I don't care if Whatever is Whomever and I don't think most people reading comments on TD do either.
Credibility in online comments comes either because the comment is incredibly useful in content (either insightful, informative, funny, etc.) or (and also) because the commentator is well-known... like ThatOneGuy.
However, no matter what, if what you post is trollish boorish uneducated "rabble rabble rabble" all you're doing is spewing. If you did it at the dinner table mom would send you to go get a mop and clean it before going to your room. In an online forum defending free expression -- even anonymously, it's not quite that simple.
I read the troll stuff and laugh. Nobody who reads TD with an open mind hates Ron Wyden. Only people with agendas (paid or otherwise) do.
Part of reading is critical thinking. If you can do that you can ignore the trolls. It just annoys them more.
Throughout all these discussion the begged question seems to be whether it's lawful to install malware if done by law enforcement in the first place.
There is a fundamental difference between malware that spies on me and a planted hidden microphone. Even the latter have been problematic (see e.g. FBI and California courthouse steps). The former, however, do much more than merely "listen". They STEAL CPU-cycles, STEAL electricity, STEAL cooling, STEAL memory, and render some percentage of your otherwise 100%-yours PC no longer yours. That theft of service should require a warrant.
Second, the malware itself may open the system up to other attacks. No matter how insecure Windows is, there's a prevailing assumption that if the user doesn't download malicious software then it will be fairly secure. Here's a piece of malicious software forced on the user, that has not undergone security review to see if it's free of any "mal" intent other than that of its authors and users.
I would like to see the media step up and start questioning where the hell the government got the idea they have the LAWFUL RIGHT to install malware, STEAL the above items, and OPEN the computer up to potential other attacks... all things that are FAR FAR FAR and beyond a simple "spy microphone."
I think you're so busy blaming everyone other than the criminals you've lost the perspective.
First, Techdirt publishes articles discussing police criminal behavior -- like brutality -- daily. (Yesterday in fact there was a piece on Fox Network not wanting to show the end of a police chase that end with a man surrendering on the ground, and the criminal cops battered him.)
Second, if police weren't committing gross acts of criminal behavior -- like falsely arresting the people cleaning out the scumbag deadbeat cop's abandoned house -- there wouldn't be reports of this, some of which you find in Techdirt.
Yes, far easier to "blame the media" for reporting about criminal cops, than to take criminal cops to task, remove them from the street, or put them in prisons.
If cops held cops to the same standards as they hold everyone else, there would be more cops in prison than junkies.
There's no such thing as a good cop. There are bad cops... and those who look the other way or support them.
Snowden leaked so that classified data could go out directly to the public.
No. He didn't. He provided the information to journalists to vet and select what would be released. Also the word "so" implies that you know his reasoning... which you don't.
Classified is labeled, "Seriously damages the interests of the US." Snowden did this intentionally.
No. You have no idea which classifications in which the information he provided the journalists was categorized.
Further there is no such classification. You are perhaps thinking of "Secret" which specifically addresses harm to NATIONAL SECURITY, which is not at all "the interests of the US", something you made up, which is not part of any classification. See e.g. http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/quist2/chap_7.html
Petraeus gave documents to a US Officer with a security clearance. There was no disclosure to public, and hence, NOT seriously damaging US interests.
Again, "US interests" is not part of a classification. Secondly "holding a clearance" is not a license to receive information. More specifically Petraeus is the one who took an oath and HE provided information to someone who was NOT cleared to receive them.
There are three components to receiving classified information and "holding a proper level/compartment" clearance is only one.
The rub is "need to know,"
That's not "the rub". That's the second component that is REQUIRED to receive classified information. Please don't try and excuse it as a "rub" or as something you can gloss over in your zealous defense of this traitor.
but to be honest,
"To be honest" means "I'm about to make something up which is purely fabricated opinion so I'm going to tell you I'm honest so you'll feel it has added credibility."
Cheap. Very cheap. To be honest it's lame.
that's not really held strict all the time.
So now you've gone from being honest to "implying" that the rules of providing classified information aren't really rules... they're not really strict... and hey what the hey right?
Wrong. The only people who violate the strictures are those who are violating their oath and Petraeus is a perfect example of that.
Ironically, Snowden made it harder
Made what "it" harder???
because we had started to more freely share information across the government,
Bwahahahha. The least transparent administration... the most FOIA-obstructive administration... the most whistleblower-prosecuting administration... and you just pulled that sentence out your bum.
No. "We" had not started to share information more freely "across the government" even giving your random words some semblance of meaning.
but Snowden f'd that up.
...and the women who accuse Bill Cosby of rape really f'd up his reputation.
You, Sir, are absolving all who violated our rights of any responsibility... and instead putting the blame on the man who alerted the media of those violations.
People don't trust NSA as much because when's their next guy going to leak?
No. People don't trust the NSA because the NSA has acted in an unconstitutional and untrustworthy manner and been brazen about running roughshod on our rights.
NOBODY ON THIS EARTH other than you says "We trust the NSA less because who knows when another person will leak information." People say "We DON'T trust the NSA because they do shifty things, they lie, they obfuscate, they interpret English words incorrectly to justify their lies and violations."
When you have a guy or two "go rogue," it gives you a black eye with other agencies.
When you have women complaining about being raped it makes the guy who did it look bad with his golf buddies.
The NSA has gone rogue with its data collections practices. They have given the US intelligence services two black eyes.
I agree with Petraeaus, and I'll go a step farther to say, "Snowden should hang from a rope from a very tall tree."
Finally you label an opinion as such. Good for you. I disagree. Also hanging is accomplished from an available branch, not a "very tall tree". Nobody scales trees to hang people, Sir.
You sign an agreement, and in cases of some, give an oath that you will protect this country when given information.
Yes, Petraeus DID sign that agreement and he DID take an oath... and then he gave classified documents to a third party.
Snowden's release led directly to grave damage.
No it didn't. Instead of a bland assertion I invite you to back up your comment with evidence.
In war, he'd be shot on the spot.
Wow, not only do you know nothing about handling classified information, but you know NOTHING about war.
Petraeus' classified was just an embarrassment, more because he was having an affair.
No. It was not "just an embarrassment." It wasn't "just a rub". It wasn't any of these excuses you've used to attempt to make light of a very serious thing -- the same serious thing you want to hang Snowden from an absurdly tall tree.
Do you seriously think he's the first GO to share information with his biographer to assist them doing their job? No.
How is this relevant?
David Petraeus violated his oath and provided classified intel to a third party. That is a crime and only his connections got him pled down to a misdemeanor.
That anyone else did it or will do it doesn't change the nature of his crime.
I appreciate your sophistry... it's quite clever. However, the true traitor is Petraeus... and those who attempt to rationalize and justify his behavior. Worse - those who would blame the victim.
I know lots of hypocrites, and some of them are otherwise perfectly nice people.
I don't personally know any traitors.
When Petraeus PURPOSELY WILLFULLY and with WANTON DISREGARD FOR THE LAW provided top secret, sensitive, and compartmentalized secure information to an outside party he committed TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
It is only a sign of the duality of justice for the 1% where he was given a misdemeanor slap on the rest.
For him to EVEN MENTION Snowden's name let alone mouth off as if he has any chops ... is an insult to traitors everywhere. For him to LIE and suggest [go through channels; whistleblower, etc, already covered above] is what I expect from a TRAITOR.
Do not forget.
Petraeus BETRAYED US. He committed treason against the United States of America. He is not someone who should be looked to for advice, opinion, suggestion, or commentary on how to behave in or around classified information. He is a DISGRACE to the UNIFORM, the armed services, and the many MEN AND WOMEN WHO WEAR THAT UNIFORM and don't betray the country.
So do I judge him for being a hypocrite? No. That's not even coming up to knee-biting level on him. He's a traitor.
Plaintiffs are unsympathetic and their claims infringe on free speech. That having been said, the article says:
"They argue (perhaps correctly), that the filing comes way too late"
There's no "perhaps correctly" about this:
Plaintiff's Opposition is clear: 1. "Courts have held that amicus briefs are untimely when they are filed after the parties’ briefing on the pertinent motion has already been completed." 2. "If LCS had submitted its proposed amicus brief in a federal appellate court, it would have been untimely by several weeks."
The article is behind a paywall. If you click directly above you will get the first paragraph and an invitation to sign in or sign up.
If, however, you go to news.google.com, type "The Encryption Farce" into the search bar, and click on the story link from there, it will work fine. (Note: it's the same link, but the referrer page of google news will get you in).
I know, we're having fun laughing at Donald Trump's incredibly wee wee-wee. The legal aspects, however, interest me more than another man's schlong*.
17USC512 does not have a "notice of takedown", merely a "notice of claimed infringement". Content providers have only the incentive of NOT-removing their "safe-harbor" if they take appropriate responses, of which taking content down is merely one of several options.
However, if you followed the Viacom v Youtube case you're aware that those "safe-harbor" provisions don't allow you to early remove a case (ala a motion for summary judgement, or as you'd see in a SLAPP cas) but rather must be litigated to its eventual conclusion/settlement.
The DMCA safe-harbor is a joke. It's not a funny one either. Most ISPs with half a brain disregard any of the process OR fall on the other side of taking down everything (e.g. youtube). Either way, if someone is determined to file suit, they will. What you do in response to the "notice of claimed infringement" is almost irrelevant.
* Mike Masnick used it because Donald Trump uses it, so I used it in the same context. Also it's a perfectly fine word to describe OTHER people's private parts because "schlong" includes "long" but Donald's would be "schshort."
Ultralight aircraft as per 14CFR103 do not require a pilot to be certificated. However, there are other restrictions that make most ultralights not actually be able to fly under that part of the regulations. Pilots therefore do have to be certificated, hold a medical certificate as well, and do biennial flight reviews. http://www.usua.org/faq.htm
Specifically in this case, a "Jetpack" doesn't fit the definition of 14CFR103.1(4) by having a stall speed in excess of the allowed maximum of 24 knots. In layman's terms that means "Hey if the jetpack stopped producing thrust, how fast do you glide to keep from plopping into the ground." This is directly related to wing size and even wingsuit flyers have a stall speed in excess of twice that.
So forget about the 5gal fuel limit ... jetpacks will not be flown as ultralights...
Politics: Personal flying devices have been a dream of lots of people. Don't worry, neither law-enforcement nor the insurance lobby will ever let that be something you can do. There's not going to be any way to "enforce the laws" with that many people able to operate; the insurance companies would hate the unending liability; neither side will allow this to be made lawful.
The next time someone says "personal flying machine" or "flying car" "without needing a license" you can just smile and nod because that's not happening ever.
Ehud Gavron FAA Commercial Pilot - Helicopter Tucson AZ US
John85851 wrote: > In other words, this is another $47,000 spent to make it look like the TSA is "doing something".
Absolutely. All this talk of math is missing the forest for the trees.
The TSA's job is to prevent hazardous materials and dangerous people from crossing into the sterile area of a public airport. All the rest of this discussion is about a trivial piece of waving shiny object with an arrow on it which is all just a part of The Security Theater.
It's not really important whether it's truly random. As Whatever pointed out "A true randomizer (and not one that can be predicted)" is what's important. For being unpredictable the stock random functions are important enough.
We're very proud of the "American tradition" that our free-market economy, supply-and-demand, and market-driven focus allows "greater freedoms."
Of course ignoring tariffs*, trade-agreements, credit-exchanges, and other regulatory mechanisms that entirely make the above false, we get to the crux of the thing.
We love it when we can get a great deal on a new car because we did our homework. We love it when we find a great special at Macy's on that crystal photo frame we just didn't get as a gift at wedding number one. We love it when we can get five limes for a dollar instead of three.
On the flip side we're proud when we sold our used VW Bug for a few thousands of dollars over the estimated price. We love seeing that Blac Chyna will likely get one million dollars for "starring" in a KUWTK episode. We love it if our worthless script for "Time Tunnel 1980" (starring Barry Van Dyke and Kent McCord) is purchased for a million dollars.
So we love getting something for less than what it's worth. We love selling something for more than what it's worth.
This thing isn't a failure on IBM's part. IBM did their shareholders proud by collecting an amazing ("tragicomical"?) amount of money for a one-line app any schoolkid can code in under a minute. That someone put a graphical user interface (GUI) on it that's a big arrow, and someone else made it "tamper-proof"* is awesome.
What IS the problem is that our government -- which is supposed to have accountability and checks and balances -- not only happily approved this whole mess, but then tries to explain it's not as bad as we think it is.
So good on IBM and its shareholders for maintaining a profit margin on every app. Bad on the TSA for this. You can, however, consider that after fondling children, searching baby diapers, making people take out colostomy bags and various other things, having a mother drink her own breast milk, and holding travelers hostage for 15 years... this isn't even sweet icing on that cake.
* Those blue regulation "genital fondling" gloves mean they can't hack anything. They don't trigger a response from capacitative-touch screens.