Oh, I agree, it works up until you get disappeared. Falsehoods can still run afoul of various laws, while increasting the pool of difficult to access, trace, and/or decrypt data is completely legal.
Sure, but every data point they have to search through and store is that much more hassle for them. especially if you encrypt it, since they seem to target that without discrimination.
See, if you'd just get a job with an NSA contractor, you could get it from PRISM! And they are delightful. What the NSA doesn't know (until I hit submit) is that I used a little cornstarch to turn the cooking liquid into a gravy and served it over mashed potatoes and added a side of steamed broccoli. Maryland is going to smell good once they find this one...
Even with what he did, he'd have got away with it today. What Nixon did is basically nothing at all compared to today's political espionage between our factions.
Redeveloping things was necessary with Vista/7 to handle newer hardware and concepts, but the problem was they threw out half the baby with the bathwater when they significantly changed the main interfaces. There was no reason to mess with that when people were happy with it. I'm not even sure what they thought they were trying to beat by doing so.
I don't know that outright lying is comparable to simply refusing to make one's possessions, data, and information readily available to anyone who wants to see it, but I do see the point you're trying to make.
You raise a very important point. It's more like they're looking for arbitrarily chosen pieces of hay, and all the pieces of hay that they suspect may in some way be related to that other hay. By their own arbitrary criteria, of course.
A database containing only suspects they are authorized to track would be worthless to them in the context they're trying to sell it. Every argument they have made makes it clear that they see it as searching for a needle in the haystack, and all of us, all of us, are the hay.
I've heard the same about using Tor. Personally, I support the idea of everyone using Tor just to screw with them and make them dig through more irrelevant crap. I want them to have to dig through my pictures of cats saying silly things if they're sifting traffic. I want them to have to see the recipe I used to make that batch of beer-braised short ribs. I want them to have to look at pages and pages of sports scores or movie reviews.
I would put this right up there with those who argue that refusing a warrantless search is probable cause to search. If we don't demand our rights and make their infringement attempts more visible in the public eye as well as more difficult, our rights will disappear.
The terrorists didn't win this. We screwed ourselves over decades ago. It was pretty much all over with the New Deal, followed by the agencies created during World War II and kept in operation under the auspices of the Cold War.
First off, almost anything "publicly" done on the Internet or through a third party server is suspect. Second, the idea that the NSA isn't doing this is patently absurd. Third, if you believe the NSA when they deny doing things like this, you are an idiot. Espionage agencies are basically required to lie. It's in their job description. Quite literally, their job is to deceive people.
A very fair point. I've been saying the same for quite a while. However, it is unfortunate to note that nothing has changed on this front even with an increasing number of people recognizing it over time. On the positive side, I've met plenty of people who have come to agree the commerce clause's present interpretation is bullshit, but none at all who thought our way and changed their mind to agree with its interpretation at present.
The synopsis does not specify which state's court they refer to in that sentence. It could be referring to either New Jersey or New York. In the former possibility, it makes sense, as states may protect above and beyond what the federal government does.
I agree that it is utter bullshit as interpreted, but the question is not whether it needs to be changed but how we make that change become reality. We can argue shoulds and musts all day long, but until it comes to pass, it is but words.
I agree with your reasoning. I'm just not as confident as you are in the consistency of the Supreme Court. That said, I think the 5th Circuit has willfully ignored the constituion and the intent of its clauses.
Your reasoning fails on the grounds that mobile devices have become common, giving people, even non-commercially, the legitimate and perfectly reasonable desire to connect their mobile devices and their home systems from anywhere. Plenty of private functions operate as services and can be made available via the internet from even the most basic of home computers.
Running your own tinytiny-rss server from your desktop would be something that reasonably would appeal to a mobile device user without being commercial or even allowing more users than yourself. Playing Team Fortress 2 with friends on your "server" is certainly noncommercial. And to be sure, many blogs are entirely noncommercial and could reasonably be hosted noncommercially from one's home system.
Trying to pretend all "servers" are commercial is pure nonsense.
It's important to know your rights. Every time someone doesn't know them and/or willingly allows those rights to be violated, they hurt everyone else's rights. That's why we're to the point where refusing a search looks like "probable cause" in the eyes of so many people.
Serious rethinking is what people who think they want smart toasters need to do.
I really don't feel the need to see every device under the sun attached to the internet. And I certainly don't want my car being tracked by smart roads and bridges. It's bad enough that they're already using license plate cameras to track us all.
If you think "no reason" applies to this situation, you don't know much about how the feds get when they are trying to destroy a person as an example. They don't let the facts get away of "sending a message".
The problem with your argument is that he did not actually ignore the law. Mr. Swartz did have access to JSTOR and was authorized to access the material he accessed. At worst, he entered an IT closet. If he damaged any part of the closet, I wouldn't know, as I consider it such a minor matter as to be negligible in this case. Especially since he did have the right to have his laptop on that network.
He gave information that could help the American people make better informed decisions regarding their governance. I think that counts as aiding an enemy of the state at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I agree, it works up until you get disappeared. Falsehoods can still run afoul of various laws, while increasting the pool of difficult to access, trace, and/or decrypt data is completely legal.
Sure, but every data point they have to search through and store is that much more hassle for them. especially if you encrypt it, since they seem to target that without discrimination.
See, if you'd just get a job with an NSA contractor, you could get it from PRISM! And they are delightful. What the NSA doesn't know (until I hit submit) is that I used a little cornstarch to turn the cooking liquid into a gravy and served it over mashed potatoes and added a side of steamed broccoli. Maryland is going to smell good once they find this one...
Even with what he did, he'd have got away with it today. What Nixon did is basically nothing at all compared to today's political espionage between our factions.
Redeveloping things was necessary with Vista/7 to handle newer hardware and concepts, but the problem was they threw out half the baby with the bathwater when they significantly changed the main interfaces. There was no reason to mess with that when people were happy with it. I'm not even sure what they thought they were trying to beat by doing so.
how about DevNull? If they do a search into the name, I think they will find that there is nothing there.
I don't know that outright lying is comparable to simply refusing to make one's possessions, data, and information readily available to anyone who wants to see it, but I do see the point you're trying to make.
I'm glad yours came out good as well! I was concerned the Atlantic humidity out at Fort Meade might be an issue.
You raise a very important point. It's more like they're looking for arbitrarily chosen pieces of hay, and all the pieces of hay that they suspect may in some way be related to that other hay. By their own arbitrary criteria, of course.
I guess I'm not looking as silly as my old boss thought in my security concerns regarding the cloud...
whatever "the cloud" is. It's pretty much a nonsense term meaning "wherever the hell it is, it isn't here."
A database containing only suspects they are authorized to track would be worthless to them in the context they're trying to sell it. Every argument they have made makes it clear that they see it as searching for a needle in the haystack, and all of us, all of us, are the hay.
I've heard the same about using Tor. Personally, I support the idea of everyone using Tor just to screw with them and make them dig through more irrelevant crap. I want them to have to dig through my pictures of cats saying silly things if they're sifting traffic. I want them to have to see the recipe I used to make that batch of beer-braised short ribs. I want them to have to look at pages and pages of sports scores or movie reviews.
I would put this right up there with those who argue that refusing a warrantless search is probable cause to search. If we don't demand our rights and make their infringement attempts more visible in the public eye as well as more difficult, our rights will disappear.
The terrorists didn't win this. We screwed ourselves over decades ago. It was pretty much all over with the New Deal, followed by the agencies created during World War II and kept in operation under the auspices of the Cold War.
First off, almost anything "publicly" done on the Internet or through a third party server is suspect. Second, the idea that the NSA isn't doing this is patently absurd. Third, if you believe the NSA when they deny doing things like this, you are an idiot. Espionage agencies are basically required to lie. It's in their job description. Quite literally, their job is to deceive people.
A very fair point. I've been saying the same for quite a while. However, it is unfortunate to note that nothing has changed on this front even with an increasing number of people recognizing it over time. On the positive side, I've met plenty of people who have come to agree the commerce clause's present interpretation is bullshit, but none at all who thought our way and changed their mind to agree with its interpretation at present.
The synopsis does not specify which state's court they refer to in that sentence. It could be referring to either New Jersey or New York. In the former possibility, it makes sense, as states may protect above and beyond what the federal government does.
I agree that it is utter bullshit as interpreted, but the question is not whether it needs to be changed but how we make that change become reality. We can argue shoulds and musts all day long, but until it comes to pass, it is but words.
I agree with your reasoning. I'm just not as confident as you are in the consistency of the Supreme Court. That said, I think the 5th Circuit has willfully ignored the constituion and the intent of its clauses.
Your reasoning fails on the grounds that mobile devices have become common, giving people, even non-commercially, the legitimate and perfectly reasonable desire to connect their mobile devices and their home systems from anywhere. Plenty of private functions operate as services and can be made available via the internet from even the most basic of home computers.
Running your own tinytiny-rss server from your desktop would be something that reasonably would appeal to a mobile device user without being commercial or even allowing more users than yourself. Playing Team Fortress 2 with friends on your "server" is certainly noncommercial. And to be sure, many blogs are entirely noncommercial and could reasonably be hosted noncommercially from one's home system.
Trying to pretend all "servers" are commercial is pure nonsense.
It's important to know your rights. Every time someone doesn't know them and/or willingly allows those rights to be violated, they hurt everyone else's rights. That's why we're to the point where refusing a search looks like "probable cause" in the eyes of so many people.
Serious rethinking is what people who think they want smart toasters need to do.
I really don't feel the need to see every device under the sun attached to the internet. And I certainly don't want my car being tracked by smart roads and bridges. It's bad enough that they're already using license plate cameras to track us all.
If you think "no reason" applies to this situation, you don't know much about how the feds get when they are trying to destroy a person as an example. They don't let the facts get away of "sending a message".
The problem with your argument is that he did not actually ignore the law. Mr. Swartz did have access to JSTOR and was authorized to access the material he accessed. At worst, he entered an IT closet. If he damaged any part of the closet, I wouldn't know, as I consider it such a minor matter as to be negligible in this case. Especially since he did have the right to have his laptop on that network.
A young man is dead because the government set out to destroy his life over some documents. Beyond that, very little matters at this point.
He gave information that could help the American people make better informed decisions regarding their governance. I think that counts as aiding an enemy of the state at this point.