Not a chance, with how well bought out both parties are, there is no way they'd risk future 'donations' by shooting down the thing if it came to a vote. The only ones thinking about the public are the ones refusing to vote in favor of TPP, every single one voting in favor are thinking only of the money they stand to gain.
As for what they have to gain? Keeping their owners happy. They know who stands to gain most from the 'trade' agreements(hint: not the public), and they don't want to make any moves suggesting that the ones paying them might have made a poor 'investment' in case it affects future bri- I mean 'donations'.
There's an attempt being made here to paint the government as no worse (and possibly even better) than private companies' data harvesting efforts, albeit by way of omission rather than by comparison.
Notably omitted by any that try and spin government data harvesting as no different than corporate data harvesting: Corporations can't jail or kill you based upon the data they gather, nor can they add you to lists capable of seriously screwing with your life in various ways.
If a company like Amazon draws the wrong conclusions based upon your buying and/or browsing history, the most you're likely to deal with is some ads for stuff you have no interest in. If the government draws the wrong conclusion from the data they grab, you're likely to be looking at much worse repercussions as a result.
Really, would it have been that hard for them to just admit, "This job is too difficult, I can't do it, get someone to replace me"? Going through all the hassle of voting for a bill admitting that they can't, or won't, do their jobs just seems like wasted energy when a simple statement would have done the job.
Please, explain if you will how Google, which is a search/advertising company, falls under the same rules being imposed on ISP's. Now, Google Fiber would fall under the rules, sure, but the majority of Google's services would not.
Because she knows no-one has the guts or courage to call her on it. When you know you can say anything, even blatantly wrong things, and no-one will point out that you're either lying or ill-informed, why not lie to your heart's content?
Don't you see, the weapons they are developing and deploying aren't missiles and jets and whatnot, no, the NK government has moved past them and into the realm of humor as a weapon.
Their efforts in showing off their Photoshop skills(or lack thereof) aren't meant to show off weapons they don't have, they are the weapons.
No weapon is perfect at first, and as such it makes sense for these early attempts to be only chuckle worthy, but once they make the breakthrough, and truly grasp the essence of humor(something NK is famous for, as I'm sure you all know) then other, more primitive countries who are still reliant on physical weapons will undoubtedly be brought to their knees in tears of laughter, leaving them wide open for conquest.
The only purpose this document serves is to give legislative true believers something to wave around as they defend the Patriot Act's perpetual, unaltered renewal.
If they do try and use this heavily redacted document to defend the mass spying, someone needs to bring up the various reports and findings regarding said spying, in particular the bits that found them not only illegal/unconstitutional, but the fact that despite claims to the contrary they've been shown to be completely and utterly useless at their stated purpose.
To operate under such a twisted interpretation displays an almost incomprehensible level of privilege -- where government agents are owed whatever they request and any failure to cooperate is treated with suspicion.
That, unfortunately, is pretty much exactly the mindset for the police, and large portions of the government. They believe that they are the 'good guys', and since only 'bad guys' would ever oppose them, anything other than immediate surrender or acceptance of their demands is seen as suspicious behavior and/or evidence of guilt. The idea that they might be wrong, or not the 'good guys', and therefore not justified in their actions never even crosses their minds.
Why does any country continue to be so incredibly stupid as to sign anything with the USG?
Really, I understand, in negotiations both sides are focused on one thing only: getting the best deal for them. But no-one, bar none, is so willing to screw over their 'partners' than the USG, and other countries ignore this at their own risk.
(Also, as if we really needed yet another reason that these 'trade' agreements need to die...)
Dropping a case without prejudice isn't admitting that you were wrong, it's basically saying that there's too much attention being paid to the case at the moment for you to feel like following through with it. As such I hope she does file for declaratory judgement here, just to get it out of the way and remove that particular hanging sword from over her head.
Sure, but leave any punishment for their action in the social sphere, not the legal one. People refusing to do business with a company who's owners support bigotry and/or racism is fine, but throwing them into a cell or charging them with a crime for doing so isn't.
Yeah, if they can't deliver what they're promising, that's the ISP's problem/fault, not Netflix's. Their job is to deliver what the customer wants, whether that be Netflix or otherwise, and if they can't do that, then either drop what they're promising, or raise prices until they can actually do so.
Sure they may have 'won' in court, but between not being allowed to send out the standard ridiculously overblown threat letters, and their targets having access to legal advice, I imagine they're just going to drop the matter as not profitable enough for their time.
They're in it to shake down accused pirates, nor protect their copyrights or punish the guilty, and if the most they can get is a couple of bucks, and they know they can't just frighten their targets with scary and confusing legal threats into 'settling' for ridiculous amounts, I doubt they'll bother.