Not many people can deal with an employee who runs rings around them in the smart stakes. If this is the case, the smart employee often gets frustrated and bored, and finds things to interest them other than the "main task" (such as building a better toaster, or breaking the NSA's security).
Lex iniusta non est lex. An unjust law is no law at all.
Is it just me, or does this sound like "reds under the bed" for a new age?
We have to keep the population cowed and fearful, otherwise they might actually ask what the hell we're doing. Last century it was fascism and communism, now it's terrorism, it'll be interesting to see what the next bogey-man will be.
I cannot accept the new definition of "literally". It goes against all common sense, and removes the ability to actually mean what the word has traditionally meant.
If you mean "figuratively", use the correct word. It's not that difficult, as long as you know the language - and a large proportion of the people who get it wrong earn their living from language. If you are a journalist who does not know the difference between literal and figurative, you're in the wrong job.
If the money spent on countering "terrorism" was spent on finding a cancer cure, then it would actually save a few lives. Even if the NSA managed to prevent one hundred "terror attacks" per year, then it would still be better spent on cancer prevention and treatment, and would save more lives.
But single "big impact" issues (like preventing another 9/11) are easy to sell and most people ignore the minor side effects (loss of liberties, constant surveillance, control of politicians by the surveillance state...).
Foxes and chicken coops.
As long as the NSA can control the ability of legislators to speak out by saying "it's classified", it will continue to gain power. The whole concept of this assault on freedoms is just ridiculous - a democracy's elected representatives are expected to follow a government agency's instructions. Even their staff can't see some things!
"It's about the terrorists".
So how do you explain the intentions involved in shutting up whistleblowers and prosecuting dissent?
One has to wonder what exactly the NSA has on Feinstein. It must be pretty juicy to keep her in line.
Is "very rare" based on absolute numbers, or proportion? It may mean thousands out of millions of searches were in violation of law and/or policy. It may mean that "we conducted some very rare breaches in order to get dirt on key politicians".
Context is everything.
Two words: cognitive dissonance.
The human mind has an enormous capacity to persuade itself that what it is doing is right and proper and anyone who objects must be crazy.
All takedown requests already are made under penalty of perjury. The problem is that nobody actually cares that the person making the request has perjured themselves, and nobody prosecutes.
WTF Comcast?
The US is practically the only country that has any faith (and yes, that word is deliberately chosen) in lie detectors. They are unscientific to the point that the person behind the machine will admit that they rely on their own judgement rather than the machine that they are allegedly operating.
So the Liberal Democrats are not exactly liberal, nor democratic.
Go figure.
These Prenda assclowns may find themselves locked up and facing contempt charges if they continue on their current course. You can't get to live it up in the Caribbean with your hard-earned (I mean, fraudulently earned) money if you're doing time.
The US might have difficulty winning another Olympic bid any time soon, what with all the diplomats who normally follow the Olympics around and don't necessarily expect their every word to be listened to.
So the US official admitted that anti-terror legislation is being misused? Well done, that fellow.
It's not as if trade agreements are for the benefit of the people, or that their elected representatives have much say in them.