Mass shootings are not one the rise. WHen you define mass shootings as being "12+ people killed" they are on the rise....with 6 of the 12 mass shootings happening since 1949 occuring in the last 6 years. But thats not a very statistically sound sample. If you define mass shooting the way the FBI does, "4+ people killed", the 600 incidents since 1949 are relatively evenly spaced.
There is plenty of evidence that zero tolerance doesn't work. Including the fact that mass shootings aren't falling, violence in schools isn't going down, ect. No need to use bunk statistics to make your point.
An affiliate is a website with a link to amazon. That link, when used by a customer who buys something on that visit, tells amazon to pay a small percentage of the sale to the affiliate. THe affiliate is selling nothing.
Amazon also has webstores, in which people buy wholesale or used and sell product on amazon. Thats what you are refering to, and they are not 'Affiliates". They are a different thing entirely.
Except none of the sales are driven by the actions of the affiliate aside from providing a link to amazon.com. A person in sales tries to sell product. I guarantee you if people could track what advertisement brought you in pre-internet then a "ill give you a cut of the sale of everyone who you send to my store" that would have been one of, if not the only, standard advertising contracts.
If the network uses industry best security practices, Open Source code is no more vulnerable then closed source. Researchers can find the same loopholes attackers find, and open source makes it easier for both sides.
Details the sectors the Federal Reserve invests in ARE public knowlege, you jest have to read the financial statements, the notes to which are more dry then the US Penal code.
General information on the types of spying we do is normally public knowlege. Everyone knew the CIA could wiretap email providers, everyone knows you can wiretap cell phones. We didn't know how easily they could do it (very) and who they were wiretapping (everyone). But we knew they could. So even amongst spy programs, transparancy can be better.
The source code for a website is not crititcal to the national infrastructure. And given the coleslaw that is that code, the only reason to hide it is to hide how much hack that code actually is.
The biggest problem isn't in knowing the sales tax rate, I, an ametuer programmer, could probably build the module for a small database query. no, the problem is in the number of different tax jurisdictions and tax rates which legally need to be collected properly and mailed to each of the individual authorities. You know someone is going to decide that the online retailer with 1.001 million is sales (the guy who didn't even think he would need to collect sales tax, because his Gross sales never exceed 975K), should have remanded 102 dollars to region x and 104 dollars to region y rather then vice versa, which is what he did. Then he is getting audited by 50 different state tax agencies, putting the financial burden on a widget retailer with low profit margins (because what state agency is going to come to you for the audit? No they are going to make you come to them....)
All in All, I can see a huge bureaucratic nightmare coming from this.
Let me set this straight AC, Lying to Congress =/= lying to the SCOTUS. FISA Judges are in bed with the Intelligence community because all they hear is the smoke getting blown up their ass by Intelligence community Lawyers. Same way with patent Judges. But the Supreme Court is not inside that bubble. Its why the Intelligence community (INTCOM) made sure the merits of the law were never debated in the Supreme Court, only "standing".
Why do you think the Lawyer is screaming about how he was lied to when he went before the SCOTUS? Because Verrilli is in deep shit the next time this gets in front of the SCOTUS. He's tossing the INTCOM under the bus to save his own ass. Lying to congress has been shown to only be dangerous if the the popular narrative wants it to be dangerous (i.e. Bill Clinton). Lying directly to the courts? Far more often dangerous on its own merits.
If I remember correctly, back when the SCOTUS denied the ACLU's last lawsuit against phone call collections, the SCOTUS was very sceptical that the government was arguing that no one would ever have standing to challenge this collection, and the government argued that they would reveal if and when the data was used and then you could have standing.
Now they are arguing that no one has standing (except for a company with no reason to challenge the collection). The government has a big reason to not want this case to touch the SCOTUS, as lying to the SCOTUS should be far worse then what prenda is facing for only lying to a district judge....
If they were using PGP or any other third-party end to end encryption, Getting the SSL certificate wouldn't matter, because the content would still be encrypted.
what they wanted initially was known as a 'pen register', and amounted to giving the NSA access to monitor who a person was contacting/possible content monitoring. However, because that data stream being monitored is encrypted, the pen register told them nothing.
What they then attempted was to get the SSL certificate, which we have been told would have erased the security of the system and given the NSA full access to everyone's data. Given that a Proper PGP system wouldn't be affected by the compromise of the SSL certificate, given that the PGP public private key system is independent of SSL, It seems likely that the data was encrypted using SSL.
This has the advantage, as I pointed out elsewhere, that the user gets protection against man in the middle intercepts of his data but can still email non PGP users or PGP users with whom they had not yet shared public keys. You still want to be careful emailing said unprotected users, but the security of the communications 'in-transit' is significantly improved.
And it is clear from what we have been told that there was only one SSL certificate.
What you describe already exists. But it requires both sides to know each other and share public keys and have the software to work with it and because these keys are large data strings, you would have to store the key with the software, or likely in this case the lavabit servers, which likely undoes the security you are going for. Lavabit, by using SSL, encrypts all email sent out no matter the recipient and his setup or privacy concern, and only can be intercepted at the end point, but is still readable by the recipient. Secure communications without the enduser's normal problems setting up secure communications.
I think both the judge and the Techdirt authors are missing a key point to the whole process.
Mass data collection (which a subpeona for the SSL Certificate is) is justified by the Third Party Doctorine, namely that no data you give to a 'third party' has an expectation of privacy. However how can you have no expectation of privacy when the product that Lavabit sells is...privacy? Lavabit has a black box email, so it can't look at your communications data. That sounds like a situation where my communications are designed to remain private, because Lavabit can't even do any spam scanning or other 'intercept' of the communications data. If I used an encryption email, I would have an expectation of privacy with the encrypted data. So in what way can you justify a wiretap on every customer of Lavabit when privacy remains expected?
A bunch of anti-OOTB trolls claim you hate due process, your comment here proves this. MPAA has committed fraud because the initial finding do not support the claims made by the MPAA. Suing because I downloaded 'Dogtown' if I actually downloaded the soundtrack to 'Anastasia' is called fraud and will not win in a court of law, because I can not defend adequately defined myself.
"mislabeling" is something you can not do in a court of law.
Which only means you need a statute of limitations of having a third party appeal to revoke your deadness, or better yet, the only way to reverse a declaration of death is for you (or your doctor or a officer of the law if you can not travel for medical or legal reasons) to show up in court.
Right. The TSA has told us it needs to strip search toddlers because they might be carrying bombs. A child without ID or a boarding pass managed to walk right through the security which should have caught that he didn't have a boarding pass.
I agree with you its not perfect and we shouldn't judge...but wide-spread reports of corruption when combined with the failure of the TSA to respond to critizems of ineffective measures and examples of the ineffectiveness of those measures paints a larger picture of lots of money and time being spent doing very little.
Location Security is all about statistics. If you make entry to solid soft targets harder (ie. have a valid boarding pass, make the 'villian' wait while you check it), you increase the likelyhood of suspicious behavior (I know, broad identifiers, not valid, ect.) and reduce the likelyhood of an attack (barriers weed out most impulsive crimes). A security researcher proved you can generate a junk data ticket that will pass security. Its not and can't ever be fullproof. Instead we look at reducing the likelyhood of an attack, and this step follows a solid body of crime prevention, make the criminal think and he is often likely to not commit the crime.
Also, please remember that getting on the plane is not the only possible target in an airport.
And what they are looking for is that the ticket is 'valid', in that it is for the right day, the right area of the airport, for the person identified, ect. Not that the ticket is for a specific flight. Their is burden on the airline that the kid got on, but there is burden on the TSA as to how he made it to the 'secure area'.
Curious, you make a claim that "obama is unwilling to negotiate".
Obama has 'negotiated' the delay of the Affordable Care Act when it was attached to 'must pass' legislation several times. So now the Republican leadership, after failing to repeal the ACA through normal channels 42 times, first declared that they required the 'defunding' of the ACA, and then 'backed down' to a 'reasonable' stance of removing a tax to pay for the ACA, combined with spending another year to attempt to fully defund it.
By starting out outrageous and then 'backing down', you can get what you want and claim you 'negotiated' when in reality your real stance was the negotiated settlement. This is the republican strategy. Keep delaying the cost controlling benefits of the ACA and it's requirements all while telling people the ACA is raising your rates. Finally get enough support to repeal.
The Republican leadership is not negotiating in good faith. When Obama and the democrats have offered to consider amending sections of the ACA, Republicans have refused. Republicans have directly stated they hooked this to 'must pass' legislation so people who otherwise would say no would say yes. That is not negotiating. That is hanging sword of damocles over the american people and telling congress to do what the republicans want. Or else.
Actually, it is the TSA's job to ensure that everyone who goes through security has either a valid ticket, or a valid pass to escort someone with a valid ticket. The kid couldn't have gotten the latter at his age, so he had to have the former to get through security. And we are told he didn't.