Those are the only two outcomes technically possible, which is a huge problem for the Executive Branch.
I'd assume that an investigation of this level would require authorization from the Attorney General if not the President himself.
So either: 1) The AG or the President authorized an investigation into staffers of the senate intelligence committee - bad juju for the the authorizers, possibly political suicide; or, 2) The CIA illegally spied on the senate intelligence committee hence breaking MANY laws (CFAA plus other laws regarding the legal limits of the CIA etc).
the internet is a... well, *GASP* international net.
Incorrect. The Internet is a series of interconnected networks. A network of networks. It is not one gigantic network. It is made up of national (and other) networks that are themselves made up of thousands, millions of separate networks that all interconnect. Each ISP is its own, separate network that interconnects with other networks (this is where peering comes in, see the recent stories about netflix peering problems).
Actually no, it's more like having a setuid root script that steam can modify at will on my system, so can therefore be used to run ANYTHING. If steam update got hacked (say by the NSA), millions of computers could get infected by spyware/trojans etc.
This article has nothing to do with constitutional rights and so on.
It is to do with an Oregon state law, House Bill 2371, that makes it illegal for information gained from swiping an identity card (such as a drivers license) to be stored and/or passed on. And the fact that the police are encouraging, enabling, those business to break said law:
(2) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a private entity may not swipe an individual′s driver license or identification card, except for the following purposes: (a) To verify the authenticity of a driver license or identification card or to verify the identity of the individual if the individual pays for a good or service with a method other than cash, returns an item or requests a refund. (b) To verify the individual′s age when providing an age-restricted good or service to any person about whom there is any reasonable doubt of the person′s having reached 21 years of age. (c) To prevent fraud or other criminal activity if an individual returns an item or requests a refund and the private entity uses a fraud prevention service company or system. (d) To transmit information to a check services company for the purpose of approving negotiable instruments, electronic funds transfers or similar methods of payment. (3) A private entity that swipes an individual′s driver license or identification card under subsection (2)(a) or (b) of this section may not store, sell or share personal information collected from swiping the driver license or identification card.
Also interesting to note is that the law allows for remedies, actual damages or $1000, whichever is greater, and awarding costs to the plaintiff:
(8) In addition to any other remedy provided by law, an individual may bring an action to recover actual damages or $1,000, whichever is greater, and to obtain equitable relief, if equitable relief is available, against an entity that swipes, stores, shares, sells or otherwise uses the individual′s personal information in violation of this section. A court shall award a prevailing plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney fees. If a court finds that a violation of this section was willful or knowing, the court may increase the amount of the award to no more than three times the amount otherwise available.
So anyone in Multnomah County and Portland who has had their license swiped by one of these businesses could be heading for a $1000 windfall.
And any business that is sued over this should then sue the Police department for THEIR costs due to the Police departments incitement to break the law.
1) Where has the information come from? 2) What is the background of the informant? (i.e. r they a drug dealer who is seeking a reduced sentence for providing information) 3) What independant steps has the PD taken to verify this information? 4) What were the results of those steps? 5) Has the PD or any other body/individual undertaken additional investigation into the target of the warrant? 6) What were the reults of that investigation?
If the CBP has enough 'spare' drone hours to 'lend out' drones for 700 non-CBP flights in 2 years, then they have more drones than they need and their drone budget should be audited for efficient use of government funds.
In the catalog released by Der Spiegel there are additional items that are basically boosters.
So, there's an micro transmitter that can be placed directly in things like USB cables (in the connector shroud) or tiny devices that can be placed on a motherboard or on the surface of the case itself. These all usually have a broadcast range of a few ten's of metres, e.g. 10-30 metres or so.
Then there are other catalog items, small receivers/transmitters, say the size of a disposable cigarette lighter, that can be placed within that 10-30 metre rage but outside the room/building, that can pickup the signal from the micro-transmitter and boost it for pickup by the 'briefcase' sized receiver that can be 100's of metres away. Since this booster is outside the immediate area of the device being eavesdropped on, even if the booster is detected it's unlikely to be seen as a 'bug' as the signal would be coming from outside the immediate sensitive area. It would be lost amongst (or considered a part of) all the other general background traffic you'd expect to see outdoors (cell, CBs, radio, TV etc).
If (and it's a big 'if') the patches significantly increased resource requirements (CPU/Memory) of the telco-side devices, then from a commercial perspective it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a BUSINESS-level decision overrode any techie-level decision and the business decided not to apply them due to the cost requirements in purchasing new kit/facilities space.