...many unconstitutional laws can be enacted and enforced until such time as a legal challenge is brought...
That is how the system works.
That is why the NSA/Government are saying that the NSA hasn't done anything illegal, because they haven't. They've acted within the law (or at least the secret internpretations of the law). Unless (hopefully 'until') the Supreme Court rules those laws as unconstitutional, then technically they are correct, what they are doing is not illegal.
I can just picture slightly drunk fliers settling an argument by pulling out their pistols from their carry on luggage and having at it in the air.
How often does this happen on buses, trains, ships, ferries and other forms of mass transit?
What makes you think it'd be a more frequent occurrence on air travel than other forms? Sure it'll probably happen, at the same rate as on other forms of mass transit. Does that risk stop you taking the train or bus? Why would it stop you taking a plane?
How much do you want to pay for perfect security? Safety? As the article states the most effective way to stop plane hijackings is to stop all planes.
Even with today's secure cockpit doors, the other airplane staff and passengers can still be held hostage and the pilots coerced to fly to an alternate destination.
Do you really think after the events of 9/11 where all the passengers died anyway that people would just sit passively by and allow this to happen? That the pilots would really allow a hostage taken from amongst the passengers/crew to coerce them into opening the cockpit door? They know that EVERYONE will die if they do that.
Since 9/11 there have been instances of passengers/crews foiling hijacking attempts (in some cases at cost of their own lives as in the plane in 9/11 that crashed in an empty field after the passengers heard about the other attacks as part of 9/11 and didn't let the terrorists use the plane).
...there is no vulnerability , or “backdoor,” that makes it possible for the US Government or anyone else to achieve unauthorized access.
If the access is approved by the various FISA rulings/congress approved programs that are used for data collection, or via the NSA internal processes, then isn't it, by definition, authorized? At least from an NSA perspective?
Sure I may not have authorized the NSA to decrypt my data, but some other process, warrant, internal NSA process or whatnot may have authorized it.
Say I created a business to offer 'court recording' type services. I offered my services to law firms for depositions and had some certification that said I could be an official recorder at depositions. either taking hand/steno notes, or using a recorder. The purpose of the 'recording' is to document facts. What was/was not said, what actions were taken and so on so it could later be produced in a court of law or kept on file etc.
Could I then say "I'm not going to provide my services to law firm X as they represent gays. "? Or blacks? Asians? Arabs? Whites?
I mean, I'm producing a 'work of art'. Either a recording or a 'book' if I take written notes using a steno machine.
Is this 'free speech' or am I just documenting an event?
How is taking paid photography work to record a wedding any different?
The PURPOSE isn't to create a work of art. The purpose is to document an event. Who was there, what shenanigans (who threw up in the pot plant, who got naked and ran across the dance floor...) they got up to, and so on.
The photographer hasn't been asked to make any comment about the wedding. Just like a court reporter isn't asked to provide any personal comment ("I think they did/didn't do it." or "They're pastafarians, they should be boiled until al dente then eaten, with meat ball sauce") or express any views regarding the event they are documenting.
If the customers wanted the service provider to SUPPORT the event, THEN the provider would be within their rights to refuse service, as that is definitely a free speech issue.
Has the photographer been engaged to support the event? Or have they been engaged to DOCUMENT the event?
If THIS is amicable, I'd hate to see adversarial...
To resolve this matter amicably, we must demand that you remove the infringing material 'from the website immediately. Additionally, we must also demand that you provide compensation to Ms. McPherson in the amount of $1,250.00 per infringing photograph, plus $2,500.00 as the statutory minimum for the removal of Ms. McPherson's copyright notice.
If they regard issuing demands for $4k plus other actions as amicable, I'd hate to see it if they were really pissed!
I don't want to picture myself rising for the morning coffee, heading for the door on my way to work, only to whip out my smart phone and check where the IEDs and snipers might be on my way to the bus.
I already always check my smartphone whenever I leave a location for mobile speed cameras/RBTs. I avoid the cameras as it's too easy to creep a few km/h above the speed limit and get done. And RBTs are such a huge waste of time, sometimes costing me 10 minutes sitting in the queue to get RBT and sent on my way, turning a 10 minute dash into a 20 minute annoyance.
Re: Careful parsing required, as with any NSA statement
I agree, I had the same thought myself when i was reading this.
it is in fact TRUE that "In open hearings this year, we spoke to Congress.. ". Yes, they did speak to congress, and in that speech they did make the claim. However this quote does not make reference to or statement of support or truth on "54 different terrorist plots".
Therefore calling the quoted statement a lie cannot be supported.
If they had of said something more like "NSA/CSS actions contributed to keeping the Nation and its allies safe from 54 different terrorist plots as was reported to Congress..." then maybe it could be called a lie.
Spying on foreigners is not a legal problem, it's a political problem.
I think it's both.
Firstly it's a legal issue if in Egypt it is illegal to tap telephones. Then the Egyptian version of the DoJ would be within their rights, nay, it would be their duty, to issue arrest warrants against the people tapping those phones.
It becomes a political issue when the Egyptian DoJ seeks extradition of those who have warrants out for them if they are not on Egyptian soil. It becomes a matter of political will ( or won't ) for them to see through the extradition.