This censorship is particularly ironic. TechDirt doesn't have time to cover every act of censorship everywhere. I can remember them covering incidents of colleges censoring students or faculty, and there wasn't any undercurrent of feminism or liberalism in those stories, and of course much of the copyright coverage here is about censorship. TD is generally pro-freedom of speech, but if there's a censorship story you think they're missing, submit it.
This whole only-women-are-objectified nonsense is getting rather old considering that plenty of male and female models/entertainers/actors openly choose to objectify themselves here in our modern and free civilizations.
With the problems of product liability and the the potential for both legal action and loss of face in public, it's not surprising that companies are not interested in allowing third parties to install unchecked components or to make modifications.
It's the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, not the Digital Millennium Product Liability Act. If Congress is concerned about liability, they should pass a law addressing that. The DMCA should not be misused for this purpose.
More like the inverse: you can't even claim, as a point against it, that they were surveilling an innocent person.
By mentioning that opponents can't use the subject's innocence as a point against the search (because he wasn't innocent) implies that if he were innocent, they could use that against the search.
That's the flip side of the same coin, and I disagree with that side too. It makes no difference at all whether the person was guilty or innocent, the search was either justified based on the evidence available before it began, or it wasn't. Saying the person was guilty shouldn't be used to justify the search, and saying the person was innocent also shouldn't be used to condemn the search.
Start by voting out every incumbent, then, for the next 10 to 15 election cycles continue to vote out every incumbent.
The corporations and other criminal organizations won't be able to afford to "purchase" that many new office-holders without destroying their profits.
Why, is purchasing new ones more expensive than continuing to purchase the ones already in office? It's not as though they can make one campaign contribution and then count on that person's support forever.
Also worth noting is the highly dubious use of the future tense when referring to the surveillance of targets via their Smart Things.
There might not be enough of these products installed to make it worth attacking them in more than an experimental way yet. And the NSA is more about collecting all the information from everywhere and sorting through it later, rather than finding a dangerous person and surveilling the crap out of them. The CIA and FBI might be more interested in using these attack vectors now, since they seem more likely to target a specific person for surveillance.