> I would suggest she knew all along it wasn't good but the power it brought her as a sitting member of the Intelligence Committee was more valuable to her than doing what was right.
Serious question; what power? The oversight committee was basically lame and had no real power over the spy agencies; what else is there for that? Was she getting money for *coughcough* "serving" on this committee? Special privileges? Was it purely an ego boost? Did holding the chair result in her continual re-elections?
They get around it by saying "well no one forces you to buy a hard drive, so it's not technically compulsory". You know, like how easy it is to completely avoid facebook and google and the rest of the internet. (yes, it can be done, but it is not *easy*.)
I don't know about the collective part; maybe someone else can comment.
no, she is still on her own side; our goals just happen to align in this one highly specific instance. until she reverses her stance of "spying on the peasants is fine" then we are most definitely not on the same side.
it would be nice if this could backfire on the copyright maximalists; if the judges would find in favor of aero then proceed with a ruling to the effect that any contract that is illegal in part is invalid in whole, therefore the treaties mentioned are null and void.
guys guys guys - we're missing something. We were just given a huge gift by the spooks! The GCHQ, possibly in partnership with the NSA, couldn't come up with an effective porn filter. So what does PM Cameron think the ISPs can do? Magic up an algorithm that (arguably) their best mathematicians failed to create? All that computing power and we still can't come up with a fool-proof program to (100%) accurately distinguish between "twat" and "not twat". Maybe they will open source it and sell it (SaaS style) to the ISPs! Then we can *all* help stomp out fapping forever!!
> If ICE leadership can't even keep an eye on its all-too-helpful minions, one is forced to wonder how many other solicitations have "escaped" in this fashion… and how many of those turned into actual ICE/DHS programs.
Why none, of course. We caught the only bad one. This is the system working. There is nothing of import to see here, Patriot. Please move along.
The plaintiff would like to consolidate the following defendants in this claim:
- happyp1r4te for copying the work - Alienware for making the computer allowing the work to be copied - Intel for making the CPU that changed the work into a readily piratable form - Hitachi for making the monitor displaying the progress of the infringment - Logitech for making the keyboard permitting the infringer to hack infringing codes - Realtek Semiconductor for enabling the computer to transmit the infringing work - Belkin for making the internet cable carrying the infringing content - LG for making the powerstrip keeping the computer on while it was infringing - Linksys for making the router enabling the infringment to be transmitted to the internet - Comcast for selling infringment-enabling services ("internet access") - AT&T for the internet routers that carried the infringement - GoDaddy for providing the domain name on which the infringement was hosted - Verisign for allowing GoDaddy to continue to sell services to infringers - IANA for not revoking Verisign's right to use ".com" under which the infringement was hosted - Adobe for selling "dreamweaver" without proper safe guards in place to prevent "hot links" to the infringing works despite this simple suggested modification to their software! - Google (of course) for directing users to infringing works - The US Intelligence Agencies (NSA, FBI, CIA, DHS, ICE, CBP, and the NYPD) for not stepping in to stop the infringement - The Poetry Foundation for promulgating the works of one "William Shakespeare" (presumed deceased) which allowed the infringer to clearly articulate the infringement - God for imbuing "happyp1r4te" with the spark of life after knowing infringment would be taking place
I hereby attest in good faith that we have named all responsible parties, however we reserve the right to amend this list as new details come to light.
> It might be a completely ridiculous ruling, but at least the domain owner got to argue the case in court, and (presumably) can appeal the verdict and get it overturned. That's the way the law is supposed to work.
I disagree. Something like this should be laughed out of court.
> It's probably worse here in the states, where the feds seized Dajaz1.com....
Yes, there are crazier things happening throughout the world, but making the comparison this way you are implying that we shouldn't worry too much about it. In effect you are setting the threshold for concern on the wrong end of the scale.
The baseline for reasonableness should be not fucking crazy; we should not be comparing events (or by extension philosophies) on the basis of "well, worse things have happened, so this is not that big of a deal".
Whether or not you believe that, the tone of your post strongly implies that "this is not that big of a deal".
> It is an example, but in a different way than you suggest. The problem is, as with the above comment thread, when people are intentionally trying to twist the clear meaning of the original statement.
It is exactly what i meant. (i dunno why this particular browser keeps purging my cookie :-/) And you are absolutely right. The only real solution is for people to deal honestly with each other.
I want to point out that you appear to be close to falling into a false dichotomy: would you rather the public gets spied on, or government officials?
The lesser of two evils is, by definition, still evil. If tight privacy controls are good for congress, there is no reason that we shouldn't get the same levels of protection. So it's somewhat reassuring that congress has not gotten special exemptions and privileges, but it's still outrageous that they only seemed to care when it was demonstrated that it affected them personally.
Virginia? jesus fucking christ why does that not surprise me?
From the same state that passed a bill imposing a mandatory fine of 3500 dollars for traffic violations which only in-state residents had to pay. I didn't believe it when I heard this, but right in the bill it said "this exists to generate revenue".