There is a slight pause between "technical" and "insights" in the way he says it, as if he's searching for the proper word before choosing insights, but he later clearly says they don't have the equipment to do so -- which seems to contradict a ton of reports out there from pretty credible sources within the NSA.
But I'll bet there's equipment outside the United States. In The only questions is, would they have to apply for the warrant if they classify this as a foreign-based operation and would they be able to access that data on servers located in United States? That last one would certainly require authorization from service providers.
On the other hand, here's something else to consider. In database management, many DBA's like to have off-site mirrored backup, often outside of the country. I also remember Google thinking about setting up off-shore servers on an oil-rig or something. In this scenario, there's nothing to prevent NSA from conducting their electronic surveillance operations.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a concept in the criminal law that "intent follows the bullet"? So just because Dharun Ravi didn't intend to cause harm to Tyler Clementi, he did commit a criminal act that ended up causing harm. So in the eyes of the law shouldn't this be considered an intentional act rather than an immature one?
Here's what I don't get. Here's the article though that's not the one I remember reading last year: http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/airlines-replace-pilots-flight-bags-with-greener-ipads-3 2304
It talks about FAA having already approved the iPad for use by pilots during take-off and landings and possibly using them for aviation maps rather than having pilots haul tons of maps around.
So wouldn't that prove that iPads do not interfere with flight controls? Or am I missing something?
Here's a thought: JT of Caroline, would you perhaps like to advise Ron Paul campaign of your personal info just so that he doesn't worry about finding another ridiculous way to twist the law in order to unmask your identity?
There's another possibility. This could've been a training mission. Obviously, new agents aren't sent to tail suspected terrorists right away. The very fact that they got details wrong yet suspected that this is a part of a much bigger national movement suggests younger overeager agents. Sort of like new doctors who tend to find unusual, exotic diseases in patients with a simple cold.
Perhaps, rather than chasing down a ghost, Toews would be better served to think a little more seriously about the complaints people have raised about government over-surveillance.
What I would rather have is a clear explanation of why the government doesn not want to keep a registry of guns (Conservative-dominated parliament voted to discontinue it last week) but want to keeps a detailed info on internet users. Regardless of how people feel about the gun registry, it would be the height of intellectual dishonesty to assert that internet user history is more dangerous than guns.
This is clearly bad judgement. I wouldn't have started with the dog owner. ;-) Reminds me of an old joke:
"A man wakes up one morning in Alaska to find a bear on his roof. So he looks in the yellow pages and sure enough, there's an ad for "Bear Removers."
He calls the number, and the bear remover says he'll be over in 30 minutes.
The bear remover arrives, and gets out of his van. He's got a ladder, a baseball bat, a shotgun and a mean old pit bull.
"What are you going to do," the homeowner asks?
"I'm going to put this ladder up against the roof, then I'm going to go up there and knock the bear off the roof with this baseball bat. When the bear falls off, the pit bull is trained to grab his testicles and not let go. The bear will then be subdued enough for me to put him in the cage in the back of the van."
He hands the shotgun to the homeowner.
"What's the shotgun for?" asks the homeowner.
"If the bear knocks me off the roof, shoot the dog."
Would those rules apply to post-apocalyptic situations? How about the Rapture? Because there's this new "Left Behind" video game is coming out and the players are supposed to kill Jews, atheists, and other assorted infidels if they refuse to convert to Christianity. Would the Rules of Engagement or US Constitution apply here too?
As a side note, I don't have a problem with the stores selling this game as long as it's stocked right next to Grand Theft Auto.
Seriously? You're that short on something useful to criticise you feel the need to get personal? Perhaps, you could submit your name here? And then we can all discuss your family?
A class act indeed...
"Because this enemy does not exist, it must be created. And as international experience shows, the worst enemy is an invented one. I assure you it will be an incredibly horrifying monster. Armed forces will have to be doubled."