Don't forget one of the most important promises: to make bills available for a week publicly online before signing them. That went away almost as fast as the ban on lobbyists in his cabinet.
I don't think I'm stupid or naive - I wasn't surprised at all at any of Snowden's revelations. I was skeptical right away at the report of a Long Island couple getting a visit from the feds (or locals directed there by the feds) because of a Google search on two terms associated with a terror event months prior - not because I don't think Google is being watched, but because a policy with such a low threshold for a response would keep every law enforcement officer on 24/7 duty for...ever.
I googled about ricin after a Breaking Bad episode. I'm sure that most people have at one time or another earched for terms associated with news events, or crime, or terror.
That the person-of-interest's employer turns out to have reported it makes much more sense.
It turned out that the visit from Homeland Security after the "pressure cooker" and "backpack" searches weren't a result of Google monitoring but of a report from the guy's employer after finding the search on his work computer.
If it's reasonable to kill captcha because it's something that works for many but not for a few, why shouldn't the entire (well, 99.999%) of the web that's inaccessible to the totally blind be banned as well?
Many jobs include forfeiting benefits, even pension, if terminated for certain causes. Lying about qualifications for employment seems like it would be near the top of the list. It's true that we don't know the details of her employment contract - but hat they convinced her to resign and that the article includes a quote from the chairman indicating that the deal "is in the Academy's best interest" suggests to me that they pursued the legal path of least resistance rather than fought to keep more from her.
It goes a bit downhill too... I read recently about a local cop who, when accused of theft of evidence (proceeds of burglary not yet returned to victim) he was offered to be allowed to retire with pension rather than face a departmental hearing and embarrass the PD. Turns out that's business as usual in my state.
'Why is it that people are willing to expose large quantities of information to private parties but don't want the Government to have the same information?'
It's not that people don't "want the government to have the same information". Information given to private parties is done so willingly and knowingly (for the sake of this argument, anyway). People don't wan't the government to be able to demand (or surreptitiously take) their information without their consent.
No, it hasn't. In the past the BES server has credentials for a *single* privileged account that interacts with the mail server. The newest version uses ActiveSync rather than MAPI for that interaction, and it connects with credentials for each individual account. Those credentials are those the article is talking about, and unlike the single BES account, they can be used to access user accounts/data/info anywhere on the network a user can.
A couple of years ago, I was driving behind a cop who initially appeared interested in the car ahead of him. That car prepared to make a left turn, and the officer signaled the same, and after I passed them (at about 35-40MPH) within two or three seconds he disengaged from the other guy and came after me, lights flashing.
Turns out my registration had expired, which is what he told me he pulled me over for. No way possible he could have visually read my plate and run it in the time he had - so I wondered if there were license-plate reading cameras in some LEO vehicles, then dismissed the idea as silly. Now it doesn't sound so far-fetched. Anyone have any direct knowledge of systems like this?
"I think the program is far more limited than most foaming at the mouth posters believe"
A secret court issuing secret warrants to get records of whom everyone talks to on the phone, for how long, and where they are seems sufficiently "limited" to you?
"The IRS investigating anti-tax activists, is good policy"
Why? Because you disagree with whatever you think their politics are?
"The DEA should probably keep tabs on NORML leaders as well"
You're awfully trusting and advocating of a Big Brother - like government.
There's no Blue versus Red here. A Republican administration overstepped its bounds in creating this, and a Democrat administration overstepped its as well in continuing - and expanding - it. Legislators of both parties passed the law that enabled it, and legislators of both parties supported the program and allowed it to continue.
Yes - IMO, though, the system that used pretzel-like contortions of logic to pretend this surveillance somehow didn't exceed constitutional limitations was thus already 'corrupt' in the first place.
There are some differences. Manning is a private in the US Army and so his rights in a prosecution, and the trial itself, are very different than those of a non-military person.
As far as the information they leaked and the 'wrongness' of leaking it - Manning was much more indiscriminate in the leaking, and Snowden seems - and claims - to have been more careful in what he released.
I think that making as big a distinction as you do between the right to not answer questions (which we seem to agree belongs to the Fifth) and the right not to be detained is misleading in the first place. But, that aside, that right to not be detained is part of the Fifth anyway (deprivation of liberty without due process, due process being enough evidence to arrest/detain).
It was the prior post that claimed it was the Sixth Amendment - "That's why we have a 6th amendment" , implying that it didn't involve the Fifth, not mine. I agree with you.
Because it's within the province of the Sixth Amendment does not mean it isn't also within that of the Fifth - and the "right to remain silent" that it recognizes.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget one of the most important promises: to make bills available for a week publicly online before signing them. That went away almost as fast as the ban on lobbyists in his cabinet.
And yes, I bitched about W's similar backpedals.
The story was that a search on the work computer caused the employer to call the authorities.
If you think it's unusual for a business to scan/log/search searches and other web traffic, I'm not the naive one.
I don't think I'm stupid or naive - I wasn't surprised at all at any of Snowden's revelations. I was skeptical right away at the report of a Long Island couple getting a visit from the feds (or locals directed there by the feds) because of a Google search on two terms associated with a terror event months prior - not because I don't think Google is being watched, but because a policy with such a low threshold for a response would keep every law enforcement officer on 24/7 duty for...ever.
I googled about ricin after a Breaking Bad episode. I'm sure that most people have at one time or another earched for terms associated with news events, or crime, or terror.
That the person-of-interest's employer turns out to have reported it makes much more sense.
It turned out that the visit from Homeland Security after the "pressure cooker" and "backpack" searches weren't a result of Google monitoring but of a report from the guy's employer after finding the search on his work computer.
If it's reasonable to kill captcha because it's something that works for many but not for a few, why shouldn't the entire (well, 99.999%) of the web that's inaccessible to the totally blind be banned as well?
Many jobs include forfeiting benefits, even pension, if terminated for certain causes. Lying about qualifications for employment seems like it would be near the top of the list. It's true that we don't know the details of her employment contract - but hat they convinced her to resign and that the article includes a quote from the chairman indicating that the deal "is in the Academy's best interest" suggests to me that they pursued the legal path of least resistance rather than fought to keep more from her.
It goes a bit downhill too ... I read recently about a local cop who, when accused of theft of evidence (proceeds of burglary not yet returned to victim) he was offered to be allowed to retire with pension rather than face a departmental hearing and embarrass the PD. Turns out that's business as usual in my state.
ACME firearms, supplying evil coyotes for decades
"She will receive a one-time payment of $475,000 for retirement and other benefits, according to an academy statement, but no severance payment"
*That* should teach her a lesson and send a strong signal.
'Why is it that people are willing to expose large quantities of information to private parties but don't want the Government to have the same information?'
It's not that people don't "want the government to have the same information". Information given to private parties is done so willingly and knowingly (for the sake of this argument, anyway). People don't wan't the government to be able to demand (or surreptitiously take) their information without their consent.
I like to think that, if I had expiration stickers on my plates, I'd have thought of that. But no, I don't.
I was wrong; the retained password behavior applies to POP/IMAP accounts, not ActiveSync. Sorry.
LEO is a multiple acronym: also Law Enforcement Officer
"blackberry has always worked like this."
No, it hasn't. In the past the BES server has credentials for a *single* privileged account that interacts with the mail server. The newest version uses ActiveSync rather than MAPI for that interaction, and it connects with credentials for each individual account. Those credentials are those the article is talking about, and unlike the single BES account, they can be used to access user accounts/data/info anywhere on the network a user can.
A couple of years ago, I was driving behind a cop who initially appeared interested in the car ahead of him. That car prepared to make a left turn, and the officer signaled the same, and after I passed them (at about 35-40MPH) within two or three seconds he disengaged from the other guy and came after me, lights flashing.
Turns out my registration had expired, which is what he told me he pulled me over for. No way possible he could have visually read my plate and run it in the time he had - so I wondered if there were license-plate reading cameras in some LEO vehicles, then dismissed the idea as silly. Now it doesn't sound so far-fetched. Anyone have any direct knowledge of systems like this?
A "true" democracy could have protected slavery, or could abolish same-sex marriage, or increase the force of our foolish War On Drugs.
A pure democracy would not be a Good Thing.
Calling a chamber to store energy as pressurized air a "wind mine" is like calling the fuel tank in my car a "gasoline well".
It was apparently an oversight and has been fixed - I just confirmed my wall data is included in my downloaded zip file.
"I think the program is far more limited than most foaming at the mouth posters believe"
A secret court issuing secret warrants to get records of whom everyone talks to on the phone, for how long, and where they are seems sufficiently "limited" to you?
"The IRS investigating anti-tax activists, is good policy"
Why? Because you disagree with whatever you think their politics are?
"The DEA should probably keep tabs on NORML leaders as well"
You're awfully trusting and advocating of a Big Brother - like government.
There's no Blue versus Red here. A Republican administration overstepped its bounds in creating this, and a Democrat administration overstepped its as well in continuing - and expanding - it. Legislators of both parties passed the law that enabled it, and legislators of both parties supported the program and allowed it to continue.
Yes - IMO, though, the system that used pretzel-like contortions of logic to pretend this surveillance somehow didn't exceed constitutional limitations was thus already 'corrupt' in the first place.
There are some differences. Manning is a private in the US Army and so his rights in a prosecution, and the trial itself, are very different than those of a non-military person.
As far as the information they leaked and the 'wrongness' of leaking it - Manning was much more indiscriminate in the leaking, and Snowden seems - and claims - to have been more careful in what he released.
I think that making as big a distinction as you do between the right to not answer questions (which we seem to agree belongs to the Fifth) and the right not to be detained is misleading in the first place. But, that aside, that right to not be detained is part of the Fifth anyway (deprivation of liberty without due process, due process being enough evidence to arrest/detain).
It was the prior post that claimed it was the Sixth Amendment - "That's why we have a 6th amendment" , implying that it didn't involve the Fifth, not mine. I agree with you.
Because it's within the province of the Sixth Amendment does not mean it isn't also within that of the Fifth - and the "right to remain silent" that it recognizes.