Or maybe there are people sitting around in back rooms: "You know guys, since we're pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, we have all these troops that we're using." "And people are getting tired of hearing about ISIS, Putin, and Iran. Is there anyone else we can turn into a bad guy and rally behind?" "How about Cuba? They've always been a good fall-back. But now Obama's making friends with them." "Has anyone used North Korea recently? Bingo- our new boogeyman, out to destroy our freedoms with their cyberattacks on American companies!" "Um, Sony is a Japanese company." "Don't bother me with the details! Let's get this war started."
Like other people are saying, how does the FBI define "gravest threat"? Some hackers hacked into an insecure *private* company, threatened "something, something, movie theaters" and suddenly this is a "grave threat".
But that's good- keep up the hyperbole and soon everyone will be so dulled by every "gravest threat" that no one will listen. It's almost like they've never heard the story about the boy who cried wolf.
On the other hand, this is excellent cover to move away from the torture report.
Like the linked article in Wired points out, the hack probably did not come from North Korea. So the first thing that security experts need to do is change the narrative: people already believe and accept that the hacking came from North Korea to the point that the headlines say "North Korea" instead of "hackers".
Like other commenters are saying, the same US government that's trying to push a connection to North Korea is the same government that pushed WMD's in Iraq.
If this were the real world, it would be like if someone was selling stolen goods and the MPAA nuked the entire neighborhood and all roads leading into the neighborhood. Oops, that person was selling stolen goods in the middle of New York City and now people can't get into the city? Well, don't blame us for nuking the bridges- that one guy should have thought about this before he stole those items.
Isn't this what might happen to YouTube if the MPAA gets their way and their lawyers decide to file complaints with Verizon instead of YouTube? Who cares if there are 999,999,999 videos that don't infringe.
You want to know how? It's what TechDirt has been saying for ages: make the product widely available for a reasonable price. Personally, I think if people are pirating something that means there's a market for it that the producer isn't fulfilling.
How did iTunes become the biggest seller of music when it's so easy to illegally download music? How does Pandora and Spotify stay in business if those evil pirates are stealing music?
Has anyone ever looked to see how many people pirated U2's "Songs of Innocence"? You know, the album that was given to everyone who had an iTunes account? What, no one pirated this album because they already got it from an official source?
And another example: Back in 2005, when the new version of "Doctor Who" started, no TV channels in the US would show it. So how did Americans see it? Yep, they illegally downloaded it. Now, BBC America (the official BBC station in the US) is showing the episodes on the same day they air in England. So why should Americans pirate the show when they can see them for free on BBC America?
Two points: 1) It seems like there are so many police-behaving-badly stories that have come out recently, it's no longer all that noteworthy I believe every story about police behaving badly is noteworthy, because like you said, this shines a spotlight on their activities. I hope society gets to the point where we don't have to report these stories simply because police no longer behave badly.
2) Look, free and open speech is immensely important Yes, free speech is very important, but it also comes with responsibility. Just like people can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, people shouldn't bait people into violent confrontations. And what about the idea of holding police officers to a higher standard than regular people? This includes behaving appropriately on social media sites like Twitter.
As the risk of "defending pornagraphy"- I think it's a slippery slope to ban anything that someone doesn't like.
Once you accept the idea that certain things can be banned, then other things can also be banned. Let's start with "pornography", then "pirate" sites, then political protest sites, then anything else that someone decides is "bad".
This is probably a rhetorical question, but since when can common phrases be trademarked? I can understand phrases used as slogans like "I'm lovin it" or "You're in good hands", but how is anyone able to secure a trademark on something that people are already using?
The bigger problem is that the people at the trademark office may be so overworked that they simply rubber-stamp this and let it go through without realizing the consquences.
And Netflix issued this statement: We'd like to thank CBS for using us as the standard on which they make their decisions. We're honored that almost 60 year old TV network would think so much of us, considering we didn't even offer streaming service 10 years ago.
The problem with a lawsuit is that it takes time to work its way through the court system. And while it's going through the system and until it's struck down (which it eventually will be), there were will be all kinds of costs involved. And guess what? These councilmen don't have to pay for the lawsuits, so what do they care how much it costs the taxpayers? After all, it's not like it's coming out of their own pockets.
It would be refreshing if lawmakers had to pay for bad laws *and laws that they know are bad* out of their salary. Why should they care if their law will be struck down in 3 or 5 years? They're still making their salary.
All those 0's that you talk about? That will come from increased property taxes because the city will have to pay off the people who sue them. Yay- higher taxes to fight an unconstitutional law that never should have been passed in the first place.
Yes, when the grocery store clerk asks you for your information, the correct answer is "No" or "You don't need that". But keep in mind that she has a job to do and she could get fired or disciplined for not collecting your zip code. Or you may hold up the entire line by arguing with a "drone"-level employee who doesn't make the rules.
So just make up a zip code and laugh it off when the cashier says she's never heard of that one before.
So is it safe to assume that these companies provide poor services and they know it, so they think the only way to stop people from talking about the poor service is to threaten them?
And how many people will read those terms and be scared by the legalese? I'm guessing a lot of people, since: 1) It's "in print" so it must be true. 2) A company wouldn't put something like that on their site if if it wasn't true and they weren't willing to do it.
Here's a free tip to the companies: if you provided good services at a fair price, you wouldn't get reviews that were so bad that you had to sue people. Unless of course, your business is actually suing people, then proceed.
As I've been reading stories about this issue, I've found that torture does work, when you define what "work" means. In this case, torturing people wasn't about getting information: it was about revenge for 9/11 and getting back at "them" for attacking us. It didn't matter that 25% of the people tortured were innocent- they were "others" that needed to be punished.
I remember watching a "best horror movies" special that had an interview with the producers of the "Saw" movies. They admitted that they did a lot of research into torture devices in the Middle Ages, most of which were too graphic for even them to use in the movies!
So what happens when Google starts reporting the searches to the UK? Will the producers of "Saw" get in trouble for looking up torture devices? Will producers looking for scientifically-accurate chemicals and bombs for their movies also be reported to the UK?
But, so what if these people are writing a fictional movie- let the police sort them out. But doesn't that take time away from investigating real threats? Or does this mean there aren't enough real threats to justify the time and expense of having a terrorism investigation unit?
Carole Hinder had run a small, cash-only restaurant for nearly 40 years without incident... and ... from April 2012 through February 2013, more than $315,000 in currency was deposited...
So the take-away is that the bank and federal agencies didn't care about her depsoits for nearly 40 years, until April 2012. What happened then? The IRS and FinCEN have been around for much longer than 2012.
But what this also shows is that any company that makes large cash deposits is also vulernable, no matter how long it's been in business.
Here's an idea: can Senator Udall read the entire report (both of them) as a filibuster? Sure, he might get booted out of office, but he was voted out anyway. How much damage would this do, since everything read during a filibuster becomes public information?
You'll never believe what they found hiding in your stomach.
At least those ads are relevant to tech topics. The ads I see are: - This grandma is 70, but looks 40. Click here for the miracle. - Shocking discovery. You'll never believe what they found hiding in your stomach. (with a gross picture of a fish) Click for video. - Know your concealed weapon rights. Click here for more. - This video could start WWIII. Click here to find out.
Luckily, I found the little "x" in the upper-right hand corner that lets me report these as Innappropriate and Irrelevant.
So, we're back to the original point about ads: if the ad is irrelevant and people won't click (or if they'll actively report or block the ad), then what's the point of spending the money to run the ad?
While this is a great post, I disagree with the point that history will not look kindly on them.
History is written by the victors, and in this case, it's the US. Sure, the report will get attention, but Cheney, Bush, and all the CIA heads will never go down in history as monsters. Like other people are saying, they won't even be brought to justice.
And in all fairness, "justice" isn't torturing them like they tortured people. Justice is what you said in your post: accuse them of a crime, bring them into a court of law, and lay out the evidence.
Okay, I'll start the rants about banks and how they seem to prey on people don't have much money to begin with.
It goes something like this: You have $200 in your bank account, you deposit a check for $400, and write two checks: one for $300 and one for $200. By your accounting, you should have $600 total before writing the checks, then $500 in checks, for an ending balance of $100.
However, your bank cashes the checks first, before honoring your deposits: Your first check for $300 is cashed and your balance is now -$100. Then they charge you a $35 under-balance fee. Then they cash your second check for $200 and your balance is now -$335. (They cash your check for your "convenience" rather than bouncing the check.) Then they charge you another $35 under-balance fee. Then they charge you a $35 fee for not having more than $100 in your account. Your balance is now -$405 and they honor your deposit of $400. And your balance is now -$5.
All because you didn't make enough money to keep your checking account above a "safe" threshold. And then people wonder why poor people use check-cashing services and payday loans.