Once people's standard of living here goes down a few notches, which is already happening with the skyrocketing cost of housing. But as soon as people get to a point where they cannot afford the basics anymore, or when something like Social Security goes bust, we will loose faith in the government, and that will be it.
Umm... it already happened (in the 1930's) and people didn't "loose faith in the goverment". They asked for more government involvement in society and they got it. They asked for more FBI to control the mob, and they got it. They asked for the FBI to control communist and fascist agitiators and they got it. History has pretty much shown that when this country gets into an economic bind, they ask for and get more government.
BTW.. the article's little passing shot of "So our 1st amendment rights don't trump the right of the federal government to violate them?" is pure flamebait and trolling for arguments. The 1st amendment has never been interpreted to allow publication of state secrets.
And before somebody digs out the Pentagon Papers, read the wiki on that case here -Pentagon Papers and here - NY Times v. US. First, that case is not binding precedent because there was no single opinion of the court, other than a per curiam upholding of the lower court's rejection of an injunction. Second, the legal question at issue was one of "prior restraint". Did the government meet the burden of proof to get an injuction to stop publication? The answer in that particular case was "no", not in that particular instance. But that did preclude the government from meeting the burden of proof (which BTW is very high) in other cases. In other words, the Pentagon Papers case did not establish an absolute 1st amendment right to publish state secrets or an absolute prohibition on prior restraint.
The legal question of prior restaint given in the Pentagons Papers case is moot and inapplicable in this case anyway since the articles are already published. So now the question is , what laws are applicable for divulging state secrets and do they apply in this case?
Exactly, there are several exemptions. As somebody who has filed a FOIA request before ( as part of a grievance process), I know first hand that you often get redacted documents back as a matter of course. You can read the full text of the "Freedom of Information Act" here.
Specifically, the exemptions are [and this case my money is on (b)(5)]:
Exemption (b)(1) - National Security Information
Exemption (b)(2) - Internal Personnel Rules and Practices
- "High" (b)(2) - Substantial internal matters, disclosure would risk circumvention of a legal requirement
- "Low" (b)(2) - Internal matters that are essentially trivial in nature.
Exemption (b)(3) - Information exempt under other laws
Exemption (b)(4) - Confidential Business Information
Exemption (b)(5) - Inter or intra agency communication that is subject to deliberative process, litigation, and other privileges
Exemption (b)(6) - Personal Privacy
Exemption (b)(7) - Law Enforcement Records that implicate one of 6 enumerated concerns
It has been know for thousands of years that a species' evolution can be predicted given a set of selecting factors (notice i used that instead of environment) and then made to follow that path by applying those factors. Its called selective breeding.
Natural environment selection is just one form of selection. But the farmer can also be the "environment" and force a certain selection. He can select for milk-producing capacity in dairy cows or goats. He can select for bulkiness in beef cattle or hogs. He can select for egg laying in hens. A good study for historical purpose would be too look at maize corn.. look at the natural grass that it descended from and then look at the hybrid versions that we grow today. A dramatic difference in size of the grainhead (cobb) and kernel. I would hazard a guess that you could take the ancestoral grass (which I've heard still grows in the Andes) and apply the same selecting factors that have been applied over the last 5 millenia by native american farmers. Over a few hundred generations, you would probably end up with a form of maize-corn
These knucklehead scientists are just rediscovering and codifying what has been ancient knowledge all along. The are repackaging selective breeding as a new concept.
Another way of looking at this is that combining the same ingrediates the same way will yield the same result. That is sort of a 'duh' factor.
The concept was also explored in science fiction. Dr. Who fans will remember the genesis of the daliks. The mad scientist predicted the mutations of the Kalids given their poisoned world and then genetically engineered the Daliks to match the predicted mutations.
Core Duo solves a lot of the short comings, but there is one major feature omission from Yonah's architecture: it doesn't support Intel's EM64T 64-bit extensions
and later: The lack of 64-bit extensions may be a worry for some, as will the poor FPU performance - the latter showed up in our MP3 encoding test.
So if you are doing anything with a 64-bit, high memory, or FPU requirement, AMD still wins.
Not only would it be stupid for the company from a business standpoint, but it would be easily detected. First, most organizations are going to wipe the disk anywwy and do a ghost install so software should not be an issue. As far as hardware, everybody who deals with PCs knows what one looks like inside. Most techs could probably look at the mobo and tell you what every componet and chip-set part was for. If some strange component was included, it would immediately be recognized as something that was not right.
I am working on a project where I am using the same pattern (more or less).
Here is how it is implemented:
First the problem: The project is to import purchase orders, create a freight shipping request, price the request against an arbitrary number of trucking company rate tariffs, present the user with a list of rates, allow him to select the truck company, produce a PDF hardcopy bill of lading, and send the bill of lading via X12 EDI or SOAP to the truck company. Or alternately, the user can manually create the shipment request instead of importing a PO.
The solution is :
Resources (database) - Oracle
"Drivers" - PEAR components like Pear::DB, Pear::AUTH
Business logic - These are PHP classes that do not reside in the htdocs tree, but their directory is in the PHP.ini include path.
Application logic - these are procedural php scripts in the htdocs. These are what get called when the user navigates to foo.php. This is also where I perform server-side validation before anything gets passed to the business logic layer.
Client logic - Presenatation is with Smarty templates, CSS, and JS. The smarty templates reside outside of the htdocs tree. The CSS and JS reside inside the htdocs root. Smarty's "logic" is mostly restricted to some if-else logic and some for-each iterating over arrays to generate tables. Some "logic" is also implement with a bit of JS (like client side validation and form lookups/autofills via ajax). I'm trying to keep the JS/AJAX to a minimum to maintain Section 508 compliance, so the pages are mostly strict XHTML and CSS.
Smarty is great. I only have to pass it the variables. All the output is handled by the template. There is absolutely no presentation code or html in my PHP except for those few cases where I am outputing a preformated string as an AJAX response (and those I use sparsely). I could probably get away without formating that response and let the JS handler do it, but that would be more code than it is worth.
First I want to say "Thank you" for releasing the project for free use and a double "Thank you" for having large portions under the Apache license.
I figured that the output would be owned by the user, but the terms initially looked like the toolkit itself was restricted except for the parts you got from other projects.
I opened the tarball and the two jars and have been reviewing some of the files. I see that substantial numbers of the.java files have an Apache license prefixed. Excellent!
Except for distributions for internal business and/or personal use to your employees or contractors in compliance with these Terms and Conditions, you may not distribute Google Web Toolkit Development Tools or any services or software associated with or derived from them, or modify, copy, license, or create derivative works from Google Web Toolkit Development Tools, unless you obtain Google's written permission in advance. If you wish to do any of the above, please contact us by emailing apis@google.com. You may not use the Google Web Toolkit Development Tools to develop or distribute products that violate the law or legal rights of third parties.
No, I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth and why does this matter? Because I happen to prefer PHP for web development (just a personal preference). It would be nice to be able to move the JavaScript components off from the Java framework into a PHP based framework. Well, apparantly you can't do that without special permission.
Your right, Credit Unions are a good example of individuals aggregating. But isn't a bond a form of "peer-to-peer" financing without a bank as well? The company issues a bond, you buy the bond from them thereby loaning them money directly. Ofcourse, with a bond (in modern financial system) you get a credit rating for the company from S&P, Moody, et al.
How about some C or D rated bonds? We'll just add a 21st century buzzword "Peer-to-Peer" to make it sound cool and catchy. I also have a bridge in brooklyn if you are interested. Hmm... what could I call it? How about bidirectional high bandwidth geo-bus? Anybody interested in a geo-bus in brooklyn?
Apparantly, the records were obtained by a type of subpoena called a "National Security Letter". The targets of the investigation are the federal employees who leaked the classified info, which is a crime. A subpoena may be issued administratively (no court involved) to compel a witness to produce certain evidence for purposes of discovery.
At the ABC news site they explain that a National Security Letter (NSL) is "a version of an administrative subpoena and are not signed by a judge. Under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government."
My original post is entirely factual, but was modded "troll" by people who obviously can't tell a troll from things they simply disagree with. This entirely shows just how skewed the slashdot orthodoxy is.
Apparantly, the records were obtained by subpoena. A subpoena may be issued administratively (no court involved) to compel a witness to produce certain evidence for purposes of discovery.
ABC News explained that a National Security Letter (NSL) is "a version of an administrative subpoena and are not signed by a judge. Under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government."
What would I do? I've been there before. If I thought something illegal was going on, I would inform the agency Inspector General, Office of Special Counsel (www.osc.gov) or inform the appropriate Congressional Committee. I actually have been a whistleblower before (about corruption, theft, and contract fraud, but nothing classified) and I was reprised against for making protected disclosures and for refusing to follow an illegal order, so I filed a greiveance both with the Agency and with the Office of Special Counsel under 5 USC 2302 (look it up on google - its the federal employee whistleblower protection program). The law was a little different back then (1998-99), it was also covered under 5 USC 2303 (which now only applies to the FBI it looks). My Agency greiveance was upheld but my OSC greivance was dismissed.
There are procedures for these types of things. Leaking classified information is just wrong and illegal.
Unlike most of the un-informed people spouting off here, I actually have been through this myself and I know from first hand experience what I am talking about. It was not pleasant to go through (hostile work enviromnent, constant professional and physical threats), but there are channels beside breaking the law. (BTW.. my corrupt boss evenually was fired)
The police only need a warrant for involuntary searches. If they ask, and you say "OK", then they can search without a warrant.
In the NSA case, the NSA (notice I said "NSA" and not "police") asked as they are free to do and most companies said "OK". Quest was free to say "no". In that instance, Quest said "No", so no search was conducted. Nothing was seized or searched from Quest without its permission and without a warrant.
Now I differentiated between police and NSA. NSA is a DoD agency. They are restricted from law enforcement by posse commitatus. Normally, nothing that NSA collects can be used in a criminal case.
If they are approaching this as a criminal matter with intent to prosecute, they have a warrant because the evidence would otherwise be inadmissible. So you can bet your bottom dollar that they have a warrant.
The other matters that you refer to involve the NSA, which is not an law enformence agency. So those have been approached as intelligence operations. In those cases, they apparantly have no intent of prosecuting anybody, but appear to be more interested in the security aspects. Indeed, posse commitatus would prevent NSA from gathering information to be used in criminal prosecutiongs since NSA is part of DoD.
Since when is it ethical to take the law into your own hands? We live in a democratic republic of laws. There are both legal and democratic ways (congressional oversight, elections, reports to IG) of approaching things. Deciding that you are above the law is neither lawful, democratic, or ethical.
As an aside, I find your statement to be curious Sorry, but when neither is doing their job and people are being tortured and possibly killed without fair trial, it's time to start leaking to the press. That's the bottom line, and you don't get to hide behind "classified information" when you do something that unethical. Period.
Since when have we expected the CIA to be Boy Scouts? I always expected them to be rather low-down and willing to do dirty tricks and willing to kill people as a necessary part of their job. It is what they are hired to do.
Read the fucking constitution and look up some judicial records before you open your big, dumb mouth please. The law is very specific about protecting journalistic sources, there is supposed to be no way around it.
No it is not. While most (if not all) states have "shield laws" to protect journalists and their sources, there is not federal equivalent. This is why NY Times reporter Judith Miller went to jail for refusing to disclose her sources. Here is a NY Times editorial advocating a shield law, but there still is not one yet. Perhaps you should do some research before slinging terms like "big, dumb mouth".
Oversight is the constitutional responsibility of Congress. They have intelligence committees for that purpose. If you don't think they are doing their job, vote and write your congressman. Just because somebody disagrees with a policy, does not give them the right to break the law by leaking classified info. Also, every agency has an Inspector General for internal investigations. Disclosure to Congress and IGs are protected activities under federal law. Leaking to reporters is not.
Yes I do remember. Watergate had nothing to do with classified information/national security. It was about election-year dirty tricks which embarrassed the administration so they tried to cover it up.
This case is about national security. Don't confuse the two.
Our reports on the CIA's secret prisons in Romania and Poland were known to have upset CIA officials. The CIA asked for an FBI investigation of leaks of classified information(my emphasis) following those reports.
People questioned by the FBI about leaks of intelligence information (my emphasis) say the CIA was also disturbed by ABC News reports that revealed the use of CIA predator missiles inside Pakistan.
Leaking classified information is a crime. Obviously, the FBI is going to investigate a (potentially criminal) leak of classified inforomation, because it is part of the FBI counter-intelligence and law enforcement missions to do so. It is standard police procedure in a criminal investigation to subpoena or to get a search warrant for telephone records. Nothing new or sensational to see here, move along.
That is patently false. Election Boards do not serve as campaign managers. I surmise that you are refering to the instance in FL where the Secretary of State, who is an elected official, oversaw the overall state election process.
the government is precisely the people we need to protect this machine from.
Umm...who do you think conducts the elections, the Election Fairies? Elections are run by the local county Election Boards, civil servants and (usually) elderly volunteers. No other method has so far been demonstrated to be more fair or less biased. Your comment is nothing but anti-goverment slashbot pandering and generally ill-informed.
Hold of on installing the final software load approved by both parties (and perhaps a third, 'impartial' entity) until the device is installed on-site (and bolted down)and Install the final software load while overseers from both parties (and the third, 'impartial' entity) verify the installation and the veracity of the software load via checksum.
This is just looney and logistically unworkable. There are thousands and thousands of precinct election sites in any particular state. All of these are temporary sites that act as election sites only once or twice (primary and general elections) per year. First of all, no church or school is going to let you bolt anything to the floor. Secondly, do you know how many technicians you are asking for? Well... lets see.... 3 techs per site x thousands of sites = boatloads of non-existant people. There is alreay a shortage of election workers and volunteers and most of them are very elderly. Now you want all these elderly folks to be computer technicians too. I don't know many 73 year olds who know what a checksum is, and how to check one, or how to install software on even a familiar device like a pc (much less an embedded device like an election machine). Who will this "impartial" third person be? From the county election board perhaps? Refer to your first comment about not trusting the government.
Secure the access door permanently (rivets, welding, whatever), and have all overseers affix tamper-evident seals.
So now we can afford use-once disposable machines? The seals would be a very good idea, but welding the access shut is nuts, unless these are cheap disposable machines (like $20 or less). Screws or a lock with the tamper-evident seal will suffice.
So you're saying it would be bad for them to have the extra opportunity of work? You make it sound like if it weren't for the Evil Theoretical Sugar Beet Barons then life would be just fine.
No, I am saying its just like buying from a sweat-shop. You would be supporting an exploitive system. And its not the Theoretical Sugar Beet Barons, but the Real Life Sugar Cane Plantation Barons in Latin America who exploit peasant labor for pennies a day. By using sugar beets instead of cane, we would have relatively well paid farmers in regulated economies in Canada, US, and Europe instead of exploited peasants in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. I would much rather support a group of yeoman family farmers in Manatoba, Rhineland, or Idaho than an exploitive sugar cane system of peasantry in Brazil and Honduras, in the same way that I would rather pay a few dollars more to buy a shirt made in a union textile factory in Missouri than a seat-shop in China or Vietnam.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm... it already happened (in the 1930's) and people didn't "loose faith in the goverment". They asked for more government involvement in society and they got it. They asked for more FBI to control the mob, and they got it. They asked for the FBI to control communist and fascist agitiators and they got it. History has pretty much shown that when this country gets into an economic bind, they ask for and get more government.
BTW.. the article's little passing shot of "So our 1st amendment rights don't trump the right of the federal government to violate them?" is pure flamebait and trolling for arguments. The 1st amendment has never been interpreted to allow publication of state secrets.
And before somebody digs out the Pentagon Papers, read the wiki on that case here -Pentagon Papers and here - NY Times v. US. First, that case is not binding precedent because there was no single opinion of the court, other than a per curiam upholding of the lower court's rejection of an injunction. Second, the legal question at issue was one of "prior restraint". Did the government meet the burden of proof to get an injuction to stop publication? The answer in that particular case was "no", not in that particular instance. But that did preclude the government from meeting the burden of proof (which BTW is very high) in other cases. In other words, the Pentagon Papers case did not establish an absolute 1st amendment right to publish state secrets or an absolute prohibition on prior restraint.
The legal question of prior restaint given in the Pentagons Papers case is moot and inapplicable in this case anyway since the articles are already published. So now the question is , what laws are applicable for divulging state secrets and do they apply in this case?
Specifically, the exemptions are [and this case my money is on (b)(5)]:
It has been know for thousands of years that a species' evolution can be predicted given a set of selecting factors (notice i used that instead of environment) and then made to follow that path by applying those factors. Its called selective breeding.
Natural environment selection is just one form of selection. But the farmer can also be the "environment" and force a certain selection. He can select for milk-producing capacity in dairy cows or goats. He can select for bulkiness in beef cattle or hogs. He can select for egg laying in hens. A good study for historical purpose would be too look at maize corn.. look at the natural grass that it descended from and then look at the hybrid versions that we grow today. A dramatic difference in size of the grainhead (cobb) and kernel. I would hazard a guess that you could take the ancestoral grass (which I've heard still grows in the Andes) and apply the same selecting factors that have been applied over the last 5 millenia by native american farmers. Over a few hundred generations, you would probably end up with a form of maize-corn
These knucklehead scientists are just rediscovering and codifying what has been ancient knowledge all along. The are repackaging selective breeding as a new concept.
Another way of looking at this is that combining the same ingrediates the same way will yield the same result. That is sort of a 'duh' factor.
The concept was also explored in science fiction. Dr. Who fans will remember the genesis of the daliks. The mad scientist predicted the mutations of the Kalids given their poisoned world and then genetically engineered the Daliks to match the predicted mutations.
From TFA:
Core Duo solves a lot of the short comings, but there is one major feature omission from Yonah's architecture: it doesn't support Intel's EM64T 64-bit extensions
and later:
The lack of 64-bit extensions may be a worry for some, as will the poor FPU performance - the latter showed up in our MP3 encoding test.
So if you are doing anything with a 64-bit, high memory, or FPU requirement, AMD still wins.
Not only would it be stupid for the company from a business standpoint, but it would be easily detected. First, most organizations are going to wipe the disk anywwy and do a ghost install so software should not be an issue. As far as hardware, everybody who deals with PCs knows what one looks like inside. Most techs could probably look at the mobo and tell you what every componet and chip-set part was for. If some strange component was included, it would immediately be recognized as something that was not right.
Here is how it is implemented:
First the problem: The project is to import purchase orders, create a freight shipping request, price the request against an arbitrary number of trucking company rate tariffs, present the user with a list of rates, allow him to select the truck company, produce a PDF hardcopy bill of lading, and send the bill of lading via X12 EDI or SOAP to the truck company. Or alternately, the user can manually create the shipment request instead of importing a PO.
The solution is :
Smarty is great. I only have to pass it the variables. All the output is handled by the template. There is absolutely no presentation code or html in my PHP except for those few cases where I am outputing a preformated string as an AJAX response (and those I use sparsely). I could probably get away without formating that response and let the JS handler do it, but that would be more code than it is worth.
Once you unzip/untar the distribution and open the jars, lots of the classes are accompanied by .java source with an Apache license.
First I want to say "Thank you" for releasing the project for free use and a double "Thank you" for having large portions under the Apache license.
.java files have an Apache license prefixed. Excellent!
I figured that the output would be owned by the user, but the terms initially looked like the toolkit itself was restricted except for the parts you got from other projects.
I opened the tarball and the two jars and have been reviewing some of the files. I see that substantial numbers of the
I looked at the license and it is free to use (i.e. free as in beer), but not free to modify, copy, or distribute (free as in speech).
Prohibited Actions
Except for distributions for internal business and/or personal use to your employees or contractors in compliance with these Terms and Conditions, you may not distribute Google Web Toolkit Development Tools or any services or software associated with or derived from them, or modify, copy, license, or create derivative works from Google Web Toolkit Development Tools, unless you obtain Google's written permission in advance. If you wish to do any of the above, please contact us by emailing apis@google.com. You may not use the Google Web Toolkit Development Tools to develop or distribute products that violate the law or legal rights of third parties.
No, I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth and why does this matter? Because I happen to prefer PHP for web development (just a personal preference). It would be nice to be able to move the JavaScript components off from the Java framework into a PHP based framework. Well, apparantly you can't do that without special permission.
BTW, the Yahoo UI Library is BSD licensed.
Your right, Credit Unions are a good example of individuals aggregating. But isn't a bond a form of "peer-to-peer" financing without a bank as well? The company issues a bond, you buy the bond from them thereby loaning them money directly. Ofcourse, with a bond (in modern financial system) you get a credit rating for the company from S&P, Moody, et al.
How about some C or D rated bonds? We'll just add a 21st century buzzword "Peer-to-Peer" to make it sound cool and catchy. I also have a bridge in brooklyn if you are interested. Hmm... what could I call it? How about bidirectional high bandwidth geo-bus? Anybody interested in a geo-bus in brooklyn?
Apparantly, the records were obtained by a type of subpoena called a "National Security Letter". The targets of the investigation are the federal employees who leaked the classified info, which is a crime. A subpoena may be issued administratively (no court involved) to compel a witness to produce certain evidence for purposes of discovery.
At the ABC news site they explain that a National Security Letter (NSL) is "a version of an administrative subpoena and are not signed by a judge. Under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government."
My original post is entirely factual, but was modded "troll" by people who obviously can't tell a troll from things they simply disagree with. This entirely shows just how skewed the slashdot orthodoxy is.
Apparantly, the records were obtained by subpoena. A subpoena may be issued administratively (no court involved) to compel a witness to produce certain evidence for purposes of discovery.
ABC News explained that a National Security Letter (NSL) is "a version of an administrative subpoena and are not signed by a judge. Under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government."
What would I do? I've been there before. If I thought something illegal was going on, I would inform the agency Inspector General, Office of Special Counsel (www.osc.gov) or inform the appropriate Congressional Committee. I actually have been a whistleblower before (about corruption, theft, and contract fraud, but nothing classified) and I was reprised against for making protected disclosures and for refusing to follow an illegal order , so I filed a greiveance both with the Agency and with the Office of Special Counsel under 5 USC 2302 (look it up on google - its the federal employee whistleblower protection program). The law was a little different back then (1998-99), it was also covered under 5 USC 2303 (which now only applies to the FBI it looks). My Agency greiveance was upheld but my OSC greivance was dismissed.
There are procedures for these types of things. Leaking classified information is just wrong and illegal.
Unlike most of the un-informed people spouting off here, I actually have been through this myself and I know from first hand experience what I am talking about. It was not pleasant to go through (hostile work enviromnent, constant professional and physical threats), but there are channels beside breaking the law. (BTW.. my corrupt boss evenually was fired)
The police only need a warrant for involuntary searches. If they ask, and you say "OK", then they can search without a warrant.
In the NSA case, the NSA (notice I said "NSA" and not "police") asked as they are free to do and most companies said "OK". Quest was free to say "no". In that instance, Quest said "No", so no search was conducted. Nothing was seized or searched from Quest without its permission and without a warrant.
Now I differentiated between police and NSA. NSA is a DoD agency. They are restricted from law enforcement by posse commitatus. Normally, nothing that NSA collects can be used in a criminal case.
If they are approaching this as a criminal matter with intent to prosecute, they have a warrant because the evidence would otherwise be inadmissible. So you can bet your bottom dollar that they have a warrant.
The other matters that you refer to involve the NSA, which is not an law enformence agency. So those have been approached as intelligence operations. In those cases, they apparantly have no intent of prosecuting anybody, but appear to be more interested in the security aspects. Indeed, posse commitatus would prevent NSA from gathering information to be used in criminal prosecutiongs since NSA is part of DoD.
Since when is it ethical to take the law into your own hands? We live in a democratic republic of laws. There are both legal and democratic ways (congressional oversight, elections, reports to IG) of approaching things. Deciding that you are above the law is neither lawful, democratic, or ethical.
As an aside, I find your statement to be curious
Sorry, but when neither is doing their job and people are being tortured and possibly killed without fair trial, it's time to start leaking to the press. That's the bottom line, and you don't get to hide behind "classified information" when you do something that unethical. Period.
Since when have we expected the CIA to be Boy Scouts? I always expected them to be rather low-down and willing to do dirty tricks and willing to kill people as a necessary part of their job. It is what they are hired to do.
Read the fucking constitution and look up some judicial records before you open your big, dumb mouth please. The law is very specific about protecting journalistic sources, there is supposed to be no way around it.
No it is not. While most (if not all) states have "shield laws" to protect journalists and their sources, there is not federal equivalent. This is why NY Times reporter Judith Miller went to jail for refusing to disclose her sources. Here is a NY Times editorial advocating a shield law, but there still is not one yet. Perhaps you should do some research before slinging terms like "big, dumb mouth".
Oversight is the constitutional responsibility of Congress. They have intelligence committees for that purpose. If you don't think they are doing their job, vote and write your congressman. Just because somebody disagrees with a policy, does not give them the right to break the law by leaking classified info. Also, every agency has an Inspector General for internal investigations. Disclosure to Congress and IGs are protected activities under federal law. Leaking to reporters is not.
Do you know that they don't have a warrant? Are you somehow privy to classified investigations?
Remember deepthroat?
Yes I do remember. Watergate had nothing to do with classified information/national security. It was about election-year dirty tricks which embarrassed the administration so they tried to cover it up.
This case is about national security. Don't confuse the two.
Leaking classified information is a crime. Obviously, the FBI is going to investigate a (potentially criminal) leak of classified inforomation, because it is part of the FBI counter-intelligence and law enforcement missions to do so. It is standard police procedure in a criminal investigation to subpoena or to get a search warrant for telephone records. Nothing new or sensational to see here, move along.
That is patently false. Election Boards do not serve as campaign managers. I surmise that you are refering to the instance in FL where the Secretary of State, who is an elected official, oversaw the overall state election process.
the government is precisely the people we need to protect this machine from.
Umm...who do you think conducts the elections, the Election Fairies? Elections are run by the local county Election Boards, civil servants and (usually) elderly volunteers. No other method has so far been demonstrated to be more fair or less biased. Your comment is nothing but anti-goverment slashbot pandering and generally ill-informed.
Hold of on installing the final software load approved by both parties (and perhaps a third, 'impartial' entity) until the device is installed on-site (and bolted down)and Install the final software load while overseers from both parties (and the third, 'impartial' entity) verify the installation and the veracity of the software load via checksum.
This is just looney and logistically unworkable. There are thousands and thousands of precinct election sites in any particular state. All of these are temporary sites that act as election sites only once or twice (primary and general elections) per year. First of all, no church or school is going to let you bolt anything to the floor. Secondly, do you know how many technicians you are asking for? Well... lets see.... 3 techs per site x thousands of sites = boatloads of non-existant people. There is alreay a shortage of election workers and volunteers and most of them are very elderly. Now you want all these elderly folks to be computer technicians too. I don't know many 73 year olds who know what a checksum is, and how to check one, or how to install software on even a familiar device like a pc (much less an embedded device like an election machine). Who will this "impartial" third person be? From the county election board perhaps? Refer to your first comment about not trusting the government.
Secure the access door permanently (rivets, welding, whatever), and have all overseers affix tamper-evident seals.
So now we can afford use-once disposable machines? The seals would be a very good idea, but welding the access shut is nuts, unless these are cheap disposable machines (like $20 or less). Screws or a lock with the tamper-evident seal will suffice.
No, I am saying its just like buying from a sweat-shop. You would be supporting an exploitive system. And its not the Theoretical Sugar Beet Barons, but the Real Life Sugar Cane Plantation Barons in Latin America who exploit peasant labor for pennies a day. By using sugar beets instead of cane, we would have relatively well paid farmers in regulated economies in Canada, US, and Europe instead of exploited peasants in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. I would much rather support a group of yeoman family farmers in Manatoba, Rhineland, or Idaho than an exploitive sugar cane system of peasantry in Brazil and Honduras, in the same way that I would rather pay a few dollars more to buy a shirt made in a union textile factory in Missouri than a seat-shop in China or Vietnam.