Slashdot Mirror

The Start button has an associated context menu - http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/27/windows-81-review-hands-on. Just right-click it.

Medical error ranks third among causes of death in the US.

Estimates of risk vary depending on which complications are counted, but it's always in the top 10. Any trip to the hospital results in a 1 in 300 chance of dying from medical mistake. For comparison, your chance of dying in an airplane accident is 1 in 10,000,000 per flight.

A rational plan would spend time and effort where it will do the most good. Instead of inventing new cures and treatments, perhaps we should be looking into ways to make our existing process safer?

For comparison, the risk of death by medical error is higher than the risk of death from diabetes. I'm not saying that diabetes research should be halted, but shouldn't higher risk factors be addressed as well?

That is, as long as those students don't object to being watched constantly by a camera.

I don't meant to sound like a card-carrying member of the Fringe Lunatic Association, but after the multiple recent revelations that the LEO's ride around photographing cars and license plates, USPS photographs all mail, the NSA collects metadata on all phone calls, the FBI and NSA together mine data from social networks—in short, that the US government in fact does all those things that the fringe lunatics warned about for years—it's hard to trust a university, whether state-run or private, with a camera to watch me at my computer in much the same way that it's impossible to trust Microsoft to watch me with an always-on X-Box One camera/mic setup.* I feel that recent events have given students very good reason to question whether the benefits of automatic frustration-recognition software are worth the risk that some sort of data might make its way from the camera to an FBI/NSA/Fusion database, despite the sturdiest ringfences and firewalls of promises, hope, and trust. Really, if the MOOC designers are really concerned about frustration, why not just include an "I'm frustrated! Give me a hint!" button on the user interface? Why monitor faces through a camera, and why propose the idea at the same time that MS's creepy XBox camera idea went down in flames?

Agreed. I think that Snowden hurts his own credibility and his self-professed cause by spilling out all the details of United States espionage activities overseas. Had Snowden had a compelling whistleblower case by simply reporting on US domestic spying; many would view him as a patriot (as he self-proclaimed) for reporting on these abuses. However, muddies the water tremendously, I would even argue crosses the line, by providing details of US intelligence activities overseas, not just to the European Union but also to the Chinese and the Russians. Those actions directly harming his home country, undermining American intelligence activities against nations that have comprehensive espionage programs targeted at the United States (this includes European nations).

So what you, and the parent poster, are basically saying is that if US citizens are being targeted then that's a moral outrage and wholly unacceptable; but the rest of us are fair game.

See, that's a major part of the problem. I know that many Americans think that God appointed the US to be the world's policeman, and therefore they have some kind of divine right to meddle in the everybody' affairs. But, back in the real world, those of us who live in other democratic sovereign states quite rightly regard this kind of intrusion as a moral outrage and wholly unacceptable. How we run our lives is none of America's damn business.

And as for the "everybody does it" and "endangering national security"; as justifications for riding roughshod over everybody's human rights, they are on a par with "won't somebody please think of the children". With the exception of Britain's GCHQ (which calls its version of Prism "Mastering the Internet"), and possibly China, most countries have neither the resources nor the inclination to indulge in this kind of mass surveillance. And the "endangering national security" card is almost invariably played simply to prevent citizens from finding out what dirty their own government (and attendant spooks) is doing; supposedly in their name.

States or "state-likes" like the EU spy on each other, ok.
I find it much more worrying that normal EU citizens are being spied on by UK services. My government (German) tells me they didn't know about it, and of course I am inclined to believe they are not telling me the truth (new default reaction to free world government officials saying something). The reaction our minister of justice got when she dared to demand some clarification from the Brits, a polite "go f**k yourself", is still interesting. Oh, and literally while I write this comment, this just in: (article in german) the NSA also massivcely spies on the german public.

http://pastebin.com/NTJvUZdJ

Deleted Article by The Guardian

Original Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/29/european-private-data-america
Now redirecting to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/info/2013/jun/30/taken-down

===

Revealed: secret European deals to hand over private data to America

Germany 'among countries offering intelligence' according to new claims by former US defence analyst

At least six European Union countries in addition to Britain have been colluding with the US over the mass harvesting of personal communications data,
according to a former contractor to America's National Security Agency, who said the public should not be "kept in the dark".

Wayne Madsen, a former US navy lieutenant who first worked for the NSA in 1985 and over the next 12 years held several sensitive positions within the
agency, names Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain and Italy as having secret deals with the US.

Madsen said the countries had "formal second and third party status" under signal intelligence (sigint) agreements that compels them to hand
over data, including mobile phone and internet information to the NSA if requested.

Under international intelligence agreements, confirmed by declassified documents, nations are categorised by the US according to their trust level. The US
is first party while the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand enjoy second party relationships. Germany and France have third party relationships.

In an interview published last night on the PrivacySurgeon.org blog, Madsen, who has been attacked for holding controversial views on espionage issues,
said he had decided to speak out after becoming concerned about the "half story" told by EU politicians regarding the extent of the NSA's
activities in Europe.

He said that under the agreements, which were drawn up after the second world war, the "NSA gets the lion's share" of the sigint
"take". In return, the third parties to the NSA agreements received "highly sanitised intelligence".

Madsen said he was alarmed at the "sanctimonious outcry" of political leaders who were "feigning shock" about the spying operations
while staying silent about their own arrangements with the US, and was particularly concerned that senior German politicians had accused the UK of spying
when their country had a similar third-party deal with the NSA.

Although the level of co-operation provided by other European countries to the NSA is not on the same scale as that provided by the UK, the allegations are
potentially embarrassing.

"I can't understand how Angela Merkel can keep a straight face, demanding assurances from [Barack] Obama and the UK while Germany has entered into
those exact relationships," Madsen said.

The Liberal Democrat MEP Baroness Ludford, a senior member of the European parliament's civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee, said
Madsen's allegations confirmed that the entire system for monitoring data intercept

http://pastebin.com/NTJvUZdJ

Deleted Article by The Guardian

Original Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/29/european-private-data-america
Now redirecting to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/info/2013/jun/30/taken-down

===

Revealed: secret European deals to hand over private data to America

Germany 'among countries offering intelligence' according to new claims by former US defence analyst

At least six European Union countries in addition to Britain have been colluding with the US over the mass harvesting of personal communications data,
according to a former contractor to America's National Security Agency, who said the public should not be "kept in the dark".

Wayne Madsen, a former US navy lieutenant who first worked for the NSA in 1985 and over the next 12 years held several sensitive positions within the
agency, names Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain and Italy as having secret deals with the US.

Madsen said the countries had "formal second and third party status" under signal intelligence (sigint) agreements that compels them to hand
over data, including mobile phone and internet information to the NSA if requested.

Under international intelligence agreements, confirmed by declassified documents, nations are categorised by the US according to their trust level. The US
is first party while the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand enjoy second party relationships. Germany and France have third party relationships.

In an interview published last night on the PrivacySurgeon.org blog, Madsen, who has been attacked for holding controversial views on espionage issues,
said he had decided to speak out after becoming concerned about the "half story" told by EU politicians regarding the extent of the NSA's
activities in Europe.

He said that under the agreements, which were drawn up after the second world war, the "NSA gets the lion's share" of the sigint
"take". In return, the third parties to the NSA agreements received "highly sanitised intelligence".

Madsen said he was alarmed at the "sanctimonious outcry" of political leaders who were "feigning shock" about the spying operations
while staying silent about their own arrangements with the US, and was particularly concerned that senior German politicians had accused the UK of spying
when their country had a similar third-party deal with the NSA.

Although the level of co-operation provided by other European countries to the NSA is not on the same scale as that provided by the UK, the allegations are
potentially embarrassing.

"I can't understand how Angela Merkel can keep a straight face, demanding assurances from [Barack] Obama and the UK while Germany has entered into
those exact relationships," Madsen said.

The Liberal Democrat MEP Baroness Ludford, a senior member of the European parliament's civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee, said
Madsen's allegations confirmed that the entire system for monitoring data intercept

The US doesn't do international law.

Also yesterday there was this ex-NSA guy accusing seven EU countries of having secret deals with the US to share communications data. (confirming long held suspicions and subject of one interview last week with a member of the Dutch secret service which was hastily denied by the responsible minister)

Now the Guardian piece on it has been taken down pending investigation.

At least the big boys are having to work hard intimidating spreading misinformation and sowing doubt.

Quick stupidity check for you: Does the link http://guardian.co.uk/ work for you, and are you using a computer attached to the unclassified US military network?

Based on your answers, see if you can guess whether the US Army has successfully blocked all access to the Guardian website.

As the Gay Population is probably between 3%-10% I doubt that make it a major factor.

Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are

In surveys conducted in 2002 and 2011, pollsters at Gallup found that members of the American public massively overestimated how many people are gay or lesbian. In 2002, a quarter of those surveyed guessed upwards of a quarter of Americans were gay or lesbian (or "homosexual," the third option given). By 2011, that misperception had only grown, with more than a third of those surveyed now guessing that more than 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian. Women and young adults were most likely to provide high estimates, approximating that 30 percent of the population is gay. Overall, "U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian," Gallup found. Only 4 percent of all those surveyed in 2011 and about 8 percent of those surveyed in 2002 correctly guessed that fewer than 5 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian.

Gallup survey claims 3.4 percent in U.S. are LGBT
Study sees gays as 1.7 percent of population (US)
1.5% of Britons say they are gay or bisexual, ONS survey finds

"Obama's actions are often quite different than his rhetoric"... like any politician. ..

Or most human beings.

What the government hates most about the TEA Party is that it was largely dispersed and lacking centralized leadership and hierarchy.

SMH. The "tea party" movement was started by an astroturf movement put together by Fox News, Americans for Prosperity, and Koch Industries. Plenty of centralized leadership and hierarchy there.

I forgot to add that while I'm sympathetic to your point of view, it appears that from a purely legal point of view, the authorities appear to have ensured that their actions are clothed with a fig-leaf of legality. Whether their actions have any moral justifications is an entirely different matter.

What is particularly repugnant is that these overly broad surveillance powers may have already been used to target civil liberty groups in the UK. I would think that it is a clear abuse of power to spy on parties perceived to be 'anti-government' instead of the terrorists they ostensibly were meant to root out when the laws were enacted.

Hanssen and Ames were handing over things like troop strength, locations of CIA operatives, etc. to the Soviets for cash. They weren't blowing the whistle to the press on an illegal internal spying program. Pretty big difference there.

So, let me ask you something....

As he pulled a small black suitcase and carried a selection of laptop bags over his shoulders, no one would have paid much attention to Ed Snowden as he arrived at Hong Kong International Airport. But Snowden was not your average tourist or businessman. In all, he was carrying four computers that enabled him to gain access to some of the US government's most highly-classified secrets. -- more

What exactly does he have on those four laptops? So far he has pretty much only released a few PowerPoint slides, a few documents. That doesn't take much space. What does he have that he hasn't released? What does he intend to do with it? A little bargaining maybe? What will his source of income be, and from whom?

You claim that the surveillance being conducted by the NSA was illegal - what is your source for that? Can you point to a court decision against it? Could you be overlooking the Article II powers that the courts have previously recognized?

Just curious.

I wish they'd go after the NSA with as much fervor. But I guess it's easier to punish an individual.

The authorities (up to and including the president) that we the people have invested with power are the ones who gave the NSA free reign and get out of jail free cards. Free from the inconveniences of law, transparency or meaningful oversight (no matter how much their media campaign speeches try to say otherwise - look at the facts).

The only way "they" would go after this is if third party candidates had a clean sweep into power based on issues like this. Fortunately for "them" - most media channels are complicit/owned and will fight to distract, muddy or otherwise diffuse and public rage about this (and any other) issues...

After Gorbachev took office, somebody here started translating the entire day's Pravda into English, and I was able to read it. What I saw looked pretty good. They did feature stories that looked like the New York Times written by Dostoyevsky. It certainly compared well to the Wall Street Journal editorial page. They had a job to do, which was to figure out how to reform the Soviet Union, and they did a pretty good job. Unfortunately external forces intervened.

I know people who were born in the Soviet Union, and I know people who worked as newspaper correspondents in the Soviet Union, so I am well aware that they were under censorship and couldn't say certain things. I realize that the U.S. press is freer in many ways that the press in most other parts of the world.

In the Soviet Union, you were not allowed to criticize socialism. In the U.S., you were allowed to criticize socialism. Well, yeah. That's not freedom.The press in the U.S. would be a lot freer if they were able to criticize capitalism. If you were to study the history of the press in the U.S. over the last century, you'd see that a lot of Americans went to jail for publishing articles that were critical of capitalism. Look up the Supreme Court case of Dennis v. United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_v._United_States In the Soviet Union you go to jail for criticizing the Soviet Union. In the U.S. you go to jail for criticizing the U.S. That's freedom?

Look at the coverage of health care in the runup to Obama's health care reform. Try to find an article about single payer health care in the New York Times. There wasn't one. That was corporate censorship on behalf of powerful interest groups. Maybe the freedom of the press here looks pretty good to you. It doesn't look that good to me.

Interestingly, when American establishment journalists criticized the Soviet press, they used to seize on the very problems that we had in our own press and argued that in the Soviet Union, those problems were worse. In America journalists get fired for criticizing the government? Well, in the Soviet Union journalists go to jail for criticizing the government. So they're worse.

We've had this discussion here of the U.S. vs. the Soviet Union all during the cold war. I think most Americans were better off in the U.S. But if you just look at the Jim Crow laws, black Americans were under so much repression here that many of them would have been better off in the Soviet Union.

Now this terrorism business has become an excuse for taking away freedoms that had been settled issues, like the Fourth Amendment right to be free of government spying, which is what Snowden is all about. It used to be that the government couldn't read my mail without a court order. Now they can read my email whenever they want. They can track my cell phone. What was it again that was so bad about East Germany?

I'm an American. I'm not an uncritical booster of my political system. It's not like being a football fan. We have lots of problems here, we don't seem to be solving them, and if we don't solve them, we won't be the economic leader of the world for many more years.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/19/decline-fall-american-society-unravelled
Working class people can't even afford to get a college education any more, which is not a complaint I ever heard by people from the Soviet Union.

I see you left Britain off that list, as it should be. Even the majority of its press is cowed and subservient these days. Should probably strike off Australia as well it is well on the way down the slippery slope, NZ is on the knife edge... Oh, and forget Sweden while your at it - what a corrupt, shady country it has become.

According to the Guardian, Snowdon is not on the plane to Havana.

Snowden has ties with the Guardian.

According to the Guardian, Snowdon is not on the plane to Havana.

"Obama's actions are often quite different than his rhetoric"... like any politician. That is why websites like the Political Memory by La Quadrature du Net are so interesting and give real hope for change: Believe what they have done, not what they say they did (or will do).

Now, if only the population at large would flock to use such tools on election day... but as it is, the village keeps voting time and again for one of the two village liars who both just happen to be backed by the biggest landowner(s) in town - to everyone's long term detriment. Oh and the town message billboard happens to be controlled by the said landowners. We have not progressed very far politically, it would seem...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa is an example of a Snowden sourced document that provides more information about the operation of arguably legitimate intelligence gathering activities than is necessary to prove breach of the constitution.

In a world where seismologists can be jailed for not predicting an earthquake anything is possible.

However, in an experiment, a Dutch town removed basically all traffic signs and were considerably safer, because instead of relying upon signs and stoplights to tell them what to do, they had to instead actually pay attention to their surroundings. Believe it or not, we generally have strong instincts for self-preservation, and social mechanisms often work better than rules or legal mechanisms when no such system exists.

Correlation != Causation.

The Dutch and that part of Europe are much better drivers in general than most nations, especially the United states. There are strict requirements for getting a license and driving is considered a privilege, not a right. It's also quite easy to lose your license. Any speeding infringement over 30 KPH is an automatic 1 month suspension. This could easily be explained by the fact the Dutch are simply better drivers.

Now lets perform this experiment in nations without stringent driver standards or effective law enforcement. Lets try the Philippines... You dont even need to bother removing the signs as Filipino drivers ignore them anyway. Traffic there is chaos and deadly.

Lack of traffic control devices wont solve gridlock, in fact it will create more. Especially in nations where people already choose to ignore common sense whilst driving. Coincidentally, because of the lower speeds that gridlock results in there will be fewer pedestrian deaths.

Yes, there are no other differences in China and other countries that could impact this difference, such as vastly differing viewpoints on human rights and value of individuality. Also, what kind of mental gymnastics does it take to associate a lack of parking tickets with it being dangerous to cross the street? Parked cars are rarely a danger to anyone, especially a pedestrian.

However, in an experiment, a Dutch town removed basically all traffic signs and were considerably safer, because instead of relying upon signs and stoplights to tell them what to do, they had to instead actually pay attention to their surroundings. Believe it or not, we generally have strong instincts for self-preservation, and social mechanisms often work better than rules or legal mechanisms when no such system exists.

Interesting speech by President Clinton in Edinburgh this week.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/21/clinton-nsa-scotland-speech

I would expect a speech from a past US President who was also smart enough to be a Rhodes Scholar, to carry some weight.

However, I somehow think that nuance and thoughtfulness expressed in that short article will probably not jibe with the prejudices of the Slashdot peanut gallery.

I still think that Snowdon, like many commenters here, is a twit. Snowdon in particular is a dangerous twit because he's not qualified to judge the impact of the secrets he's leaking being made public. I hope for his sake that he doesn't end up with blood on his hands.

Also rather interesting is that the guardian is reporting that wikileaks is assisting him and that he is travelling with a couple of wikileaks' legal advisers to make sure everything goes along relatively smoothly: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/23/edward-snowden-arrives-moscow

a Chinese propaganda officer, so called "50 cents".

As opposed to a US propaganda officer that leverages software to allow one person to impersonate multiple people at the same time?

Of course, they couldn't possibly be on US social sites, just like the NSA cannot and does not spy on US citizens. The intelligence service said so and if you can't trust our intelligence agencies, then who can you trust.

Skype has been backdoored, even before MS got their hands on it. You can bet MS wasn't in the dark about this, either.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/georgian-woman-cuts-web-access

Now you not only have to take out the machine, its minions, but the country itself. And if more than one government back the machine? Such as NATO, or CSTO? Then what? Now you have to take out entire military alliances.

Then you're not talking about a machine apocalypse but rather business-as-usual. It's not until the machine turns against its creators/owners that there is a problem. Otherwise it is doing exactly what it was spec'ed to do.

This is one of the main reasons I want this country to abandon its two-party system.

Oh, not again. Every once in a while ignorant people complain about America's "two-party system" — failing to account for the vast differences between our political system and that of most of the Democracies of the world.

You see, we do not have parties in the same sense as other countries. Voters here vote for individuals, whose party-affiliation is fluid and non-binding. Every once in a while an elected official may switch their party — without any legal consequences. In other countries voters vote for a party, who then pick individual politicians to fill the slots the legislature. The number of slots is in proportion to the total number share of votes won by the party.

Though some State-laws regulate the parties in the US, there is nothing about them in our Constitution or Federal Law. And for good reason — Americans vote for individuals, not parties. Whether that's "better" or "worse" is another topic, but it is different. There is no law regulating the establishing of a party, or how it is operated. Oh, and we have multiple parties: Communists of different kind (as usual for them), Libertarians, Green... That they aren't winning many offices is not the fault of the system...

BTW, if you think, a multi-party system (however it is achieved) will automatically be better — think again.

The most innovative theater going these days is not "security theater,' but "civil rights theater." As demonstrated above, the dialog is ever more scintillating and persuasive. The plots ever more colorful. The fiction ever more developed. The distraction from the real world ever more enticing. But every once in a while, ugly reality blows up in your face, with the threat to do so again.

7 July 2005 London bombings
Major terror attack on scale of 7/7 foiled every year in UK, police reveal
At Least 4,000 Suspected of Terrorism-Related Activity in Britain, MI5 Director Says
MI5 warns al-Qaida regaining UK toehold after Arab spring
What do British Muslims think of the UK?

These results are from a poll of Muslim students:
– 33% claim that killing is justified if done to protect religion.
– 40 percent support the introduction of sharia for British Muslims.
– 33 percent support a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia.

Well, enjoy the show. Don't worry if you miss today's performance, it will have a long run.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa

Right now the developed nations are THIS CLOSE to an irreversible tipping point beyond which civilization collapses and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/temperaturevariations-in-past-centuries-and-the-so-called-hockey-stick/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange

Before that happens , people will begin to realize that it's going to happen. At that point, far before it actually happens, people will begin to act as if it's already happening.

  Mass uncontrollable immigration as millions of desperate people ignore international law, barbed wire and guns in a desperate bid for potable water and food under the pressure of world-wide crop failures.

Total economic breakdown as every penny is spent in either desperate remediation, law enforcement or moon-shoot attempts to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

World wide wars destabilizing Western-friendly nations as radical Islam hitches itself to global warming and the virulent most anti-social forms of fundamentalism becomes a majority viewpoint .

Focusing their angst against the West, they topple Pakistan, get hold of their nukes and do not miss a beat in using them against India and the US, adding fallout and mass panic to the witches brew of the hell life on earth has become.

The President of the United States , the CIA and all other government agencies and agents don't just have the legal right to prevent that scenario from ever materializing, they have a sworn duty to do so.

If that means silencing the psychopaths like Koch and Ailes and Murdoch and Hannity and Forbes and Limbaugh and Watts and all of the other engineers of denialism, then that's what that means. Their lives and greed and sociopathic lifestyles are not more important than the lives of the billions of people thew world over they have chosen to exterminate.

This country right now is arguably in a slow motion civil war with rational people who base their actions on empirical evidence and science on one side and Ayn Randian societal rapists, apocalyptic Christian fundamentalists and sociopaths on the other.

The fact that it's a slow motion bomb the other side is determined to set off means nothing. They will, if they're not stopped, exterminate not just us, but all future generations for all time. A bomb is a bomb is a bomb and a bomb thrower is a bomb thrower is a bomb thrower.

Every nation on this earth should treat deniers and polluters as the clear and present danger to their national security that they are.

If you shout "no fire" in a burning theater and work to make people believe there is no fire when any reasonable person working in good conscience would conclude form the same evidence that there is , then that's murder.

If you think the government isn't going to take the accumulated evidence of what you said, what you posted what you tried to get others to believe and use it to prosecute you as an agent of denial in a near future Crimes Against Humanity trial. then you haven't read history very carefully.

The legitimate government of any sovereign nation has a right to stop the actions of terrorists whose actions are provably a threat to their national security and the security of their people.

This has been affirmed even in the United States, which itself has unilaterally sought and killed people it deems terrorists in foreign nations.

By this reasoning, citizens of the United States whose actions threaten the national security of other nations can legally be subject to executive action on the part of those nations.

In fact, every nation has a right to ensure the national security of its peoples against terrorists, wherever those terrorist may reside and whatever device those terrorists may chose as a weapon.

Denier = terrorist.

Why does it matter if someone is a "us person"? Fuck off spying on me America.

I doubt "they" are spying on you so much as spying on the people around you that HM government are watching, concerned about, and which emerge from the population segment that will constitute a rapidly growing percentage of the population unless native Britons begin having children again.

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser
7 July 2005 London bombings
At Least 4,000 Suspected of Terrorism-Related Activity in Britain, MI5 Director Says - A few years old, but I doubt it has changed much.
MI5 warns al-Qaida regaining UK toehold after Arab spring
What do British Muslims think of the UK?
Muslim Gangs Enforce Sharia Law in London
2066: White Britons will be in the minority in UK
The British women converting to Islam
David Cameron studies plans for multi-faith Lords - ... where Muslim imams could sit alongside Anglican and Catholic bishops.

I suspect that the future Troubles will leave people pining for the old Troubles unless these portents change. Of course if you like goat, and prefer your women veiled, it may not be all bad. Of course singing Jerusalem will likely be considered "offensive" at some point.

" Where the NSA has no specific information on a person's location, analysts are free to presume they are overseas, the document continues." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant

Great! so all they have to do is strip the locale info before handing the data to their analysts. One bounce through an offshore relay should do the trick.

" Where the NSA has no specific information on a person's location, analysts are free to presume they are overseas, the document continues."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant

Only authorized? How about Bank of America, Wachovia, Standard Chartered and the other banks?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-31/money-laundering-banks-still-get-a-pass-from-u-s-.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-09/fbi-says-cartel-used-bank-of-america-to-launder-money.html

The European Arrest Warrant was brought after he had left Sweden. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/18/sweden-arrest-warrant-julian-assange

Misery for 10 million households as BT raises prices.
BT's 6% landline price rise.

Further, what he's "wanted for questioning" about isn't a crime in the United Kingdom (no, he's not been accused of "rape" in the traditional sense, he's been accused of continuing consensual intercourse after a condom broke after having agreeing to use one,) nor the US, nor most other countries on earth.

Sorry, that's simply not true. Regardless of whether you believe Assange is innocent or guilty, he has been accused of: (i) forcefully holding down a woman and spreading her legs in order to penetrate her against her will; and (ii) non-consensual sex with a sleeping person who had explicitly told him no.

Now, you're free to disagree with both those allegations, free to accuse the entire justice department of Sweden of slander or whatnot, but you're not free to lie about what the accusations are or whether they're considered crimes.

Lots of people turn to raping after making speeches criticizing the primacy of the U.S. dollar, or revealing U.S. top secret documents. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if Edward Snowden weren't considering raping some poor women right now, or molesting kids, or selling secrets to the Chinese, or kicking puppies.

If you want to know what the FISA Rubber Court is about:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/19/fisa-court-oversight-process-secrecy

[Facial recognition software] will probably NEVER achieve the reliability standard of a fingerprint, let alone DNA.

Fingerprint matching has no "reliability standard" to speak of, and is likely far less reliable than you may have been led to believe.

Actually, its far more reliable than you have been led to believe.

Whereas I gave you the benefit of the doubt, (and provided a source to support my position,) you've somehow definitively assessed the reliability of fingerprinting, and conclusively determined that I've been misled. As such, I provide the following sources discussing the poor reliability of fingerprinting (in chronological order, 2001-2013) so that others can steer clear and avoid being misled like I was:

Fingerprinting's Reliability Draws Growing Court Challenges
Will Fingerprinting Stand Up in Court?
Investigation: Forensic evidence in the dock
The Real Crime: 1,000 Errors in Fingerprint Matching Every Year
Study questions reliability of fingerprint evidence
Forensic Tools: What’s Reliable and What’s Not-So-Scientific
Deeper into forensic bias
Fingerprint [Validity]

Its just that the numbering system was only intended to allow a computer sort of likely
candidates for manual inspection, but because manual inspection takes some time
and training, some jurisdictions will go just by the numeric analysis, and further
they will accept fewer and fewer actual features to match, especially when partial
prints are all they have.

It's "just that," hm? Sounds legit — though I fail to see how this demonstrates that fingerprinting is "far more reliable than [I've]have been led to believe."

Defense lawyers delight in bringing in their own fingerprint expert and showing up
the state, especially when its as easy as showing the jury two full sets of
prints. Things become very obvious very quickly.

What has this got to do with the reliability of fingerprinting? You wanna know what I'd delight in, is you providing some evidence that supports your claim that fingerprinting is far more reliable I've been led to believe.

Question:
ewenmacaskill 17 June 2013 3:07pm
I should have asked you this when I saw you but never got round to it........Why did you just not fly direct to Iceland if that is your preferred country for asylum?

Answer:
Leaving the US was an incredible risk, as NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored. There was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained. Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current US administration.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower

From the Guardian's Edward Snowden Q&A (definitely worth a read):

Q. What are your thoughts on Google's and Facebook's denials? Do you think that they're honestly in the dark about PRISM, or do you think they're compelled to lie?
Perhaps this is a better question to a lawyer like Greenwald, but: If you're presented with a secret order that you're forbidding to reveal the existence of, what will they actually do if you simply refuse to comply (without revealing the order)?

A: Their denials went through several revisions as it become more and more clear they were misleading and included identical, specific language across companies. As a result of these disclosures and the clout of these companies, we're finally beginning to see more transparency and better details about these programs for the first time since their inception.
        They are legally compelled to comply and maintain their silence in regard to specifics of the program, but that does not comply them from ethical obligation. If for example Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple refused to provide this cooperation with the Intelligence Community, what do you think the government would do? Shut them down?
[Emphasis mine]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Water_Army

The US does similar: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

And I would imagine at the cost, many countries do it. Its kind of like affiliate marketing, but more honest.

Absolutely, honour killings count as normal behaviour in Islamic countries. I was just refuting the assertion that people carried out "honour killings" because they came from backward countries rather than because they were following the teachings of Islam

He said "patriarchal countries" shit head not "backward".

OK, so you don't consider highly patriarchal countries to be backward. I do.

Just because a bunch of fucked up men twist around their religion, doesnt mean the entire population following it should be condemned nor the religion be disgraced!

Yes this is exactly what I said about their being some Hindus and Sikhs. I could also add Christians. However Islam is unique in that it is a command of the religion:

Sahi Muslim No. 4206:
“A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her.”

I dont see how you are any better than they are with regards to tolerance!

Because I don't advocate subduing those of other faiths, killing people who change faith, killing relatives for honour, etc.

Parents buy Internet access. Parent buy computers. By definition, since child labor is forbidden.
All Internet is already accessible only for 18 or older. Now if some parents don't want to or not able to parenting their children, then it is their problem. (I'm talking about private home, schools, libraries etc. can have their filter system if they want).

Today it is porn, tomorrow it will be Wikipedia, next day the Torrent site and next day it will be the Twitter post that is anti UK government. First it is "to protect children", then "to fight terrorists", then "to prosecute traitors" (aka whistleblowers).

You want to bed how fast the next legislature will include Torrent sites?
You want to bed how fast such news such as GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians' communications at G20 summits will find their way in the porn filter by "accident"?

Benevolent dictatorships are fine as long as you agree with the king/laird/CEO/ whatever.

Fall out with him and you'll lose your house, your job, and all those related to you might suffer. Rich people running islands is not a great long term plan. Ask the population of Eigg in Scotland, for example. All good until your nice rich person gets bored with his toy and neglects local services that people need, or sells it to a Bad Rich Person, etc.

I would have though US citizens, of all the places in the world, would have a historical perspective on what happens when uncaring kings run your country, and what the poor but honest citizens should do to resolve the lack of decision making power.

Very curious. Of course Ellison might be a lovely chap and improve the situation - it sounds like people do need improved services... but one man owning an island and having no accountability on his decision making power over people's homes and jobs, this makes me nervous... it's not like the people living here can change employers or move down the road if they are unhappy, it's an island. I'd be interested to hear his thoughts about the democratic processes, how the local people have the option to veto his decisions if they disagree, and so forth.

If he's really in it for the long term, wouldn't it make more sense to go for independence from the USA and ask the people to elect him as their President?

Supposedly this is more than made up for by the fact they can live the rest of their life how they feel they should be.

Maybe. There are people that do regret it. If you do, there's no magic reset available. On this earth you will never fully be again what you once were.

Are sex change operations justified?

Sex changes are not effective, say researchers

'I will never be able to have sex again. Ever'

But what worries other psychiatrists is the mounting evidence that surgery may not actually improve the lives of those who feel they were born with the wrong body. A review of more than 100 international studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham found there was no scientific evidence that surgery was effective and, in many cases, patients were left feeling more distressed. Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University — which housed one of the pioneer gender clinics — no longer performs sex-change surgery due to such concerns.

A recent British review found suicide rates of up to 18 per cent among people who had undergone gender reassignment surgery. Doctors from London's Portman Clinic say they see many patients who feel trapped in "no-man's land" after surgery, finding themselves with a body which is no longer recognisable as male or female. Psychotherapy, the experts believe, may have saved them from such a fate but few gender clinics offer it. -- more

Long-term follow-up of transsexual persons undergoing sex reassignment surgery

It's a difficult issue for all concerned.