I think DHS should just roll the twenty most common given names (James, John, Robert, Michael, William, David, Richard, Charles, Joseph, Thomas, Mary, Patricia, Linda, Barbara, Elizabeth, Jennifer, Maria, Susan, Margaret and Dorothy) with the twenty most common surnames (Smith, Johnson, Williams, Jones, Brown, Davis, Miller, Wilson, Moore, Taylor, Anderson, Thomas, Jackson, White, Harris, Martin, Thompson, Garcia, Martinez and Robinson) and add those 400 names to the list.
That should cover, I don't know, what, half a billion people worldwide? Maybe then enough people would turn this into an election issue to finally get these idiotic lists burned.
These lists are the exact opposite of security anyway. Security is something you have to think about...actually use your brain. These lists are nothing but a recklessly moronic bureaucratic method to used to make brainless decisions.
Such as that 8-month-old David Jones can't fly. (Happy Barney voice: "Well [Duh!] of course he can't board, he's prolly gots a dangerous load in his diaper!") Meanwhile, the real terrorist David Jones boards a plane--carrying his knife, gun and bomb--under his fake-ID-backed alias, Adam Brown. (Same voice: "Well [Duh!] shure he gets to board...his name ain't on the list!")
If I were on the court, I would explain it this way: We understand you can't get a warrant because of the NDA. That's not a problem. Your problem is that no evidence taken via the stingray is admissible in this state without a warrant.
So you go ahead and deploy your stingray, but you just as well burn the tapes after you record them, because they are not entering a courtroom in this state.
Do you think NSA-subverted swiss-cheese encryption matters?
Okay, let's assume it does.
Then the NSA will simply use one of its TAO exploits to turn the servers into swiss cheese. Or the feeds to the servers. Or hire a spy into the admin corp to give them the encryption keys. Or listen to the machine chips running encryption keys and break them that way.
Given their demonstrated capabilities, you really think this is out of reach? Get real.
This is one of several self-serving tactics the government uses every time something is requested by FOIA that the government doesn't want to release. It's a little suprising to see it in this context, since there's a question of whose privacy could possibly be breached, but...
Suppose there is a dispute between the government and Joe Doakes:
If the government is being asked for information of its actions related to Joe, and that information is embarrassing to the government then, "The information cannot be released because doing so would infringe Joe's right of privacy."
But suppose the government has some information that would embarrass Joe in the dispute: The government hands it out at a press conference, saying afterward, "Joe has privacy?"
The very first question looks to me like it is enough to drive some audiences off the deep end: "What is the news philosophy of the station?" Nearly as provocative is,"Is the news produced in-house or is it provided by an outside source?" and. "Who decides which stories are covered?"
Suppose you are producing extremely ideologically slanted news based on a daily "talking points" memo from political operatives; suppose you are a thinly disguised PAC: Don't you think questions like this would be proof that the Jack boots are coming?
Except, of course, it isn't. Ask any judge: "When does a murder occur? When the act is committed or when the murder is first discovered by the authorities?"
The answer, pure and simple, is: at the time of the the act. Whether or when the murder is discovered is irrelevant; if you kill someone, you have violated the law.
Likewise, an infraction of a citizen's civil rights occurs at the time of the act. The judge keeps trying to hand-wave that away, saying, "It's only illegal if they get caught."
If a citizen had the temerity to make that statement, the judge would throw his gavel and hit the idiot right between the eyes. So then he has the hypocritical nerve to assert the same thing on behalf of the government?
How did they know there were 58,000 GCHQ SECRET documents on his drive? Break the encryption? Know what Snowden copied? Make up the figures?
No, no, and no.
They got the number by a very simple and underhanded strategy: There are 58,000 encrypted documents, therefore they are all GCHQ secrets. So what if Miranda says they aren't? The only way he could prove GCHQ wrong is to decrypt all the documents.
Guilty until he proves himself innocent. Of course he can't do that: if he can't decrypt them, he's stuck; and if he can, he'd show them what he has.