See, this isn't just not the story the surveillance maximalists want to tell. And it goes deeper than saying encryption doesn't matter.
This suggests that the mass surveillance mentality itself is partly to blame.
We already know that France and most of the rest of the EU has NSA-type powers to collect it all and sort through the pile later. This means they probably had all the evidence they needed but couldn't stop it anyway. There's too much data to search in real time in any meaningful way. A more focused targeting of surveillance would greatly reduce the analysis paralysis.
Which leads to a point I've been making all along., that there are two realities to mass surveillance: 1) If they are parsing it all in real time, they may be able to prevent an attack, but this gives lie to the claim that your data is never being searched (everybody's must be included in the data set). 2) If they are only looking at it in hindsight, they can be more specific about the selectors and exclude more people, but this gives lie to the claim that they can prevent an attack in the first place (it can only be investigated).
Exactly. They are saying 41% of their workforce are anglo-American straight males. A group that makes up slightly less than 30% of the American population. That makes 2014 reflect reality, and not much more. I'd guess that 28-30% of the population makes up a somewhat higher percentage of the workforce, which makes Comcast better at this than many (most?) other companies, but it's hardly a superhuman effort.
Given the state of the software industry, they're probably just collecting evidence that people do, in fact, read the EULA, so it must be legally binding. Then they can start to get even more onerous in the T&Cs.
This would all be a lot less painful for the average angsty teenager if they would just say something like,
"Our service involves displaying your content (text, pictures, videos, etc) to other people. That's the whole point. Social media is social. By uploading your content, you are giving us permission to display it. If you don't want your content to be seen by others, keep it on your own system."
The Laszlo Effect somehow manages to be even worse than the Streisand. Not only is the offender calling more attention to something unintentionally, that thing they were trying to hide in the first place is what a massive piece of shit they are.
After browsing some of the titles, and without doing any deep research at all, it looks like a significant percentage of these movies should probably be in the public domain anyway. At the time they were made in the 40's - 60's, before all the extensions, copyright terms were generally capped at around 56 years.
To be fair, there are some more recent titles available, so that's not a blanket statement, just something I noticed.
But the cynic in me thinks this may actually be a ploy to get some sort of renewed protection on films that have not been made available in any legal way for decades, so they don't appear to be abandoned.
This, to me, is the most baffling part of the whole story.
Here we have an agency that has shown no ability to self-police, and is in dire need of even a little oversight. When pushed on that fact, they double down on the stupid and prove to even the most apologetic supporter that maybe somebody outside the organization need to peek behind the curtain a little. And what's the response from Johnson? "No, it's cool. The Oversight Committee doesn't need to get any more involved, the Secret Service can handle this on their own."
What. The actual. Fuck?
Jeh Johnson: "The Secret Service is above the law."