I am an independent, and have not decided who, or what party, I will vote for. However, I am an attorney, and love both the Constitution and fair play - in this case, fair play.
Bush/Cheney regularly sent emails they KNEW were classified in private emails. Clinton sent unclassified (though I hear four were LATER classified - to embarrass her? Don't know) emails. No evidence yet she meant harm, or thought she was doing anything wrong - otherwise for Bush/Cheney. So she MAY be "unreliable" - THEY ARE!
So, why is the "liberal" (aka Murdoch) press interested only in Clinton? Shouldn't we be outraged at Bush/Cheney? Also, they didn't tell anyone - it came out later; just as she didn't tell anyone - came out later; but they KNEW they were sending classified material - not yet determined for her.
Let's suppose we find the car in a situation like this: a collision is unavoidable, and if the car swerves to the left, let's say, it will collide with a school bus. Let's say the car computes that several kids will likely be killed. If the car swerves to the right, the passenger will be killed. I don't think the manufacturer could decide how to program for that. In the absence of legislation, we would need a switch that let the passenger decide which thing to do. That would absolve the manufacturer, but then .... Wow!
Real boon for the security people. Without any risk to the public, the North Korean operatives are flushed out into the open, and our security people have an opportunity to assess both their capabilities and at least a chance to identify their operatives. If I were still in security, I would be popping a bottle of champagne.
You say: "The neighbors left their WiFi open, and thus, by default, it is sending out signals that effectively say "welcome, feel free to connect to this network."".
By that reasoning, if I leave my lawn unguarded, I am saying "here, feel free to dig up my grass?" or if I leave my car outside unlocked with a package in it (admittedly stupid, but ...) I am saying "free package, everyone".
Don't think so. I think taking what is not yours, whether the owner knows or not, or feels deprived or not, is, and should be, criminal.
As an attorney, and a precinct inspector in elections (note, we are paid, if you consider about $10/hour "being paid" - and that is for INSPECTORS! Hat tip to the election clerks; they are true patriotic Americans, IMO!) - I am torn. I am sure no laws would mean vote buying, with proof required before payment - not a good thing. But I am glad that people take voting seriously. I would think a Judge would dismiss a case in the absence of proof of abuse - but requiring them to go to court is, to me, abuse of the citizen. REAL problem - I would think the authorities would use a little judgement, if the system allows it.
As a veteran who had considerable dealings with "career" military, I understand. The military is a dictatorship (unless you believe that before going into battle the soldiers vote on that). Further, for career military, dictatorship works very well, and the very idea of democratic rule is abhorrent. Our problem is that we need CIVILIAN leaders of these agencies, it is ridiculous to expect career military to support democratic principles.
As an attorney (IP, but Constitutional Law was one of my favorite courses in law school) I would FAR rather risk another 9/11 than to give up my Constitutional rights! Except: 1. the NSA's trampling on the Constitution is NOT making us safer; and, 2. they are taking away our rights anyway.
Mike doesn't sound like he has been in the military, or if there, didn't learn to understand the military mind. The military (ANY military) is a dictatorship, and survives by an "us against them" mentality, where "them" is anyone not in the military. They feel (deep down) that democracy is "weak" (as Hitler put it), and contemptible, and any "member of the family" who defects to democracy is "evil".
NO ONE seems to understand the real threat here! These things continue to grow! Once the NSA achieves a certain level, someone with a yen for a promotion will push it to the next level, and the ultimate level?
This has been the unvarying pattern of such things!
As an IP attorney, I generally agree with this post. I do only small entity IP, since large entity IP is so abused I would feel unpatriotic doing it. When a client comes to me for IP work, I ask them to consider whether or not they actually NEED it. Obviously, if they have some sort of product that they can be sure other people will want to copy, they may need a patent. Also, obviously, if they have worked hard to build a good reputation, and the unscrupulous will want to unload junk using the good will they laboriously built up, they will need a trademark. I don't see, and have never seen, the need for copyright, but that could happen in some cases. But, by and large, most people DON'T need IP, and may be wasting their money in getting it.
We have to remember, Obama is part black (I think I am also, and it affects how - I think - honkies see me. Just putting the shoe on the other foot, colorless folk. Do the obvious, don't get mad, get even, like the House does). So, ALL the politicians from the Bible Belt, as well as several other States, are going to attack him however they can, and I think he is "gun-shy".
Let's not start with a faulty assumption, and move from that to the "logical" conclusion. Patent trolls threaten our innovation, and in essence, our economy. The effects are totally negative. However, especially with small startups, the threat of theft of an idea is substantial. FORMERLY patents didn't protect much - companies could "show" that they "had the idea"; and even "published", to defeat a patent. NOW we have "first to file", and the protection for a startup is SUBSTANTIAL!
First, admins often need access to other systems to get their work done, and the work is made difficult by denying it.
Second, the NSA has a history of making up stories in which they try to show they are reliable defenders rather than fascist scavengers. One way would be to say "it's not us, it's them", in this case admins merely doing their job.
To me, this story is bogus, with the express purpose of making Snowden look like he was doing illicit things, and the NSA being virtuous victims. I think they are throwing innocent people under the bus, to make themselves look good.