I imagine that an awful lot of official correspondence takes place with people who are not using State Department email addresses (at the very least because they aren't part of the State Department), so that wouldn't come close to covering it.
Your point is well taken. Nonetheless, if a government agency wants to detain or surveil me, they don't have to rely on me coming up on a list -- they know where I live and work and can just stop on by.
Just to be clear, I am not making a "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear" argument here (that argument is, in my opinion, 100% bullshit), and I think those lists are pretty obviously bad things.
The patent being discussed here is a design patent. Design patents are intended to be pretty much just as you describe. They are not at all like the patents usually discussed (utility patents), in that they aren't about new inventions. They're about distinctive design.
In many ways, they're more like trademarks than patents.
It could be, but "monkey" is quite often used as an insult in ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with race. Particularly in my part of the country, which favors different racial slurs than that particular one.
Re: I don't see what the problem with what the FBI did
"A better analogy would be if a person called someone else on a telephone asking for illegal pictures and the FBI agent was standing right next to the receiver listening in."
A more accurate analogy would be to say that because someone was using a telephone to break the law, that means the cops should be allowed to plant surveillance equipment inside the person's home without a warrant.
When Dweezil, Moon, and Ahmet have been asked about what it was like having those names (I don't remember Diva ever commenting on it, so I'm omitting her) they have all said that they didn't get as much grief as kids as people assume that they did, and they are fine with the names they were given.
Moon Unit got asked the question more than the others since her name is the strangest, but she actually had the least weird name when you think of it. She goes by "Moon", which is not actually unique in California.
Indeed. This is one of the most frustrating things about the issue.
Every time I've worked for a company that was large or had government contracts, I've been required to use the company email system for all company-related communications because they are required to retain copies of all of that.
I have never used company systems for anything but the most trivial of personal emails because... why in the world would anyone do that? Privacy issues aside (you have no expectation of privacy when using your employer's IT systems), what happens when you move to a different company? You'd have to tell everyone you know to start using a different email address. Wouldn't it be better to just have a personal one that doesn't change?
Thanks for this explanation. I spent a year where I got singled out for extra special attention whenever I'd fly, but was never prevented from flying -- and I was never able to get an explanation of why (aside from "someone with your name has been flagged", which was chilling because I have a very, very common name). Ultimately, it just stopped happening, so I guess that name was removed.
Re: Okay: Hacking BY THE STATE of a NON-STATE PROPERTY implies malicious intent.
Given the specific nature of my geekitude, I frame the thing slightly differently. Security is about protecting against attackers. An "attacker" is "anyone or anything that is attempting to bypass your security mechanisms without your consent".
Since I take a very technical view, the intent of the attacker is completely irrelevant and I don't even have to consider subjective things like whether or not the attacker is malicious.
But I'm not only a huge geek, I'm also a pedantic geek.
Most of of crypto technologies in use today were either developed entirely or partially outside the US.
As to accepted standards, I'm not sure of the point. There is no need for people to adhere to the accepted standards unless they want other existing software to be able to decrypt it.
If those standards are backdoored (as some are found to be from time to time), what happens is that everyone stops using them, standard or not. Even if, for some reason, that didn't happen, that's still only a minor irritation. Everyone can still use nonstandardized crypto for their own needs -- they'd just have to supply the decryption code to anyone else who they want to be able to decrypt it.
If they don't want anyone else to be able to decrypt it, then there's not even that minor problem.
This sort of response is an example of why it's impossible to have a real conversation about guns. Your comment not only doesn't really address what I said, it goes on and on about how banning them is bad, even though I explicitly stated that I do not support banning them.