Don't be ridiculous. The feds will never exonerate one of their precious "stopped terrorists" no matter what the circumstances are. Doesn't matter what the law says about evidence or entrapment; there's too much at stake. There'll be a lot of back-room ass covering, then sentencing will proceed.
Forgive my ignorance, but don't most law enforcement officials have specific jurisdictions, and limited to no authority elsewhere? This guy's a local sheriff, not a federal marshall. In my town, the sheriff isn't even regular law enforcement, he just serves papers and such.
If the public speculates the government has greater capabilities than they do, then the bad guys have to work that much harder to hide - they can accomplish less. OTOH, if the government is less capable than speculated, those who believe the speculation will get caught. Win, either way.
The only way it's a problem is if the speculation is exactly correct - and then it's hardly speculation, is it?
If you read the EFF letter, there is the admission that the API was improperly used, and such use has been discontinued. I think AOL could be given a little slack for failing to separate use of the API and use of the data; we haven't seen their letters.
We'll see what AOLs next letters, if any, contains.
We live in a society that (apparently) drive people insane, including some children. Insane people lose it, and shoot up the place. We don't know how to change society, so we try to head off the results - i.e. more and more safeguards against shootings.
Now, you CAN'T ever completely stop anything, so this is doomed to failure; and in fact the draconian and irrational attempts produce more crazy kids.
So, the only avenue left for administrators is to protect themselves alone, by appearing to have done everything possible towards this Sisyphean task. The one thing they DON'T want is a microphone shoved in their face and the question "This child has a history of drawing violent and disturbing images. Why was he allowed to remain in school?"
The biggest transgression here is stupidity. The 'n' word is forbidden, for whatever reason - fine, don't use it. You have to keep up with your list of forbidden words; they change all the time. Call the a**hole who uses your neighborhood for a toilet something else, and be done with it.
Personally, I think the author, as mentioned above, is as "racist" (whatever that means this week) as the subject of the article.
(Puts on naive good citizen hat) Wouldn't it be more efficient to simply curtail the NSA surveillance, instead of encrypting everything on gods green earth? After all, we live in a democracy, right? (Takes off stupid hat)
The point isn't to gather information, it's to get get the witness to make a response that can be used later. Rogers wanted an unequivocal "Yes" and didn't get it. So he kept trying to rephrase - almost against his own point - until he did.
As the first poster put it, "plausible deniability." Every single person on earth, myself included. "kinda knew" what was going on - I would EXPECT our agencies to grab every shred of data they could on any foreign power, friendly or not. They don't deal in intentions, they deal in capabilities, after all.
But it's far different to know for sure. Now the cockroaches scatter, and see who's left out in the light. At the end, nothing will change, and we'll all go back to pretending.
Of course in my fantasies, the lying stops: "Happy goldfish bowl, world. We have more spooks, more nukes, and from now on YOU have no privacy. Deal with it, and govern yourselves accordingly."
An unannounced drill like this could easily result in some brave student attempting to defend himself, and the result if he does so is left to the imagination. Will an officer respond instantly and instinctively, as they seem wont to do? What if a visiting parent responds, or an outside contractor ? (I work in schools as a consultant).
Good thing they do this in a place where carry permits are typically invalid.
Many places, there are laws that protect people from attacks from dangerous animals. Often, they require animals that bite a human be destroyed and the owner fined or imprisoned. This clearly wasn't a serious police activity, and the officers involved were 100% sure the "suspect" was innocent.
So... It's OK if your attack-trained dog injures someone? Good to know. It's not like the police can say they were doing their jobs, and therefore supposedly above the law.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by scotts13.