Let me get this straight: we've spent $47 billion for nothing so far? $100 billion it's supposed to cost?
No, not buying. You're looking at at least a $1 trillion boondoggle here, for a project I'm betting never delivers an usable result. That trillion will be the fed share, and we're already 5% of the way there.
And that's before the winner soaks all the local police for $hundreds$of$billions$ more for components of the system that will never work.
I knew this was a government giveaway, but even I never dreamed...
I want to know where those stats came from, too. According to this page the U.S. homicide rate per 100,000 per year is 12,996; and for Canada, 554. That's makes it at least 23 times as risky to be in the United States.
Let's just leave it that he got his figures from some other site with an axe to grind, like this one.
(12,996 per 100,000 per year!...one in 8!...every family be missing multiple people...whole towns wiped out...idiots...mutter, mutter...)
It's not likely this decision matters. The last thing FBI wants is for people to be talking about NSLs, which would reveal the BS that FBI is demanding.
So great, FBI has to review all the NSL gags every 3 years or whatever. There's no time limit or performance goals beyond "must review", so the result of every review is most likely to be, "Gag remains in place." It might be the 100th review of the NSL--300 year anniversary--but government secrecy is forever.
And even should FBI drop a gag on an NSL, you know it's going to be accompanied by a nebulous threat that would scare the socks off of Daniel Webster:
"The gag on NSL x is hereby lifted. But be aware that the FBI investigates any misuse of information, and that such misuse is subject to 25 years in prison or a $1 million fine, or both."
No doubt the recipient will read that and immediately start blabbing about that NSL, right? It's not the first time we've seen a vague and ominous threat like that used to frighten people into knuckling under.
One way or another, FBI intends to keep NSLs secret forever, and no puny USA Freedom Act, or this court ruling, is likely to change that.
"...having to be told "no" repeatedly before the message sinks in."
Oh, I'm very sure the message sank in all right; but that doesn't mean the government gave up or learned to respect our Constitutional rights. Most likely they simply stopped asking permission and started using parallel construction.
In my post, I was being sarcastic. Reading it in retrospect, I can see how that would fail to come across. I should have added a line about prostrating ourselves to be walked over by government hob-nailed boots, or something like that.
That's all anyone needs to do is cooperate with the government. Government shows up at your bank, the bank should just cooperate and give them any of your account information they want. At your email provider, same thing. Agent shows up at your door and asks to search your house, step aside and cooperate.
We have Fourth Amendment rights, yes, but that doesn't mean we should be uncooperative when the government wants in.
4. His clueless request asks for "https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails" to be removed. That's the front page for Wikileaks' archive of all the leaked Sony emails. That means that the actual email wouldn't even have been removed from Google's Index if Google had complied (which it did not).
You think that was the mistake, but it wasn't. As I'm sure he would tell you if you asked, he meant to leave off the "/sony/emails" part and only takedown "https://wikileaks.org/". Oops.
Many of those responding to Tuesday's opinion emphasised the main finding that "solely the fight against serious crime is an objective in the general interest that is capable of justifying a general obligation to retain data, whereas combating ordinary offences and the smooth conduct of proceedings other than criminal proceedings are not."
Nice ruling. Translation: You can make them keep data for any serious crime--such as that "serious crime" of copyright infringement--but you can't make them keep data that might expose the inner (mis)workings of government or corporations.
The ruling so wonderfully expresses the difference between ruling and ruled.