1: Explain why they did not share details about secret security holes with software producers when the tools were stolen. 2: Explain why they did not buy the tools back in the firesale, just to take them off the market.
Any possible justification for keeping knowledge about security holes secret went out of the door the minute the tools were stolen!
"Assange isn't a US citizen, so he's not automatically guaranteed First Amendment protections."
Would that be because not being a US citizen means he doesn't fall under US jurisdiction? The US Government may be upset about things that Wikileaks may have done, they may have the power to bully other countries into surrendering their citizen to the US, and they may have no qualms about doctoring the legal process to fabricate a conviction.
But lets stop pretending this farce has anything to do with laws, justice or even morality.
Wikileaks and others have shown that the US government has been - and still is - breaking the laws of other nations on an industrial scale. If the US wants to uphold the laws, then stop doctoring charges against whistleblowers, and start holding your own employees accountable!
During my active days - until about 10 years back - pubmed, Google Scholar and Google Patents pretty much covered the literature in the technical/medical area free of charge, and most libraries had access to Web of Science even for visitors.
If that has changed, then yes, maybe some of the bigger governments should add a clause to one of their trade/copyright agreements to encourage publishers to cooperate with open database providers.
One wonders if those requesting encryption keys realize the trade-off: Whatever key they may be able to pressure Whatsapp to produce, one thing is sure - they won't get it exclusively. If they get a key, a lot of others will get one, too.
While the key may allow them to read other people's communication, they pay by opening up their own.
Would that be the same commission that insists on keeping pretty much all information on ongoing negotiations secret even from governments and elected politicians? On the grounds that some private space is needed because it is impossible to conduct your business everything is known to everybody?
And do the same security agencies that keep reminding us of the dangers of Putin siphoning off any information he can get his hands on to manipulate us really insist on making it easier for Putin & co to spy on us?
An interesting goal for a community that screams blue murder when the White House suggests it might stop hand-feeding them printable news bites.
Pluralistic? When they all print the government line, in minor variations? Free, when they believe that their survival depends on government-handouts ('Link-Tax' is just another word for government subsidy, or, less friendly, government bribes for presenting our leaders in a favorable light).
Ironically, free and pluralistic is what they are trying to destroy with their link - tax: For the first time in centuries, everybody has a platform to publish their information, their view of the world. Some may be fake, some may be questionable - and we all need to learn how to manage this flood of information. Many of the blogs are good reporting, and the fact that Joe Average now has the same or better sources than the 'quality media' is the biggest achievement of the internet - and the biggest threat to publishers and governments.
With the same reasoning, they can abandon the warrant requirement for searching homes - after all, the keys to the front door are freely available in the accused's trouser pocket or hand bag, and can easily be retrieved with minimal invasion of privacy and no disclosure of knowledge he might have or to speak his guilt.
If the US Government sees it appropriate to charge Dotcom with 'conspiracy to commit copyright infringement', they should come up with more serious charges against a public overseer who abused his role to protect the guilty and covered up serious, possibly criminal activities at one of the most sensitive agencies the US of A operates.
If the Russian FSA faxes a warrant signed by a Russian judge over to the State department, will the FBI close the investigations on the Russian hackers? Following DOJ's rule book, they'd have to: the hacking would be perfectly legit as long as any Judge anywhere in the world agrees it is necessary based on local laws.
Two points: a) The diagram is wrong: Mainstream news were fake, too. Hillary lead in the forecasts? Russian hackers? WTF? b) Never mind Facebook. The real threat are fake news created from the Pentagon's $5 bn PR-budget. The propaganda spread by 'economists'. And the 'news' created by media who find it easier to just copy everybody else without much fact-checking. Printing a lie today and a correction tomorrow means two great stories for the price of one.
After the next terrorist attacks, a scapegoat will need to be sacrificed.
The obvious choice will be Comey, for 'not doing enough'. His only way out is to ask for more support than congress and government are prepared to give him. 'If only you had given me the money/people/encryption breaking powers I told you I need, the massacre would not have happened.'
Refusing Comey's request is not really an option, though: 'If only congress had allowed the FBI to crack terrorist phones, those people would not have died.' So their only choice is to give in, however ridiculous the request may seem.
At which stage Comey has to ask for more powers his base, and the circle begins again ...