The science of 'full disclosure' isn't settled yet.
The NSA, the FBI and a parakeet walk into a bar and...shit. I can't think of one goddamn thing that's funny about this.
I get it they don't HAVE to report to Congress; the whole thing's basically a dog-and-pony act to shut people up (although come to think of it, it IS often funny watching them testify to Congress - it's like watching juvenile delinquents handing in their punishment essays on the topic "Why The Law Is A Good Thing" - lots of ass-grabbing and sly nudges going on in the back row there).
What I DON'T get is, where are the adults in this fucked up gang of torturers and gleeful eavesdroppers? 'Lord Of The Flies' is NOT a how-to book.
The timing of this is right...for lunch. So it MUST be true.
They WERE teaching those kids a life-lesson...
...just not the one they thought they were teaching.
The only thing I wish the Scouts had taught me was how to skin, clean and cook a copyright. Them's good eatin!
Interestingly, the US IRS says Bitcoins ARE property and would be subject to a capital gains tax.
The British Library obviously recognizes that taking pictures of people steals their souls. Who knew that taking a picture of a book steals its copyright?
There is no indication that people were somehow confusing hobbyist-level multimeters like Sparkfun's with Fluke's high-end versions, nor any indication that anyone was using the cheap multimeters in a manner that put people at risk.This seems to be the crux of the problem in trademark enforcement - a perception of infringement by the application (or the misapplication) of the 'moron in a hurry' test.
Ah yes, The Case Of The Funky Collages. In reviewing it, I'm shocked the copyright holders of other elements incorporated into the collages didn't dogpile on top of Prince as soon as that magic word - **!!MILLIONS!!** - was uttered.
"...the technology industry is driving the development of new internet standards with the goal of having all web activity encrypted, which will make the challenges of traditional telecommunications interception for necessary national security purposes far more complex."What's driving the current push towards increased encryption is the knowledge that certain governments are more than willing to compromise their citizen's expectations of privacy and trust, NOT the tech sector. And as for making your job more complex than tapping cables and listening to unencrypted conversations? Too. Fucking. Bad.
Google's already doing the Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich, which, let me tell you, is....exhausting.
The panel claimed that its pre-mandate removal order was the only way to ?prevent a rush to copy and proliferate the film before Google can comply? with the injunction. That claim is unpersuasive. Google Response, p.12So, saying 'your claim is unpersuasive' is the polite, lawyerly way to say "You're one crazy motherfucker, and everything that comes out of your crazy piehole is crazy." Who knew?
To paraphrase de Tocqueville:
If we don't stand up for the Web we want, we'll get the Web we deserve.
...intrude into individuals' private lives, prompt flawed investigations and put sensitive personal data at greater risk.Sounds like they mixed up their to-do list with their concerns list.
I'm not making my point well today, but it's a point that should be stressed.
The NSA and other spy agencies deliberately perverted the collaborative nature of connected computing by short-circuiting the trusts built into the systems - trusts which are a reflection of the attitudes within the minds of the programmers.
Are these attitudes naive? Only in the very narrow sense of thinking that an ideal engineering solution is the one that's straight ahead ('charmingly naive' is how a front-office guy once characterized a young programmer I knew, who asked the perfectly logical question, "This is an integration problem with Company X's software. Why don't we call up the guys over at Company X and just ask them how they're working on it?").
Once trust is gone - trust in one's own government, trust in other programmers - what will replace it? I see the unfolding events around Snowden's revelations as a watershed moment, a moment when some of the collaborative spirit that made the internet possible has been killed off, leaving the world a darker place.
Oh, to be sure, and no doubt a security engineer would never make the call to send unencrypted data between centers. But software engineers would - at least, until very recently.
Agreed. I wonder, will historians look back at computer science before 2010 and marvel at the 'charming naivete' of engineers, and will this period be known as the start of the weaponization of one the most collaborative disciplines?
Do rights exist only at the whim of a government agency?
When, in the interests of 'national security', our freedoms are compromised, is there no contrary view in these agencies?
Do these people truly believe they are pure enough, their goals noble enough, to continually state that the data they collect will never be repurposed, in spite of what history teaches us?
Yo Ubisoft: this is South Park - who do you think they're NOT offending?