Demaestro - 9:28 pm on May 20, 2010 (gmt 0)
Do you know how to tear down and rebuild the motor in your car? No?
Actually Yes, but that isn't my point, I clarfied I meant the inhearant dangers and risks, not the nuances and all the ins and outs.
So in my point with a car it would be that you shouldn't speed, you shouldn't drink and drive, you need oil, you need gas, what are the rules of the road. If you don't know things things you shouldn't be driving.... you shouldn't get a government official riding shotgun pointing out every pitfall, preventing you from harming yourself.
You know how to frame and drywall a house?
Yes I do, but my point would be more about having fire insurance or flood insurance, knowing how the locks work, pilet light on the furnace, maybe even understanding the alram if there is one.
You know how to fly a plane every time you take a flight?
I did get to control a twin engine once for about 15 minutes but I would have been scared to land it or navigate it.... but to my point I did know all the emergency procedures and I have xp skydiving.
Who's forcing you to hold their hands? It's not clear why you're expressing such an elitist attitude when *you* (and Google) don't actually have to do anything.
When I say I am over the hand holding I don't mean to say that I myself have to do the hand holding, but I am over the government hand holding people who put themselves at risk out of sheer ignorance on technology, or anything. They want the conveniences of using it but want no share in the responsibly. It is a nanny state mentality and it absolves people of all responsibility, ignorance has never been a valid defense, and now it seems to be one more and more.
Are you aware of the hypocrisy of the German regulations (hand holding) rules?
They recently upheld a copyright conviction against someone with an open wifi network because someone was able to use his network to share and download files. The person convicted did no downloading, it was just done over his network. But he was still charged because he should have protected his network.
Then they turn around and charge Google for using open networks, but don't hold any of the people with the open network responsible like they did in the file sharing case.
In fact, just so it's quite clear, Google - not the consumer - is the aggressor in this case. The consumer doesn't WANT your hand holding. It'd be nice if Google just left everyone alone. See? Then everyone would be happy.
There is NO aggressor in this case IMO.
If someone got a walkie-talkie to talk to their neighbor and they disclosed their driver's license number over it, and I happen to be listening in am I an aggressor if I write that number down? Have I committed a crime, even if I never use it and rip it up and throw it out?
Should the government stop me from listening in to open transmissions on walkie-talkies?
Do you feel like the person disclosing personal info about themselves over a walkie-talkie deserves any privacy protection and that their government should act against me to protect them when they want to use a walkie-talkie to disclose personal details about themselves?