Re: Re: Get out of your pajamas, Mike, and STOP reporting on the
Blue is hard to understand except as:
1 - A genuine paranoid with an irrational anti-Google obsession strangely blind to every other threat, a strange fixation on Mike personally, and too much free time, or,
2 - Some sort of puppet of Mike's, here to "stir the pot" and get the rest of us going (thus helping Techdirt's pageviews?)
I really like Techdirt - it focuses on issues I think are important, and I usually agree with Mike's viewpoint.
If in the end OOTB turns out to be #2, I'm not sure what to think. On one hand, it's sneaky, devious, and somewhat dishonest. On the other hand, one could argue it's a fiendishly clever and successful way for Mike to get his viewpoint across - by making him seem reasoned and calm in comparison to the OOTB clown. Given that I think Mike is (usually) on the side of the angels, maybe the end justifies the means. In this case. But it's still sneaky.
Knowing how the NSA's denials are tweaked by lawyers to mislead while not explicitly lying:
“We do not use our foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf of — or give intelligence we collect to — U.S. companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line,”
I think we can safely interpret that as NSA DOES give trade secrets and intelligence to US companies. Full stop.
It's just that NSA's justification for doing so isn't competitiveness or profit - it's umm... national security. Or terrorism. Or drugs. Or the children.
Bottom line - now that we know how to parse the NSA's public statements - they ARE giving intelligence to private firms.
All in all, Snowden’s revelations have significantly changed many people’s perceptions of the role the UK government actually plays in cyberspace. The government’s progress report does not appear to take this into account at all.
If the UK works anything like the US, it goes like this:
1 - Snowdon's leaks were of classified materials
2 - Spooks must not look classified materials they aren't cleared for
3 - Therefore they can't look at Snowdon's leaked materials (even tho they're in the press)
4 - Thus, the government position can't be affected by Snowdon's revelations, as government workers either aren't aware of them or have to pretend that they're not aware of them
Simple, really. It's like they stick their fingers in their ears and chant "I can't hear you!".
Re: Re:Doing it that way, his domicile and girlfriend could not be visually seen
Tape over the camera works great when it's your camera you're worried about.
If you're downloading NSA's secrets so you can expose them to the press (as Snowdon was), it's not your own webcam you worry about so much - it's the NSA's hidden cameras in your apartment that might or might not be there (depending on whether NSA has gotten suspicious enough yet).
If that's the case, working under a sheet is by far the simplest way to be sure nobody can see what you're working on.
(For you or me, it might be a sign of paranoia. It's not paranoia if you're Ed Snowdon busily breaking all the NSA's rules.)
"Aereo has ZERO content except what it takes from the producers and then gets income from that value. So it's not entitled to even operate: it's NOT like persons putting up their own antenna and other equipment, it's a centralized corporation and directly engages in unfair competition because puts zero money into paying for the product it sells."
What does that have to do with anything?
When I buy a shirt from Amazon, UPS delivers it.
UPS has ZERO content except what it takes from the producers and then gets income from that value.
Right? So UPS should't be entitled to operate and offer the useful service...of delivery.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." --Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776
I'm a free trader - a real free trade agreement would indeed be great.
But I don't understand how the New York Times (or anyone) can expect a deal negotiated in secret - BUT with lots of input from "interested parties" - to be anything but a candy bowl for special interests.
I sympathize with the desire of trade negotiators to avoid confronting economically ignorant protectionist know-nothings (who don't understand what is in their own best interests).
But the only solution is economic education, not secrecy - because human nature ensures that secrecy will lead directly to conspiracy against the public.
Re: Re: Why the surprise? That's always the view of inherited tyrants!
1) Too rich = 2x my current income
2) Too big = 2x bigger than any company I own
3) Unearned income = income that I didn't think of a way to get
4) I want there to be a stigma to "success" if "success" means I look bad in comparison. It's all about me looking better to the ladies - how am I supposed to compete against the likes of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs?
5) So, everybody would be poor. So what? The main thing is how I look to the ladies.