>> Nope. The servers belong to Microsoft Ireland, which doesn't have an office in the US, merely an owner.
Say wwwwhat? By this logic, if I have a warehouse, here, and you rent it, and put your stuff in there, local judge can't order me to open the warehouse and examine content just because stuff doesn't belong to me? Common sense just doesn't work this way: judge can order a _owner_ of a property to do something with said property.
>>> That's not the case here, Microsoft is merely STORING the data for others, and it is doing so under specific laws. You probably talking about laws of physics, because other laws are irrelevant. What if MS using sort of distributed file system, where files are spread (shadowed/mirrored) all over the world? Will you apply jurisdiction per filesystem block? Your idea about "specific laws" is ridiculous.
>> We have jails aplenty to teach you otherwise. Putting someone in jail doesn't make law more just or less stupid. Some people were burned at stake, and this didn't make heresy laws sensible.
As non-US person, I must say this is blown out of proportion. Common sense says, that my local court can request data from me, even if I store it on Amazon/Google/Dropbox or any other "cloud" service located nobody-knows-where-exactly. Exactly same thing going on here, where judge correctly pointed out that data is not a document or object. And as was repeated many times on this very site - data can't be "owned", only copyrighted, patented and so on.
I also must note, that I couldn't care less about kind of form judge must fill. Be it "order", or "subpoena", or "hybrid warrant/subpoena" or purple scroll. That's issue of US bureaucracy.
Bottom line is clear - MS has office in US, data is stored on MS's server and judge ordered a copy. Because "has office in US" part, MS must comply. "Privacy protection" laws in Europe are as stupid as "right to forget" - by same token they can outlaw gravity.
Why does it matter whether he is US citizen? If wrongdoing happened in USA _and_ done by US citizen and/or corporation - that's under US jurisdiction. If some US person steal from me while I'm visiting US - he's gonna be caught and put to trial. Even if alleged wrongdoing is not a criminal matter - let's say it's breach of contract, I still can go to US court.
Note, that it doesn't matter whether "publicity rights" are ridiculous or not. Assuming US laws works this way - Noriega definitely can sue.
"Invading privacy" is not binary decision. There's lot of grey area there. Example - I don't mind checking call metadata, but opposing to wiretapping.
"Oversight" is not binary thing either. Of cause there is oversight. But - what exactly to be overseen is not so straight-forward.
Now, the problem is not in NSA or Congress. The problem is american general cowardice. Large majority of US population are actually very afraid of terrorists (real or imagined). That's understandable - US people never had to defend their country. US people never in history were threatened (Civil war doesn't count and other wars was fought overseas). They thought they are untouchable, invincible and so on. Here come 9/11 and show that all expensive warfare won't protect you from really determined people. So, the fear is real. And yes, NSA have many bona fide supporters for what they do.
Add to this known american arrogance ("why can't we spy on German - that's what CIA is for!"). Yes, of cause you can spy on whoever you want, but beware of consequences.
... and since when Schneier become expert on terrorists?
Last time I checked, Bruce Schneier was expert on cryptography. Did he ever saw real-life terrorist?
Now, where did Mike get this patently stupid idea that "For obvious reasons, terrorists won't be able to draw on the knowledge and skills of the global crypto community"?! What, "terrorists" suddenly lost an ability to read? Or, I know - terrorists are stupid! Yes, and uneducated!
Go back and read some real-world statistics: there's disproportionate amount of well educated people among all kind of extremist groups, jihadists included.
>> I would not call the terrorist stupid, more likely technically ignorant. And I would call _you_ ignorant. Your idea of "terrorists" comes from BS Hollywood movies, where "terrorist == batshit-crazy". Back to reality, you will find, that there's enough very well educated and technically competent people among those "terrorist organization". Reason is very simple - one man terrorist is another men freedom fighter.
>> you can't (in most cases) switch phone service providers without replacing your hardware. You should be saying "In US ...". In "rest of the world" (please check your map where is it) we can switch SIM card and go to another provider; no hardware replace needed.
Re: Re: And what exactly is wrong in presented picture?
>> but the other functions of the internet are even more important and not reflected in in the diagram at all I'm hw engineer, 10 yrs experience in networks, and never heard of those "other functions". Care to elaborate?
>> My email is not paid for by ad revenue at all. It is paid for by money I give to my service provider Seriously? You're paying for email? Well, good for you, but I suspect it's you're either of: * Using your ISP email. Not wise - what happen if you switch ISP? * Tiny minority - paying for email service. What makes me think of you as tiny minority: huge userbase of gmail+yahoo+outlook(or whatever it's called today).
>> Same with literally every other communications I'm confused: you're paying for Facebook too?! Twitter? Skype? Are you high?
Above diagram is mostly correct. Yes, Internet is content-distribution network. Some of this content is paid directly (iTunes etc) while other by ads revenue - all user-generated stuff (YouTube etc). Those who cry "it's for communication" are living in denial. From all communications, only VoIP is paying for itself. Rest - _including_ email, is paid by ads revenue.
>> how exactly is the US any different than the other terrorist groups What makes you think that "US any different"? You are not. US fighting for some political interest against people who stay against said interest. Pretending you are different sounds like you're "superior race". I've heard that idea somewhere before. It didn't work then either.
In short - make love, not war. It's cheaper, people will like you more.
>> So you are okay with killing 49 innocent people in order to get 51 bad guys? Your definition of "innocent" is probably skewed. They maybe unarmed, but in no way "innocent". Guess what, army is supported by population. This population provide food, shelter and other resources. And while some targets (like hospitals or schools) are usually considered illegitimate, rest of things is perfectly OK to hit.
So, back you your questions - yes. "innocence" have nothing to do at war. In war, there're "we" and "they" (for given definition of "we" and "they"). And "they" are target.
>> I really, really hope that was meant to be sarcasm No sarcasm at all. Believe it or not, people killed in Yemen doesn't care about stuff your Congress declare. When foreign soldier firing on me, I don't care about whatever stuff his ruler(s) declared or not declared. News for US people - rest of the world don't care that match about your internal "checks and balances".
>> a solider does bear responsibility for what/who they shoot/bomb It's a joke, right? No, he does not. That's a difference between soldier and street criminal. I guess you never been in army (as wast majority of US people). That's why you think that soldier make all sorts of decisions. Maybe it will shatter your worldview, but here's the thing: "kill or to be killed" is very powerful incentive to kill.
Yes, they "choose" to pull the trigger, but conditions under which they do it, pretty match make them "mindless killing machines". By the way, why "mindless"? I understand "heartless", but "mindless"?
"they always, always have the option to refuse" As US citizen you have an option not to go to army to begin with. As for "objectionable order" - that's more or less urban legend. In real war it simply doesn't happen, sorry to disappoint you.
>> Can you point out when the US Congress declared war on Yemen? Thanks. What a funny guy. Must be a lawyer, that thinks that war starts when it's being "declared". Guess what - it's started when one army of foreign army start killing the people on another country (without one's consent).
It doesn't matter what documents your US Congress or President or Holy Spirit or anyone else signed. It's called "casus belli". When US Army start shooting - that's war. Call it whatever you want.
Remember - soldiers are not policemen. They are not trained to observe some complex legal code. They are trained to fight. Definition of "fight" differs per soldier and his/her duty - be it infantry or intelligence.
And yes, sometime pilot will be tired or simply not care enough - and will hit wrong target. And no, pilot is not guilty in anything beyond wasting ammo. He/She is a soldier and supposed to follow orders.
While I do believe that US government overreach must be stopped, I also understand what this man is talking about.
Basically, you can't assign lawyer to every soldier. You want to use army against foreign targets? Get ready - innocent people will die. Not "may die" - "will die". That's what war is about, that's what armies do.
Don't like it? Don't start the war, bring ALL of US Army back home. You want fight terrorists (real or imaginary) in Yemen/Afghanistan/Iraq/etc - yep, innocent people gonna die.
Don't like it? Stop acting like world police. That's simple.
This is live ammunition. This is actually a dangerous thing. Yes, it can fire. And yes, it supposed to be banned on plane. TSA do a lot of stupid things, but this is not one of them.
Don't sound ridiculous - it's not a breast milk or bottle of shampoo. And average TSA agent is not supposed to be weapon expert: he supposed to follow set of simple rules. "No weapons or ammo or something that looks like it" is one of those rules. Advice to vocal weapon - lovers: take this bullet, fly to let's say India. See how far you will get with this in a pocket.