Calling a Spade a Spade

Mercurial Times ^ | December 3, 2001 | Aaron Armitage

[A.J.Armitage]

"Packets of information passing through computers is fine, that's how the internet works. A person other than the intended receiver reading it, catching it as it passes over his computer or at any other time, is wrong unless there's a warrant."

That's basically a contradiction in terms. Every packet of data on the internet is read by software on multiple machines, none of whom will end up being the intended receiver. A router in particular will examine numerous packets, but only pass a few through it. A cable modem will see every packet sent into its local loop, yet it will only pass those with a certain IP on to its owner. Yet you want to claim that the cable-modem is wrong to read messages that don't belong to its owner. That just isn't how the Internet is designed.

Seeing a difference between humans and computers is a contradiction in terms? LOL

I don't doubt you'll continue to act as if no one had ever thought of such a distinction.

[A.J.Armitage]

You know nothing of the sort.

What else am I supposed to make of #98?

[A.J.Armitage]

Well, that's not really a good analogy. After all, the mom and the child molester will never change places, but elections do change officeholders. Suppose, however, you were deciding whether or not the little girl should be left alone with the guy who lives next door. Not that one particular person, but the person next door whoever he is (this is to make sure it stays in line with the way our political system works, powers gained by one president being almost always retained for others). Now, say the guy next door right now is a nice guy, but in a short period of time he'll move. You know that the last guy there was a child molester, and there's a very good chance whoever replaces the current resident will be like the last one. What do you do then?

[from occupied ga]

unrepresented without any proof (and be taken seriously)?!

One word to you:
Manzanar

[rdb3]

As a dispassionate outside observer of your debate with Southack, I must say that Southack handed your head to you.

Your smugness does you no good in the process. It makes you appear like an average politician tap-dancing around specific questions rather than answering them.

[SusanUSA]

YEEOOW!! What a perfect return in this tennis match! You ACED it A.J.!! Thanks...and I haven't even read the replies yet!

BTTT

[SusanUSA]

Ping!You may just like this!

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Are you saying Clinton had prinicples? LOL! Registered doesn't "follow politicians" if he is not defending Clinton (like others do). That's obvious.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Save this for later. It will come in handy

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Or maybe this one

[BillofRights]

Thanks for the ping. I did like that!

[Southack]

"Seeing a difference between humans and computers is a contradiction in terms?"

Probably, but that wasn't what I was trying to convey. I was trying to show that it is a contradiction in philosophy to be OK with some government machines/software reading your specific internet data traffic (as they must do to determine where to correctly route your data packets or to even diagnose technical problems which are unrelated to you or your data), but not OK with other government software/machines reading your internet data traffic (say, with software like Carnivore).

Having a problem with government software examining open, unencrypted data traffic on the information super-hiway is akin to having a problem with police offices watching your car travel a public interstate hiway. You seem to be OK with one but not the other.

[Southack]

"You know that the last guy there was a child molester, and there's a very good chance whoever replaces the current resident will be like the last one. What do you do then?"

Precisely. That was my point. It matters which person is in there, not the generic principle that the kid either can or can't be allowed into that place.

[A.J.Armitage]

I was trying to show that it is a contradiction in philosophy to be OK with some government machines/software reading your specific internet data traffic (as they must do to determine where to correctly route your data packets or to even diagnose technical problems which are unrelated to you or your data), but not OK with other government software/machines reading your internet data traffic (say, with software like Carnivore).

So now you're telling me the purpose of the software doesn't matter. LOL, again.

[A.J.Armitage]

Precisely. That was my point. It matters which person is in there, not the generic principle that the kid either can or can't be allowed into that place.

I've noticed a pattern. You come up with a point you think is clever, and then it has to be painfully spoonfed to you past a wall of non-comprehension why it isn't. And then you ask the other guy why he doesn't admit he was wrong, usually just before the exact point you ought to admit that.

On the above, that's NOT what I said. Now PAY ATTENTION.

What I said was, if you have a choice of letting whoever lives next door be alone with the little girl or not, without regard for who it is, and you know the guy next door is frequently replaced, and the last guy was a child molester, and there's a good chance that the next guy will be too, you decide not to let her be alone with the next door neighbor.

I that know with actual next door neighbors, you can let one be alone with the kids and not the next one. I also know that we don't have the option of letting one president have a particular power, but not the next one. If you let Bush have a particular power, and Hillery gets elected in 2004, she's going to have that power.

You see, in our system power doesn't go to particular persons, it goes to offices. We don't know who the next president will be, but we do know there will be a democrat in there eventually.

Now do you get, or should I use bolded all-caps?

[rdb3]

Here is a Freep-mail from A.J. to me:

"You're a lunatic."

And just why would I be a lunatic? I'd back off of the name calling, partner.

[A.J.Armitage]

And just why would I be a lunatic?

Because you think being this guy means winning. It doesn't, it mean being jaw-droppingly obtuse.

[A.J.Armitage]

mean

Means.

[Southack]

"What I said was, if you have a choice of letting whoever lives next door be alone with the little girl or not, without regard for who it is, and you know the guy next door is frequently replaced, and the last guy was a child molester, and there's a good chance that the next guy will be too, you decide not to let her be alone with the next door neighbor."

Yes, and I think that's a good example of why your blind adherence to principles over the person is wrongheaded. If Tiger Woods or Mr. Rogers moves in next door, you're going to throw out your former, generic "principled" policy of not letting your child go next door to see your neighbor; the policy that you had in place when your next door neighbor was a convicted child rapist, previously. You see, the person in question really does make a difference.

"I also know that we don't have the option of letting one president have a particular power, but not the next one. "

You mean like letting one President have the line item veto, briefly, but then no other President got it? Or like initiating a prohibition on alcohol during one or two administrations and then repealing that power for other administrations? Or like reigning in Presidential powers with something like the War Powers Act so that other Presidents didn't have the power that one President in particular had?

"Now do you get, or should I use bolded all-caps?"

Goodness, not the bolded CAPS treatment! No, anything but that! Logic, facts, and reason would actually be preferred, if you can find it in you for once.

[Southack]

"So now you're telling me the purpose of the software doesn't matter."

Well, that's too generic of a statement for me to really want to get too far into, but no, the purpose of the software doesn't matter in regards to the question of whether or not the data traffic is in the public domain in the first place.

Either sniffers have a right to view your (and everyone else's) coincidental data packets while they are diagnosing technical problems AND other software on other machines have a similar right to examine data packets OR only the intended reciever of the data has the right to read packets (which would shut down the Internet because reading packets is REQUIRED for routing and technical diagnostics).