* Posts by lcb

2 publicly visible posts • joined 27 Jun 2013

For pity's sake: DON'T MOVE to the COUNTRY if you want to live

lcb

Raging

I thought this article was going to be about raging in the city after the title. Technology and wild lives in the city, but just news sites in the countryside, or something!

Snowden dodges US agents in Moscow, skips out on flight

lcb

Re: It's not illegal, but it is uncool

"What the NSA does is not illegal."

I think you what you probably mean (or at least, would mean if you knew) that what the NSA does is not illegal unless caught and any evidence involved can't somehow be demeaned in the courts' version of distant, bureaucratic terms. That's a different concept of legality to the standard one, especially when coming from the authorities, the same institution in vague terms as who, to extents, controls the law.

There are two meanings of this - that something is "not illegal" because one is not caught at it. And I guess that both are relevant here, the authorities likely at times at least to be involved in the first and attempting to place it in the context of the second.

The first is simply that something is not portrayed as illegal because it has not been communicated about, acknowledged for what it ought to be, or reprimanded. These kind of terms are weak actually, as this kind of "not illegal" is as good a disturbed strangler's opinion that he is not on the wrong side of the law because it has not told him that. It doesn't need to be said that this type of "not illegal" is only utterly a misnomer.

The second type of "not illegal" also finds itself based by those who live under its auspices around the idea that one is not on the wrong side of the law because, it can be alleged one can only reasonably conclude one must be told by the law this. It may involved perceiving there are grey areas in the law. It may involve perceiving that parts of the law either have not been interpreted properly yet to clearly mean one thing or the other. Or that one's own interpretation, in the circumstances (always considering the importance of a particular aim) can have to be the right interpretation. Always in the circumstances, placing their context or the aim higher that any other considerations.

While there can be times when type two "not illegal" might be fair enough (maybe), and also those operating within its assumed "shelter" will suggest that one does not know anyway unless one goes to court, of course many involved persons know that they are only using the idea, and more falsely than in true terms.

As mentioned at the top, of course type 1 may often be pretended to somehow have been conceived to have been within type 2 "non illegality".

To answer Nicho, I think there are times when spying, invading privacy and so on are not against the law, you're right. Though is it not the case that this is more the exception than the rule? I think privacy laws and, actually, everyday laws favouring the sovereignty of the citizen can not be flouted generally, as a rule, otherwise it seems they are not really law, but wish and ideal.