Slashdot Mirror

Sure we do. And we have judges using the COMPAS Recidivism Algorithm to help determine sentences despite evidence pointing toward a bias against black defendants.

The algorithm and data set are proprietary, though, so nobody gets to examine them. Since it can't be absolutely proven that the algorithm is biased, judges are free to continue using COMPAS to justify harsher sentences to black people without anyone being able to claim racism.

Feel free to point out which specific laws make this impossible. There are a lot of defense lawyers, defendants and researchers who will celebrate your name if you can make this problem go away.

2010: 1511, 0 rejected
2011: 1676, 0 rejected
2012: 1789, 0 rejected
2013: 1588, 0 rejected
2014: 1379, 0 rejected
2015: 1457, 5 rejected
2016: 1485, 34 rejected
2017: 1614, 26 rejected

https://epic.org/privacy/surve...

here's the history of FISA orders.

FISA info for 2017:
1614 orders were made
1147 orders were approved
391 orders were approved after being modified
21 orders were rejected

This is a non-story.

I'll just leave this here.

The problem is not at all new, and the Senator is right to allude to the Lawman's predecessors.

I'd be very surprised if the FBI complies with the requested mathematical science based decision process by ANY known "list of the cryptographers with whom you've personally discussed this topic since our July 2017 meeting and specifically identify those experts who advised you that companies can feasibly design government access features into their products without weakening cybersecurity."

The FBI will come back WE ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED to have access. The Senator should counter with science based attacks, "So why haven't we made a law that nullifies that the mathematical reality of encryption is not an excuse to guarantee all access to computer based encryption? If laws make reality happen, why not just make a new law? Well unfortunately, law don't effect reality like that. Math is math.The law doesn't have any control over math even if we really want the law to control math.

I'll just leave this here.

The problem is not at all new, and the Senator is right to allude to the Lawman's predecessors.

Seriously, can you cite some examples of Google leaking private information, or someone being damaged by information stolen from Google?

Easy - here's one that got settled only yesterday. And here's EPIC's take on it (PDF)

Neither of those links tells me what it's actually about. I did some searching and it appears that the complaint is that web browsers send a the Referer header to sites when users click links. So, when a user searches for terms on Google and clicks a result link, the operator of the linked site gets the Referer containing the search terms.

I understand from another post that you work for Google, so I can see why you're motivated to spin things to make the company look better.

I do work for Google, but I have no interest in spinning anything.

However, your post is quite dishonest. The GP criticizes Google as an invader of everybody's privacy. Your reply tries to re-frame the question, by making it whether Google unintentionally gives the data they gather to others.

Intentionally or unintentionally, either way. I did reframe the question, not in terms of intentionality, but in terms of harm. So let me be clearer: Can you give me any examples of users being harmed? I can give you extensive examples of users being helped.

Seriously, can you cite some examples of Google leaking private information, or someone being damaged by information stolen from Google?

Easy - here's one that got settled only yesterday. And here's EPIC's take on it (PDF), where they criticize Google for pushing for a settlement that doesn't block them from continuing their practices, as long as they dump a few extra lines in the privacy policy - which Google knows full well nobody reads.

I understand from another post that you work for Google, so I can see why you're motivated to spin things to make the company look better. However, your post is quite dishonest. The GP criticizes Google as an invader of everybody's privacy. Your reply tries to re-frame the question, by making it whether Google unintentionally gives the data they gather to others. This is not correct. Privacy is not about Google not leaking data to others (and I note you say nothing about selling the data intentionally). Privacy is Google not collecting and not storing all this data, especially from people who haven't even signed up with them. But Google is collecting it all, from Google Analytics, from Google Fonts, from your e-mail, from your phone location, from your credit card purchases and so on. Their whole business model is based on spying on you. And they're the ones who started this trend of tracking and monetizing internet users that is making the Internet worse and worse everyday. That's why Google is the worst company in what regards privacy.

Yet, they have no problems advocating that people be forced to put wireless transmitters on their drones.

You should read the actual lawsuit to find out their problems. They set them forth.

That's the problem with organizations like that: what they do is mostly about self-aggrandizement and preaching to the choir, not principles.

Really, in what way? Do be specific. Offer particular details to support your contention.

Sorry, I don't believe anything they have done has made my life more private or more secure. I think they are irrelevant.

I think your beliefs are irrelevant, what with them not being based on any actual facts.

Ah yes, here it is:

https://epic.org/privacy/cyber...

There's no Federal statute such as you describe. It's not even an Executive Order -- it's just a matter of policy. The "Vulnerabilities Equities Process" allows this: "the government may choose to withhold the information to use it for purposes including law enforcement, intelligence gathering, and 'offensive' exploitation".

https://epic.org/open_gov/eo_1...

but you do have the key to yoru phone. and a judge must be able to compel you to give it up. because no law can be absolute without exception. if you don't trust your judge, then appoint someone else to decide such exceptions. but no matter what, exceptions must be possible.

That is not factually true. See Judge Orenstein's order that Apple should not be able to force to unlock a defendant's phone when the defendant would not do so. It's somewhat obvious you haven't read any case files or you'd know how badly you misconstrued the law.

AC nobody expects a secret US grand jury investigation.
"EPIC Partially Prevails in FOIA Case, Wikileaks Investigation Ongoing"
https://epic.org/foia/doj/wiki...
US government still hunting WikiLeaks as Obama targets whistleblowers (6 March 2015)
https://www.theguardian.com/me...
more at http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj...
"The FBI's "still active and ongoing" probe of WikiLeaks" (March 06, 2015)
http://www.courthousenews.com/...
from https://epic.org/foia/doj/wiki...
i.e. "... the Department of Justice and FBI’s multi-subject investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of classified information published on WikiLeaks, which is “still active and ongoing” and remains in the investigative stage."

AC nobody expects a secret US grand jury investigation.
"EPIC Partially Prevails in FOIA Case, Wikileaks Investigation Ongoing"
https://epic.org/foia/doj/wiki...
US government still hunting WikiLeaks as Obama targets whistleblowers (6 March 2015)
https://www.theguardian.com/me...
more at http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj...
"The FBI's "still active and ongoing" probe of WikiLeaks" (March 06, 2015)
http://www.courthousenews.com/...
from https://epic.org/foia/doj/wiki...
i.e. "... the Department of Justice and FBI’s multi-subject investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of classified information published on WikiLeaks, which is “still active and ongoing” and remains in the investigative stage."

Whereas this forced upgrade is a new way to forcibly fuck their consumer and I find it pretty reprehensible, at least Verizon
has had a pretty documented history of protecting their customers ID's from the *AA. Got to hand it to them for that,

2012
https://torrentfreak.com/veriz...

2003
https://epic.org/privacy/copyr...

https://epic.org/open_gov/eo_1...

Classification Authority is a title given to people, it is a word of art. The Secretary of State, while doing their job is considered an original classification authority. Therefore, as part of her job, Hillary should be able to identify and properly classify information that is considered classified. Her statement that nothing was classified, and the fact that there were paragraph markings indicating Confidential indicates that she didn't even pay attention to the standard training, let alone the extra training she would have gotten as Sec of State.

The ironic thing is that back in ~1992 that the Dept. of Commerce already warned about the the US's policy of encryption hindered the US more then it helped:

* https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

In our April 29, 1992, testimony before your Subcommittee,
we stated that economic espionage hurts U.S. industry. U.S.
vendors of products with encryption capabilities and
telecommunications-service providers also testified that U.S.
government policy hinders both the safekeeping of U.S. industry's
competitive secrets and international competitiveness. They further
testified that because products with commercial encryption technology
are available internationally, the U.S. government should relax
restrictions on the export of such products to improve their ability
to compete in the world marketplace.

A study was commissioned a few years later "A STUDY OF THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET FOR COMPUTER SOFTWARE WITH ENCRYPTION"

* https://epic.org/crypto/export...

In the security specific software market, however, U. S. manufacturers
face competition in several foreign markets from such encryption exporting
countries as the United Kingdom, Germany, and Israel. To a large extent,
markets for these products tend to be "national. " Not only do export
controls affect sales, but local vendors of security-specific products are
at a competitive advantage in that they are better situated to work
closely with end- users and develop encryption solutions tailored to meet
the conditions of the local environment. (U)

In 2000, the "Revised U.S. Encryption Export Control Regulations" had this note:

* https://epic.org/crypto/export...

Note: Encryption software is controlled because of its functional capacity, and not because of any informational value of such software; such software is not accorded the same treatment under the EAR as other "software"; and for export licensing purposes, encryption software is treated under the EAR in the same manner as a commodity included in ECCN 5A002.

The ironic thing is that back in ~1992 that the Dept. of Commerce already warned about the the US's policy of encryption hindered the US more then it helped:

* https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...

In our April 29, 1992, testimony before your Subcommittee,
we stated that economic espionage hurts U.S. industry. U.S.
vendors of products with encryption capabilities and
telecommunications-service providers also testified that U.S.
government policy hinders both the safekeeping of U.S. industry's
competitive secrets and international competitiveness. They further
testified that because products with commercial encryption technology
are available internationally, the U.S. government should relax
restrictions on the export of such products to improve their ability
to compete in the world marketplace.

A study was commissioned a few years later "A STUDY OF THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET FOR COMPUTER SOFTWARE WITH ENCRYPTION"

* https://epic.org/crypto/export...

In the security specific software market, however, U. S. manufacturers
face competition in several foreign markets from such encryption exporting
countries as the United Kingdom, Germany, and Israel. To a large extent,
markets for these products tend to be "national. " Not only do export
controls affect sales, but local vendors of security-specific products are
at a competitive advantage in that they are better situated to work
closely with end- users and develop encryption solutions tailored to meet
the conditions of the local environment. (U)

In 2000, the "Revised U.S. Encryption Export Control Regulations" had this note:

* https://epic.org/crypto/export...

Note: Encryption software is controlled because of its functional capacity, and not because of any informational value of such software; such software is not accorded the same treatment under the EAR as other "software"; and for export licensing purposes, encryption software is treated under the EAR in the same manner as a commodity included in ECCN 5A002.

Intresting that they chose birthdate instead of age, don't you think? Why do you supppose they did that? Have you seen medical research that relied upon birthdate as a key component of the data rather than age?

Their method is sly, but the intent is obvious, and dishonest.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? TONS of medical studies rely on birthdate and many of them used to routinely include it in the published data. The canonical case being the publication from the Massachusetts Group Insurance Commission which Sweeney used to find the specific medical records of the then-Governor using only zip code, birthdate and gender https://epic.org/privacy/reidentification/Sweeney_Article.pdf.

Her research is why HIPAA requires those data values be scrubbed from any research set when it's published.

She's probably just fine with the *state* peeping into your (not her) business. That's the very definition of a self labeled "progressive". Guns, drones, private (no tax man involved) monetary interactions between people, healthcare, retirement, etc.

Actually, Sotomayor is a bit of an outlier on the Supreme Court and has been highlighted for laying the groundwork to reinstate stronger Fourth Amendment protections -- particularly against the government intrusions -- especially in her ruling in United States v. Jones . (For details on her privacy rulings before joining the Court, you can see EPIC's summary here.)

Note that in TFA she was warning about "Orwellian" surveillance, which specifically tends to refer to a world where the government is spying on you, not just private citizens. The quotation highlighted in TFS seems to focus on private citizen regulations, but she has also demonstrated more concern about many government invasions of privacy than most other Supreme Court members, including those who are definitely NOT ''progressives."

As with red light cameras/speeding cameras, car tracking data can be a source of income by state/local gov't. The Feds have restricted the sale of DMV data, so governments are looking for alternatives.

Google treats your data(the product) no differently than Facebook. It is there to be mined for the benefit of the advertisers(the customer) and Google's bottom line.
https://epic.org/2014/03/googl...

From their petition:

15
The FISC and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ("Court of Review") only
have jurisdiction to hear petitions by the Government
or recipient of the FISC Order, and neither party to
the order represents EPIC's interests. Other federal
courts have no jurisdiction over the FISC, and thus
cannot grant the relief that EPIC seeks.

The only people that can appeal the order are the Feds and the people that the feds are ordering around.
EPIC, despite having their metadata vacuumed up, have no standing under the law to appeal to the FISA court.

It's easy for you and others to say "[Epic] didn't follow the proper appeals process"
but AFAIK none of you have actually elucidated what the proper appeals process is under the law.

EPIC has, with citations, laid out their case, starting on Page 14 (PDF)
"Nuh uh" isn't an insightful or interesting rebuttal.

I believe the proper Appeals process starts with an Appeal to the Appeals Court. I'm not sure which Circuit Court they were supposed to use, but they shoulda used that Circuit.

Which they're supposed to lose, because Congress and the Administration have been very careful to follow the letter of Supreme Court precedents and Appeals Courts are not supposed to crack down on people following the letter of the Supreme Court rulings. They're supposed to let that shit happen, and then the Supremes step in and fix the rulings.

From their petition:

15
The FISC and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ("Court of Review") only
have jurisdiction to hear petitions by the Government
or recipient of the FISC Order, and neither party to
the order represents EPIC's interests. Other federal
courts have no jurisdiction over the FISC, and thus
cannot grant the relief that EPIC seeks.

The only people that can appeal the order are the Feds and the people that the feds are ordering around.
EPIC, despite having their metadata vacuumed up, have no standing under the law to appeal to the FISA court.

It's easy for you and others to say "[Epic] didn't follow the proper appeals process"
but AFAIK none of you have actually elucidated what the proper appeals process is under the law.

EPIC has, with citations, laid out their case, starting on Page 14 (PDF)
"Nuh uh" isn't an insightful or interesting rebuttal.

The agency argues that SOP 303's disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the physical safety of individuals near unexploded bombs. Mot. at 13. DHS's thinking goes like this: 1) SOP 303 "describes a procedure for shutting down wireless networks to prevent bombings": 2) releasing information regarding this protocol would enable "bad actors" to blunt its usefulness": and 3) this "could reasonably be expected to endanger the physical safety of those near a bomb by increasing the chances that the process will fail and the bomb will explode".

http://epic.org/foia/EPICvDHS-SOP303-Opinion.pdf

SCIMP provides strong encryption, perfect forward secrecy and message authentication.Further, we have incorporated many NIST-approved methods and protocols into its design including:

• Elliptic Curve Diffie–Hellman (ECDH), NIST 800-56A
• Counter with CBC-MAC (CCM), NIST 800-38C
• Key Derivation, NIST 800-108
• Secure Hash Standard, FIPS 180-4
• Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), FIPS 197

Does anyone else see a problem with with the wording "NIST-approved methods and protocols?" NIST/NSA

See this testimony submitted to the Colorado Board of Education by EPIC:
http://epic.org/privacy/student/EPIC-Stmnt-CO-Study-5-13.pdf
Please donate to EPIC.

https://epic.org/ is EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a stalwart defender of online privacy. EPIC does not appear to have any connection to this browser. This so-called "epic browser" doesn't look like much more than Iron, which was merely a ploy to make money off of ads on the download page. I'm not saying Epic Browser is that same ploy, but the browser doesn't really do anything that Chromium doesn't already do in Incognito mode (most of those 11 potential privacy leaks that epic blocks are Google features not available in Chromium or else can be disabled trivially).

This introduces a potential lag time in security updates (and updates to trackers pulled in from e.g. adblock or noscript) and rides on EPIC's good name. Shame on the developers for naming it so similarly.

All judges are also appointed not by the Chief Justice, but by the President (and confirmed by the Senate). All the Chief Justice appoints are law clerks, staff, and having an influence on who is "admitted to the bar" and able to argue cases before the court.

Perhaps if FISC were a Constitutional court, it would be better. Oh, but a Constitutional secret court is an oxymoron, like 'limited government'.

One would assume that even if an owner of such RFID device frequented these crowded places, instead of, say, commuting by car, he wouldn't be willing to pull the thing out in such environments.

One would be wrong.

DC Metro SmarTrip cards are an RFID device, as are many Federal Employee ID's. Many folks I see on the Metro keep both of them in a plastic sleeve or case on a lanyard hanging around their necks.

It would be very interesting to see what sort of data one could collect while riding the DC Metro.

So you want to convict Google for the stuff that other companies do with private data.

No, I want to see them meaningfully penalised for breaking data protection and privacy laws literally on a global scale.

My point on the others is that you are (again) misrepresenting the penalties. Those settlements you describe are not THE penalty. They are individual settles (the $7m was with a group of US states) in a situation where they were charged in most countries of the world.

The $7M was a settlement with most of the states in the US (38, plus the District of Columbia) and to my knowledge it is (by at least an order of magnitude) the largest financial penalty they have had imposed anywhere in the world for any activity related to the Street View functionality. In real terms, more than two years of illegal behaviour -- and behaviour that was rather offensive in some cultures, such as raising their cameras above normal wall/fence height in Japan for example -- has done them no real damage at all.

But misinformation and sensationalizing of the details of any such case are not helpful.

If you're going to accuse me of misinformation, perhaps you'd have the courtesy to cite anything I've said in this entire Slashdot discussion that is objectively untrue. You're accusing me of sensationalizing, but my arguments are based on verifiable facts.

While you are actually fairly correct on that, the really funny part is how many people think that it's the USA waiting for a chance to kill him

A bit of a "poetical licence" (aka "gross exaggeration") in asserting that many people think "USA waiting a chance to kill Assange", don't you think?

Other than that, I feel Assange has legitimate reasons to be worried given that, as of Jan 2013, the US Dept of "Justice" is still "criminally investigating" Wikileaks. A reluctant admission - EPIC tried to get it by a FOIA and subsequent lawsuit since June 2011, seeking:

* All records regarding any individuals targeted for surveillance for support for or interest in WikiLeaks;
* All records regarding lists of names of individuals who have demonstrated support for or interest in WikiLeaks;
* All records of any agency communications with Internet and social media companies including, but not limited to Facebook and Google, regarding lists of individuals who have demonstrated, through advocacy or other means, support for or interest in WikiLeaks; and
* All records of any agency communications with financial services companies including, but not limited to Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal, regarding lists of individuals who have demonstrated, through monetary donations or other means, support or interest in WikiLeaks

Quoting from DoJ "admission" - in effect, a motion for a summary judgement in EPIC's lawsuit:

On November 28, 2010, the organization WikiLeaks published numerous documents that it contended were Department of State embassy cables. The following day, Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. stated that the Department of Justice had initiated a criminal investigation into the potential unauthorized release of classified information. Compl. 15-16. That investigation continues to this day.

Of course it was Bullshit. The spec documents the TSA put out for the machines specifically required them to be able to save and transmit the images!

Google for 'epic tsa spec', and find this: http://epic.org/open_gov/foia/TSA_Procurement_Specs.pdf

(Not to mention, how'd they get the sample images they show on TSA.gov, if the machines cannot save and transfer images??)

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/google-nsa-secrecy-upheld/

http://arstechnica.com/business/2006/10/8105/

http://www.infowars.com/google-exposed-as-nsa-front/

http://epic.org/foia/epic_v_nsa_google.html

If you have a drivers license (or permit, or non-permit ID) then you have a biometric ID linked to a centralized database. So what the heck is so scary about this one?

"Centralized" database? There is no such thing as a federal database of this sort (yet). There are 50 state databases. A nice feature of that is that if the federal government starts abusing it, the system could be broken by a few states telling the federal government to go screw itself. That split allocation of power is one of the key principles of our federal system. Nor is the idea of this happening so far fetched. From http://epic.org/privacy/id_cards/: "19 States have passed resolutions or laws rejecting the national ID program".

I don't know why I even bother to ask since you think "having an ID is a step toward a police state". That's a loony belief.

It's poor rhetorical form to quote something I didn't say, particularly when I already corrected your simplistic paraphrasing of what I actually said.

Publicizing these type of stories is good, but how can we best see their powers reigned in and actually enforce respecting our rights?

One thing to consider: just in the past few days, the TSA has finally complied with a court ruling from July 2011 that said they had illegally implemented new scanning policies without requesting public comment. EPIC has finally managed to get the TSA to set up the comment system.

Some people might consider submitting comments. The TSA probably won't listen directly. But they will become part of public record, and if a court case ever does manage to really challenge some of the TSA policies, it will be harder for courts to say, "Well, nobody seems bothered very much by all the enhanced scanning and patdowns."

By the way, from the summary:

they are over a month beyond the statutory mandate for issuing a written determination

That's NOTHING. After illegally failing to take public comments before implementing a massive change to the accepted norms for searches, federal courts directly ordered the TSA to comply with taking comments. You can still read all the news stories from July 2011, when people thought we finally had some sort of victory for privacy -- maybe the TSA would finally listen. But they did NOTHING. Presumably, they were just waiting, hoping that Americans would get used to the new searches, and they wouldn't have to deal with the problem. After a full year had passed, EPIC finally got a hearing to consider a writ of mandamus to force the order to be adhered to. (Seriously -- a federal agency refusing to implement a simple court order?? After a year of dragging their feet, the courts, if they were at all honest, should have implemented an emergency stay right then and there and shut down the scanners until the TSA complied... at a minimum. If your average citizen did something like this, they'd be tossed in jail for contempt of court.)

Months more passed, and finally the writ of mandamus was denied, because the TSA said it would finally get around to dealing with this issue by Feb.-Mar. 2013. And it seems they waited until the last few days possible to finally implement the comment system.

If you have something serious to say about this, here's your chance. It may or may not make a difference, but I think it's certainly more likely to be effective than complaining on Slashdot every week or two when a new TSA story comes along.

ATF can't inventory guns dealership, which means they can sell to terrorist and never take it off the books.

ATF has no permeant leadership, so there is no one to create a long term plan to both protect our right to own guns and protect our right to be protected from those who like to kill people.

ATF can't share records, must destroy 20 days so when a criminal or terrorist tries to buy guns, they can try again and there is no record of the repeat offense. We have no idea who is trying to game the system.

On straw purchases only buyer is liable and the standard for conviction is high enough so that people seldom get convicted. Again, if purchase records were kept, then we might know about these staw purchasers. If we had universal background checks, which many people think we do, and the NRA strongly implies we do when they say "apply current laws", then much of this would go away.

You are a typical example of this misdirection. Blame the justice department for not enforcing the laws. Choose a atypical example to show that gun regulation does not work. Hope enough dumb people believe you and aren't smart enough to check the facts. This is exactly what Romney said the liberals did.

Instead of fixing the voting system, how about they first work on not deleting already answered petitions from the website or better yet, not deleting petitions right before they hit 25,000 votes.

Seriously, why did they delete the TSA response? Perhaps they realized that having the TSA administrator John Pistole respond to the "Dismantle the TSA" petition was the same as having no response at all?

I just don't see how Google's plans work out long term unless they want to get into the ISP and carrier business

Maybe they plan to expand on the fibre to the home services they describe here.

When you combine their move into the last mile physical connection business, with their ties to US government intelligence agencies, I can't begin to understand how they are defining the term "evil" in item 6 on their philosophy page, "You can make money without doing evil." On that page, they seem to want to define evil as not correctly labeling advertising. I think most people have a different definition.

Some examples.

1. Collaboration with the NSA. EPIC attempted to find out more about this via FOIA requests, but was eventually rejected.
2. Ties to the CIA funded venture capital firm In-Q-Tel via their acquisition of Keyhole, which eventually became google earth. Around the same time, Rob Painter, Director of Technology Assessment at In-Q-Tel, took the position of Chief Technologist and a Senior Manager for Google Federal at google.
3. Investing, along with In-Q-Tel, in web predictive analysis firm Recorded Future.
4. Working with the DEA to surveil their users. Google and Yahoo are reported to be charging for it, while Microsoft does it for free. I'm not sure which way is more evil.
5. Developing software to eavesdrop on users.

I guess if they changed their name to Panopticon, it would be a little too obvious. And, they might have to fight facebook for it.

Or, you know, the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Just saying.

They've been around since '94, before 'epic' became such an overused word.

led by the Department of Homeland Security

Anything led by the DHS is bound to go from "voluntary" to mandatory (or hyper peculiar) too quickly. I can't imagine the same band of brigands doing such things as this, this , this, or that, and so on and so forth could offer anything constructive to the interweb or anything else.

http://epic.org/privacy/hiibel/

s--t opens up all kinds of possible clues as to what they're really doing in there (courtesy of the RegEx Dictionary):

"Do Epic Salt" could be religious in nature, if only they had the light to go with it.
"Do Epic Scat" could be, well, crappy.
"Do Epic Scot" could be a hint that Sean Connery will play Ballmer in an upcoming movie about Steve Jobs
"Do Epic Seat" could be a hint that they're working on a special chair to offset the major pain in the ass NotMetro is expected to be
"Do Epic Sect" could be a skunkworks project to recruit fanboys
"Do Epic Shat" could be a retrospective on the history of Windows... uh, narrated by William Shatner
"Do Epic Skit" could be a code for the rehearsal to train people to look excited at their store openings, and hide the fact that hired DJs are using iTunes
"Do Epic Slit" could be... nahhh...
"Do Epic Slut" or "Do Epic Smut" could be an indication that MSFT wants to enter the lucrative smut scene and cut off Heffner's air supply
"Do Epic Snot" or "Do Epic Spit" No. Just no.

Personally, I think what they're really saying is they plan to "do shit" to the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Perhaps I misread section 5.2e when they were talking about the use of private communications. They can claim it's needed and just grab it. It's not like we don't have other examples of that happening with Eminent domain (for example)

"(e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate;"

It seems I'm not the only one who's reading this into the order

http://epic.org/2012/07/executive-order-grants-authori.html

As has been pointed out several times, use != seizure. But you're right. This whole thing is a power grab. God forbid we should have our favorite TV show interrupted to have the evil government tell us that a tornado has touched down near our houses or that some wacko has released sarin into the subway system. No that just won't do. Power hungry scum! who the hell do they think they are?

So you are suggesting the government is all rainbows and bubbles when it comes to doing the right thing for our safety and interests. Thank goodness. I had it all wrong ;-)

So EPIC had it wrong too. Glad to hear it. I guess next you're going to tell us you trust your politicians and the government would never do anything inappropriate.

Got it. Thanks for the clarify :-)

Don't put words in my mouth. In several posts just on this thread I made the point that it's stupid to be getting all up in arms about this when the government is doing so many illegal/unconstitutional/unethical things. Why not rail against a real issue, not some trumped up crap meant to make *planning* for government communications in emergency situations look like some sort of secret plot to nationalize the communications infrastructure. Sigh!

Perhaps I misread section 5.2e when they were talking about the use of private communications. They can claim it's needed and just grab it. It's not like we don't have other examples of that happening with Eminent domain (for example)

"(e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate;"

It seems I'm not the only one who's reading this into the order

http://epic.org/2012/07/executive-order-grants-authori.html

As has been pointed out several times, use != seizure. But you're right. This whole thing is a power grab. God forbid we should have our favorite TV show interrupted to have the evil government tell us that a tornado has touched down near our houses or that some wacko has released sarin into the subway system. No that just won't do. Power hungry scum! who the hell do they think they are?

So you are suggesting the government is all rainbows and bubbles when it comes to doing the right thing for our safety and interests. Thank goodness. I had it all wrong ;-)

So EPIC had it wrong too. Glad to hear it. I guess next you're going to tell us you trust your politicians and the government would never do anything inappropriate.

Got it. Thanks for the clarify :-)

Which part exactly is that? I read the order *three* times and couldn't find what you claim is there. Are you lying or just reading the lie in TFS?

Perhaps I misread section 5.2e when they were talking about the use of private communications. They can claim it's needed and just grab it. It's not like we don't have other examples of that happening with Eminent domain (for example)

"(e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate;"

It seems I'm not the only one who's reading this into the order

http://epic.org/2012/07/executive-order-grants-authori.html

As has been pointed out several times, use != seizure. But you're right. This whole thing is a power grab. God forbid we should have our favorite TV show interrupted to have the evil government tell us that a tornado has touched down near our houses or that some wacko has released sarin into the subway system. No that just won't do. Power hungry scum! who the hell do they think they are?

Which part exactly is that? I read the order *three* times and couldn't find what you claim is there. Are you lying or just reading the lie in TFS?

Perhaps I misread section 5.2e when they were talking about the use of private communications. They can claim it's needed and just grab it. It's not like we don't have other examples of that happening with Eminent domain (for example)

"(e) satisfy priority communications requirements through the use of commercial, Government, and privately owned communications resources, when appropriate;"

It seems I'm not the only one who's reading this into the order

http://epic.org/2012/07/executive-order-grants-authori.html

really? How much proof do you need?

http://epic.org/privacy/nsl/#stats

NSL's are almost never even constitutional, so "not legal" wiretaps. Yet they're on an order of magnitude higher. 2700 wiretaps vs 8500 before the patriot act and 140k after the patriot act?

They shifted from legal methods (harder to obtain) to sanctioned but clearly illegal methods (simple to obtain, no judicial oversight, no perjury or accountability).

Rented videos? Noted..

No, not noted http://epic.org/privacy/vppa/ by law. It's why Netflix pitched a hissy that they're not allowed to auto-publish your video rental history on Facebook http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/27/technology/netflix-facebook/index.htm

Gimme a fucking break. What a load of horseshit.

Really? Read this from 2002 http://epic.org/privacy/consumer/microsoft/palladium.html

Apple basically implemented that in iOS.

Re "Citation needed." In many form of links to read
http://epic.org/foia/epic_v_nsa_google.html
"On February 4, 2010, the Washington Post reported that Google had contacted the National Security Agency ("NSA")"
..."stated that the NSA's general counsel had drafted a "cooperative research and development agreement" within 24 hours of Google's announcement of the attack,
which authorized the Agency to "examine some of the data related to the intrusion into Google's systems.""