You, sir, are full of horse shit.
The article was about the Finnish Supreme Court censoring a Finnish site which criticized the government for having a secret block list used to censor sites that host CP. The owner of the site has the position that simply censoring the sites will only make it harder to actually catch the sick fucks making the child porn in the first place. The CP distributors will probably just burrow deep into the dark, seed(ier) parts of the web and become harder to find.
Oh, and there's the fact that the site wasn't hosting or linking to any illegal material it still had to be blocked because protecting the children apparently outweighs freedom of speech in Findland.
[For anyone who's wondering what this AC is babbling about, here's a link to the article in question so you can decide for yourselves]
http://torrentfreak.com/finnish-court-censors-website-that-criticizes-censorship-130826/
Face, meet palm.
I don't live anywhere near New York City (or even on the same coast for that matter), but I can't wait for that guy to be out of office.
Hopefully the next mayor is a touch more sane their the current one.
As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."
I second Mike on this. It's never a good idea to instantly jump to the worst possible conclusion for motivations when it comes to something like this.
What that phrase again? "Never confuse malice with what could be simple ignorance", or something along those lines?
That being said, it's becoming extremely hard for me not to demonize the NSA at this point, especially with each new damning leak about their actions. And it's a pretty safe bet that the worst has yet to come.
As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."
Wouldn't be too surprising, honestly. I mean, who wants to be the guy to deliver bad news to the boss? That goes for just about any kind of employment. Messengers with bad news have a high tendency to get shot (figuratively and sometimes literally). It's not a surprise that no one would want to be the messenger in the NSA.
This article pretty much sums up what I've been saying about the NSA recently: they're intentions might be good, but their actions are disturbingly efficient at paving the road to hell.
Or giant St. Bernards with rabies wandering around attacking women and children...
But isn't the Independent more of a tabloid than an actual newspaper in terms of journalistic integrity?
As for where they got the info from, sure, it could be the UK government, or (as an associate of mine suggested), the Guardian might have a mole being paid by the Independent in order to get access to the documents. Personally I'm leaning toward the UK government leaking it myself, but a leak at the Guardian is possible as well.
As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."
Actually several of the guys I knew through high-school became Eagle Scouts.
While I do see your point about the negative connotation (incorrectly) associated with the term hackers (the bad ones are known as 'crackers' damn it!), it could potentially cause confusion.
However, this exemption is still far too broad to be reasonable, and the BSA should have it yanked out from underneath it(in my opinion, anyway). I'm sure that the Boy Scouts of America will be fine without it.
Indeed. I do believe most laws fall under the category of "protectionist", and have been encouraged/discouraged at various times in the US' history. But they're still constitutional.
However, the validity of this particular law granting the BSA special protection by Congressional Charter seems... questionable, to say the least.
They call up the NSA and ask them to help. Obviously.
As for finding out what's at the end of the links to RS (i.e. the material being downloaded), maybe they download the content and open it for themselves to check and see? (wouldn't put it past Rapidshare at this point.)
Then Obama could appoint a judge that actually understood 21st century technology to the court.
Although given how pro-NSA/NSA yes-man/the NSA's biatch[take your pick] Obama seems to be, appointing a technologically competent justice could be a bad thing, because they might side with the surveillance state Gen. Alexander-types on critical Constitutional issues.
As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."
Apparently the judge hasn't heard of this neato Internet gizmo called a proxy before...
My trademark law is a little bit rusty here, but don't you have to aggressively protect your trademark or you forfeit it by default?
Why hasn't BSA been going after the Girl Scouts of America for trademark infringement?
Very important, yet often ignored. Especially by overly paranoid law enforcement.
But for this one you don't even need context. I mean, he flat out says in the tumblr post "pass this around, see if I get arrested". That's probably a hint that he wasn't actually serious. I can understand the police showing up and questioning him at the very least (especially considering six months ago still had Sandy Hook fresh in everyone's minds. Situational context is also important), but locking him up for six months for "making terroristic threats via a computer" when there was absolutely zero evidence that he actually intended to carry out his statement, seems a bit extreme.
Clemmons should've gone with "it's part of a social experiment" instead of "experimental literary piece". Probably wouldn't have worked either, but it'd be more reasonable than Caleb's explanation.
But unless I'm wrong, doesn't the NSA collect 29.21 petabytes of data per day (or 1.6% of the entire internet)? So making 20 million queries to such a large amount of data kinda makes sense. That would be a lot data to sift through, theoretically speaking.
And when you consider that a lot of the NSA's workers might be compartmentalized into small individual groups, it could be a massive case of everyone "on the ground" not knowing that someone else has queried the same thing they are, and the guys who are supposed to be in charge of oversight are the only ones who actually know how much of a mess this actually is.
But still, "we didn't mean it"? Are you kidding me? That doesn't fly with the kid who accidentally breaks the window with a baseball, and it sure doesn't fly with a government organization full of supposedly competent adults.
Fucking hell NSA. You're worse at damage control than Microsoft.
For the record ootb, on any given day the NSA will (on average) collect 9.21 petabytes more data than Google. (NSA=29.21 petabytes versus Google 20 petabytes)
Also unless Google is doing DPI to collect its data, it's nowhere near as invasive as the NSA.
And as many of the others have told you, if you're so paranoid about Google, don't use it.
Did I read Delong's statement correctly?
The way he phrased it as "more than 300" for the NSA's internal privacy compliance program makes it sound like there's under a thousand personnel for that particular program.
Remind me: how many people does the NSA employ again?
Potential for spycam abuse of the Xbox One's Kinect aside (which in all honesty is kinda assuming the worst with [okay, circumstantial] evidence to back it up), the X1 Kinect increased the chances of motion sensor games actually extending beyond the fucking dance craze demographic. Now that the always-connected function for Kinect is no longer mandatory, there's less incentive for the industry to develop QUALITY kinetic-centric games, and not things like the unplayable pile of steaming shit Capcom made named Steel Battalion: Heavy Armor.
Well, I guess as long as the Kinect is included as part of the Xbox One 'bundle', there will still be some incentive.
Seriously though, why can't Microsoft stick to its fucking guns on this? Listening to your customers is good and all, but they shouldn't be bending over backwards to appease the most vocal critics on the Internet. You can't please everyone, so stop trying. [Though I'm not too upset about the always-online requirement getting removed. Sad that the sharing-with-friends feature had to go with it.]
[impersonation of "expert" with weird hair from History Channel's Ancient Aliens]These fake reviews were clearly posted by aliens trying to keep people ignorant of their impending invasion.
Because it'd be too simple for it to be a bunch of telcos trying to smother dissenting opinions!
[/impersonation of "expert" with weird hair from History Channel's Ancient Aliens]
If that's the case, then it's just proof that the national filtering system is a colossal failure (not much of a surprise there).
Re: Re: A lack of info
Hmm... the only possible excuse that could be made would have to over what the Age of Consent is in Montana, which a quick Internet search indicates that in Montana the AoC either 16 or 14.
Still, that excuse would be about as effective as trying to stop a bullet with unrolled paper towels.
But as far as viable reasons go, this guy has none, especially considering that the school district he worked for told in back in '04 not to be alone with female students. That was FOUR YEARS before he started having a relationship with the 14-year-old girl.