It would probably be career suicide, but if I were going to be retiring soon anyway, I'd take advantage of the "5 nines" approval record and see exactly how far one could go before the court turned a request down. Maybe if it actually targeted the members, family and friends of the FISA court judges themselves? But of course don't start there. Or couch it in a way that "leaks of information from within our agencies is a huge threat to national security and our children etc. This request is for all communications relevant to determine who is leaking this information." Dress it up in a way to make it sound less like "we are going to spy on our own" and see what happens.
One point that I wish the media would make regarding this story: even if the source of the hack was Russian, that does not imply the Russian government was behind it, and it's misleading to imply the link when it hasn't been proven.
"Americans responsible for act terrorism against their own countrymen" accurately yet misleadingly describes what Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols did.
As much as I don't like Trump and think he's unqualified for the job, I think he is doing a great service to our political system. He's essentially "fuzz testing" the government. And if Congress embraced this way of thinking and acted on the information they are being given, they would get off their partisan asses and start passing some legislation that formally codifies the valuable customs into law.
Ad hominem! Come on, people. (and yes, I'm including you in that group, Mike). Every time someone in the media talks about Snowden's personality or education or background or any other irrelevant attribute, the only appropriate response is AD HOMINEM.
It doesn't matter who he was, what his background was, or any of that. He could have killed everyone in his building as he was absconding with the information. And yes that would have been awful. But all of that is ENTIRELY SEPARATE FROM THE FACTS OF THE SECRET PROGRAMS THAT HE GAVE TO JOURNALISTS WHO THEN CHOSE WHAT TO REVEAL. It doesn't matter who Snowden was. It matters what the government was doing. And to continue writing articles that accept this premise only serves to reinforce their distraction tactics.
I’m no fan of Donald "truthiness instead of facts" Trump, but on this one I am with him. If China doesn't want POTUS talking to the President of Taiwan, then maybe China shouldn't allow there to be a President of Taiwan. I mean do they govern Taiwan or not? To allow a position to exist within their government whose title conveys a certain level of power, but then to throw a tantrum when someone talks to the person in that position is pretty immature. China should be decisive, either eliminating that position, or recognizing it as a powerless figurehead and knowing that any conversations they have are ultimately meaningless.
Sorry I don't have any personal examples to link to, but I've found that taking screenshots of people's bad behavior and commenting on that is one of the best ways to respond. TechDirt and others do a good job of this when the continue to write new stories over "right to be forgotten" stories that have been taken down. Or celebs who think they can just delete a tweet or post to mitigate or eliminate the controversy of something completely outrageous that they said.
On NextDoor (the neighborhood community social network) I've had posts flagged as "offensive" simply because they were speech that some people didn't like (speaking critically of a local charter school). I turn around and call those people out publicly for being censorious asshats.
And the same goes for cyber-bullying. The way for that to stop is for the kids on the receiving end of the bullying to screenshot that shit and post it publicly. The bullies don't like it when they are outed like that.
"Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution establishes an absolute free-speech right for members of Congress on the floor or in committee, even if they are disclosing classified material. It states that 'for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.'"
I've not had that problem. Maybe because Sonic isn't getting flagged as a VPN provider. Perhaps Tor as an alternative? Or use a different VPN provider?
I also have my DSL modem which has 4 Ethernet ports in it. For devices I don't care about (like my IP phone) I plug straight into it. You could always have a sandboxed computer/laptop that you keep plugged into a bypass port like that for just such needs.
I recently updated to a Tomato router that has built in VPN pointing to my ISP's free VPN. With Sonic's name on that IP address, they will be the one getting the letter. And given their previous record, they are going to stand up to IP bullies like this.
I was considering getting HBO Now for John Oliver, but they arer putting his main stories up on YouTube every week. Plus they have web extras. I pay the $10/month for YouTube Red which removes the ads (and gets me access to offline and background playback on my mobile devices, as well as the Google Play music library; it's a great deal IMHO), which is cheaper than NOW and gets me access to a lot more stuff. Granted I don't have things like the Sopranos or GoT, but then I don't need those either.
Ala carte won't stop at the channel. I also pay for individual shows now and I'm much happier for it.
Which is why having a deniable encryption password would be so valuable for all systems. Despite my previous strident comment about a GFY message, the real way to implement this is to silently delete everything while the system comes up and looks like it simply does not have any data on it. Bonus points for creating some innocuous data in there so it is plausibly the real thing. What can the judge do once the system is unlocked and shows nothing of interest?
You know her staff also recognized that running her own mail server was a bad idea, told her so, and yet she did it anyway. And now here is evidence of the same thing going on with her views on encryption.
If she is going to hire smart, capable experts only to use as props and not to actually set her policy, that bodes poorly for an HRC White House.
I already wasn't going to vote for her because of this exact reason. I appreciate having more evidence reinforcing my decision.
I generally don't buy standard T's like this because I'm tall and thin, so none of the standard sizes fit very well. Not sure if there are print-to-order vendors out there that do support tall sizes, but several of the popular online clothing retailers do: Land's End, LL Bean, American Eagle, and the Gap brands (incl Old Navy and Banana Republic).
If they are going to use my billing address, a savvy consumer would choose a payment type that doesn't have a billing address or has one that can be set to any favorable location. Or they might just say screw this and go the infringement route.
I would have a bunch of domains registered like youtube-mp3.net, youtube-mp3.io, youtube-mp3.cc... you get the picture. Now start redirecting youtube-mp3.org to one of these other sites and show them a banner telling them that .org is going away soon, please update your bookmarks. Rinse, repeat.
For the Skittles analogy to work (from Vox): adhering to Trump’s analogy, a bowl with three deadly Skittles (refugees) in it would need to contain 10.93 billion Skittles. Bump calculated this to be the equivalent of 1.5 Olympic-size swimming pools full of the candy. This would equate to a bowl of Skittles roughly 246 feet long, 123 feet high, and 9 feet deep.
If DTJR wants to replace the image that was taken down, I'm sure Vox would be happy to give him permission to use theirs. Of course that would defeat the fear-mongering purpose of his original post.
Well you might need to set up your own store. I'm not sure how much control Amazon give you over these things. But you could:
1. Ban buyers who are clearly arbitragers 2. Require the shipping address to match the billing address (or other verified address) on the credit card 3. Require all shipments to addresses that are not the billing address to include a gift message that states clearly that the recipient should not have been charged any money for it.
There are probably others. This is just off the top of my head.