In which direction? Is it because the veteran is a murderer while the beggar is harmless or because the veteran's suffering is more severe than the beggar's?
The beggar provides value by only extracting a pittance. If he were, say, a burglar, he would be taking far more than he needs, and that would actually be costing you something less reasonable.
If everyone only used what they needed, we'd all have plenty of resources to dedicate to the communal good.
Lots of hate here so far. I agree more explanation of their premise would go a long way towards convincing skeptics. However, I think this is an interesting perspective and deserves better conversation. Fiscal policy is progressive and has a dramatic impact on individual finances. Contrary to popular belief not everyone in the 1% pays the capital gains rate.
I don't know what the accepted jurisprudence is on this, but there are interpretations of the 5th amendment saying that the protection only extends to the authorities being unable to legally compel you to reveal that you can decrypt the data (and, by extension, that you have some level of knowledge of or responsibility for it). That is, if they can somehow prove that the data is yours, a court can order you to decrypt it.
The entirety of the US system of government is predicated on lack of trust. Hence checks and balances through branches and the limits placed on the government by the constitution. The founders saw this coming. They didn't trust the government. Why should we?!
The difference is not about who is more powerful. The difference is that I can choose to use DuckDuckGo instead of Google. I cannot (barring extreme measures) choose to disobey the government.
Your friends are on google mail, maybe hidden behind their own domain. Your friends post stories and pictures involving you on G+. If you hang with them...and their android phones. You can get rid of them or you can accept being google data.
He very often applies this tactic of trying to make the other side seem unreasonable.
This is the most important issue of our generation. You cannot have it both ways Mr. President. There is no middle ground. You either support the right to privacy or you do not. There are only two options and you have to pick one.
I'm sorry, but I absolutely have no faith in this petition site anymore...willing to change my mind given sufficient data but given history, it seems like window dressing.
Yes. Discuss the issue online. Make Facebook posts and YouTube videos. Talk about it with your friends.
CALL your representatives to let them know how you feel and why. Email them. It works, they do listen. There are bills being proposed in NY and CA that would force companies to insert back doors or face a penalty. The issue is now political at the highest level, and our President is spreading the misinformed view of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Given Trump's campaign success, we should all be very afraid at the effectiveness of this uninformed stance.
You could've said the same thing in 1789. Either you support the right of privacy (let police enter into peoples' homes without their consent) or you don't. Those are the only two options. No reasonable middle ground to be had in-between.
I think the argument here isn't that the government never has a right to access your private information with a warrant (or maybe it is and I'm misreading).
The argument is that if you support the right to keep your document private from everything except legitimate government access, you can't insist that manufacturers build in back doors to allow government access. There just isn't a technologically feasible way to build a backdoor that only government agencies with warrants can use.
I don't like this line of reasoning because it allows for a pro-surveillance outcome if you change the statistics. At what threshold do you switch sides? Ben Franklin is pretty clear and so is the constitution. We don't need to argue on the government agency's terms because we win this argument hands down on principal alone. Please don't weaken the argument.
