I suppose if he meant it literally, it could mean that Snowden had planned this well in advance, and specifically obtained his clearances and sought out that job as part of his plan to expose everything.
"Ever read the 4th Amendment of the Constitution?"
Did you make it to the part where SCOTUS is in charge of making that call?
If there was a glaring Constitutional issue, why did Congress stand pat for years? They can pretend ignorance, but they all have access to details of those programs.
This is a tough one, because as much as I prefer to know about this type of intelligence gathering, I believe it's pretty clear Snowden broke the law by exposing this information. And as much as people don't like what he NSA was doing, it's far from clear at this point that it was illegal.
Apart from some public support, what's the difference between Snowden's acts and a infiltrator working at the behest of a foreign power making embarrassing information public?
Should we just make it legal to publicly expose classified info, as long as a single person (the person doing the releasing) thinks the public should know?
I am generally supportive of Anonymous' message, but if they permit this form of jamming, who is to say that I can't use a radio jamming arrangement to block out signals I don't like from my neighborhood?
Maybe I think cell phone users are annoying. Maybe they don't work within a quarter mile of my location until they disable my jammer.
It goes from funny to seriously disruptive awfully fast.
Well, you gotta see that's extremely terrifying. A handful of jerks from all over who don't even know each other can accomplish just about anything these days.
I was absolutely floored by the OatmealTesla Museum. That started with a simple articlecomic admiring Tesla, and couple months and squabbles later, they pulled over a million $ towards making a Tesla museum. It took 9 days at IndieGogo.
They think we need them, because they built it, but the Internet community has more knowledge and resources than every government combined, and we act out of love for the technology, not slavish rulelust. They can't stop it. They can barely slow it down.
What troubles me most is the inability to opt-out. I'm under the impression that once they choose you, there is no out, even if you decide not to board your flight, until they check you. This is understandable from their POV, as it would allow trouble makers to test the defenses without being detected, but they need to make it clear when you have been detained by a federal agency.
A big sign and a red line explaining the rights they are about to give up would settle this for me. I will avoid flying until they knock it off. I feel for people who are forced to travel for work, though.
Natch, some terrorist is working on a taint cannon right now, if only to prevent the TSA from becoming rational.
Ben Franklin said it best with the old "libertysecurity" blather.
Could this be an attempt to keep things murky, as a legal strategy? U.S. Federal agencies will seize domains without much of an excuse, though I'm not clear on how this would prevent that from happening.
Perhaps accepting this offer creates some potential liability, or places them in an unfriendly jurisdiction?
This story rings false. The FBI doesn't have time or resources to chase pornhounds, so the porn isn't what brought them knocking, unless it was a wildly unsuccessful sting.
I'd be interested in other charges he is facing, but neither the article nor a brief search reveal anything. Links, anyone?
I don't beleive there was a lobby in the normal sense. I believe that some combination of the White House and the intelligence community decided this would be worthwhile, and the telco's demanded this as the price of cooperation. This was cloak and dangersecret executive order stuff.
I hate the telcos in general, but I don't see them as the culprit on this one, and I don't see the new administration dedicating the next couple years to untangling a mess that will only embarrass the Bush White House, regardless of how unpopular, incompetent, illegal, and dangerous their policies may have been.
"what dip stick believes this 'educational material' will have any impact whatsoever?"
The organizations that are presenting this are sloshing over with sweet cash money, and they are headed by friends of the family (public education unions andor industry.)
And never doubt this all gets filed as a charitable act.
No one cares whether it is effective. The worst thing that could happen would be if the program was too effective, because then it wouldn't be able to justify itself in the future.
I suppose if he meant it literally, it could mean that Snowden had planned this well in advance, and specifically obtained his clearances and sought out that job as part of his plan to expose everything.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Context
"it appears he is an hopeless appeaser and authoritarian...
ben's brain is stuck on "OBEY!""
And even if that were true, it would still be more mature than the "Government = Bad, lulz" position you fellows are pushing.
Re: Re: Context
"Ever read the 4th Amendment of the Constitution?"
Did you make it to the part where SCOTUS is in charge of making that call?
If there was a glaring Constitutional issue, why did Congress stand pat for years? They can pretend ignorance, but they all have access to details of those programs.
Context
This is a tough one, because as much as I prefer to know about this type of intelligence gathering, I believe it's pretty clear Snowden broke the law by exposing this information. And as much as people don't like what he NSA was doing, it's far from clear at this point that it was illegal.
Apart from some public support, what's the difference between Snowden's acts and a infiltrator working at the behest of a foreign power making embarrassing information public?
Should we just make it legal to publicly expose classified info, as long as a single person (the person doing the releasing) thinks the public should know?
We need to hold people accountable for the impact of their behavior, rather than attempting to control the behavior directly.
If you cause an accident in your car due to reckless driving, it shouldn't matter the details of how you are being reckless.
In short, this is already covered in the law, and amounts to CA politicians pointing at nothing and demanding thanks for all their hard work.
BlackBerry obviously has it's priorities in order. That must be why they continue to dominate that market.
I am generally supportive of Anonymous' message, but if they permit this form of jamming, who is to say that I can't use a radio jamming arrangement to block out signals I don't like from my neighborhood?
Maybe I think cell phone users are annoying. Maybe they don't work within a quarter mile of my location until they disable my jammer.
It goes from funny to seriously disruptive awfully fast.
The same dynamic has extended the War on Drugs for decades, and all the benefits go to the drug cartels and federal agencies.
If you buy into a private, proprietary system, you are signing up for arbitrary rules and enforcement.
Stop doing it to yourself, and it will stop happening to you.
Well, you gotta see that's extremely terrifying. A handful of jerks from all over who don't even know each other can accomplish just about anything these days.
I was absolutely floored by the OatmealTesla Museum. That started with a simple articlecomic admiring Tesla, and couple months and squabbles later, they pulled over a million $ towards making a Tesla museum. It took 9 days at IndieGogo.
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/tesla_museum_1m
Justice for Will Ferrel!
Pearl has to be taken off the streets. That kid is a bad landlady, and a dirty cop!
http://www.funnyordie.com
They just don't understand.
They think we need them, because they built it, but the Internet community has more knowledge and resources than every government combined, and we act out of love for the technology, not slavish rulelust. They can't stop it. They can barely slow it down.
What troubles me most is the inability to opt-out. I'm under the impression that once they choose you, there is no out, even if you decide not to board your flight, until they check you. This is understandable from their POV, as it would allow trouble makers to test the defenses without being detected, but they need to make it clear when you have been detained by a federal agency.
A big sign and a red line explaining the rights they are about to give up would settle this for me. I will avoid flying until they knock it off. I feel for people who are forced to travel for work, though.
Natch, some terrorist is working on a taint cannon right now, if only to prevent the TSA from becoming rational.
Ben Franklin said it best with the old "libertysecurity" blather.
Legal maneuver?
Could this be an attempt to keep things murky, as a legal strategy? U.S. Federal agencies will seize domains without much of an excuse, though I'm not clear on how this would prevent that from happening.
Perhaps accepting this offer creates some potential liability, or places them in an unfriendly jurisdiction?
We have a winner!
KO in the 1st round. The crowd goes wild!
I haven't see a beating like that since Tyson-Spinks!
I hope Cable's got a good cutman.
Great.
To celebrate, I'm offering a 2 for 1 deal on blindings this week.
This story rings false. The FBI doesn't have time or resources to chase pornhounds, so the porn isn't what brought them knocking, unless it was a wildly unsuccessful sting.
I'd be interested in other charges he is facing, but neither the article nor a brief search reveal anything. Links, anyone?
I don't beleive there was a lobby in the normal sense. I believe that some combination of the White House and the intelligence community decided this would be worthwhile, and the telco's demanded this as the price of cooperation. This was cloak and dangersecret executive order stuff.
I hate the telcos in general, but I don't see them as the culprit on this one, and I don't see the new administration dedicating the next couple years to untangling a mess that will only embarrass the Bush White House, regardless of how unpopular, incompetent, illegal, and dangerous their policies may have been.
Why so negative?
This is great news for aftermarket mod retailers.
Your hybrid could sound like a Tie fighter!
Re:
"what dip stick believes this 'educational material' will have any impact whatsoever?"
The organizations that are presenting this are sloshing over with sweet cash money, and they are headed by friends of the family (public education unions andor industry.)
And never doubt this all gets filed as a charitable act.
No one cares whether it is effective. The worst thing that could happen would be if the program was too effective, because then it wouldn't be able to justify itself in the future.