All I've ever heard was that, unbeknownst to Google, the NSA was performing man-in-the-middle attacks on Google traffic when it traveled between Google's data centers. Google has since encrypted that traffic
He's referring, incorrectly, to the original news releases about the PRISM program, which is the program under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, that allows the FISA Court to order companies hand over *specific* information to the NSA. In order to "facilitate" this, a list of nine companies set up systems by which they would upload that information to a local computer system that the NSA could then access directly.
Because some reporters noted that it gave the NSA "direct access" some interpreted it -- incorrectly, as Blue does here -- that the NSA had "direct access" to backroom servers for these nine tech companies, including Google. This was wrong. What it meant was that they had direct access to grab the *specific information* that was highlighted in a court order from the FISA court, reviewed by the lawyers at these tech companies, and for the content not challenged, uploaded to servers for the NSA (and FBI) to collect it.
But what is being discussed here, with AT&T is entirely different than PRISM or what the commenter thinks was revealed about Google and other tech companies. This goes WAY WAY WAY beyond that on multiple levels. First, this is *voluntary* and not based on a court order. Second, this is much broader in coverage, handling full upstream collections and not just targeted accounts and information. Third, AT&T has much greater access handling content and connections well beyond customers of AT&T thanks to its role with backbone/interconnection.
All of this has been explained before, but this particular commenter chooses to remain ignorant for reasons on s/he understands.
Some teenaged boy posts a comment that alludes to his making out with a teacher, which was a lie, and you guys are blaming the school for his suspension and blaming the police chief for investigating the incident?
You do understand that (1) a mere lie (if that was what happened) is not a criminal offense, right? The First Amendment allows you to lie. (2) It was a JOKE. Defamation law does not apply to mere hyperbole, which this clearly was.
You seem very confused about the law (not to mention not understanding statute of limitation issues with your argument about when the teacher should file a defamation claim -- which she'd also lose).
Re: Re: @ "the goal of the U.S. Constitution's Progress Clause" -- it's the "Copyright Clause" in likely more common usage, but good try at biasing discussion.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
Actually, even that is not the full sentence. Technically it is:
The Congress shall have Power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Rights to their respective Writings and Discoveris.
So there's even more to unpack, including the fact that all this is doing is giving Congress the power to do so *if it chooses* and solely for the sake of "promoting the progress of science and useful arts." And, as a history lesson, "science" meant "learning" at the time, while "useful arts" meant inventions.
Note that there's nothing about entertainment in there. But that's another issue for another day...
The point of the progress clause (which is correctly named in the article) is that Congress has the power to promote the public benefit of *learning* and *new inventions* if Congress so chooses, by giving certain *limited* excluisve rights to authors and inventors. That's it. The description in the article is accurate.
The whole point of the secret ballot is that it SHOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE to prove how you voted.
That should not be at the expense of freedom of expression. And, as many people explained, photographs still DO NOT prove how someone voted.
Freedom of expression is nothing to do with it either.
You can say that all you want, doesn't change that it absolutely does. Some people, for whatever reason, wish to express themselves by showing how they voted. That's totally a question of freedom of expression.
By your argument there should be no bans on vote buying as it is an unfair trade restraint.
I can see no legitimate reason for thinking that a selfie in a voting booth is "expressive" in any way that taking the same selfie outside the booth 25 seconds later.
Some people *want* to advertise who they voted for. That's *absolutely* expressive.
Besides that whole line is disgusting. It can easily be changed into "I can see no legitimate reason for thinking that expressing dissent from the ruling party is expressive." "I can see no legitimate reason for thinking that photographing a model nude is expressive."
There may be lots of things that one person doesn't think is expressive, but lots of others do. And, in fact, it's rather clear that plenty of people -- including those involved in THIS CASE -- felt that photographing their ballot was expressive.
On the other hand people fought very long and hard to establish the secrecy of the ballot. That secrecy is worth fighting for.
There is nothing in this ruling that takes away the right to a secret ballot. Nothing.
Consider the situation where a landord wishes to coerce his tenants into voting a certain way. HE may not be bothered about breaking the law but THEY are in a much stronger position to resist his pressure if he is asking them to do something that is illegal and enforced in the polling station.
Really? How so? He is asking them to do something illegal in coercing their vote already.
Photographing a ballot is teh evidence of fraud so the two are inseparable.
Bullshit. There are plenty of non-fraud reasons why someone may want to photograph their ballot. The two are EASILY separable.
Well if it is legal to do that then it makes it much easier for our coecive landlord to check up on his tenants.
Yes, but there are lots of things we could make it "easier" to do by taking away free expression rights. And we don't. For a good reason.
I'm sorry but you aren't addressing the kind of voter fraud that secret ballots were invented to deal with.
Again, you can address voter fraud without outlawing all photographs.
Sorry, Tim, you and the NH Supreme Court are wrong. Ballot secrecy absolutely depends on each person being unable to prove to anyone else who they voted for.
1. If someone is engaged in voter fraud, do you think they really care about breaking the law that says "don't photograph your ballot"?
2. If someone is engaged in voter fraud, go after them for voter fraud, not photographing a ballot.
3. If someone is engaged in voter fraud, it's unlikely they're then posting about it on Facebook.
The law, as structured, is ridiculous. It's a weak attempt to go after something that has perfectly reasonable uses (and is a form of First Amendment protected expression) to stop the possibility of a totally different crime.
I'd say check to see who the authors of the articles are
The Economist is famous for not having bylines. There are no "authors" and often the magazine presents this as being because it's a whole "team effort" and its stories reflect that. So, yeah, I think the flip flopping is still an issue, given the magazine's general position.
I actually hate the thought that there could be rules in place banning me (or anyone else) from giving as much support as I want to the political candidate I want.
It's important to note that Lessig, ultimately, is campaigning to restrict certain freedoms.
I have concerns over certain kinds of limitations -- and I think that people misunderstand the Citizens United decision. But Lessig is mostly focused on creating much better incentives for public funding of elections, through a rather creative voucher system. This does not necessarily mean limiting freedoms, but gives much more incentive for politicians to go the public funding route *rather than* the corporate/donor funded route. It has the potential to greatly level the playing field, by taking away the core instrument of corruption -- the need to cultivate donors. That doesn't need to limit freedoms. It just shifts the incentives.
With Stewart stepping down as the host of the Daily Show it seems to me like this would be a great fit for him. I think what Lessig is going for would be right up Stewart's alley politically and he would get far greater name recognition and likely support than Leslie would himself.
FWIW, apparently Lessig asked Stewart to run instead of him, but it didn't work:
Strange thing is that there's a hidden link in there that links to http://www.hooli.xyz, which is a fake company in the HBO Series "Silicon Valley". (hidden link is the period after "drone delivery effort")