"the fault here lies with... the telcos lawyers for not instructing the telcos to fight plus the heads of the telcos for caving..."
I think you're misunderstanding what is happening. Fight vs. Cave is not the question. They have no interest whatsoever in fighting the government's requests for your data. The question for the telcos has always been how to sell your data, and the only function that their lawyers have had is how to ensure that such sales are accomplished without incurring legal liability.
The telcos are in the business of selling American citizens' private data to the government. Therefore saying, as Mike did, that they "volunteered" your data to the NSA is kind of like saying they 'volunteer' to sell you phone or internet service. Your data is a marketable product and the various federal 3-letter agencies, as well as state and local LEO's are their enthusiastic customers -- spending your own tax dollars to surveil you.
Does this mean that Google can restore scans of old books that are clearly in the public domain, and which were formerly (but no longer) available on Google Books, or is that a completely separate issue pertaining to contracts Google made with universities when the scanning was done? Can anyone explain what's going on with books that are hundreds of years old?
"The gas and oil companies will stick around for a long, long time."
Your comment is just another way of saying that competition disciplines the marketplace. So long as gas-powered cars are reliable, and do not bring the hidden 'gotcha' factor found in some consumer electronics, they will have a place in the market. Renault won't be able to do much with DRM so long as there is healthy competition.
It looks like a tiny version of the "Missile Gap" propaganda promulgated by Jack Kennedy's supporters during the Cold War. Here's manipulation of the public through news media releases of "classified intelligence" was done in 1959: 1) Claim the Russians have 1500 ICBMs 2) Claim the US is dangerously behind in the arms race because we only have 130 ICBMs. 3) Make sure no one finds out that the true number of ICBMs Russia has at the time is 4.
This gag order would never have been issued if it was coming from a state within the 3rd, 6th, 7th or 9th Districts. Unfortunately Texas is in the 5th District which happens to allow the most restrictive, and at the same time the most weakly supported gag orders in the country. Based on what you can read here, here, and here, it seems unlikely that the 5th Appellate Court would overturn the gag.
Given the split between the Districts, at some future time, the standard for the issuance of a gag order will probably have to be reviewed by SCOTUS.
Are there any lawyers here who could comment on what kind of case it would take to get a SCOTUS "cert" on this issue any time soon?
This is a very public example of why copyrights that extend beyond length of the creator's career are worse than useless. The copyright is now counterproductive. The King descendants can rely on an income from their father's work, therefore they have lack the necessity to work and be productive themselves.
"I'd like to see the DEA explaining to the courts when they prosecute a drug case as to which search warrant they used to stop such a truck."
Law enforcement agencies use a tactic called "parallel construction" to launder the source of their information, and thereby make it appear to have been obtained legally. This practice is not just limited to the current NSA affair, but is actually widely used in other police investigations.
"cowardice was taken advantage of by a small group of powerful people in US government and industry to advance their own anti-American agenda
Yes. The American public is told by those who stand to benefit that cowardice is the only reasonable response to terrorism, and it appears their strategy of intoning "Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid" (repeated 'soberly') does pay handsome dividends - both in profits and power.
Its notable that the Senate Appropriations Committee adopted this resolution by consensus, which means that they didn't have to go on record with their individual votes on the matter. The members will be able to squirm toward either direction and claim they were personally against it, or personally for it as they deem necessary as the fallout from the Snowden affair proceeds in the future.
"NSA Talking Points On Utah Data Center: We're Teaming Up With Tech Companies"
To prevent data from your computer going to Omniture set a firewall rule to block incoming and outgoing traffic with the range 220.127.116.11/16
(For those who aren't familiar with CIDR format, this actually means everything from 18.104.22.168 - 22.214.171.124)
Oh he's being smart alright, but I think its for a different reason.
If he waits long enough, then almost all of the people who are ever going to read his story will have already done so and will have moved on to the next day's news. Not too many people are going to come back and look to see if there are any changes after a day or two. By delaying, he is able to leave group of readers who were not really informed on the situation with the same incorrect beliefs he wanted them to have in the first place.
Another reason that China can point to US hypocrisy on this topic is the fact that US companies consulted on the Great Firewall project, and then sold them the equipment to make it happen -- knowing full well what it was intended for. Here is a series of slides from an internal presentation at Cisco dating back to 2002, as the Great Firewall was being built. The slides discuss its purpose, and you can see on slide #57 that suppression of China's religious minority, the Falun Gong is directly mentioned.
It seems to me that the No-Fly-List is another example of the unforeseen consequences that have proceeded after the government began twisting interpretations of the Commerce Clause into legal pretzels. Without the idea that the federal government is allowed to do almost anything it wants with respect to "interstate commerce", it would be hard to see where the US Constitution authorizes it to restrict travel by citizens.