What has been invalidated by the ECJ is a directive that EU member countries have to implement in their own laws. Those laws haven't been invalidated.
What happened in the Netherlands is not an invalidation of the law. There is no law around that allows downloading whatever people like. What there was was a levy on everything that could be used to store downloaded data/movies/music/etc. and then use the money from that levy to compensate rightholders This seemed more prudent then chasing everyone who performed a download.
Well there was a study done and the result was something along the lines of a 0.0006% increase of solved cases (in Germany), 6 more solved cases on a million solved cases, due to this data retention. Quite hard to square the costs in 3rd parties, invasion of privacy and other negative effects if the benefit is that small.
There is one thing left out in the article. This is a directive which the countries making up the EU have to implement in their own laws. Those laws have not (yet) been invalidated by this and most likely won't be unless challenged in court.
Just reading this the incompetence at the NSA is even worse then when they went public with the crawler. How in the world did Snowden manage to retain the PKI certificate(s)? Those are supposed to be on a physical medium (think key/chip card, USB stick, etc). And there are so many more layers of improbability there, two examples:
Never using the login credentials when their owners are using them.
If using the credentials from outside the building never running into callback problems to verify that the new IP is being used by the owner.
What they suggest is the way that it is handled in the EU. In the EU there is a limit on how long a telco must store the data, between 6 months and a year. And neither privacy advocates nor the telcos are happy with it. The one due to privacy concerns, the other due to costs associated with storing all the data.
Hollywood movies (almost) never make a profit.
For example David Prowse (played Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi) isn't get his share of the net profit since the movie still hasn't made since it was made in 1972.
You miss quite a few points when you argue that Assad is responsible for using chemical weapons.
1) Assad is winning.
2) Why fire the weapon on civilian positions instead of rebel positions.
3) Why fire when he knows that there are foreign witnesses around.
4) several earlier attempts to connect the Assad regime with chemical weapons which fell apart after either not enough evidence, evidence of it not being a chemical weapon or evidence that it were makeshift devices used by the rebels.
5) Several locations which were used to stockpile chemical weapons were taken over by the rebels. For at least one of those locations there is evidence that Assad didn't have time to remove the weapons.
About the silence of Russia arming Assad. Pot, kettle, black. In the technical sense it is indeed not the US that has been arming the rebels, seeing that those have been provided by Saudi Arabia, it is just the CIA that has been overseeing the transfer of those weapons to the rebels, in the hopes of reducing the chance of them reaching the al-qaeda look-a-likes. Not much success since they just beat up anyone not handing them over if they didn't get their share.
You do know that the current mess started when the US thought it could weaken/topple the Assad regime on the cheap after a mutiny in the army went rebellion when the mutineers managed to get their clans involved. Then things went up the creek when the al-qaeda look-a-likes noticed that Saudi Arabia was handing out weapons (& the USA other supplies) like candy.
That that Obama took the advice of the dolt who said antagonize Putin on this subject. I mean Putin signaled that if he was given a way to get out of this mess that wouldn't reduce his strongman image he'd do so. But no, the brilliant minds advising on how the US should react to this went into complete meltdown mode while trying to push Putin around, leaving Putin no other option (at least not if he didn't want to look weak) then handing asylum to Snowden to show the people that vote for him that he isn't beholden to the USA.
Chronoss you really need to get your reading comprehension level checked. Kindergarten level just doesn't work well on the internet.
That point you think is/was racism was made to show how much of a hypocrite the comment of the minister was.
You have the same problem with comprehension with your first point.
Who cares if he goes to France and Germany. This is not about them but about about countries which are US allies but are seriously debating to give Snowden political asylum.