The core problem in the United States is that people tolerate failure in their public officials. This stems from the President downwards with like "I messed up but I am the one in charge here so suck it up".
I only hope this aspect is never exported to the United Kingdom when they are famed for firing those officials caught with their pants down. Even PM Cameron can be easily replaced by his own party should they simply believe that someone else can do the job better.
Even the UK Police are held to high regard. Those who show bad behaviour or fail to follow the rules get suspended or reprimanded while those seen to break the law are fired. They don't allow criminals on both sides of the law here for obvious reasons. So had this been the UK that officer would be fired without doubt when there are other people who can do his job better.
In a related fact UK Police shot dead 5 people in the last 4 years where each of these cases made major news headlines where many locals can name all 5 victims. Over in the USA Police officers shot dead 1600 people within this same time-frame. To adjust for population sizes then UK Police would have shot dead 25 people making US Police's 1600 fatality score as 6400% as deadly.
Sure though the USA will go on doing zero to fix these clear problems.
You know your history then. Some extra details about the Star Chamber...
"In 1641, the Long Parliament, led by John Pym and inflamed by the severe treatment of John Lilburne, as well as that of other religious dissenters such as William Prynne, Alexander Leighton, John Bastwick and Henry Burton, abolished the Star Chamber with an Act of Parliament: the Habeas Corpus Act 1640."
Over in the USA...
"The historical abuses of the Star Chamber are considered a primary motivating force behind the protections against compelled self-incrimination embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The meaning of "compelled testimony" under the Fifth Amendment – i.e., the conditions under which a defendant is allowed to "plead the Fifth" to avoid self-incrimination – is thus often interpreted via reference to the inquisitorial methods of the Star Chamber.
As the U.S. Supreme Court described it, "the Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required, defendants to have counsel. The defendant's answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed." Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821–22 (1975)."
Wow I am truly impressed when the UK Government has just reopened the Star Chamber after it was closed in 1641. Secret trails with secret evidence and secret witnesses are back in fashion.
I have books here detailing how many time since 1641 various groups tried getting the Star Chamber reopened but past Governments have always denied this recognizing the abuse of the justice system. So all of 373 years later the current UK Government proves their place in a very troubling history.
Re: Re: Why a Three Letter Agency must be involved
"A TLA (three letter agency) has managed to gain COMPLETE control of the project and its signing keys."
Then why has the TrueCrypt team not stated this?
You are looking at this the wrong way when spies are not good spies being so public. The US Administration runs on ultra secrecy mode when they won't send in the hackers but the ultra secret court orders.
I think Lavabit 2.0 is quite possible. Had this Truecrypt developer received a National Security Letter (NSL) then the only option that remains is to discredit his own product.
New page layout hastily created, bullshit reason, an open source developer recommending a closed source product, "Microsoft", newly generated encryption key, pointing out 'compromised' despite a clean audit, then lastly migration to avoid a possible NSA compromised product.
If that does not scream out NSL then I don't know what does when naturally anyone who receives an NSL is forbidden from saying that they have.
Now that final word of "un-American" is the core issue here.
The United States should be worried less about foreign Governments than those "un-American" people corrupting the very core of the Administration by endangering the very meaning of what it is to be a US Citizen.
Long ago the USA used be to the place where foreign refugees fled to in order to escape the persecution of their own country where the USA represented freedom & safety. Only recently has that table turned when now US Passport holders flee to others countries to escape clear US persecution.
Then how many times have we sat here reading about the US Administration or Congress running off on some mega-lo-manic plan with little regards to the law of the land. They only moan that following the law is too hard for them and they should not have to follow the US Constitution and Bill of Rights... the very core documents on what the American way of life was founded!
Then their arrogance is so high and the Administration so rusted that they protect their mega-lo-manic authority through running the Administration as one giant secret outside of public oversight and accountability. Secrets upon secrets upon secrets where they really do persecute anyone who exposes their filth.
Then most sad of all is that the average US citizen accepts failure in their leadership. Sure they feel helpless and only see it as natural for sewage to float to the top of the tank.
What is most needed is an empowered office filled with people with no political aspirations beyond simply wanting to make the United States a better place. Their only job is to hunt down such un-Americans in order to fire them from ever working in Government departments, or to punish them under the law. I don't mean people making the odd mistake, or those a bit dumb at their job, but those supreme arrogant people who only care about punishing the unworthy along with a history of avoiding law accountability.
Only once heads start rolling, and people fear that their job is at stake, will they have reason to clean up their act.
So what crime would he have committed? From the details I have read here that would be none.
There naturally is the crime of breaking in and entry which includes criminal damage but to open the door and to walk in is not a crime.
You can also ponder trespass but without notices on the borders revoking the public right of access you don't have that.
The longest possible shot seems to be a general public nuisance law but beyond him being creepy I can't see this event as much of a nuisance.
So the point here is not that someone can enter your home but what their intentions are doing there. You also can't outlaw all of human nature like entering the wrong house by mistake, trying to find people or pets, to issue a local warning, or simple being lonely and wanting someone to talk to.
In this case since nothing was stolen, including her beloved cell phone, then it could be a case of someone passing and seeing she left the door open and so proceeded inside to warn her to be more careful. However only a few steps inside he changed his mind and oddly left the intended caution on the phone instead.
So best get used to the idea that if you don't want strange people wondering through your home then that is what locks and bolts are for when faith alone won't help you. Strange people naturally have to leave your home and land if you ask them to when it is your property.
I remember the days when hacking used to be unlawful where Government officials used to run around putting them in prison.
Well setting up a honey-pot trap to collect people's personal details is certainly questionable but I will skip over that for now when accessing other people's social accounts is without question unlawful. The only people allowed to do that would be police officers investigating a crime but only when approved by a Court order.
I can say years ago I used to work as a hacker where I accessed hundreds or even thousands of computer system when that is what hackers do when they explore. I had no doubt though that it was unlawful but I set out to cause no damage which is true beyond some paranoid users reformatting.
I even once saw a complete set of company accounts which were detailed enough to ruin that company in the hands of a hostile rival. I could have made money sure but this was never done when any good hacker would never cause harm.
During those few years I can say I only ever change details in a personal's social account once. That was only because they used that account to try to make money but their main information was wrote in really bad English. So like some hacker wish fairy I rewrote their information into good English so their income would improve. I heard no complaint when all connected were quite happy.
Well GCHQ have just made the CCC very unhappy when no hacker should ever break into people's accounts to discredit them or to ruin their company. Beyond the unlawful access it happens to be much more unlawful to cause damage.
It is always interesting to see criminals on both sides of the fence waving at each other. It is just that one side acts more ethical and honest than the other side causing large damage and pretending it is all lawful. If the CCC had GCHQ member details there would be some pain due.
I find this situation totally insane when sure these Anonymous & LulzSec people were punished for their political activism in terms of DDoS attacks.
I have no problems with that when they knew the law and they knew the risks. This was a political expression when the US Administration used Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and more to attack WikiLeaks. I should also add that this attack on WikiLeaks was later concluded to be unlawful by the EU.
So there is a whole lot of understanding there of people protesting against unlawful acts by these companies.
To now find out that GCHQ were doing DDoS attacks also is the most insane thing I have ever heard. Criminals on both sides of the fence but naturally one side gets punished under the law while the other side does not.
This also comes as no surprise to me when I well know that the US Administration has at their command a level of DDoS attack that dwarfs all others. The US Administration at the command of the MAFIAA have used this against file sharing sites and more. So while that area has yet to be proved via leaked documents we now see the British sleeps in the same bed as the Americans. Obviously GCHQ would have had other targets beyond these two groups and they would follow American plans.