So, since sniffing unencrypted packets in the 2.4GHz range has been declared 'wiretapping', will sniffing unencrypted packets in the 430–790 THz range be considered the same way? After all, I don't know if I want the visible light that I'm broadcasting unencrypted being seen by anyone.
While I do agree that, in the United States at least, corporations have enough power that if any major industry were seriously ticked off by a segment of law they could probably publicly flout it and get away with it; do we really want them to realize this?
If a few major tech companies decided to just leak the NSL's and got away with it, it could seriously bite the public in the butt in the future. What happens when the interests of the corporations and those of the people don't coincide (as is normally the case)?
That's a can of worms that I don't want to see opened. Let's hope that the courts rule in favor of governmental transparency on this one so we don't have to find out.
As long as the goods are properly declared and any customs duties paid, then there's no problem. The issues with customs start when you buy a large amount of stuff for personal use but they think you're going to resale it.
Don't give them any new ideas! Next thing we know, they'll be saying that since it takes time for the sound to travel from your mouth to the guy listening at your door, that they're not spying in 'real time'.
So, correct me if I'm wrong but, don't the publishers generally sell books (e-books included) to retailers at a specific wholesale price? If that's the case, why does this guy care what a particular retailer charges for the book? He's already gotten his cut and set the MSRP. If the retailer wants to sell the book for a different amount then that should be up to them.
Once, back when I was a Charter customer, my bank screwed up my automatic Charter payment. I found this out after I had an HTTP request redirect to a Charter website informing me that my bill had not been paid. Even with a text based browser, I still would have been redirected. All they have to do is redirect the next HTTP request after the Bittorrent transmission is detected to whatever page they wish. When you're supposed to be the man-in-the-middle, a man-in-the-middle attack is very easy.
You do realize which group is in charge of impeaching federally elected or appointed officials right? Just in case you didn't know, the House of Representatives has to vote to impeach the individual, then the Senate has a trial, if the Senate comes back with a two-thirds majority of guilty votes, then the individual is removed from office. Therefore, it is Constitutionally impossible to impeach the entirety of Congress since no one is going to vote to have themselves removed from office.
On another point, certain members of Congress did try to, within the framework of the confidentiality documents that they agreed to, inform the people of what was really happening. Senator Wyden comes to mind here. He said that we would be angry when we found out what was being done and it looks like he was right.
Wouldn't an ISP simply be able to refuse to provide service to anyone who doesn't choose to opt out? Make choosing to opt out of the filter one of the forms that one must sign when they acquire service. At least I'd hope that's possible.
Re: Yeah, because the US can't get to the servers elsewhere
If I remember correctly, MegaUpload's servers were in the United States. The problem was that Kim Dotcom wasn't in the US to be prosecuted and has a government/judiciary that, eventually, decided to stand up for its citizens against pressure from the US to extradite him.
Don't most federal judges sit for life? I don't see ten years being that bad when you compare it to that standard although, I'd prefer that FISC judges go through the same appointment/confirmation process that other federal court judges go through.
I want to support this site so, I browse it with my ad-blocker off. However, the auto-playing Wall Street Journal video ads with sound are not a good idea. Especially when there are two on the same page. I recently killed a rootkit that caused overlapping video ads to constantly play in a hidden window on a customers computer. For a second, I thought that I'd caught something >_
Well, my representative [Dan Kildee (D-MI)] voted yea so I'm happy and will be sending a supportive e-mail. It's too bad that Michigan's delegation split though. With both Amash, a Republican, and Conyers, a Democrat, both from Michigan and both sponsoring this amendment I would have thought that my states delegation would have been all over this one.
Re: Re: Well That Certainly Explains the "No Rooting" Stance
It's still an issue since there are a number of people who've had me root their phones for them since they don't understand how to do it but they do want to get rid of some of the otherwise irremovable(sp?) crap-ware on the thing. Since I've never asked for any money I'm pretty sure that I'm still fine doing it but, if they own the device, why should the government care what they have done to it?