A major difference between the dodged questions today and Clapper's lying answer before the Snowden leaks is how the media is reporting it. Before, Senators Wyden and Udall would've gotten a quick by-line on a political blog, but no real attention from mainstream media.
Now, the AP among other prominent media outlets are picking up the story immediately and couching it in the same "are you serious?" language that Techdirt and other places have had before.
It's only a matter of time before they either need to double down in the name of surveillance at all costs, or are forced to cease entirely. I pray for the latter, personally.
Quite simply the costs to license similar amounts of content in those countries well exceeds the revenue directly gainable in those countries from bringing in Netflix. If they weren't, Netflix has the capital to move in with no trouble at all.
How many lies and deceptions need to be uncovered?
The same pattern has emerged ever since the first leaks from Snowden (and if one includes Senator Wyden's efforts, starting even before then):
1. Leaked document exposes dirty laundry of NSA.
2. People speculate on implications of said dirty laundry.
3. NSA denies that any of those implications are true.
4. New leaked document directly contradicts NSA's denial.
5. GOTO 2, repeat.
It's the same pattern, for months running. When are people (and Congress, and the President, and the Courts, our supposed public servants) going to finally realize that the entire setup is utterly corrupt and untrustworthy? That it needs to be removed in its entirety and maybe replaced (I'm in doubt that we even need the NSA).
But those leaks are necessarily PRIVATE, else the spies would be outed and useless as a future source of information. Snowden is deliberately PUBLIC, and heavily embarassing. So while everyone knows the former happens, there's no direct proof out in the media about it, while Snowden is impossible to miss.
Your last sentence is only if the people of both countries Do Something about it. The status quo is fighting to remaing exactly as such, and it will require absurd external pressure to push it back to where it should be.
Every single time Congress, someone in the Intelligence community, or the President has said anything about this whole snafu, we immediately notice it's doublespeak. Then shortly thereafter their doublespeak is directly exposed by a story that contradicts what they stated.
You'd think they would learn by now that being honest, truly transparent, and committed to changing the status quo is the only true way forward.
The problem is that the absolute power has so corrupted them that they still believe they are right in what they are doing, that they genuinely are serving the greater good. Delusion that deep is frightening.
Re: Investment is what boosts the best efforts internet
I find it hard to believe that money spent on internet infrastructure and investment doesn't have sufficient ROI. Everyone uses the internet these days, especially in developed areas like the EU. If people are unable to get an ROI, that's a business model problem they need to fix, not something that general users of the internet should be obligated into fixing fo them.
I can't believe that he's actually serious. Upholding the Constitution is what all of Congress and the President should do, and it is well within our rights to call foul if they are not. No amount of "terrorism", "security", or other stupid buzzwords is going to change that.
And to insult my recollection of September 12th by saying that the wholesale stripping of the entire Bill of Rights from US citizens and the mangling of the built-in separation of powers is acceptable? I would rather be as "unsafe" as I was on September 10th if it means that I am still able to expect my rights to exist.
Solitary confinement stretches the definition of cruel and unusual punishment, and has classically only been employed when someone has been an explicit danger to himself or others AFTER being incarcerated. That, and solitary confinement is generally for limited periods, not years. Thus, "poetic justice" or not, it wouldn't be Constitutional justice.
I disagree. While what they have done and continue to do is despicable in every sense of the word, stooping to their level to get "justice" is anything but. We should give them their fair trial, their attorney, and all of the protections that the Constitution guarantees. Only then would we have the high ground.