Slashdot Mirror

It listens to everything you and your family are saying, all the time. Then Microsoft reports to the murderers at NSA. Even if you "have nothing to hide", on principle alone, you should refuse to buy this kind of product.
Plus, if you have kids, you never know if they are not going to do some good deed, worth of punishment. If they say something "wrong", the FBI might send someone to turn them into "terrorists", entrap and arrest them.

Eric and "Anna" is a short about one "eco-terrorist" made by the FBI.

Years after McDavid's conviction, the FBI released thousands of pages of FOIA requested documents not disclosed at trial (...)
In January 2015, after serving nearly half of his 20 year sentence, Eric McDavid was released from prison. As a condition of his release, he waived his right to sue the government for any wrongdoing in his case.

Wouldn't you feel terrible if your kids ended up in jail because of FBI entrapment started because of something they said close to the video-game that you bought? It's not tin-foil since we know they are really doing it.

" I think it’s an upgrade in intellectual property protections,”

Just the guy we need, another Joe Biden. Source

Not an idle question. Here he is schmoozing with Hillary: https://theintercept.com/2016/...

So long as Erdogan does as he is told, nothing. So long as he is our bastard, he can do what he wants.

That is the question, isn't it?

We know that the NSA hunts SysAdmins in order to gain control over the systems and networks they manage. With that level of access inside Juniper, the NSA could easily have added these features themselves. In that case, kudos to Juniper for discovering the features and fixing them. Now they need to discover how they were added and what level of access the NSA has inside their systems.

We also know that the NSA receives voluntary cooperation from numerous network providers. This could have allowed them access to Juniper credentials, or they might even have had the cooperation of Juniper management or turned Juniper admins.

Or it may have been honest bugs.

I imagine that with the "most transparent administration in history" we may never know, unless we get more whistleblowers and better whistleblower protections.

That is the question, isn't it?

We know that the NSA hunts SysAdmins in order to gain control over the systems and networks they manage. With that level of access inside Juniper, the NSA could easily have added these features themselves. In that case, kudos to Juniper for discovering the features and fixing them. Now they need to discover how they were added and what level of access the NSA has inside their systems.

We also know that the NSA receives voluntary cooperation from numerous network providers. This could have allowed them access to Juniper credentials, or they might even have had the cooperation of Juniper management or turned Juniper admins.

Or it may have been honest bugs.

I imagine that with the "most transparent administration in history" we may never know, unless we get more whistleblowers and better whistleblower protections.

Going forward I know I am feeding a troll, but I will explain just in case you really have the IQ of a four year old.

In this context the companies are consulting with ex-cia. They aren't teaching the ex-cia guy the ex-cia guy is teaching them.

If you're teaching something you must have some level of experience prior. There's only two types of people in the world that I can think of that would have experience data-mining social media; SJW's and individuals acting at the behest of a Nations security or military agencies. What the CIA does is obviously classified, but it goes without saying that people coming out of Govt organizations with this kind of teachable knowledge that *just happens* to align with the objectives our Govt has been requesting it's not a leap at all to come to the conclusion that CIA has been data-mining social media.

Oh wow, look at this:

https://theintercept.com/2016/...
http://www.digitaltrends.com/s...
http://securityaffairs.co/word...
http://www.usnews.com/news/art...
http://www.commondreams.org/ne...

google: Cia data mining social media

U.S. Customs is just a late comer to the party that's already been going on that you're calling me a conspiracy nut over. News is out man, Go home, and go to bed.

There a lot of evidence that the NSA is paying people to improve their public face. This is called astroturfing.

There is too a massive amount of evidence that the NSA does not give a shit about the law (massive spying on the US citizen, lying to the congress, ...).

When I read a post on the internet not linked to evidence I have a strong feeling to be manipulated... There is massive lack of evidence for the hypothesis "the people at NSA behave accordingly to the law" and a lot of evidence against it.

As with everything else, the Europeans will blame the US for this.

The Belgiums can blame the UK, it was the GCHQ that hacked Belgacom, their biggest telco.

So when do we put these spooks in jail for their crimes?

First of all, FBI aren't "spooks" — you are confusing them with the CIA and other no-such-agencies. FBI are federal police, not spies.

More importantly, what crimes? It is not illegal for them to ask for the data... Moreover, the courts — you know, the ultimate deciders on what's legal — generally agree, that any information thus obtained is legitimate evidence and not against the Fourth Amendment.

It is called "The Third Party Doctrine" — once you allow a third party (such as your cell-phone carrier or Internet-provider) to know something, you do not have expectation of privacy... Sad, but true...

The government can bully them for it. Whether a particular company succumbs to the bullying or not may decide, whether you'll want to be (or become) their customer, but none of it is a "crime".

OIG can issue reports and opinions, but the office cannot make rules, only the OLC (Office of Legal Council) can do that.

This was not the Office of the Inspector General (((OIG))); this was the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.
From the article: Opinions issued by the OLC are generally treated as binding and final within the executive branch.

You not only need society's permission but its active support to run any kind of business without having to have your own personal army of thugs.

The government's role is to protect me from violence and help me enforce fair contracts. It must not be allowed to dictate, what services can be offered, by whom, at what price, etc. That it increasingly does so, is an obvious violation of our liberties.

Dunno about him, but I much prefer a strong state

Yep, Statists gonna State...

over which I have democratic control in the form of my vote

Yeah? And how is it working out for you? When a business needs government's permission to offer you their service? Do you have "democratic control" over Internet-service provision, for example? Are you happy with the government's ability to shut down Uber and Lyft? With the government, that can demand your cell-phone data from your cellular provider — and get it, or else the provider may run into difficulties renewing its license? With the police, who can confiscate your life savings on suspicion of tax-dodging, or simply because you have "too much" cash on you?

Is this the "strong state" you clamor for? Yeah, I know, let's all go raise awareness — that will surely help our strong, but benevolent and kind-hearted rulers realize the errors, nay, imperfections of their ways.

The freedom to pursue happiness is oh-so overrated...

Until recently, the fight over Roundup has mostly focused on its active ingredient, glyphosate. But mounting evidence, including one study published in February, shows it’s not only glyphosate that’s dangerous, but also chemicals listed as “inert ingredients” in some formulations of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers. Though they have been in herbicides — and our environment — for decades, these chemicals have evaded scientific scrutiny and regulation in large part because the companies that make and use them have concealed their identity as trade secrets.

Source: "New Evidence About the Dangers of Monsanto’s Roundup" https://theintercept.com/2016/...

Remember the infamous interview where the Monsanto lobbyist, Patrick Moore, claimed that Roundup was safe to drink but then refused to actually drink any? May be he knew about this. And no your argument about coal doesn't hold water here. There's really no point to claiming that something's safe because other things are more dangerous. In addition, Roundup is far more dangerous than radioactivity from coal. Then the point about Roundup users tasting it? You don't think that they may inhale it while spraying it from backpacks, tractors, and mobile spray tanks, do you?

Let's start with you suggesting an alternative. Of all the chemicals farmers use to control weeds on their farms, round-up is far and away the safest. If you are truly concerned for the farmers out there applying it, what is their alternative? They either don't spray anything to control weeds, or they use MORE dangerous chemicals than round-up.

Let's also have some perspective on 'danger' here. I'm having trouble pulling up the human LD50 for round-up. That's likely because they lack test cases of anybody actually dying that way to reference. Regardless, let's list the ld50 for round up and some other substances, shall we?
LD50 in rats:
Aspirin 200mg/kg
Vitamin A 2000mg/kg
Table Salt 3000mg/kg
Round-up 5000mg/kg
Alcohol 7060mg/kg
Sugar 30,000mg/kg

So when sampling Aspirin, Salt,Vitamin A, Alcohol, Sugar and Round-up, only TWO of those substances are less toxic than round-up. Maybe a little less fear and uncertainty is warranted. Particularly given that nobody is advocating incorporating glyphosate into our diets. We are talking about glyphosate being used to control weeds in crops, and in such a way that the amount that ever traces it's way off the farm is minuscule.

Taking a case of 'extreme' glyophsate concentrations from the first alarmist source I could find cited 9mg/kg of glyphosate in Norwegian Soy GE crops. Takign the average daily food intake for people at 2kg and assuming we force feed a subject exclusively this 'extreme' contaminated soy bean, we get a daily intake of 18mg of glyphosate. Now, that's an utterly extreme case, and not realistic, but let's examine that worst of worst cases closer. The average human weighs in at 80kg and it's inexact, but the best we've got to say the LD50 is like rats at 5000mg/kg, meaning that a lethal dose for our average subject is 400,000mg. Working out the math our extremely contaminated GE soybeans are inflicting 0.000045% of a lethal dose.

Let's give more reference, the average daily salt intake for our regular joe we just victimized is 3400mg. Again weighing in at 80kg and with a LD50 for salt at 3000mg/kg we have a lethal dose of salt weighing 240,000mg. Doing the math again, our victim regularly consumes 0.014% of a lethal dose of salt daily all by themselves.

The difference between medicine and poison is dosage, and in the case of gylphosate our food is nowhere near the dangerous stage all the fear mongers want to promote.

Until recently, the fight over Roundup has mostly focused on its active ingredient, glyphosate. But mounting evidence, including one study published in February, shows it’s not only glyphosate that’s dangerous, but also chemicals listed as “inert ingredients” in some formulations of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers. Though they have been in herbicides — and our environment — for decades, these chemicals have evaded scientific scrutiny and regulation in large part because the companies that make and use them have concealed their identity as trade secrets.

Source: "New Evidence About the Dangers of Monsanto’s Roundup" https://theintercept.com/2016/...

Remember the infamous interview where the Monsanto lobbyist, Patrick Moore, claimed that Roundup was safe to drink but then refused to actually drink any? May be he knew about this. And no your argument about coal doesn't hold water here. There's really no point to claiming that something's safe because other things are more dangerous. In addition, Roundup is far more dangerous than radioactivity from coal. Then the point about Roundup users tasting it? You don't think that they may inhale it while spraying it from backpacks, tractors, and mobile spray tanks, do you?

I think it would still be insider information, it's just that Congress considers itself and its staff immune to prosecution for insider trading. (after passing a law saying the opposite). https://theintercept.com/2015/...

This is what public "debate" on behalf of a wealthy elite looks like... a preference for loose characterizations and throwing attitude.

But always remember, Hillary is NOT influenced by wealthy corporate donors! So her anti-Citizens United rhetoric is for everyone else.

Oh no... which is why she is against a carbon tax, widely accepted by ecologists and analysts as the only effective economic tool for de-carbonizing consumption patterns... She flipped on KeystoneXL.... She flipped last minute again on TPP. It goes on and on. AND she has a record of telling bigwigs she'll flip back again once in office!

She's just a female version of GW Bush who is also willing to lie endlessly to her base. I do, however, believe her about equal pay for women - even though the Clinton Foundation pretend charity pays its female staff less like everyone else.

Well played, sir troll.

For those not following Brazilian politics, Brazil has been plagued by corruption scandals and economic woes, leading to not a literal coup, but a supermajority vote by the Brazilian House to impeach President Dilma Rousseff, which means it moves to the Senate for confirmation, then an actual trial. It's an emotionally charged issue (some representatives actually burst into song during the impeachment proceedings), but being resolved peacefully.

It's quite a bit more complicated than that.

Just sayin

If Brennen refuses an order from a Republican president, however repugnant, he's out the door. There will be any number of qualified sadists that would be happy to torture people, in the name of freedom, for the US government.

Some of them live as close as Virginia.

Tax evasion is sort of a big deal there with all the commies and so on.

Much of what is documented in the Panama Papers is tax avoidance, not tax evasion.

In fact, this is the big story here, just how much tax avoidance has been made legal by western governments at the request of the rich and powerful.

Its important to remember, with regards to the this administration which has been orchestrating and allowing this all along. That not outright supporting the bill (which would immediately loose a bunch GOP support - because hey, O'bama) versus saying he wouldn't sign it are 2 very different things. O'bama is no friend of public security / privacy.

This was before the CA shooting: https://theintercept.com/2015/...

Alternatively, it may be time for them to commit to stop selling the tools of oppression to regimes like those in Syria, Egypt... Where there's a dictator, HT has a customer.

My links were unfortunately deleted from my post above, but here:
http://arstechnica.com/informa...
https://bgr.com/2016/02/10/win...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/go...
https://theintercept.com/2015/...

I encourage people to listen to what he says, and not just the indignant responses to his campaign rhetoric because it's interesting to hear an 'emperor wears no clothes' candidate as Trump occasionally is. Some of the things Trump says are plain lies, racist, and vulgar—reasons to reject supporting his campaign. But sometimes he tells the truth and gets booed for it (like when he pointed out the Iraq war was based on lies) or describes long-extant US mainstream foreign policy in clear language yet gets unfair flack for it from those who consider themselves a part of the US left (like the call-in to Fox News advocating a war crime). The real horror of his candidacy isn't Trump per se it's that so much of what he says is a plainly-worded description of what's going on and what has been going on for years before Trump's campaign began.

Consider Trump's call-in to which John Oliver provided a remarkably one-sided indignant reaction: On his 2016-02-28 show, John Oliver played a clip of Trump's call-in to Fox News saying "...the other thing with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. They say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families." and Oliver replied "That is the front runner for the Republican nomination advocating a war crime." which is a true but incomplete and certainly nowhere near as damning as Oliver wants it to be.

Oliver never told his viewers that is also extant US foreign policy wherein President Obama hand-picks whom to assassinate with drones every Tuesday (the so-called "Terror Tuesday" meetings) and that these attacks have extrajudicially killed innocent family members of alleged (never arrested, charged, or tried) so-called "terrorists". Some killed on-purpose (like 16-year-old U.S. citizen Abdulrahman, son of U.S. citizen Anwar al Awlaki who was killed in a separate attack 2 weeks prior), some killed without the U.S. knowing who they are killing as the CIA apparently does with some regularity. This is what Noam Chomsky recently rightly described as "massive global terrorism": drone attacks firing missiles that destroy whatever the missile hits as well as a large area around the target, resulting in indiscriminate extrajudicial murder of innocent passers-by. When Robert Gibbs, former White House press secretary and senior adviser to Obama's reelection campaign commented on Abdulrahman's murder shortly after it happened Gibbs said "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children." a line on a par with Trump-level tact and recognition of responsibility.

Or when former NSA and CIA director, General Michael Hayden told Bill Maher "the American armed forces would refuse to act [on Trump's orders on torture and extrajudicial killings]" and Trump says "They won't refuse. They're not going to refuse me, believe me." Trump is right—they won't refuse. The proof has been staring the world in the face for years as Glenn Greenwald pointed out on Democracy Now! on 2016-03-29:

The idea that the U.S. military, in mass, refuses to follow orders if they constitute illegal conduct or war crimes is negated by the entire history of this country, including very recently. You do have isolated members of the armed forces who periodically refuse on grounds of conscience or legal and moral duty. They denounce certain tactics. They resign from the military. They

I encourage people to listen to what he says, and not just the indignant responses to his campaign rhetoric because it's interesting to hear an 'emperor wears no clothes' candidate as Trump occasionally is. Some of the things Trump says are plain lies, racist, and vulgar—reasons to reject supporting his campaign. But sometimes he tells the truth and gets booed for it (like when he pointed out the Iraq war was based on lies) or describes long-extant US mainstream foreign policy in clear language yet gets unfair flack for it from those who consider themselves a part of the US left (like the call-in to Fox News advocating a war crime). The real horror of his candidacy isn't Trump per se it's that so much of what he says is a plainly-worded description of what's going on and what has been going on for years before Trump's campaign began.

Consider Trump's call-in to which John Oliver provided a remarkably one-sided indignant reaction: On his 2016-02-28 show, John Oliver played a clip of Trump's call-in to Fox News saying "...the other thing with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. They say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families." and Oliver replied "That is the front runner for the Republican nomination advocating a war crime." which is a true but incomplete and certainly nowhere near as damning as Oliver wants it to be.

Oliver never told his viewers that is also extant US foreign policy wherein President Obama hand-picks whom to assassinate with drones every Tuesday (the so-called "Terror Tuesday" meetings) and that these attacks have extrajudicially killed innocent family members of alleged (never arrested, charged, or tried) so-called "terrorists". Some killed on-purpose (like 16-year-old U.S. citizen Abdulrahman, son of U.S. citizen Anwar al Awlaki who was killed in a separate attack 2 weeks prior), some killed without the U.S. knowing who they are killing as the CIA apparently does with some regularity. This is what Noam Chomsky recently rightly described as "massive global terrorism": drone attacks firing missiles that destroy whatever the missile hits as well as a large area around the target, resulting in indiscriminate extrajudicial murder of innocent passers-by. When Robert Gibbs, former White House press secretary and senior adviser to Obama's reelection campaign commented on Abdulrahman's murder shortly after it happened Gibbs said "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children." a line on a par with Trump-level tact and recognition of responsibility.

Or when former NSA and CIA director, General Michael Hayden told Bill Maher "the American armed forces would refuse to act [on Trump's orders on torture and extrajudicial killings]" and Trump says "They won't refuse. They're not going to refuse me, believe me." Trump is right—they won't refuse. The proof has been staring the world in the face for years as Glenn Greenwald pointed out on Democracy Now! on 2016-03-29:

The idea that the U.S. military, in mass, refuses to follow orders if they constitute illegal conduct or war crimes is negated by the entire history of this country, including very recently. You do have isolated members of the armed forces who periodically refuse on grounds of conscience or legal and moral duty. They denounce certain tactics. They resign from the military. They

Regarding the hospital bombing: you don't need conspiracy theories, you only have to read the ever changing statements put out by the US military in the wake of the attack (from "mistake" to "it was a Taliban hideout from which US troops were attacked" to "mistake" again, and everything in between), combined with the facts that e.g. the attacks continued for 30 minutes after Doctors without Borders got into contact with US military officials, and that only the hospital was hit within the compound.

I think I also finally understand why I'm not getting the point that I wanted to make across to you: you seem to genuinely believe that Bush reason for invading Iraq was "spreading democracy". I naively assumed that pretty much everyone by now understood that was not a goal at all (probably caught in a similar trap as you earlier due to the "many others" that I regularly talk to, read and hear).

I was not in any way talking about moral relativism or about what social form is superior to another or not. Given my (yes, my) assumption that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with democracy and that democracy was just a pretext (ab)used to mobilise public support for committing atrocities, I was trying to point out that this is no different to (ab)using Islam for exactly the same purpose. You seem to argue in favour of take everyone's justifications for committing atrocities mostly at face value.

You may also want to watch The Rise of ISIS by NPR frontline for some background on how the ISIS mess started starting from Al-Qaeda and the Iraq war. If you replace Sunni/Shia with Hutu/Tutsi in the story about the power struggles and repression of certain groups, you get something that's very close to the Hutu/Tutsi situation in Rwanda and (to some lesser extent) Congo. And if you want background about how Al Qaeda started (it's much more complex than "the US gave some weapons to some Afghans to fight the Russians"), you may want to watch the excellent BBC documentary Bitter Lake.

When the Christians are in the news EVERY FUCKING DAY -- right now, in 2016 -- shooting innocent civilians, blowing up car bombs, bulldozing and dynamiting the cultural treasures of other religions, raping children, beheading people for drawing pictures of Christ, etc., all in the name of Jesus, and trying to establish a worldwide Christian nation (and telling people that's what they're doing), then I'll agree. And I mean now. Not hundreds of years ago during the Crusades and not during the Inquisition. I might right fucking now in 2016 in the modern, civilized world. Until then, quit trying to equate what these 7th Century barbarians are doing with any other modern religion, because it's complete bullshit.

Drone strikes are not in the news everyday because they don't kill people that are "one of us". Many of them are carried out by Christians though, and by a nation that's one under God or some such.. They hit many innocent civilians too, and often they don't even even know who exactly they've hit. Their number of killed innocent bystanders are reduced by classifying every killed "military-aged male" as an "enemy killed in action". They also hit hospitals, and then just administratively sanction the people that were responsible for it rather than prosecuting them for war crimes.

We turn a blind eye to regimes creating situations that lead to all of the above (thinking they can suppress it before it gets out of hand, and then failing spectacularly), and next join in the narrative that this is just another bunch of insane Muslims that turned violent for no obvious reason. We selectively attack/try to topple regimes if we don't like them, all in the name of human rights but in practice caring little or not at all about the actual human rights of the people in the country at the receiving side of the bombs.

If you read a bit more on any site that goes a bit deeper than "the news of the day", you can find plenty more things. The fact that these acts are not carried out in the name of Christianity (except for possibly in case of Bush Jr), is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. The origin of these acts is not religion, it's just an easily used argument with which people can identify (and the fact that the US self-identifies as a Christian nation is of course abused by IS to claim this is in fact Christian-inspired violence, just like you are doing above w.r.t. Islam). In the West we generally use democracy and human rights as justifications with the same goals, and with just as little relevance.

Or, in the words of the inimitable Juice Rap News:

You can't spell justice without the US
And it's called justice because it's just us
that's justified in judging just cause, just wars and just evidence
Just test this justice and get just iced if you mess with us

And for the record: I count Western Europe pretty much as culpable in all of this as the US, it's not like we ever really took a stand against this (on the contrary, we often join in the context of NATO operations).

When the Christians are in the news EVERY FUCKING DAY -- right now, in 2016 -- shooting innocent civilians, blowing up car bombs, bulldozing and dynamiting the cultural treasures of other religions, raping children, beheading people for drawing pictures of Christ, etc., all in the name of Jesus, and trying to establish a worldwide Christian nation (and telling people that's what they're doing), then I'll agree. And I mean now. Not hundreds of years ago during the Crusades and not during the Inquisition. I might right fucking now in 2016 in the modern, civilized world. Until then, quit trying to equate what these 7th Century barbarians are doing with any other modern religion, because it's complete bullshit.

Drone strikes are not in the news everyday because they don't kill people that are "one of us". Many of them are carried out by Christians though, and by a nation that's one under God or some such.. They hit many innocent civilians too, and often they don't even even know who exactly they've hit. Their number of killed innocent bystanders are reduced by classifying every killed "military-aged male" as an "enemy killed in action". They also hit hospitals, and then just administratively sanction the people that were responsible for it rather than prosecuting them for war crimes.

We turn a blind eye to regimes creating situations that lead to all of the above (thinking they can suppress it before it gets out of hand, and then failing spectacularly), and next join in the narrative that this is just another bunch of insane Muslims that turned violent for no obvious reason. We selectively attack/try to topple regimes if we don't like them, all in the name of human rights but in practice caring little or not at all about the actual human rights of the people in the country at the receiving side of the bombs.

If you read a bit more on any site that goes a bit deeper than "the news of the day", you can find plenty more things. The fact that these acts are not carried out in the name of Christianity (except for possibly in case of Bush Jr), is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. The origin of these acts is not religion, it's just an easily used argument with which people can identify (and the fact that the US self-identifies as a Christian nation is of course abused by IS to claim this is in fact Christian-inspired violence, just like you are doing above w.r.t. Islam). In the West we generally use democracy and human rights as justifications with the same goals, and with just as little relevance.

Or, in the words of the inimitable Juice Rap News:

You can't spell justice without the US
And it's called justice because it's just us
that's justified in judging just cause, just wars and just evidence
Just test this justice and get just iced if you mess with us

And for the record: I count Western Europe pretty much as culpable in all of this as the US, it's not like we ever really took a stand against this (on the contrary, we often join in the context of NATO operations).

When the Christians are in the news EVERY FUCKING DAY -- right now, in 2016 -- shooting innocent civilians, blowing up car bombs, bulldozing and dynamiting the cultural treasures of other religions, raping children, beheading people for drawing pictures of Christ, etc., all in the name of Jesus, and trying to establish a worldwide Christian nation (and telling people that's what they're doing), then I'll agree. And I mean now. Not hundreds of years ago during the Crusades and not during the Inquisition. I might right fucking now in 2016 in the modern, civilized world. Until then, quit trying to equate what these 7th Century barbarians are doing with any other modern religion, because it's complete bullshit.

Drone strikes are not in the news everyday because they don't kill people that are "one of us". Many of them are carried out by Christians though, and by a nation that's one under God or some such.. They hit many innocent civilians too, and often they don't even even know who exactly they've hit. Their number of killed innocent bystanders are reduced by classifying every killed "military-aged male" as an "enemy killed in action". They also hit hospitals, and then just administratively sanction the people that were responsible for it rather than prosecuting them for war crimes.

We turn a blind eye to regimes creating situations that lead to all of the above (thinking they can suppress it before it gets out of hand, and then failing spectacularly), and next join in the narrative that this is just another bunch of insane Muslims that turned violent for no obvious reason. We selectively attack/try to topple regimes if we don't like them, all in the name of human rights but in practice caring little or not at all about the actual human rights of the people in the country at the receiving side of the bombs.

If you read a bit more on any site that goes a bit deeper than "the news of the day", you can find plenty more things. The fact that these acts are not carried out in the name of Christianity (except for possibly in case of Bush Jr), is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. The origin of these acts is not religion, it's just an easily used argument with which people can identify (and the fact that the US self-identifies as a Christian nation is of course abused by IS to claim this is in fact Christian-inspired violence, just like you are doing above w.r.t. Islam). In the West we generally use democracy and human rights as justifications with the same goals, and with just as little relevance.

Or, in the words of the inimitable Juice Rap News:

You can't spell justice without the US
And it's called justice because it's just us
that's justified in judging just cause, just wars and just evidence
Just test this justice and get just iced if you mess with us

And for the record: I count Western Europe pretty much as culpable in all of this as the US, it's not like we ever really took a stand against this (on the contrary, we often join in the context of NATO operations).

Given they're trying to speak on behalf of many others that like as not don't feel as they do, it seems disingenuous. Besides, nothing is stopping them from giving more if they really feel that strongly about it.

Nothing disingenuous with stating your own opinion that you'd be ok with higher taxes. The operating assumption of most politicians, especially in the GOP, is that "TAXES ARE EVIL!"...

Don't say taxes AREN'T evil and then turn around and bitch AT ALL about NSA surveillance or Stingrays or the militarization of police.

Because TAXES fund that EVIL.

And if you haven't noticed, over the past few years when the "more government is ALWAYS SOOOO GOOOD!!!" Democrats have been mostly in charge (and especially when they were TOTALLY in charge...) that evil got a lot WORSE.

Of course, your probably actually BELIEVED all that "hope" and "change" lip service about closing Gitmo and no longer invading places like Libya (those were not the non-hostilities you were looking for!), and won't be trying to figure out what Hillary! actually told the banksters in her private PAID speeches.

Say what you will - but on stage before a debate Donald Trump admitted he had given most the people on that stage lots of money for political purposes to get what he wanted.

Do I need to take off my tin-foil hat, or does the rest of the world need to remove the cotton from their ears?

I'm certainly thinking cotton.

Some of that data is already available, from Pentagon internal reports: https://theintercept.com/drone...

FORMER DRONE OPERATORS SAY THEY WERE “HORRIFIED” BY CRUELTY OF ASSASSINATION PROGRAM https://theintercept.com/2015/...

Some of that data is already available, from Pentagon internal reports: https://theintercept.com/drone...

FORMER DRONE OPERATORS SAY THEY WERE “HORRIFIED” BY CRUELTY OF ASSASSINATION PROGRAM https://theintercept.com/2015/...

Wire appears to compete with Signal. And there are others, some of which the EFF has reviewed: https://www.eff.org/secure-mes...

Nobel prizes mean nothing these days. Even the warmonger Barrack Osama has one.

Because Russia invading a sovereign country is perfectly acceptable because they weren't doing what Russia wanted them to do. Of course, pointing to another country doing something kind of the same excuses what Russia is doing, it is all perfectly acceptable to annex the territory of another country.

Great Powers do it all the time. I don't expect it to change. But I do aim to point out the hypocrisy and/or naivete of anyone who thinks the US's foreign policy has altruistic motives or that the "Other Guys" are inherently evil.

Yeah, screw those other countries, China has a huge population, so they should just be able to steal territory that they have no valid claim to.

Might makes right. Just ask any sovereign nation that's been subject to a US invasion. As an aside, note that no nuclear-armed state has suffered a regime change at US hands. And yet Americans are surprised when antagonists pursue nuclear arms? As for "stealing territory they have no valid claim to"....the validity of their claim stems from their ability to enforce their will. Hence the fortification of their man-made islands. Also note that the US has progressed to a uniquely insidious alternative to directly "stealing" territory: the Petrodollar system. But it requires constant enforcement by the US, and controlling/manipulating central banks, financial institutions, and the exchange of oil are all aspects of this enforcement.

2000: Saddam was planning to switch sales of Iraqi oil from dollars to Euros. Within 3 years he was deposed.
2009: Gaddafi was doing his best to reconcile with the West. Unfortunately for him, he also planned a gold-and-oil-backed Libyan currency. He was dead within 3 years of shaking Obama's hand. And the "rebels" sure were quick to set up a Central Bank (less than 2 months into the civil war).
2012: Iran was planning to sell oil in exchange for gold. Despite having them bracketed with bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US military was in no position to invade. So Iran instead found themselves promptly disconnected from global financial institutions: http://www.reuters.com/article...
2014: Ukraine has a revolution....and suddenly all the gold is missing from their central bank. Now they are stuck with fiat currency and IMF obligations. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... Meanwhile, Russia and China are buying up gold like crazy ( http://www.mining.com/china-ru... ), and started their own alternative-IMF (the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank). Both have stated intentions to end the US's hegemonic influence. These are two nuclear-armed Great Powers that are closing the conventional military gap, and despite shaky economies, having been consistently moving to eliminate US dollar influence across their entire sphere of influence. Which, IMO, will eventually be a good thing for everyone, including the average (productive) American citizen.

Oh, let us ignore all the people Assad was murdering, and that a large percentage of the population wants him out of office.

If you have a problem with murderous heads of state that are unpopular, perhaps you should look a little closer to home before trying to solve other people's problems? https://theintercept.com/drone...

Lets just prop up that dictator because he is our friend and is nice to us.

Yes, the Russian relationship with Assad closely parallels the relationship the United States has with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Ya know, the guys who are busy bombing the shit out of Yemen? These are also the same people who are VERY close ideologically to ISIS and al Qaeda....who we've spent the past 15 yea

If the messenger is insane, it is valid to question the sanity of the message. Not every interlocutor is a sane, rational person: Charles Manson is not going to give you sound advice.

Which is precisely what the grandparent poster didn't do; here's the irony of the challenge facing an ad hominem arguer: To successfully challenge the message one has to point out how the message is not worth taking seriously. The very thing the arguer tries to get us to ignore is the thing that has to be examined and taken down thus justifying future skepticism. I could see where someone's background would justifiably raise suspicion, but not outright dismissal of all claims such as what you propose. You're making the same mistake that poster made; while white knighting for a bad argument you're claiming "Charles Manson is not going to give you sound advice" without telling us exactly which Manson advice we should dismiss. I can only guess you think we should dismiss everything Manson (and thus McAfee) says on any topic but without any examples of why we should follow that advice. And then you post this anonymously, so as to prevent anyone from understand whom they're reading so we won't dismiss what you've said in the past further now that your own argument has failed to convince and raised suspicions of you.

When one makes an argument like yours and doesn't supply the information we need to justify dismissing someone out of hand, people look into things. For example, people tried arguing this way with Donald Trump, someone whose racist and unfactual screeds have justifiably earned him quite a bit of bad press. But when Trump recently pointed out that in 2003 George W. Bush lied to get the US to invade Iraq, Trump was right and at that time millions of people on the streets of the world in the world's largest anti-war protests knew the Bush government and pro-war sycophants didn't have the evidence they needed to justify war. Trump got booed by seemingly reflexively pro-war Republicans when he pointed out Bush's lies but that didn't make what Trump said in those statements worthless.

If the messenger is insane, it is valid to question the sanity of the message. Not every interlocutor is a sane, rational person: Charles Manson is not going to give you sound advice.

Which is precisely what the grandparent poster didn't do; here's the irony of the challenge facing an ad hominem arguer: To successfully challenge the message one has to point out how the message is not worth taking seriously. The very thing the arguer tries to get us to ignore is the thing that has to be examined and taken down thus justifying future skepticism. I could see where someone's background would justifiably raise suspicion, but not outright dismissal of all claims such as what you propose. You're making the same mistake that poster made; while white knighting for a bad argument you're claiming "Charles Manson is not going to give you sound advice" without telling us exactly which Manson advice we should dismiss. I can only guess you think we should dismiss everything Manson (and thus McAfee) says on any topic but without any examples of why we should follow that advice. And then you post this anonymously, so as to prevent anyone from understand whom they're reading so we won't dismiss what you've said in the past further now that your own argument has failed to convince and raised suspicions of you.

When one makes an argument like yours and doesn't supply the information we need to justify dismissing someone out of hand, people look into things. For example, people tried arguing this way with Donald Trump, someone whose racist and unfactual screeds have justifiably earned him quite a bit of bad press. But when Trump recently pointed out that in 2003 George W. Bush lied to get the US to invade Iraq, Trump was right and at that time millions of people on the streets of the world in the world's largest anti-war protests knew the Bush government and pro-war sycophants didn't have the evidence they needed to justify war. Trump got booed by seemingly reflexively pro-war Republicans when he pointed out Bush's lies but that didn't make what Trump said in those statements worthless.

Well, here's the difference: the last 7 years people have been working on how to get universal health care, instead of trying to define exactly how much it's ok to torture people.

That's because this administration has taken the approach of "We don't need to discuss torture.....if we simply shoot Hellfire missiles at everyone who even remotely has the SIGINT signature of a "terrorist"......including American citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The Drone Papers report: https://theintercept.com/drone...

They also need to comply with lawful warrants.

...and that's precisely one of the issues in this case. It's not clear that the warrant is lawful because we're in genuinely new territory here.

Is there any precedent at all for a warrant which compels a company to build a special-purpose product (which previously did not exist) for the benefit of law enforcement? Has a warrant of this nature ever been tested in court and found to be legal?

It's about this specific case.

...and that's the other issue. Once the new technology exists, other courts will compel its use for other cases. Law enforcement elsewhere is already drooling.

Maybe the next case will be a child pornography case. Maybe the one after that will be a stalking case. Eventually, it will be a tool used in divorce cases. Or perhaps a Chinese dissident case.

Now, I know that James Comey said that it was about this specific case, so I don't blame you for believing it, but it turns out he was flat-out lying about that. This is actually the 13th case.

Why didn't you know that? Because the 12 previous cases were sealed. Apple also requested that this one be sealed, and the DOJ refused. Now it's all come out.

So while, yes, Apple is fighting a PR battle, they didn't want to. The DOJ chose to wait until it had a high-profile sexy case to fight it out in the court of public opinion. The DOJ fired the first shot, and Apple responded in kind.

There are lots of things I hate about Apple. This is not one of them.

Hospitals in opposition-held parts of Syria are refusing to share GPS coordinates with Russian and Syrian authorities because of repeated attacks on medical facilities and workers, Médecins Sans Frontières and humanitarian workers on the ground have said.
“Given the number of hospitals that have been bombed since the war started, they do not think [giving GPS coordinates] is going to protect them, rather the opposite,” another official said.

Don't let the title fool you. The WHOLE article does NOT have a word, or phrase suggest that they STOP provide GPS coordinates to Russia AFTER the incident. In fact, as the quote, they have never provided the data.
Further details:
http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-g...

The charity, also known by its French acronym MSF, says repeated attacks against health facilities during Syria's five-year civil war have led medical staffers to ask the group not to provide the GPS coordinates of some sites. This was the case of the makeshift clinic run by the charity in the Syrian town of Maaret al-Numan, which was hit four times in attacks on Monday, killing at least 25 people.

OTOH, the Kunduz hospital was the brightest lit building, with flag were easy recognize AND they provided GPS data, and they repeats the claim that "the strikes continued for half an hour after U.S. and Afghan authorities were told the hospital was being bombed" .
After that, tanks entered and destroyed the evidences.

While no-one know which was Russian or Syrian bombing or "other" airforces (remember the airstrike that killed numbers of SAA soldiers, no one know who did this).

liar caught lying again.

Hey NSA, &other FED LEOs - don't destroy the infrastructure of the world economy with your abject incompetence. You can't even effectively make use of the encrypted data you already collect.

Bullshit. The Paris attackers did not use encrypted communications.

Was this an intelligence failure? Possibly. Was it an intelligence failure due to a lack of backdoors and/or laws against cryptography? Absolutely not.

Re 'Autonomous machines are an advantage for everyone involved, and would be a much more humane way to solve wars."
The US plan will be for area denial, the free fire zones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... dreams of the US in Vietnam or the British in South Africa during the Boer wars.
Anything that moves and an AI has a pattern for in its database will be engaged within a large area without hesitation.
Its a very old idea and the US mil still seems to think air power or area denial alone will magically win any war with no messy tv images.
It will be sold as contractors not needing to fly for hours, but the mass killing will be automated too.
The next round of contractor boondoggles to service and support the AI :)
Think of the ratio found mentioned in the https://theintercept.com/drone... but with an AI to give political.
and https://theintercept.com/drone... with "nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets." been done by the best contractors and mil experts.

What will an AI do? Just match up the same programmed patterns that the humans did with the same resulting ratios.
A Nuremberg defence defence will change from "superior orders" to the AI?

Re 'Autonomous machines are an advantage for everyone involved, and would be a much more humane way to solve wars."
The US plan will be for area denial, the free fire zones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... dreams of the US in Vietnam or the British in South Africa during the Boer wars.
Anything that moves and an AI has a pattern for in its database will be engaged within a large area without hesitation.
Its a very old idea and the US mil still seems to think air power or area denial alone will magically win any war with no messy tv images.
It will be sold as contractors not needing to fly for hours, but the mass killing will be automated too.
The next round of contractor boondoggles to service and support the AI :)
Think of the ratio found mentioned in the https://theintercept.com/drone... but with an AI to give political.
and https://theintercept.com/drone... with "nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets." been done by the best contractors and mil experts.

What will an AI do? Just match up the same programmed patterns that the humans did with the same resulting ratios.
A Nuremberg defence defence will change from "superior orders" to the AI?

If the numbers really are that nearly 90 percent of people killed in drone strikes "were not the intended targets" of the attacks then I think the US should stop using them. Failure in use is the next best thing I guess.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
https://theintercept.com/drone...

https://theintercept.com/drone...

You can Google this too.

https://theintercept.com/drone...

Our government says that virtually no civilians are killed by drones, and we know from as far back as Vietnam that the military lies when it comes to casualties and deaths. If they want to make it sound like the war is going well, they boost the number of enemy killed. If they want to make the drone program sound precise, they lie about the civilian casualties. That's their business model.

It's a very slick, efficient way to conduct the war, without having to have the massive ground invasion mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's not much of a "war" if your opponent has no way to defend themselves much less retaliate against your attacks.

Considering we also have a problem with cruelty, being able to determine when we are bombing a hospital and stopping the act, and making little kids fear the sky, I don't think assassination goes quite far enough to describe the US governments use of drones in combat. It's pure murder, caused by people who have gone insane with power, accountable to no one. Who will complain? The dead victims families? Who never saw the attacks coming? Who would take responsibility? A government that places no value on the lives of others during war, and places so much money into their war machine that attempting to get them to back down would require support from the entire world? No one should be able to kill like that. Not an individual, not a government, no one. The US government should be condemned and punished for their actions and the use of these things. I say that as a US Citizen, albeit as an AC, as even I would fear those drones being used on us.

has been around for years. The US gets "invited" in by some emerging democracy, leader and builds a small camp with a runway.
Just like in another few nations in the region.
Just how very "very slick" and "efficient" can be found in the Drone Papers https://theintercept.com/drone...
The Pentagon's New Generation of Secret Military Bases (Jul. 16, 2012)
How the Pentagon is quietly transforming its overseas base empire and creating a dangerous new way of war.
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
As for the US 'French" connection? Clinton Email Shows that Oil and Gold Were Behind Regime Change In Libya (01/09/2016)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

Will the US vision of a remote war work? For that the US needs constant signals intelligence ie people have to walk around with electronics that is "on" and been in use. Shared electronics or electronics thats just been driven around randomly could be another part of the puzzle.
Another method was to hand out tagging and tracking systems to local "freedom fighters" or US trained "moderates" to then place near people of interest. Such efforts can get used to quickly settle local issues rather than the US expected role for easy leadership decapitation.
The US is still trying to reduce flight time and get more loitering time.
Great news for the contractors and mercenaries working hours. Just like the Vietnam war base funding, pacification ideas and search and destroy zones but no complex draft politics back home.

The point is: hurting customers is bad for business

Sadly, no:

https://theintercept.com/2015/...