how did i know the very first comment would go ahead and say "fuck the point of the post, let's beat this stupid fucking horse some more" accompanied by a wall of text that no one gives a shit about because yes, we do all realize that. and we're also pretty sure that people right this very moment AREN'T being massacred in australia, which is why the AU was referenced in the post, not bloody stupid fashion regulations like we get here in the wake of tragedies.
I have no problem believing this one tbh, sources, methods, means, identifiers, all that are stripped from intelligence reports, long before they reach brass. That's rock bottom basics. most likely no one outside of operations had any idea just how far things had gone, but that takes nothing away from culpability for the conditions that allowed the over reaches in the first place.
i use adblock, i usually don't bother with noscript, but techdirt doesn't normally hit us with autoplays. when it's unavoidable, in the past, they've acknowledged that it was an unavoidable dick move. i mean, 'm not crying about it, but i was certainly taken by surprised, and there's no need to jump down dudes throat for bringing it up.
i don't see it. details of investigations are kept compartmentalized, to avoid leaks and other issues, plus these would be different offices, different organizations entirely. Informants names especially are held very close to the vest, even more so during ongoing investigations.
to be fair, readerrs are a rather specialized and finite market. i'm inclined to at least provisionally accept the smashwords data regarding the diminishing returns point at which you exhaust the potential pool of buyers.
how is there any reasonable expectation of privacy when taking a statement?
does that also negate anything i say being used against me in a court of law?
after all, when you cuffed me officer, i thought we were just two good ol' boys shooting the the shit. I had an expectation of privacy, when i admitted to snorting all that cocaine and eating those nuns.