Both remaining silent and requesting a lawyer can be (circumstantial) evidence of guilt in some situations.
Or it could be an indication that I don't understand the law well enough to know how my answers might be interpreted. Or it might mean I don't trust the questioner, so I want a witness on my side for any answers I give. Or I think they are on a fishing expedition and I want to avoid answering in a way that will give them more circumstantial evidence. Or it might be an emotional moment I need a calm third party perspective. Or I want someone to mediate my answers so I don't mistakenly give an incorrect answer and then get charged with lying. Or about five hundred other reasons, none of which have anything to do with me being guilty.
A non answer or a request for a lawyer are not evidence. They might increase suspicion, but actual evidence, not just "acting suspicious", should always be required to convict.
Yes, the talking points are the ones disproved way back in June. But how is poor Roger supposed to know that? He isn't allowed to look at any leaked classified material! For all he knows, this is all the truth, and all these bloggers and reporters saying "NSA does bad stuff!" just don't know the NSA like he does.
They know it better.
...So they can confiscate and kill it. Keeping America safe from Bambi and Fluffy!
"All of the explanations that have been given to us from the beginning of these episodes have proven to be false," Bernardo said.
I can definitely relate.
Exactly. The problem isn't the audits, the oversight, the leakers, the love interest spying, the secret courts and secret laws or any of that. The problem is YOU HAVE THE DATA. You have information you have no business having. If it didn't exist as a collection (that you made) it would never ever be abused. And if the only way to get information that you need was through a narrowly defined court order, it would be much more difficult to abuse. And if all those orders were public, or at worst had a temporary seal, the likelihood of abuse is further diminished.
tldr: don't collect more than you need, and stop doing things in secret and abuses go away.
Addendum: Hollow Man was not a good movie, but I love this line from it: "It's amazing what you can do... when you don't have to look at yourself in the mirror any more." Hide everything and the mirror goes away along with the desire to follow all the little societal norms that enable trust to exist.
I would say he 'knocked it for six', but what he's doing really isn't cricket.
Sorry ootb, you have long since lost your right to call anyone out for being off topic.
I participated in a process of adjudication, not ?coordination? with the executive branch.
We don't believe you. Documents or it didn't happen.
"Yes its the random reports from ?soccer moms? that are the most dangerous. They are a panicky bunch. Soccer moms are a danger to democratic society? "
No, blindly giving in to panicky hyperbolic ravings from any person or group is a danger to society, democratic or not.
Your questions only "beg to be answered" in the context of a flawed viewpoint. You talk of a system that would have to be created to decide if content is "still" classified if it is found publicly. Instead of trying to determine if public information should be declassified, acknowledge that public information is already declassified. Don't try to conform reality to the system, conform the system to reality. Much easier, that.
I don't think the correct response is to constantly censor ourselves so we won't be thrown in jail because of reports from paranoid, delusional soccer moms.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the correct response is to fix a system that throws people in jail for sarcasm, and to stop listening to the aforementioned soccer moms.
I think the specific criticism here is that their "clear rules" are idiotic. In order to not act like they've had a botched lobotomy or like the mythical ostrich with it's head in the ground they need a clear rule that says "public information is no longer classified."
"I wonder if while he was in either of those countries he raised the question of internet freedom, since that seems to be what he champions."
Yes, because that's all we've heard from Snowden is how we need to increase internet freedoms around the globe. Oh wait. No, it's illegal government surveillance of US citizens.
Looks like Kerry has lumped Snowden in with the "People Who Do Things On the Intertubes That I Don't Like" group.
I know, right? 50. Ha! My bear repelling rock has stopped over 9000!!! bear attacks. You just try to prove that it hasn't.
"The fact this industry seems utterly fucking incapable of taking some damn responsibility for itself continues to disgust me"
Winner: most succinct quote of the year.
But he was a contractor, so... /shrugs
Then they can steal at will and destroy their small competitors AND WITH THEM THE JOBS THEY WOULD HAVE CREATED.
As opposed to the jobs the successful 'thief' is creating?
Do you know how to make a Stradivarius violin? Neither does anyone else. Why? There was no protection for creations in his day so he like everyone else protected their creations by keeping them secret.
And in the end, it doesn't really matter.
Our founders: Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and others felt so strongly about the rights of inventors that they included inventors rights to their creations and discoveries in the Constitution.
Jefferson and Madison were very apprehensive about providing monopoly protection to inventors.
For 200 years the patent system has not only fueled the US economy, but the world?s. If we weaken the patent system we force inventors underground like Stradivarius and in turn weaken our economy and job creation.
For 200 years the patent system has been used as a club to beat competitors into the ground. If we eliminate the patent system, innovators from all over the world will be free to build off the works of others without fear of legal ruin forced upon them by established monopolists. The resultant boom in discovery and creation will spur a new golden age in our economy and will result in a huge spike in available jobs.
Who knows who the next Alexander Graham Bell will be.
Maybe it could have been Charles Bourseul, Antonio Meucci, Johann Philipp Reis, or Elisha Gray. All of them have been credited with the telephone's invention. Bell got the patent, so he gets the fame. The telephone would have been created without him, and would probably have spread farther, faster if his monopolies hadn't held it up.
To kill or weaken the patent system is to kill their futures.
To keep the patent system is to kill people.
I would think that a list of our "enemies" should be readily available. After all, I wouldn't want to aid any of them without knowing it.
I wouldn't classify something that uses a key that you inherently leave all over the place for copying as something secure...
Easy fix: use your nipple.