I for one don't want to live in a society where you could be robbed blind just because a brazen thief takes advantage of the fact they cannot legally be shot if they steal from you.
I would allege that the mere possibility is enough of a chilling effect on my free speech rights to let me argue that classifying the information in question is itself unconstitutional as impeding my right to petition the government to stop the bullshit.
Because PRISM is classified, you cannot subpoena them to prove they did it.
I would rather someone try the motion that my constitutional rights trump state secrets, and allege that anything preventing me from litigating to protect them is itself unconstitutional.
I might even cite that the mere plausibility of such a hypothetical case is itself an unconstitutional chilling effect which would give me standing based on real damage caused by a hypothetical that cannot be disproven.
In this litigious dog eat dog sue at the drop of a hat world, it's entirely possible that ignoring your lawyers will get you obliterated rather than simply censored.
If someone has a gun to your head, do you keep your mouth shut and live, or do you mouth off, get your brains blown out, and wind up never able to talk about *anything* again?
Are the feds officially unwelcome, or just being told the equivalent of "attend at your own risk because there's going to be a bunch of people here that you royally pissed off"
Walking away from a job and starving is only good as an individual moral stand.
Sadly, too many people care more about putting food on the table than they do standing up for what is right, which means the corrupt bosses that the first group walks out on has a ready supply of fodder to replace them with.
Our idea of a free market is having someone else to go to, so that a monopolst has more to fear than simply pissing off customers enough to go without.
Slashdot Mirror
Might makes right.
RIght should make might, but often doesn't.
That works well until the guy gets caught red handed passing off vulnerabilities to an outsider and not only canned but possibly jailed.
Google has shown itself to be very strict about enforcing its NDA policy, and divulging exploits to outsiders in general is a major legal risk.
An *IT* director was fired for being a whistleblower.
It matters because it exposes a chilling effect on being a nerd with ethics.
I for one don't want to live in a society where you could be robbed blind just because a brazen thief takes advantage of the fact they cannot legally be shot if they steal from you.
In a few years?
Power yes, right no.
Sadly the same thing seems to apply to the police.
What's amazing is that people care more about advancing their own views than they do about discerning the truth.
Ineffectual or not they apparently pissed off whoever sicced the police on them...
I can think of no other reason than striking a golden nerve that the police would be motivated to respond with force to a peaceful protest.
Except that the employer was the government, which means termination is a government action subject to the bill of rights and other things.
Who is Microsoft?
Still a monopolist whining that it got deposed.
You'd think that lying about weight would get insurance claims denied.
You'd think that overloading the ship would void the insurance claim.
...it IS a powerful political entity.
Coincidentally enough, in history it HAS been.
Since the Holy See is recognized as a nation at the UN it could be argued that the pope possesses sovereign and diplomatic immunity.
And if it's indeed a constitutional issue, wouldn't that make any law authorizing them to possess it, itself unconstitutional?
I would allege that the mere possibility is enough of a chilling effect on my free speech rights to let me argue that classifying the information in question is itself unconstitutional as impeding my right to petition the government to stop the bullshit.
They can.
Because PRISM is classified, you cannot subpoena them to prove they did it.
I would rather someone try the motion that my constitutional rights trump state secrets, and allege that anything preventing me from litigating to protect them is itself unconstitutional.
I might even cite that the mere plausibility of such a hypothetical case is itself an unconstitutional chilling effect which would give me standing based on real damage caused by a hypothetical that cannot be disproven.
In this litigious dog eat dog sue at the drop of a hat world, it's entirely possible that ignoring your lawyers will get you obliterated rather than simply censored.
If someone has a gun to your head, do you keep your mouth shut and live, or do you mouth off, get your brains blown out, and wind up never able to talk about *anything* again?
If the computer belongs to the corporation the CEO works for then chances are he already has authorization.
Would you rather deal with Rainbow Tables or Bobby Tables?
Are the feds officially unwelcome, or just being told the equivalent of "attend at your own risk because there's going to be a bunch of people here that you royally pissed off"
Walking away from a job and starving is only good as an individual moral stand.
Sadly, too many people care more about putting food on the table than they do standing up for what is right, which means the corrupt bosses that the first group walks out on has a ready supply of fodder to replace them with.
An ad hominem is an insult that is also a premise.
Our idea of a free market is having someone else to go to, so that a monopolst has more to fear than simply pissing off customers enough to go without.
Amazon is not colluding. It is setting terms as a singular entity.