If "an outsider" did something like this, I would expect the NSA to create talking points about terrorists hacking us, and using it as an excuse to demand more power and funding, than it already has right now.
The point being made is 20% of applicants, as a whole, is most likely inaccurate. For example, if out of all the applicants they interview, only 20% raise flags, and 20% of those have the terrorist ties, you're sitting at 4% of all applicants having terrorist ties is all, not the 20% as per the title.
Also worth noting, since they don't specify what counts as a terrorist tie, that number might also be inaccurate. Imagine that NSA feels a chance encounter while shopping at a store with some one the NSA suspects counts as a "tie", or your mother's ex-husband's second cousin twice removed is suspected as a terrorist. Once again, the tie is not one that you can really see as realistic. The numbers here just aren't all that informative. Far more worrying is the history of the whole interviewing process that was described, including "contractors being caught interviewing dead people" and falsifying background checks.
Part of the reason the DoJ isn't concerned with the way these bankers uses these funds is they are going to have to pay the money back, with interest, eventually. Some of the banks are constantly paying interest back to the government as well, so this is a bit of a cash cow for them. Would you care if you "bailed" some one out with your money, while constantly having them pay you back interest over the course of several years, knowing eventually you'll get back everything you spent and more, and the person you bailed out misused the money?
Geeks already have been. BitMessage is one such example. Functions like email, except your "address" in this instance is actually a public encryption key, with a private key locally saved. Data transmitted between computers/servers on the way to destinations do not have the ultimate source or destination IP addresses, only the current computer's IP address, and the next computer in line to receive the data. When you connect, you simply download a copy of all the encrypted data, filter for anything with your public key, unencrypt and store in your Inbox, and forward anything that's not yours received further down the line. The result is that any message you send out, goes to literally everyone connected to the system, yet only the recipient can read it. Anyone snooping on your connection won't be able to distinguish between which messages are yours, vs some one else's.
It's still in testing, and looking for independent security experts to audit the encryption system to confirm the level of security they're after, but they have had some people examining the encryption and trying to break it already, then reporting their results. It's a work in progress, but already it's functioning quite well.
That's a false equivalency you propose. Assuming one would find it funny to catch some one in the act (I personally wouldn't), walking in at the wrong time is not the same as setting up cameras in the room so one can keep a record of each and every time it happens.
I'm not sure what you're referring to with your "bought credentials", you referring to a diploma? With any decent school, that's not something you simply buy, but something you must work for, and earn. You not only need to know the information being presented, but must be able to demonstrate the ability to use it. Even so, I'm not sure what this has to do with the mass surveillance state.
Not turning down information about a competitor, once again, isn't the actively looking for the information, or worse, following them, and copying down their every activity.
The things you describe aren't even remotely similar to the spying going on, so I'm not sure why you thought to compare coming across information to actively seeking to remove privacy in order to obtain it.
That's not necessarily true. If the officers are coming with a warrant for specific information, and not one from the secret courts, it means the request was subject to actual oversight, and deemed worthy of obtaining the information because law enforcement was able to prove there's just cause to have that information revealed.
I forgot to mention, the keys aren't really interacted with by the user, merely saved then used automatically as needed. Aside from your public key acting as an email address, you don't need to see the keys at all. The public key is also just text, so one can copy/paste the one line as a key quite easily. This gets rid of the hassle for the casual user, while still providing the protection you're after.
BitMessage is an attempt at a completely distributed email service using public/private key pairs. Your public key also acts as your email address with this system. They're currently looking for security experts to test the current cryptography, so there is a question as to the degree of security, but there has been at least one person to answer the call, break the crypto, and send the creators of the program a fix for the issue.
With that quote, you've got to take the context into consideration. The "eye of the needle" was a term that referred to the archway entering into certain larger cities. It was too small for the camel to just walk through. Getting the camel through required a fairly significant amount of work, it wasn't an easy task, but it was possible.
With a startup loan, the bank is hoping to get paid back. They will filter things through a very different lense (how much money can we possibly make, how likely are we to make money). This is different from a business or consumer who isn't expecting a monetary return on a product, and just wants to have their own copy of the finished product. On top of that, you're expected to pay back a loan, with a crowdfunded item, it's hoped you'll be capable of delivering on the promises.
Many are not opposed to it at all, some even welcome this. Others feel it's not quite THAT bad, etc. Even for those opposed, a protest is too much of a hassle, and too much work, for people to actually get off their lazy butts.
It sounds as though you don't understand communism. Communism is the government people were to implement after overthrowing the existing establishment in order to prevent the exploitation of the lower classes by the upper classes. It would do this by means of total control so that businesses couldn't push or force the government to give them excessive power over the lesser classes. Nothing about our current government is trying to do this. It's a police state for sure, and is exercising more and more power all the time, claiming it's in our interest, even though it isn't, but it's most definitely not communist.
I'll try to explain the purpose of the site for you. Basically, Techdirt is about how new technologies can disrupt established industries, resulting in something that is overall good for the industry as a whole, yet seem harmful to the established players in those industries. In particular, the attempts by those established players to try to block the new innovations and advancements in technologies.
Due to regulatory capture causing copyright, as well as patent law, to go far beyond anything reasonable, copyright and the DMCA are frequent topics here. The reason for this article is specifically the abuse of the takedown provisions of the DMCA, rather than the fight itself. This is a clear and obvious attempt to silence free speech using the DMCA is the method, despite defenders of the takedown provisions claiming that nothing about copyright can or will harm free speech.
If, as you suggest, this email is *not* the original email, the defendant could subpoena a copy of the original email from the provider of the email service, or from the hosting provider, to prove the plaintiff is lying. This would be a very easy tactic to undermine all credibility the plaintiff may have, making a victory in this regard that much easier. I'm not really seeing that here, so chances are this email is indeed the original email.