it are responsible for the deaths of millions of people.
Madison, 11, even cut and chopped the mistletoe herself from her uncle’s farm in Newberg.
She’s hoping to raise money to chip in for her braces. The dentist says they’ll cost $4,800.
"I felt like I could help my dad with the money," she said.
Madison and her dad bagged up the mistletoe and started selling them next to the Skidmore Fountain in Downtown Portland on Saturday morning.
That’s also where the Portland Saturday Market holds its weekly venue.
"I wouldn’t think I’d have any problems because people are asking for money, people are selling stuff, this is a public place," said Madison.
But you can’t open a business without going through the market’s formal application process.
Begging is different.
That’s a form of free speech, protected under the First Amendment, explains Mark Ross, spokesman for the Portland Parks Bureau, which manages the city park and rents it to the Saturday Market.
Beg people to buy mistletoes? Or beg and give the mistletoes as presents? Or just say you are begging and give the mistletoes out anyway.
^ I’ve always wondered the same about prostitution. Couldn’t they say they were sleeping together voluntarily and the cash exchange was just a gift?