I'm not so sure. If it had people qualified (names, possible locations etc.) with instructions (from any source) to destroy, maim and kill then it is not a stretch to consider the circulation as a request for contract. Even though there's no money and it's not strictly putting the word out on the street for a hit request "do this and you will be paid by god" is influence enough for some (clearly). But that's crime.. the entire terrorism labels and usages are FUBAR - We're supposed to investigate crime and punish accordingly when guilty. This shit TERROR stance and tactic is, as we've all been observing, a pretty slippery slope into the exact type of government we're not supposed to enable.
I hope it'll stick. And without carrier sized loopholes. A government overrun with secrecy in dealing with its own citizens bears little resemblance to one of, for or by any people. If something is not directly relevant to the defensive posture that prevents total annihilation then it belongs on the table, for all to see, up to and including where, how and what for.
A police force is no place for secrecy when that secrecy enables unaccountable brute force manipulation of any law or any person. Rights are rights for a reason. Government secrecy is a privilege. hush hush for your intrusive toys has no place being hidden behind the iron blue throne of any LEO for any "investigation".
"tough" is an understatement. Even with the likes of Snowden, or another, standing will continue to elude. When one trillion inquiries is considered .. I don't know, barely relevant, the bar has been proven prohibitively high. National security *will* prevail, almost(crosses fingers) every, single time. And, I believe, only the mob can reign that in once it has tasted its own version of freedom. The Internet gave them a HUGE taste.. Like the entire pork chop, and shit.
.. The "protective perimeter" has developed itself a genuine god complex.
"Remember kids: It's always, ALWAYS about the almighty dollar. Nothing else."
No fucking shit, my anonymous big brained friend. I'd call you cap'n obvious but that's a far too generous rank.. even for that observation. And here I thought it was all about coke and hookers.. . wait.
.. encrypt and decentralize. At this juncture, it seems like that is the only way to even begin to resist. That and buy local as much as possible.. or use bitcoin .. or cash. Hm. Yeah, it's not looking good. .. But on the bright side you do look good in that volunteer seaman garb. "Me decks are ripe from the dung of yer like! arrr. And I've a brush for yee, mate. Tip to stern or I'll see yee churn, beneath my rudders deep."
fuck, sorry, but, I'm sick of tripe like this - "Just vote them out". How does one go about that when it's the same "them" manipulating the entire selection & election process?
"coming for your guns".. whatever, Whatever.
The simple matter is if there exists a liberty then someone, somewhere wants it corralled and if there exists a bit of identifiable information then, apparently, your governments *need* every last bit. To say *nothing* of the fact that sufficient information existed to prevent or drastically alter the events of 9/11 already only "not my fault" turns into fucktastik incursions into the very premise of freedom and liberty.
It's shameful that we seem to now be led by those that would prefer the use fear over facts to govern. Public shaming of representatives offends you? Consider your vote counted.. and all of the good that it will do. Shame on. My senators suck, absolutely.
I've read that as an attempt at justification. Invasive access to information by government is counter to "The Agreement". If that's something they wish to normalize then there are a crap ton of laws that need striking.. unless, of course, instilling and maintaining some level of fear is the real motive.
Gee, I had absolutely no idea national security trumps, well, everything.
This national security/police state apparatus outlined in the Constitution sure has teeth, don't it?
It's almost like "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations .." is missing the key words "except when they're done with a computer". Someone should fill that part in so we're no longer left wondering what the fuck just happened.
Isn't the idea of this approach essentially the same as enabling, say, everyone's home routers to host content (including everything/anything you want, i.e. email, your favorite music, latest vids)? You know, before our lines were completely hijacked by the men in the middle (with limits, split pipes, blocks, rules, etc. etc.) and that essentially pushed these larger "platforms" into existence and relevance?
The protocol angle could definitely assist in tempering this permission ASS-HATTERY taken up by, who else, the mafiaa of culture theft and reset the field back to whence it came.
I like it, I want more. However, the idea of a reddit or twitter or whatever api seems... a little shortsighted, I think, especially if "freedom of voice" is really what's desired and/or needed.
The Internet is not for middle-men, this much I know, and that needs to stop at almost any cost.
Yeah, I think our police are a little too free for anyone's good and, at this point, there's a lot of training out there for these guys that is *highly* suspect. Taxpayers pay the bill for officers that kill. That seems flawed on many, many levels.
web site: "We didn't find any XXXX but here are some other options you might be interested in."
IMHO - if the above is all it takes to steer clear of any "initial interest confusion" and not, as someone mentioned above, as a bunch of almost but not quite relevant "clickbait" results, which they are, at least in part, then where's the actual issue?
I only see it this way because on several occasions I've been served initial query results that were initially presented as successful matches - which they were most certainly not. Yes, I can see that these things are not the things that I'm looking for but, sometimes, there is actually the gem you're looking for buried within the crap you weren't looking for but that sort of depends upon the sites you're frequenting. A clear indicator that what you're looking for does not exist is not too much to ask and, also IMHO, Amazon knows exactly when there is not a direct match for your query..
I'd call it a fucking courtesy, actually (and I'm very fond of courtesy fucks) and it's one of the reasons I try to avoid Amazon when I know exactly what I'm looking for, that and they absolutely crush (emphasis *crush*) my browser experience.