Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't believe this asshole is representing my state
This can't be emphasized enough. The reason that money speaks so loudly in government is because that money is needed in order to pay for (mostly) television ads and other vote-getting activities. In other words, in the end, it's really all about the votes.
Well, first, this article is about actual hacking, not passive Metadata" collection. But onward anyway...
"So, you think this absolves Google from doing the exact same meta data collecting of users around the globe?"
Google is not doing the exact same thing as the NSA. Google is only collecting the data that you are giving them. The NSA is collecting all the data. It's a rather large difference in kind.
"A company doesn't have to hack anything, just like the NSA hasn't hacked anything"
The NSA has confirmed that they've hacked quite a lot, and that a huge portion of their data collection comes form these hacks.
"The NSA did exactly this, but rather than with WiFi, it used open transmissions between servers. There was nothing to hack. Anyone can do it."
This is simply incorrect. I think you don't understand what the NSA did here.
"It's rather baffling most of you chastise what the government is doing while completely giving a free pass to companies doing the exact same thing"
I don't know why this is so baffling. In the case of the NSA, you're forced into it and that information is being used in ways that can seriously harm you. In the case of Google, you're not being forced into it and that information is being used to seriously annoy you. Until it's sold to the NSA, of course.
The two agencies are not doing "the exact same thing".
"You can't visit most websites without Google's intervention, including this very site."
Nonsense. Of course you can. I do it every day. I can't think of a single website I go to that require Google.
Re: I've Seen the Internet Without Ad Blocking Software
"Well, I hate to be that (old) guy, but the internet was a lot more interesting before people decided they needed to make a living off it."
A million times this. Commerce has seriously reduced the overall quality of the "internet experience".
I've run a number of websites over the decades, a few of them very, very popular. I've never run ads or set up any way for people to pay me. I do this because I'm an old man of the internet, and remember when that was how 90% of the websites on the net were run. I miss those days.
A huge percentage of websites are unusable if you don't have some sort of ad blocking and script blocking thing going on.
Not if they were security engineers. They aren't mutually exclusive groups, and if you've hired software engineers who are not security people to do security things, then you're doing it completely wrong.
If that's what's happened, it's totally unfair to blame the engineers who were tasked with something they were unqualified to do.
The adblock nonsense was why I stopped visiting Ars altogether, and why I will never visit the Escapist. The problem wasn't that they were experimenting with new forms of annoying advertising, the problem was that they threw such childish hissy fits about ad blocking software and expressed outright contempt for their readers.
When you start banning people for just mentioning such things, then you clearly don't want readers.
No, I'm not joking. Understand, I'm not saying that the behavior isn't abominable. I'm saying that I don't see how just taking upskirt shots causes so much harm that we need legislation about it. Embarrassment? Sure. Damage? Generally speaking, I don't see it. There would certainly be exceptions to that, but we already have methods of recourse for those people who really are harmed. We don't need a new law for that.
"I'm going to work off the assumption that you are a guy, seeing as sexual harassment is less common (not nonexsistant) and not something you generally have to fear on a regular basis."
I am a guy, yes, but the rest of your assumptions are wildly incorrect.
"having someone shove a camera at your crotch is not traumatizing?"
We aren't talking about people doing that -- there's already at least one law that covers that: assault, and maybe sexual assault. But taking a secret photo of underwear? That's a far cry from shoving a camera into anybody's crotch.
"Anyone, anywhere, at any time, can just help themselves to photographing you in your underwear, and there is nothing you can do about it."
" As long as it is inside the US, it will never be able to promise security. "
Whether or not it's in the US doesn't enter into it. Nobody can promise security as an absolute. And nobody should -- a false sense of security is more dangerous than having no security and knowing it.
I haven't seen the entire offending comment, but if it simply says "Johnny Doc is a pedophile" as a statement of fact rather than opinion or obviously hyperbolic insult, and it is not actually true, then it is in fact defamation. A court ordering that the commenter be identified (assuming the paper is capable of doing that) seems both legal and reasonable to me in this sort of situation.
All this (well deserved) attention to the NSA is letting the FBI, CIA, and other spy agencies who do the same things off the hook. I'm not sure what to do about that.
However, there is one good reason why we should give the NSA (and CIA) the most hell for this: domestic spying is specifically illegal for them to do. It makes the case both easy and more egregious -- the only question you need an answer to is "did they spy domestically?"
It's specifically legal for the FBI to spy domestically. This means that you can't just say "they were spying" and declare victory. You have to go a bit further and make the case for why the spying they were doing was not allowed. That's a more nuanced kind of argument to make.
"ya cause a dead cave dweller , later found ina paki vila already tied up doing movies for the cia ....would be able to mastermind all this bullshit"
Why not? It's not like the actual attack took anything like genius. It, like all good plans, was simple and straightforward. What it took was vision.
"be prepared to be disgusted as you pry open the veil"
I think it's funny when the people assert that there exists some kind of large, unlikely conspiracy -- but then just drop the ball and say "look into it." If it were so obvious, it should be possible to provide some sort of citation, if not evidence.
Why? I can think of two arguments why it should not: it's hard to see the substantive harm it does to the victims, and it's hard to come up with a way to make it illegal that doesn't have pretty huge downsides.