It's legal because TigerSwan was not operating on behalf of the government. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights restrict the actions of the government and of private companies and individuals acting on behalf of the government.
TigerSwan was acting on behalf of the Pipeline company, which having invested large sums and built nearly the entire pipeline before this even became an issue, had a right to try to protect their operations and investment from protestors trying to damage their operations and equipment. TigerSwan broke no laws in their collection of information about potential threats to their employer's equipment, personnel and operations.
Such a security company would of course be in contact with police agencies. I would be more concerned had they been operating without such contacts. The fact that they are passing information about what they are observing and their actions, indicates that they were concerned about not stepping across the line into illegal actions.
If someone can point to documents showing where the government agencies (local, state or federal) tasked them to collect such information then we have crossed into illegal actions. But all this "report" states is that they coordinated with law enforcement which means they provided information about what they were doing and seeing. Unless tasked to collect the information (thus making them an agent of the government) they are free to collect any information they so choose (as long as the collection method is not illegal but this article gave no indication of such).
Disagreeing with the pipeline does not make the pipeline company, or it's security company lawbreakers. Before you claim illegal or unconstitutional activities, you must know what qualifies as such.
So we are to mistrust AC's yet give credence to the Anonymous sources the WaPo, CNN and NYT all love to cite non-stop in their flailing and failing anti-trump campaign?
There are many valid reasons to post AC. And disregarding AC posts just because they are AC is foolish.
And malware on Android is relatively rare, and malware causing widespread damage is even rarer. Anyone thinking their platform choice is protecting them is an idiot.
Or rather it reeks of the Media, which is strangely willing to let Mrs. Clinton slide by for failing to protect classified information, trying to claim that the US has any interest or ability to try him.
We have no grounds. As you noted, he is not in our jurisdiction. Nor did he actively solicit the information he published. It was handed to him by others who chose of their own free will to steal classified information they were entrusted with. Those individuals (Bradley Manning and Snowden for example) were not approached by Assange with any offer of payment or compensation for the information, or even just asked for it by him. They chose to provide the information on their own, they chose him because they knew WikiLeaks would publish the information thus causing harm to the US.
The US has no basis for any charges. Any claim to the otherwise is the media or their "anonymous sources" making things up to sound relevant and informed.
Did the Idea fail or was it just not technically feasible to enforce the walled gardens at the time. As previously noted had the ISP's been capable of Deep Packet inspection back then we would see an entirely different net. Also what really killed the Dial-up kings was the move to always on Broadband connections that they didn't control.
But now those always on broadband services are the kings and are moving towards the walled gardens of the dial up era, because control ensures increased profits.
Taking obviously guilty parties does not in anyway guarantee an outcome. Miranda was clearly guilty after his confession during the interrogation that happened without legal representation. Yet the Court let him walk and gave us the Miranda rights warning. Most the landmark 4th and 5th amendment cases have dealt with parties whose guilt was pretty clear. How this court will rule is questionable. Of late the court has been rolling back some of these protections, but that isn't guaranteed. And they don't just check the box. And even without the addition of Gorsuch or any other new Justices, it's not a done deal how this court will rule.
There are very good arguments on both sides, I personally believe that passwords should be protected under the 5th arguments. But can see the comparison to a key. And I would not put money on either side on how the court will rule. At least not until the arguments are heard and the Justice's questions to both sides are asked and answered. I do have the feeling that the court is not totally ignorant of the fact that tech has left the law behind on this issue and that it does need a decisive answer. This will be a landmark case either way and could even go down the middle outlining a test to determine if a password can or should be compelled and perhaps a recognition that if too much time is passed it is very likely that the defendant will not remember a password.
If you read 18 US 798 every section entails the legal responsibility to one entrusted with sensitive information. Assange has never been entrusted by the government with any of this data. He has no legal responsibility to protect it from further dissemination.
At no time has Assange had a US security clearance. He has no legal obligation to not publish info others have provided. Those others (Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, etc) are legally liable for leaking information they were legally obligated to protect. Not Assange.
The US would have to prove that Assange directed the leakers to collect and transfer the leaked information to him. Other than this article I haven't seen any indication of such a level of control or oversight by Assange on his sources. They have chosen to commit espionage and have voluntarily chosen WikiLeaks. This article brings forth a claim of Bradly being directed by WikiLeaks but I have not seen that before not even during Bradley's trial and considering CNN's current reputation for creating "news" I doubt this unsubstantiated claim. So I'm having a hard time seeing how they charge him with anything that could stick.
As to the Clinton campaign emails, last I heard WikiLeaks still insists they were provided by a disgruntled DNC staffer, not the Russians. But even if from the Russians, WikiLeaks did nothing illegal. They simply published information they had been provided, regardless of the source. They did not steal the data.
Count seconds to 60. Use the traditional quasi accurate method of "one one thousand two one thousand....". You might come up a little short but that's 180 words a minute, and it's not all that fast.
oops hit the wrong key twice. I'm guilty of a typo in my correction. But it is an A not an I The word is Ain't not is. The annoying double negative is part of the charm of the phrase.
If that information is so restricted, then the EPA shouldn't be citing it in rule making. If they are going to impose a rule or regulation that will impact citizens and businesses, then those impacted must be able to see that science as well to challenge those rules.
Utah doesn't, it's code is available online from a utah.gov url. No need to go to a third party source. They are kept up to date with the changes made each year by the legislature. And no copyrights markings on the Utah Code Annotated http://www.le.state.ut.us/Documents/code_const.htm
The modern military that cannot operate within the US. The Modern Military that likely would stand with the public or at least would face a major split in forces as some do and others do not.
Also Vietnam and Afghanistan would like to speak to you about armed citizens versus modern militaries. Oh and toss in that a large number of our citizens have extensive military training and are far more capable than the armed peasants of Vietnam and Afghanistan. In Vietnam the peasants tied up the US for over a decade, eventually forcing us to withdraw very demoralized. Afghanistan drove out the Russians, and then have kept us busy for well over a decade.
And finally the grand total of our armed forces is 2.5 million. Add in roughly another million police officers. We have a population of 317+Million. It would not take a large percentage of citizens to totally overwhelm all our government forces.
But why in this day and age does GA not have it available online, for free, hosted on the official state servers? Other states do. Like this http://www.le.state.ut.us/Documents/code_const.htm No need to go to another source, you get the law from the State. No copyrights, no limitations on use. And no having to figure out where else to look. LexisNexis, I thought that was a rather expensive pay site, I wouldn't have thought to look there. I would look at the state's.gov pages for such information.
On the ropes, but not dead. There are a few plants in the works. For example, one entirely new plant in Eastern Utah, the Blue Castle Project, is slowly but quietly grinding through the approval and design process.
Slashdot Mirror
It's legal because TigerSwan was not operating on behalf of the government. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights restrict the actions of the government and of private companies and individuals acting on behalf of the government.
TigerSwan was acting on behalf of the Pipeline company, which having invested large sums and built nearly the entire pipeline before this even became an issue, had a right to try to protect their operations and investment from protestors trying to damage their operations and equipment. TigerSwan broke no laws in their collection of information about potential threats to their employer's equipment, personnel and operations.
Such a security company would of course be in contact with police agencies. I would be more concerned had they been operating without such contacts. The fact that they are passing information about what they are observing and their actions, indicates that they were concerned about not stepping across the line into illegal actions.
If someone can point to documents showing where the government agencies (local, state or federal) tasked them to collect such information then we have crossed into illegal actions. But all this "report" states is that they coordinated with law enforcement which means they provided information about what they were doing and seeing. Unless tasked to collect the information (thus making them an agent of the government) they are free to collect any information they so choose (as long as the collection method is not illegal but this article gave no indication of such).
Disagreeing with the pipeline does not make the pipeline company, or it's security company lawbreakers. Before you claim illegal or unconstitutional activities, you must know what qualifies as such.
So we are to mistrust AC's yet give credence to the Anonymous sources the WaPo, CNN and NYT all love to cite non-stop in their flailing and failing anti-trump campaign?
There are many valid reasons to post AC. And disregarding AC posts just because they are AC is foolish.
And malware on Android is relatively rare, and malware causing widespread damage is even rarer. Anyone thinking their platform choice is protecting them is an idiot.
Or rather it reeks of the Media, which is strangely willing to let Mrs. Clinton slide by for failing to protect classified information, trying to claim that the US has any interest or ability to try him.
We have no grounds. As you noted, he is not in our jurisdiction. Nor did he actively solicit the information he published. It was handed to him by others who chose of their own free will to steal classified information they were entrusted with. Those individuals (Bradley Manning and Snowden for example) were not approached by Assange with any offer of payment or compensation for the information, or even just asked for it by him. They chose to provide the information on their own, they chose him because they knew WikiLeaks would publish the information thus causing harm to the US.
The US has no basis for any charges. Any claim to the otherwise is the media or their "anonymous sources" making things up to sound relevant and informed.
Did the Idea fail or was it just not technically feasible to enforce the walled gardens at the time. As previously noted had the ISP's been capable of Deep Packet inspection back then we would see an entirely different net. Also what really killed the Dial-up kings was the move to always on Broadband connections that they didn't control.
But now those always on broadband services are the kings and are moving towards the walled gardens of the dial up era, because control ensures increased profits.
I pray for your sake that a Federal disaster declaration was made and FEMA mobilized to provide emergency Facebook access!
Taking obviously guilty parties does not in anyway guarantee an outcome. Miranda was clearly guilty after his confession during the interrogation that happened without legal representation. Yet the Court let him walk and gave us the Miranda rights warning. Most the landmark 4th and 5th amendment cases have dealt with parties whose guilt was pretty clear. How this court will rule is questionable. Of late the court has been rolling back some of these protections, but that isn't guaranteed. And they don't just check the box. And even without the addition of Gorsuch or any other new Justices, it's not a done deal how this court will rule.
There are very good arguments on both sides, I personally believe that passwords should be protected under the 5th arguments. But can see the comparison to a key. And I would not put money on either side on how the court will rule. At least not until the arguments are heard and the Justice's questions to both sides are asked and answered. I do have the feeling that the court is not totally ignorant of the fact that tech has left the law behind on this issue and that it does need a decisive answer. This will be a landmark case either way and could even go down the middle outlining a test to determine if a password can or should be compelled and perhaps a recognition that if too much time is passed it is very likely that the defendant will not remember a password.
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/utah-became-next-silicon-valley
https://www.inc.com/ilan-mochari/silicon-valley-utah.html
If you think Novell is all that Utah has tech wise, you have zero clue what you are talking about. Google "Silicon Slopes."
What qualifies as a "Tech State" in your opinion? Because most would consider Utah and Texas to be very strong tech centers.
If you read 18 US 798 every section entails the legal responsibility to one entrusted with sensitive information. Assange has never been entrusted by the government with any of this data. He has no legal responsibility to protect it from further dissemination.
At no time has Assange had a US security clearance. He has no legal obligation to not publish info others have provided. Those others (Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, etc) are legally liable for leaking information they were legally obligated to protect. Not Assange.
The US would have to prove that Assange directed the leakers to collect and transfer the leaked information to him. Other than this article I haven't seen any indication of such a level of control or oversight by Assange on his sources. They have chosen to commit espionage and have voluntarily chosen WikiLeaks. This article brings forth a claim of Bradly being directed by WikiLeaks but I have not seen that before not even during Bradley's trial and considering CNN's current reputation for creating "news" I doubt this unsubstantiated claim. So I'm having a hard time seeing how they charge him with anything that could stick.
As to the Clinton campaign emails, last I heard WikiLeaks still insists they were provided by a disgruntled DNC staffer, not the Russians. But even if from the Russians, WikiLeaks did nothing illegal. They simply published information they had been provided, regardless of the source. They did not steal the data.
Count seconds to 60. Use the traditional quasi accurate method of "one one thousand two one thousand....". You might come up a little short but that's 180 words a minute, and it's not all that fast.
No, Lawyers is one job set we have no shortage of.
oops hit the wrong key twice. I'm guilty of a typo in my correction.
But it is an A not an I
The word is Ain't not is. The annoying double negative is part of the charm of the phrase.
FTFY
TANSTAFFL
If you are going to steal/borrow a slang acronym from literature, get it right.
And that just brings an image of a massive Traffic "Tie-up", with dozens of miles long extension cords all balled up in a massive knot.
I was thinking more along the lines of a dodecahedron, with rounded corners. Lock up the gaming community,
Citation? Cause I call bs, There was no program implanting chips in military personnel 20 years ago. Or 10 years ago.
If that information is so restricted, then the EPA shouldn't be citing it in rule making. If they are going to impose a rule or regulation that will impact citizens and businesses, then those impacted must be able to see that science as well to challenge those rules.
Utah doesn't, it's code is available online from a utah.gov url. No need to go to a third party source. They are kept up to date with the changes made each year by the legislature. And no copyrights markings on the Utah Code Annotated http://www.le.state.ut.us/Documents/code_const.htm
You are missing a few false stereotypes in your false claim.
The modern military that cannot operate within the US. The Modern Military that likely would stand with the public or at least would face a major split in forces as some do and others do not.
Also Vietnam and Afghanistan would like to speak to you about armed citizens versus modern militaries. Oh and toss in that a large number of our citizens have extensive military training and are far more capable than the armed peasants of Vietnam and Afghanistan. In Vietnam the peasants tied up the US for over a decade, eventually forcing us to withdraw very demoralized. Afghanistan drove out the Russians, and then have kept us busy for well over a decade.
And finally the grand total of our armed forces is 2.5 million. Add in roughly another million police officers. We have a population of 317+Million. It would not take a large percentage of citizens to totally overwhelm all our government forces.
But why in this day and age does GA not have it available online, for free, hosted on the official state servers? .gov pages for such information.
Other states do. Like this http://www.le.state.ut.us/Documents/code_const.htm
No need to go to another source, you get the law from the State. No copyrights, no limitations on use. And no having to figure out where else to look. LexisNexis, I thought that was a rather expensive pay site, I wouldn't have thought to look there. I would look at the state's
On the ropes, but not dead. There are a few plants in the works. For example, one entirely new plant in Eastern Utah, the Blue Castle Project, is slowly but quietly grinding through the approval and design process.