Its notable that the Senate Appropriations Committee adopted this resolution by consensus, which means that they didn't have to go on record with their individual votes on the matter. The members will be able to squirm toward either direction and claim they were personally against it, or personally for it as they deem necessary as the fallout from the Snowden affair proceeds in the future.
"NSA Talking Points On Utah Data Center: We're Teaming Up With Tech Companies"
To prevent data from your computer going to Omniture set a firewall rule to block incoming and outgoing traffic with the range 184.108.40.206/16
(For those who aren't familiar with CIDR format, this actually means everything from 220.127.116.11 - 18.104.22.168)
Oh he's being smart alright, but I think its for a different reason.
If he waits long enough, then almost all of the people who are ever going to read his story will have already done so and will have moved on to the next day's news. Not too many people are going to come back and look to see if there are any changes after a day or two. By delaying, he is able to leave group of readers who were not really informed on the situation with the same incorrect beliefs he wanted them to have in the first place.
Another reason that China can point to US hypocrisy on this topic is the fact that US companies consulted on the Great Firewall project, and then sold them the equipment to make it happen -- knowing full well what it was intended for. Here is a series of slides from an internal presentation at Cisco dating back to 2002, as the Great Firewall was being built. The slides discuss its purpose, and you can see on slide #57 that suppression of China's religious minority, the Falun Gong is directly mentioned.
It seems to me that the No-Fly-List is another example of the unforeseen consequences that have proceeded after the government began twisting interpretations of the Commerce Clause into legal pretzels. Without the idea that the federal government is allowed to do almost anything it wants with respect to "interstate commerce", it would be hard to see where the US Constitution authorizes it to restrict travel by citizens.
Yes, it's "whack-a-mole", but is there any way to address the issue that does not involve constant vigilance?
As to Linux, BSD and the like, yes, I run those too. You are kidding yourself however if you think you aren't being watched when you use a browser on a Linux machine. Using Linux only decreases the extent to which you are being spied upon. It does not eliminate it.
As this week's news shows, it's becoming increasingly clear that the government has been using data acquired through corporate activity to spy on citizens.
If you don't like the idea of the government spying on your computer, then you need to get control of the commercial spying that almost all of us have been allowing to occur.
For those who would like to put a stop to this, but perhaps don't know where to start, step 1 is knowing who is doing the spying. There are many ways to do this, but I suggest some free Nirsoft tools. Network TrafficView will give you are real-time picture of the IP addresses which are communicating with your computer. You can then use DNSDataView to identify the companies that are behind the IP addresses.
Armed with that information, you can start blocking. You can block by domain name, IP address and in some cases by port number.
The internet is changing many things. Among the most profound is the inability of the internet to forget.
I think that society will eventually have to come to grips with this and decide what it really means to forgive. Much of what passed for forgiveness from society in the pre-internet age was simply forgetting due to the lack of access to old information. Now that the events of 20+ years ago are no more than a few key clicks away, we need to decide whether we are really going to forgive someone who has "paid their debt to society". We also need to decide what that debt really is.
Re: Re: WELL, the US gave up its control of the internet, and it got worse.
If history is any predictor, eventually ootb will get tired of losing arguments, and we'll gradually see less of him. Then at some point he fades away... like angry dude and darryl. Even Average Joe has become much less frequent here than 2-3 years ago.
"This is typically the kind of situation that happens when lawyers are allowed to become too influential"
You are exactly right.
There is also another related [poor] business strategy: Sign on with a consulting firm that will provide "full service" protection of your brands and IP. In that situation, the business may not even be directly involved in the decision to do send this type of letter.
Hint for the MBA set: Any time your decision making process consists of "leaving it up to" someone who is in a different business than you, watch out. They may be making decisions that are not necessarily in your best interest.
What the US sorely needs to accomplish legal reform can be said in 2 words: Loser Pays.
So called consumer advocates (who are really representatives for plaintiff's attorneys) hate the idea for the very reason it is a good idea. Increasing the risk associated with bringing a questionable lawsuit means there will be fewer lawsuits. Fewer lawsuits mean fewer lawyers getting paid, and less expenditure of resources in nonproductive ways by all concerned.
A true consumer advocate should accept this idea because if a corporation has wronged a consumer or group of consumers, the offender would be quicker to settle if it knew there was a good chance of losing not only the judgment, but also the opponent's legal fees. There is less chance that a true offender can just stall until the claimant runs out of money and gives up.
Loser Pays means fewer frivolous lawsuits, fewer attempts at legal bullying and less expensive justice. Period.