Somehow, I suspect that when there are genuine public interests (such as security vulnerabilities in common OSes and software, which are very much in the public interest to disclose and secure) that they won't be so regarded and revealed.
So yeah, it will be used selectively by law enforcement to stir shit.
Perhaps this informs us that there should be actual advocates of public interest that have the ability to veto law enforcement action (including disclosure or non-disclosure) when not doing those things would actually be in the interests of the public.
It might be a step back towards, you know, law enforcement by consent.
"All the candidates suck so hard it cannot be possibly determined which will be worse."
I disagree with that.
I agree that they're both pretty terrible, and this election should serve as an indictment as to the failure of our electoral system (and if we cannot manage reform it, the ultimate failure of democracy in the United States), but for those of us still trying to work within the confines of the system, Hillary remains a better choice.
One of the things that is horrific to me, at least regarding those Trump supporters I know or hear from on the internet (including relatives in STEM fields who should be completely capable of thinking it through and don't) is that they seem to assume that Trump really is some kind of answer, that they can vote for their lying, word-salad-tossing, woman-assaulting, grudge-persecuting, violence-inciting demagogue and everything will be done. They appear to believe can just sit back and wait for the economy to turn around and America to become great again, because daddy Trump will take care of them.
For the rest of us, activism doesn't end on election day. We still have countless issues that neither candidate has on its agenda. We still have to push at the president that real issues need to be addressed, or they'll suffer embarrassment, or worse.
The thing is, Trump won't care. His response to embarrassment is to do something even more embarrassing, repeat until the public is saturated. In the meantime he'll be jailing his personal enemies, and looking for how to start a real nuclear war.
This is where Clinton's position as an old school politician comes in. She can be embarrassed. She recognizes that some of these issues are real or at least has advisors she might actually listen to. She understands (for instance) torture and mass surveillance are ultimately wrong even if she may have conceded they are temporary necessary evils, and the less temporary they are the more problems they cause.
Her opinion can evolve with enough pressure.
Trump is a laser guided missile for whatever staffer figures out how to point the missile. Honest, honest Iago is going to get fabulously rich, much like Halliburton with Cheney directing Bush, all the while wrecking the nation, possibly to the point that we'll never recover.
Trump is a puppet, and if he is not already controlled by someone (Putin?) then it's only a matter of time before someone finds where to put their hand.
A lot of words that we expect to mean a thing often don't, I've noticed. Feminist, conservative / liberal, Christian / Atheist, LGBTQ, and so on. Part of the problem is that when an identity group becomes large enough, there are enough different notions as to what it means that it ceases functioning as a category subject to generalizations. You can be a feminist but vehemently disagree with other feminists as to what the identity means or what positions are valid.
Reactionary is (as I understand it) more of a synonym for extremist. It's possible to be reactionary about, for instance, GMO foods or handgun ownership, even though those are (strangely) left-side issues. Granted I heard it first in the academic sector (where reactionaries are, for some reason hidebound) referring to old guard professors who are doubtful about the new mad science.
Obviously. The question is how corrupt can it go and stay intact? We're already learning how to not get shot by cops in high school. Have we stopped teaching our children anyone can be president?
How about we start teaching them that not only are corporations people, but they are more privileged citizens than human beings.
We should start teaching our sons that the way to get ahead is to brew meth, and our daughters that being a porn star while you're young is the less-lucrative, more legal option.
You're certainly not going to make it working hard as a store clerk or a waitress.
(In the 1990s after the Soviet Union fell, most girls wanted to be a wage prostitute when they grew up, since there was a lot of upward mobility if you were pretty. Today, Russian porn is famous for being extra-saucy the way that Swedish porn was in the 70s and 80s.)
I suspect you have a secret love relationship with big, all-powerful government.
First off, big government comes from the want for big infrastructure. Like clean beef? Then you like having meat inspectors. Like being able to drive from state to state? Then you like the national highway system.
And if you like a government that is tough on crime then you like a powerful government that shoehorns convictions onto suspects with a dearth of actual evidence. Because tough on crime doesn't mean they figured out whodunit, it means they throw people in jail faster.
Corporate-police collusion will be presumed, casting reasonable doubt on all evidence (until proven otherwise) and law enforcement officers are presumed lying until they can back it up with factual evidence (e.g. video recordings).
So an anonymous phone call tip becomes useless, since that's obviously a cover for a corporate informant providing illegal data.
Everyone is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and everyone is supposed to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure. Now the opposite is true and we're filling our prisons up with innocent convicts. Our law enforcement agents have become racketeers where they just pick and choose people to book, without investigation, without evidence. If a corporate officer wants to fire someone with prejudice, inform on him to the police as if he was a drug runner, too.