The two degree targeting requirement instead of three is still troubling. In order to be qualified for targeting, a single, intermediary relationship is all that is required between me and an named 'terrorist' organization. If I've been targeted in this way, does the targeting reach now extend two degrees away from me?
If I follow an account associated with a known hacker collective, which then follows and is followed by known hacker activists- is the requirement met to target my activity?
What about restaurants on social networks? If Bob's Bacon-Wrapped Bacon and an internally recognized terrorist follow each other, then has the requirement for targeting been met for everyone who follows Bob's Bacon-Wrapped Bacon?
Philosophers and Logicians call this a category error: "Ascribing one kind (or 'category') of thing to another kind". It's like petty a dog while saying "Nice kitty."
Category errors pervade political rhetoric. Pick apart the next article you read on 'terrorists' and 'terrorism' and consider whether the actions and actors in the story have been appropriately categorized.
Sadly, this verbal sleight of hand passes by most people pretty easily. Whether by inherent bias, intellectual laziness, or inattention, such disingenuous category errors are committed constantly.
However, instances like these (from the articles in Mike's post) are excellent opportunities to point out the abundant, willful fallacies bandied by [insert person to blame]. I don't think any one group or person is to blame. It seems that too many people in just the right positions are terribly clueless, unthinking, solipsists disconnected to the affects of their actions.
"In order to eliminate debasing practices and alleviate concerns of authoritarian encroachment, we will instead begin reading everyone's thoughts. This 'Thought Prevention" method renders physical assessment obsolete. In fact, you'll be notified even before leaving your home for the airport whether you've been selected for further interest. We hope to continue to streamline the process with more 'don't come to us, we'll come to you' services."
Ironically, the author has intentionally misused copyright to address an unrelated topic.
As to trotting out copyright in order to undermine criticism- this article doesn't seem to suggest that such a thing has happened. According to this article, Fox News did not seek to universally remove or prevent from publication works containing allegedly infringing content. According to this article, Fox News did blatantly confuse 'copyright rules' with internal marketing policy. Or perhaps the quote from UltraViolet indicates that Fox News misunderstands that 'copyright rules' are not subject to in-house edits.
This article does seem to mix topics intentionally. The summary paragraph tailors the focus significantly toward applying a hatchet to Fox News. The crux of this article isn't about copyright abuse. If it deals with copyright at all, it reveals the rampant ignorance of the general public concerning copyrights through Fox News' obvious misinformation.
The fear of 'the other' shapes community policy in nearly every social-cooperative species (ant colonies, ape communities, etc.). It happens that we wise bipeds have cannibalized its evolutionary utility for social survivalism.
"Cyber" hints at precise description, but remains ambiguous enough for the majority public to create their own monster from it. Cultures of simpler cosmology fear magic, the power to manipulate that which cannot (or should not) be controlled. "Cyber" is the magic of our culture.
This highlights one of the problems in a representative democracy. An elected official can only accurately represent those with whom he or she has meaningful contact. Meaningful contact results in transformative personal knowledge (experience or verisimilitude) as concerns overlap, mesh, and begin to create new perceptions of reality.
Constant exposure to various individuals with a concerted worldview results in a congressperson who cannot accurately represent the constituents of his or her district or state.
In a sense, we vote not for whom we wish to represent us, but for whom we wish to bear the Faustian temptations of monied lobbyists.
It's not that they can't agree on anything to avoid the so-called 'fiscal cliff' (brilliant bit of marketing, that). Rather, the budget is an easy smokescreen (see also 'misdirection', 'feint') to avoid public discourse on NDAA, FISA, and other legislation that would undermine constitutional rights.
This a not conspiracy theory, this is politics in truest form. When many politicians come out the woodwork to make noise on the same bill, it's time to glance around for what they hope will remain unnoticed.
Larry and Curly never caught on to Moe's method (wave left hand until person is distracted by it, then smack person with right hand). Our failure as citizens to engage the political process, the stuff that happens after elections, will make stooges of us all.