Slashdot Mirror


Lavabit.com Owner: 'I Could Be Arrested' For Resisting Surveillance Order

Zak3056 writes "NBC News is reporting that 'The owner of an encrypted email service used by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden said he has been threatened with criminal charges for refusing to comply with a secret surveillance order to turn over information about his customers. "I could be arrested for this action," Ladar Levison told NBC News about his decision to shut down his company, Lavabit LLC, in protest over a secret court order he had received from a federal court that is overseeing the investigation into Snowden.''"

255 comments

  1. Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    There's no point to be made from not complying with a legitimate court order. Just comply with it. One day you could be very thankful that we have a legal system that was created to protect us. Please respect that and our fellow citizens.

    1. Re:Just comply with the court order by jsepeta · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      since when the fuck have our courts cared about actual justice, and not about preserving the benefits for the 1%? our legal system rivals that of countries like Myanmar, with the exception that at least there is no pretense of justice under a tyrannical regime.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    2. Re:Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoosh

    3. Re:Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is it a legitimate Court Order? You presume something that is not assured to be in evidence. I strongly sugeest that you read the Fourth Amendment before any further remarks- just because the Government is doing something doesn't make it legal.

    4. Re:Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since 2153, to be precise.

    5. Re:Just comply with the court order by s0litaire · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Depends on what the Court order was for.

      If it was for specific conversation between specific address at a specific date/time then It's reasonable to comply.
      But if it was for Everything since the service started or between 2 dates (i.e. 1st Jan 2011 to 31 Dec 2012) or from that point onwards, then it's a fishing expedition and its reasonable NOT to comply without further legal council and possible injunction (if that's possible with this kind of court order!)

      --
      Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
    6. Re:Just comply with the court order by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The word 'legal' has become entirely frivolous. The government can do what it wants, and no goddamn piece of paper is ever going to stop it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1% rocks! /sacrasm

    8. Re:Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe register several new business and domain names, shift all customers to the next business name that isn't under court order. Then comply since there's no email in the original business. If they bother you agan then file for unemployment and job retraining benifits, let the gov pay you since they took away your income. Those fucken surveillance people are now like a pervert that gets-off by peeking in the window hoping to see some ass.

    9. Re:Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Now the US is much better than many other countries but in the end it's still the gov't and they will still find a way to do what they want.

    10. Re:Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Technically, he is complying. He is giving the government all the information transferred from the service, which right now is nothing. If the government wants to force him to continue his business, that is another thing completely. I'd love to see the laws that allow the government to enslave a business order to continue a service that they own for secret government surveillance. The laws probably exist, but I'm guessing that they are classified Top Secret (where the FISA court has ruled that the 13th amendment is invalid).

    11. Re:Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree with your post. As ordinary people we are in no position to know what is really going on. We should trust the decision makers.

    12. Re:Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the Military Code of Justice, a soldier is given the right to disobey illegal orders. Don't civilians have the same right?
      If everyone permits illegal intrusions because "they have nothing to hide" or because "it is easier in the long run", we, as individuals and as a people, are doomed. If the British citizens in the American colonies took this stance, we would still be the economic slaves to England without any political representation. The British American Colonies would look more like the country in "The Hunger Games" than the USA founded by those former British citizens who revolted to form a "more perfect union".
      Our legal system will not protect us. Recent events prove this. Even where, after years of litigation, a defendant is found "not guilty", the lose of freedom can never be returned.
      If we willingly give up our rights, did we really ever deserve those rights?

    13. Re:Just comply with the court order by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      C'mon, make up your mind. Respect the court or the fellow citizens, you can't have both.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Just comply with the court order by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      Now the US is much better than many other countries

      This fact is no longer in evidence storage room.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    15. Re:Just comply with the court order by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let's look up the definition of "dictatorship"...

      A government controlled by one person, or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests entirely on the person or group of people, and can be obtained by force or by inheritance. The dictator(s) may also take away much of its peoples' freedom.

      Now, one may argue whether one has to get money by force or inheritance, but else...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Just comply with the court order by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      or a small group of people.

      That sounds like an oligarchy.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    17. Re:Just comply with the court order by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This is the rub. Ideally one should be able to comply with a court order and then get one's day in a public court, as most would guaranteed by the constitution, or refuse to comply and get one's day in court. This is the basis of the system of government in the US. Three equal branches of government, executive, legislative, and judicial. These branches of government are not there to fight amongst each other in isolation, but to be used by the people to make sure their concerns are dealt with. Notice I said dealt with, not just heard. Now, in a country of 300 million people not everyone can be dealt with, but it can be at least in the aggregate.

      Unfortunately the legislative branch has systematically reduced the effectiveness of the judicial branch. I am talking tort reform. I am talking about threatening activist judges. I am talking about secret court order and secret courts. Without an equal court system democracy just does not work and things like this happen. Manning and Snoden and all these leaks are due to the lack of due process. If Manning had not been isolated and tortured, it would not nearly be the black eye on the US, and Snoden likely would not be in Russia.

      The courts provide an alternative to extreme and violent acts. Let's say that a child that is killed by a defective Ikea bed. The parents can go to court, have the company be publicly held responsible for the death, and, outside of tort reform, receive a judgement that will encourage the company to do better in the future. Or the parents could just go to location where they bought the bed and justifiably kill the person who sold them the bed, or go to corporate and justifiably kill the executives who profited from the bed, etc. Which one actually leads to a safer world?

      So really the problem is that some powerful people are upset because the courts do not allow them to sufficiently oppress the people or murder customers, so the want to reduce our government to the two branches that can effectively be bribed to engage in unnecessary and illegal activities, like spying on US citizens, which invariable requires massive purchases of inflated sales and products which invariably increases the profits of those companies. A classic example in the war in Iraq, which was facilitated by the purchase of an election by those who wanted Dick Cheney in the executive, and the subsequent transfer of taxpayer treasure directly to those who bought him.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    18. Re:Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now the US is much better than many other countries

      This fact is no longer in evidence storage room.

      Was it ever in the storage room to begin with ?

    19. Re:Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      “When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.” - Richard M Nixon

    20. Re:Just comply with the court order by ImOuttaHere · · Score: 2

      In an America where it's citizens live in fear and paranoia there are no options but compliance. Remember, everything the German government did in the 1930's and 1940's was "legal", and it's citizens too were told it's laws were there to protect them. We all know how well that ended up, don't we?

      There's no point to be made from not complying with a legitimate court order. Just comply with it. One day you could be very thankful that we have a legal system that was created to protect us. Please respect that and our fellow citizens.

    21. Re:Just comply with the court order by russotto · · Score: 2

      This is the rub. Ideally one should be able to comply with a court order and then get one's day in a public court, as most would guaranteed by the constitution, or refuse to comply and get one's day in court.

      But here's how it really works: You can comply with the court order and never get your day in court because there's no longer any controversy. Or you can refuse to comply and get a day in court -- but the only issue will be your refusal to comply, not the validity of the order.

    22. Re: Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Said company would need to be based in a country that does not comply with US surveillance requests

    23. Re: Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even worse. The order is secret. The court is secret. Talking about the court order will get you arrested.

    24. Re:Just comply with the court order by Behrooz · · Score: 1

      Which one actually leads to a safer world?

      That would depend on the legitimacy, fairness, and effectiveness of the court system.

      A reasonable argument can be made that all of the above are currently on the decline in America. How you choose to apportion the blame between wealth inequality, the systematic dismantling of public services, the prison-industrial complex, decline of the family, a crisis of faith, or other causes... is up to you.

      I certainly don't trust our justice system to operate within acceptable standards. Do you?

      --
      "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
    25. Re:Just comply with the court order by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      If it was for specific conversation between specific address at a specific date/time then It's reasonable to comply.

      Lavabit had around 10,000 customers. If FISA issues 10,000 individual subpoenas, would that be OK? Because I'll bet it's not a problem for them...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    26. Re:Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parents can go to court, have the company be publicly held responsible for the death, and, outside of tort reform, receive a judgement that will encourage the company to do better in the future. Or the parents could just go to location where they bought the bed and justifiably kill the person who sold them the bed, or go to corporate and justifiably kill the executives who profited from the bed, etc. Which one actually leads to a safer world?

      Exactly. It's getting to the point where people abused like this should find the homes of the pig cops enforcing these illegal orders and execute them and their families. The court option broke down so what other option is there to reduce the number of criminals.

    27. Re:Just comply with the court order by hebertrich · · Score: 2

      and the money to fight it . .that's where justice is one ended : the govt has unlimited funds and know dang well that to fight them is impossible to do on even terms because of financial constraints , the average joe , that we can't match their dollars. Justice is a farce , to have justice you need to have huge loads of cash to throw at getting it which the average american and entrepreneur does not have. There is no justice when you have to buy it and you can't afford it.

    28. Re:Just comply with the court order by wfstanle · · Score: 1

      Consider this...

      Just this week the head judge of the FISC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISC) court that oversees the NSA, CIA etc. stated that the courts did not have nearly enough resources to verify what they were being told. In essence, they mostly have to "rubber stamp" those aagencies requests. In essence FISC is just a joke.

    29. Re:Just comply with the court order by s0litaire · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If it was for 10,000 for specific conversation between specific address at a specific date/time then It's reasonable to comply.

      But bureaucracy is not as fluid as you might imagine! Their is a reason places like the NSA and CIA go for specific or blanket warrants / Court orders rather than mass individual ones.

      Partly because they don't KNOW who to target apart from a few isolated people already on their radar, unless they go for John Doe #1 all the way to John Doe #10,000 which would cause another 10,000 or so new court orders required once they get the actual names, then you'd be correct in thinking that Civil Liberties groups / EFF and other like mined organisations would have a field day tying them up in red tape, challenging each and every individual order.

      Oh and i think Judges are beginning to hate mass John Doe#1 to # Court Orders anyway because of their over use by Copyright Trolls to gather User information from IP addresses.

      --
      Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
    30. Re:Just comply with the court order by s0litaire · · Score: 1

      True but you just need a few organisations to jump on it with Pro Bono Lawyers to make it difficult for the government to walk over individual businesses.

      They don't have to fight each and every order, just enough for the Judges to get annoyed at the Government overreach and to slap down the entire job lot!

      --
      Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
    31. Re:Just comply with the court order by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I'm not entirely certain how exactly the gag orders work, but I have heard suggestions that they may be targetted at, say, an IT guy with access to the desired information, who is then legally prevented from sharing the details even with his boss. At any rate I'd bet that sharing the details with anyone outside the company would absolutely violate the gag order, so unless you have a lawyer on staff (not just on retainer), how exactly are you supposed to get legal advice?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    32. Re:Just comply with the court order by s0litaire · · Score: 1

      Think it's like the UK's "Super Injunction" where not only would you be breaking the law to talk about the case behind the court order but it would also be illegal to say you've actually received a court order in the first place. It can cover individuals or entire companies depends on how it's worded.

      --
      Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
    33. Re:Just comply with the court order by s0litaire · · Score: 1

      I forgot to add that I think only council already on retainer or on staff can be informed and advise the client/company regarding the court order.

      But I'm not sure IANAL!

      --
      Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
    34. Re:Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That word has always been like this...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL7Ct_urpUY#t=7s

    35. Re:Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's look up the definition of "dictatorship"...

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

      The form of the plutocracy is less relevant.
      There have been plutocracies in democratic, monarchic, imperialist and "red" (socialist/communist/etc) governments.
      In all cases, the end result was the same, with public policy being shaped by a tiny minority,
      and the vast majority of citizens having almost no meaningful input into the political process.

    36. Re:Just comply with the court order by KGIII · · Score: 1

      They will just hire more. You don't really think there's a shortage of folks willing to be abusive jack-booted thugs, do you?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    37. Re:Just comply with the court order by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Well, he just said many.

      So like.. Maybe North Korea, Kongo and .. say Burma or whatever was worse, and then you'd be done :)

    38. Re:Just comply with the court order by osu-neko · · Score: 3, Funny

      I didn't go there. Too young I guess. I do remember when you could be arrested for refusing to spy on your fellow citizens in the Soviet Union when asked, so that's where my mind went. There's a difference, of course. That was the KGB, this is the NSA. Not a single letter in common...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    39. Re:Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the government violates the constitution it does so with the risk of negating the source of their authority. At that point it's all about might.

    40. Re:Just comply with the court order by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      If it was for specific conversation between specific address at a specific date/time then It's reasonable to comply.

      Lavabit had around 10,000 customers. If FISA issues 10,000 individual subpoenas, would that be OK? Because I'll bet it's not a problem for them...

      It shouldn't be a problem to hit the FISA judges with 10,000 requests. The requests can be computer generated...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    41. Re:Just comply with the court order by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Oh and i think Judges are beginning to hate mass John Doe#1 to # Court Orders anyway because of their over use by Copyright Trolls to gather User information from IP addresses.

      Except that judges for civil suits are totally different from FISA court judges. Zero connect in the law processes since they don't intersect other than the judges (reputedly) went to law school.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    42. Re:Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the order breaks the 1st amendment for him and the 4th for his customers. He has compiled with orders before, as he stated. This on the other hand does not sound like just hand over one customers data. The implication is they want a back door in the system or a way to man in the middle to grab keys.

    43. Re:Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a follow up.

      "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
      Benjamin Franklin

    44. Re:Just comply with the court order by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      The fact that the situation could be worse doesn't really improve things.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    45. Re:Just comply with the court order by Pinhedd · · Score: 1

      If it's signed by a judge or a magistrate, it's a legitimate order. Follow the order and fight it on appeal.

    46. Re:Just comply with the court order by jcsalomon · · Score: 1

      "no Warrants shall issue, but ... particularly describing the place to be searched, and the ... things to be seized." (emphasis added)

    47. Re:Just comply with the court order by gmanterry · · Score: 1

      and the money to fight it . .that's where justice is one ended : the govt has unlimited funds and know dang well that to fight them is impossible to do on even terms because of financial constraints , the average joe , that we can't match their dollars. Justice is a farce , to have justice you need to have huge loads of cash to throw at getting it which the average american and entrepreneur does not have. There is no justice when you have to buy it and you can't afford it.

      You are so right That is the main problem with the legal system. It's not a justice system because the person with the most money gets their definition of "justice". To even the playing field somewhat, we should make the loser pay all court costs. Then perhaps we can tilt the scales a bit more towards true justice.

      --
      Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
    48. Re:Just comply with the court order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A court order based on an illegal, unconstitutional law is NOT a "legitimate" court order. The point of non-compliance is, therefore, the fact that the court order is just as illegal as the law it upholds.

  2. obama = a more palatable cheney by jsepeta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    simply the act of using encryption will make you a government suspect.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    1. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "simply the act of using encryption will make you a government suspect."

      less so than being careless and stupid on clearnet.

    2. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by Joce640k · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's pretty clear now why Microsoft never added encryption to Outlook.

      (Except via 'certificates', which we can safely assume the government has access to...)

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      You really don't know much about encryption and certificates do you?

    4. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by fast+turtle · · Score: 0

      You really don't understand Certificates and Encryption Do you.

      Here's how it works in the x509 certiificate system.

      The Root CA Creates a master key - all other certificates are a subkey of that master key. All Intermediate certificates are a subkey of that master key. The only ones that are not are those self-signed certificates and even there I'd be very very cautious as I don't know if there's a flaw in the key generation system used.

      Want to test this concept. Pretty easy using either GPG or PGP
      Simply create a master key and then a whole bunch of sub keys. Anything you encrypt with those subkeys can be decrypted by that master key. It's the same with the entire x509 certificate system and the question is, who controls those god damn master keys?

      Haven't you ever wondered why the Government wasn't concerned with https and x509 encrypted email? It's because they can get the fucking key to decode it if they don't already have it. How do you think the Al Qeada laptops with XP Pro on them using EFS was so quickly decoded? Because the fucking system used a Key signed from MS (Who controls that master key?)

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    5. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      You really don't know much about encryption and certificates do you?

      You know how to encrypt things in Outlook without first using a certificate from an certificate authority?

      If so, we're all ears...

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is not how certificates work. There is no such thing as a "subkey". You might want to study up on public key encryption and how it works - the issuing of a certificate by a CA is simply a binding between a public key (for which you hold the private key) and an identity, which the CA takes various steps to authenticate.

      I expected more from Slashdot. Oh wait, no I didn't.;

    7. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't encrypt using the key the CA gives you - you encrypt using the private key you make for yourself, and the CA uses their key to sign the public key that you gave them. So they can't use the CA's keys to read any of your emails. What they can do is create fake keys for you and someone else, tell each of your mail clients that the other's key has been changed, and intercept everything that goes between the two of you, unencrypting and re-encrypting using the real key so that the other is unaware. This is called a man-in-the-middle attack - it's not perfect, and it can't be used to decrypt past emails, but it is effective for surveillance.

    8. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Set up your own Certificate Authority.

      A bit tricky, but not impossible. OpenSSL is what you need.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    9. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their is no need to use a public CA.

    10. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by bloodhawk · · Score: 2
      I will reiterate what I said in my previous post.

      You really don't know much about encryption and certificates do you?

      please if you don't understand how public and private keys work DON'T try to explain it to others, you only end up looking stupid.

    11. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I understand those things perfectly, stop telling me I don't, you'll end up looking stupid.

      Maybe I don't understand how Outlook works, if so, please enlighten me.

      a) Last time I tried to set up outlook for encryption it refused to do anything at all without a certificate (which I assume the Feds have direct access to, especially given the revelations of the last couple of months). Everything else from then onwards was based around that (untrustworthy) certificate.

      b) The last few decades of encryption has been dominated by men wearing Raybans in black SUVs. Remember the "export" versions of web browsers? Skipjack? Hushmail's sudden ability to produce plaintext on demand? Why would Outlook be allowed to securely encrypt things against the NSA? Answer: It wouldn't. The boys in SUVs will certainly visit Redmond on a regular basis. I'll bet my life on that.

      --
      No sig today...
    12. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Self-signed keys don't protect you against man-in-the-middle attacks. Without authentication there's no way to prevent your ISP (or somebody who controls it) from reading/altering your email as it passes through.

      Public key methods only work when there's a web of trust. You have to know the public keys on your keyring are genuine.

      All bets are off when the web of trust is being manipulated by the enemy.

      --
      No sig today...
    13. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good laugh. You sir have no idea how x509 certificate chaining works.

    14. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Last time I tried to set up outlook for encryption it refused to do anything at all without a certificate (which I assume the Feds have direct access to, especially given the revelations of the last couple of months).

      As illustrated, you don't understand anything about cryptography or certificates. No, the Feds don't magickally have access to something called a "certificate". Yes, you can get a certificate from one of the various root certificate authorities (CA). The CA signs the certificate using a cryptographically secure hash indicating that the certificate does belong to you and has not been altered. The CA does not have access to the private key of the key pair and cannot use the certificate to decrypt or generate hash signatures.

      However, if you insist on being paranoid to the point of not having a functioning brain, you are free to create your own certificate. There are a plethora of tools to do the job. Microsoft provides one as a part of Windows Server and also ships one as a part of the freely downloadable software development kit. There are also countless other free tools on virtually any OS you can think of that can accomplish the same. Your self-signed certificate will work just as well, excepting that by default any OS will not have a method to validate that the certificate should belong to the individual that the certificate claims that it does. Afterall, I could make a self-signed certificate that claims to be Joce640k just as easily as you can. In virtually all software you can override this either directly in the application, or by trusting the certificate in the platform key store.

      Of course, this all has been a waste of time. Facts get in the way of a perfectly unreasonable conspiracy theory.

    15. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is hardly conspiracy theory territory. It would be trivial for an organization with as many resources as the government to compromise CAs (they likely have access to both the ISPs and CAs), and anyone who says otherwise is simply a fool.

    16. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      "Conspiracy theory"?

      You haven't been paying much attention over the last couple of weeks, have you?

      --
      No sig today...
    17. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO dude you really don't understand them AT ALL. public and private keys when generated DO NOT reveal the private keys to the CA so NO the root CA cannot decrypt your data. As the OP said, Don't post stuff when you obviously have no concept of how certifcates and encryption work.

    18. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to do more than compromise the CA though. That is the whole point of private keys, the CA doesn't EVER see them.

    19. Re:obama = a more palatable cheney by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      I understand those things perfectly, stop telling me I don't, you'll end up looking stupid.

      the below clearly shows you don't.

      The Root CA Creates a master key - all other certificates are a subkey of that master key. All Intermediate certificates are a subkey of that master key. The only ones that are not are those self-signed certificates and even there I'd be very very cautious as I don't know if there's a flaw in the key generation system used. Want to test this concept. Pretty easy using either GPG or PGP Simply create a master key and then a whole bunch of sub keys. Anything you encrypt with those subkeys can be decrypted by that master key. It's the same with the entire x509 certificate system and the question is, who controls those god damn master keys?

  3. Additional Discussion @ Hacker News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  4. welcome... by wbr1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you need me I'll be out for a spin in me Jaguar. Maybe I'll go to the Steak Bar.

  5. Federal prison by voodoo+cheesecake · · Score: 2

    I hear it's actually pretty nice - decent food and opportunities for education, (might come in handy since his business is gone). And best of all you pretty much have an idea who you're getting ganked by. In the mean time, staying in the public eye will assure the feds tread carefully and just might save his a$$ - no pun intended.

    1. Re:Federal prison by amoeba1911 · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, staying in public eye will do nothing. Despite all the brainwashing by the media, the majority of American public feels Snowden is a whistle-blower, not a traitor. Yet the government still pursues him as a traitor. There is a huge disconnect between government and people. The government no longer does what's best for the people, the government does what's best for the government at the cost of people. Revealing that the government does unethical things that harm the governed is considered treason. Eventually, speaking out against your government will become a crime as well.

    2. Re:Federal prison by voodoo+cheesecake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      FTFA, he has raised $90,000 in the past few days. That seems to have helped. He has brought attention to legal conflicts that people should be talking about - that will help in a broader sense. It seems like you have given up any notion of progress. It's people who stand up and put things to the test who make a difference - no matter how big or small. If he goes to the joint over it, that's his choice. This media attention IMHO will be of benefit that could have the feds go easier on him because he's not just some unknown guy getting black bagged in an alley and stuffed into a room with no windows - blah, blah, blah.

    3. Re:Federal prison by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And people tell ME my tinfoil hat is getting too tight when I say that the USA soon just need to duplicate the S to be truthful...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Federal prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, jail's not so bad, you can make sangria in the terlet.

      Course, it's shank or be shanked.

    5. Re:Federal prison by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That would depend, a lot, on where you end up but your first stop will be a detention center for classification and that will be unlikely to be a nice place. (23 hour lock down, that sort of thing.) Some folks probably get to skip that but those people have more prestige and money than this guy.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  6. They Thought They Were Free by amoeba1911 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security."

    But Then It Was Too Late

    1. Re:They Thought They Were Free by tgd · · Score: 1, Troll

      "What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security."

      But Then It Was Too Late

      That's just being plain ignorant of history. At virtually no point in human history (including the US) was there a concept of privacy, openness or governmental transparency.

      You may disagree with the reality of the world and wish for something different -- I'm sure most people do -- but pretending this is something new doesn't open the possibility of change because you're focusing on correcting a cause that doesn't actually exist.

      Although, personally, I think its a whole lot less stressful to not worry about things that don't really impact me, always have been and always will be. On that note, I'm going to e-mail and call friends to arrange a barbecue because the weather is really quite spectacular today, and I don't give two shits what spooky government agency might be storing my call records or scanning those e-mails.

    2. Re:They Thought They Were Free by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      What happened was the move towards people expecting that The Government protect The Children from everything, all the time. The safest state is a police state.

    3. Re:They Thought They Were Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A pair of government assassins will be dispatched to 'monitor' your cookout site. Please remain where you are and have a nice day.

    4. Re:They Thought They Were Free by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anyone in security will go "duh" when you tell him of the mutual exclusivity of security and freedom. Oddly, people seem to want to have their cake and eat it too, and pretend that it is somehow possible.

      Personally, I'd prefer freedom. That entails responsibility, and the chance to be harmed. By definition. When I am allowed to do what I want, there is a chance that I will do something that is harmful to me. People tend to do things that are against their best interest all the time, because it is convenient, because it is fun or because it gives them pleasure. From fatty food to cigarettes to alcohol to other drugs, from veggin' away on the couch in front of the idiot box to pushing themselves into a burnout syndrome. If allowed, people will make "wrong" decisions, all the time, every day, throughout their lives.

      But that is their RIGHT. Of course, they waive the right to complain about it. So I really don't get the smokers that have the audacity to sue if they get sick from smoking. Hell, I was a heavy smoker, and I knew bloody well that it is unhealthy and likely deadly. I accepted that risk because I enjoyed it. Suck it up and deal with it, you bought the good, you got the bad for free on top of it. That's what freedom is about, you have to make a decision and you, and you alone, will bear the fallout if it is the wrong decision.

      Isn't that what Americans want? The freedom to choose?

      The freedom to choose whether they want health insurance and what kind thereof caused a big shitstorm, with the whole mess being labeled "Obamacare". No problem there. But if you decided against it and you're having cancer, shut up and die. Don't come and beg me to save you.

      But that's the point I don't get. The very same people that demand that "the man" stays out of their "business" are calling the loudest to "do something" against those terrrrrists and applaud every kind of action the government takes to rob more of our liberties.

      What the hell is wrong with American people?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:They Thought They Were Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think Samuel Adams was writing about you:

      “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

    6. Re:They Thought They Were Free by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2

      Anyone in security will go "duh" when you tell him of the mutual exclusivity of security and freedom.

      Not if they have a clue. A lack of freedom *is* a lack of security -- it means you are not secure against attacks by your government. A lack of security *is* a lack of freedom -- it means you can't act freely because you're subject to attacks by someone.

      Security implies freedom. Freedom implies security. There is no "mutual exclusivity".

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    7. Re:They Thought They Were Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you belong in a death camp, pig.

    8. Re:They Thought They Were Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My God, I can't believe I'm saying this, but:

      I'm starting to think that when our Government finally does cross the line (any reason to think that it eventually won't?) and large groups of people from demographics that are normally silent start protesting and "misbehaving", the stuff that our government's been purchasing and building will get some use. The DHS purchasing 2,700 armored vehicles is ridiculously unnecessary unless something like this comes to pass. KBR building a bunch of empty detention centers- same story.

      I know the tin foil hat is pretty tight right about now, but consider- Violent crime in the US has dropped by about 40% in the last twenty years. What possible reason does our government have for purchasing Two Thousand, Seven Hundred heavily armored vehicles? Why in the hell does our government need nearly 1 billion dollars worth of empty detention facilities?

      I'd be happy to take the damned hat off, but these aren't rhetorical questions. So... why, then?

    9. Re:They Thought They Were Free by sjames · · Score: 2

      You seem confused. It is entirely possible to do something about armed robbery without diminishing your rights at all. It is also tempting to police that aren't appropriately civic minded to violate your rights to make doing something about armed robbery easier for them. It is entirely rational and reasonable on your part to expect police to (for example) figure out who robbed the liquor store and arrest him without also trampling your rights. It is also entirely reasonable to suggest that that would be a better use of police resources than patrolling for jaywalkers.

      Absolute security is what probably can't happen without loss of rights.

    10. Re:They Thought They Were Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the US did have a belief in a transparent court. None of this secret court, secret accuser, and secret accusation. You had a right to face your accuser and face your charges and defend yourself. Russia got blasted for doing it, but now its okay if the US does it. You have sold your soul for the song of security.

    11. Re:They Thought They Were Free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what happened was Americans are so tired and overworked they have little energy left to insure USA is properly governed

    12. Re:They Thought They Were Free by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? Which side are you on again? I don't want an America with death camps - not even for simpering wimps who care not about their freedom.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:They Thought They Were Free by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      Only a tiny bit-brain concludes that if there is tension between two concepts then they are mutually exclusive.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    14. Re:They Thought They Were Free by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Although, personally, I think its a whole lot less stressful to not worry about things that don't really impact me, always have been and always will be. On that note, I'm going to e-mail and call friends to arrange a barbecue because the weather is really quite spectacular today, and I don't give two shits what spooky government agency might be storing my call records or scanning those e-mails.

      I'm sure the government loves people like you and thanks you for making it so easy to violate people's rights.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    15. Re:They Thought They Were Free by tgd · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the government loves people like you and thanks you for making it so easy to violate people's rights.

      What rights? You think you have those rights because Slashdot and the associated media told you. "Privacy" has never been a right in human history. And given that people nearly universally want more privacy than they're willing to grant to others, its a hypocritical imaginary "right".

      The government doesn't give two shits about me, or you for that matter. The difference is, I seem to have a vastly superior grasp of history.

    16. Re:They Thought They Were Free by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech is a relatively new thing as well (and possibly an anomaly in human history; only time will tell). Also, thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule of feeling scared to make it clear what a impotent coward you are.

    17. Re:They Thought They Were Free by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      I'm starting to think that when our Government finally does cross the line (any reason to think that it eventually won't?) and large groups of people from demographics that are normally silent start protesting and "misbehaving", the stuff that our government's been purchasing and building will get some use. The DHS purchasing 2,700 armored vehicles is ridiculously unnecessary unless something like this comes to pass. KBR building a bunch of empty detention centers- same story.

      What possible reason does our government have for purchasing Two Thousand, Seven Hundred heavily armored vehicles? Why in the hell does our government need nearly 1 billion dollars worth of empty detention facilities?

      And since we know that the Government has been listening in to all communications they must be preparing for something. I guess a revolution is closer at hand that many would believe. It makes sense, they hear the talk getting louder so they prepare for the day when they will have to fight to keep control of the country.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    18. Re:They Thought They Were Free by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      I don't regard it as a "hypocritical imaginary right," and I have no idea how it would be hypocritical anyway.

      It is by no means imaginary, and in a world where privacy can be violated more than ever thanks to new technologies, more people seem to be realizing that privacy is a necessity.

      The government doesn't give two shits about me, or you for that matter.

      How do you know this? You're not the one who decides. Furthermore, what of all the people who aren't you or me who attract the government's attention? It doesn't matter if they're abused just because it's not you?

      The difference is, I seem to have a vastly superior grasp of history.

      If that is so, then why is it that you seemingly haven't realized that every government throughout the course of history has abused its power, and especially so when they had too much of it. Supporting this sort of thing seems extremely foolhardy, and in my opinion, demonstrates ignorance of history.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  7. So who is really in power in the United States? by goruka · · Score: 1

    At this point we are seeing evidence that both Republicans and Democrats have a limit to how much (or little) they can do or change.
    Who is, then, in power of the United States if clearly not the legislative branch?

    1. Re:So who is really in power in the United States? by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who is, then, in power of the United States if clearly not the legislative branch?

      The business branch. The Department of State works for the arms merchants, and the Commerce Department for the Wall Street commodities markets.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:So who is really in power in the United States? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. -Frank Zappa

      (often misquoted: "Politics is the entertainment branch of the military-industrial complex" to good effect).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:So who is really in power in the United States? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      The business branch. The Department of State works for the arms merchants, and the Commerce Department for the Wall Street commodities markets.

      None of whom can be abusive unless buffoons build a government that can be twisted so.

      So the problem is the government is too powerful in it's control -- businesses can twist it to hurt competitors or boost themselves.

      Hmmmm. If only the founding fathers had designed a government that disallowed this. Oh wait. They did. It was power-hungry politicians at the behest of "the masses" over 2 centuries who whittled it down, in every single case without a constitutional amendment.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:So who is really in power in the United States? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. -Frank Zappa

      (often misquoted: "Politics is the entertainment branch of the military-industrial complex" to good effect).

      And we're the Pojama People

    5. Re:So who is really in power in the United States? by wiredlogic · · Score: 2

      And the FDA works for big pharma. How else would I know about the many options I have for boner pills and anti-depressants that will royally fuck me up.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    6. Re:So who is really in power in the United States? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The state of Israel.
      Why else would we back those murderers ? Why else would we back them when all of the United Nations condemn them ?
      Why would they be free from the sanctions that should be applied against them ? Because they OWN THE USA that's all.

    7. Re:So who is really in power in the United States? by mattington · · Score: 1
      He said both... Just because you heard one, doesn't mean he also didn't say the other! From this link:

      Zappa also said “politics is the entertainment branch of industry” in a 1987 interview with Keyboard magazine. The quote means that industry runs government, and all politics (such as elections) are strictly for the public’s entertainment, fooling voters into thinking that the elections matter. The term “military-industrial complex” replaced “industry” in Zappa’s quote ("Government/Politics is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex") by at least 2002.

  8. Could be arrested... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Golly gee! Ya think?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  9. what are they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    too much GMO and too little BSE /methinks.

  10. Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Capitalism promotes competitive, selfish activity.

    Eventually, the winners realise that they can corrupt the system of government too. By hook or crook - psychology or guns.

    The only effective society is one which overtly and deliberately puts a cap on power, both of the government and of private individuals, allowing enterprise to flourish while ensuring that the individuals who have benefitted contribute toward a strong infrastructure and humane society.

    This is a social democracy.

    The USSR sucked. The USA sucks. They were the same thing but with "apparatchik" instead of "management" to label the guys running the show. Life under either is glorious for those at the top, and a shitty struggle for the average person.

  11. Resistence, fight, fight, fight by mlwmohawk · · Score: 2

    Just letting the government do this stuff without fighting is cowardly. Our grandfathers fought in WWII. We need to fight the fight at home. We need to fight this stuff. MAKE IT PUBLIC show that the U.S.A. is becoming worse the the old soviet union. We have secret laws and secret police. This is not how a democracy is supposed to work! The general populace can stay in denial if the news can be drowned out. I believe (hope) we, as a country, may wake up if these sorts of things make lots of noise.

    I voted for Obama, and while I don't think the alternatives would have been any better, we need a new kind of president that will not defend these policies. Terrorism has hit every free state. It is a fact of life. We either deal with the risks of freedom or give it up to these evil bastards. (insert Franklin quote)

    Get a national security letter, fight it.
    Get a court order, challenge it in a higher court, rinse, repeat.
    Call the ACLU
    Donate to the ACLU
    encrypt, encrypt, encrypt.

  12. Re:Beware the US legal system. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't worry my friend...

    You will be next...

  13. Why a SECRET order anyway? by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is the government bothering with secret court orders at this point? Do they think that maybe Snowden isn't aware that they are out to get him? If the government was above board with the situation, then perhaps people would be more willing to comply. Is there something in these orders that needs to be hidden from the public eye?

    Just issue a regular warrant for the information. Nobody is arguing about those and they get the same results.

    Unless there is more to this than is apparent.

    (Although, cynical as I am, my first take on this article was not "Evil Government" but "Lavabit's Founders Are Trying To Drum Up Sympathy And Publicity For Their Next Venture". I just can't trust anyone these days ;-)

    1. Re:Why a SECRET order anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because a real court order, You can fight. You can enlist help, a professional lawyer or even contact others in the same situation and try to fight it together, not alone -- divide et impera rings any bells? You can inform the public about the proceedings and the scope of the court order, the information required by the law, or rather what data was leaked to the secret services. A non-secret court allows for scrutiny, compliance with constitution, law and last and also least, morality. You can check it for corruption. An open court is less likely to be taking sides. And so on and so on, You know, things that a rising dictature is not really keen on.

    2. Re:Why a SECRET order anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it probably something along the lines of giving them a permanent tap to every bit of customer data for X years onwards.

      In that situtation you woudn't like the average customer to be aware hes being spied upon.

      Bugging a service that offers privacy is a good method of obtaining blackmail-worthy information.

    3. Re:Why a SECRET order anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The honest real answer is that there was no oversight/cap/regulation put on secret orders, so why not just use them every time? Basically they're just using the retarded system that the politicians handed them. Less paperwork/trouble for them.

  14. See: ISP owner who fought letter before by hazeii · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nicholas Merrill fought this battle before.

    His talk at 27C3 is very, very interesting and deserves to be more widely known. In particular, watch and listen to his explanations of how carefully he has to choose his words - right down to using "it" for the government person he has to deal with (since giving away "its" gendor could get him 10 years in jail).

    --
    All your ghosts are just false positives.
  15. Welcome to the USSA by FuzzNugget · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What a difference a mere few decades makes. This is exactly the type of thing that America historically mocked, derided and demonized the USSR and other "commie" or "evil" nations for doing. America is quite clearly demonstrating that their intentions are no less disingenuous.

    The problem is not communism, not capitalism nor any other -ism. The problem is that the powerful will never satiate their craving for more power. Power absolutely despises being proven wrong and it will continue its scourge at all costs to cover up and misdirect conceptions.

    This is what evil does when it's backed into a corner.

    1. Re:Welcome to the USSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, they should all get some LSD (shrooms, mescaline, ...) administered and sent to psychedelic parties guided by enlightened artists and craftsmen to realize their mistakes and turn around.

    2. Re:Welcome to the USSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's right, it's not about -isms, it's about civilization. Google "civilization definition" and you get: The most advanced stage of human social development and organization.

      Now there's a lie. In terms of human social development, we've been boiled down to the lowest common denominator. What civilization is really about is the relationship between the haves and the have-nots. Look at any civilization from Egypt onwards, and what you get are different incarnations of that relationship. American is the latest incarnation and certainly the most evolved in terms of that relationship. It's taken British divide and conquer to the individual level, served up with a thick corn syrup of hypocrisy. Meanwhile the haves can never have enough to the point they're metastasising into a separate specie, and we already know how the human specie treats the rest of the species on this planet.

      Civilization is a blight on all of us. Now I know what you'll say: absurd, without civilization we'd still be hunting buffalo and worshipping the great spirits. Let me tell you, I'd rather be with my blood brothers dancing under a starry night than typing my two-cents worth to people I'll never know or meet. There's your divide and conquer. The bankers and fund managers, the wealthy retailers and franchise owners have won. Not the cream, but the shit has risen to the top. As for progress, we're on the brink of our greatest masterpiece - turning this planet into a graveyard.

    3. Re:Welcome to the USSA by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      Of course, when we were most critical of the USSR we also had a crazy congressman persecuting American citizens in kangaroo courts for their rumored political affiliation.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    4. Re:Welcome to the USSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I don't generally disagree I want to shout this out:
      the problem is ALL IDEOLOGIES!

      Ideology is trickery. Ideology is used to make people waste personal allegiance and any thoughts and opinions they might have on issues against other ideologies instead of on the actual issues they concern themselves with. Ideologies are used as excuses and pressure. Ideologies are the enemies of thought and reason.

      Ideologies are used to stage mock battles where every ordinary participant is guaranteed to lose by wasting their efforts and intelligence on generalized nonsense, infighting, and drama both internally and externally.

      Ideologies are either created by megalomania (“dreams” about perfect systems) or created by misusing the thoughts, ideals, and actions of others through generalizations and the removal of the importance of context (aka principles).

      Ideologies are atheist/agnostic “religions” and end up duplicating the idiocy of religious warfare in politics.

      Accepting any ideology is the same as begging to be deceived, manipulated, and abused.

  16. If he goes to jail no matter what by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    He should spill the beans on the entire thing. Publish all the details. What we have here is a failure to resist, and no good can come from that. It just makes the death march to the slaughterhouse is little less uncomfortable, but it's a death march regardless.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  17. Re:Beware the US legal system. by Culture20 · · Score: 2

    Are those customers (who will be spied upon anyway with or without your help) worth your entire life?

    Not those customers, but the freedom of all American citizens, yes.

  18. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does the average Slashdot poster engage in such frivolous hyperbole in their daily lives? You must be a joy to work with.

    No one here denies the US government is corruptible, but that happens in social democracies as well. Your perfect system of government is laden with the same tyranny of fools, but you hide it better.

    Perhaps US citizens will wake up to the fact that George Bush and Barack Obama are the same type of person. Power hungry individuals whose only goal is to increase the size of the bureaucracy, while entertaining special interests and corporate lobbyists.

  19. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    Capitalism promotes... ...The USSR sucked. The USA sucks. They were the same thing but with "apparatchik" instead of "management" to label the guys running the show. Life under either is glorious for those at the top, and a shitty struggle for the average person.

    I really enjoyed your post. I haven't seen that notion presented in exactly that way before, and it really hangs together. Makes me think, and I couldn't ask for more than that.

  20. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll bite, and ask how exactly is it doing that?

  21. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 2

    Why the straw man about some type of government being incorruptible?

    My point was that everything is corruptible, so don't allow any single entity to become so powerful that corruption of or by it can ruin a society.

  22. "Terrorism has hit every free state" by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Terrorism is nothing new. People have died from violent acts of insurgents since the beginning of history. The fact is, that terrorism is statistically insignificant as a cause of death. It has always been that way and it hasn't changed much. The leading cause of death "related to terrorism" is trying to fight it. Thousands of soldiers and civilians have gotten hurt and killed in "the war on terrorism" in situations that would not have occurred if this "war" hadn't been fought.

    The leading cause of loss of freedom is fighting terrorism. There is no war. Stop calling it a war. There are clear definitions of what a war is and it has to be between two or more countries, or it has to be a "civil war" in which two or more parts of the same country go to war amongst themselves. Terrorism is nothing new and you're feeding it by giving it the attention it's after. The terrorists achieve more of their goals by this "war on terrorism" than they would if they were to be successful just a bit more often than they are now and we would ignore them. You can't fight this sort of terrorism anyway, since it's using every "freedom right" we want so much for ourselves, which our forefathers fought for so hard. If we give up those rights, we have nothing left to fight for and the terrorists have won.

    The more you fight terrorism, the worse the situation gets. Let it go and enjoy your freedom. Don't spend money, lives and freedom on it. I'm not saying you should stop trying to prevent attacks, but you should stop giving up freedom and privacy for it.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:"Terrorism has hit every free state" by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 2

      There is an entire field called Risk Communication to find ways of explaining this to people. RC consultants are needed again and again to explain, in all facets of life, how to determine risk without using fear and bad data.

      Logic does not help. Data does not help. You need to get an entire country to a risk seminar and understand what their brain is doing to them first. While factual, this is actually the worst way to convert people's beliefs.

      Don't be surprised when you, and everyone else preaching the same message, fail to make progress.

    2. Re:"Terrorism has hit every free state" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So teach people that compassion is the opposite of fear.

      So many people who call themselves Christians that do the exact opposite of what Jesus said. Someone once told me that much evidence pointed to Jesus being Theravada Buddhist...all that talk about loving thy neighbours and enemies...

      If you want to fight terrorism, stop calling people terrorists.
      They are people who commit terrorist acts. Still people, misguided people...but that doesn't mean you should fear or hate them.

      Dehumanising people and creating villains just makes it easier to send them to internment camps.

    3. Re:"Terrorism has hit every free state" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The War on Terror has always been a power grab. The Basque separatists have not attacked us and we have no reason to believe they would. The IRA has not attacked us and we have no reason to believe they would. There are clearly some terrorists that our government is not concerned with. The 9/11 attacks were carried out by people of a specific singular ideology - Wahibbism. The strongholds of Wahibbism are in very specific places - Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. These people and places should have been named and been the focus of the war. To make it broader than a War Against Theocratic Fascist Elements of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan was wrong. Saudi Arabia in particular had hosted and cultivated these violent fascists for some time. Why were their people instead of ours not the ones being felt up and surveilled? Oil. The political incorrectness of fighting any war against any theocrats by such a religious country as the USA. Intelligence pork. Justify the expense involved in protecting the few actual targets - 1%-ers that our foreign policy is accountable to. For the spooks who lead spook lives, more spook power.

  23. So, Google, How You Enjoying Things? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to know why Google hasn't decided to pull the plug on their search engine. You know, considering it's almost most definitely used by nearly everyone in the world, including ter'rists. Wouldn't all of THAT information need to be handed over too.

    Well, I guess if you're too big to fail, big bad daddy gov'ment won't threaten you with arrest.

  24. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

    Capitalism promotes competitive, selfish activity.

    Eventually, the winners realise that they can corrupt the system of government too. By hook or crook - psychology or guns.

    The only effective society is one which overtly and deliberately puts a cap on power, both of the government and of private individuals, allowing enterprise to flourish while ensuring that the individuals who have benefitted contribute toward a strong infrastructure and humane society.

    This is a social democracy.

    The USSR sucked. The USA sucks. They were the same thing but with "apparatchik" instead of "management" to label the guys running the show. Life under either is glorious for those at the top, and a shitty struggle for the average person.

    People have to take responsibility as well.

    Do I dislike the way the USA is headed? Yes.

    Do I blame a large percentage of the US population for not paying attention and allowing themselves to become and then remain willfully ignorant? Yes.

    The USA is not yet at the point where the USSR was, and it's not yet too late for change...but if it doesn't happen soon it may never happen at all.

    Wake up America, or lose everything you care about.

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  25. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, water is wet.

  26. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People seek power rather than stick to their ideals. If they stick to their agreed national & foundational ideals, countries would be a lot better.

    This is not news, nor is it related to capitalism, nor would a social democracy be any more impervious to it.

    (captcha: savagely)

  27. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

    But people *don't* stick to their ideals, which is why you need a balance of power - in the pragmatic sense, not the idealistic sense. A social democratic country tries to achieve a balance.

    It is not related to capitalism per se, but to any system which bases itself on some extreme ideal - communism, capitalism, pacifism, fascism, whatever.

  28. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a social democracy.

    Yes, and forget about the small business. Those employer traitors to the state have made nothing but profits with their private, person-attached companies. Lets take their pensions and reduce their medical benefits below what the top 1% earners get and give those as subsidies to large employers, with factories and all. Anybody working off-hours, 4-20 hours a day variably must be in bed with the fascists.
      Yes, there are problems with some implementations of social democracies.

  29. No NO NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's simply not how it works.

    The Root CA creates a self-signed certificate. This is the 'axiom of trust', you have to import this and trust it.

    Then there are subsidiary certificates are that are SIGNED by the Root CA.
    What this means is the Root CA attests that the public key in the
    certificate truly belongs to the Entity named in the certificate.

    The Root CA NEVER SEES INTERMEDIATE PRIVATE KEYS.

    You can have a private key on a smart card that never, ever
    leaves the smartcard and still get your cert signed.

    You are very confused.

    1. Re:No NO NO! by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      But... if somebody has access to your ISP and the CA's servers they can easily mount a man-in-the-middle attack.

      Public keys aren't necessary for email. Private keys would work just as well is some sort of key exchange was done in the first few emails you exchange with a person (maybe better than public keys, in fact - and you wouldn't have to pay CAs for their services).

      This isn't done in any major email software, I don't believe that's an accident.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:No NO NO! by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Exchanging keys over the longer-term communications medium makes it very easy to mount a man-in-the-middle attack. If you're concerned about such attacks, you need some trusted medium for key verification (or exchange) so that you and your communications partner know that each is using the same key as the other. Back in the 1990s, that medium was often key signing parties, where trust in someone's photo ID was backed up by using the social network (hey, Bob, is this really Charlie Doe?). Using a certificate authority is another way to do it... if you actually have good reason to trust both the particular CA and the chain of custody for what you think is the CA's public key.

    3. Re:No NO NO! by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      if you actually have good reason to trust both the particular CA and the chain of custody for what you think is the CA's public key.

      This is the real problem with CAs. I think we can be fairly sure the NSA has access to all the major CAs, making 'secure' web sites, etc. moot (as far as the NSA is concerned).

      The US government wouldn't have given up trying to ban encryption if they hadn't found ways to listen in.

      --
      No sig today...
  30. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

    Which specific outlier are you complaining about please?

  31. Re:Beware the US legal system. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed. We seem to live in an era where making a personal sacrifice for the greater good is considered to be suspect behaviour, and not just what a civilised individual does. That is unless of course the personal sacrifice is sanctioned by the powers that be. In which case you'll be wrapped in a flag and heralded as a hero.

  32. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wake up America, or lose everything you care about.

    Oh god, is something going to happen to Game of Thrones?!

  33. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by mrclisdue · · Score: 1

    ...social democracy....

    The mere use of those two words, especially together, caused almost half of the USA readership to disregard your post.

    cheers,

  34. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The development of the USSR is an interesting one, and one that is a showcase of how good intentions are easily perverted into the most heinous reality, provided that power hungry megalomaniacs are allowed to rule. Sadly, it is the power hungry megalomaniac that WANTS to rule.

    The USSR started as a hope for a "worker's paradise", and in Marx' theory, it sure is. People worked hard towards that goal because they were promised a glorious future, and they believed it. By and by, they noticed that nothing gets better, or that it does only for the few on top, and the rest was a tyranny that tried hard to keep up the status quo, i.e. the good life for the "party people" and the struggle for the rest, until it just couldn't be propped up anymore.

    Now replace the promise of the glorious future for everyone with the promise that you, too, can be rich if you work hard, and by and by people noticing that working does not get you rich, and I wonder if I really imagine the parallels here.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  35. My pedantic solution to surveillance gag orders by capedgirardeau · · Score: 1

    I know this is probably wouldn't fly, but what the hell:

    When you sign up for a service the service provider agrees to send you an email every day that says:

    "By government order your materials or service with us is under surveillance and/or investigation, we are required to turn over all the data we have about you."

    Then when the government does send your service provider a notice to look at your stuff and it includes one of those gag orders that says you can not inform the target of the surveillance, the daily emails have to stop.

    You as a customer can then deduce whatever you want to about the cessation of the daily notice emails.

    --
    Wax on, wax off baby!
    1. Re:My pedantic solution to surveillance gag orders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably??? Technologists and pedants often seem to think that you can circumvent a law by following a path the law didn't think of in the first place. Yes I know corporations try that all the time, but if it's you against the government you can be sure as hell it ain't gonna work. Law is based on -intent-. Your intention to disclose the existence of a secret order by -stopping- a signal is enough to get you in deep doo-doo. Do you think the government cares if you push a button, -don't- push a button, or use a smoke signal? Good luck with that.

    2. Re:My pedantic solution to surveillance gag orders by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, then service provider gets secret order that it has to provide data about user AND continue sending those emails. What, can't they ask that? Who will prevent them when you can't even talk to your lawyer about this....

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    3. Re:My pedantic solution to surveillance gag orders by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      This sort of thing seems to work for bankers...

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    4. Re:My pedantic solution to surveillance gag orders by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Having some trouble finding the stories now, but ISTR that librarians did something similar when the PATRIOT act was passed.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    5. Re:My pedantic solution to surveillance gag orders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not a banker. Lavabit is not a bank. Banks are not involved in this discussion. Bringing them up does nothing.

    6. Re:My pedantic solution to surveillance gag orders by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      You are not a banker.

      I never said I was.

      Lavabit is not a bank.

      I never said it was.

      Banks are not involved in this discussion.

      Since I brought them up, they are now.

      The reason I brought bankers up is because he claimed that people can't circumvent the law by following paths that the law didn't think of, but that does not seem to apply to bankers.

      Bringing them up does nothing.

      Going by that same logic, posting your comment did nothing. What of it?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  36. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > The USSR sucked. The USA sucks.

    Ummmm, actual measurements of wealth and longevity disagreed. This is a meme lodged in your head that is not in accordance with reality. You should go about fixing it.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  37. Secret court orders, secret trials by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

    All that's missing is establishing a People's Court and we're set.

    (Please read the Wikipedia article before invoking Godwin)

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Secret court orders, secret trials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still hoping for a Night Court

  38. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering the USA had nearly a century and a half head start, I wouldn't expect the USSR to have come close to catching up with it. And yet we're talking about differences in life expectancy of a few years, and very nearly irrelevant definitions of "wealth" when we contrast the models of service provision.

    For example, when I lived in the US, I was able to earn a lot more money than in the UK. But it was worth a lot less, as private insurance is an inefficient rip-off vs British healthcare and social safety net. There's really little opportunity for comfort in the US except for a small proportion of people: the majority work far more hours than are needed to sustain a decent lifestyle for the whole country. Western continental Europe does so much better.

    I have a brief personal experience with the end of the USSR, and my family worked for a car firm which did business there under Khrushchev. Sure, it sucked too, but not in the terrific way caricatured by Western propaganda.

    So, it's a "meme" which I've lodged in my head based on personal experience - and a concerted attempt to enjoy and appreciate both extremes. And that's before we bring in the experiences of everyone else.

  39. All hail Soviet States of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it only fitting that the end of human rights for US citizens comes when a black guy is in charge?

  40. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

    The pulpit's across the street, luv.

  41. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

    Yup, they're giving you the same dragon to chase. At least the religious types were clever enough to only make promises about what happens after death...

  42. You didn't erase everything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it hard to believe the hard drives have not already been erased or destroyed. Any business dealing in electronic information storage should immediately, upon closure, destroy everything. It's the only way to prevent that information from being used against the clients. Post the damn court order of you get arrested! I'd give copies of it to my friends to leak anonymously immediately upon my arrest.

  43. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

    No, it is the inevitable consequence of asking the government to regulate ever more economic activity (from certain perspectives, everything you do is economic activity) in the name of protecting the people from "corporate interests". Inevitably as the government gathers more power to itself, the only way to accumulate wealth is through government intervention. Those who have wealth use it to acquire connections allowing them to control where the government intervention occurs. Those who have political power use it to acquire wealth. In time, these two groups merge. At which point the economy begins to collapse, as more and more of society's wealth and political power becomes concentrated in the hands of an ever smaller group of people. These people act to prevent others from acquiring wealth or political power, which leads to the economy gradually becoming less and less productive.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  44. he should be fine by Xicor · · Score: 1

    if his company was incorporated, he cannot be charged with anything on a personal matter. if he dissolves his company, they cant do anything to him (legally). i doubt they care about legality though, because they are a ridiculous government organization that answers to noone. honestly what i suggest is to encrypt everything in some ridiculous encryption that the NSA would take decades breaking, then hand it over fully encrypted without the key. as he is handing over the data, he is complying with the order to hand over the data.

    1. Re:he should be fine by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      NSLs do not work that way, nor do any other laws. That `corporate veil' is only about liability for finances. If you are a Fedex driver and decide to drive drunk and kill three people, you are still at fault.

    2. Re:he should be fine by Xicor · · Score: 1

      that may be true, however, he was acting as a president of a company when he made the decision not to give up the data to the NSA, not a person, it is very different from a driver killing people. the NSA cant go after everyone in teh company because they wouldnt give up information.

  45. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

    First things first: enforcement of all property laws, real and virtual, are "government intervention" and "economic regulation". The law determines who owns what, when and how. (You may say: "No! My personal philosophy determines that!" but that's just the basis used for the law. It's still government regulation which enforces it.)

    So, the moment you have any protections on anything beyond the person, you have government economic regulation.

    At which point the game for balance of power has already begun.

  46. Obey to the police state or be destroyed by dumky2 · · Score: 1

    Is there any alternative but recognize the police state, when every innocent citizen can be targeted for committing an estimated three felonies a day, harassed for an even greater number of costly and discretionary regulations and audits, secretly recorded, detained in secret prisons and coerced by secret court orders?

    At what point does the state, with the cooperation of many people around, own you?

    Regarding the first point, see Harvey Silverglate's "Three Felonies a Day," book which is "referring to the number of crimes he estimates the average American now unwittingly commits because of vague laws".
    Regarding the second point, see the case of Catherine Engelbrecht as an illustration.

    --
    These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
  47. Assumptions by longk · · Score: 1

    The guy never said he was host to Edward Snowden. He confirmed that there was a user account with that name, which is not the same. He also never said he got a letter from the NSA or otherwise connected the shutdown to Snowden. There's a ton of warrants he could have received that come with a gag order.

    1. Re:Assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSL's all are under a gag order. I am not sure how any court that is not the Supreme Court can claim that their orders cannot be appealed.

  48. American Justice by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    America used to be, and I repeat, USED TO BE a country which everyone looked up to., yours truly included

    I came from a communist country, and I was so impressed with the United States of America that I ended up becoming a naturalized American citizen.

    The place I came from there was no democracy, no human rights, no freedom and no justice, America had everything that I ever hoped for.

    However, my American Dream slowly transformed into American Dismay, and finally ended up as American Disgust

    From a country which cherishes and champion Human Rights, the United States becomes a country where "Human Rights" is used as a tool to criticize others

    Democracy ? It sure is a convenient device to hoodwink the American voters.

    Freedom ? If there is any genuine freedom left in the United States of America Mr. Ladar Levison wouldn't have to shut down Lavabit

    Justice ? Can whatever that has happened to Mr. Snowden be anything remotely related to "Justice" ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:American Justice by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Just weeks after NSA boss Alexander said that a review of NSA spying found not even one violation, the Washington Post published an internal NSA audit showing that the agency has broken its own rules thousands of times each year
      • NSA whistleblowers say that the NSA collects all of our conversations word-for-word
      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:American Justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      professional liers lie, hardly news is it?

    3. Re:American Justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      War is Peace.
      Ignorance is Strength.
      Freedom is Slavery.

      With Love,

        Big Brother

    4. Re:American Justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Well, feel free to leave. Adios!

      You're not the only one that's frustrated with our government, but there are ways of fixing it -- hint: there are more than two political parties to vote for, either of which is eager to take away your rights. However, if you don't like the freedom that you have in the US, perhaps you need to become a citizen of a different country. Being able to voice your dismay about the government and having the comfort of knowing that there won't be a knock on your door with soldiers coming to get you is a good thing.

      Your concept of justice is as flawed as your concept of freedom. Justices and judges do NOT get to rule based on their own personal preferences. In fact, there are no courts of justice anywhere in the US; there are courts of law. If the law says that given suspicion X about company Y, that company Y can be compelled to turn over normally private information -- then that's the law. Do you really think that your (or the judge's) concept of justice comes into play at all when approving those subpoenas? The courts are not the problem. The problem is that democratically elected lawmakers created those laws that are now being enforced. The laws are the problem, and our congressmen are the problem, but the judges are simply doing their job -- doing what the law compels them to do. You wouldn't blame cars for driving 80 mph past your house if there were speed signs that said the speed limit was 80 mph, would you?

      Democrats and Republicans have done an equally good job at stripping our rights -- usually using secret laws to keep the public from knowing about it and which also gag anyone involved from telling the public about it. Still, 95%+ of the people that vote are going to vote Democrat or Republican, so nothing is going to change. In that respect, the problem isn't even the government officials making the laws that the judges have to honor and police/soldiers need to enforce, it's the people's fault. We collectively get the government that we deserve.

      While it may seem extreme, Jim Crow laws sound fantastic to me, but obviously without the bias against race/ethnicity (which is stupid). Instead, the bias should be against the uneducated. If you don't know what a candidate is promising to do, or what they've done in the past (if they were previously elected), then you don't get to vote. If you vote [insert political party here] only because it's "who you are", and your family votes for that party, and your friends vote for that party, you don't get to vote. If you vote for a party because your pastor says that it's a sin to vote the other way, then you don't get to vote. If you think that the president of the US gets to decide gas prices, you don't get to vote. Why should an uneducated vote have as much weight as someone who has taken the time to actually understand how government works, investigate each candidate, and then make an educated vote? There's a reason that doctors don't choose their treatments by popular vote in the waiting room. But for some reason, it's okay for uneducated Americans to vote -- most of whom have no idea that rights have even been stripped away.

      More realistically, I hope that one day the US gets runoff voting. That's the only thing that will ever break our two-party system, because until then, voting any other way is just throwing the vote away. There are political parties that are appalled with what's going on... but they have no chance of doing anything about it. And the political parties in power will never allow runoff voting in the US for exactly that reason.

    5. Re:American Justice by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I haven't had any troops quartered in my home and I have a big place actually. I could fit some bunks and stuff but I'm keeping my network locked down, don't want 'em looking up porn and slowing my torrents down.

      But, anyhow, I don't recall having that one violated though I have to wonder with the police as militarized as they are what we might think about recent events in Boston area.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:American Justice by vilanye · · Score: 2

      If the courts can find a rationale they can declare the law unconstitutional and refuse to honor it.

      That the courts have not found FISA warrants and the "Patriot" Act unconstitutional means they are complicit in the undermining of the very document they swore to uphold.

    7. Re:American Justice by iksrazal_br · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I emigrated from the USA to Brazil and come from an opposite angle. The USA has the ACLU, EFF, and a few politicians on both sides of the isle who care about liberty and its growing. Political blogs are uncensored. Corrupt politicians often go to jail, like 4 of the last 6 governors of Illinois for example. State ballot initiatives in many cases side step politicians. Judges are often elected, and there is a mostly consistent due process.

      Brazil and elsewhere, despite its greatness, not so much. Everyday on TV there are corrupt politicians but none ever go to jail. There are censorship boundaries and no liberty pressure groups or politicians really. IMHO it really is a case where every else is worse in terms of justice and liberty.

    8. Re:American Justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem was that our Constitution was written without any Teeth, no enforcement of its mandates.

      The language of the second amendment should have been much much stronger, authorizing not only the right to bear arms, but also the right to use them against any government official who violated his oath of office and failed to defend and protect the constitution.

      How many court gag orders would there be if issuing one put a bulls-eye on the judges forehead?

    9. Re:American Justice by Vindicator9000 · · Score: 3

      Ask and you shall receive: This guy is suing because the cops demanded that he consent to them occupying his house. When he refused, they sent a team to take his house by force and arrested him.

    10. Re:American Justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      However, if you don't like the freedom that you have in the US, perhaps you need to become a citizen of a different country.

      Kind of like how George Washington "voted"? "If you don't like it, then get out", is an unpatriotic and anti-USA view. It is a patriotic duty to replace a government that does not stand for the people. Obviously that is not something you do on a whim as it is a very high cost, but the USA is founded on the fact that government must be replaced in that case.

      Heck, the USA was started because the tax on tea was too high. If you think that people these days are complaining too much, then look at our founding fathers for the ultimate, zomg! taxes! I need to drink my tea and coffee doesn't cut it! Imagine people starting a revolution about the government taxing cigarettes too much.

    11. Re:American Justice by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 2

      Justice ? Can whatever that has happened to Mr. Snowden be anything remotely related to "Justice" ?

      Not using the proper dictionary definitions, no. Only when using the fucked up, mangled and corrupt U.S. "legal" definition can anyone come up with a way to tag their treatment and handling of Edward Snowden and his leaks with the word "justice." But it extends to many, many areas of the court and prison system, and the laws governing them. War on drugs, anyone? Face it, America is corrupt. It's just becoming more and more obvious and difficult to deny, and the government seems to be more aggressive than ever instead of trying to be sneaky.

    12. Re:American Justice by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Justices and judges do NOT get to rule based on their own personal preferences.

      But that happens all the time. Judges used ridiculous logic to justify the TSA, for example. I mean, how else would some blatantly unconstitutional practices be considered constitutional? Some of them are even overturned later, indicating that personal preferences are involved.

      The problem is that democratically elected lawmakers created those laws that are now being enforced.

      The constitution is the highest law of the land, so what lawmakers pass is irrelevant.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    13. Re: American Justice by nbritton · · Score: 1

      Ask and you shall receive: This guy is suing because the cops demanded that he consent to them occupying his house. When he refused, they sent a team to take his house by force and arrested him.

      Jesus, they did all that just so they could win against some poor dude they charged with domestic violence. Don't they have any forcable felonies to solve? Maybe they already took care of those people, if you know what I mean. We need to take away their immunity.

    14. Re:American Justice by ixidor · · Score: 1

      ya, was aldus huxley a secret time traveler .. sheesh ..

    15. Re:American Justice by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how they'll take it as "military" or not but it should be interesting. Thanks for the case. I've not seen this one.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    16. Re:American Justice by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      True but you have more liberty to bribe those corrupt politicians in brazil and you have more that go unpunished in the US.

      Everyone has 100% liberty. Your liberty is just organized differently from US liberty and everyone in the US has stopped excersising theirs and giving it up.

      I wager in many countries theres places to live far away from the power elite who are watching everything you do.

      Even China has its pros and cons. Look at the big business investment there.

      As far as the human race is concerned liberty is tied directly into how much power and influence you can wield. In America the powerful hand out power to minorities to oppress the rest of us through crazy affirmative action. Welfare programs. Laws that the oppressed don't mind (walmart employees) but that kill young entrepreneurs dead in their tracks.

      There is no recourse trust me. Its a lie that you can "move upwards and build empires" on an equal footing with people. You have to impress someone higher up in the food chain and get permission to use their power to oppress others. See Steve Jobs. Other countries and Aristocracies are much more honest about their oppression than the US. Feels no different being poor, having zero wealth, with no bank account in this country. There is ZERO support for me here to do anything about this situation. And I'm reasonable intelligent and able bodied.

      But I have to get in line behind the idiots in this country who have fucked up worse then I, or are some perceived minority. And once I get to the front my options are to "lease" property or wealth from a bank or someone else.

      There is no frontier, no liberty, no freedom. No self made men. And no real competition.

    17. Re:American Justice by flayzernax · · Score: 1

      Well there is just one option. Go to prison so I can get some of that affirmative action.

    18. Re:American Justice by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I don't think it's any surprise that a developing country isn't as good as the US in many ways, even though the US has been flagging a lot in the last decade or more.

      Instead of comparing the US to various underdeveloped countries rife with corruption, or with autocratic governments, we should be comparing it with the countries which lead the world economically and in many quality-of-life indices, such as Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, and Japan. America always claims to be #1, but compared to countries like this, it's not.

    19. Re:American Justice by gmanterry · · Score: 3, Informative

      America used to be, and I repeat, USED TO BE a country which everyone looked up to., yours truly included

      I came from a communist country, and I was so impressed with the United States of America that I ended up becoming a naturalized American citizen.

      The place I came from there was no democracy, no human rights, no freedom and no justice, America had everything that I ever hoped for.

      However, my American Dream slowly transformed into American Dismay, and finally ended up as American Disgust

      From a country which cherishes and champion Human Rights, the United States becomes a country where "Human Rights" is used as a tool to criticize others

      Democracy ? It sure is a convenient device to hoodwink the American voters.

      Freedom ? If there is any genuine freedom left in the United States of America Mr. Ladar Levison wouldn't have to shut down Lavabit

      Justice ? Can whatever that has happened to Mr. Snowden be anything remotely related to "Justice" ?

      I find this to be so true. We have lost control of the government because we can't vote out the powerful members of the House and it is impossible to get rid of an incumbent Senator. Just think about it. The reason they can't be gotten rid of is because there no longer is anyone who is middle of the road. The people who vote for Republicans won't vote for a Democrat because they want someone who supports gun rights and religious morality. To reinforce this districts are mapped so that their district contains a majority of like minded voters. So even though they hate their Rep or Senator, (like McCain) they can't bring themselves to vote for the other party. The Democrat voters have the same dilemma, They can't bring themselves to vote for someone who wants to deny rights to gays, and other minorities. Therefore, once you have your seat in the Senate, you are there for life. The only solutions to the entrenched Senators problem are 1) term limits which will never happen. And 2) only slightly easier, repeal of the 17th amendment, which changed the original Constitution from where Senators were appointed by their State Governors. The 17th amendment reduced the power of the States to influence the Federal Government considerably. Term limits are the only way to get rid of entrenched Representatives. The parties seem to discourage members from challenging incumbents. We, the public, ladies and gentlemen, are pretty much screwed.

      --
      Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
    20. Re:American Justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The language of the second amendment should have been much much stronger, authorizing not only the right to bear arms, but also the right to use them against any government official who violated his oath of office and failed to defend and protect the constitution.

      Yeah, the reason it doesn't is because the founders had faith in due process, the rule of law, and mediated justice instead of "shoot someone if you disagree with them."

    21. Re:American Justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, i see two choices. Help make things better in this country, or in another country. Are you still here? The thing is, as bad as it is here (U.S.A.) are you sure it isn't worse in country B?

    22. Re:American Justice by jobdrb · · Score: 1

      I really don't like comparisons Country vs Country, there is no sense in this. How you will compare a Big Country with a small Country? How you will compare a more homogeneous culture with a very diversity culture? Comparison is only useful, when you see something that you never know, or something that you want, regardless where come from.

  49. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    You appear to have overlooked the phrase "regulate EVER MORE economic activity". The key is to limit how much power to regulate economic activity the government has. Every time you ask the government to regulate more economic activity, you are increasing the probability that such government activity will result in an increase in the power and wealth of a few.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  50. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by ukemike · · Score: 2

    The USSR sucked. The USA sucks. They were the same thing but with "apparatchik" instead of "management" to label the guys running the show. Life under either is glorious for those at the top, and a shitty struggle for the average person.

    I would disagree that "management" is running much of anything. In most companies "management" only manages means and methods the goals are set by the system. Profit, shareholder value, and whatever supports these goals, that's the task of management.
    Literally a publicly held company by law must maximize shareholder value. There is no choice and there is no person deciding this. I believe that even massively rich industrialists that get neck deep in politics, like the Kochs, don't have the power to make fundamental changes unless those changes serve the god of lucre. Even the New Deal of FDR was needed to prevent the growing tide of socialism, and therefore served the purpose of preserving the system. The only thing that has ever changed things for the better is large numbers of people organizing and taking power from the system and from the rulers.

    --
    -- QED
  51. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Considering the USA had nearly a century and a half head start,

    So the USSR sprang up from nothing in the north of Eastern Europe and Northern Asia? Russia never existed?

  52. Confused by mdm42 · · Score: 1
    Colour me confused: duplicate the S much?

    SUSA?
    USAS?
    USSA?

    --
    New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
    1. Re:Confused by PessimysticRaven · · Score: 1

      Yes. As in USSR.

      Oh, lookie, another Communism reference!

      --
      Consistency is only a virtue if you're not a screw-up.
  53. Your own fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to avoid this situation, you should not store your customers' data in plaintext on your systems. If you don't have the data—or the keys—you can comply with the authorities' demands with a good conscience.

  54. Land of the free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Land of the free . . . so great!

  55. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, you're a retard.

  56. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FOR TH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Winner. These retards just don't get it do they. They'll keep voting for authoritarians and hoping for a better outcome next time.

  57. Slavery defense? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Suppose I'm a bookstore owner and I get a court order to tell the police about any future purchases of one of my customers.

    Suppose I just decide to put a "we're closed" sign on the door and go on a long vacation.

    Then the police charge me with contempt of court.

    I counter with "I'm not in the military, I'm not a convicted criminal serving a sentence, I'm not under a labor or personal-services contract with the police, so you (the police) can't make me go to work, that would be involuntary servitude."

    I see something similar here.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Slavery defense? by redlemming · · Score: 1

      Suppose I'm a bookstore owner and I get a court order to tell the police about any future purchases of one of my customers.

      You can't simultaneously have a Bill of Rights where Congress can pass NO LAW infringing freedom of speech and federal court orders requiring one to speak to federal agents, judges, or congressional investigators.

      Forcing someone to speak is an infringement of freedom of speech.

      Why then, do we have such a system, where there are massive contradictions in fundamental areas of law?

      The answer is simple. It's not in the interests of the legal profession to law a legal system that people can understand. Having a complex, confusing, even contradictory legal system creates long term business for their profession.

      Similarly, for those who wish to abuse power, or who wish to bribe the government to act in their favour, a complex and contradictory legal system provides pretexts that serve as an umbrella under which they can hide their actions. They simply choose to justify their actions in terms of the laws and precedents that favour their point of view, and ignore the ones that don't. As long as they can spend more money on legal fees than their opponents, they are likely get away with this. Secret courts just make the problem worse.

      In ethics terms, this problem has a name: "Conflict of Interests." If there is a single root cause to the current disaster that masquerades as a legal system in the USA, this ethics issue is that root cause.

      If there are circumstances under which it is appropriate for the government to coerce people to talk, then the only ethical way to implement this is to create another amendment that changes the wording of the 1st. Of course, this isn't likely to happen, because our legal profession has discovered that they don't have to be ethical to be successful.

      What we need to be doing is asserting a right to ethical practice of law and to ethical government, as a right "retained by the people" under the 9th Amendment, and "reserved to the people" under the 10th, and going after the government and the legal profession for violations of their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights in these kinds of situations. This is the only way I can see to try to fix the mess we're in that makes an effort to work within the system, as opposed to another revolution.

  58. Fuck the NSA and Obamas thugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subject says it all, fuck you sellout pigs

    1. Re:Fuck the NSA and Obamas thugs by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I personally believe they're Bush/Cheney thugs that Obama can't get rid of.

    2. Re:Fuck the NSA and Obamas thugs by RR · · Score: 1

      Actually, I personally believe they're Bush/Cheney thugs that Obama can't get rid of.

      Then you personally are part of the problem. This mess is bipartisan. The guy on top changes for entertaining reasons every few years, but the substance never changes.

      When Clinton was building the security apparatus, the Republicans were making a fuss. Then they quieted down while Bush built it even more. The Democrats made lots of noise, but they quieted down in turn when Obama was elected. That's just what I noticed since I was big enough to understand what was going on. I'm sure this has been going on since before I was born.

      The whole thing is corrupt. The politicians. The party officials who choose the politicians. The administrators who run the government agencies. The media executives who sell the public in exchange for privileged access and a steady stream of vapid entertainment. But I suspect that the real problem goes deeper. I think it's just not possible to have a government over this many people with this much power, without it being corrupt. The United States needs to be dismantled.

      If your vote really could count, and you wanted it to count, then you would not be voting for any of these corrupt Democrats or Republicans.

      --
      Have a nice time.
  59. Slavery by sjames · · Score: 1

    It's hard to be sure since a judge wiped his ass with the 1st amendment, but I'm guessing Lavabit was shut down to avoid participation in an on-going government spying operation against one or likely all of his customers. It strikes me that calling that a violation of his court order is constructive slavery since it would require him to continue his labors for the benefit of others against his will. It is his natural right to shut down his business even if it is inconvenient for some TLA.

  60. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by quarrelinastraw · · Score: 1

    I think you shouldn't be immune to the observation that in calling the parent's argument "based on emotion" and "deliberate propaganda" you occuse your opponent of "promoting ... dictatorship and slavery".

    Let's take a step back here. We are all geeks and we can approach governance from an engineering point of view. If I read you correctly, you're advocating a somewhat extreme social contract viewpoint in which the only legitimate function of government is to take us out of the state of nature by granting the government as minimal a monopoly on violence and power as possible. This view isn't unreasonable on its face, but there is more to it.

    In any society, including humans, there is a distribution of power and resources that comes from natural survival of the fittest. The basic idea of government is to voluntarily abdicate much of this power to a central authority (where central can mean tribal, state, federal, world, etc). This creates the natural problem of a single point of attack: any group that can infiltrate the government will be able to use that centralized power for personal gain. This creates the need to impose laws on things like (1) who can serve in government (probably not felons, e.g.), (2) what limits members of government can have in their personal influence (e.g. can anybody unilaterally declare war?), (3) limitations on the influence other powerful social members have on the government (e.g. campaign funds, revolving doors) and many others. The point here is that it's a question of engineering. How do we organize the central authority so that the people have maximal freedom to do anything they want and they don't have to fear being pushed around by anyone.

    Where you and your opponent disagree most is in determing the strongest threat to government infiltration. The social contract tradition, of which you seem to subscribe, was concerned primarily about landed aristocracies using the power of government to do anything they like. This was historically opposed by a class of business owners and farmers who favored a representative democracy. But in the course of history many things have changed. America has no landed aristocrats, so we no longer worry about that. Instead, it has a class of people who believe that selfishness is a positive virtue that is much more important than telling the truth or helping others. This belief flourishes in America's political structure because it is easy for such people to lie in order to gain votes but then to ignore the voters once in office. The parent believes that these people are using government to their advantage to the detriment of the vast majority of the public.

    From this point of view, the "free market" rhetoric is a device to convince the population that there is a moral imperative to turn every part of society into a money-making enterprise. Naturally, if you do this you end up with something very much like what you see in, say, Boardwalk Empire or any other popular depiction of organized crime. In fact, it should be rather obvious that organized crime is only crime because there are laws that prevent business men from engaging in certain profitable businesses, such as human trafficking, drug exportation, war profiteering, and so forth. It raises the question of why any of these things is illegal in the first place.

    And, quite obviously, the reason they are illegal is that in a truly free market, labor has the right to organize and the poor have the right to protest and vote. So in a free market, a government will voluntarily implement policies that limit the ways that businesses can exploit others for profit. The only way to get an "ideal" free market of the sort Milton Friedman advocates is to sneak pro-corporate laws onto the books or into the courts since naturally those laws will be opposed by anybody not directly benefited by them.

    The mistake you make is that you don't see a free market as a process, you see it as a set of laws. But historically you never get that set of law

  61. Might not even be a court order by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    If (hypothetically -- we have no real data) it was a National Security Letter, it would have come straight from an executive branch agency with no court oversight.

  62. Freedom *IS* security by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    It's horribly unsafe to live in a non-free society. Once the gulags are there, you can get sent away for simply offending the wrong person.

    1. Re:Freedom *IS* security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Security is being in control. Freedom is not secure but it is risky business. Many people would rather have stable security than risky freedom.

  63. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are delusional. It is far to late for change. Their is nothing, even if 90% of the country were to come together for years and vote the best ways possible, that the problems can be fixed. Ultimately it is not the people in office that have to be dealt with, it is their corporate pay masters. The only way to fix this is a proper revolutionary cycle in the Hegelian sens. Those with all the power have to be eliminated, and their resources redistributed. Then we need to redefine this country, and design it in a modern way, where power-seeking is prohibited and power-seekers are punished.

  64. Insightful. See the legal history. by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia has an article about National Security Letters discussing precisely that lack of accountability. People have struggled and often failed to get independent legal review.

  65. A simple psy-op for simple people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ladar Levison rolled over immediately, and provided every piece of information requested. Now he and the NSA play this game of words so the sheeple can try to believe someone is on their side. What a joke.

    What most of you fail to understand is that the NSA misses the vast majority of interesting intelligence on individuals within the data it collects, because that is NOT their real mission. The cloak and dagger crap is rubbish for small brained sheeple who get everything they know from TV dramas.

    The NSA is tasked with surveying the mindset of the entire US population, so that the elites that rule will have real time feedback as to the effectiveness of their current propaganda campaigns in the mainstream media. YOU, the sheeple, empower those that rule you. As individuals you do not matter. As groups of individuals, you matter more than anything else.

    Sure, the NSA also collects blackmail material along the way (a single detected act of infidelity can ensure the 'support' of the individual for anything Team Obama desires), but this use is nothing compared to the importance of keeping the 'unwashed masses' happy and compliant.

    Did you know that when Hitler took Germany to war with Poland (triggering the official start of WW2), the vast majority of his people were against this? The elite in the USA are taking the people to war with Iran, in order to trigger a vastly larger conflict across our planet. One might assume that even the dumbest American sheeple might consider this eventuality 'troubling'. So the growing full surveillance programs of the NSA will be used to finesse whatever propaganda campaigns are needed to 'calm the nerves' of the sheeple. What types of TV dramas and films sell the coming wars most effectively? What grows brainless 'patriotism' fastest? What actions can close down potential anti-war activism without upsetting the sheeple too much?

    Meanwhile, the usual shills will continue to tell you that the NSA is about "cloak and dagger" stuff only, and because too many idiots confuse the spy novels they enjoy reading with real life, the laughable lie will get a lot of traction.

  66. Arrested for what? by BrokenSoldier · · Score: 1

    Why arrested? There is no longer an email service, thus the provisions under which the action was drafted are no longer relevant. He's not operating a clandestine email server, so there is no longer any reason to prosecute him, unless, I suppose, there is evidence of his personal wrongdoing-the activities of his clients are not his concern as the operator of a service.

    --
    If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is.
  67. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by osu-neko · · Score: 1

    Russia existed, but it was a very different country. For that matter, the British Empire existed, too. Neither of the countries in the comparison sprang up out of nothing, but that isn't relevant to the point being made. The USSR was radically different from the government and economic system of what came before. (And although the USA was organized somewhat differently from the parliamentary democracy is broke away from, it retained much of the same system, laws, and basic concepts -- in reality, the USA had a much, much bigger head start than OP implied...)

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  68. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by osu-neko · · Score: 1

    Free market is market that is no manipulated by the powerful governments that have legal and or illegal authority to take away your freedoms.

    Actually, a free market is a market that is not manipulated by any powerful organization. Large concentrations of economic power (e.g. monopolies) can impede the operation of free markets too. In fact, it requires government regulation to establish a free market. They cannot exist in the absence of law, and law that is enforced, to ensure their freedom. Just like individuals are not free in the absence of government -- anarchy strips away freedom from nearly everyone but the powerful few to enslave everyone else. Governments are not the only organizations that must be limited in power to protect the freedom of people, or of markets.

    What you are in fact promoting is dictatorship and slavery -- you just pretend its neither when the people in charge aren't called "government".

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  69. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    In terms of creation of wealth and production, Russia had a thousand year or more head start over the American colonies.

  70. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    That's why such regimes were a lot more resilient. Promises are much more believable if you cannot test the outcome and realize that you've been had.

    Waitasec, I think I just understood the whole secrecy around our anti-terror justifications.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  71. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    It's so obvious that we fail to heed that warning every single time!

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  72. Leave the USA immediately by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He needs to leave the USA forever, immediately. The US government will imprison him for life if he does not. I hope he knows what kind of vicious, powerful, ruthless criminals are after him.

  73. You could be arrested for anything. by flayzernax · · Score: 1

    How is this new? Why are you suddenly concerned? I figured this was the norm prior to it becoming mainstream knowledge.

    I want to keep saying I told you so every time I see crap like this pop up. (though I would say take it off the frontpage, its not NEWS, OR NEWS FOR NERDS). Even as much as I like making the federalist liberals eat their own shit.

  74. You don;t understand jack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The secondary key is signed by the primary key, but this ONLY verifies the secondary key.

    I ASK Verizon if this key is the genuine key. Verizon says yes. I trust the key.

    The Verizon key DOES NOT decrypt stuff by the secondary key.

    You understand SHIT about PKE.

  75. You don't uderstand MITM either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MITM is that your ISP says "I am Barklays Bank plc" and says to Barklays Banp plc "I am Joyce".

    Therefore these MITM attacks you;ve heard about are some Other Group being given rights to say "I am Barkleys Bank" to any IE user. If you had a way of verifying your bank's cert then you could say "THIS is the cert" and IE would say "The cert is different. DO you wan to accept?" and if you say no, it will refuse the new (fake) key.

    Web of trust has FUCK ALL to do with encryption or decyption of data, it's about the key you accept as valid to crypt or decrypt for that ID.

  76. Attention is good! by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

    I'm glad the Lavabit thing is getting a fair bit of attention. The more publicity it gets, the better outcome, we as people of the USA, will get.

  77. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by LordLucless · · Score: 1

    Capitalism promotes competitive, selfish activity.

    No, capitalism taps into competitive, selfish activity. With or without capitalism, humans are by nature competitive and selfish. With capitalism, that selfishness is directed into productive ends.

    The only effective society is one which overtly and deliberately puts a cap on power, both of the government and of private individuals

    And who caps the power of those who decide who has too much power and need to be capped? The nail that sticks up will be hammered down - sounds like a wonderful way to live.

    allowing enterprise to flourish

    Up until the point where it flourishes too much, and gets "capped"

    What we have is a powerful industry, and a large, weak government incapable of restraining it. What you propose is a small, weak industry and a powerful government. What we need is a powerful industry, counterveiled by a powerful government.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  78. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Capitalism is private ownership and operation of property, nothing else.

    Well, no. Capitalism is the system of private ownership over the means of production. A somewhat banal example: people in socialist countries owned all kinds of property, however, the means of production were owned exclusively (for the most part) by the government. The distinction is crucial because all of society's functioning depends one way or another on the way social production is organized. As in: if certain stuff doesn't get produced in certain quantities, and if it's not available to the population, the society collapses. On the other hand, no one really cares if you own your car, and what you do with it.

    Now, I consider government the greatest of all social evils, and the sooner mankind does away with this idiotic concept, the better. However, as long as there is private property over the means of production it's not going to happen. Capitalism cannot exist without government (in any form --- private armies and gentlemen's agreements between bosses will do just fine) protecting by force private property over the means of production. Or state propery over those means, or any other form of property in which the owners are not the producers themselves.

  79. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Maelwryth · · Score: 1
    "The only effective society is one which overtly and deliberately puts a cap on power"

    I wonder what a society and economy would look like if wealth was capped at $50,000,000 for companies and individuals. I have never found any study investigating this and I believe it would be an interesting read at least. Something along the lines of;

    1) No individual or company may hold more than $50,000,000 worth of assets.
    2) If a company reaches $50,000,001 it must split or become government property.
    3) If an individual reaches $50,000,000 then all property over $50,000,000 becomes government property.

    I would be interested to see what people think would happen, if anyone is keen to have a go.

    --
    I reserve the write to mangle english.
  80. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost anything can be used as 'means of production', so that distinction is both: irrelevant and wrong.

    It's irrelevant, a table can be used as 'means of production' if it's used by an accountant or at a factory.

    I'm not sure if you're being intentionally dense. Yes, a table. That particular table is being used as a mean of production.

    It's wrong, because it tries to categories the ACTION (ownership and operation) by type of OBJECT (a tool or any other product).

    Not at all. It's what you are doing with your table example, implying it matters what the object is by itself at some particular moment (which is irrelevant). I guess the reasoning goes: "duh, it's just a table, not a factory machine..." It doesn't matter what it is, what matters is how it's used, with what purpose. So it's really the other way around, it categorizes objects by type of action.

    As to what socialist countries, like the former USSR, they didn't prevent you from owning many things that could be used as means of production, they prevented you from selling and making a profit (and people still did, many went to jail, many didn't).

    I'm sorry but, citation needed. I've lived in a socialist country, though not USSR, and never has anyone had any problem selling any of his personal posessions (if those were, in fact, his ;)). But of course, you mean they didn't allow you to become a bussines owner by turning some of your personal posessions into means of production. Yes, they prevented that, obviously, because that was the whole point (but in fact, even this isn't universally true for socialist countries, some at some times allowed private enterprise, even USSR during the NEP). You know, in many countries you can own firearms but you're still not allowed to shoot people at will. You get the point, I hope.

    Capitalism is private ownership and operation of property, it's all it is. What you do with that property is your business.

    Is government necessary for that? No. Anarcho capitalism is just as valid as the other versions.

    "Private ownership and operation of property" is a superset of "private ownership over the means of production". So, yes, in that sense you're correct, but the statement is then meaningles, because then feudalism is capitalism, slavery is capitalism, etc. In every era of human civilisation there was "private ownership and operation of property". Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Anarchism (of any kind) is by definition anti-capitalist. Why? Anarchism is against hierachical, exploitative social relations. Capitalism is hierarchical, authoritarian and exploitative. The relation between workers and capitalists is by it's nature, structuraly, exploitative and authoritarian (and it doesn't really matter that nowadays some workers can be capitalists, and vice versa, it's not about particular persons, it's about social relations).

  81. Re:If you didn't vote Libertarian YOU ASKED FOR TH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but Party X [protects|removes] my right to pray in school.
    And they want to [take away|preserve] my right to get an abortion.
    And they [defend|oppose] the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.
    And they [support|oppose] gay rights.
    And the are [for|against] the legalization of marijuana.

    I wonder if Bobby Earl Jim Bob jr. will win NASCAR this year?
    Will Hone BooBoo finally win a pageant?
    I hope them terrorists don't get me.

  82. Re: Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most effective government is not power by limitation, it is self-government. That's why Benjamin Franklin told the unnamed woman when asked what type of government the founding fathers had given them, "a republic if you can keep it." Self-government requires self-limitation. Self-limitation is the polar opposite of self-indulgence, a trait embedded in society today. So today's society has lost the ability to self-govern, and tyranny is the result yet again.

  83. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Capitalism promotes competitive, selfish activity.

    Eventually, the winners realise that they can corrupt the system of government too. By hook or crook - psychology or guns.

    The problem isn't capitalism per se, it's big business, centralized, hierarchical 500-lb. gorilla corporations that are the last refuge of feudalism in America. Corruption and greed will always be with us, but the current industrial economic system we have allows companies to play for big stakes and keep everyone under the thumb of the powers-that-be.

    Revolution is necessary, but if you make it violent, you give them an excuse to pull out the big guns against you. The real revolution will happen at home, locally, when people get fed up enough and decide they don't need XYZ Corp. controlling their destiny. Get off the grid, grow your own food, make your own clothes and tools... I don't endorse the Unabomber's behavior, but he was dead right about industrial-technological society making slaves of us all.

  84. Remember I told you we're similar creatures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THIS is where you & I see "eye-to-eye" in the socio-political arena (& we're FAR from alone in it).

    * I say this to you, because EVERY ONCE IN AWHILE, you & I see "eye to eye" on things + you come up with some verifiable concrete information (which, whether it fits my personal value system (which I've started to question the past few years now, wondering if it was the product of 'indoctrination' or rational analysis & thought of my own instead)).

    I don't LIKE what I'm seeing, & what causes it all @ the roots imo? Religious belief systems being 'twisted' by the puppet masters (reaching right into folks core beliefs to make them "do the masters' bidding").

    It's wrong. The results out there prove me right, unfortunately... now, it's only a matter of time before the "petro-dollar" loses its world-reserve currency status & the "REAL FUN" (not) begins.

    APK

    P.S.=> I just HOPE you're not some infiltrating "agent provocateur" JC, because YOU (from what I've heard from you) are part of the "wealthy" (yes, I know what a "Phantom Five" is)... in fact, I've always meant to ask you: Are you part of the Masonic Order? apk

    1. Re:Remember I told you we're similar creatures? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Heh.

      I fixed my own Phantom...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  85. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The weird public mentality and spirit of the 1970-80's Finland towards non-growth aspiring, "person companies" aka (ultra) small business by the then social democrats.

  86. You avoided a simple question... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    @ the termination of my post http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4099151&cid=44601595

    * Reason I ask, is simple (it'd point me in the direction I suspect regarding yourself is all, one way or another)...

    APK

    P.S.=> Just answer it (or, did you by omission already?). In any event - I'm curious!

    ... apk

    1. Re:You avoided a simple question... apk by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      I thought my answer is obvious, by extrapolation.

      I am a man without mechanic or chauffeur.

      I am in no elite.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:You avoided a simple question... apk by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I am in no elite.

      Ah! But you had to buy parts!

      Wheredya get the money? And where's my left taillight?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:You avoided a simple question... apk by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      eBay... .co.uk!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  87. Fair Enough... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject-line: "Extrapolation" != "good enough" (there's margin for error in any calculation & especially one based on mere suspicion).

    APK

    P.S.=> I just don't "get you" sometimes though, especially in regards to myself, & why you did crap like this my way (another question I've been meaning to ask of you, & I know what I see, your name on it) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3581857&cid=43276741 which astounds me actually, mainly since you & I, as I have said here in THIS exchange? We are NOT all that different on socio-political-economic views, not @ all (how could we be? Results are everything & it only takes a pair of eyes + a brain to work that much out, putting the "spin/propgganda" machine aside, that is)... I point that out yet again, since you're attacking someone MUCH like yourself, provided the things you state are "on the level" & not merely "agent provocateur" to provoke + flush out similar sympathies from others - that? Goes on, like mad...

    ... apk

    1. Re:Fair Enough... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it's because you're an idiot. You can't even design a post that doesn't look like shit. Any time you agree with someone, you make them look crazy. Please, if you want to help your cause, then start posting in support of fascism, so the undecided will see your stupid abuse of the ampersand and will dismiss all of the NSA shill as similar idiots.

  88. Quit "projecting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It *may* be a "perhaps" on MY end but a certainty you're an idiot & yes, additionally, a mere troll!

    * Weakest part of your post? That "beauty is in the eye of the beholder..." - purely relative, mere opinion (biased obviously on your part from a doltish so-called brain that you possess, lol!).

    (Besides - I've been "modded up" 100's of times by others here - opinions, CLEARLY, vary on that account...)

    Thus - You fail, as per your usual.

    APK

    P.S.=> Trolls: You're ALL the same - easily dispatched by your own stupidities, every time you try your illogical failing ad hominem attacks on myself - come up with a "better playbook" regarding myself, you need it... why? Your FAVORITE COLOR = transparent (easily seen thru, & yes: "I see you") - next time, send someone with intellect beyond that of a potato (which you clearly evidence to be the case with yourself)... apk

  89. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Breaking Bad might be outlawed for glorifying hooliganism and presenting police as liars!

  90. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Bolshevik Revolution was rotten from the get-go. Emma Goldman fled back to America in horror when she saw Bolsheviks murdering non-Bolshevik leftists, from Social Democrats to Anarchists, just as vigorously as they murdered aristocrats. They wanted absolute control. Lenin had a particular zeal for "Revolutionary Terror" which was aimed at anyone resistant to the new dictatorship. And no bones were made about it being a dictatorship; even in theory the fundamental basis of the new society was dictatorship. Hope was dead by the time the USSR was established. There was no gradual slide.

  91. Re:Inevitable consequence of unfettered capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The USSR murdered a little over one hundred million of it's own people.