I can sympathize with site owners, I run a site myself and struggle to get enough ad income for it. But I also won't compromise my principles by running intrusive ads, and I don't get all bent out of shape when people use ad blocking, because they have very good reasons to do so.
First up, as you mention in this article, the advertisers are partly to blame. They want more obnoxious ads that people hate so people start blocking them. Secondly, and more important I think, is the fact that ads have repeatedly been used to inject malware to people. Even reputable ad networks have had problems with the occasional malware-laden ad getting through. Why wouldn't people block ads after several incidents of that?
Personally I not only use AdBlock, I'm also using NoScript simply to protect my own computer from attack. If any site wants to get mad at the lost income from this, get mad at the hackers and advertisers, since they drove me to this.
Did you read the article? The cops hid all that information from the judge. To the judge it appeared that her apartment was controlled by the drug dealer Stink. Especially since all the other apartments had resident information and details about surveillance included.
I agree judges should ask more questions before issuing warrants, but here the judge would have had to read the cops' minds to even know what to ask And given how carefully the cops hid her existence to get their warrant, do you really think they would have answered truthfully?
Ever single "job" you mentioned are, at best, controversial ones and some are considered flat-out criminal in the whole world. Others toe the line, but there's a big difference between being, say, an astrologer who makes a living charging people for readings and one that causes/talks a person into mortgaging their house to pay them. The latter one is a con artist, the former is just preying on gullible people, but not putting them into poverty.
The same applies to all of those things actually, you can make money by charging gullible people, but if you start literally putting people into poverty you have crossed a line. And yes, I do include big pharma in that.
Say what you will about fraud, at least it is pacifistic.
But fraud isn't pacifistic actually. Just because the fraudster doesn't directly beat the victim or kill them doesn't make it that way. What happens when the victim was bilked out of the life savings and loses their house? What about when they can't afford food because they lost all their retirement savings? Victims can easily end up dying cold, alone and homeless because of that "pacifistic" fraud.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, if you scam someone out of money, they no longer have it, and they will suffer in proportion to their loss. I don't care how bad the poverty is there. Putting someone else into poverty to get yourself out of it is not acceptable behavior anywhere in the world.
Sometimes there's not much choice. My choices for senator next election will be Lamar Alexander, who's not great but compared to the crazy, extreme-right-wing crazy primarying him looks like Ghandi in comparison. There's not going to be an Democrat running who's got a chance in hell of winning here either.
So what do we do? I could (and probably will) write in a candidate that won't win, but this will not stop the incumbent from winning. (Or worse, if Alexander loses the primary, the crazy right-wing guy from winning.)
What we need are some decent candidates, period. Ones that are both sane and can win.
Apparently he has PTSD, that doesn't start out as full blown crazy usually, it gets progressively worse over time. Plus he may have married before he was shipped out and got PTSD. So he may have been perfectly normal/sane (or close to it) when they got married and has gone insane since then.
While he seems to be pretty obviously mentally ill, and has a diagnosis of PTSD already, the fact of the matter is most mentally ill people manage to refrain from making such public spectacles of themselves. Mentally ill or not, if he's going to do something so ridiculously over-the-top he's going to get lots of negative attention. Ignoring him will not make him get help.
The best thing to hope for here is that he has crossed the line that will make a court order him into treatment. He obviously needs some. He also sounds potentially dangerous, if you read that one link he's also getting into stalking of people in real life and has already had the courts require him to wear a GPS tracking bracelet due to that.
There may be another Snowden, although the evidence is a bit slim at the moment. The article by Der Speigel about the NSA interdicting hardware very carefully does not say the info came from the files Snowden leaked. And Glenn Grenwald has stated emphatically that he had nothing to do with that article and also points out they didn't say they were Snowden docs (see here). He says:
I had no involvement in that Spiegel article, ask them - and they don't say those are Snowden docs.
So this opens up the possibility that there's another leaker now.
He meant Dickian, as in Philip K. Dick, the science fiction writer who wrote the short story The Minority Report (the movie is based off the short story). In the story people are arrested for crimes before the commit them thanks to some mutants who can see the future.
If the account really was hacked, then... maybe. They've stated in public now that they closely monitored the account activity. So if it was hacked and these messages were being sent over a long period of time, why didn't they notice them?
Either they lied about monitoring it (which would probably mean it's more likely they know their daughter really sent them) or they monitored it and failed to stop it. Saying that in public was insanely stupid.
The sheriff's a total idiot. He's already punished the parents, simply by arresting their daughter, causing them national shame. If that's not enough he needs to simply focus on making sure the daughter is convicted, by building the case against her till it's rock-solid. Something he should be doing anyway.
The parents may be vile human beings (likely are, the girl had to learn it somewhere), but do this correctly. If you don't, you risk the case falling apart entirely and no one being punished. Punish the girl and parent's punishment follows. They obviously believe she's a perfect angel, so seeing her convicted of a crime like this is going to hurt them BAD.
Or Lavabit sent hashed passwords and the US government wanted to install a device to do a man-in-the-middle attack, pretending to be Lavabit's authentication server, but really just saving all information typed and passing it along to the real authentication server to authenticate the user. They could have done a perfect one, demanding Lavabit provide their SSL certificates for the MITM device to use so no one would notice.
I think that's more likely, Lavabit focused enough on security it's unlikely they were sending cleartext passwords over the wire.
* Putting code which will attempt to invade the computer of one or more users, as was done this month on Freedom Hosting, by the FBI or the NSA.
I gotta say, I still don't understand that. Because they put it up indiscriminately on all the sites Freedom Hosting hosted, including all the most definitely not illegal ones (like TorMail), the resulting data they got is totally useless. They couldn't (or maybe that's shouldn't) be able to even use it to get a warrant, because they have no way to prove the IP in question actually was trying to access a site with illegal content (like child porn) instead of something like TorMail. The reality of the situation would be "well Your Honor, we have this IP that might have tried to access a child porn site, but it might not have and we'd like a warrant..." I can't see that flying in even the FISA court.
So either it was incompetence on a grand scale, or someone didn't think things through very well...
I agree she should have seen it, and been aware of it, but my impression of the statement was that the NSA simply hadn't given the full report to the committee. Which would seem to fit their pattern of making sure there's no oversight by not providing any information to the overseers.
I actually kind of hope that's what happened, because it's now making the NSA's more ardent supporters look like total idiots and they're going to get mad at the NSA for causing that. It's a most excellent way for the NSA to lose their supporters in congress.
You could probably manage to fly or take a boat to Canada or Mexico then drive across the border. But that's still not guaranteed (and expensive). It's ridiculous innocent people have to go through that.