Citing security reasons, the U.S. has intervened in routine state public records cases and criminal trials regarding use of the technology.
The linked article didn't have much details on this. Did a defense attorney attempt to challenge the use of the cell tower spoofer, but to do so would need details about the spoofer, and the DA refused to hand over the info on grounds of national security?
Now I'm not trying to lay the blame for this at the feet of the Slender Man phenomenon, but there is a big difference between things like video games and Dungeons & Dragons vs Slender Man, which is that the former are games to be played, while with Slender Man a lot of it is non-game content presented as if it was real. If you're playing a game then what you're playing can't be real, as you're in the middle of playing it, so you'd have to be really delusional to think it's real. But with Slender blogs and vlogs, since they're not something being played, a person doesn't need to be nearly as delusional to think they're real.
Of course, if these two girls actually believe what they're saying, in addition to being delusional, they're sociopathic enough to not only be willing to commit human sacrifice, but they also want to be the servants of an eldritch abomination. With a pair of delusional sociopaths like that, it would only have been a matter of time before they ended up doing something horrible.
even though the government fully admits that she is no threat
Ah, but you see, implicit in that was the "reasonable suspicion". That is, the government fully admits that there is no reasonable suspicion that she is a threat. But the government has met a burden of proof besides "reasonable suspicion" to put her on the list. Of course, I wouldn't be so churlish as to say that they have an unreasonable suspicion. No, it must be that the government has come up with a new form of reasoning which transcends usual logic; they have a "transreasonable suspicion". Of course, they have to keep this new system of logic secret, lest the terrorists use it, so it's covered under the "secret exception".
This is an article about a paper being removed due to legal threats. While some people debate about the subject at hand (for instance, people arguing that the paper actually was libelous, so removing it was okay), everyone else instead debates about AGW itself. It's like the Popehat article on Mark Steyn's counterclaims against Michael Mann. Instead of talking about the counterclaims, most everyone talks about AGW itself, leading to Ken eventually shutting down the thread in exasperation.
Look, people, if you want to discuss AGW itself, there's already a zillion and one places to do it. You don't need to turn every related topic back too AGW itself.
Well, you don't need to, but you're going to anyway. Why I'm even bothering to type this comment out? *sigh*
Perhaps the scenario they're afraid of is like this: a terrorist calls up the "no-fly list dispute" number and demands to be taken off the list. The person handling the call replies "sir, you aren't even on the list" or replies "to get off the list you must [whatever]". Now, without exposing themselves to any risk, the terrorist knows if they've been found out.
Of course, if they are afraid of something like that, then they could require that to challenge being on the list you have to initiate the challenge procedure in person, where either: 1) you'll be arrested if you're an actual terrorist, or 2) if you're an actual terrorist who they want to monitor some more before arresting, they lie to you and say you aren't on the list, thus giving the terrorists a false sense of security.
I wonder if these people have so little understanding of how Google in particular and computers in general work, that they think since Google has made an algorithm to automatically rank web pages, then Google must be able to just easily create an algorithm to detect pirate sites. I mean, unless they're just grandstanding, their demands very strongly imply they think that way.
Ah, the grand old trademark Nuremberg Defense: it's not our fault we're acting this way, trademark law made us do it. ... There are a myriad of ways in which to wade these waters and come to an agreement that don't involve sending out threat letters to innocent content producers.
IANAL, but my understanding of trademark law is that a company can lose their trademark if they don't take steps to enforce it. Thus some companies think it's prudent to establish a paper trail of enforcement efforts by sending out threat letters to anyone who even looks at their trademark funny. This way if there ever is a case of someone actually violating their trademark, and the defendant claims that they didn't bother to enforce their trademark, they can reply "no, we did take steps to enforce our trademark, look at these gazillion and one frivolous threat letters we sent out to everyone and their dog".