Well, here we have published evidence that The Christian Science Monitor, is in fact a terrorist organization that is against the US Government as far back as 2004. We have published proof that they released this top secret government information in a "National Publication" information just like those other terrorist reporters that the US Government is trying to track down.
when and where they are going to start setting up the detention camps? It was done once for US Citizens of Japanese decent. Now, since any "brown, Muslim or have an Arabic name" people are automatically suspicious, won't TSA just start putting them under a watchful eye all in one place.
After all, then they won't have to spend so much effort detaining them at airports they'll already know who and where they are. /sarc
I sure hope South Africa didn't sign any of those treaties with the Investor State Dispute Resolution clauses or they will get sued out of existence for daring to try to protect their citizen's health. Silly Politicians!
I realize from the quotes that the MPAA is telling theater management to be proactive with containing the pirating of movies from "in theater" videotaping of movies. However; the extremely idiotic part of the theory of videotaping a movie from Google Goggles is ludicrous in the extreme. Have they every watched a 60 second clip of a handheld homemade movie. It's enough to make everybody dizzy especially without some sort of image stabilizer in the camera. Can you imagine how dizzy somewhat would get by trying to watch a 90 minute movie that was recorded on a moving head? It would be puke fest and the local drugstore would sell out of pain killers for the headaches.
Nobody can hold their head still for 90 minutes to get a decent "pirate" copy of a movie that way.
You are not using a "Legal Reading" of this line. You tried to add too much common sense which doesn't work with reading the law. There is a big "OR" in there. "to produce or create", "OR", "conspire to produce or create". If either side of that big "OR" is true, then that whole part is true. So,it will be read by the willing prosecuter as "to produce or create ... a video or audio recording ... representation of a violent crime ... during it's commission" then you are charged. This is the reality of the way it works. It is not made up by Mike, which makes your Mike bashing for today totally self-gratifying with no basis in reality.
A huge piece of the argument from the NSA is that if anybody knows what they are doing, then they can't "protect" us. First, it seems most loud and clear that based on the way they hoover up all of that data about us, then we need mostly protection from them so that they don't find "something of interest" and pass it on to other agencies to be laundered and used against us.
Second, the police use radar guns and video monitoring, banks use alarm systems and video cameras, and there are many many other ways that everybody knows are being used. How many years has it been know that phones can be tapped? The fact that law enforcement can do something is not necessarily "endangering" anybody. It just seems too bad that they feel that everything they do must be "invisible" to the rest of the world including the people they are supposed to be doing it to protect (or it seems to peek at).
They need to spend more time letting the bad guys know they are being watched and to do some real "threat assessments" to catch the next big move before it happens.
So, somebody (read power consumers) should cough up millions of dollars to do "something" about an isolated incident. A little bit of risk assessment is in order before letting out the contracts for millions of dollars for cyber security or steel walls.
The power companies could/should evaluate their systems to see where there are any critical places and then determine how to secure them. The power grid is a very big distributed system that covers thousands of miles of power lines and remote substations. It would take a big coordinated effort to "take it out" unless a major junction could be hit. That type of effort would require a LOT of people to pull it off with very good coordination or a lot of very well coordinated timers that could be set to go off weeks in advance while somebody runs around the country putting lots of them in place.
So the big question is whether or not this is a one node trend or in reality an isolated incident (like an angry customer in another post).
Part of a terror campaign is to actually cause terror in people. Since this happened a year ago, it seems like calling it a "cyber terror" attack and spending a billion dollars to fix it seems like an overreaction.
It goes on to list a bunch of revelations and legal actions that are only happening because of Snowden's decisions, and directly notes how "valuable" Snowden's decision to leak information has been. It also calls out those who claim Snowden's efforts somehow damaged the US, saying there's simply no proof.
The shrill brigade of his critics say Mr. Snowden has done profound damage to intelligence operations of the United States, but none has presented the slightest proof that his disclosures really hurt the nationís security. Many of the mass-collection programs Mr. Snowden exposed would work just as well if they were reduced in scope and brought under strict outside oversight, as the presidential panel recommended.
It seems to me that what the NSA shills are trying to claim is that terrorists are too stupid to figure out that they are being spied upon, foreign governments are too stupid to figure out that they are being spied upon, and the the American people should just shut up and be spied upon because if they aren't doing anything wrong then they don't need any stinkin' 4th Amendment protections. Because, you know, the NSA would never do anything wrong with your data, just trust them.
So, all of the massive damage that was done to the NSA anti-terrorist program was where the terrorists probably already "knew" they were being spied on or were actually too stupid to know better. What am I missing?
Normally (as I understand it anyway), the Supreme Court only takes a case when there are mis-matched rulings. Now there is one. To maybe help out, one ruling (the one we like) is a very detailed well reasoned decision which lays out the details with source references and a detailed logic path. The other ruling (the one we don't like - the one this article is about), is a slip-shod justification that doesn't do any fact checking and just accepts one side's opinion about everything and doesn't check the references (especially about the made up stuff). Together these two decisions should get the Supreme Courts notice and unless they are having a very "off day" the fully reasoned and well documented decision should win out.
Sounds like a bunch of overbearing employers I've had. Corporate Communications is sending lots of emails about things only the senior managers care about and ignoring all the things that employees would want to say but usually can't because of fear of reprisals and/or it goes into a suggestion box black hole. Never to be heard about again (well maybe an automated "Thank You" email").
A single point of information such as an IP address probably doesn't identify a person (single person living alone with internet connection "might" identify a person). However; the issue is not just identifying via a single IP address. They have IP address info, mobile phone info, land line phone info, and email info. They also probably have access to lots of other info that has not yet been exposed yet. For all we know, the FISA court has been issuing subpenas and warrants to get all of your banking info. When all of this data is combined, it results in an extremely high probability of identifying an individual. That is the insidious nature of the bulk data collection.
It appears that Judge Richard Leon's BS detector was firing on all cylinders during this case.
He must have taken the court transcripts back to his office and done a line by line comparison to actually trap all of the instances of spook lawyer double-speak. The small number of 300 but with 3-hop expansion, need for speed but no need for speed, no standing - because...
My only thought is that I hope he is extra squeaky clean because they are going to be hauling out the big FUD mud now to try to make him look dirty and be removed from the case (or from life if he is too good).
Judge if you see or hear a drone over head, run for very good cover in a very big crowd.
She just can't sell the original photos for $4000, so she posts it on the internet and hopes that someone will be creative with the photo so that she can then sue. It's a new creative art form of extorsion. Make your pictures available on the internet and then sue over them.
What I would suggest is that since Comcast charges $5.00 per month for their router (or $60 per year). Buy one of your own like a Buffalo router for $60. It will last 5 to 10 years and can be configured to your hearts desire AND save a lot of money in the long run. The Buffalo router comes with DNSmasq and DHCP, so it will work a Home network just fine with DNSmasq managing both the internal machines and forwarding to the external Internet when necessary.
They seem to think its positive, but EVERYONE I know who has Comcast has many many many Comcastic moments when it doesn't work. I telecommute full time and having cable Internet access is critical. I have a UPS on all my computers and networking components, I have a backup generator in case the power goes out, but I can't replace the Internet access when a Comcastic moment occurs. Well, there is at least another option in my neighborhood, I could subscribe to FIOS also and double my monthly cost (at least double). Everybody I know that is stuck with Comcast knows what I mean when I say that I'm having a Comcastic moment and that it ain't a good thing.....