People seem to forget she was doing her job when she went on the Sunday talk shows and defended warrentless searches and spying. It doesn't make it right, but unfortunately that is how our system operates. If she didn't do that she would been forced to resign to "spend more time with her family" the following Monday.
She may be a bad idea on the Board for a lot of reasons, but for doing her job in the Bush Administration? I don't think that really tells us much about how she will advise on privacy issues as a board member. That said, she is basically a statist, so I'd expect the status quo. Dropbox would be the company to make a stand for user privacy.
I live in the DC area and have sat through security interviews for my neighbors countless times. The quality really varies. We've had actual FBI agents show up at the door. However, usually it's a contractor, probably USIS. The "investigators" are young kids, likely in their first job out of college. They roll through their list of questions, barely listening to the answers, just trying to check off the interview as done so they can move on to the next one.
That colonoscopy article was especially interesting as I just had one last month and I got the bill yesterday, The surgery center billed me about $5000 for the hour I was there. I'm lucky to have great insurance through my wife so my financial responsibility was $68. However, the insurance only paid about $700, the rest of the bill was written off. If I didn't have insurance the surgery center would expect to collect $5000. Because I have insurance they only collected about $768. I can't imagine that colonoscopies are a loss leader so I have to assume they at least cover their costs at $768.
Somebody from England paid me $150 just two weeks ago to post an article they wrote on my personal blog. My blog gets maybe 50 unique visits a day on average? I can't imagine how any Google juice from my site could be worth $150, but what the hell. I'll certainly take their money.
Given that the FDA mostly answers to the traditional pharmaceutical and medical industry, this seems more like a citation for criminal interference with an outdated business plan. Informed patients are not something the traditional powers in medicine want to deal with.
Nope. Pretty much all boys are interested in guns. Only a tiny percentage grow up to police officers or in the military. More grow up as hunters, but that is mostly cultural. If you grow up in a family of hunters, you will probably continue. Urban VA Beach is not a place you find an excess of hunters.
Serious question. Does anybody see any serious progress within the Federal Government to do something about all of this? As far as I can tell, 90% of Congress, along with the entire executive branch and probably most of the Supreme Court are all-in on supporting the surveillance state.
We can vote the bums out, but I think recent history tells us that the new bums will be more of the same.
Given his track record on delivering "the most transparent administration in history" I'm not sure why anybody would take any of this seriously. it's window dressing to mollify the masses, and they won't even bother to follow through on it anyway.
No way the US ever lets Snowden "get away" with this. While he is testifying in Congress with full immunity somebody will be planting a kilo of heroin in his car or house, assuming they decide to let him live at all.
Or, this is all a classic misdirection ruse. Get a couple of establishment papers like the Post and NYT to drum up the idea that the tide has turned and pair it with the manufacture of a surprisingly close vote and you have a pretty good shot at distracting the public long enough with fake reform efforts for all this to go away, from the govt. point of view.
Not that I'm accusing our government of lying to use or anything.