I was thinking something along those same lines. How exactly did they get the "internal USIS documents"?
I suspect, based on my very limited experience here, the DoJ discovered a bunch of questionable background investigations and decided to subpoena the company for any internal documents relating to the process of performing background checks. The company, instead of pulling a Enron (shredding the documents,) decided it was in their best interest to come clean and cooperate (especially, since, they say that all of the employees involved have been fired or no longer work for the company.) It is entirely possible that someone within the company blew the whistle, but not necessarily so (the article doesn't say whether the whistle was blown or whether it was a result of a subpoena.)
So taking internal documents that show impropriety from an entity and then releasing them to expose that impropriety is okay when the entity is someone else but when someone takes their documents to prove their impropriety, then they get pissed and want him murdered for it.
I see where you are coming from, but at least in this place it can be that they didn't actually release them, but they were attached to a subpoena which is public records as part of a court case. The civil lawsuit was already filed against the USIS by the DoJ in Alabama, and except in certain cases, most lawsuits and their associated documentation are available to the public.
NSA never heard of the old saying "Trust, but verify?"
Sadly, the NSA has nothing to do with this, other than having one known contractor who was vetted by USIS (as well as the Navy Yards shooter.)
USIS was a contractor for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which performs background checks required for security clearances for *ALL* Federal employees (including those who work at the NSA.) [Source NBC Article linked to above.]
I do admit there will be an increase in accidents - due to lack of training and inconsistent implementation.
Actually, the increase of accidents are more likely caused by greed than training or implementation. If red-light cameras were designed to make T-Bone accidents a thing of the past, then the predominant use of Red-Light cameras on Left and Right turn lanes, where a T-Bone accident is nearly impossible (accidents may occur in both cases, but T-Bone accidents are far less likely,) kinda blows out that argument. Red-light cameras on left/right turn lanes are about getting as much money as possible, not preventing T-Bone accidents.
The 'conflict of interest' goes away when it's run by the local gov't or are you saying there's a conflict of interest in cops doing their jobs too?
There was very much a conflict of interest when the companies ran the cameras themselves. If the goal was to reduce accidents, and get paid enough to continue to operate the cameras, then one of the two goals must take priority over the other since the two are mutually exclusive. You can't continue to make money if you reduce accidents.
Which is also why they forced (through contract) cities to reduce the yellow light times, increase the fines, and prohibited other life-saving mechanisms from being used which competed with the red-light cameras.
It is also why they implemented snitch tickets and worded the letter sent to violators in such a way as to reduce fighting of the ticket ("we have you on camera, now pay up!" "If you go to court and fight this ticket, it will end up costing you far more than the low low cost of $1000 per violation we are charging you now...") Most of the letters were sent from the company in question, and there were, for some time, questions as to whether a police officer actually reviewed the evidence (and in some cases, tickets were actually dismissed because the judge felt it was obvious that a police officer hadn't reviewed the evidence first.)
There are so many better ways of stopping accidents, such as spot enforcement, redesigning intersections or fixing timing on the lights, all-red, and even simple stuff like putting a sign or a police car (with nobody in it,) at an intersection.
I have several R/C copters, and as much as I joke around about them being my drone army -- you both are right -- these aren't drones. These R/C copters can go maybe 300-400 feet before they lose signal and become ballistic (some of the more expensive ones can go far longer distances.) They are fun to play with at our 2600 meets, but don't have much usage for surveillance (even the ones with cameras.) We used them to look into windows of businesses in the area during one of our meets, but the biggest difficulty was flying them around cell towers (which would interrupt their signal,) and they would plummet to the Earth rather violently.
No, falsely pretending to be a cop or city official does not confer federal jurisdiction over the case.
I didn't mean that (and the justice.gov website I pointed to pretty much says the same thing that I said.) What I meant was that a cop or city official pretending to act in an official capacity, would meet the nexus. If I, as a government official (if I was one,) knew that I didn't have the authority, but used my position as a government authority to deprive you of your civil rights, I'd be pretending to act in an official capacity. A person off the street pretending to be a cop would not be acting under the color of the law, and would be in serious trouble for impersonating a government official in most jurisdictions.
I'd think the lawyer, at a minimum, would know how to get out of jury duty if he wanted to. And it's not like stupid people are known for being able to get through med school.
A lawyer -- actually, a federal prosecutor -- once told me, "A lawyer on the jury leads to a quick victory or defeat. Two lawyers on the jury leads to a mistrial."
Whether or not that is true, I don't know, but considering this lawyer had about 35 years of experience as a federal prosecutor, I am willing to believe it. She explained that most jurors will defer to the lawyer's opinion, just because of their experience with the law, and will end up siding with them quickly to get the process over (because hell, a lawyer should know the law.) I am not entirely why two lawyers would lead to a mistrial, but I suspect it had something to do with playing the devil's advocate or the chance that at least one of them would be a defense lawyer.
Now whether or not that occurred in this case, I have no idea, since I wasn't there.
No, what Google was doing was capturing data that was knowingly and willingly being broadcast.
The Federal Appeals Court specifically said (in a stupid and completely devoid of reality ruling, I might add,) that Google was liable because unsecure wifi hotspots are not radio communications which are readily accessible to the general public and thus listening to the broadcasted signal was wiretapping.
I, for one, have no issues with women taking their tops off whenever, wherever they want!! ;-)
I am exactly the opposite, but not for the reasons you might be thinking. I have no issue with anyone, male or female, taking off their tops at the pool, beach, gym, etc. At least at those places people tend to be washed and clean (or, in the case of the gym, everyone is stinky and dirty.) It is kinda expected to see naked bodies in those places, and I don't really care what gender they are. I'd even argue that walking/running on the street or site-seeing (such as at the ESB) would qualify as a shirtless activity, though I don't think I'd ever take my shirt off while running or site-seeing (eww).
However, I prefer men and women to be professional at work (unless you work at a pool, beach or gym.) And hell no in places I am eating -- hands and faces are dirty enough -- I really don't want to deal with dirty chests (men or women) in those places too. Especially given that clothes are usually washed more often than bodies (and don't get me started about conferences -- I think people purposefully neglect cleanliness at those things.)
We were really pissed off when I and a couple of others dissented.
I am pretty sure that is why they don't like empaneling engineers/scientists. I certainly wouldn't have a problem sitting and listening to everything before making a judgement as to what I thought the facts of the case were, but I would try to go out of my way, once I determined my opinion to explain it and defend it (though I would be willing to be swayed if someone else came along with a better argument.)
They want people who make quick gut decisions and agreements, not people who want to examine the problem and come up with logical solutions.
However, just once I'd love to complete the process.
The funny thing is that literally every one of my friends has been called up, most several times.
Maybe your state is smart and they realize you don't have a snowballs chance of actually sitting on a jury? Mine keeps calling despite the fact that I rarely get to do so (and I wish they would automatically remove you from their rolls, at least for a longer period of time, if you get called in a certain number of times and are always dismissed.) At least with California, its one-day, one-trial, so if you get dismissed, you don't have to sit around for the rest of the week waiting.
Your solution would work, but it has the fairly major drawback of requiring me to live in Southern California.
There are many days that I wish I could avoid living here.
Do you know when I care about yesterday's weather? TWO DAYS AGO. It serves no purpose to have it on the list at all, let alone at the very top. Amateur hour here guys.
I am actually part of an amateur weather group and run a personal weather station and our websites are far better than anything you get from TWC. Even the places we upload our data to (wunderground/wxsim/weather4you) are better.
For most folks, they only care about what the weather will be over the next couple days (if they care at all.) For me, I care about weather yesterday and two days ago, specifically the barometric pressure and wind directions, and maybe even high/low temps, but I am certainly not going to go to TWC for it. NOAA/NWS keeps these readings for all major airports (ASOS), and you can get most of the data for your area from MESO/CWOP as well (which come from both ASOS and amateur weather stations.) With this information, you can determine what the future weather will be like, though with the advent of satellite, determining the future weather is far easier with modern technology than watching a barometer.
I've wanted to serve on a jury my entire life. I've never been called.
Move to any major city in Southern California. I can guarantee you'll be called once. Won't be able to get past the Voir Dire process (if you are an engineer or scientist,) but at least you'll get to sit in the Jury box and look goofy until they dismiss you (plenty of experience here with that.)
I've been called a number of times in my life (at least 19 times.) Only time I got to participate was when they couldn't get rid of me as an alternate (out of preemptive challenges) or when they didn't make any challenges because they were in the process of settling the case (so twice, but never went to deliberations in either.)
The federal government clearly has jurisdiction to prosecute the cops.
IANAL, but I believe, based on previous training I had on the subject, that you are correct. One of a few times when the Federal Government can step in with State matters is when there is a case of depriving someone's civil rights under the color of the law. I believe the reason for the Federal law (a href=http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php>18 USC 242 [justice.gov]) was specifically to deal with violations of civil rights cops would kill someone for no reason other than the color of their skin, and then wouldn't be convicted of murder by a jury based solely on the race of the victim (as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)
In the Zimmermann case, the federal nexus was lacking because there was no action by state officials.
I believe that is correct. However, if Zimmermann had an official position within the community (Federal, State, and/or Local,) regardless to whether he was a police officer or not, he would have met the nexus. So long as he was acting (or pretending to act) in an official capacity, which, by all accounts, he wasn't. He was a self-appointed neighborhood watch coordinator, which is not an official position.
I've been using separate browsers for separate tasks for years.
I have as well (if only because it is easier to deal with proxies that way, as in Firefox for anything that requires a proxy and Chrome for anything that doesn't.) However, I think this is the exception rather than the rule. Most of my family/friends know Internet Explorer or Firefox as "The Internet" and will call me occasionally to let me know that their internet is broken and ask me to stop by and help them fix it.
I won't access my bank's web site using a broken DRM'ed-up browser, so these site operators need to be aware that they're risking migrations if they insist on people accessing their sites using an HTML5-compliant browser.
Again, exception vs. rule. I was asked recently about this issue, specifically about how someone should know whether a website/browser/application has security risks and should be used to access online financial institutions or not. Most people use whatever browser is available to them, and may not have the know-how to determine what browser is "bank-safe" and what one isn't.
The one good thing about HTML 5 is that it isn't necessary for browsers to implement all features of it.
At least until it gets market saturation. Then W3C will come out with a HTMLv5 verification tool which tests for specification compatibility and then make a huge deal about how your product doesn't meet its specification and your customers shouldn't use it until you invest the time and energy to implement all of the spec.
When the DRM introduces so many security flaws that all of our personal data is stolen by everyone with nefarious intent, can we hold the MPAA responsible and sue them out of existence once and for all?
Not just security flaws, but loss of legitimate access to the data along with illegitimate access by everyone with nefarious intent. You can't get access to your own data (or the data you licensed legitimately,) because you are following the rules, but anyone who isn't can.
And don't get me started on crappy hardware DRM from vendors who don't want to compete with their older products (grumble, grumble, $450+ 3-year-old ASUS tf101, grumble, encrypted boot-loader, grumble, grumble. Never again!)