You would think so, and you would be completely reasonable in doing so; but they've already redefined "imminent" to mean "not imminent". I don't know why anyone trusts them anymore, since it's clear that when they say something they usually mean something else, if not the exact opposite.
the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future.
> They're not interested in us sharing culture with each other, they want us all to get our culture from them.
This is exactly right. That's why they hate the public domain so much. If we are creating and sharing culture with each other, then (the theory goes) we won't partake of what they magnanimously deign to sell us.
A lot of people are jumping on the MPAA-haters bandwagon here; wanting Google to sue, screaming about "one law for thee, another for me", laughing at the hypocrisy, "o the irony", etc etc. And while I agree with the sentiment behind many of these outcries and guffaws, focusing on that is missing the bigger picture. One which I wish the MPAA would understand.
Sharing culture is a quintessentially human thing to do. Whether they want to make a point, or make someone smile, or just enlarge the circle of people for whom a reference is meaningful, sharing is natural. It happens all the time. It is perfectly right and good to spread ideas, culture, and experiences, with friends and with strangers. Trying to fight human nature is more futile than trying to fight the tide - which might be difficult, but there's little the ocean can do to you if you decide to get rid of the moon. Trying to excise (by punishment no less) a fundamentally human drive can only end in failure so long as one human remains alive.
That would be far too inefficient. They'll just create a Collections Department, and the theaters will only have to pay MPAA, and the MPAA will find the appropriate actors and disburse the money accordingly. Just like GEMA. It works really really well, I mean, GEMA is rolling in it!
You got your stories wrong. It was the RSA company that defaulted DUAL_EC as the default random number generator in its BSafe product in exchange for 10 million dollars; DUAL_EC was created by the NSA and rammed through NIST's standardization practices over the objections of most of the other security professionals and cryptographers.
> CHS 1 ... asked Booker what he wanted to do. Booker answered, “Anything. Anything you think is good. I will follow you.”
You know, at this point if there were any functional brain cells in the agent's head he would have just said "OK pal, game's over. I'm really with the FBI [flash badge], and you are really an idiot. Just keep in mind we're watching you now, and if you think you can get away with any of this jihad-y bullshit we'll be all over you like shit on rice." and cooly walk off into the sunset.
There, crazy averted.
OK, maybe this wouldn't be the best thing to happen, but it might make a great scene in some True Lies-esque movie.
I don't think we can answer how effective it is in drug trafficking, since we all know the DEA has a vested interest in keeping that criminal enterprise alive, and even participates from time to time.
I don't think I can reasonably argue that the NSA et al has a vested interest in keeping terrorists around to fly planes into our buildings. I'm not quite *that* jaded yet. I could be wrong of course....
Unfortunately I agree with Chris. Google is doing the dev a favor, because that's how the deal is structured.
> I think that once arbitrary decisions hurt somebody financially one can at least question the legality of such moves under anti-trust issues.
This is in no way shape or form an anti-trust issue.
The only fix I see* is to start turning this into a contractual relationship. If you are submitting an app to a store and the app generates revenue for you, then you should be entering into a contract with the store provider. Then you would have grounds to sue for breach of contract and possibly loss of revenue.
'Scuse me while I go watch pigs fly and unicorns birth rainbows.
* - and it's not a really good fix either; you would still have to have a lot of money to win the case and make it worthwhile to even file the paperwork.
why should there be a cost to operating in different legal regimes? why should there be a cost at all? let's just skip straight to the end goal here and allow corporations to sue *any* government they are under, foreign or domestic.
... Clover, who thought she remembered a definite ruling against beds, went to the end of the barn and tried to puzzle out the Seven Commandments which were inscribed there. Finding herself unable to read more than individual letters, she fetched Muriel.
“Muriel,” she said, “read me the Fourth Commandment. Does it not say something about never sleeping in a bed?”
With some difficulty Muriel spelt it out.
“It says, ‘No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets,”’ she announced finally.
Curiously enough, Clover had not remembered that the Fourth Commandment mentioned sheets; but as it was there on the wall, it must have done so. And Squealer, who happened to be passing at this moment, attended by two or three dogs, was able to put the whole matter in its proper perspective.
“You have heard then, comrades,” he said, “that we pigs now sleep in the beds of the farmhouse? And why not? You did not suppose, surely, that there was ever a ruling against beds? A bed merely means a place to sleep in. A pile of straw in a stall is a bed, properly regarded. The rule was against sheets, which are a human invention. We have removed the sheets from the farmhouse beds, and sleep between blankets. And very comfortable beds they are too! But not more comfortable than we need, I can tell you, comrades, with all the brainwork we have to do nowadays. You would not rob us of our repose, would you, comrades? You would not have us too tired to carry out our duties? Surely none of you wishes to see Jones back?”
I don't think so. Right now we know it's "legal" under section 215, but if that sunsets and they keep doing it, we still won't know it's on going, and we will be back in the dark about what authority they will be claiming it's legal under. Repeat claims of "we don't collect blah blah blah under this program".