fianchetto

Hell yeah, I'll give those boys with the funny accents a bitcoin.

Very curious.

"Rulers who distrust their own people, must govern in a spirit of absolutism ; and suspected subjects will be ever sensible of their bondage."

The Constitutional History Of England Vol II

Erskine May

1863

Bernie Madoff didn't have direct access to his victims' accounts. They willingly gave him the money.

> FWIW, I believe them when they say they aren't giving direct access to their servers to the government.

What have they done to earn your trust so that you believe them?

In matters of espionage and mass surveillance, I expect lying to be the default response for the government and corporate players involved.

> If you're going to say your data not safe in Google's hands, then your data just isn't safe on the internet which I think is a needlessly extreme position to take.

Google isn't the internet.

Dump gmail, FB and other spy holes. Use public key crypto. Take your own network back.

Or continue on as usual. Our choice.

> I'm really not sure why HNers reacted differently in this instance though.

Because the government has admitted it.

> Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers.

Amazing how all them, to a company, are using the "direct access" phrase.

Plausible deniability for the whole world to see along with the revelation of the biggest spying operation in history.

> I wouldn't question their motives

I would.

> The same thing happened when Steve Jobs died.

People and events resonate with, move or touch other people.

Most other people, I should say.

> Why does the NSA want so much information?

> Since the program is secret, it’s hard to say for sure. But the NSA is probably using a software technique called data mining to look for patterns that could be a sign of terrorist activity.

Mr. Lee is assuming a whole lot. I don't trust journalism that tries to steer me into thinking the government is just watching out for us, especially when they've just been caught spying on us.

The biggest government spy operation in history is now public knowledge. It's kind of a big deal.

> It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.

"Intentionally" is a weasel word. Clapper also used the word "wittingly", another weasel word, when questioned by Congress.

The takeaway: They still don't deny that they're collecting the info.

The line was in an earlier edit:

> "The administration has now lost all credibility."

http://www.newsdiffs.org/diff/245539/245566/www.nytimes.com/...

> How is that any of anyone's business but his?

He used public land. He made it public.

Old story: Arrogant punk thinks the world is his, will be shown differently in a few years.

> who eventually end up hyperventilating about jackbooted thugs forcing you to register your car at the DMV.

It's a poor argument that can be derailed by what you think another might say.

Not to be harsh, but your argument is all over the place.

> Voluntarily suspending operation

Something is voluntary only if there's no threat of force behind it.

Voluntary: acting or done without compulsion or obligation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/voluntary

A smaller entity being threatened by a larger entity is a form of force.

Do you think you pay taxes "voluntarily" also?

> It sounds like they did this voluntarily

No, they were forced by the state.

> They are not being forced to close.

They were told they "must" close by the state. I'm not sure how anyone can construe that as voluntary.

"The commission has formally stated that unless exempt from licensing we must stop further activity until such time as we apply for and obtain a Money Transmitter license."

How about starting with something as simple as being able to grow hemp without being threatened by various police?

The US has been a developing economic police state since at least the 1930's.

> Despite what people on reddit, and other fringe internet forums would have you believe, The United States has some of the strongest personal liberties in the world.

I must disagree. Any government that would prohibit free agriculture is already on the road to tyranny. Every dictatorship, no matter its form, allows for the existence of some personal liberties as it limits the rest.

> His statements about persecution have to be taken with some grains of salt.

In the fight between the National Security State and the individual, I always give the individual the benefit of the doubt. Then again, I always back the underdog.

> there are plenty of people who should know better singing the praises of online financial currencies and other broad operations that operate outside the controls and oversight of governments.

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these [regulators] are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"

-Frederic Bastiat, 1850

We had a mistake in communication. I thought you were referencing the Liberty Dollar topic I had raised.

I have no issues with people moving their money around as they see fit. Why not outlaw cash if "money laundering" is a concern?

> it was demonstrably used for criminal transactions.

I'm sure you have proof of this.

> BitCoin isn't a "threat" to the money issuance monopoly

You are mistaken. Look at what was done to Liberty Dollar.