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."
Yet another bit of police department "wilding" gets called out for what it is.
And once again an opportunistic lawman, who sees everything in black & white, gets his face rubbed in it and adopts a "not angry but terrible disappointed" stance in a pitifully transparent attempt to save face.
Nice to see the citizens of Massachusetts called "bullshit" on this "case." And better yet, this time they did it through a grand jury. Which is ironic in that the entire grand jury system is heavily stacked in favor of law enforcement and their arguments.
My my my...what a difference some adverse publicity and widespread public disgust can make when you're advancing a totally outrageous argument. They were wise to back-pedal. If they're not careful, they're ridiculousness might wake the general public up. And even worse, the public might demand that some common sense an fairness finally be brought to bear on the whole issue.