Exactly! I am glad just to know that someone is actually working on projects like this. It's not just another generation of current CPU technology it is something new and in time they will either master the technology or abandon the technology if things don't work out. But either way it is just nice to know there are people skilled and dedicated enough to attempt these advances.
And the bulk of the multi-million dollar income is from what HBO pays the producers per episode. HBO then recoups its expense by the subscriber fees paid to them. Add in the book sales, online brand name merchandising, and online game and bring in even more money. In the near future there will be no movie theaters and all the movies will be marketed directly to the consumer with a new revenue stream strategy. Just like most of the Blockbuster and similar rental stores have closed and switched over to online sales. There are a lot of different ways to profit but that doesn't justify someone stealing or pirating. We are only a generation into a time where people do not remember when there was no such thing as an Internet. It's ushered in an entitlement culture. Downloading a movie or CD is really no different than walking into a store and shoplifting the DVD or CD off the shelf. In both cases you are taking something without following the terms the creator has placed on their work. And when you ask people why they are OK doing things like this they usually say "because I can" and DRM is getting in their way. Or they claim someone is just a capitalist bastard who is making to much money so it's OK to steal their products.
Reject DRM in total and you will see a gradual decrease in the number of new movies which require millions of dollars to produce. I'm pretty sure crowd funding might not do the job. The "capitalist bastards" are usually the ones who pioneer new products in the market place. Take away the potential to recoup an investment, whether you are talking about creating movie content or developing new technologies, requires substantial investments in R&D. Remove potential profits and you remove the strongest incentive for those making new movies or developing new technologies. One compromise might be trying to apply the same rules that the drug companies operate under. They are given a chance to recoup the substantial R&D costs and turn a profit but after a certain number of years they lose their exclusive rights and others can create generics.
If a terrorist detonated a nuke the first people to complain will be the ones currently up in arms about the government intelligence activities. The second group of people would immediately claim the US deserved to be the attacked. The third group would not care in the slightest as long as the attack did not affect them personally. That then leaves a very small percentage of people who are actually afraid and most them will be under 10 years old. The government should close the TSA claiming budget considerations and repeal the Patriot act and use of FISA courts citing public pushback. Statistically you are more likely to get hit by lighting twice than be killed by a terrorist attack in the US.
You will not see any widespread outrage until the government tries to use the data they are collecting against someone. It is then and only then that someones 4th Amendment rights come into play. So far there has not been any evidence that information collected by PRISM or by FISA warrants has led to any governmental abuse. Those busy hyperventilating over the recent outing of intelligence activities evidently have not been paying attention. The supposedly secret NSA programs have not been a very well kept secret and was first was reported 11 years ago by the original developer of the NSA software for data capture and analysis. And before everybody storms the barricades venting their outrage of the government they should probably look at similar activities all over the world and see if anything of value was actually gained by standing in the street yelling at people and waving signs. Add to the fact that the vast majority of people loudly protesting never offer an actual and feasible plan of action to make things more to their liking. The world is filled with people who do nothing but bitch and moan about one thing or another while never offering solid steps to correct things.
It's a never ending game of whack-a-mole. And anyone who tries to do something gets castigated and scorned for interfering in someone elses business. As long as the trouble makers confine themselves to their own country we should do nothing unless the country experiencing the problems specifically ask for assistance in writing. They should also expect a bill for services rendered.
It's already been mentioned several times but once again plea bargains do not take away your right to a trial by jury. Plea bargains can help those who are 100% guilty of the offense but are being given a chance for a lighter sentence. This can lighten the caseload of the prosecutors office which in turn also saves the court money. If the person is innocent then by all means plead your case in front of a jury. The bulk of the current laws and the precedents supporting them were created in another era. They were written when their was no such thing as a computer or an internet. If I bust in the front window of a business with a baseball bat there are laws to handle the situation. If I deface the website of a business is it the same thing? If I walk into a store and physically steal a DVD there are laws to handle that situation. If I download the contents of a DVD without paying for it is it the same thing? If I break into a company and start searching the contents of their file cabinets there is a law to handle the situation. If I break into a companies network and start downloading or damaging files stored electronicaly is it the same thing? If I surround an office building and stop people from entering the building using force when necessary there are laws to handle the situation. If I launch a DDOS attack on a ecommerce site is it the same thing? The question becomes should the penalties for a crime committed in the physical world also be applied to similiar crimes committed in the virtual world? I really don't know how to solve these problems but I do know you can't just conclude that a crime comitted in the virtual world does not warrant any punishment. When companies get hacked there is always a group of people claiming it is the victims who are responsible for the hacks because they did not properly secure their systems.
Do you honestly believe every country government on the planet with indoor plumbing, electricity , and a broadband connection are not interested in monitoring their citizens online activities for all kinds of reasons? The shear amount of hyperventilating over this NSA secret spying is just uncovering just how stupid and gullible people can really be. This secret NSA program was outed over 11 years ago when the NSA fired and investigated the employee who designed the first edition of the software because he refused to add the capability for domestic intercepts. If the NSA is so sneaky and overbearing why do they need to ask for data from the phone and internet service providers? Isn't their super sneaky, rights annihilating, spook system capable of intercepting all internet traffic with a flip of the switch? And the shear number of people of actually think the government or anyone else for that matter gives 2 shits about anything you say on the phone or put in your e-mails. If you want to protect your secret plans to rule the world or download a free DVD there are a lot of ways to encrypt and obfuscate your online activity if you really feel the need. And doesn't it strike you funny that the CIA and NSA are supposed to be clandestine organizations but every damn thing they do ends up on the front page of the web sites, newspapers, and television shows? If this whole NSA program surprised you obviously you have not been paying attention.
First you need to quantify what you mean when you say something is "arguably better supported". Both the Java and.NET frameworks have been around for a while and both have robust developer communities from which to draw help and support
This guy has ruined the rest of his life over something that has really not been a secret for over 11 years. The original NSA developer of the earliest versions of the surveillance program was fired from the NSA for disclosing information about the project and was pursued in court which basically bankrupted the guy. He complained that NSA management made him alter his program to be able to capture calls within the US. His original specifications were to build a program to capture and analyze only foreign calls. So Snowden is about 11 years late in outing the existence of such a program. The more information he publishes in regards to legitimate foreign intelligence operations the deeper hole he is digging for himself. Is it really a secret that all countries, friend or foe, spy on each other? Half the staff in every diplomatic embassy in the world are intelligence agents. Diplomatic immunity can do more than just protect someone from a parking ticket. He has also made claims that cannot be supported by any evidence. Especially his claims of instant access to anyones email content and phone conversations. If you are going to play the super hero and right the wrongs of the harsh and uncaring world you better not say one thing that cannot be proven because one misstatement is all it takes to throw doubt on all of his disclosures. He should have taken advantage of the whistleblower laws and disclosed the information that way. If he felt the information was not addressed he could put the spotlight back on the information by claiming the whistleblower process was not working. Eventually someone will need to ask about the nature of the information he is disclosing through the Whistleblower process.
Whether you are talking about software or any hot button political topic the real truth is evaporating right in front of us. Stupidity is fostered by those who think you can say something intelligent using a maximum of 140 characters. The ability to signal Likes or Dislikes does not help in the slightest when trying to get to the truth. For every "for" site or forum there is a corresponding "against" site or forum that contradict one another on almost every important point. Damn near every forum you read ends up becoming an echo chamber for one side or another. About the only decent forums I read are technical in nature where the topics and questions that don't revolve around anyone's opinion to determine what is right or wrong. Of course the exception is the fan boys and sycophants pontificating on how wonderful their choice of OS and Browser is to the exclusion of all others.
Most holes today are opened by poor network management, poor patch management, poor password managment, and most of all the users. Social engineering is the leading vector of most malware today.
Comparing modern day Israeli actions to the Nazi atrocities redefines and systematically erases the true depravity, hatred, and atrocities the Nazi's committed against not only Jews but anyone else who got in their way.
This kind of mindless dribble always shows itself when someone mentions Isreal. The day a Palestinian state is created is the day the US returns Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and Southern California to Mexico. It's not like the world needs another Arab failed state to put up with.
The USS Liberty attack demonstrates why you shouldn't send your SIGINT assets into a volatile war zone. The incident was collateral damage and the Israeli's did apologize. Also at the time the US-Israeli relationship was nothing like it is today. They were not enemies but Isreal was not a US client. In 1956 the US forced France, Isreal, and Britain to call off their attempts to take over the Suez Canal. At the time the Russians were supporting Egypt and continued fighting might have dragged the US into a direct confrontation with Russia. In the 1973 war the US government did not resupply Isreal until after the Israeli's broadcast their intentions to enact their "Samson Option" in the clear so all parties could intercept the message. The Samson option meant they were loading their nukes on their F-4's and Jericho missiles. Nixon agreed the next day to re-supply the Israelis.
I am not an Assange supporter but the accusation's Sweden is using in this case seems ridiculous in the extreme. I don't understand the UK position on this case either. Just let Assange go to Ecuador and get rid of a major headache.
"Assange has obviously been driven a little batty by the U.S. government's pursuit via Sweden, U.K., etc"
Do you have any evidence that the US is forcing Sweden or the UK into sending Assange to the US? If the US really wanted Assange they would have already have him. I mean everyone knows the US just black bags people off the street and puts them on a private jet to Gitmo if they really want them. Isn't that right? Neither the UK or Sweden blindly approve extraditions to the US as a matter of course. Especially were charges of espionage with the death penalty attached are theoretically possible. The US government does some stupid things but even the most hard assed anti-Wikileak person knows that the worst crime Assange could ever be charged with is receiving stolen property and even that charge is wishful thinking by the hardliners. The information has already been leaked and the world has not ended so why put Assange or the information leaked back into the spotlight.
The dissidents SAVAK was busy with consisted of the radical Islamists and the oh so liberal knot heads who were doing everything in their power to give the Islamists another shot at running the country. While the liberal college students were busy playing with US hostages the hardliner Islamists were busy killing the old guard and taking all the power. When they were firmly ensconced in power the liberals who started the whole revolution were killed, imprisoned, or run out of the country. And for the record in 1953 it was the British who had a beef with the Iranian government over the nationalizing of their oil industry. Up to the point where they blockaded the oil exports in an effort to raise support for the IRANIANS who wanted a change in government. It was those IRANIANS who were responsible for making sure the Shah was brought back. The US did not hold a gun to anyone's head and give them an ultimatum. As a matter of fact the US military had it's hands full in Korea at the time. There are multiple power blocks in every government who court incentives from others in order to empower them to act in what they feel are their best interests. Every deal between foreign countries requires acceptance of the deal by both parties. Military threats never work but trade deals and the promise of lucrative future business deals can work wonders. But in 1953 the Iranians involved could have told the US or Britain to pound sand but they didn't did they? And compare the Iran being ruled by the Shah to the Iran being ruled by those who replaced him. It looks like someone made a mistake in 1979.
The best option is to not to break the law. The second best thing not to do is brag about it to your online buddies if you do violate the law. And the 3rd best option is to start realizing that it is becoming damn hard to hide your online footprint if some law enforcement agency really wants to track your ass down.
One more example of doing the right thing instead of the legal thing is the decisions Lincoln made during the civil war. He suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned journalists who were critical of the government during the war. Can you imagine a President doing something like this today? And despite these illegal actions Lincoln is still considered one of the best US Presidents on record.
So looking for someone who has set off a bomb, stolen a car, killed a security guard, throwing bombs out the car window while shooting at police in pursuit is the incident that you really want to hold up to prove your "liberties" are being violated? There are laws that do allow the police to search your property in certain circumstances depending upon the level of danger to both law enforcement officers and civilians at the time. In Boston the police were looking for a well armed suspect who had already shown no problem with killing. They were not searching private property looking to collect evidence or effect an arrest on the people living on the property the were looking for an armed and dangerous fugitive. If the police had treated the entire situation differently and more people had been killed the public would have crucified the police for not doing anything to prevent it.
On the Federal level the President does have the power to unilaterally go to war on his own but his decision can be overridden if the reason he presents to Congress is later deemed insufficient.
There have been times when the government has clearly violated the law for good reasons. Before the US officially entered WW2 Roosevelt violated several laws that Congress had passed to keep the US out of the war. The vast majority of the citizens at time did not want anything to do with the war in Europe. President Roosevelt felt differently and did what he thought was right instead of what was legal. He used the "Lend/Lease" program to go around the wishes of Congress and supply England with the war supplies they needed. The US Congress had also passed a law banning wire tapping while investigating German and Japanese agents in America at the time. 2 hours after the congressional vote Roosevelt sent the defense department a Presidential order authorizing them to ignore the wire tapping law. These 2 blatant examples of the President breaking the law is more than enough to impeach the President. As it turns out these 2 decisions were vital to the US war effort that the President knew was coming. And even though he broke the law and infringed on peoples liberties he is regarded as one of the best Presidents the country has ever had. Several years ago I watched a round table discussion that included presidents Carter, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2. The question put to them was would they have did the same thing Roosevelt did in the same situation. All of them said they would have made the same choice. Even Carter agreed that sometimes the legal thing is not necessarily the right thing.
What I have seen is people being held to account for their actions. I have seen every detail of the IRS and Benghazi being debated endlessly in full few of the public.
"requires that the government live by them"
And when the government does not follow the law they get held to account for there actions one way or another.
And exactly what Liberties have you lost? Last time I checked the Constitution and Bill of Rights have not been amended in any way. And before you mention the all powerful Patriot Act try looking for any US citizen that has been convicted of violating it's strictures. Look hard enough and you will find that the few times the government has tried to use it against someone the court has ended up dismissing the charges because of flaws with the PA. The executive and legislative branches can make all the laws they want but the judicial branch has the final word on whether or not the law violates someones civil rights. Wait, I have thought of one liberty that has been taking away that really bothers me. I am no longer allowed to get on airplane without taking off my shoes and removing any metalic items on my person.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly! I am glad just to know that someone is actually working on projects like this. It's not just another generation of current CPU technology it is something new and in time they will either master the technology or abandon the technology if things don't work out. But either way it is just nice to know there are people skilled and dedicated enough to attempt these advances.
And the bulk of the multi-million dollar income is from what HBO pays the producers per episode. HBO then recoups its expense by the subscriber fees paid to them. Add in the book sales, online brand name merchandising, and online game and bring in even more money. In the near future there will be no movie theaters and all the movies will be marketed directly to the consumer with a new revenue stream strategy. Just like most of the Blockbuster and similar rental stores have closed and switched over to online sales. There are a lot of different ways to profit but that doesn't justify someone stealing or pirating. We are only a generation into a time where people do not remember when there was no such thing as an Internet. It's ushered in an entitlement culture. Downloading a movie or CD is really no different than walking into a store and shoplifting the DVD or CD off the shelf. In both cases you are taking something without following the terms the creator has placed on their work. And when you ask people why they are OK doing things like this they usually say "because I can" and DRM is getting in their way. Or they claim someone is just a capitalist bastard who is making to much money so it's OK to steal their products.
Reject DRM in total and you will see a gradual decrease in the number of new movies which require millions of dollars to produce. I'm pretty sure crowd funding might not do the job. The "capitalist bastards" are usually the ones who pioneer new products in the market place. Take away the potential to recoup an investment, whether you are talking about creating movie content or developing new technologies, requires substantial investments in R&D. Remove potential profits and you remove the strongest incentive for those making new movies or developing new technologies. One compromise might be trying to apply the same rules that the drug companies operate under. They are given a chance to recoup the substantial R&D costs and turn a profit but after a certain number of years they lose their exclusive rights and others can create generics.
If a terrorist detonated a nuke the first people to complain will be the ones currently up in arms about the government intelligence activities. The second group of people would immediately claim the US deserved to be the attacked. The third group would not care in the slightest as long as the attack did not affect them personally. That then leaves a very small percentage of people who are actually afraid and most them will be under 10 years old. The government should close the TSA claiming budget considerations and repeal the Patriot act and use of FISA courts citing public pushback.
Statistically you are more likely to get hit by lighting twice than be killed by a terrorist attack in the US.
You will not see any widespread outrage until the government tries to use the data they are collecting against someone. It is then and only then that someones 4th Amendment rights come into play. So far there has not been any evidence that information collected by PRISM or by FISA warrants has led to any governmental abuse. Those busy hyperventilating over the recent outing of intelligence activities evidently have not been paying attention. The supposedly secret NSA programs have not been a very well kept secret and was first was reported 11 years ago by the original developer of the NSA software for data capture and analysis. And before everybody storms the barricades venting their outrage of the government they should probably look at similar activities all over the world and see if anything of value was actually gained by standing in the street yelling at people and waving signs. Add to the fact that the vast majority of people loudly protesting never offer an actual and feasible plan of action to make things more to their liking. The world is filled with people who do nothing but bitch and moan about one thing or another while never offering solid steps to correct things.
It's a never ending game of whack-a-mole. And anyone who tries to do something gets castigated and scorned for interfering in someone elses business. As long as the trouble makers confine themselves to their own country we should do nothing unless the country experiencing the problems specifically ask for assistance in writing. They should also expect a bill for services rendered.
It's already been mentioned several times but once again plea bargains do not take away your right to a trial by jury. Plea bargains can help those who are 100% guilty of the offense but are being given a chance for a lighter sentence. This can lighten the caseload of the prosecutors office which in turn also saves the court money. If the person is innocent then by all means plead your case in front of a jury. The bulk of the current laws and the precedents supporting them were created in another era. They were written when their was no such thing as a computer or an internet. If I bust in the front window of a business with a baseball bat there are laws to handle the situation. If I deface the website of a business is it the same thing? If I walk into a store and physically steal a DVD there are laws to handle that situation. If I download the contents of a DVD without paying for it is it the same thing? If I break into a company and start searching the contents of their file cabinets there is a law to handle the situation. If I break into a companies network and start downloading or damaging files stored electronicaly is it the same thing? If I surround an office building and stop people from entering the building using force when necessary there are laws to handle the situation. If I launch a DDOS attack on a ecommerce site is it the same thing? The question becomes should the penalties for a crime committed in the physical world also be applied to similiar crimes committed in the virtual world? I really don't know how to solve these problems but I do know you can't just conclude that a crime comitted in the virtual world does not warrant any punishment. When companies get hacked there is always a group of people claiming it is the victims who are responsible for the hacks because they did not properly secure their systems.
Do you honestly believe every country government on the planet with indoor plumbing, electricity , and a broadband connection are not interested in monitoring their citizens online activities for all kinds of reasons? The shear amount of hyperventilating over this NSA secret spying is just uncovering just how stupid and gullible people can really be. This secret NSA program was outed over 11 years ago when the NSA fired and investigated the employee who designed the first edition of the software because he refused to add the capability for domestic intercepts. If the NSA is so sneaky and overbearing why do they need to ask for data from the phone and internet service providers? Isn't their super sneaky, rights annihilating, spook system capable of intercepting all internet traffic with a flip of the switch? And the shear number of people of actually think the government or anyone else for that matter gives 2 shits about anything you say on the phone or put in your e-mails. If you want to protect your secret plans to rule the world or download a free DVD there are a lot of ways to encrypt and obfuscate your online activity if you really feel the need. And doesn't it strike you funny that the CIA and NSA are supposed to be clandestine organizations but every damn thing they do ends up on the front page of the web sites, newspapers, and television shows? If this whole NSA program surprised you obviously you have not been paying attention.
First you need to quantify what you mean when you say something is "arguably better supported". Both the Java and .NET frameworks have been around for a while and both have robust developer communities from which to draw help and support
"who the fuck sticks to just the core framework anyway "
Someone who needs a solid and consistant application platform?
This guy has ruined the rest of his life over something that has really not been a secret for over 11 years. The original NSA developer of the earliest versions of the surveillance program was fired from the NSA for disclosing information about the project and was pursued in court which basically bankrupted the guy. He complained that NSA management made him alter his program to be able to capture calls within the US. His original specifications were to build a program to capture and analyze only foreign calls. So Snowden is about 11 years late in outing the existence of such a program. The more information he publishes in regards to legitimate foreign intelligence operations the deeper hole he is digging for himself. Is it really a secret that all countries, friend or foe, spy on each other? Half the staff in every diplomatic embassy in the world are intelligence agents. Diplomatic immunity can do more than just protect someone from a parking ticket. He has also made claims that cannot be supported by any evidence. Especially his claims of instant access to anyones email content and phone conversations. If you are going to play the super hero and right the wrongs of the harsh and uncaring world you better not say one thing that cannot be proven because one misstatement is all it takes to throw doubt on all of his disclosures.
He should have taken advantage of the whistleblower laws and disclosed the information that way. If he felt the information was not addressed he could put the spotlight back on the information by claiming the whistleblower process was not working. Eventually someone will need to ask about the nature of the information he is disclosing through the Whistleblower process.
Whether you are talking about software or any hot button political topic the real truth is evaporating right in front of us. Stupidity is fostered by those who think you can say something intelligent using a maximum of 140 characters. The ability to signal Likes or Dislikes does not help in the slightest when trying to get to the truth. For every "for" site or forum there is a corresponding "against" site or forum that contradict one another on almost every important point. Damn near every forum you read ends up becoming an echo chamber for one side or another. About the only decent forums I read are technical in nature where the topics and questions that don't revolve around anyone's opinion to determine what is right or wrong. Of course the exception is the fan boys and sycophants pontificating on how wonderful their choice of OS and Browser is to the exclusion of all others.
Most holes today are opened by poor network management, poor patch management, poor password managment, and most of all the users. Social engineering is the leading vector of most malware today.
Comparing modern day Israeli actions to the Nazi atrocities redefines and systematically erases the true depravity, hatred, and atrocities the Nazi's committed against not only Jews but anyone else who got in their way.
Despite all the hype of recent years China's exports have not surpassed the US manufacturing output.
This kind of mindless dribble always shows itself when someone mentions Isreal. The day a Palestinian state is created is the day the US returns Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and Southern California to Mexico. It's not like the world needs another Arab failed state to put up with.
The USS Liberty attack demonstrates why you shouldn't send your SIGINT assets into a volatile war zone. The incident was collateral damage and the Israeli's did apologize. Also at the time the US-Israeli relationship was nothing like it is today. They were not enemies but Isreal was not a US client. In 1956 the US forced France, Isreal, and Britain to call off their attempts to take over the Suez Canal. At the time the Russians were supporting Egypt and continued fighting might have dragged the US into a direct confrontation with Russia. In the 1973 war the US government did not resupply Isreal until after the Israeli's broadcast their intentions to enact their "Samson Option" in the clear so all parties could intercept the message. The Samson option meant they were loading their nukes on their F-4's and Jericho missiles. Nixon agreed the next day to re-supply the Israelis.
I am not an Assange supporter but the accusation's Sweden is using in this case seems ridiculous in the extreme. I don't understand the UK position on this case either. Just let Assange go to Ecuador and get rid of a major headache.
"Assange has obviously been driven a little batty by the U.S. government's pursuit via Sweden, U.K., etc"
Do you have any evidence that the US is forcing Sweden or the UK into sending Assange to the US? If the US really wanted Assange they would have already have him. I mean everyone knows the US just black bags people off the street and puts them on a private jet to Gitmo if they really want them. Isn't that right? Neither the UK or Sweden blindly approve extraditions to the US as a matter of course. Especially were charges of espionage with the death penalty attached are theoretically possible. The US government does some stupid things but even the most hard assed anti-Wikileak person knows that the worst crime Assange could ever be charged with is receiving stolen property and even that charge is wishful thinking by the hardliners. The information has already been leaked and the world has not ended so why put Assange or the information leaked back into the spotlight.
The dissidents SAVAK was busy with consisted of the radical Islamists and the oh so liberal knot heads who were doing everything in their power to give the Islamists another shot at running the country. While the liberal college students were busy playing with US hostages the hardliner Islamists were busy killing the old guard and taking all the power. When they were firmly ensconced in power the liberals who started the whole revolution were killed, imprisoned, or run out of the country. And for the record in 1953 it was the British who had a beef with the Iranian government over the nationalizing of their oil industry. Up to the point where they blockaded the oil exports in an effort to raise support for the IRANIANS who wanted a change in government. It was those IRANIANS who were responsible for making sure the Shah was brought back. The US did not hold a gun to anyone's head and give them an ultimatum. As a matter of fact the US military had it's hands full in Korea at the time. There are multiple power blocks in every government who court incentives from others in order to empower them to act in what they feel are their best interests. Every deal between foreign countries requires acceptance of the deal by both parties. Military threats never work but trade deals and the promise of lucrative future business deals can work wonders. But in 1953 the Iranians involved could have told the US or Britain to pound sand but they didn't did they? And compare the Iran being ruled by the Shah to the Iran being ruled by those who replaced him. It looks like someone made a mistake in 1979.
The best option is to not to break the law. The second best thing not to do is brag about it to your online buddies if you do violate the law. And the 3rd best option is to start realizing that it is becoming damn hard to hide your online footprint if some law enforcement agency really wants to track your ass down.
One more example of doing the right thing instead of the legal thing is the decisions Lincoln made during the civil war. He suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned journalists who were critical of the government during the war. Can you imagine a President doing something like this today? And despite these illegal actions Lincoln is still considered one of the best US Presidents on record.
So looking for someone who has set off a bomb, stolen a car, killed a security guard, throwing bombs out the car window while shooting at police in pursuit is the incident that you really want to hold up to prove your "liberties" are being violated? There are laws that do allow the police to search your property in certain circumstances depending upon the level of danger to both law enforcement officers and civilians at the time. In Boston the police were looking for a well armed suspect who had already shown no problem with killing. They were not searching private property looking to collect evidence or effect an arrest on the people living on the property the were looking for an armed and dangerous fugitive. If the police had treated the entire situation differently and more people had been killed the public would have crucified the police for not doing anything to prevent it.
On the Federal level the President does have the power to unilaterally go to war on his own but his decision can be overridden if the reason he presents to Congress is later deemed insufficient.
There have been times when the government has clearly violated the law for good reasons. Before the US officially entered WW2 Roosevelt violated several laws that Congress had passed to keep the US out of the war. The vast majority of the citizens at time did not want anything to do with the war in Europe. President Roosevelt felt differently and did what he thought was right instead of what was legal. He used the "Lend/Lease" program to go around the wishes of Congress and supply England with the war supplies they needed. The US Congress had also passed a law banning wire tapping while investigating German and Japanese agents in America at the time. 2 hours after the congressional vote Roosevelt sent the defense department a Presidential order authorizing them to ignore the wire tapping law. These 2 blatant examples of the President breaking the law is more than enough to impeach the President. As it turns out these 2 decisions were vital to the US war effort that the President knew was coming. And even though he broke the law and infringed on peoples liberties he is regarded as one of the best Presidents the country has ever had. Several years ago I watched a round table discussion that included presidents Carter, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2. The question put to them was would they have did the same thing Roosevelt did in the same situation. All of them said they would have made the same choice. Even Carter agreed that sometimes the legal thing is not necessarily the right thing.
What I have seen is people being held to account for their actions. I have seen every detail of the IRS and Benghazi being debated endlessly in full few of the public.
"requires that the government live by them"
And when the government does not follow the law they get held to account for there actions one way or another.
And exactly what Liberties have you lost? Last time I checked the Constitution and Bill of Rights have not been amended in any way. And before you mention the all powerful Patriot Act try looking for any US citizen that has been convicted of violating it's strictures. Look hard enough and you will find that the few times the government has tried to use it against someone the court has ended up dismissing the charges because of flaws with the PA. The executive and legislative branches can make all the laws they want but the judicial branch has the final word on whether or not the law violates someones civil rights. Wait, I have thought of one liberty that has been taking away that really bothers me. I am no longer allowed to get on airplane without taking off my shoes and removing any metalic items on my person.