This is why the Flight Controller I use is Open Source. Control mongers like Diane Feinstein have no say in the software. This is the same lady pushing for back doored encryption. There is nothing in the interest of citizens that runs through her veins. One day she will attack open source as an enemy of the state.
Why make it easy for Assange? They want to use him as an example of why you don't fuck with US intelligence agencies run amok. If they wanted to solve for this they could've done this via phone or Skype etc at any point along the way. Also the justice department in Sweden might see this for what it is likely to be.
Duh? Show me exactly where I said it was wrong to make profit asshat. For the rest... look it up yourself or post some more stupid youtube videos on your blog.
The reason they didn't want this to begin with (i'm speculating here) is profit. They wanted to make people buy newer and more games. That didn't work, so now they have to pretend when they said it couldn't be done that they weren't lying.
You have zero evidence about any of the ridiculous claims you concocted. As for eloquence, I'd dare say Ellsberg is/was brilliant and eloquent, but my suspicion (since you misspelled Chelsea Mannings name) is that you probably spend too much time listening to Alex Jones/Info Wars, rather than thinking. You also ignore the fact about the Snowdens Field Time as a CIA agent in Europe, in a lame attempt to pretend he was no better than a Devry tech student who could never possibly have this level of information.
What is the exact narrative you think Snowden is spinning, which others like Ellsberg who have given public support for his whistle-blowing, as well as the other 4 post 9/11 NSA whistle blowers who have supported his position equally?
If by smackdown they deserve, you mean: The phone company who we cannot sue, holds the metadata they'd been giving to the NSA prior to this. Now that is legally encoded in law, not an Act with a sunset clause. Not much changed... yet, except for making their collection mostly legal.
The courts found the bulk collection as "justified" under section 215 as unconstitutional and wholly illegal. What Obama is trying to do is sidestep the illegality of the system and reauthorize it without listening to the judiciary branch. That is contemptuous. Nixon looks like a patriot compared to this bullshit.
They were a necessary evil to help production ramp up during a civil war, and to help extend the railroads. They had a legally limited charter to be dismantled immediately after their scope was completed. After the civil war, in the first year of the 16th Amendment had about 289 court cases around it. More than 90% were by corporations altering their charters and extending their powers.
Even if you took every single liberty a man can possess away, there would still be a way to disrupt, and cause terror. But then again, anyone who works in security knows that to be the case since well before this all occurred. The fact they are knowingly selling the lie and propaganda is criminal.
BSOD on a phone, tcp/ip stack corruption. Driveby downloads of toolbars. I can't wait to run combofix on some damn phone because the asshat decided he wanted to bit torrent the tenth installment of Transformers movies.
Because a terrorist might have gotten into American borders, the entire world needs to be watched? There can be no liberties in such a world. I'd rather die in a terrorist attack. There will always be a threat somewhere. One day you might realize that governments are more dangerous than nameless, faceless, borderless terrorists ever were.
I'm certain for Stalinist Russia, there was some good that objectively came out of mass surveillance as well. It was however relative to which side of the surveillance you were on. True liberty comes with risks. Security is a lie surveillance tells those who are being watched.
The sad part here, is that you aren't being given the choice to opt out, and keep the liberties that were granted to the citizens in America.
You said it best when you said you don't understand. If you can't define what material support mean in its fullest geometry then why would you feel safe accepting it as in your best interests.
"We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that inhibits the work of human rights and conflict resolution groups. The 'material support law' – which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism – actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence. The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom." Jimmy Carter
Not only are you now expressly forbidden freedom of speech, thought and association. You will be considered an enemy of the state and immediately you lose any and all rights to a free trial as a result.
Define clearly how material support can never be bent to the best interests of the government?
If you have to ask this question, then the likely answer is no. We cannot explain it to you. The fact that this is a nebulous contrived term it will be twisted to mean whatever suits the agency needs du jour.
You see the NSA isn't collecting data on millions of Americans... The collection happens when the NSA reads the collected err. captured data.
Of course since there is an algorithm that sorts the data and no human touches it, then they can analyze it without fear of collecting err. reading your data.. no one is hurt you see.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why the Flight Controller I use is Open Source. Control mongers like Diane Feinstein have no say in the software. This is the same lady pushing for back doored encryption. There is nothing in the interest of citizens that runs through her veins. One day she will attack open source as an enemy of the state.
Why make it easy for Assange? They want to use him as an example of why you don't fuck with US intelligence agencies run amok. If they wanted to solve for this they could've done this via phone or Skype etc at any point along the way. Also the justice department in Sweden might see this for what it is likely to be.
In the wake of Snowden, they are preventing the most obvious proof they were spying on their own country from within it's own borders.
Duh? Show me exactly where I said it was wrong to make profit asshat. For the rest... look it up yourself or post some more stupid youtube videos on your blog.
The reason they didn't want this to begin with (i'm speculating here) is profit. They wanted to make people buy newer and more games. That didn't work, so now they have to pretend when they said it couldn't be done that they weren't lying.
You have zero evidence about any of the ridiculous claims you concocted. As for eloquence, I'd dare say Ellsberg is/was brilliant and eloquent, but my suspicion (since you misspelled Chelsea Mannings name) is that you probably spend too much time listening to Alex Jones/Info Wars, rather than thinking. You also ignore the fact about the Snowdens Field Time as a CIA agent in Europe, in a lame attempt to pretend he was no better than a Devry tech student who could never possibly have this level of information.
What is the exact narrative you think Snowden is spinning, which others like Ellsberg who have given public support for his whistle-blowing, as well as the other 4 post 9/11 NSA whistle blowers who have supported his position equally?
This is what Obama is doing though. Don't conflate the two wrongs.
If by smackdown they deserve, you mean: The phone company who we cannot sue, holds the metadata they'd been giving to the NSA prior to this. Now that is legally encoded in law, not an Act with a sunset clause. Not much changed... yet, except for making their collection mostly legal.
Here's hoping this is the necessary kick in the pants for Open Source hardware/software, that people need to protect us from the "protectors".
I played plenty of solo Minecraft. Theres a relaxing build element that consumes many hours.
He and the rest of the Wolfowitz disciples have a special warm place reserved for them.
The courts found the bulk collection as "justified" under section 215 as unconstitutional and wholly illegal. What Obama is trying to do is sidestep the illegality of the system and reauthorize it without listening to the judiciary branch. That is contemptuous. Nixon looks like a patriot compared to this bullshit.
They were a necessary evil to help production ramp up during a civil war, and to help extend the railroads. They had a legally limited charter to be dismantled immediately after their scope was completed. After the civil war, in the first year of the 16th Amendment had about 289 court cases around it. More than 90% were by corporations altering their charters and extending their powers.
There is almost nothing to trust about the service.
Even if you took every single liberty a man can possess away, there would still be a way to disrupt, and cause terror. But then again, anyone who works in security knows that to be the case since well before this all occurred. The fact they are knowingly selling the lie and propaganda is criminal.
Untrue. Watch the very first iPhone keynote. The endless claims about it running full OSX are presented in full force.
BSOD on a phone, tcp/ip stack corruption. Driveby downloads of toolbars. I can't wait to run combofix on some damn phone because the asshat decided he wanted to bit torrent the tenth installment of Transformers movies.
Pretty strong words for a coward. Are you worried about the consequences of what you said? I agree with you that they are no longer for the people.
Because a terrorist might have gotten into American borders, the entire world needs to be watched? There can be no liberties in such a world. I'd rather die in a terrorist attack. There will always be a threat somewhere. One day you might realize that governments are more dangerous than nameless, faceless, borderless terrorists ever were.
This was meant to be a response to LWATCDR. Sorry for the mix up.
I'm certain for Stalinist Russia, there was some good that objectively came out of mass surveillance as well. It was however relative to which side of the surveillance you were on. True liberty comes with risks. Security is a lie surveillance tells those who are being watched.
The sad part here, is that you aren't being given the choice to opt out, and keep the liberties that were granted to the citizens in America.
You said it best when you said you don't understand. If you can't define what material support mean in its fullest geometry then why would you feel safe accepting it as in your best interests.
"We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that inhibits the work of human rights and conflict resolution groups. The 'material support law' – which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism – actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence. The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom." Jimmy Carter
Not only are you now expressly forbidden freedom of speech, thought and association. You will be considered an enemy of the state and immediately you lose any and all rights to a free trial as a result.
Define clearly how material support can never be bent to the best interests of the government?
If you have to ask this question, then the likely answer is no. We cannot explain it to you. The fact that this is a nebulous contrived term it will be twisted to mean whatever suits the agency needs du jour.
You see the NSA isn't collecting data on millions of Americans... The collection happens when the NSA reads the collected err. captured data.
Of course since there is an algorithm that sorts the data and no human touches it, then they can analyze it without fear of collecting err. reading your data.. no one is hurt you see.
Accountability? Hmmm. That is just crazy enough to work!
He upheld his oath to uphold the constitution. Not doing what he said is a violation of the highest order in America.