On 04/01/2015 10:34 AM, Lodewijk andré de la porte quotes me:
works... IF EVERYONE cooperates to flaunt, flaut, and disregard it. Could you IMAGINE the gubmint trying to take every internet provider and major website operating in the US to court? Shut down Twitter and Yahoo!'s US ops? Really!
...and replies:
Have you heard of "punitive punishment"? Do you know the percentage of people breaking the Computer Fraud Act? What about Copyright? How many people have been selectively convicted of drug use? (bonus points for racial profiling!)
Simply put: oh no, you are so, so very wrong.
Of course I've heard of punitive punishment and CERTAINLY 'selective enforcement', which IS how laws are enforced in my California coastal tourist/college town, but it requires that the non-persecuted internet providers sit idly by while their users are punished. NOT a good way to keep current users or acquire new ones . There have been instances here where the non-persecuted backed the persecuted about local nuisance ordinances leading to their modification or annulment. The non-persecuted (Yuppies with dogs) successfully pressured the city into quitting their selective enforcement of people who WERE being persecuted for their pets downtown by often simply not LOOKING LIKE 'gentry' and confronting the judges with their disgust that such a law as 'no dogs' should exist. It would also be VERY HARD to get jury convictions IF the non-persecuted internet providers scoffed a law en masse with impunity, and gubmint went ahead with persecuting the other cohort without secret star chamber-like trials for the proles. At THAT point the gubmint may have bigger problems than site owners ignoring a ban on Warrant Canaries. "Simply put,": Your way of looking at the issue leads to stasis. Dare to struggle. "You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one..." ~John Lennon