Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
WhiteLion wrote...
I don't think this is a correct interpretation of how this stuff works in regards copyright law. Some forms of media have digital copyright code written into them, and the versions of them that are "shared" are identifiable because they have been cracked. Even so, the burden of proof would be on accuser in to show that the material violated copyright agreements. Burden of proof is a bit easier in the case of child porn.
Recent social "mentality" changes have begun to shift the responsibility of proving innocence on the accused rather than the accuser having to prove guilt. As well as the mentality that somebody is guilty until proven innocent instead of what it should be.
This is probably a poor example but, a man was taking pictures of his children on a slide in a public park. Several women started accusing him of being a child molester/sick freak/etc and even called the cops. The cop sided with the women until the man was able to prove that the children he was taking pictures of were indeed his own children.
Though the digital copyright code is a saving point but, how impractical would it really be to check every program on a person laptop before allowing them entry? Checking their O.S., their media players, winrars, music, games, etc. Airport security is already strict and mind numbingly slow this will just increase the waiting time
Your example is a bit misleading I think. Certain crimes, like rape and child molesting, due tend to see people assumed guilty in the court of public opinion if there is even enough evidence to arrest them, but in a court of law, the burden of proof is still on the accuser. I tend to think that someone being accused of possession "shared" files would actually be a sympathetic figure to the public, as we saw back in the days of the insane RIA lawsuits.
To clarify another point, the TSA isn't going to be going through peoples' laptops looking explicitly for pirated files. This proposed plan would just allow them to confiscate such files and prosecute people if they found them incidentally.
By saying he's turning America communist they are talking about the state taking control of major industries. Currently, the banking industry is being forced to take money with huge strings attached to the point that banks are refusing the money because the strings are just ridiculous.
And they are free to refuse the money. In fact, libertarians tend to think that we shouldn't even have offered them any money anyways. If this were a statist nation, the government would just come and take control of all the banks. Even with the bailout money, the government isn't interested in directly running these institutions, the sentiment is more that these institutions screwed up and they need to prove that they are going to move in a significantly different direction if they want to be bailed out at taxpayer expense. The whole firing of Big 3 CEOs was a bit silly and more for show than anything, but the government isn't forcibly taking over companies. Even the whole gas gouging thing was mainly espoused by a small number of politicians trying to drum up populist support.
Fiery_Penguin_of_Doom wrote...
This is just a theory but, I think the reason why the internet turned against Obama is because he didn't keep him promises. He claimed he'd make government more transparent, more accountable,etc. Yet, with his stimulus bill he passed even the people voting on it only had a single night to read like 500 pages. Then we have the breaking up of the "ole boys club" when all he did was hire ex Clinton advisers. I could go on but, I believe I've made my point. He is already breaking promises he made during his campaign.
Broken Promises
Obameter
I'm not sure to what extent the internets have turned against Obama, but I think the reason for the hostility we see is more along the following lines: a combination of overload of information, sensationalist new, and people latching onto such stories without bothering to consider how reliably/reasonable they or their sources are. The news story that this topic was originally about is a great example. It's based on shoddy and misleading news reports from the Czech Republic and Russia, but someone put it on Digg, and lots of people read it and assumed that it was true and quality reporting.
Honestly, the internets would have turned against anyone in some sense. It's a fundamental truth of politics today that it's easy to spread negative information and smear because it can be done in a few sentences, while most people lack the determination to sort through the more nuanced and complete views of what's going on.
Ironically enough, the Obameter actually makes it seem like Obama is doing pretty well so far. Keeping 23 promises, including some very major ones, and breaking 5 is a pretty good percentage so far. No. 240 being broken is disappointing, and I agree that some of his appointments have been not to my liking, but he has been changing some major aspects of policy.