I think the ADK is shield-compatible with the Arduino platforms, am I right?
Although I would still want a physical kill-switch for most of my stuff too. Maybe I don't feel like reaching over my head for my phone on the desk from my bed, and would rather lob a slipper at the switch to turn off the light:) Seriously, though: don't oversimplify, a wall switch will be perfectly fine along the remote-controlled AC relays. I think someone on hackaday already presented a system like this, except home-brewed. And maybe for iPhone, but I really don't remember the details...
Why not require them to take proper steps to protect the data, not some half-arsed security mirage on the cheap done by the CTO's nephew's brother's neighbor's friend fresh out of CS101? The government could even mandate the corporations hiring a bluehat to give their systems a once-over or hire convicted hackers on a work-release program (it takes a thief to catch a thief, after all) to pentest the defenses and fine if not acceptable.
But requiring notification with today's password reuse not going to help: most people use a single master password (present company excepted), so if one account gets hacked, all of them can be considered compromised. John Doe is never going to track down all his passwords that need changing (too many services used once and forgotten, too lazy, doesn't care, etc.), if he bothers to change any of them.
Unfortunately, the perpetrators... The victims form a(n extremely) wide strata by ethnicity, a considerably narrower one by victimization. Those that are victimized, are very vocal about it, though.
And confined to a small segment of the population. In much the same way violent racism against the Arabs is rampant in France. We had a resurgence recently that made the news (Gyöngyöspata, if the place name rings a bell), but even that was just a bunch of extreme right-wingers loudmouthing.
Though I'm not a US resident, I too hope the silly "security theater" will drop the curtains soon. Like I've said in so many posts, it just opened up new attack venues for the terrorists to take advantage of, and barely closed the old ones. Now that the al Qaeda is pretty much disorganized after Osama's death, they can really afford easing up a bit. It's not like attacks were frequent enough 2002-2010 to keep all these laws in force, "deterrence-effect" or not...
Um, do you know what a failed state is? It's when a state does not have monopoly over the use of force within its borders. Think Somalia, Niger, Mexico is fast approaching with the Drug Wars in the area; according to a broader definition (mostly supported by the US Foreign Office and Fund For Peace), even North Korea and Iran, which have pretty firm grasps on their monopoly of violence... This latter definition, however, does not reflect the traditional International Relations one, which is strictly the loss of monopoly on violence within its borders. According to this, there are comparatively few failed states. According to the broader one, well, see here. Soooo, what, now Russia is in Warning, almost the whole EU is Moderate, along with the US, and there are a grand total of 14 Sustainable states (including three microstates, the Papal State, and Ireland, which has been making headlines in the EU by having to ask for a bailout package). I think the Fund For Peace has some priorities wrong...
I think making the cockpit doors lock in-flight, and having pilots carry sidearms (though are they trained in their use? Probably, but I'm not sure...) makes for rather good defense against most of the damage, even if it's not from the PATRIOT Act. That, and the checkpoints make for too much hassle to blow up a plane, but have shifted the prime target down to the ground, to the checkpoints themselves, where a lot of people queue up.
The SNR could probably be fixed if the "Enhanced Intelligence" really meant enhanced intelligence instead of springing to keywords, disregarding the context. I mean really, how much danger does a 13-year-old kid pose, who's not even making a threat, just posting some thoughts I wouldn't expect from a 13-year-old?
No. I was not comparing the Nazis, I was comparing the whole Reich, economy and all. Politically, the EU is very stable, democratic, so we don't need to examine what would happen if a multiparty coalition decided to remove their opponents, as it won't happen anyway. Even if it did, it would just recreate the problem all over again, due to the mass of freed-up voters being available for the coalition parties to grab, causing it to fracture. This article is more concerned with economy and sociology: patent suits giving companies trouble (economy), and the pervasive surveillance/spy network of the Nazi party (sociology). I've given my views on both.
The biggest reason beside racism and the Holocaust for not liking the Nazis is that the US/SU alliance won the war, and the western, more developed half of Europe was under US influence. The US is a democratic nation, whose population had every opportunity to command a withdrawal from the war through their elected President or Congress. Why did the US remain in the war 'till the bitter end? Because the propaganda-machine painted the Nazis as horrendous monsters, even the simple soldier who was just following orders (and be honest with yourself, given the order to murder a Jewish woman in cold blood, would you refuse, knowing that court martial and possible execution or at the very least, brig-time awaits?). THIS is why there's Godwin's Law, and this is why Hitler == EVIL. P.S.: If we're talking about Hitler, for an interesting "explanation" of why he turned out the way he did, read The Primal Solution by Eric Norden!
To play the Devil's Advocate again, the PATRIOT act made no real difference due to there being no further real attempts, just some half-assed pokes (Shoe Bomber, Underwear Bomber) to keep the US frightened. It's possible that in case of a real, well-prepared attack, the Act would have had an opportunity to shine, but let's hope we never find that out.
As for British CCTV, it might just be a matter of implementation, though to be honest, I don't know about the system, so I can't judge it either.
Other people's? Sure thing, why not. They're not me, and to be honest, I agree with the "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide"-philosophy, to a certain degree. Although if they started wiretapping my cell without a crime being committed, or opening my mail, I'd probably be outraged too. Otherwise, I don't really care about being monitored by CCTV, since I'm not really paranoid about the government being after me.
And before you (or anyone else) start reciting the quote "First the came for the communists...", don't waste your bit-breath: I don't expect anyone to speak out for me anyway, and never really did.
So, you're saying, you want people to do illegal things.
Umm, how does what I said lead to people doing illegal things? If anything, a more visible police force and the knowledge that their crimes will be recorded and detected, their moves can be traced to bring them to justice will serve as a deterrent to crime. 1984-ish it may be, but it would at least make for a more peaceful society. As for crying the moment someone inflicts harm on me, the moment my life is threatened, under Hungarian law, I am allowed to use proportionate force to defend myself, even disproportionate retribution is justifiable by "understandable fright" (whatever that means is up to the judge to decide, though). This even applies if I'm protecting someone else. So no, I wouldn't cry. If at all possible, the assailant would (barring serious disadvantages, for example unilateral possession of a firearm).
On the other hand, I agree with the second half of your comment. Multiple cultures almost inevitably lead to tension, which may or may not be resolved through intercultural dialogue. However, in order for this to happen, both sides must be willing to negotiate and understand the other, which is not always the case (see Angela Merkel's statement about the multicultural society failing in Germany).
I wouldn't really say that, the EU is a long way from becoming anything that resembles the Reich even remotely. And even if it is, minus the racism, is that really such a bad thing? Before Hitler instituted the Endlöhsung, or just the racism thing in general (seeing as Endlöhsung was almost exclusively anti-Jewish/anti-Slavic), the citizens of the Reich were pretty well-off, and their economy was the biggest in the region.
Being the Devil's Advocate here, but I wouldn't mind cameras on the street, an RFID tag in my ID, a visible and effective police force, etc. if it meant my salary/scholarship (depending on who/where I am at the time in question) is, say, triple my current one (just to compare, this semester, my state-funded scholarship was €53.45 or $76.40 per month, enough to cover the dorm fees, but not much else). I'm not doing many illegal things, just a bit of torrenting for series and software, so as long as they lay off the net, I'm okay with a lot of things. They probably don't apply to me anyway.
Serious escalation on one side, to prevent the escalation of both sides. Let's face it, these things are not cheap, and the drug lords' pockets are not bottomless. Should they try to get drugs over the border in these, and the US guard slammed down on them HARD, like picking them off from afar with the MLRS (which does not need to erase squares from the map grid, despite that it can), the 25mm explosive rounds (which, according to the tests have recoil "beyond human limitations", so are likely to be used sparingly), and other toys it already has at its disposal, they could maybe pound it into the lords' heads that by trying to breach the border, they're throwing money out the window while all their 'amigos' burn in their attempts. I know that if I lost two or three of these, I'd look towards easier markets...
Well, you could say that, but that would make, say, a Peugeot 307SW a "jeep". Or the aforementioned Marvin Heemeyer's bulldozer a "tank".
An APC is designed to withstand a lot of punishment from a variety of sources and traverse a wide range of terrains. These things are easily damaged by landmines, have vertical faces that take incoming fire at steep angles aiding penetration, and are easily disabled by shooting the tires. In contrasts, the Stryker features a boat-shaped hull that redirects landmine blasts to the side, slanted faces that deflect incoming fire, and has variable-pressure run-flat tires that enable it to move across several types of terrain, for several miles after taking a round to the tires before they are completely destroyed.
Would you consider a technical an APC, even if it had a few slabs of steel welded on to form a box? Because that's what these are essentially: glorified technicals.
Yes, yes, someone already pointed this out, I misunderstood the video commentary, and thought they were being used to breach the US border to deliver drugs. In which case, my arguments stand. As it is, intervening in Mexico is not the US military's job, unless Mexico specifically requests help.
As for the MLRS, do you know what soldiers call it when it packs guided missiles? "The 70-km Sniper Rifle". Those missiles are accurate enough to take out one building and leave the rest undamaged on the block, I think taking out a garage housing one of these is not beyond its capabilities. Or they could use the Paladin System (and I can't resist linking this image), which is accurate enough to be fired through a window from 15 miles or so away. I believe that makes it good enough to hit a truck at, say, 5-10 miles. The Predator can accurately target a running man from above, why on Earth would it miss a big honkin' truck like this one? No need to take out a neighborhood, these weapons are accurate enough to pick off the truck itself.
Looking at the video again, they are. I must have misheard something with the presenter's accent, and surmised they were assaulting the border, not each other. Although I don't find it implausible for them to try and break through with one or two to deliver...
Except that this is not an APC. It's a truck with shit bolted and welded on, not much more than a glorified technical. It's just like Marvin Heemeyer's armored bulldozer, only constructed not for defense, but offense, and are only proof against small arms, as the officer said, not heavy weapons or anti-materiel/anti-tank rifles.
The fact that the drug lords are deploying these means they're desperate: smuggling operations fail, so the only way for them to make money is to try and bust through the border. It's certainly an escalation, but not a very dangerous one if handled correctly. These things, judging by the looks of them, are not cheap to make, despite being improvised. If the military makes one big push now, ramps up Predator patrols, deploys Barret M82-s/XM109-s (if they're completed, the 25mm HE round should certainly prove adequate to defeat the weaker portions of the armor while remaining man-portable) and other heavy weapons, possibly even tank patrols along the border and MLRS units stationed at regular intervals, they might bankrupt the drug lords, or at least convince them that trying to assault the US border will keep costing more than it makes for them if they keep losing technicals at the same rate. However, if they don't man up and replace jeep patrols with something that packs more punch, these things are going d what they were made to do, and will befeat the border guards, returning the revenue to the drug cartels.
I still fail to see how a wish, without expressed intent to follow up, would be considered a threat...
Wilson is a wooden-headed son of a bitch. I wish Wilson was in hell, and if I had the power I would put him there.
This is a threat, I'll grant you that, even if a rather weak one.
hang [President] Roosevelt
This is a threat.
I hate Obama and I wish he was dead
This is not a threat, it contains no "declaration of apparent determination to carry them into execution". Unless, of course, I have a magic wish-granting stone or I make a donation to the wishing well...
Try making real change instead of just bitching, and you may see how far your freedom stretches.
Dare I suggest making a change through legal channels? You know, by running for a political position, with a proper and creative program that changes things for the better? Or maybe you can't actually think that far? And don't give me any bullshit about connections and money! If you have the ideas and the charisma, you can find funding and contacts to get the word out there and raise money for a campaign, etc.
Clearly you have no idea just what the STASI did and who they were: undercover agents, extensive infiltrator and informer network, the whole "above and beyond the law"-works. SWAT teams are far, far, far removed from that: they are a branch of the police, bound by the law, answerable to their superiors and the judicial system for any offense. Better go learn your history, for those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.
As for the dead marine, what can I say? Both of them were right: the marine in attempting to defend his home, family, and life against an unknown threat (although why he had a rifle at home is a mystery to me. In Hungary, taking your weapon home is a punishable breach of conduct. You're supposed to leave the arms and ammo at the barracks. But that is beside the point now.); the SWAT team in opening fire on an unknown, armed, possibly hostile contact. I note that the incident took place in a long, dark corridor, where the low visibility meant no positive ID of the contact. Silhouette indicated a weapon, the officers were in every way in their right to fire at will. Even if the guy came out with his hands up and was shot, I could accept that, although it would be quite a bit harder. But this, confronting a SWAT-team in low visibility, armed, no previous indication of his presence, he got what was coming to him, especially considering that he probably got training in MOUT, so he should have been prepared for this. Callously, I could say "He rolled the dice, he lost, game over."
Is your own complacency the government's fault, then? Is it your fault that the frog won't notice the gradual change? If you want to blame someone, blame yourselves!
I hate double-replying, but forgot to say this: Call me when the police are doing the arresting. The Secret Service is paid to be clinically paranoid, so the leaders don't have to be. Hell, in the Hungarian Foreign Office, they tap your cell phone calls and interject into an active call! Yet I'm not up in arms about surveillance, I know it's a necessary evil.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the ADK is shield-compatible with the Arduino platforms, am I right?
Although I would still want a physical kill-switch for most of my stuff too. Maybe I don't feel like reaching over my head for my phone on the desk from my bed, and would rather lob a slipper at the switch to turn off the light :)
Seriously, though: don't oversimplify, a wall switch will be perfectly fine along the remote-controlled AC relays. I think someone on hackaday already presented a system like this, except home-brewed. And maybe for iPhone, but I really don't remember the details...
Why not require them to take proper steps to protect the data, not some half-arsed security mirage on the cheap done by the CTO's nephew's brother's neighbor's friend fresh out of CS101? The government could even mandate the corporations hiring a bluehat to give their systems a once-over or hire convicted hackers on a work-release program (it takes a thief to catch a thief, after all) to pentest the defenses and fine if not acceptable.
But requiring notification with today's password reuse not going to help: most people use a single master password (present company excepted), so if one account gets hacked, all of them can be considered compromised. John Doe is never going to track down all his passwords that need changing (too many services used once and forgotten, too lazy, doesn't care, etc.), if he bothers to change any of them.
Unfortunately, the perpetrators...
The victims form a(n extremely) wide strata by ethnicity, a considerably narrower one by victimization. Those that are victimized, are very vocal about it, though.
And confined to a small segment of the population. In much the same way violent racism against the Arabs is rampant in France.
We had a resurgence recently that made the news (Gyöngyöspata, if the place name rings a bell), but even that was just a bunch of extreme right-wingers loudmouthing.
But what does that have to do with self-defense?
Though I'm not a US resident, I too hope the silly "security theater" will drop the curtains soon. Like I've said in so many posts, it just opened up new attack venues for the terrorists to take advantage of, and barely closed the old ones. Now that the al Qaeda is pretty much disorganized after Osama's death, they can really afford easing up a bit. It's not like attacks were frequent enough 2002-2010 to keep all these laws in force, "deterrence-effect" or not...
Um, do you know what a failed state is? It's when a state does not have monopoly over the use of force within its borders. Think Somalia, Niger, Mexico is fast approaching with the Drug Wars in the area; according to a broader definition (mostly supported by the US Foreign Office and Fund For Peace), even North Korea and Iran, which have pretty firm grasps on their monopoly of violence...
This latter definition, however, does not reflect the traditional International Relations one, which is strictly the loss of monopoly on violence within its borders. According to this, there are comparatively few failed states. According to the broader one, well, see here. Soooo, what, now Russia is in Warning, almost the whole EU is Moderate, along with the US, and there are a grand total of 14 Sustainable states (including three microstates, the Papal State, and Ireland, which has been making headlines in the EU by having to ask for a bailout package). I think the Fund For Peace has some priorities wrong...
There's only a single point in your post that can be reasonably refuted (the rest is a covert ad hominem attack):
Even if it happens to be the tyranny of the majority.
Here in Europe, we call that democracy.
I think making the cockpit doors lock in-flight, and having pilots carry sidearms (though are they trained in their use? Probably, but I'm not sure...) makes for rather good defense against most of the damage, even if it's not from the PATRIOT Act. That, and the checkpoints make for too much hassle to blow up a plane, but have shifted the prime target down to the ground, to the checkpoints themselves, where a lot of people queue up.
The SNR could probably be fixed if the "Enhanced Intelligence" really meant enhanced intelligence instead of springing to keywords, disregarding the context. I mean really, how much danger does a 13-year-old kid pose, who's not even making a threat, just posting some thoughts I wouldn't expect from a 13-year-old?
No. I was not comparing the Nazis, I was comparing the whole Reich, economy and all. Politically, the EU is very stable, democratic, so we don't need to examine what would happen if a multiparty coalition decided to remove their opponents, as it won't happen anyway. Even if it did, it would just recreate the problem all over again, due to the mass of freed-up voters being available for the coalition parties to grab, causing it to fracture.
This article is more concerned with economy and sociology: patent suits giving companies trouble (economy), and the pervasive surveillance/spy network of the Nazi party (sociology). I've given my views on both.
The biggest reason beside racism and the Holocaust for not liking the Nazis is that the US/SU alliance won the war, and the western, more developed half of Europe was under US influence. The US is a democratic nation, whose population had every opportunity to command a withdrawal from the war through their elected President or Congress. Why did the US remain in the war 'till the bitter end? Because the propaganda-machine painted the Nazis as horrendous monsters, even the simple soldier who was just following orders (and be honest with yourself, given the order to murder a Jewish woman in cold blood, would you refuse, knowing that court martial and possible execution or at the very least, brig-time awaits?). THIS is why there's Godwin's Law, and this is why Hitler == EVIL.
P.S.: If we're talking about Hitler, for an interesting "explanation" of why he turned out the way he did, read The Primal Solution by Eric Norden!
To play the Devil's Advocate again, the PATRIOT act made no real difference due to there being no further real attempts, just some half-assed pokes (Shoe Bomber, Underwear Bomber) to keep the US frightened. It's possible that in case of a real, well-prepared attack, the Act would have had an opportunity to shine, but let's hope we never find that out.
As for British CCTV, it might just be a matter of implementation, though to be honest, I don't know about the system, so I can't judge it either.
Noted. Thanks for the correction, German is not my strong point...
Other people's? Sure thing, why not. They're not me, and to be honest, I agree with the "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide"-philosophy, to a certain degree. Although if they started wiretapping my cell without a crime being committed, or opening my mail, I'd probably be outraged too. Otherwise, I don't really care about being monitored by CCTV, since I'm not really paranoid about the government being after me.
And before you (or anyone else) start reciting the quote "First the came for the communists...", don't waste your bit-breath: I don't expect anyone to speak out for me anyway, and never really did.
So, you're saying, you want people to do illegal things.
Umm, how does what I said lead to people doing illegal things? If anything, a more visible police force and the knowledge that their crimes will be recorded and detected, their moves can be traced to bring them to justice will serve as a deterrent to crime. 1984-ish it may be, but it would at least make for a more peaceful society.
As for crying the moment someone inflicts harm on me, the moment my life is threatened, under Hungarian law, I am allowed to use proportionate force to defend myself, even disproportionate retribution is justifiable by "understandable fright" (whatever that means is up to the judge to decide, though). This even applies if I'm protecting someone else. So no, I wouldn't cry. If at all possible, the assailant would (barring serious disadvantages, for example unilateral possession of a firearm).
On the other hand, I agree with the second half of your comment. Multiple cultures almost inevitably lead to tension, which may or may not be resolved through intercultural dialogue. However, in order for this to happen, both sides must be willing to negotiate and understand the other, which is not always the case (see Angela Merkel's statement about the multicultural society failing in Germany).
I wouldn't really say that, the EU is a long way from becoming anything that resembles the Reich even remotely. And even if it is, minus the racism, is that really such a bad thing? Before Hitler instituted the Endlöhsung, or just the racism thing in general (seeing as Endlöhsung was almost exclusively anti-Jewish/anti-Slavic), the citizens of the Reich were pretty well-off, and their economy was the biggest in the region.
Being the Devil's Advocate here, but I wouldn't mind cameras on the street, an RFID tag in my ID, a visible and effective police force, etc. if it meant my salary/scholarship (depending on who/where I am at the time in question) is, say, triple my current one (just to compare, this semester, my state-funded scholarship was €53.45 or $76.40 per month, enough to cover the dorm fees, but not much else). I'm not doing many illegal things, just a bit of torrenting for series and software, so as long as they lay off the net, I'm okay with a lot of things. They probably don't apply to me anyway.
I'm still amazed that the magnetometers could pick out ignition coils on the Ho Chi Minh trail and peg them...
Serious escalation on one side, to prevent the escalation of both sides. Let's face it, these things are not cheap, and the drug lords' pockets are not bottomless. Should they try to get drugs over the border in these, and the US guard slammed down on them HARD, like picking them off from afar with the MLRS (which does not need to erase squares from the map grid, despite that it can), the 25mm explosive rounds (which, according to the tests have recoil "beyond human limitations", so are likely to be used sparingly), and other toys it already has at its disposal, they could maybe pound it into the lords' heads that by trying to breach the border, they're throwing money out the window while all their 'amigos' burn in their attempts. I know that if I lost two or three of these, I'd look towards easier markets...
Now, the AC-130, that's the one we'd use against neighborhoods. Not so much a plane as huge fucking flying castle of doom! :)
Well, you could say that, but that would make, say, a Peugeot 307SW a "jeep". Or the aforementioned Marvin Heemeyer's bulldozer a "tank".
An APC is designed to withstand a lot of punishment from a variety of sources and traverse a wide range of terrains. These things are easily damaged by landmines, have vertical faces that take incoming fire at steep angles aiding penetration, and are easily disabled by shooting the tires.
In contrasts, the Stryker features a boat-shaped hull that redirects landmine blasts to the side, slanted faces that deflect incoming fire, and has variable-pressure run-flat tires that enable it to move across several types of terrain, for several miles after taking a round to the tires before they are completely destroyed.
Would you consider a technical an APC, even if it had a few slabs of steel welded on to form a box? Because that's what these are essentially: glorified technicals.
Yes, yes, someone already pointed this out, I misunderstood the video commentary, and thought they were being used to breach the US border to deliver drugs. In which case, my arguments stand.
As it is, intervening in Mexico is not the US military's job, unless Mexico specifically requests help.
As for the MLRS, do you know what soldiers call it when it packs guided missiles? "The 70-km Sniper Rifle". Those missiles are accurate enough to take out one building and leave the rest undamaged on the block, I think taking out a garage housing one of these is not beyond its capabilities.
Or they could use the Paladin System (and I can't resist linking this image), which is accurate enough to be fired through a window from 15 miles or so away. I believe that makes it good enough to hit a truck at, say, 5-10 miles.
The Predator can accurately target a running man from above, why on Earth would it miss a big honkin' truck like this one? No need to take out a neighborhood, these weapons are accurate enough to pick off the truck itself.
Looking at the video again, they are. I must have misheard something with the presenter's accent, and surmised they were assaulting the border, not each other.
Although I don't find it implausible for them to try and break through with one or two to deliver...
Except that this is not an APC. It's a truck with shit bolted and welded on, not much more than a glorified technical. It's just like Marvin Heemeyer's armored bulldozer, only constructed not for defense, but offense, and are only proof against small arms, as the officer said, not heavy weapons or anti-materiel/anti-tank rifles.
The fact that the drug lords are deploying these means they're desperate: smuggling operations fail, so the only way for them to make money is to try and bust through the border. It's certainly an escalation, but not a very dangerous one if handled correctly.
These things, judging by the looks of them, are not cheap to make, despite being improvised. If the military makes one big push now, ramps up Predator patrols, deploys Barret M82-s/XM109-s (if they're completed, the 25mm HE round should certainly prove adequate to defeat the weaker portions of the armor while remaining man-portable) and other heavy weapons, possibly even tank patrols along the border and MLRS units stationed at regular intervals, they might bankrupt the drug lords, or at least convince them that trying to assault the US border will keep costing more than it makes for them if they keep losing technicals at the same rate.
However, if they don't man up and replace jeep patrols with something that packs more punch, these things are going d what they were made to do, and will befeat the border guards, returning the revenue to the drug cartels.
I still fail to see how a wish, without expressed intent to follow up, would be considered a threat...
Wilson is a wooden-headed son of a bitch. I wish Wilson was in hell, and if I had the power I would put him there.
This is a threat, I'll grant you that, even if a rather weak one.
hang [President] Roosevelt
This is a threat.
I hate Obama and I wish he was dead
This is not a threat, it contains no "declaration of apparent determination to carry them into execution". Unless, of course, I have a magic wish-granting stone or I make a donation to the wishing well...
Try making real change instead of just bitching, and you may see how far your freedom stretches.
Dare I suggest making a change through legal channels? You know, by running for a political position, with a proper and creative program that changes things for the better? Or maybe you can't actually think that far?
And don't give me any bullshit about connections and money! If you have the ideas and the charisma, you can find funding and contacts to get the word out there and raise money for a campaign, etc.
Oh, and just read about swat teams. If you don't think the Stasi exist in America, read about this:
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/arizona-swat-team-kills-marine-in-botched-raid/
Clearly you have no idea just what the STASI did and who they were: undercover agents, extensive infiltrator and informer network, the whole "above and beyond the law"-works. SWAT teams are far, far, far removed from that: they are a branch of the police, bound by the law, answerable to their superiors and the judicial system for any offense. Better go learn your history, for those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.
As for the dead marine, what can I say? Both of them were right: the marine in attempting to defend his home, family, and life against an unknown threat (although why he had a rifle at home is a mystery to me. In Hungary, taking your weapon home is a punishable breach of conduct. You're supposed to leave the arms and ammo at the barracks. But that is beside the point now.); the SWAT team in opening fire on an unknown, armed, possibly hostile contact.
I note that the incident took place in a long, dark corridor, where the low visibility meant no positive ID of the contact. Silhouette indicated a weapon, the officers were in every way in their right to fire at will. Even if the guy came out with his hands up and was shot, I could accept that, although it would be quite a bit harder. But this, confronting a SWAT-team in low visibility, armed, no previous indication of his presence, he got what was coming to him, especially considering that he probably got training in MOUT, so he should have been prepared for this.
Callously, I could say "He rolled the dice, he lost, game over."
Is your own complacency the government's fault, then? Is it your fault that the frog won't notice the gradual change? If you want to blame someone, blame yourselves!
I hate double-replying, but forgot to say this:
Call me when the police are doing the arresting. The Secret Service is paid to be clinically paranoid, so the leaders don't have to be. Hell, in the Hungarian Foreign Office, they tap your cell phone calls and interject into an active call! Yet I'm not up in arms about surveillance, I know it's a necessary evil.