Europe *doesn't* want this. The Poles don't want this. The US is paying for it, because it's part of a full package of arm twisting and bribery to make them accept something that fundamentally makes their position less secure.
"According to a poll by SMG/KRC released by TVP 50 per cent of respondents reject the deployment of the shield on Polish soil, while 36 per cent support it.[41]"
Yes, the US are arseholes here.
So the US is forcing Poland to let them build the base, or Poland's goverment is doing something the Polish people don't seem to want? Because one of them makes the US "arseholes", and the other doesn't.
So it's the US's problem that a foreign goverment isn't following the perceived will of their people? What would you like them to do about it, liberate you or completely ignore global politics until those countries get to a point where they're happy with their goverments' choices? Because aside from working with the existing powers that be, those are really the only options.
Option 3: How about the U.S. stop attacking other countries for a while and then try the "we're just defending ourselves" line again.
Your option really doesn't do anything to address the question. What, exactly, do you expect or want a foreign goverment to do when you feel that yours isn't working in your interests? You can't really expect them not to have business with each other. And I sincerely doubt you want them to encourage or force a reorganization/coup/revolution. If your goverment isn't working in your interests, it's up to you as a country to do something about it. Until then, you don't get to whine about what above-board, legitimate actions they take as your global representatives.
You're also overextended and weakened financially from a protracted war in the Middle East. Yes, Russia is a poor nation, but China is their next door neighbour, holder of significant amounts of US debt, and also not so happy about your decadent western ideals.
Russia and China have some pretty polarized wants and needs. And 8% isn't all that significant.
You yanks keep ignoring the fact that people in those countries actually don't want your missiles stationed there.
It took many years and many threats (some of which were documented fairly well) to other *friendly nations* in order to finally get "approval" from corrupt governments, to place missiles in their countries. And people don't want that.
For example, since 2007 (earlier, actually), there have been promises and calls for referendum in Poland.
It still didn't happen.
Are you still going to pretend how US government are the "good guys"?
So it's the US's problem that a foreign goverment isn't following the perceived will of their people? What would you like them to do about it, liberate you or completely ignore global politics until those countries get to a point where they're happy with their goverments' choices? Because aside from working with the existing powers that be, those are really the only options.
If you think what US is doing is ok, then noone can help you.
I know everything big, bad America does is evil and all, but threatening a pre-emptive attack against a defensive installation is pretty crazy. Especially when this is a NATO deal, and Poland doesn't seem to have any problem with letting the US build a base in their country.
Right right. Well, in society we (those of us who are not shit people or their fanbois) don't only apologize for illegal behavior, we apologize for the vastly larger set of rude or unkind behaviors. Do you not understand that, or do you disagree that this behavior is rude, or (this is the one I figure is true, and to which I somewhat sympathize) do you think that law officers are not obliged to follow rules of common courtesy when they fuck up royally?
I'm pretty sure I asked for a legitimate argument, not more ad hominem attack and a completely offtopic strawman. Here's a suggestion for how you can get started: "I think they 'royally fucked up' by..." The server was siezed with a legitimate warrant. It was returned relatively promptly. Riseup and May First/People Link are whining because something they don't own (and the former admits it didn't even use as a customer) was returned to the owner without it being announced to them. They're not the owners, they're the users - it's not their server or their space. In what possible way this that "fucked up royally", let alone remotely comparable to leaving a person locked up and unattended for the better part of a week? Don't compare a couple customers losing access to someone else's anonymous remailer for a few weeks to law enforcement almost killing a human being in their custody.
By the way, please keep in mind that all of the sources are Riseup/May First press releases, and both summaries were submitted by a Riseup employee, so you need to watch out for the bias there.
One of the ways society identifies shit people, and their fanbois, is by the way they never apologise or show any signs of remorse.
A much better way of identifying "shit people" is watching them do things like make ad hominem attacks instead of refuting a legitimate point. It's not their server (it belongs to ECN), and they legally siezed the server with a legitimate warrant.
On April 24th, the FBI quietly returned the server, without notifying either Mayfirst / People Link or riseup, and were caught on video doing it.
what kind of no security operation are they running at this datacenter? The last place i worked , to get in the datacenter required a thumb reader, to get into the clean room, that then detected if more than one person had entered and would not let you past that door untill the other door was closed and no other people were in the clean room, and it was ALWAYS staffed to see people coming and going.
For just random people to come in , take a server, then put it back later with out any one knowing is some where i would never store my server.
It isn't their data center. Or their server. They're users of a service provided by ECN.
Not even telling them that it was back so that the owners could decide if they even wanted to risk leaving it in place? VERY suspicious.
There's no comment about whether or not the owners, ECN, were told. Riseup and May First are only clients of the service. It's funny how their press releases keep glossing over that fact and present it like someone broke into their offices and stole their server, when they're just users of a hosted third-party service.
The threats continued after the server seizure. So one might expect the FBI to return the server with a courteous "Sorry, my bad" apology, maybe.
Why? They had a valid warrant, and the server isn't owned by Riseup or May First/Peoplelink. Why should they have to apologize to them, or notify them? In fact, according to Riseup's press release, this server didn't even contain any of their info.
The gun owners, like any special interests group, pick and choose who has the best track record with their interests. Show some statistics and some facts, drop your meaningless annecdotal experiences. 45% of the households in this country own a gun. Only 31% of the country identifies as republicans, and only 41% of republicans own guns.
You may have a lot of annecdotal experience with demographics that contain people who own guns, that doesn't mean everyone who owns guns fits in those demographics. An estimated 45% of American households own at least one gun, only 35% of the country claims to be Republican. Obviously your information doesn't add up.
Why, when so many tech companies were opposed to SOPA, are they behind CISPA? What benefit are they now being offered that they weren't before?
RTFBills. Both have something to do with internet privacy, and that's the end of the similarities. SOPA was about expanding copyright laws and enforcement, it turned people and companies into criminals and allowed for ridiculous levels of censorship - like blacklisting domains for linking to an infringing site or holding a website accountable for something a user posted/uploaded. CISPA is about making it easier for the federal goverment to solicit information from companies. People need to stop making SOPA arguments against CISPA, because most of them are unrelated and they aren't helping, they're taking time and emphasis away from legitimate arguments against a very different bill, with a very different purpose and very different problems.
Now of course, this obviously doesn't describe all 2A supporters, but the ones who believe in free access to firearms and who also believe in freedom of/from religion are a small minority.
[citation needed]
Most second amendment supporters are strongly against "big goverment" and anything that takes away from constitutional rights. There may be a lot of people who are conservative and/or religious (though not nearly as many as you clearly believe), but that has nothing to do with whether or not you value online freedom or the first amendment. I'm really not sure where you're pulling this drivel from that all or a majority of second amendment supporters are birthers, want the goverment to limit freedom of speech or privacy, or want to establish a theocracy... You've clearly got some pretty strong bias and not a lot of information or exposure.
So does the bank pay for a mobile phone plan for the customer? No? Then how is it not "let the customer pay"?
The bank pays for sending the sms. So unless you have internet but no cell phone, there's no additional cost for security on the customer side.
Not with most major US carriers, at least. Both outgoing and incoming text messages count against your bill/limit, whether that's charged per text, x free a month or unlimited.
It's nothing like the Windows situation where you get a bag of critical patches forced down your throat every Patch Tuesday, and then your Windows box loves to reboot right in the middle of whatever you are doing. Sheesh.
1) Just as a point of clarification, Patch Tuesday is only once a month. And there's usually only about a dozen or so, only some of which are genuinely "critical". Obviously that varies though.
2) Windows Update has been a lot better for years, ever since Vista. There's nothing wrong with it now. You might be able to complain about the default settings, but they're right there and they're pretty straightforward. If you're logged in and it's set to restart automatically, it prompts you to restart or postpone it. And, obviously, you can shut down the automatic reboots or the automatically downloading/installation of updates. Besides, since moving Windows Update to an actual program after XP, there's also been a lot fewer updates that seem to require restarts. With XP, it seemed like you had to restart every single time you ran updates. Vista/7's a lot better with that.
That's a bit extreme for normal users. The more complexity you force on them, the more likely they are to just write the password down. It's generally accepted to force 8 characters minimum, 3 character types (between lower-case letters, capital letters, numbers and symbols) and not allow them to use any of their last 5 passwords or change the password again on the same day. Now admin accounts, 15 characters is reasonable.
They didn't. No one did. The admin just told everyone "Depending on how paranoid you are, you may assume the machine is
backdoored, since the authorities have had access".
So, effectively, the FBI has just committed a crime. They have intruded into the server of a foreign company and added a backdoor. I am surprised Austria is not up in complete arms over this. Anonymity in of itself is not a crime so the FBI really behaved egregiously!
They did neither. The Austrian authorities, at the request of the FBI and in compliance with international agreements, created a bit copy of the hard drive. The whole point of a whole disk copy like that is that you DON'T access the original, and therefore can't compromise the evidence or lose/overwrite files/properties. There's no proof of any backdoor being installed, the admin just said that since they had the server they could possibly installed one.
Slashdot Mirror
Europe *doesn't* want this. The Poles don't want this. The US is paying for it, because it's part of a full package of arm twisting and bribery to make them accept something that fundamentally makes their position less secure.
"According to a poll by SMG/KRC released by TVP 50 per cent of respondents reject the deployment of the shield on Polish soil, while 36 per cent support it.[41]"
Yes, the US are arseholes here.
So the US is forcing Poland to let them build the base, or Poland's goverment is doing something the Polish people don't seem to want? Because one of them makes the US "arseholes", and the other doesn't.
So it's the US's problem that a foreign goverment isn't following the perceived will of their people? What would you like them to do about it, liberate you or completely ignore global politics until those countries get to a point where they're happy with their goverments' choices? Because aside from working with the existing powers that be, those are really the only options.
Option 3: How about the U.S. stop attacking other countries for a while and then try the "we're just defending ourselves" line again.
Your option really doesn't do anything to address the question. What, exactly, do you expect or want a foreign goverment to do when you feel that yours isn't working in your interests? You can't really expect them not to have business with each other. And I sincerely doubt you want them to encourage or force a reorganization/coup/revolution. If your goverment isn't working in your interests, it's up to you as a country to do something about it. Until then, you don't get to whine about what above-board, legitimate actions they take as your global representatives.
You're also overextended and weakened financially from a protracted war in the Middle East. Yes, Russia is a poor nation, but China is their next door neighbour, holder of significant amounts of US debt, and also not so happy about your decadent western ideals.
Russia and China have some pretty polarized wants and needs. And 8% isn't all that significant.
You yanks keep ignoring the fact that people in those countries actually don't want your missiles stationed there.
It took many years and many threats (some of which were documented fairly well) to other *friendly nations* in order to finally get "approval" from corrupt governments, to place missiles in their countries. And people don't want that.
For example, since 2007 (earlier, actually), there have been promises and calls for referendum in Poland.
It still didn't happen.
Are you still going to pretend how US government are the "good guys"?
So it's the US's problem that a foreign goverment isn't following the perceived will of their people? What would you like them to do about it, liberate you or completely ignore global politics until those countries get to a point where they're happy with their goverments' choices? Because aside from working with the existing powers that be, those are really the only options.
... or is Putin getting crazier as he gets older?
Yeah, it is just you.
If you think what US is doing is ok, then noone can help you.
I know everything big, bad America does is evil and all, but threatening a pre-emptive attack against a defensive installation is pretty crazy. Especially when this is a NATO deal, and Poland doesn't seem to have any problem with letting the US build a base in their country.
Right right. Well, in society we (those of us who are not shit people or their fanbois) don't only apologize for illegal behavior, we apologize for the vastly larger set of rude or unkind behaviors. Do you not understand that, or do you disagree that this behavior is rude, or (this is the one I figure is true, and to which I somewhat sympathize) do you think that law officers are not obliged to follow rules of common courtesy when they fuck up royally?
I'm pretty sure I asked for a legitimate argument, not more ad hominem attack and a completely offtopic strawman. Here's a suggestion for how you can get started: "I think they 'royally fucked up' by..." The server was siezed with a legitimate warrant. It was returned relatively promptly. Riseup and May First/People Link are whining because something they don't own (and the former admits it didn't even use as a customer) was returned to the owner without it being announced to them. They're not the owners, they're the users - it's not their server or their space. In what possible way this that "fucked up royally", let alone remotely comparable to leaving a person locked up and unattended for the better part of a week? Don't compare a couple customers losing access to someone else's anonymous remailer for a few weeks to law enforcement almost killing a human being in their custody.
By the way, please keep in mind that all of the sources are Riseup/May First press releases, and both summaries were submitted by a Riseup employee, so you need to watch out for the bias there.
"Why should they have to apologize to them"
One of the ways society identifies shit people, and their fanbois, is by the way they never apologise or show any signs of remorse.
A much better way of identifying "shit people" is watching them do things like make ad hominem attacks instead of refuting a legitimate point. It's not their server (it belongs to ECN), and they legally siezed the server with a legitimate warrant.
On April 24th, the FBI quietly returned the server, without notifying either Mayfirst / People Link or riseup, and were caught on video doing it. what kind of no security operation are they running at this datacenter? The last place i worked , to get in the datacenter required a thumb reader, to get into the clean room, that then detected if more than one person had entered and would not let you past that door untill the other door was closed and no other people were in the clean room, and it was ALWAYS staffed to see people coming and going. For just random people to come in , take a server, then put it back later with out any one knowing is some where i would never store my server.
It isn't their data center. Or their server. They're users of a service provided by ECN.
Not even telling them that it was back so that the owners could decide if they even wanted to risk leaving it in place? VERY suspicious.
There's no comment about whether or not the owners, ECN, were told. Riseup and May First are only clients of the service. It's funny how their press releases keep glossing over that fact and present it like someone broke into their offices and stole their server, when they're just users of a hosted third-party service.
There were no cameras when they took it. May 1st secretly installed cameras after the original theft (a seizure requires notification).
May First also didn't own the server or the space, an organization called ECN does.
Normally, in a free society, any interactions with Law Enforcement would be above board and you would be notified.
Riseup and May First/Peoplelink weren't notified. They also didn't own the server or the space. Nothing says that the FBI didn't notify ECN.
The threats continued after the server seizure. So one might expect the FBI to return the server with a courteous "Sorry, my bad" apology, maybe.
Why? They had a valid warrant, and the server isn't owned by Riseup or May First/Peoplelink. Why should they have to apologize to them, or notify them? In fact, according to Riseup's press release, this server didn't even contain any of their info.
The gun owners, like any special interests group, pick and choose who has the best track record with their interests. Show some statistics and some facts, drop your meaningless annecdotal experiences. 45% of the households in this country own a gun. Only 31% of the country identifies as republicans, and only 41% of republicans own guns.
You may have a lot of annecdotal experience with demographics that contain people who own guns, that doesn't mean everyone who owns guns fits in those demographics. An estimated 45% of American households own at least one gun, only 35% of the country claims to be Republican. Obviously your information doesn't add up.
So put the server power supply on the outside, basically.
That summarizes it more frankly than Frank Frankovsky did.
Why, when so many tech companies were opposed to SOPA, are they behind CISPA? What benefit are they now being offered that they weren't before?
RTFBills. Both have something to do with internet privacy, and that's the end of the similarities. SOPA was about expanding copyright laws and enforcement, it turned people and companies into criminals and allowed for ridiculous levels of censorship - like blacklisting domains for linking to an infringing site or holding a website accountable for something a user posted/uploaded. CISPA is about making it easier for the federal goverment to solicit information from companies. People need to stop making SOPA arguments against CISPA, because most of them are unrelated and they aren't helping, they're taking time and emphasis away from legitimate arguments against a very different bill, with a very different purpose and very different problems.
Now of course, this obviously doesn't describe all 2A supporters, but the ones who believe in free access to firearms and who also believe in freedom of/from religion are a small minority.
[citation needed] Most second amendment supporters are strongly against "big goverment" and anything that takes away from constitutional rights. There may be a lot of people who are conservative and/or religious (though not nearly as many as you clearly believe), but that has nothing to do with whether or not you value online freedom or the first amendment. I'm really not sure where you're pulling this drivel from that all or a majority of second amendment supporters are birthers, want the goverment to limit freedom of speech or privacy, or want to establish a theocracy... You've clearly got some pretty strong bias and not a lot of information or exposure.
No, I talked to the Anonymous leader, Dan, and he said they don't have any members by that name.
But it would give Sting something to do.
Did you miss "publicly perform", "publicly display" and "publish", in addition to "for the limited purpose of... promoting... our Services..."?
So does the bank pay for a mobile phone plan for the customer? No? Then how is it not "let the customer pay"?
The bank pays for sending the sms. So unless you have internet but no cell phone, there's no additional cost for security on the customer side.
Not with most major US carriers, at least. Both outgoing and incoming text messages count against your bill/limit, whether that's charged per text, x free a month or unlimited.
It's nothing like the Windows situation where you get a bag of critical patches forced down your throat every Patch Tuesday, and then your Windows box loves to reboot right in the middle of whatever you are doing. Sheesh.
1) Just as a point of clarification, Patch Tuesday is only once a month. And there's usually only about a dozen or so, only some of which are genuinely "critical". Obviously that varies though. 2) Windows Update has been a lot better for years, ever since Vista. There's nothing wrong with it now. You might be able to complain about the default settings, but they're right there and they're pretty straightforward. If you're logged in and it's set to restart automatically, it prompts you to restart or postpone it. And, obviously, you can shut down the automatic reboots or the automatically downloading/installation of updates. Besides, since moving Windows Update to an actual program after XP, there's also been a lot fewer updates that seem to require restarts. With XP, it seemed like you had to restart every single time you ran updates. Vista/7's a lot better with that.
That's a bit extreme for normal users. The more complexity you force on them, the more likely they are to just write the password down. It's generally accepted to force 8 characters minimum, 3 character types (between lower-case letters, capital letters, numbers and symbols) and not allow them to use any of their last 5 passwords or change the password again on the same day. Now admin accounts, 15 characters is reasonable.
They didn't. No one did. The admin just told everyone "Depending on how paranoid you are, you may assume the machine is backdoored, since the authorities have had access".
So, effectively, the FBI has just committed a crime. They have intruded into the server of a foreign company and added a backdoor. I am surprised Austria is not up in complete arms over this. Anonymity in of itself is not a crime so the FBI really behaved egregiously!
They did neither. The Austrian authorities, at the request of the FBI and in compliance with international agreements, created a bit copy of the hard drive. The whole point of a whole disk copy like that is that you DON'T access the original, and therefore can't compromise the evidence or lose/overwrite files/properties. There's no proof of any backdoor being installed, the admin just said that since they had the server they could possibly installed one.