Mine would be the other way around. Local SWAT storms the FBI and NSA and CIA to arrest the directors of said agencies. Brings a smile to my face just thinking about it, really.
To the extent the manufacturer believes the order to be unduly burdensome or that it should be reimbursed for expenses, the manufacturer should be given clear notice that it has the opportunity to object to the Order.
So what you're telling me is that we've set up a new revenue stream for these manufacturers to sell the data of private citizens to the government?
Sounds like the manufacturers will be completely incentivised to protect the consumer here. I definitely trust Apple not to snatch up any dime put in front of them.
I agree with most of that, but I have to point out that the graphic isn't showing EO12333 "at the end of the line". What it's showing you is that EO12333 is the default, and you check that you can't/don't have to surveille the target under sections 215 or 702 first. Essentially, EO12333 is the first/preferred choice, not the choice of last resort.
If we released these emails, it might exonerate him.
Which is just a silly position to have, considering the Espionage Act they've charged him under doesn't allow for the use of "Public Good" as a defense.
Ever seen the contents of a full background check? Now add in everything you've ever posted online, posted near you online, or referred to anything you've ever even viewed online.
I can't seem to find a law or an executive order on that. However there seems to be a "policy" in place, according to the ODNI. See this ars technica article for a quoted reference to it. I believe that policy, and the documents one presumes exist that state it, is what the EFF is trying to have released.
Yeah, grossly inaccurate and probably not that good, but damned if I don't still love that movie. And NCIS could have still taken a few pointers from it.
Well, in fairness, it's a PAC that is supporting her rather than Hillary herself that's doing this.
On the other hand, I distinctly remember Hillary getting up on national TV and openly supporting the ardent anti first amendment crusader Jack Thompson and his war on video games in the name of the children. So it's not like Hillary isn't okay with killing free speech.
Re: Re: In an Ironic turnabout...
Mine would be the other way around. Local SWAT storms the FBI and NSA and CIA to arrest the directors of said agencies. Brings a smile to my face just thinking about it, really.
So what you're telling me is that we've set up a new revenue stream for these manufacturers to sell the data of private citizens to the government?
Sounds like the manufacturers will be completely incentivised to protect the consumer here. I definitely trust Apple not to snatch up any dime put in front of them.
Re:
I agree with most of that, but I have to point out that the graphic isn't showing EO12333 "at the end of the line". What it's showing you is that EO12333 is the default, and you check that you can't/don't have to surveille the target under sections 215 or 702 first. Essentially, EO12333 is the first/preferred choice, not the choice of last resort.
Re:
Being outside the US doesn't seem to matter much either.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140715/18204627886/doj-tells-court-that-course-it-can-go-fishing-expedition-globally-emails-microsoft-stores-overseas.shtml
Re: What happened to the "Intelligence" part?
"why does the old regime of hard nosed "real" intel guys put up with that?"
Orders are orders. They don't have much of a choice.
Re:
I'm sorry, but you've reached your ration limit for this period.
Re:
Which is just a silly position to have, considering the Espionage Act they've charged him under doesn't allow for the use of "Public Good" as a defense.
Re: mmm
Literally everything.
Ever seen the contents of a full background check? Now add in everything you've ever posted online, posted near you online, or referred to anything you've ever even viewed online.
Re:
I can't seem to find a law or an executive order on that. However there seems to be a "policy" in place, according to the ODNI. See this ars technica article for a quoted reference to it. I believe that policy, and the documents one presumes exist that state it, is what the EFF is trying to have released.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Beck is right.
Yeah, grossly inaccurate and probably not that good, but damned if I don't still love that movie. And NCIS could have still taken a few pointers from it.
Re:
Well, in fairness, it's a PAC that is supporting her rather than Hillary herself that's doing this.
On the other hand, I distinctly remember Hillary getting up on national TV and openly supporting the ardent anti first amendment crusader Jack Thompson and his war on video games in the name of the children. So it's not like Hillary isn't okay with killing free speech.
Re: Re: Re:
This must be a troll... You're trolling, right?
Re: Re: True to their promises and slogans
To be fair, Bush never promised he wouldn't be an asshole.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except the public hasn't shown up in significant numbers to actually combat those issues.
Re: Re: Re: How do we fix it?
Implying Reagan was small government.
Re: Re: So what?