Look, M$ is obviously NOT interested in Android. Why would they be?
Consider this, they just went to great lengths to rip apart the user interface of literally every desktop OS they sell in order to sell their surface hand held/laptop devices. You don't think this was about the touch screen stuff? No, this was a *clear* commitment to their hand held device strategy which boils down to, hey we OWN the desktop/laptop market, so let's leverage that and see how much of the hand held tablet market we can capture by making the UI's the same.
Now somebody comes along and suggests M$ fork android? Why? Are they fixing to change horses in mid stream on Windows 8? Have they realized that their horse has drowned months if not years ago? I don't think so. There is no "we are abandoning Windows 8" announcement, no "The chief architect for Windows 8 taking another job" or mass changes at high levels in the development team in the news. Seems to me they are still fully committed to riding the Windows 8 horse. So why waste time and resources on Android? There is no upside for them.
So where they *could* if they wanted, M$ doesn't want to. They might throw dollars at people trying it, just to poke at Google, but they are not interested in doing anything to compete with Windows 8 and surface.
For the most part I agree, only trusted signing athorities do nothing for you when the protocol itself lends itself to MITM attacks. Where I work all SSL traffic is monitored in this way, for security reasons. Including this post.
Then, they are monitoring with acceptance of their own SSL certs by the browsers they control. I'm not saying the MITM attacks are not *possible*. I'm saying that you are safer with a consumer router doing a NAT sitting between you and the internet. If for no other reason than it makes the hacker's life a bit more difficult by putting another step between him and what he wants to do.
The post office is only allowed to look at the addresses on the letter and verify that the postage has been paid. Under normal circumstances, they cannot open your letters and read them while they are in transit. Once the letter is in the system with valid postage, they just deliver it.
So an ISP would be in the same boat. All they can look at are the packet headers as it routes though the network, they cannot view the payload. All they do is route and deliver the packet to the destination.
Like the post office, an ISP will have no way to know if the traffic they carry is legal or not, nor will they care. Part of being a common carrier means that you are not responsible for the content you carry. If two criminals use the phone to plan and execute a crime, the phone company is not liable by virtue of being a common carrier. So an ISP as a common carrier will have zero liability in crimes committed by their customers, do you think they will care? As long as the criminal pays his bill and stays within the bandwidth limits, what are they going to do? Nothing, at least without a warrant.
The post office *cannot* monitor the content of what they deliver. They can and do manage *volume* in their networks, but never content. They have rules on what mail they will accept, how much it costs in what format, but if you meet their rules, they take your letter and deliver it, regardless of the content. To monitor content flowing though the post office requires a warrant, in the case of a common carrier ISP the rule will be the same. Common Carrier ISP's can manage volume (i.e. put bandwidth limits on users) but they *cannot* monitor content.
What you describe is "net neutrality" rules and NOT common carrier rules. Carriers cannot monitor content for management purposes in common carrier status. All they can look at is the TCP/IP headers used to route the packets, so there will be severe limits on what you can look at in wire-shark or snort.
Think phone company. They can look at the parameters of the call you make, from where is it dialed, who gets billed, where is it going and when the call starts and ends, but they are not monitoring what you say, and it is illegal to do so. They are required to carry the call put into their system, no questions asked.
So if an ISP is a common carrier, they will have zero options for monitoring and managing the data flow in their networks. They will have to carry the packet from the entry point, until it exits their system, without bias or disruption. They will not be allowed to look at content or manage traffic flows like they do now.
Can they dump you for excessive bandwidth? Yep. But they won't have the option to TOS abusive behavior like they do now.
I'm not sure how you can disrupt a phone network from a POTS line, but I suppose you are correct.
Problem is, as I understand "common carrier", you cannot monitor content (i.e. listen to the call or open the letter). You must transmit it from one place to another though your network. So as a carrier, you really cannot look at anything beyond the TCP/IP headers needed to route the packets. The content of the packets is off limits. This opens up ways to abuse the network and other users which the carrier will not be able to monitor or control. Which is totally a different thing than abusing your POTS line.
There are reason, but I'm not sure I can agree that we shouldn't.
HOWEVER, if you want to give common carrier status to ISP's there are going to have to be some technical limits imposed first on what an ISP can actually do that's under common carrier rules, and second, what an ISP cannot do with the traffic it routes.
FIRST, you have to limit common carrier to ONLY the data transmission part of the business. If it is not *directly* shoveling TCP packets from point A to point B it needs to be OUTSIDE of the common carrier rules. Any kind of "store and forward" system, where data is not just being buffered for retransmission will not fall under common carrier rules. So your web proxy, E-mail relay and Web Servers are out but your routers and switches are in.
SECOND, you have to have a demarcation point where common carrier rules cease to apply when data enters customer premises. Once the data enters the system through a demarcation point, it must be handled like any other data in the system and cannot be monitored (without a warrant) or disrupted on it's way out of another demarcation point. ISP's cannot monitor or manage traffic based on the type it is or where it is going. They must just route it.
But I'm not so sure this is a good idea. It releases the ISP from ALL liability for the data they carry at the same time it imposes free passage of the data. People who want to take advantage of this and disrupt the ISP's network, can, and the ISP will be powerless to monitor, diagnose, and prevent such abuse. They might not be able to TOS you, but they won't be able to TOS the idiot next door either.
The FCC had better think carefully about declaring ISP's common carriers or there will be some nasty side effects I'm not sure any of us will like.
Why does Linux seem like a solution looking for a problem?
Because you obviously don't know how to ask the right questions and have failed to understand history. Where do you think Micro$oft would be if they hadn't had a better target to shoot for? Linux, if nothing else, is that target. So like it or not, Linux has helped even Windows users get better software.
Also, LInux is used more in consumer devices than you might imagine. Linux is light weight, consumes less resources and provides excellent network support which makes it ideal for routers, "smart" TV's, phones, and appliances of all kinds. It flies your airplanes, provides your entertainment and touches the vast majority of data flowing over the internet. You literally could NOT live without it very long. (unless you grow your own food and are 100% off grid).
I've got to point out that it is going to take a significant amount of effort to play the "man in the middle" for SSL/TLS sites. There is a *reason* we have trusted signing authorities and configure browsers to only accept certificates which are from trusted sources. So, no, SSL/TLS man in the middle is NOT a huge problem because you are going to have to steal a certificate or get the user to trust a signing authority you control. Having control over the network is an issue, but with the improvement in local firewalls and security of most things is making it harder and harder to actually DO anything from the outside of a host.
BUT, STILL, you are generally safer WITH a router than just wiring up direct to the internet. You are better being on a 192.168.x.x address than some routeable IP by virtue of being behind the NAT. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, nothing is, but it's better, even if your router has issues. Besides, most routers are really not that bad.
So this article is saying that routers are *bad* things for security right? Not so fast...
In my view, having a router, even an imperfect one, between you and the internet is a *GOOD* thing for security. Yes, routers might be security risks, but NOT having them is even WORSE of a risk.
Does *anybody* out there remember what it used to be like? It wasn't that long ago that the standard internet connection was for ONE machine and used a PPP connection that pretty much put your Windows (mostly) box directly on the internet. When all this got started, we didn't even have software firewalls. Imagine having a windows 95 box with all the standard services on a routeable IP address. It WAS extremely risky. I remember having unsolicited popups coming up all the time and bothering me with all manner of advertisements. It was a mess and security was extremely lacking.
But then we have the dawn of consumer's using routers and doing all the same exploits became harder because of the NAT. Then routers added stateless firewalls, then state-full firewalls and closed many of the avenues used by the "bad guys" to gain control of your system.
Consumer grade routers have been a HUGE boon to network security in the consumer world. Do they have flaws? Many do, but their contribution to overall security is worth more to me than the risks they may pose. Give me a router, even a flawed one, over nothing. Making the bad guys work harder is a good thing for security, and a flawed router does that.
It's not that we shouldn't be discussing how routers should be made more secure. Obviously we want them to improve. It's just that we cannot loose sight of how far we've come BECAUSE of these things.
"Reuters Pose Biggest Security Threat To Home Networks"
Problem is that they also are the biggest boon to computer security since the network was invented. I look back with less than fond memories of having my mother's windows box connected directly to the internet w/o any kind of firewall or even a NAT between her and the wild west. Oh those where the days!
I'd much rather have even a flawed router between her machine and the bad guys. Even if they can compromise the router, that's at least one more step they have to go though, making her lowly Windows' box all that safer from the script kiddies... Nothing is really going to fix a determined attacker, except turning everything off and locking it away. Now if I can just keep her from downloading all that coupon printing garbage or letting the grand kids install their infected games...
And here I thought that the big bad USA had sole responsibility for *all* the abuses of human rights in the world, at least in the eyes of some. This decision comes from the UK and clearly establishes that there is at least some basis for curbs on the press.
Might it be, that there is at least *some* precedent for the protection of "national security" and some responsibility on the press to be prudent when classified information is disclosed to them? And here we have the same issues being raised in other countries, with similar results.
Remember, that you either allow for and protect classified information though law, or you don't have *any* ability to keep anything classified. You either must allow for there to be things you cannot legal know or live in a world where anything is fair game to publish. I for one think that classified "national security" information is necessary, even in light of the USA's first amendment and the limits such rules put on free speech. We can argue about what goes into the "National security" box, but I don't think there is any viable case for not having the box in the first place.
Just because America allowed the Iraqis (and Kuwaitis) self-rule in no way proves that their aggressions in the Persian Gulf were/not/ about ensuring itself a continued supply of petrochemicals.
But the fact that when the government of Iraq asked us to leave, we did, does indicate that access to oil isn't the primary goal. It is at least secondary if not lower on the list or you just continue to occupy the country.
The USA has a LONG history of not wanting to be an imperial power. We could have been. Lord knows we conquered enough territory to control more than half of the world if that was our goal. The same with oil. We've captured and returned to it's previous owners much of the world's oil supply. If our primary goal was to obtain oil, we are pretty stupid to give it back all the time.
But it does seem that the USA tends to get involved in conflict that surrounds the world's supply of Oil more often than other areas. A tendency that I can only explain by agreeing that oil is a consideration, as is the free flow of it around the world. But I would argue that this has accrued to the overall benefit for all of the world. We could have just taken it and hauled it home, but over and over we haven't.
Even thieves and con-men figure on getting paid, or they will move on to more profitable targets. Any SR employees who don't get paid, legal or not are going to leave. Now if that amounts to zero total, then the promise is worthless and the sole operator of the site will eventually get tired of working for nothing because they are WAY in the hole for a one man show.
So if they manage to build their brand though deceptions like this, so be it. "There's a sucker born every minute" as the saying goes. I'm just glad I didn't loose anything though them because you are NOT going to get it back.
Yea, and somehow we stayed out of Venezuela which has/had lots of oil and was in our neck of the woods.. If the goal *was* oil, why did we give Kuwait, and Iraq back their countries? Oh wait... Yea it was Bush exacting revenge for threatening his papa...
Tired, old arguments from people who have preconceived notions they need to prove. They will just Keep drinking the blue kool-aid, and it's a waste of time to argue.
... and we come full circle, back to you insisting that the problems aren't "real" problems, and that the state is 100% fair and trustworthy.
Meaning this "conversation" is over. Good day.
So we HAVE come full circle. We have zero evidence that the proper and fair process would not be followed if Snowden where here to face the charges. In fact, your evidence shows that there is a vigorous defense of ones rights allowed within the process. Which is my basic point that started this extended thread. Within the US, we have a legal system that is exceedingly fair to the accused. Snowden would be treated fairly.
Innocent people die in wars, they always have. The USA does NOT target innocent people and goes to great lengths (in time, treasure and blood) to avoid harming them. This is not something than can be said about those we DO target. They routinely and purposely target noncombatants then run for cover using uninvolved people has human shields. So take your moral judgment and shove it.
First link, http://www.techdirt.com/articl... [techdirt.com] proves my point. If the government is violating your rights, get a lawyer and appeal. That's what this guy is doing.
Second link, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com] Again proves my point. If the NSA is using data it has collected illegally in criminal trials as evidence, there is redress in court to get the evidence stricken and any convictions based on it overturned.
Third link: https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com] is on it's face the most troubling. However, In order for this to be a *real* issue, one must assume that the NSA data was used in collecting the evidence being used in the criminal trial. If such data was not used in the investigation, it is inadmissible and thus the defense is not necessarily entitled to a court order to get it.
You see, in each of these cases, the rules of evidence are being argued over and applied. Which is my point. There is a process here and that process IS fair.
Seriously? You actually *think* SilkRoad is going to be able to not pay it's employees and stay in operation?
What if Target claimed they'd take 100% of their profits and 100% of their payroll to pay off some debt that was bigger than a year's worth of sales? Do you figure that would be a good thing too?
BTW, Target's liability for their lapses *will* be dealt with. End users will NOT be held accountable for charges they didn't authorize. One of the few protections of Credit Cards.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, M$ is obviously NOT interested in Android. Why would they be?
Consider this, they just went to great lengths to rip apart the user interface of literally every desktop OS they sell in order to sell their surface hand held/laptop devices. You don't think this was about the touch screen stuff? No, this was a *clear* commitment to their hand held device strategy which boils down to, hey we OWN the desktop/laptop market, so let's leverage that and see how much of the hand held tablet market we can capture by making the UI's the same.
Now somebody comes along and suggests M$ fork android? Why? Are they fixing to change horses in mid stream on Windows 8? Have they realized that their horse has drowned months if not years ago? I don't think so. There is no "we are abandoning Windows 8" announcement, no "The chief architect for Windows 8 taking another job" or mass changes at high levels in the development team in the news. Seems to me they are still fully committed to riding the Windows 8 horse. So why waste time and resources on Android? There is no upside for them.
So where they *could* if they wanted, M$ doesn't want to. They might throw dollars at people trying it, just to poke at Google, but they are not interested in doing anything to compete with Windows 8 and surface.
For the most part I agree, only trusted signing athorities do nothing for you when the protocol itself lends itself to MITM attacks. Where I work all SSL traffic is monitored in this way, for security reasons. Including this post.
Then, they are monitoring with acceptance of their own SSL certs by the browsers they control. I'm not saying the MITM attacks are not *possible*. I'm saying that you are safer with a consumer router doing a NAT sitting between you and the internet. If for no other reason than it makes the hacker's life a bit more difficult by putting another step between him and what he wants to do.
The post office? Really? Not a bad example.
The post office is only allowed to look at the addresses on the letter and verify that the postage has been paid. Under normal circumstances, they cannot open your letters and read them while they are in transit. Once the letter is in the system with valid postage, they just deliver it.
So an ISP would be in the same boat. All they can look at are the packet headers as it routes though the network, they cannot view the payload. All they do is route and deliver the packet to the destination.
Like the post office, an ISP will have no way to know if the traffic they carry is legal or not, nor will they care. Part of being a common carrier means that you are not responsible for the content you carry. If two criminals use the phone to plan and execute a crime, the phone company is not liable by virtue of being a common carrier. So an ISP as a common carrier will have zero liability in crimes committed by their customers, do you think they will care? As long as the criminal pays his bill and stays within the bandwidth limits, what are they going to do? Nothing, at least without a warrant.
The post office *cannot* monitor the content of what they deliver. They can and do manage *volume* in their networks, but never content. They have rules on what mail they will accept, how much it costs in what format, but if you meet their rules, they take your letter and deliver it, regardless of the content. To monitor content flowing though the post office requires a warrant, in the case of a common carrier ISP the rule will be the same. Common Carrier ISP's can manage volume (i.e. put bandwidth limits on users) but they *cannot* monitor content.
What you describe is "net neutrality" rules and NOT common carrier rules. Carriers cannot monitor content for management purposes in common carrier status. All they can look at is the TCP/IP headers used to route the packets, so there will be severe limits on what you can look at in wire-shark or snort.
Think phone company. They can look at the parameters of the call you make, from where is it dialed, who gets billed, where is it going and when the call starts and ends, but they are not monitoring what you say, and it is illegal to do so. They are required to carry the call put into their system, no questions asked.
So if an ISP is a common carrier, they will have zero options for monitoring and managing the data flow in their networks. They will have to carry the packet from the entry point, until it exits their system, without bias or disruption. They will not be allowed to look at content or manage traffic flows like they do now.
Can they dump you for excessive bandwidth? Yep. But they won't have the option to TOS abusive behavior like they do now.
I'm not sure how you can disrupt a phone network from a POTS line, but I suppose you are correct.
Problem is, as I understand "common carrier", you cannot monitor content (i.e. listen to the call or open the letter). You must transmit it from one place to another though your network. So as a carrier, you really cannot look at anything beyond the TCP/IP headers needed to route the packets. The content of the packets is off limits. This opens up ways to abuse the network and other users which the carrier will not be able to monitor or control. Which is totally a different thing than abusing your POTS line.
There are reason, but I'm not sure I can agree that we shouldn't.
HOWEVER, if you want to give common carrier status to ISP's there are going to have to be some technical limits imposed first on what an ISP can actually do that's under common carrier rules, and second, what an ISP cannot do with the traffic it routes.
FIRST, you have to limit common carrier to ONLY the data transmission part of the business. If it is not *directly* shoveling TCP packets from point A to point B it needs to be OUTSIDE of the common carrier rules. Any kind of "store and forward" system, where data is not just being buffered for retransmission will not fall under common carrier rules. So your web proxy, E-mail relay and Web Servers are out but your routers and switches are in.
SECOND, you have to have a demarcation point where common carrier rules cease to apply when data enters customer premises. Once the data enters the system through a demarcation point, it must be handled like any other data in the system and cannot be monitored (without a warrant) or disrupted on it's way out of another demarcation point. ISP's cannot monitor or manage traffic based on the type it is or where it is going. They must just route it.
But I'm not so sure this is a good idea. It releases the ISP from ALL liability for the data they carry at the same time it imposes free passage of the data. People who want to take advantage of this and disrupt the ISP's network, can, and the ISP will be powerless to monitor, diagnose, and prevent such abuse. They might not be able to TOS you, but they won't be able to TOS the idiot next door either.
The FCC had better think carefully about declaring ISP's common carriers or there will be some nasty side effects I'm not sure any of us will like.
Why does Linux seem like a solution looking for a problem?
Because you obviously don't know how to ask the right questions and have failed to understand history. Where do you think Micro$oft would be if they hadn't had a better target to shoot for? Linux, if nothing else, is that target. So like it or not, Linux has helped even Windows users get better software.
Also, LInux is used more in consumer devices than you might imagine. Linux is light weight, consumes less resources and provides excellent network support which makes it ideal for routers, "smart" TV's, phones, and appliances of all kinds. It flies your airplanes, provides your entertainment and touches the vast majority of data flowing over the internet. You literally could NOT live without it very long. (unless you grow your own food and are 100% off grid).
No, that's planned for NEXT year...
it's ALWAYS next year..
What year will be known as The Year of Linux on the Desktop?
Answer: Next Year! ALWAYS it is next year...
But it's closer than cold fusion, which is at least a decade out..
I've got to point out that it is going to take a significant amount of effort to play the "man in the middle" for SSL/TLS sites. There is a *reason* we have trusted signing authorities and configure browsers to only accept certificates which are from trusted sources. So, no, SSL/TLS man in the middle is NOT a huge problem because you are going to have to steal a certificate or get the user to trust a signing authority you control. Having control over the network is an issue, but with the improvement in local firewalls and security of most things is making it harder and harder to actually DO anything from the outside of a host.
BUT, STILL, you are generally safer WITH a router than just wiring up direct to the internet. You are better being on a 192.168.x.x address than some routeable IP by virtue of being behind the NAT. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, nothing is, but it's better, even if your router has issues. Besides, most routers are really not that bad.
So this article is saying that routers are *bad* things for security right? Not so fast...
In my view, having a router, even an imperfect one, between you and the internet is a *GOOD* thing for security. Yes, routers might be security risks, but NOT having them is even WORSE of a risk.
Does *anybody* out there remember what it used to be like? It wasn't that long ago that the standard internet connection was for ONE machine and used a PPP connection that pretty much put your Windows (mostly) box directly on the internet. When all this got started, we didn't even have software firewalls. Imagine having a windows 95 box with all the standard services on a routeable IP address. It WAS extremely risky. I remember having unsolicited popups coming up all the time and bothering me with all manner of advertisements. It was a mess and security was extremely lacking.
But then we have the dawn of consumer's using routers and doing all the same exploits became harder because of the NAT. Then routers added stateless firewalls, then state-full firewalls and closed many of the avenues used by the "bad guys" to gain control of your system.
Consumer grade routers have been a HUGE boon to network security in the consumer world. Do they have flaws? Many do, but their contribution to overall security is worth more to me than the risks they may pose. Give me a router, even a flawed one, over nothing. Making the bad guys work harder is a good thing for security, and a flawed router does that.
It's not that we shouldn't be discussing how routers should be made more secure. Obviously we want them to improve. It's just that we cannot loose sight of how far we've come BECAUSE of these things.
"Reuters Pose Biggest Security Threat To Home Networks"
Problem is that they also are the biggest boon to computer security since the network was invented. I look back with less than fond memories of having my mother's windows box connected directly to the internet w/o any kind of firewall or even a NAT between her and the wild west. Oh those where the days!
I'd much rather have even a flawed router between her machine and the bad guys. Even if they can compromise the router, that's at least one more step they have to go though, making her lowly Windows' box all that safer from the script kiddies... Nothing is really going to fix a determined attacker, except turning everything off and locking it away. Now if I can just keep her from downloading all that coupon printing garbage or letting the grand kids install their infected games...
And here I thought that the big bad USA had sole responsibility for *all* the abuses of human rights in the world, at least in the eyes of some. This decision comes from the UK and clearly establishes that there is at least some basis for curbs on the press.
Might it be, that there is at least *some* precedent for the protection of "national security" and some responsibility on the press to be prudent when classified information is disclosed to them? And here we have the same issues being raised in other countries, with similar results.
Remember, that you either allow for and protect classified information though law, or you don't have *any* ability to keep anything classified. You either must allow for there to be things you cannot legal know or live in a world where anything is fair game to publish. I for one think that classified "national security" information is necessary, even in light of the USA's first amendment and the limits such rules put on free speech. We can argue about what goes into the "National security" box, but I don't think there is any viable case for not having the box in the first place.
You are making an assumption that the operators of SR2 are con men and thieves.
And Al Capone was just a misunderstood Chicago business man who was a benefactor in his community. Seriously? What Business is Silk Road in? LOL
Just because America allowed the Iraqis (and Kuwaitis) self-rule in no way proves that their aggressions in the Persian Gulf were /not/ about ensuring itself a continued supply of petrochemicals.
But the fact that when the government of Iraq asked us to leave, we did, does indicate that access to oil isn't the primary goal. It is at least secondary if not lower on the list or you just continue to occupy the country.
The USA has a LONG history of not wanting to be an imperial power. We could have been. Lord knows we conquered enough territory to control more than half of the world if that was our goal. The same with oil. We've captured and returned to it's previous owners much of the world's oil supply. If our primary goal was to obtain oil, we are pretty stupid to give it back all the time.
But it does seem that the USA tends to get involved in conflict that surrounds the world's supply of Oil more often than other areas. A tendency that I can only explain by agreeing that oil is a consideration, as is the free flow of it around the world. But I would argue that this has accrued to the overall benefit for all of the world. We could have just taken it and hauled it home, but over and over we haven't.
Even thieves and con-men figure on getting paid, or they will move on to more profitable targets. Any SR employees who don't get paid, legal or not are going to leave. Now if that amounts to zero total, then the promise is worthless and the sole operator of the site will eventually get tired of working for nothing because they are WAY in the hole for a one man show.
So if they manage to build their brand though deceptions like this, so be it. "There's a sucker born every minute" as the saying goes. I'm just glad I didn't loose anything though them because you are NOT going to get it back.
I don't care who you are, that there is funny!.
You made me laugh. Wish I could mod you up..
Yea, and somehow we stayed out of Venezuela which has/had lots of oil and was in our neck of the woods.. If the goal *was* oil, why did we give Kuwait, and Iraq back their countries? Oh wait... Yea it was Bush exacting revenge for threatening his papa...
Tired, old arguments from people who have preconceived notions they need to prove. They will just Keep drinking the blue kool-aid, and it's a waste of time to argue.
Just wait until he finds out that this is going on his permanent record.
In North Korea there ARE no permanent records, unless dear leader *says* the record has been permanent.
In order for this to be a *real* issue,
... and we come full circle, back to you insisting that the problems aren't "real" problems, and that the state is 100% fair and trustworthy.
Meaning this "conversation" is over. Good day.
So we HAVE come full circle. We have zero evidence that the proper and fair process would not be followed if Snowden where here to face the charges. In fact, your evidence shows that there is a vigorous defense of ones rights allowed within the process. Which is my basic point that started this extended thread. Within the US, we have a legal system that is exceedingly fair to the accused. Snowden would be treated fairly.
Yea, the rent is due when the rent is due. And it's hard to eat IOU's for bitcoin.
Innocent people die in wars, they always have. The USA does NOT target innocent people and goes to great lengths (in time, treasure and blood) to avoid harming them. This is not something than can be said about those we DO target. They routinely and purposely target noncombatants then run for cover using uninvolved people has human shields. So take your moral judgment and shove it.
First link, http://www.techdirt.com/articl... [techdirt.com] proves my point. If the government is violating your rights, get a lawyer and appeal. That's what this guy is doing.
Second link, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com] Again proves my point. If the NSA is using data it has collected illegally in criminal trials as evidence, there is redress in court to get the evidence stricken and any convictions based on it overturned.
Third link: https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com] is on it's face the most troubling. However, In order for this to be a *real* issue, one must assume that the NSA data was used in collecting the evidence being used in the criminal trial. If such data was not used in the investigation, it is inadmissible and thus the defense is not necessarily entitled to a court order to get it.
You see, in each of these cases, the rules of evidence are being argued over and applied. Which is my point. There is a process here and that process IS fair.
Seriously? You actually *think* SilkRoad is going to be able to not pay it's employees and stay in operation?
What if Target claimed they'd take 100% of their profits and 100% of their payroll to pay off some debt that was bigger than a year's worth of sales? Do you figure that would be a good thing too?
BTW, Target's liability for their lapses *will* be dealt with. End users will NOT be held accountable for charges they didn't authorize. One of the few protections of Credit Cards.
Yea, not paying your employees is *always* a good idea in situations like this.
Can ANYBODY else see how this might not be a good thing, nor is it a viable promise?