Since Google is posting these publicly (using many fancy techniques to improve their relevance no less) how many billion years of Sentencing will Brin & Page face under these extremely well worded/just/sane Federal Laws?
What gives? Can't have it both ways.
There may (or may not) be specific laws that deal with explicit referrals to illegal activities.
> Google doesn't do any filtering (except the filtering that it does do)
> Google doesn't give directions to somebody's house and tell you how to get in, it gives directions to everybody's houses and tells you how to get in.
What is this, a formal debate with research and fact-checking and carefully proofread dissertations? We're just a few guys writing stream-of-consciousness paragraphs between code compiles. I maintain that anybody who doesn't recognize the difference between somebody posting a link to a bunch of credit card numbers and Google showing links in their search results is being deliberately obtuse or autistic, or both. There is obviously a continuum between them (in the sense that they both revolve about 'links'), and one can argue about cases on this continuum (although I have no interest in doing so), but the argument 'a link is a link' without any consideration for context, intent, etc is prima facie stupid to any reasonable person.
No, you're right. Let's keep this emotional, fact-free, and useless.
>the argument 'a link is a link' without any consideration for context, intent, etc is prima facie stupid to any reasonable person.
No, you're making a false dichotomy of this. The fact is that a link is a link is a link. Tying this in with intent and context is a different matter altogether. The nature of a link doesn't (or at least shouldn't) change between applications of the term, whereas intent and context can. However, if the crux of the matter with regards to intent and context is that a link "posted" by a link aggregator points to something it shouldn't, the effect of that action can't be split out differently simply because a different actor was involved.
By analogy, it doesn't matter that I was swinging a chain saw around my head on a rope with the intention of evenly cutting my hedges, the fact of the matter is that my neighbours are approximately one head-length shorter than they were when they stumbled upon me. Whether or not I'm a gardener or a dedicated chainsaw murderer doesn't affect the outcome here.
head explodes
If you're trolling, congratulations, you got me.
If not, it doesn't make any sense to continue this. I don't see a way to convince anyone who doesn't see the difference between somebody posting a specific link to stolen data and a link aggregator. It's not about the link, it's about posting the link, and the intent and context of that action. I honestly don't see how to go deeper on that.
The 'analogies' game is quite tiring, I'm not even going there.
Explain that one, Mister Ideological Predisposition.
[0] http://nypost.com/2013/01/12/no-charges-for-nbc-host-david-g...
"Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States, especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public"
Edit: Another question gets downvoted. Hacker News really hates when people ask questions. You can go through my recent comment history and see where other questions[1] I ask get downvoted too. Whatever you do, don't ask people on Hacker News about whatever comments they make.
I think at this point pg would be doing everyone a favor if he just rebooted this site or just closed it down completely given what it the community has turned into.
Don't think those of us in "flyover country" aren't paying attention to this political corruption in the nation's capitol.
And yes, equality is something that governments attempt to achieve through laws. Equal application of the law is one of the founding tenets of the US government. In my opinion, yes, equality is a more worthy goal to pursue than blanket enforcement of every law that happens to have gotten onto the books.
And the fact is they uniformly enforce these laws, albeit with quite a few jury nullifications, except when people like David Gregory and institutions like NBC commit these crimes. Knowingly in NBC's case.
I wish more people would admit we have a severe problem with having effectively having two sets of laws, one for our nomenklatura and another for the rest of us.
Certain individuals who are part of the DC government believe those things. Some other individuals don't. We count up the ones on each side and then democracy happens. We have the courts to make sure the majority hasn't gone completely crazy.
DC went through a long time where they were leading the US in murders. When people are getting shot around you left and right, it's pretty reasonable to think that maybe you could stop that if you could stop people from having guns. The purpose of the laws was to stop people from getting shot. It's pretty clear that David Gregory was not going to shoot anyone, so putting him in jail was not going to serve the purpose of the law.
Are they willing to be as rational if the person isn't famous? I don't know. I'm not aware of any other cases where a non-famous citizen has gotten ahold of an illegal ammo clip to use as a prop in an argument about gun control.
"We have the courts to make sure the majority hasn't gone completely crazy."
Yes, that's what Heller was all about, but that hasn't stopped D.C. from engaging in Massive Resistance.
Getting back to the other case, Irvin Nathan had one defective shotgun shell in his home. Is putting him in jail going to serve the purported purpose of the law?
There are plenty of analogous examples to David Gregory with "illegal guns" being used a props by politicians and the like. Of course, they too are members of the nomenklatura that people like you are so willing to excuse.
Now you have two people in jail instead of one. We should be trying to have zero people in jail who should not be there. We shouldn't say "Well, we put one person there for a bad reason, so we should put everyone else there for the same bad reason too". This is what you seem to be proposing. I get David Gregory doesn't share your politics, and maybe you just don't like him. That doesn't mean we should put him in jail just so you can feel better about some other person getting screwed. I doubt Irvin Nathan would feel any better about being in jail if David Gregory were there along with him. I'm sure he'd much rather just not be there.
Side note: You can look at actual data here - http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
The murder rate in DC was rising steadily since 1960 until the gun control laws were passed in 1976. It went down briefly, then exploded with the crack epidemic in the late 80s, early 90s. Obviously, there are many, many factors contributing to the murder rate and you can't control it by modifying only one input. I'm not trying to imply otherwise.
This clear inequality appears to bother the parent poster more than the given example of heavy handed punishment.
Whereas the establishment of a shameless nomenklatura in the US is an existential threat to the Republic. Which could, I might add, have even nastier personal consequences.
Invidious gun grabber laws are as old as Reconstruction, but we've been fantastically successful at beating them back starting in 1986. Our fight with our ruling class ... not so much.
"We need to enforce the law because it's the law so we need to enforce it" is shitty, circular reasoning. This is the exact reason we have judges and juries in the first place: to interpret laws so they don't get blindly applied in places where they don't benefit us.
Its not like he was out there trying to sell credit card numbers. He was trying do disseminate information for the public good and some illegal information was swept up. Prosecutoral discretion, indeed.
The guy was steamrolled. They found a scapegoat for a problem they were embarassed they couldn't do much about (Anonymous). Luckily he was engaged in questionable personal activities like drug use so they knew they had an easy road to discredit his work and drag him through the mud. Then they found a reason to provoke and prosecute and did it.
"Goggle doesn't do any filtering"
"..doesn't willingly lead people to certain material"
Are you sure we are taking about the same Google?