The US justices don't seem to have arrived in the electronic age yet, being trapped in a world of memos printed on ivory paper that are walked around the building by someone called a "chambers aide." Internet down for a few days? Won't even notice it.
There is a certain logic in the madness: Since it is impossible to prevent attacks like the Paris alltogether, those in charge of security don't have a choice but to keep asking for more until someone says no. Then, when an attack happens, they can kick off a discussion around the theme 'if only you had given me what I needed ...'.
In Paris, for the first time, we have a situation where the security agencies had been given everything they asked for, and more. And they still failed to protect us.
Isn't it strange how the judges bend over backwards to 'understand' technology in the way the more powerful party needs it?
When talking copyright, they don't mind arguing that a browser cache (in the computer's RAM) and the the browser cache (on the hard disk) constitute illegal two copies in addition to the real copy in iTunes that was licensed. You lose - breach of copyright.
When talking NSA, storing ALL data on an NSA-server - no problem. Machine-analysing all of these data - no problem. Plaintiff's logo on an internal presentation - no problem. Unless you can prove a human analyst actually reads the document - no standing.
Not just the intelligence agencies, all Law enforcement agencies have been given unprecedented powers over the last decade. They can track and listen like never before, they can confiscate and raid without even a warrant in many cases, and even tend to get away unscarred if they 'accidentally' kill someone. If they set their mind to take someone out of circulation, there are very few legal hurdles left to protect the suspect.
" he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: Challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and -- importantly -- accept the consequences of his actions."
That's what he did, actually. He gave up his job, his family and his home to speak out, challenge the government and engage in a constructive act of protest.
Which is a lot more than can be said of Ms Monaco's boss, Nobel Laureate and former transparency advocate Barak Obama, who has so far failed to hold accountable any of the members of his administration when they turned out to be rather creative with their interpretation of the law.
The German Federal Public Prosecutor probably needs a small target to bully around and rebuild his self-esteem after he had to shutter his investigation of the NSA when Mr Range realized he was too small and insignificant to take on the big boys.
One question left for Sunday Times editor Martin Ivens: If the content was indeed provided by the UK government, and just printed by the Sunday Times - why do you place it behind your paywall and ask people to pay for it?
Democracy? Constitution? You are missing the point: The Senators are not giving up rights or control - they are freeing up their agendas to have more time to talk with 'sponsors' about 'donations'. And with many of those 'sponsors' being the very people keen on passing TPP and TTIP with as little debate as possible, they'll be in a good mood for those 'donation' dinners, too. Win-win!