Maybe if we try a metaphor:
Government Officials - "We need to get the stuff on the moon. Bring us the moon!"
Rocket Scientists - "Well, you know...that is not possible. We could send someone TO the moon....on many, many rocket ships, with a lot, lot of stuff and machines, and get some of the stuff and bring it back."
Officials - "Listen. I don't want to hear about your rocket ships, and stuff. Bring us the MOON! It'll be so much EASIER if it's just here. Why aren't you sciencing me a solution. I know that you have some experts. Have them propose a solution!"
Scientists - "We ARE the experts. We are telling you that even if we COULD science up a solution, if the moon comes here, we ALL DIE."
Congresspeople - "Just you try HARDER. We don't really believe all your experts about the whole dying thing."
So...what they're saying here is that IT security at the public school system is already better than Target's?
So...these articles also incorrectly assume that people give a crap about getting "the same experience," which basically misses the entire point of cord-cutting to begin with.
People cut because they DO NOT WANT CABLE EXPERIENCE.
They also conveniently ignore another elephant:
...I get darn near 30 live channels - including many of the Ines listed as "missing" in the chart above - for free, without breaking any laws...with a $30 set of rabbit ears.
Can we just agree to never write anything, ever again, about what Craig Moffett says?
He plays the contrarian on everything FOR THE PRESS IT GETS HIM. Anything he's said about anything, ever, is wrong and we all know it at this point.
Canada allows only 30-day retention of IP logs?
That is freaking awesome.
Canada stiffens the warrant requirements to get the info?
Seriously super cool.
However, I do kina see the point about the conflict in timing here.
If there us a legitimate cause for an investigation, and law enforcement legit satisfies the warrant requirements, it does seem like the information should then be able to be examined. It can't be if it no longer exists.
Um...they checked the serial and it wasn't purchased until...
Wait a minute.
Apple would not have been able to track the serial between the time it left to go to the retailer until the user registered it to iTunes. I mean, the UPC they scanned at Best Buy didn't communicate the serial at time of sale, right?
LET'S FREAKING DO IT.
What's the best reasonable expectation for an algorithm to pull? 80%? 90%? 60%?
Even if it's 80%. Let's let Facebook implement the system. And Google. And LinkedIn. Ok. Now Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram...
Let's flag...
237 Million People (at least) as terrorists.
Let's flag as many people and give them absolutely as many messages as we can muster until they give up.
Ohhhhh....I know what it is.
A was a Boy Scout.
Oh. And I give a crap.
So wait.
There are what, a dozen (Fifteen?) cops standing around watching one cop try to rouse a guy who was just:
Put in a choke hold until he passed out
Had a grown-ass man pin his chest and neck to the ground for good measure
Had been lying utterly motionless for several minutes
And not even one of them thinks, "you know, maybe we should... I don't know... CHECK HIS PULSE JUST TO SEE?"
I would do that and I'm just a guy who watches a ton of Law & Order.
I thouhng I was logged in
Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2014 @ 5:56pm
"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by....
The Daily News
So, you're saying I can defeat the NYPD NY posting to Twitter?
I gotta get me one of those.
Also, I love this:
'"We’re reacting to these situations, which means we are not fully in control of them,” the source said.'
So...what gave this guy the idea that the police were necessarily supposed to be in control of protests in the first place?
Can we please stop calling high-ranking US Government officials "Czars" now?
Given the political state of things, it's starting to sound much more like prediction than colloquialism.
It's starting to creep me out.
US companies?
Are you suggesting there is some innate difference between corporations in the US versus those in other countries?
That corporations in other countries are not driven mostly by figuring out how to get as much money from as many people as possible by any means necessary?
Clearly you've never read Techdirt.
You know who else uses crypto to protect their information?
Voters
We can't have THOSE CRIMINALS running around.
I'm wondering something.
It's already been shown that NSA does physical interdiction of shipments of Cisco gear in order to plant access hardware into the machines.
If statements in the book you've quoted here are to be believed, and Cisco builds in NSA backdoors on its own, why the hell would NSA then need to covertly gain physical access to the chassis at all?
At this point in the Internet's history, requiring a license to use it is not AT ALL analogous to any of those things he invokes analogy to.
Cars can and do literally kill people.
Mortgages allow you to become indebted to someone else for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
For these reasons it makes PERFECT SENSE to require identity information.
Speech is neither of those. Hence, in real life, our countries protect our right to say whatever we damned well please.
What these people want is for you to have to get a license to SPEAK.
There is precisely ZERO difference in this regard between ON THE INTERNET and IN REAL LIFE.
Let's just go ahead and require a license for the following:
Using the telephone
Researching your health
Participating in politics
Getting healthcare advice
Communicating with support groups
Speaking to people
Protesting
Going shopping
Stating your opinions
Being in public spaces
Managing your finances
Participating in civil society groups
There is no line here.
Basically what's happening here is:
NSA captures EVERYTHING
GCHQ captures EVERYTHING ELSE
NSA forwards its EVERYTHING, unminimized, in bulk to GCHQ
GCHQ forwards its EVERYTHING ELSE, unminimized, in bulk to NSA
NSA then asks to look at the foreign EVERYTHING now stored at GCHQ. NSA can claim that it's only looking at "foreign data - no warrant required."
GCHQ then asks to look at the foreign EVERYTHING ELSE now stored at NSA. GCHQ can claim that it's only looking at "foreign data - no warrant required."
Basically, the data being housed in the shed in Utah isn't AMERICAN data. It' the Britt's.
So, what he's saying here is that classified military "tactical things," like plans and operations, are kept on a system to which civilian subcontractors had unfettered access.
Anyone else have another idea of who we'd pin a murder wrap to?
I think the headline probably was meant to say "Dead Kidnapping Subject" rather than "Dead Kidnapping Suspect."
I don't know if the latter would necessarily be a bad result.
Only if you "get" it
Only those who "get" the Internet understand the value the white hat.
Never has it been argued that car companies "get" the Internet.
Ditto airliner manufacturers.