Let's hope that someone has been recording the output for posterity; to hear the real story of a presidency for the first time since Nixon would be great...
As the full article mentioned, the Federal prosecutors asked informally about this were uncertain of the legality, And certainly the constraints on warrants of the 4th Amendment - requiring a warrant for each search, i.e. each email address - make it unconstitutional. So it's down to the companies.
At least not in the practice of many Muslims. Living near a mosque, the range of clothing on the men coming to it ranges from standard Western to obviously ethnic. If they aren't dressing by that standard for attending the mosque, it's clear that they won't at other times.
If we listened carefully, would we hear crying at Fort Meade because they've been caught out, or is it that they've now got other ways to get what they were getting from these sources? My guess is that they won't be happy about all this coming to light, but let's not be fooled into thinking that we are ever really secure on the net.
Whoops - still not clear. The fact that you can move guns around so easily may be the reason why gun laws have had no appreciable effect on the level of gun crime in the US, whereas their virtual absence in other countries makes comparisons problematic. The questions are: (1) Does Chicago or Illinois - for example - tightening their gun control legislation make a difference for them (2) Will changes in federal gun laws make a difference. The answer to both questions, in the prevailing climate, appears to be 'no'. The very aggressive challenge of the NRA is that the laws in Chicago enable criminals to attack with no serious prospect of being shot at in return, whereas the carrying rules of Texas make this scenario far less likely.
Whoops - my bad. I was commenting on the experience WITHIN the US, which provides a particular set of test tubes for allowing us to record the hypothesis. The international comparison is of course valid - but given that the level of gun ownership of the UK is never going to happen in the US without a revolution, it is actually irrelevant. The test is: do gun laws in the US improve things locally as far as the criminal use of guns is concerned. That's the correlation I'm looking at; at a far distant point on the graph the correlation may reverse. But the US is nowhere near that point. I apologise for not making that clear.
Given that there is zero or negative correlation between gun laws' strictness and the number of gun related crimes, the claim that gun restrictions are worth doing needs to be questioned. Whilst the UK - where there are virtually no guns - is held up as THE alternative, the idea that you can actually get there is silly, and the present situation is appalling. But given that Chicago sees far more gun crime with far stricter laws than Texas cities, there is an issue to consider.
This is a game of 'something must be done, this is something'. I can show the voters that I'm achieving something. I'm doing anything that comes to hand to show it. The interesting question is what he's trying to hide by getting all the media focused on this.
The primary objection to this package is that it reveals how far the US Constitution has drifted from its moorings; there's no way this sort of decision should be being made by the President.
The fact that the unthinking moders of/. have reduced this to zero is a sad reflection of the lack of understanding of what constitutes science. The reality is that most of geology and palaeontology are on the same level as history, as being theories about recorded facts, rather than 'science'. This doesn't make them worthless - as a hard scientist who is now working for an MA in history I've got a dog in this race - but their claim to be 'science' is dubious.
Of course not; the point about civil rights is that it is for your government not to violate them, and suffer MAJOR consequences when they do - as in imprisoning the people who authorised it with loss of all pensions - both civil service and social security. The muppets on the front line need to know that if they do it without an email authorisation which they can use as evidence, then they will also suffer similar treatment. By contrast AFAIK the CIA agents who hacked the Congressional data have got away scot free.
Yes - there may be a case for an appeal to a jury after the event that 'in the circumstances' it was necessary - but that should require a unanimous jury to accept that. Otherwise - no discussion, no appeal - just the prospect of a long and poverty stricken old age...
The purpose of civil rights is to ensure that you are a free citizen in a free country. As long as the data that Government A is getting is about the citizens of Government B, from first principles there isn't an issue. Where it gets more complex is if the data is then provided to government B in a way that undermines the freedom of government B's citizens. If that data triggers legitimate data capture by the agencies of Government B - i.e. subject to the court processes of that country - then there still isn't a problem. Where there IS a problem is if Government B uses the data to undermine the freedoms of a citizen - like adding their name to a no fly list. THEN you have a problem...
The fact that this distinction is so hard to maintain, and agencies have not been good at respecting it in the past means that there needs to be severe consequences when these lines are crossed. Unfortunately they are not the obvious lines, which are the ones you are referring to.
The argument against this approach is that it disadvantages those in rural areas. If cities are allowed to cherry pick their residents in an easily reachable area for broadband, those 20 miles away from a telephone exchange will have to pay more than if the costs are averaged across them. Whilst there is a case for making subsidies to such deprived communities explicit - as the UK is doing - it IS more elegant to hide it.
Which is not to say I think the municipal ISP is a bad thing - but I do think we need to consider this issue.
and has been successfully regulated as that in Manchester to judge from the Uber badged cars around up here. London's mayor was proposing to CHANGE the rules to give Uber a hard time; this is a measure of the difference in regulatory attitude.
The law will apply to those subject to the law because they live in the country, not all the citizens of the UK - or rather the subjects of the Crown, as we aren't citizens, just subjects, unless that's changed recently!
Because it will rapidly become de rigeur for companies that are serious to use encryption that can't be broken on that basis. US companies can be part of that - or watch as their meal ticket evaporates...
In the light of the San Bernardino and Paris attacks - as well as the random lone wolf attacks in Israel, let alone the ongoing civil wars in Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Afghanistan, it seems likely that more people are being killed by Islamists than by lightning, let alone whilst riding a dolphin. Which is a sad thought.
However you are correct that terrorism is still a rare phenomenon in the West, and there are better things to spend money on in terms of return
This latest one was little more than a bad weekend in Chicago. Given that Chicago can't be controlled, the belief that a far more diffuse threat can be seriously challenged is the security state looking for a funding rise. Let's just be grateful that they've stayed low tech so far.
Summit is now a widely abused term. It should be reserved for meetings of the heads of governments; to use it for anything else is ignorant and self serving, playing to PR puffery. STOP IT!
The government wants to suppress public demonstrations, and is using this as an excuse to do so. If they were serious about public safety, banning street markets as well would be the right thing to do.
Slashdot Mirror
So we can ASK for the list? Seriously - viewing it might reveal censorship of politics and religion, not just smut.
Nasty...
Let's hope that someone has been recording the output for posterity; to hear the real story of a presidency for the first time since Nixon would be great...
As the full article mentioned, the Federal prosecutors asked informally about this were uncertain of the legality, And certainly the constraints on warrants of the 4th Amendment - requiring a warrant for each search, i.e. each email address - make it unconstitutional. So it's down to the companies.
At least not in the practice of many Muslims. Living near a mosque, the range of clothing on the men coming to it ranges from standard Western to obviously ethnic. If they aren't dressing by that standard for attending the mosque, it's clear that they won't at other times.
I entirely agree the fillers were junk - but it can be treated as adverts should be.
If we listened carefully, would we hear crying at Fort Meade because they've been caught out, or is it that they've now got other ways to get what they were getting from these sources? My guess is that they won't be happy about all this coming to light, but let's not be fooled into thinking that we are ever really secure on the net.
Whoops - still not clear. The fact that you can move guns around so easily may be the reason why gun laws have had no appreciable effect on the level of gun crime in the US, whereas their virtual absence in other countries makes comparisons problematic. The questions are: (1) Does Chicago or Illinois - for example - tightening their gun control legislation make a difference for them (2) Will changes in federal gun laws make a difference. The answer to both questions, in the prevailing climate, appears to be 'no'. The very aggressive challenge of the NRA is that the laws in Chicago enable criminals to attack with no serious prospect of being shot at in return, whereas the carrying rules of Texas make this scenario far less likely.
Whoops - my bad. I was commenting on the experience WITHIN the US, which provides a particular set of test tubes for allowing us to record the hypothesis. The international comparison is of course valid - but given that the level of gun ownership of the UK is never going to happen in the US without a revolution, it is actually irrelevant. The test is: do gun laws in the US improve things locally as far as the criminal use of guns is concerned. That's the correlation I'm looking at; at a far distant point on the graph the correlation may reverse. But the US is nowhere near that point. I apologise for not making that clear.
Given that there is zero or negative correlation between gun laws' strictness and the number of gun related crimes, the claim that gun restrictions are worth doing needs to be questioned. Whilst the UK - where there are virtually no guns - is held up as THE alternative, the idea that you can actually get there is silly, and the present situation is appalling. But given that Chicago sees far more gun crime with far stricter laws than Texas cities, there is an issue to consider.
This is a game of 'something must be done, this is something'. I can show the voters that I'm achieving something. I'm doing anything that comes to hand to show it. The interesting question is what he's trying to hide by getting all the media focused on this.
The primary objection to this package is that it reveals how far the US Constitution has drifted from its moorings; there's no way this sort of decision should be being made by the President.
The fact that the unthinking moders of /. have reduced this to zero is a sad reflection of the lack of understanding of what constitutes science. The reality is that most of geology and palaeontology are on the same level as history, as being theories about recorded facts, rather than 'science'. This doesn't make them worthless - as a hard scientist who is now working for an MA in history I've got a dog in this race - but their claim to be 'science' is dubious.
Of course not; the point about civil rights is that it is for your government not to violate them, and suffer MAJOR consequences when they do - as in imprisoning the people who authorised it with loss of all pensions - both civil service and social security. The muppets on the front line need to know that if they do it without an email authorisation which they can use as evidence, then they will also suffer similar treatment. By contrast AFAIK the CIA agents who hacked the Congressional data have got away scot free.
Yes - there may be a case for an appeal to a jury after the event that 'in the circumstances' it was necessary - but that should require a unanimous jury to accept that. Otherwise - no discussion, no appeal - just the prospect of a long and poverty stricken old age...
The purpose of civil rights is to ensure that you are a free citizen in a free country. As long as the data that Government A is getting is about the citizens of Government B, from first principles there isn't an issue. Where it gets more complex is if the data is then provided to government B in a way that undermines the freedom of government B's citizens. If that data triggers legitimate data capture by the agencies of Government B - i.e. subject to the court processes of that country - then there still isn't a problem. Where there IS a problem is if Government B uses the data to undermine the freedoms of a citizen - like adding their name to a no fly list. THEN you have a problem...
The fact that this distinction is so hard to maintain, and agencies have not been good at respecting it in the past means that there needs to be severe consequences when these lines are crossed. Unfortunately they are not the obvious lines, which are the ones you are referring to.
The argument against this approach is that it disadvantages those in rural areas. If cities are allowed to cherry pick their residents in an easily reachable area for broadband, those 20 miles away from a telephone exchange will have to pay more than if the costs are averaged across them. Whilst there is a case for making subsidies to such deprived communities explicit - as the UK is doing - it IS more elegant to hide it.
Which is not to say I think the municipal ISP is a bad thing - but I do think we need to consider this issue.
and has been successfully regulated as that in Manchester to judge from the Uber badged cars around up here. London's mayor was proposing to CHANGE the rules to give Uber a hard time; this is a measure of the difference in regulatory attitude.
The law will apply to those subject to the law because they live in the country, not all the citizens of the UK - or rather the subjects of the Crown, as we aren't citizens, just subjects, unless that's changed recently!
Compare and contrast the response of the government to a few terrorist deaths compared with this, and realise that we have a problem.
[Full disclosure - I'm a cyclist; I'm very careful around over large chunks of metal hurtling at excessive speed...]
They're mainly pedestrians, who by definition must be people who can't afford cars to drive everywhere, so DON''T MATTER.
Because it will rapidly become de rigeur for companies that are serious to use encryption that can't be broken on that basis. US companies can be part of that - or watch as their meal ticket evaporates...
In the light of the San Bernardino and Paris attacks - as well as the random lone wolf attacks in Israel, let alone the ongoing civil wars in Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Afghanistan, it seems likely that more people are being killed by Islamists than by lightning, let alone whilst riding a dolphin. Which is a sad thought.
However you are correct that terrorism is still a rare phenomenon in the West, and there are better things to spend money on in terms of return
This latest one was little more than a bad weekend in Chicago. Given that Chicago can't be controlled, the belief that a far more diffuse threat can be seriously challenged is the security state looking for a funding rise. Let's just be grateful that they've stayed low tech so far.
Summit is now a widely abused term. It should be reserved for meetings of the heads of governments; to use it for anything else is ignorant and self serving, playing to PR puffery. STOP IT!
The government wants to suppress public demonstrations, and is using this as an excuse to do so. If they were serious about public safety, banning street markets as well would be the right thing to do.