Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if PayPal supported the law. Many regulations protect large, established players by raising the cost of entry for new market participants. PayPal can afford to post this bond, but many bootstrapped start-ups probably can't. This is just one of the ways regulation _can_ increase the price of products and services; they decrease competition, allowing established players to raise prices.
I didn't down vote, but I don't think the issue isn't as black and white as you're suggesting. Let me offer an alternative possibility:
The "bad guys" fail to act on this information and instead a group of newly informed (politicians|non-profit watchdogs|citizens|concerned corporations|supranational organizations) affect some change that reduces our reliance on such a small number of facilities.
Without this leak, a lot of very influential "good guys" might not know this danger even existed.
My point is that the "bad guys successfully act on this information" scenario is only one of many, not all of them bad.
In a perfect system, I would like to see voting require a license. People require a driver's license because uneducated drivers can harm others. Uneducated voters can cause similar harm to others.
Taken to the extreme, you could have a direct democracy where individuals vote directly for proposed bills, bypassing the (usually vested) middleman. Voters would have to pass some competency exam on the subject of the bill before being allowed to cast a vote. In other words, you can't vote on internet regulation if you don't know how to access a web page.
The reason there will never be a license to vote is because you transfer an immense about of power to those who create the exams. Influence the exams and you decide the election. In addition, by putting up barriers towards voting, you decrease overall participation in the election, possibly alienating the general population.
Perhaps a better, more realistic option is to move towards direct democracy while simultaneously improving as much as possible education.
The current system already has a licensing scheme.
Instead of it being based on education though it is based on wealth. The wealthy, behind closed doors, agree to a large extent on plausible policies for the country.
Then they present a limited set of alternatives and let the masses indicate which alternative makes them happiest.
The purpose of democracy is not to DECIDE anything. It is to give the illusion that the masses are in control. Without this illusion, they would turn violent.
Rest assured, the only policies the masses have control over are things that are emotionally potent but irrelevant: gay marriage, pledge of allegiance, etc. Distractions.
rrc didn't deserve your condescending reply. Many policies were once implemented in a racist way. That isn't an argument against implementing them in a non-racist way. If you want to argue that the next implementation of voter tests will also be racist, you have not made the case.
I'm sorry you consider my reply to be condescending, as that is not my intention. I however find it discouraging when people refuse to learn from history's lessons.
But, rrc has a point about voters requiring something to identify them, even if the reason for the license was problematic. The current system allows fraud which could affect close elections. I don't like the idea of a national ID, nor mark on the head or hand, but maybe just a picture of a registered voter and a date of the picture taken.
I reread rrc's comment, which seems could be interpreted as both ways; either to advocate requirement of positive identification to vote, or to require voters to take an exam to be licensed as a voter, which is what I believe what was meant.
I thought about immortality, but I suspect you'd fail to enlist the (massive) religious populations of Earth since you'd be competing directly with their existing power structure and investment.
It's odd to think that it's already a saturated market.
I think hostile aliens are a specific example of a more general unifier: non-human common enemies. This might include hostile AI (think SkyNet), solar radiation, or perhaps even a terrestrial worldwide pandemic (bacterial or viral).
I think that enemies you can see and anthropomorphise are more powerful, however, so I imagine a humanoid alien or terminator would be a better unifier than an invisible bacteria or global warming, even though all could be considered a common threat to humanity.
Many years ago when I attended First Aid/CPR training from the American Red Cross, I was told that you can actually get in serious trouble for performing CPR without a valid license. They explained that it's quite common to break ribs while performing chest compressions and these broken ribs can puncture a lung. If the individual you're helping only had a very weak pulse that you missed, you might have just made things a lot worse, perhaps even killing them.
I was told having an active AMR license legally protects you from any such accidents - especially since you are obliged to assist - but if you're untrained and unlicensed you could be held responsible (manslaughter?). Is this still the case?
It's possible that Manning's actions would cost lives. It's also possible that Manning's actions would save lives, perhaps by aborting pending military actions.
Actual metrics are impossible to calculate, but we should acknowledge that both possibilities exist.
I also think it's useful to consider that you can betray a nation or government, but net a positive for the world as a whole. Many people believe that the US government has overused classification of documents which could prove embarrassing to those in positions of power. Perhaps people like Manning act as a natural counterweight, ensuring that those in power never believe that their actions will remain secret for eternity; someday, some loudmouth kid might spew your secrets to the world.
If the (in)famous video leaked by Wikileaks showed U.S. servicemen following the ROE, why is that the Pentagon was so upset by its release? Generally speaking, U.S. citizens greatly romanticize war, and videos such as this one show the crudeness of warfare, something few people want to see.
Do people really think that this video will enrage Iraqis further? Well, think about it. Iraqi citizens have endured decades of opression under Saddam, they had their country bombed to the ground in 1991, they endured a decade of embargo, they were bombed and invaded again in 2003, and have lived the past 7 years in chaos. I think the Iraqis are pretty jaded about violence by now. If someone is going to be upset about that video, that someone is the U.S. citizen who pays taxes and, unwillingly, subsidizes such slaughter.
I don't oppose Wikileaks leaking the video. What I oppose is Wikileaks editing for propaganda purposes. A raw video would have been more than enough.
On the other hand, Lamo might have argued that his status as a famous hacker makes him a regular target for the fabricated tales of script kiddies and weirdos worldwide.
Encountering a boastful liar on the internet isn't a freak occurrence by any means. Whether or not this is a viable defense is another matter.
Even if something is a viable defense against conviction in court, being the subject of an investigation, or even worse, CI investigation, is way before that point -- and highly unpleasant I'm sure, especially for someone with previous criminal convictions and ongoing involvement with "hackerdom".
