...*checks to make sure* Huh, it is part of CBS. I guess 3-letter networks just started blurring together after awhile for me.
Still, it doesn't take away from the fact that both networks pretty much took everything their subjects (Snowden for NBC, the NSA for CBS) said as gospel truth and regurgitated it back to the public, and didn't call them out on the absolute propaganda (the entire 60 Min. episode) or a few seemingly bs statements (Snowden's "I'm a spy!" line).
I'd say the opposite, considering NBC didn't call Snowden on his 'I'm not just a hacker, I'm a spy' line of bs, and took him at his word on it.
First rule of spy club: DON'T TALK ABOUT SPY CLUB!
Hacker, leaker, whistleblower, idealistic patriot? Yes. But super-spy, Snowden is not.
Of course, this is the same network which gobbled up all bs statements from the NSA in that 60 Minutes 'special' a few months back and only gave softball questions in response. They did the same thing for Snowden, so if anything NBC seems equally gullible for all its interview subjects.
That being said, kudos to Brian Williams and his staff for actually going the distance in order to get that face-to-face interview with Snowden.
Still, whatever happened to interviews with hard-hitting questions and journalists determined to get the truth out of their subjects? Did that method of journalism die out when I wasn't paying attention?
Someone needs to spread the word to other registrars that unless the police have a court order, they shouldn't shut down the sites because it goes against ICANN policies, regardless of how official the law enforcement looks.
Bending to the whims of a pack of technological dinosaurs who despise the technology [the Internet] your very business model relies on is bad for business in the long run.
Because apparently a bullet to the back of the head qualifies as cruel and unusual. That and there's this idea that we shouldn't put the executioner through such a traumatic experience of executing someone up close and personal via bullet to the skull.
Although execution via bullet would be a hell of a lot cheaper than lethal injection (it's not like America's short on ammunition, after all). Plus there'd be no hassle trying to acquire the right drugs to make the 'most humane' killer cocktail either.
Better yet, make sure the revenue generated is used to actually maintain/update the infrastructure. And by maintain/update I mean regularly scheduled maintenance, not this 'procrastinate about fixing the problem until the shit hits the fan' mentality some ISPs seem to have.
Most major ISPs need to quit focusing on quarterly profits and figuring out new ways to screw over their customers(Comcast) and actually do their jobs properly.
Theoretically speaking, the requirement to swipe would be the digital equivalent to having your front door closed when the cops show up. If there's nothing incriminating in plain sight, cops have no probable cause for a warrantless search, so they need to get a warrant for searching the phone.
Unlocked phones are a bit trickier. That said, I'd be surprised if you could find someone with a smartphone that didn't have at least a slide lock, since started showing up all the way back to 2009-2010.
Was reading over at Ars that apparently Chief Justice Roberts was hoping to find some sort of "middle-ground" between 'get a warrant' and 'don't need one'.
Problem with that logic is: there is no middle ground on this. If a cop arrests you and your cellphone's locked, then they need to get a warrant, period, full stop, end of story.
So the good news that I'm seeing is at least 3 of the Supremes are skeptical of the government's argument/in the 'get a warrant' camp. The bad news is you have indecisive justices like Roberts trying to go both ways. And given how the USSC's been ruling lately, I'm not exactly feeling optimistic right now.
Considering the DOJ is headed by Eric Holder, one of the most incompetent, corrupt US attorney generals in recent history. For example: -Didn't go after the banks -Still hasn't gone after Clapper for lying to Congress -Didn't do much of anything about Fast & Furious -Having the DOJ represent the government on the side of the broadcasting companies in the Aereo case currently in front of the Supreme court (seriously, wtf is the government doing involved in a battle between corporations?) -Eagerly went after Megaupload at Hollywood's request, which blew up in their face in amazing fashion. On top of that, Holder's DOJ has been trying to prevent Dotcom's legal team from seeing the evidence against their client/access to MU's servers, and wants to let Carpathia erase the data now that the DOJ doesn't need it (tampering with evidence).
And that's just off the top of my head. The fact that the DOJ's still investigating Wikileaks despite already admitting they have no case doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
Re: Re: Only the Senators from Washington State will care
Boeing is headquartered in Chicago now and Boeing is doing everything it can to move it's dependency out of Washington state to non-union locations.
I believe the corporate-speak you're looking for is "diversifying one's assets".
Yeah, speaking as someone from Washington state and living in an area where a lot a people work at Boeing (pretty much the western half of the state), the whole relocation to Chicago headquarters was rather... irritating. I mean, you move out of your figurative ancestral homeland to Corruption Capital, USA? What the hell were they thinking?!
But yes, the Senators from all the states Boeing operates in (Washington, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, California, Alabama, South Carolina, D.C., Florida... and that's off the top of my head. Probably a few more somewhere) will probably care (or at least pay lipservice) to what just happened.
Just another thing to put the NSA's feet to the flame over I suppose.
If you're trying to discredit Snowden, just stop. People don't believe you, and every time you talk about Snowden makes people side with him more, even after the whole 'getting Putin on record about Russian surveillance' incident from last week.
Hell, given Snowden's strong idealism, he's more likely to discredit himself by accident than if the NSA's former boss goes around telling millennials to stop treating him like a hero and try to turn public opinion against the whistleblower.