?When so many are lonely as seem to be lonely, it would be inexcusably selfish to be lonely alone.?
― Tennessee Williams, Camino Real
In the catalog released by Der Spiegel there are additional items that are basically boosters.
So, there's an micro transmitter that can be placed directly in things like USB cables (in the connector shroud) or tiny devices that can be placed on a motherboard or on the surface of the case itself. These all usually have a broadcast range of a few ten's of metres, e.g. 10-30 metres or so.
Then there are other catalog items, small receivers/transmitters, say the size of a disposable cigarette lighter, that can be placed within that 10-30 metre rage but outside the room/building, that can pickup the signal from the micro-transmitter and boost it for pickup by the 'briefcase' sized receiver that can be 100's of metres away. Since this booster is outside the immediate area of the device being eavesdropped on, even if the booster is detected it's unlikely to be seen as a 'bug' as the signal would be coming from outside the immediate sensitive area. It would be lost amongst (or considered a part of) all the other general background traffic you'd expect to see outdoors (cell, CBs, radio, TV etc).
Or flying to Canada/Mexico and walking/driving across the border...
If the CBP has enough 'spare' drone hours to 'lend out' drones for 700 non-CBP flights in 2 years, then they have more drones than they need and their drone budget should be audited for efficient use of government funds.
It's not a 'security' camera.
It's a safety camera to monitor the 'safety' of people in case they hurt themselves so you can call an ambulance.
Or it's an 'auditing' camera to keep a log of all who enter/leave the premises.
Or it's a 'historical' camera, so it can be included in my memoirs/family video library.
If (and it's a big 'if') the patches significantly increased resource requirements (CPU/Memory) of the telco-side devices, then from a commercial perspective it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a BUSINESS-level decision overrode any techie-level decision and the business decided not to apply them due to the cost requirements in purchasing new kit/facilities space.
But I do prefer the conspiracy theory ;)
Dude u have what seems to be an awesome job: Monitor and Troll Techdirt rubbishing Google at any opportunity.
That must be easy money. Read 10-20 posts a day, write one or two responses to each of them bashing Techdirt, Google and Mike. It would take, what? 2 hours a day?
How much does it pay and who should I contact for a similiar job? Microsoft? Apple? NSA/Whitehouse?
...many unconstitutional laws can be enacted and enforced until such time as a legal challenge is brought...
He has never stepped inside a courtroom to be officially given a list of them, nor has he ever been able to answer such charges in court, which is one of the steps in due process.
I can just picture slightly drunk fliers settling an argument by pulling out their pistols from their carry on luggage and having at it in the air.
Even with today's secure cockpit doors, the other airplane staff and passengers can still be held hostage and the pilots coerced to fly to an alternate destination.
...there is no vulnerability , or ?backdoor,? that makes it possible for the US Government or anyone else to achieve unauthorized access.
Say I created a business to offer 'court recording' type services. I offered my services to law firms for depositions and had some certification that said I could be an official recorder at depositions. either taking hand/steno notes, or using a recorder. The purpose of the 'recording' is to document facts. What was/was not said, what actions were taken and so on so it could later be produced in a court of law or kept on file etc.
Could I then say "I'm not going to provide my services to law firm X as they represent gays. "? Or blacks? Asians? Arabs? Whites?
I mean, I'm producing a 'work of art'. Either a recording or a 'book' if I take written notes using a steno machine.
Is this 'free speech' or am I just documenting an event?
How is taking paid photography work to record a wedding any different?
The PURPOSE isn't to create a work of art. The purpose is to document an event. Who was there, what shenanigans (who threw up in the pot plant, who got naked and ran across the dance floor...) they got up to, and so on.
The photographer hasn't been asked to make any comment about the wedding. Just like a court reporter isn't asked to provide any personal comment ("I think they did/didn't do it." or "They're pastafarians, they should be boiled until al dente then eaten, with meat ball sauce") or express any views regarding the event they are documenting.
If the customers wanted the service provider to SUPPORT the event, THEN the provider would be within their rights to refuse service, as that is definitely a free speech issue.
Has the photographer been engaged to support the event? Or have they been engaged to DOCUMENT the event?
To resolve this matter amicably, we must demand that you remove the infringing material 'from the website immediately. Additionally, we must also demand that you provide compensation to Ms. McPherson in the amount of $1,250.00 per infringing photograph, plus $2,500.00 as the statutory minimum for the removal of Ms. McPherson's copyright notice.
If the Constitution mandates that that is Congress' role, then how can congress "give it up"?
Wouldn't it require a change to the Constitution to "give it up"?
Even if the truecrypt source code passes an audit, what about the compiled code?
Just because the source code is fine doesn't mean the compiled executables consist solely of the audited source code.
Has there been an audit done of the GCC (and other) compilers and libraries (e.g. random number generators) to see if they insert additional subroutines into compiled code?
I don't want to picture myself rising for the morning coffee, heading for the door on my way to work, only to whip out my smart phone and check where the IEDs and snipers might be on my way to the bus.
I agree, I had the same thought myself when i was reading this.
it is in fact TRUE that "In open hearings this year, we spoke to Congress.. ". Yes, they did speak to congress, and in that speech they did make the claim. However this quote does not make reference to or statement of support or truth on "54 different terrorist plots".
Therefore calling the quoted statement a lie cannot be supported.
If they had of said something more like "NSA/CSS actions contributed to keeping the Nation and its allies safe from 54 different terrorist plots as was reported to Congress..." then maybe it could be called a lie.
The government has been trying for years to get ID cards, fingerprints and other biometrics on all it's citizens.
Maybe the whole point is not security, but a grab at getting everyone's fingerprints on file.
This way we'll seem grateful to give our fingerprints over to the government to avoid the TSA hassle, and we'll even pay them for the scoop-up of them all.
Re:
But maybe SHE's the scammer (no I don't think this, devil's advocate) and is trying to get people to donate money to her?