I know I have an exceptionally high IQ, but can't any of you figure this out. Connect the dots, the key bits of information where posted. Some high paid official read Tom Clancy and decided that terrorist could use this information to hide their activities when the satellite is overhead. The information is still available, but through a non-government website with an "I'll let you monitor all activity on my computer" EULA.
Analysis or how to build a terrorist mousetrap: 1) Get some leverage on someone who runs a space/astronomy website - busting them for smoking pot is a Fed favorite. Oh, don't let them know you busted them. 2) Give them exclusive rights these data only if they use the EULA you provide. 3) Use said leverage to deflect any challenges to monitoring all access to said website. 4) Build a profile on all who access these data. 5) Filter out profiles that match genuine astronomers. 6) Red flag interest in satellites over sensitive areas. 7) Closely monitor all activity from suspect users, looking for anything that can lead to arrest or capture of terrorist cells.
To any Feds that may be monitoring this: the above analysis took me less then an hour. My rate is $500/hour. Please contact me directly if you are interested in hiring me for more analysis.
apexchin, after skimming it I also did not see anything objectionable... but that is what concerns me. Please take a couple of minutes and read the link to "The Right to Read" posted above by Pan T Hose. It is possible that somewhere in the bill is a key phase, maybe only a couple of words, that they want passed into law. To get it passed they use the magician's trick of distracting you with one hand while the other does the "magic." In this case it is obscuring there intent with lots of words that don't case objection, counting on no one really reading the whole thing in complete detail.
The brad strokes tell the story. 1) If they where interested in stopping cable thief then why do they go through 3 warnings before taking legal action, as stated in the testimony. 2) The given testimony states that there has been success in civil cases with the current laws.
Conclusion: the cable industry does not want or need this law to stop cable thief as they say they do, but are trying to passing it on a state by state bases... so i ask you why are they doing it. It smells foul to me.
What to do (the open source approach) Lets all take the time to read this bill and find the needle in the haystack. The line item at the heart of this legislation, then take the advice given above and write to your senator and congressmen telling him or her about it.
After skimming it I also did not see anything objectionable... but that is what concerns me. Please take a couple of minutes and read the link to "The Right to Read" posted above by Pan T Hose. It is possible that somewhere in the bill is a key phase, maybe only a couple of words, that they want passed into law. To get it passed they use the magician's trick of distracting you with one hand while the other does the "magic." In this case it is obscuring there intent with lots of words that don't case objection, counting on no one really reading the whole thing in complete detail.
The brad strokes tell the story. 1) they have not taken the time and effort to do a quantitative study of cable thief. 2) If they where interested in stopping cable thief then why do they go through 3 warnings before taking legal action, as stated in the testimony. 3) The given testimony states that there has been success in civil cases with the current laws.
Conclusion: the cable industry does not want or need this law to stop cable thief as they say they do, but are trying to passing it on a state by state bases... so i ask you why are they doing it. It smells foul to me.
What to do (the open source approach) Lets all take the time to read this bill and find the needle in the haystack. The line item at the heart of this legislation, then take the advice given above and write to your senator and congressmen telling him or her about it.
Slashdot Mirror
I know I have an exceptionally high IQ, but can't any of you figure this out. Connect the dots, the key bits of information where posted. Some high paid official read Tom Clancy and decided that terrorist could use this information to hide their activities when the satellite is overhead. The information is still available, but through a non-government website with an "I'll let you monitor all activity on my computer" EULA. Analysis or how to build a terrorist mousetrap: 1) Get some leverage on someone who runs a space/astronomy website - busting them for smoking pot is a Fed favorite. Oh, don't let them know you busted them. 2) Give them exclusive rights these data only if they use the EULA you provide. 3) Use said leverage to deflect any challenges to monitoring all access to said website. 4) Build a profile on all who access these data. 5) Filter out profiles that match genuine astronomers. 6) Red flag interest in satellites over sensitive areas. 7) Closely monitor all activity from suspect users, looking for anything that can lead to arrest or capture of terrorist cells. To any Feds that may be monitoring this: the above analysis took me less then an hour. My rate is $500/hour. Please contact me directly if you are interested in hiring me for more analysis.
apexchin, after skimming it I also did not see anything objectionable... but that is what concerns me. Please take a couple of minutes and read the link to "The Right to Read" posted above by Pan T Hose. It is possible that somewhere in the bill is a key phase, maybe only a couple of words, that they want passed into law. To get it passed they use the magician's trick of distracting you with one hand while the other does the "magic." In this case it is obscuring there intent with lots of words that don't case objection, counting on no one really reading the whole thing in complete detail. The brad strokes tell the story. 1) If they where interested in stopping cable thief then why do they go through 3 warnings before taking legal action, as stated in the testimony. 2) The given testimony states that there has been success in civil cases with the current laws. Conclusion: the cable industry does not want or need this law to stop cable thief as they say they do, but are trying to passing it on a state by state bases ... so i ask you why are they doing it. It smells foul to me.
What to do (the open source approach) Lets all take the time to read this bill and find the needle in the haystack. The line item at the heart of this legislation, then take the advice given above and write to your senator and congressmen telling him or her about it.
After skimming it I also did not see anything objectionable... but that is what concerns me. Please take a couple of minutes and read the link to "The Right to Read" posted above by Pan T Hose. It is possible that somewhere in the bill is a key phase, maybe only a couple of words, that they want passed into law. To get it passed they use the magician's trick of distracting you with one hand while the other does the "magic." In this case it is obscuring there intent with lots of words that don't case objection, counting on no one really reading the whole thing in complete detail. The brad strokes tell the story. 1) they have not taken the time and effort to do a quantitative study of cable thief. 2) If they where interested in stopping cable thief then why do they go through 3 warnings before taking legal action, as stated in the testimony. 3) The given testimony states that there has been success in civil cases with the current laws. Conclusion: the cable industry does not want or need this law to stop cable thief as they say they do, but are trying to passing it on a state by state bases ... so i ask you why are they doing it. It smells foul to me.
What to do (the open source approach) Lets all take the time to read this bill and find the needle in the haystack. The line item at the heart of this legislation, then take the advice given above and write to your senator and congressmen telling him or her about it.