Either the classified message is encrypted and the email server's security is moot or the classified message is not encrypted and the sender is mishandling the information in the first place by sending it in clear text over the internet, regardless of where the server is hosted.
Communications on the wire being secure until the year 500,000 is meaningless if the server is compromised somehow. According to the article, the (Microsoft) email server had RDP ports open (which had a critical vulnerability while she was in office: https://technet.microsoft.com/...), and other computers on the same network were accessible by VNC.
Even if Hillary had been using *perfect* security in terms of encryption and information security with regards to sending her emails (which is laughable, considering the state of email) this would still be a huge problem.
Government officials have been doing this for years (remember Sarah Palin's personal email being accessed? and the guy going to prison for it?), but it's always been done with a veneer of technological ignorance that gives them a little bit of plausibility. Almost every single one of them that has happened so far has been able to shrug their shoulders and say "ha ha, email, who knows how that stuff works! it's magic!", and between their age (GWB was born in 1946, for example) and the general time period (before smartphones even existed) they were able to claim this without any hint of being deceitful.
Hillary has tried to do this while simultaneously setting up her own server! How fucking dumb does she think people are to believe her saying things like "wipe the server? what, like, with a cloth?" after having ordered the construction and curation of her own private email server? A server which, while in vague legal territory, serves no purpose other than to give herself control over her communication because of her political ambitions?
There's no deniability here. She can't claim that some boffin came to her and said that this would be a good idea and she rubberstamped it without any scrutiny. She can't claim to have ordered its creation and been ignorant as to what it was capable of because its very purpose of existence was to communicate outside of official channels. She can't claim to be ignorant about classification status of information because, as Secretary of State, she's one of the fucking root authorities!
Everything about this is her bending the rules for her own personal benefit and not caring about what the consequences are and blatantly lying about it afterwards with the implication that she should get away with it because, otherwise, it might ruin her chances at election. Sorry, but no thanks. If anyone posting here on/. did anything similar to this, not only would you never work for the US government again, but you'd probably have to sit in a federal prison for a decade before you got the chance to have your resumes thrown in the garbage.
Government communication are certainly a mess, and we probably know that more than anybody, but having anyone who feels like it set up their own VPS or whatever to deal with the problem is a step in the opposite direction. Anyone in any kind of administrator role should cringe at the thought of that. Anyone who excuses this kind of basic technological ignorance as a justifiable reason for breaches of trust and security should be laughed out of the room, as well. Email is not some new-fangled crazy technology, as it's been known and used by the general public for at least 20 years, and anyone who continues to enable the willful ignorance of an older generation like this is only serving to cause clusterfucks like communications in government in the first place.
You should be linking things like that and demanding more accountability, not using it as some flimsy excuse for more shit behavior.
Thanks. That seems absolutely crazy to me. It's one thing to try to prevent some retired couple from being pushed out of their rural home by rising prices, but for somewhere like a Silicon Valley / Bay Area it's just asking for trouble.
Proactive local governance (like using zoning to create development areas?) or turning the legislation into temporary tax breaks for long-term residents instead of a huge, free investment might be useful. Right now it reads like a passage out of an economics textbook on rent control bemoaning the regulations actually driving the prices up.
You should be able to answer your own question based on what I said: does the certifying entity stand to lose large amounts of money if the thing they are certifying fails? Can you figure it out?
Let's have a look at some options.
(a) Airline wishes to keep its reputation and passengers alive, inspects planes thoroughly. Does so in-house or faces severe financial consequences in the event of failure.
(b) Airline wishes to keep its reputation and passengers alive, pays an outside entity (with its own reputation and financial incentives) to inspect planes thoroughly.
(c) Government requires that all airlines pass certain safety standards so that start-up airlines can't crash their dilapidated planes into heavily subsidized airport real estate near cities. Government does this by recognizing already existing certifications and inspections done by private entities, such as in (b).
In the event of a plane failure in (a), the airline loses out. Customers don't trust the company nor its inspections and it loses money. In the event of a plane failure in (b), both the airline and the inspectors lose out. Let's take as a given that it's clearly a mechanical failure because of improper inspections, and the inspection company is blamed for it, and it loses out the most. Inspection company loses the trust of its clients and the general public. In the event of a plane failure in (c), the same thing happens as in either (a) or (b)! The companies lose the trust of their clients (or passengers) and lose revenue streams. If the company fails to do its job, then the company is going to lose money. Apparently you still wish to claim that there is no financial incentives for companies involved here to conduct proper and thorough inspections, but instead of saying that and displaying your stupidity, you're hoping I can just read your mind to figure it out. I'm trying my best here.
At this point I'd like to point something out to you:
does the certifying entity stand to lose large amounts of money if the thing they are certifying fails?
This could actually be a financial incentive to cheat on the inspections! Sometimes delivery volume is more important than a few failures. Perhaps you'll be thinking, with a smile, about how much money someone else saved as you hurtle towards your death in an airplane which hadn't been inspected at all?
Not only does a government have an x% tax, but then they the government requires the government only to collect a portion of those taxes if it was too much of an increase year over year. Which it always is, because the requirement is less than inflation (which is also basically mandated by the government). How does that work? Do they actually lower the property tax rate to accommodate the year-over-year increases, or do they just ignore the prescribed rate and have accountants lower the amount due?
And then, to top it off, nobody apparently wants to take credit for these as being tax cuts. The government lowered taxes (unbelievable!) and then nobody wants to claim the responsibility for that? Unbelievable! California is fucking crazytown.
namely the inspections where the inspector and his organization faces stiff personal and corporate liabilities and hence have a strong economic incentive to assess risks correctly. Accountants and insurance companies perform those kinds of inspections.
Government regulators and government inspection programs generally lack these incentives, and that makes their inspections pretty much worthless.
What about government regulators and inspection programs which require certification or inspection from one of the entities you listed in the above paragraph? Because, guess what, that's what a lot of government inspections and certifications are.
I've been looking in to this lately. Apparently in the late 70s early 80s they passed a law that says property taxes can only increase at a MAX of 2% per year. Inflation is 4% per year so over 10 years your effective taxes drop by HALF.
dude, what? Property tax is a rate, and unless it's legislatively prescribed that the rate is lowered every year (so as not to increase the dollar total which was paid by more than 2%), then your post is all kinds of wrong.
If the property values stayed exactly the same in nominal terms, then they're actually losing real value because of inflation, and are therefore being taxed less.
How are inspections meaningless? They're only meaningless if they're meaningless.
In this post you are claiming to believe that we live in a universe where inspections are fundamentally impossible of providing any value or accomplishing anything in any way. Judging by the fact that you believe you can accurately inspect an airline's track record, financials, and insurance (without those having been cheated on at all!), I'm sure you must have just made some kind of mistake.
No, one of almost an infinite amount of alternative theories is that the CTO of a major technology company didn't have his home WiFi secured and some enterprising criminal hijacked it to hack Uber. A much more plausible theory is that the Lyft guy used a Swedish VPN sometimes.
The Uber key was posted publicly on github in March of 2014, and was presumably publicly available until Uber realized their mistake when they were breached in February 2015. It's pretty ridiculous to say that they could have eliminated all of the IP addresses except one, even with being able to cross-check the Swedish VPN users with those who may have accessed the github page. Anyone who accessed the github page could have made the key publicly available somewhere else, like, say, on a Russian forum, where a third party used it to illegitimately access Uber's data.
With this in mind, as a general, bin Laden can be argued to be the best general in two centuries. Russia couldn't drive wedges between the US and Europe, even when the Bear had troops on every continent. Germany couldn't do this during WWII, even though for a few years, they actually brought peace to the Middle East. bin Laden broke the spirit of the US people, and now they are cowed and bickering with politicians taking advantage of their fears.
This is one of the most ignorant things I've read in quite a while.
A symptom of the broken spirit of the American people is bickering politicians?
The USSR and USA literally splitting Europe in half with a giant wedge right down the middle didn't involve driving any wedges?
Nazi Germany brought peace to the Middle East during World War 2?
And your hope for all of this -- the thing that will solve the fear, paranoia, and the militancy of witch hunts -- is a Winston Churchill???????????? Winston "we should have invaded Russia in 1919 to strangle communism in the cradle" Churchill? Winston "we should have invaded Germany in 1932 to stop them from rearmng" Churchill? Winston "let's gas the Kurds" Churchill? Winston "I've invaded more Middle Eastern countries than the Bush family" Churchill? Winston "we shall never surrender, except for giving away half of Europe to Stalin" Churchill? Winston "I'm the wedgiest wedge wedge wedge the world has ever wedged" Churchill?
The only hope coming from this post is that the poster is a teenager who knows nothing about history.
You may be an American by birth or by other processes legally, but you have zero concept of what it means to actually be an American, or of why the US was even founded then.
My post says nothing about police behavior other than condemning those who would wish for greater police powers as some kind of wishful thinking about simultaneously convicting more guilty people while reducing executive misbehavior. If you can believe that kind of wishful thinking, backing it up only with your "no true American.." logic, then you should move to Syria, where similar feelings are actually being implemented. Tell me how it turns out!
One of the major use-cases of the 5th amendment is avoiding having to take the stand during a criminal trial. It's not like the prosecutor can call you to the stand and ask you a bunch of innocuous questions like your name, birthdate, job, hometown, etc., which you must answer and then ask "did you commit the murder?" Because it is unconstitutional to force someone to testify against themselves, and because a prosecutor questioning a defendant in front of a jury could imply guilt like this, a defendant's lawyer will often object to them even being called to the stand to testify in front of a jury. In this sense it's axiomatic.
This doesn't prevent evidence from being gathered against you before the trial, and it often doesn't prevent you from giving up information against yourself (ie, it's not like you can refuse a warrant just because they might find something inside your home). The police can still hold it against you during their investigations, like you suggest, so while you can refuse to answer their questions ("you have the right to remain silent"), if you just sit there and completely refuse to talk the police will most likely more aggressively investigate what it is that you're hiding.
As an American, I find the concept of throwing out evidence somewhat questionable is well, as in, if someone is guilty, they are guilty, no matter how the evidence was obtained.
This should be "despite being American,...". Guilt is determined by the courts and it is done so using evidence gathered. If a person of questionable guilt is found guilty in a court of law, then ALL evidence that was used against them to do so is suddenly retroactively converted into having no requirements for its gathering. The person is guilty because of the evidence, and the evidence is admissable because they will be found guilty. This might be a nice system if we could pause the universe and question God as to whether we're correct or not, but we cannot, and if we could, we would probably not need arcane concepts like legal systems in the first place.
How could you possibly hold someone accountable for destroying your property if it's perfectly acceptable for them to destroy your property if you will eventually be convicted? It's just an incentive for everyone involved to convict you regardless of whether you did anything or not.
Both you and the non-American OP are viewing this in a simplistic manner as if a trial exists of questions such as "did you do it?" with a yes or no response. They are not. A skilled prosecutor can make it seem like your 8:59 quick trip to a convenience store reeks of guilt when it was information you happily provided to police. If "evidence" were always as evident as a bloody knife, then the criminals would just clean up after themselves without fail.
It's fucking crazy that a place like/., where people so greatly appreciate the overreaching of the NSA, some people can so quickly do a 180 and justify the same behavior so long as they come up guilty in the end! The 4th and 5th amendments, protecting searches without warrant and protecting you from having to testify against yourself, are intricately and irrevocably linked together. How can you justify not consenting to a search if you can be forced to consent to provide evidence incriminating yourself?
But monopoly is mostly self fixing, as soon as you extract monopoly pricing you attract new competitors.
So presumably Americans don't hate cable companies, then? Because discontent with existing providers caused new ISPs and telecoms companies to spring up everywhere and fill the hole in the market?
Pretty good detective work to arrest the owner of a parked car for driving without a license. Presumably they could have him arrested on some kind of terrorism charge, provided they hadn't blown up all of the "evidence".
Yugoslavia existed prior to WWII. It was invaded and dismantled by the Axis. Those disparate ethnic groups had been living peacefully together as Yugoslavia since the end of WWI, when it was formed, and even before that under the Austria-Hungary empire.
The only thing resembling genocide in that region occurred in the 1990s, unless you do some mental gymnastics and believe that imperialist aggression and Serbian nationalism leading to WWI was genocide.
That's probably the funniest noir moment about this. The Washington Post, a newspaper, is being trusted with data so sensitive they don't even want to reveal some of it publicly.
A newspaper! I think I'd rather give my credit card information to Target than trust a newspaper company with knowing anything about the internet.
I would count the days until lax security leads to the raw data leaking onto the general internet, but it's probably already been read by Unit 61337.
It doesn't specify all of them, but it does specify some of them:
If a target entered an online chat room, the NSA collected the words and identities of every person who posted there, regardless of subject, as well as every person who simply “lurked,” reading passively what other people wrote.
There are others, too, but this would imply that if one of the legitimate targets had a slashdot account, or some other message board, anyone posting or reading the same site might be scooped up into the list of "incidental" targets.
Anyone showing signs of being a "likely" American, according to the article, were then "minimized". ie, their names were scrubbed. Of course their criteria for determining likely American status is not very rigorous.
I think it's really interesting that of the "minimized" identities listed in the article, one of them is
A “minimized U.S. president-elect” begins to appear in the files in early 2009, and references to the current “minimized U.S. president” appear 1,227 times in the following four years.
Does this mean they were reading Obama's communications after he was elected to become President, and then scrubbed his name from it?
Slashdot Mirror
Either the classified message is encrypted and the email server's security is moot or the classified message is not encrypted and the sender is mishandling the information in the first place by sending it in clear text over the internet, regardless of where the server is hosted.
Communications on the wire being secure until the year 500,000 is meaningless if the server is compromised somehow. According to the article, the (Microsoft) email server had RDP ports open (which had a critical vulnerability while she was in office: https://technet.microsoft.com/...), and other computers on the same network were accessible by VNC.
Even if Hillary had been using *perfect* security in terms of encryption and information security with regards to sending her emails (which is laughable, considering the state of email) this would still be a huge problem.
Government officials have been doing this for years (remember Sarah Palin's personal email being accessed? and the guy going to prison for it?), but it's always been done with a veneer of technological ignorance that gives them a little bit of plausibility. Almost every single one of them that has happened so far has been able to shrug their shoulders and say "ha ha, email, who knows how that stuff works! it's magic!", and between their age (GWB was born in 1946, for example) and the general time period (before smartphones even existed) they were able to claim this without any hint of being deceitful.
Hillary has tried to do this while simultaneously setting up her own server! How fucking dumb does she think people are to believe her saying things like "wipe the server? what, like, with a cloth?" after having ordered the construction and curation of her own private email server? A server which, while in vague legal territory, serves no purpose other than to give herself control over her communication because of her political ambitions?
There's no deniability here. She can't claim that some boffin came to her and said that this would be a good idea and she rubberstamped it without any scrutiny. She can't claim to have ordered its creation and been ignorant as to what it was capable of because its very purpose of existence was to communicate outside of official channels. She can't claim to be ignorant about classification status of information because, as Secretary of State, she's one of the fucking root authorities!
Everything about this is her bending the rules for her own personal benefit and not caring about what the consequences are and blatantly lying about it afterwards with the implication that she should get away with it because, otherwise, it might ruin her chances at election. Sorry, but no thanks. If anyone posting here on /. did anything similar to this, not only would you never work for the US government again, but you'd probably have to sit in a federal prison for a decade before you got the chance to have your resumes thrown in the garbage.
Government communication are certainly a mess, and we probably know that more than anybody, but having anyone who feels like it set up their own VPS or whatever to deal with the problem is a step in the opposite direction. Anyone in any kind of administrator role should cringe at the thought of that. Anyone who excuses this kind of basic technological ignorance as a justifiable reason for breaches of trust and security should be laughed out of the room, as well. Email is not some new-fangled crazy technology, as it's been known and used by the general public for at least 20 years, and anyone who continues to enable the willful ignorance of an older generation like this is only serving to cause clusterfucks like communications in government in the first place.
You should be linking things like that and demanding more accountability, not using it as some flimsy excuse for more shit behavior.
Thanks. That seems absolutely crazy to me. It's one thing to try to prevent some retired couple from being pushed out of their rural home by rising prices, but for somewhere like a Silicon Valley / Bay Area it's just asking for trouble.
Proactive local governance (like using zoning to create development areas?) or turning the legislation into temporary tax breaks for long-term residents instead of a huge, free investment might be useful. Right now it reads like a passage out of an economics textbook on rent control bemoaning the regulations actually driving the prices up.
You should be able to answer your own question based on what I said: does the certifying entity stand to lose large amounts of money if the thing they are certifying fails? Can you figure it out?
Let's have a look at some options.
(a) Airline wishes to keep its reputation and passengers alive, inspects planes thoroughly. Does so in-house or faces severe financial consequences in the event of failure.
(b) Airline wishes to keep its reputation and passengers alive, pays an outside entity (with its own reputation and financial incentives) to inspect planes thoroughly.
(c) Government requires that all airlines pass certain safety standards so that start-up airlines can't crash their dilapidated planes into heavily subsidized airport real estate near cities. Government does this by recognizing already existing certifications and inspections done by private entities, such as in (b).
In the event of a plane failure in (a), the airline loses out. Customers don't trust the company nor its inspections and it loses money.
In the event of a plane failure in (b), both the airline and the inspectors lose out. Let's take as a given that it's clearly a mechanical failure because of improper inspections, and the inspection company is blamed for it, and it loses out the most. Inspection company loses the trust of its clients and the general public.
In the event of a plane failure in (c), the same thing happens as in either (a) or (b)! The companies lose the trust of their clients (or passengers) and lose revenue streams. If the company fails to do its job, then the company is going to lose money. Apparently you still wish to claim that there is no financial incentives for companies involved here to conduct proper and thorough inspections, but instead of saying that and displaying your stupidity, you're hoping I can just read your mind to figure it out. I'm trying my best here.
At this point I'd like to point something out to you:
does the certifying entity stand to lose large amounts of money if the thing they are certifying fails?
This could actually be a financial incentive to cheat on the inspections! Sometimes delivery volume is more important than a few failures. Perhaps you'll be thinking, with a smile, about how much money someone else saved as you hurtle towards your death in an airplane which hadn't been inspected at all?
I'm glad you've changed your mind since your original post! Nice chat.
That's fucking insane.
Not only does a government have an x% tax, but then they the government requires the government only to collect a portion of those taxes if it was too much of an increase year over year. Which it always is, because the requirement is less than inflation (which is also basically mandated by the government). How does that work? Do they actually lower the property tax rate to accommodate the year-over-year increases, or do they just ignore the prescribed rate and have accountants lower the amount due?
And then, to top it off, nobody apparently wants to take credit for these as being tax cuts. The government lowered taxes (unbelievable!) and then nobody wants to claim the responsibility for that? Unbelievable! California is fucking crazytown.
namely the inspections where the inspector and his organization faces stiff personal and corporate liabilities and hence have a strong economic incentive to assess risks correctly. Accountants and insurance companies perform those kinds of inspections.
Government regulators and government inspection programs generally lack these incentives, and that makes their inspections pretty much worthless.
What about government regulators and inspection programs which require certification or inspection from one of the entities you listed in the above paragraph? Because, guess what, that's what a lot of government inspections and certifications are.
I've been looking in to this lately. Apparently in the late 70s early 80s they passed a law that says property taxes can only increase at a MAX of 2% per year. Inflation is 4% per year so over 10 years your effective taxes drop by HALF.
dude, what? Property tax is a rate, and unless it's legislatively prescribed that the rate is lowered every year (so as not to increase the dollar total which was paid by more than 2%), then your post is all kinds of wrong.
If the property values stayed exactly the same in nominal terms, then they're actually losing real value because of inflation, and are therefore being taxed less.
How are inspections meaningless? They're only meaningless if they're meaningless.
In this post you are claiming to believe that we live in a universe where inspections are fundamentally impossible of providing any value or accomplishing anything in any way. Judging by the fact that you believe you can accurately inspect an airline's track record, financials, and insurance (without those having been cheated on at all!), I'm sure you must have just made some kind of mistake.
No, one of almost an infinite amount of alternative theories is that the CTO of a major technology company didn't have his home WiFi secured and some enterprising criminal hijacked it to hack Uber. A much more plausible theory is that the Lyft guy used a Swedish VPN sometimes.
The Uber key was posted publicly on github in March of 2014, and was presumably publicly available until Uber realized their mistake when they were breached in February 2015. It's pretty ridiculous to say that they could have eliminated all of the IP addresses except one, even with being able to cross-check the Swedish VPN users with those who may have accessed the github page. Anyone who accessed the github page could have made the key publicly available somewhere else, like, say, on a Russian forum, where a third party used it to illegitimately access Uber's data.
With this in mind, as a general, bin Laden can be argued to be the best general in two centuries. Russia couldn't drive wedges between the US and Europe, even when the Bear had troops on every continent. Germany couldn't do this during WWII, even though for a few years, they actually brought peace to the Middle East. bin Laden broke the spirit of the US people, and now they are cowed and bickering with politicians taking advantage of their fears.
This is one of the most ignorant things I've read in quite a while.
A symptom of the broken spirit of the American people is bickering politicians?
The USSR and USA literally splitting Europe in half with a giant wedge right down the middle didn't involve driving any wedges?
Nazi Germany brought peace to the Middle East during World War 2?
And your hope for all of this -- the thing that will solve the fear, paranoia, and the militancy of witch hunts -- is a Winston Churchill???????????? Winston "we should have invaded Russia in 1919 to strangle communism in the cradle" Churchill? Winston "we should have invaded Germany in 1932 to stop them from rearmng" Churchill? Winston "let's gas the Kurds" Churchill? Winston "I've invaded more Middle Eastern countries than the Bush family" Churchill? Winston "we shall never surrender, except for giving away half of Europe to Stalin" Churchill? Winston "I'm the wedgiest wedge wedge wedge the world has ever wedged" Churchill?
The only hope coming from this post is that the poster is a teenager who knows nothing about history.
You may be an American by birth or by other processes legally, but you have zero concept of what it means to actually be an American, or of why the US was even founded then.
My post says nothing about police behavior other than condemning those who would wish for greater police powers as some kind of wishful thinking about simultaneously convicting more guilty people while reducing executive misbehavior. If you can believe that kind of wishful thinking, backing it up only with your "no true American.." logic, then you should move to Syria, where similar feelings are actually being implemented. Tell me how it turns out!
One of the major use-cases of the 5th amendment is avoiding having to take the stand during a criminal trial. It's not like the prosecutor can call you to the stand and ask you a bunch of innocuous questions like your name, birthdate, job, hometown, etc., which you must answer and then ask "did you commit the murder?" Because it is unconstitutional to force someone to testify against themselves, and because a prosecutor questioning a defendant in front of a jury could imply guilt like this, a defendant's lawyer will often object to them even being called to the stand to testify in front of a jury. In this sense it's axiomatic.
This doesn't prevent evidence from being gathered against you before the trial, and it often doesn't prevent you from giving up information against yourself (ie, it's not like you can refuse a warrant just because they might find something inside your home). The police can still hold it against you during their investigations, like you suggest, so while you can refuse to answer their questions ("you have the right to remain silent"), if you just sit there and completely refuse to talk the police will most likely more aggressively investigate what it is that you're hiding.
As an American, I find the concept of throwing out evidence somewhat questionable is well, as in, if someone is guilty, they are guilty, no matter how the evidence was obtained.
This should be "despite being American, ...". Guilt is determined by the courts and it is done so using evidence gathered. If a person of questionable guilt is found guilty in a court of law, then ALL evidence that was used against them to do so is suddenly retroactively converted into having no requirements for its gathering. The person is guilty because of the evidence, and the evidence is admissable because they will be found guilty. This might be a nice system if we could pause the universe and question God as to whether we're correct or not, but we cannot, and if we could, we would probably not need arcane concepts like legal systems in the first place.
How could you possibly hold someone accountable for destroying your property if it's perfectly acceptable for them to destroy your property if you will eventually be convicted? It's just an incentive for everyone involved to convict you regardless of whether you did anything or not.
Both you and the non-American OP are viewing this in a simplistic manner as if a trial exists of questions such as "did you do it?" with a yes or no response. They are not. A skilled prosecutor can make it seem like your 8:59 quick trip to a convenience store reeks of guilt when it was information you happily provided to police. If "evidence" were always as evident as a bloody knife, then the criminals would just clean up after themselves without fail.
It's fucking crazy that a place like /., where people so greatly appreciate the overreaching of the NSA, some people can so quickly do a 180 and justify the same behavior so long as they come up guilty in the end! The 4th and 5th amendments, protecting searches without warrant and protecting you from having to testify against yourself, are intricately and irrevocably linked together. How can you justify not consenting to a search if you can be forced to consent to provide evidence incriminating yourself?
But monopoly is mostly self fixing, as soon as you extract monopoly pricing you attract new competitors.
So presumably Americans don't hate cable companies, then? Because discontent with existing providers caused new ISPs and telecoms companies to spring up everywhere and fill the hole in the market?
sent from my alternate universe iphone
Pretty good detective work to arrest the owner of a parked car for driving without a license. Presumably they could have him arrested on some kind of terrorism charge, provided they hadn't blown up all of the "evidence".
The US is continually paying off its debts. Every time, on time.
That's why it's able to do exactly what it's doing, which is continually borrowing more money.
Yugoslavia existed prior to WWII. It was invaded and dismantled by the Axis. Those disparate ethnic groups had been living peacefully together as Yugoslavia since the end of WWI, when it was formed, and even before that under the Austria-Hungary empire.
The only thing resembling genocide in that region occurred in the 1990s, unless you do some mental gymnastics and believe that imperialist aggression and Serbian nationalism leading to WWI was genocide.
Easy solution to that. Get 15 more interns.
The public schools churn out morons like you because the left would rather teach leftism than basic literacy. Unsurprisingly.
If I can get 55 of them for a penny, then that's per cent. But % is percent. Or did you think those values were "per centages"? Dumb ass.
You're more than a quarter dumb, aren't you?
Not talking about coins here.
Forgot to mention this: https://www.schneier.com/blog/...
That's probably the funniest noir moment about this. The Washington Post, a newspaper, is being trusted with data so sensitive they don't even want to reveal some of it publicly.
A newspaper! I think I'd rather give my credit card information to Target than trust a newspaper company with knowing anything about the internet.
I would count the days until lax security leads to the raw data leaking onto the general internet, but it's probably already been read by Unit 61337.
It doesn't specify all of them, but it does specify some of them:
If a target entered an online chat room, the NSA collected the words and identities of every person who posted there, regardless of subject, as well as every person who simply “lurked,” reading passively what other people wrote.
There are others, too, but this would imply that if one of the legitimate targets had a slashdot account, or some other message board, anyone posting or reading the same site might be scooped up into the list of "incidental" targets.
Anyone showing signs of being a "likely" American, according to the article, were then "minimized". ie, their names were scrubbed. Of course their criteria for determining likely American status is not very rigorous.
Out of curiosity, where did you hear this?
I think it's really interesting that of the "minimized" identities listed in the article, one of them is
A “minimized U.S. president-elect” begins to appear in the files in early 2009, and references to the current “minimized U.S. president” appear 1,227 times in the following four years.
Does this mean they were reading Obama's communications after he was elected to become President, and then scrubbed his name from it?
They're sucking up all kinds of communications metadata, but it's separate and unrelated to the programs discussed in the article.