If I'm reading the details correctly, the DOJ's claiming that they needed Apple's help getting into the phone, having done everything they could go try to unlock it, and also that the person whose phone it is hadn't known they were trying to unlock it and told them the passcode as soon as he found out.
How does that make any sense? Wouldn't asking the guy be first on their list of things to do to unlock the phone?
I don't think Steven Bellovin -- a computer networking and security researcher at Columbia -- was shrugging off the CIA hacking Apple products. I think he was expressing a complete lack of surprise by it, because who would be surprised by the CIA's or NSA's tactics these days, but still condemning the CIA's activities as amoral.
Also I am sure this must be illegal, and netflix could sue the MPAA for encouraging them to not allow a legitimate company to have their movies in cinemas.
Theaters are owned by private companies, and it is perfectly legal for them to choose what they do and don't want to show. Plus, courts cannot compel theaters to show speech they don't wish to support - that's massively unconstitutional.
This is really quite an amazing comment. First you assume that the committee that commissioned the investigation didn't bother reading it, then you assume that it's both incorrect and motivated entirely by partisan politics, then you take your first assumption as a given and moralize about how much worse than Cheney not reading the report Feinstein not having read the report is.
(And, uh, why would a "political hackjob" about Bush reveal that the CIA lied to Bush about both the scope and the effectiveness of their torture? Why would the CIA hack into, lie about hacking into, and then eventually admit to hacking into the computers of the investigatory committee if the investigation was without merit and transparently political hackery?)
Looking through the torture report, there's an interesting euphemism for lying: "This statement is incongruent with internal CIA documents." Forty-two statements are said to be incongruent with internal CIA documents.
He stole intellectual property? You mean, the people who produced the movie don't have copies or masters of it anymore, and now they can't distribute it anywhere because their copies of it are gone? Because otherwise, "stole" is a word that doesn't seem like it could possibly apply to intellectual property.
It is remarkable how wrong you are. Public schools are not allowed to restrict the first amendment activities of their students, except for very narrowly tailored time and place restrictions. Many schools have been sued and lost over less than this curtailment of students' right to petition their government and to peaceably assemble.
Then you lack reading comprehension skills. The letter is from a FOIA denial officer to the tweeter, denying her request... and the letter notes, in its signature block, that the denial itself may be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.