If they are still tapping the fibers within the US then what they are doing is still domestic surveillance. It doesn't matter where they store the data.
If they have fallen back on taps on international cables and or whatever the 5 eyes share, then they can't be capturing much communication between parties located within the US. Practically all communications has got to involve at least one party located in foreign parts, where there is no longer any debate: foreigners are not protected by US law.
So how does it work?
The BBC make a lot of money licensing their content outside the UK. How much was top gear pulling in before that buffoon Clarkson overstepped the line? This is a misguided attempt to protect a revenue stream.
Thanks to Hollywood props departments, I suppose you might be forgiven if your first unconscious identification of a home made clock was "bomb". You don't control the pattern matching part of your brain.
But surely your first actual conscious thought would be to question whether or not your ID "bomb" was reasonable? To continue to react on that first identification is more an indication of the absence of thought.
Note that they are basically all about enforcement (i.e., protectionism) rather than the free flow of information (which is what you'd expect a trade deal to be about).
Exactly. Every time I read some economist spouting support for one of these deals it's clear that they don't understand the real purpose is not free trade of goods and services but good old fashioned protectionism against the free exchange of ideas and information.
Just as protectionism weakened rather than protected manufacturers' ability to compete on a global stage so will this new protectionism weaken those not able to compete on a level intellectual field. The implications are profound.
36 years ago, as an intern one of my jobs was to port a bunch of BASIC programs from an HP 'portable' (remarkably similar to the Osborne), to Borland Turbo PASCAL and update it to have the most user friendliest UI that MSDOS could offer.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't in 2010 /corrections
Verizon have a legitimate complaint. Netflix are clearly being disingenuous with the inference that current performance issues are wholly Verizon's fault. After all if they'd agreed to Verizon's paid peering pricing sooner then the congestion would be a thing of the past.
With all of the chapter 11 restructuring and distressed asset sales that followed, you can argue that the y 2000 peak was a case of over investment in which case subsequent years might be better described as flat. It doesn't excuse them trying to claim that investment has been increasing or distorting the truth with graphic distortion shenanigans, but telecom investors lost billions in the dot com bubble and that does not indicate investment levels were normal or reasonable.
Does anyone else think designating sections of a space craft as territory where one nation's or another's laws apply is absurd? I have visions of a TSA check point at the US airlock to keep the Russians out because, you know, Snowden. And is there something I should know about Astronauts that someone felt it necessary to consider the need to attach a jurisdiction to any part of the space station in the first place? It does my head in, it does.
I won't say what I think of Network Neutrality because frankly it's a distraction. Regulations to overcome the lack of competition can never be as effective as competition itself. An isp that is forced to be concerned with customer retention is not going to play power games with content providers (or at least not to the point where customers might notice).
As a non US citizen living outside the USA it makes no difference to me. Let's face it for all the high ideals the US aspires to, the protections you thought you had never applied to foreigners like me. We've always been legitimate targets.
I hope to hell the continued attention can help you restore the balance if only so China wont be able to say 'come on you guys do it too'.
Ironic that Obama used that excuse when it come to US spying on allies but you know, they're/we're still foreigners, so it's ok...
Makes me think of A Few Good Men. Same self justification of sacrificing fundamental principles to a 'greater good', and of course "the Truth? You can't handle the damn Truth!"
Sadly by the time enough is known about these days for the movie dramatisation, Jack (and probably the rest of us) will have left this flawed existence and moved on.
Is it lack of Geographical Isolation? or is it that teh interwebs (and ok the Plain old Telephone Service before that) have made Geographic Isolation != total isolation?
But he leaves off two other factors:
1) USAian entertainment syndicated at prices below those that local producers can compete with. Whether you call this cultural pollution (bay watch) or cultural enrichment (some example I can't think of right now)you can't deny that US TV and cinema are globally pervasive.
2) The two most globally dominate countries of the last few centuries were Britain and (at least for the time being) the US. Which means that English is The lingua franca.
Who knows? in 100 years the international lingua franca might be Chinese and condescending arseholes will be using English instead of Latin to say things like lingua franca.
"if you'd asked, I would have said that thread-starters tend to get more votes"
Just a thought, have you considered a top conversations category? You could base it on the number of votes on all comments on the thread. It might be biased towards longer threads but often the conversation is more interesting than the 'one liners'
Countries that retained state sponsored monopolies could sustain higher prices that limited growth. Countries that introduced competition saw prices drop, elasticity kicked in and those markets grew. There's a clear correlation, but sender pays isnt the cause, the cause is basic economics.
The problem with suggesting Sender Pays for internet settlement is the fantasy that packets are an analogue for minutes. There is no scalable way to measure interactions and no clear way to even agree which party in an individual interaction got the most value and thus should pay. There is nothing that works better than what the internet industry has come up with while the ITU were off doing other things.
Network and content providers have been arguing about this for near 20 years. The ITU actually already put out paper/recommendation that internet settlement should be on a sender pays basis in the late 90's. The internet including practically all telcos basically ignored them.
Even if this does get voted through the internet will ignore them again. I doubt the US is going to give over legislative control over ICANN for a start.
Regimes that want 'control' already can do and already do whatever they want anyway.
The ITU is making a last desperate grasp for relevancy. Even arguing against it lends them more legitimacy than they have.
I dont think the ITU is the right international body for this. Some members of the ITU are no doubt taking this as an opportunity for a bureaucratic power grab.
But others are motivated by concerns that the non government organizations that run critical components of the internet are only non government because US Federal law delegated the responsibility. If you visit this site only casually you will see plenty of evidence of discomfort from US citizens over what the government is doing to spy on it's own citizens, block websites, attempts to impose US law on foreign websites, etc. so it shouldn't be too surprising that the US government isn't quite trusted to maintain it's "hands off" oversight.
These concerns aren't going to go away and debate about how to address them is a good thing.
I wonder how much the US security agencies possible success in pressuring US telecom equipment vendors to install back-doors in their equipment lends weight to speculation that the Chinese government has or might do the same to vendors under their jurisdiction...