So, should sites like Wikileaks be shut doiwn?

Well, they didn't quite go about it right if they said you were Nazi-like, but primarily I cannot stand the argument that "because you are not of this profession, you cannot have any opinion on it". There's deep personal understanding of a situation because you are in it and if you think someone doesn't "get it", then I would appreciate an explanation.

Like, the "collateral murder" video is a helicopter gunner that mistook a journalist for an insurgent then killed him. Adding to that mistake, he fired upon a family in a van that pulled up and decided to help them. The general expectation is that because he made a mistake there should be a reprimand. It's similar to say, someone is driving down the road and the light looked like it was green but it was actually red and then he ran over a pedestrian by accident. Do we expect the courts to go "Well, I guess it was an honest mistake, so oh well." Of course not. Now, usually you'd say, "but the military is different", then well it needs justification for why. Being in combat isn't enough because the world has changed, nobody goes around conquering other people any more (well not supposed to anyway).

edited 3rd Mar '11 12:04:35 PM by breadloaf

/Devil's Advocate/ Let's put it this way. If soldiers and surgeons were persecuted every time someone dies for their mistakes, they wouldn't be able to perform their jobs at all. Ambulance chasers have made a joke of the medical profession in the US with all those frivolous lawsuits. Do we want the military to be even more inefficient and incapable of achieving the missions we lay on them than it is already because of our unrealistic expectations?/Devil's Advocate/

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."

Counterpoint: Is it not better to have such operations performed "inefficiently" but always correctly than "efficiently" but potentially riddled with deadly errors?

Also, what is our highest ideal but Truth? Admittedly, I'd argue Happiness, but in point of fact it is crucial to have openness in order to ensure a truly happy society. An abolition of the significant lie, as it were. Would you disagree with this assessment?

edited 3rd Mar '11 12:38:37 PM by JHM

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.

Well another counterpoint is that those frivolous lawsuits are due to a poor judiciary and legal system rather than the expectations that doctors cannot make mistakes. Afterall, such lawsuit problems do not exist in the United Kingdom (as an example). On the other hand, we could still resolve it through legislation to simplify the matter. That is, there is an automatic investigation of any mistake/death and the punishment is decided by the regulatory board set up by the government; therefore there are no lawsuits. That makes it fair and impartial assuming the regulatory board is fair and impartial.

Depends on the rates.

Fight smart, not fair.

SCIENCE!

That's a good especially, especially since one wouldn't expect civillian victims' families to have the resources to use good lawyers by US standards.

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."

I'm generally in favor of anything that destroys a lawyers job.

Fight smart, not fair.

I am absolutely with you on that one.

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."

Well for surgeons, unless it was inevitable  ^*

, the idea is to punish him for screwing up in a job that deals with a human being's life, this is set in place to keep every medical professional on their toes or else.

Is it harsh? Definately...but look at a surgeon's salary. Also, think about what their job is and what the consequences of just a tiny calculation or spelling error can do. The high demand job, plus high salaries, plus the potential disaster if even a single mistake is made makes being a surgeon Serious Business.

So if they screw up, it has potential to be devastating to the people involved.

---

The same goes for military personnels and officers.

It all depends on the consequences of the mistakes.  ^*

edited 3rd Mar '11 3:54:15 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

Sorry you lost, Ardiente. Wish I'd had time to help more.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

It's okay :)◊

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."

On the original subject of shutting down websites, the French Constitutional Council, the last defense line of freedom, has fallen: They authorized the filtering of websites without any form of control, on the principle that "any interested person can contest the decision".

But how can one contest such a decision when the blacklist is a state secret?

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

HUH? WHAT? WHAT THE FUCK IS THE CNIL DOING? ROLLING THEIR THUMBS?

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."

The CNIL never had any real power. Against private website administrators maybe, but against the State its role is purely consultative.

And the amendment to the law that demanded the CNIL validate any censorship decision has been unsurprisingly rejected.

edited 11th Mar '11 3:47:09 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

WEYOU MUST DO SOMETHING! THIS IS BAD!

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."

I know.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Doesn't mean it's an informed opinion, and most of those opinions are rather ignorant ones.

I've explained the helicopter thing in this thread like 5 times already. : /

Mass encryption of communications, a jump to the darknets. That would basically cripple the State's ability to filter or prosecute anything on the interwebz.

You don't really need real download speeds of over 1 megabyte/second. What if a huge download (say, 15 gigs) takes a whole day, but every communication is gubbermint-proof in return?

edited 11th Mar '11 10:20:48 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

I wouldn't mind that, but how would it be feasible?

The masses beoming tech-literate?

Any form of onion-routing gives plausible deniability. What if every computer was a Tor or I 2 P or Freenet node?

edited 11th Mar '11 10:32:03 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

AWESOME

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."