Why have one backup when you could have many? I know the archive has got to be massive, but break it up into manageable chunks, put it up on a torrent site(or several) and I imagine you'd have plenty of people willing to download and host various pieces, to the point that if one or two went down for whatever reason there'd be half a dozen backups just waiting.
Without Snowden, it would have been decades, if ever, until Americans learned what intelligence agencies acting in our name had been up to.
Well yeah, that was kinda the point. Keeping the public in the dark as long as possible, ideally forever, with regards to what the spy agencies were supposedly doing 'in their name'.
To Obama and others in the government that support the indiscriminate mass surveillance that's a point against Snowden, not for.
There are, of course, differences between these cases and Snowden’s. But the crucial point is that only in Snowden’s case was the motivation behind his illegal activity to benefit America. The three others involved efforts to gain glory or avoid criticism, or simple convenience and simple disregard for the law that put our security at risk. Yet the perpetrators were treated leniently.*
At the 'cost' of exposing the dirty laundry of those in power, making them look bad and forcing them to scramble for excuses and to try and hide and/or 'legitimize' their actions.
The glory hounds mentioned broke the laws on classified materials for their own gain, and most importantly in a way that didn't make the USG in general and it's spy agencies in particular look bad, so it's hardly surprising that between that and their connections they got a slap on the wrist while numerous people in the USG bay for Snowden's head(literally at times).
While I applaud their effort and the fact that they were willing to publicly make their position known like this, they had to have known that between their history(people who are all in favor of mass surveillance aren't going to look kindly on those with a history of reigning such activity in), and the fact that arguing that without Snowden the public never would have known what was happening isn't going to have much impact on someone that considers an ignorant public a good thing.
Given I doubt he's going to put the powers to use himself in the time he has remaining I can only assume that he just couldn't resist screwing over the public one last time(I hope it's the last time anyway) before leaving office, because why not?
Bankers are 'big people', they've got money, connections, and would make for difficult targets.
The 'little people' on the other hand would be essentially a massive number of people wearing targets on their backs, just ripe for the prosecution in order for a DA to drum up some 'tough on crime' PR, or a cop to teach some uppity citizen what happens when they talk back to their betters, because the 'little people' don't have money, and don't have connections, making for trivially easy targets.
The legislature is absolutely allowed to treat state contracts as though they were personal, confidential contracts between the two parties signing said contract.
However, given those contracts and the details thereof are going to be treated as personal contracts between the legislature and the companies/individuals, they should be required to spend their own personal money on the contracts, and forbidden from spending so much as a single cent of taxpayer money.
If they want to claim that the public has no say in the contracts, and is barred from knowing any of the details then they can have fun paying the contracts out of their pockets, rather than the pockets of the public. Conversely if they're going to be using taxpayer money then those same people paying those taxes have every right to know how their money is being spent, if for no other reason than to be able to object if they feel it's being spent poorly.
As illustrated by the San Bernardino domestic terrorist attack in December 2015, as well as by the ever-increasing number of smartphones lawfully seized by law enforcement that cannot be accessed by law enforcement or by Apple, the threat to public safety is increasing rapidly.
The funny thing is the last line is right, the 'threat to public safety is increasing rapidly', what he gets completely and utterly wrong is the source of the threat.
Put bluntly, it's him. Him and those like him that are bound and determined to usher is a digital disaster by crippling the very same encryption that protects against criminals from having easy access to massive amounts of personal and valuable information located on phones and other systems.
Because he's too gorram lazy and/or so entitled that he believes that he's owed instant access to anything he wants he's willing to threaten public safety on a scale that makes a few 'unsolved due to encryption' crimes look like minuscule blips on the radar. He and his incredibly stupid crusade against encryption are a bigger threat to public safety than encryption could ever be,
even if you take his claims of investigations blocked by encryption as totally true.
Gee it's almost like they have no respect for the system, the rules, the oaths....
To be fair, were I a similarly warped individual who got a kick out of screwing people over for fun and profits I'd probably show the same level of respect as them, which is to say none at all.
When the system isn't respectable, it's not surprising that people don't respect it, even more so when they know that even if they get caught they'll get the high-court treatment and face a slap on the wrists at most.
If someone told you that they were in control of your bank account and could drain it completely, and someone pointed out that just because they could doesn't mean that they would('They might only take half, or even a quarter!'), would that strike you as a good argument?
Sure he probably won't get the maximum, but the fact remains that it's even possible for such a sentence for what he did is a little ridiculous. The potential for 20 years in prison and a quarter million fine simply because the person he was talking to was located in another state seems just a titch excessive, even given the fact that he was a slimeball for attempted extortion under cover of copyright infringement.
As we've seen far too often elsewhere, government entities believe transparency and accountability are forms of damage and actively search for ways to route around these obligations to the public. And given the allegations here, it appears the APD has no interest in cleaning itself up, not even with the DOJ looking over its shoulder.
Probably becase the DOJ is content to only 'look over it's shoulder', and has no interest in doing anything about their actions.
When you know that your 'boss' has no interest in holding you accountable, the city has no interest in holding you accountable, you can stonewall and lie to the public all you want to hide your actions, and you happen to be staffed with murderous thugs who thoroughly enjoy unlimited power up to and including the ability to kill on a whim... yeah, not much incentive to shape up and do anything different.
"All your networks are belong to us, make your payments."
"if You are Responsible in MUNI-RAILWAY ! All Your Computer’s/Server's in MUNI-RAILWAY Domain Encrypted By AES 2048Bit! We have 2000 Decryption Key ! Send 100BTC to My Bitcoin Wallet , then We Send you Decryption key For Your All Server's HDD!! We Only Accept Bitcoin , it’s So easy! you can use Brokers to exchange your money to BTC ASAP it's Fast way!"
Ah engrish at it's finest, for when you want to hold a city's transportation system for ransom but don't actually have the time to put together a decently translated ransom demand.
I especially like how the last two sentences almost read as an advertisement for bitcoin. 'It's so easy! you can use Brokers to exchange your money to BTS ASAP it's Fast way!', like they're just so enthusiastic about bitcoin that they couldn't help but gush about it a bit, even as they demand money.
Gutting most regulatory oversight, demolishing net neutrality, and dismantling the FCC's new privacy rules won't somehow magically result in telecom utopia.
That depends on which side you're looking at it from. From the position of the general public, no, such an action is like lighting the fuse on bomb, it's going to blow up in your face, the only questions are 'How soon?' and 'How much damage is it going to cause?'
On the other hand, from the perspective of the telecom companies dismantling the rules and gutting the oversight will absolutely result in a 'telecom utopia'. No longer will they have to pay empty lip-service about 'serving the best interests of their customers', no longer will they feel the need to justify stuff like caps and zero rating as somehow 'customer friendly' in order to avoid the possibility of an investigation and/or fine, instead they'll be able to focus entirely on 'How can we squeeze the most money from the saps we've got signed up with us, for the least amount of effort on our part?'
The ones arguing that gutting the regulations and removing the oversight will be a huge boon are technically correct, it's just they're being misleading and dishonest to the extreme in claiming that the ones who will benefit will be the public.
Not to say that China or other countries using US fearmongering to further their own goals isn't a real issue, but let's be honest, this is China we're talking about, they'd use the sun rising or someone sneezing as excuses to push for more control of their citizens and/or the internet.
"Since I won, we'll just pretend I never mentioned that shall we?"
In this topsy-turvy world where nothing makes any sense at all any more, Donald Trump spent months and months spinning stories about how the election was "rigged" and e-voting machines were going to be hacked in favor of Hillary Clinton.
One of my thoughts at the time was that making such a claim opened up a can of worms that might turn on him, which seems to have occurred. If he's going to claim that the system is rigged and the only way Hilary would win is if the machines were hacked, then it opens up the exact same suspicion when he won, as he's already arguing that the machines have been compromised.
If a candidate wants to argue that the machines are compromised and their opponent stands to benefit, then it's trivially easy to turn that right around on them should they win instead, because once the argument has been made it works the same no matter which candidate wins.
Thanks to the new and improved Troll Buster 2.3: Almost 5.7% accurate!
Second, while we’ve always valued comments, we’ve also had to deal with the reality of managing spam and policing inappropriate comments—comments that don’t reflect the professional nature of our audiences and diminish the value of community interaction. Moving the discussion to social media obviates those issues."
Because of course someone spamming and/or posting troll comments on their 'main' site isn't going to be the kind of person to do the exact same thing on their FB page.
Really, if a site doesn't want to keep up their comment section because it's too much work to do so, fine, admit that and close the comment section. Blatantly lying about how you're silencing your readers because you 'value their opinions just so very much' is just insulting, a slap to the face of anyone who frequents the sites by making it clear that the ones running it think that their readers are a bunch of gullible idiots.
Combine that with the early signs that a Trump Presidency will likely focus on gutting net neutrality and other consumer protections, and the writing on the wall for U.S. broadband markets should start to come into focus.
Given said writing is large enough to be readable from space it's not like it's difficult to read, unless of course you have a financial incentive not to be able to read it, in which case it just looks like a bunch of gibberish.
Hopefully, these companies can finally get it through their heads that you can't copyright chess.
Legally no, however you can continue to sue one or more companies asserting such so long as you have more resources than them, and either drive them under from legal costs or force them to 'settle' to avoid the same, at which point the same effect is attained.
Ours is a legal system where it matters less if the law is on your side so much as 'Do you have more money than the other person and a willingness to use it?' Legally they may have no case, but if they can sue the other side into submission and scare anyone else from doing the same the end-result will be the exact same as though they could legally own the facts of a chess match.