In the wake of all the continuing revelations, and refusal to provide any substantive responses to legitimate concerns and questions, I see no reason to extend this rogue administration any courtesy or benefit of doubt.
To re-purpose former CIA anti-terrorism director Cofer Black's now infamous words about 9/11:
All you need to know is that there was a before PRISM and there was an after PRISM. After PRISM, the gloves come off.
Seems the young lady knows as much about trademark and copyright as she does about computer hacking - i.e. as much as you'd get from a Google search and reading a few FAQs.
As others here have already speculated, I too suspect that whoever put the comic book together added boilerplate like so many people do without understanding the ramifications of doing so.
It's also one thing to claim a trademark or copyright and quite another thing to actually get one registered. The trademark and copyright examiners at the USPTO are a lot harder to satisfy than their counterparts over in the software patent section apparently are.
All well and good to cut the NSA's budget. But here's a thought question: Exactly how much is that budget currently?
Don't know? Well that's perfectly understandable. Because the NSA budget is buried inside a classified programs allocation... which then gets buried inside a larger DoD budget bill...and then this bill gets voted on without our legislature ever being allowed to examine how some extremely large amounts of money will actually get allocated because...(wait for it)...IT'S SECRET!
Yes, they vote on the NSA budget without ever knowing what that budget is or for what it will be used for. Small wonder the PRISM facility in Utah got built with so little fanfare or concern.
You just have tp love that circular national security "logic." Protecting our nations freedom by the simple expedient of taking our nations freedoms away.
Oh well. At least we can take comfort knowing it wasn't some "damn ferriners" that stole it from us.
Criticize the government for anything, you break the law in North Korea...Hide someone so they won't be sent to a death camp, you just broke the law in Nazi Germany...Propose setting off the American colonies as an independent nation, you broke the law in Philadelphia back in 1776...
Some people break the rules. And that makes them criminals. Because "the law" says so. QED. What could be more simple.
However, I think "simplistic" might be a more accurate way to characterize that argument..
The move towards unprecedented levels of communication monitoring isn't a technical problem - it's a people problem.
Trying to engage in a never ending cycle of attempting to get around unacceptable and dubiously legal levels of surveillance by technology alone is destined for failure in the long run. We don't need better cryptography. We need better people in government. People who understand what's at stake and will give a clear and resounding "NO!" to our Executive Branch next time it asks them for a blank check to override the Constitution.
Suggestion: vote out the of office ALL the people responsible for this debacle while you still have a vote and some marginal say in the matter. Because in another 20 years, we likely won't have a vote if this trend is allowed to continue.
You are welcome to come here and possibly be granted political asylum. But you must agree to stop releasing information the United States considers harmful to its political interests lest the NSA makes good on its threat to release all the scandalous information it has compiled over the years on the crimes and blatant hypocrisy of European politicians and governments.
But the rules only determine who gets issued press passes to cross police lines or attend closed functions. They do not attempt to regulate who is protected under freedom of the press rules - or to regulate who is 'officially' allowed report on a news story.
Durbin's argument is all about the government able to force news reporters to name their sources. And narrowly defining who a 'real' reporter is gives them many more arms to twist next time an embarrassing news story gets released.
Once again it's all about clamping down on government whistle-blowers. Something Durbin doesn't even have the spine to admit he's trying to do.
Why do I need to be afraid of a foreign 'enemy' when my own government is acting this way? All the violations of constitutional rights I was raised to despise Russia and China for are now somehow magically justified if done to us by our own government? What's the real difference between any of them?
King is an idiot preaching to his own little choir. Fox is doing their usual shtick by pandering to their "fair and balanced" audience and attempting to stir up some controversy to increase their own exposure.
This is what's referred to as "business as usual."