A typical executive order simply designates procedures and requirements to be followed by people working for the Executive branch of the government.
Which is EXACTLY what this executive order does. It is implementing at the Executive Branch the legislation to which it is based, namely the National Security Act of 1947 as amended. It even says so at the start of the order:
by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, (Act) and as President of the United States of America, in order to provide for the effective conduct of United States intelligence activities and the protection of constitutional rights, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Also, nothing in this executive order "led to" the warrantless wiretapping as alleged in the story. In fact, there are several places in the order that state that if US citizens are involved, it MUST go through the FBI / Attorney General. Read it. You will see what I mean.
First of all, it has been modified many, many times since Ronald Reagen the last that I can find was in 2008. http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/...
Second, and more to your points, sprinkled throughout the document are statements like, any intelligence collected concerning United States citizens must go through the FBI / Attorney General. This is so they can begin criminal investigations using the tools (read WARRANTS) to gain physical evidence of a crime. And the collection of that data, according to the order, is tangential to foreign intelligence gathering. As an example, here is 1.1(a)
(a) All means, consistent with applicable Federal law and this order, and with full consideration of the rights of United States persons, shall be used to obtain reliable intelligence information to protect the United States and its interests.
[Emphasis added]
This is 20(A):
(A) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall coordinate the clandestine collection of foreign intelligence collected through human sources or through human-enabled means and counterintelligence activities inside the United States;
[Emphasis added]
So sticking to the topic at hand, namely that this order authorizes warrantless surveillance of United States citizens, is patently false. That may be the way it is used but that goes counter to the executive order's language.
By the way, the "human enabled means" is the metadata you are talking about.
NHTSA believes that V2V capability will not develop absent regulation, because there would not be any immediate safety benefits for consumers who are early adopters of V2V."
So in short, the government is going to mandate yet another thing that nobody wants and that even the manufacturers don't want to make. Brilliant!
You are confusing things. Net neutrality isn't about what tier of service you have. It is about ensuring that you aren't getting purposefully manipulated speed for the tier you have. Let's use your examples since you seem to understand those...
Do you think everyone needs the same speed? Does your grandmother need the same speed as an MIT researcher?
Do you think the MIT researcher should pay for the higher tier and be slowed down to Grandma's speed for some sites?
Same priciple for package delivery. Do you think everyone needs their package overnight? Or are there different needs.
Do you think your overnight package should be 3 days to certain destinations for the same price of overnight delivery?
Same principle for travel. Do you think everyone needs a supersonic transport, or are some fine with taking a Greyhound.
Do you think those that pay for the supersonic speed should be shuttled to the Grayhound station for certain destinations because that destination didn't pay the airlines for it?
This DID cause some hurt to some members of my family, but the "suppress reporting of something which actually happened because it might bother some members of the family" approach would have been more harmful to the public interest (and therefore also to us, in the long run).
Reporting on it != viewing the entire episode from grim start to grisly end. There is a huge difference. Add to that the propaganda factor this incident has (for both sides) and it does nothing but damage to the family. Again, I will ask you in the terms of your experience, how would it affect the family had those "unnatural circumstances" been recorded, uploaded to YouTube and used for political purposes?
No it wouldn't since he was only using bank transactions. His idea is to charge that penny on ALL transactions including every transaction made on the stock markets which counts in the hundreds of millions if not billions a day. Add in all the other transactions that occur daily and it is easily in the trillions a day.
"Because an institution of higher learning prefers its workers to be dumb and uninformed"
No...because an employer pays for their employee's Internet access so they can do the employer's business. It's not like there aren't multiple ways to access the Internet.
In other words people will switch to using smartphones and tablets to access Facebook, Wikipedia, politically correct websites, etc... and nothing really changes. Censorship is a game of Whac-A-Mole that the censors will always loose.
It depends on the goal of the censorship. If the goal is to prevent you from ever accessing the restricted content, then you are correct. On the other hand if the goal is to prevent you from using my network to access it, then they certainly can do that.
Shit... Now I'm in the position of defending Comcast...
Trying to sell them something they obviously aren't there for (such as additional services when they are looking for tech support) = bad.
If you read the document, you would see that upselling BEFORE the tech support issue was solved is enough to get you a "0" score. Upselling doesn't occur until their issue is resolved and the call is on track to end.
Trying to sell them something they obviously aren't there for (such as additional services when they are looking for tech support) = bad.
Even Comcast agrees with this which is why the score will drop to 0 if the support tech doesn't solve the reason for the call before trying to upsell.
Now I feel dirty for defending Comcast... Thanks a lot fella!
No it doesn't which is one reason DHS has issued at least a dozen "do not use Internet Explorer" alerts over the years.
Oddly enough though, employees of DHS can't use any other browser so to make those alerts without following it themselves rings hollow to me. And yes, I used to be a DHS employee. Now I'm with my state. You know, you grow...
I read that line quite differently. It IS the job the the Chinese citizens to change a situation they don't agree with and this is one tool to help them do that. To say it is solely up to outsiders to change the system of a country without the support of the citizens is forcing your will on those citizens.
Charleston, WV. The reason they are in the self checkout is because there is only 1 human checkout in this 12 lane store. In short, they are trying to force people to use the machines so they can cut costs.
Are self-service checkouts surrounded by impulse-buying items in the US?
Yes... At least at the Kroger in my neck of the woods...
And if it takes you a noticeably longer time to go through the self-service checkout than the human cashier, you might just be clueless at technology, which isn't something I'd expect on Slashdot.
It isn't the/. user holding things up it is the granny before him and the twelve other grannies before her. Add to that the one human checkout lane that is backed up around the block because nobody can stand waiting for hours while granny tries to figure out the machine.
Advertising does that without requiring a direct cost from you.
I see this argument a lot and it just doesn't hold water. There is a direct cost to the end user in wasted bandwidth if nothing else. Then there is the social cost of being tracked and worse, drive-by infections.
Besides, I never did see how showing an ad that is never followed through (meaning the product being hawked was sold because of the ad) can be profitable. Which is why I think the advertising based business model is extremely flawed.
I predict that's the way things will be in the future: "Don't want to see ads? Then, leave. We already provide 'free,' content. We will not provide content for ABSOLUTELY free."
If you have advertising on your site, then your content isn't free and it is false advertising to claim it as such. It simply is being paid by proxy. A more apt statement would be advertising supported.
For all the whining here, the option they've taken is actually the least intrusive.
And the best response that could be given would be to blackhole everything EU. They want to be forgotten, then let's forget them. Removing all links to everything EU including businesses, government and humanitarian sites would fit the bill. Restrict the crawler preventing new EU stuff from being indexed would solve the problem for the future.
The EU wants to be forgotten, let's see how the EU economy survives that.
What is the solution? Other than allowing insurance companies to price such considerations into their policies, I don't see one.
You seem to be eliminating the most powerful tool in the box. The insurance should reflect the risk. Another tool is requiring FULL disclosure by realtors trying to sell such a structure. Lastly, build sensibly taking the risk into account. If you are building into a flood zone, require the structure to be elevated above the base flood elevation. If you are building in known hurricane territory, require wind resistant building on top of the elevations. For landslide, require the developer to stabilize the slope BEFORE issuing the building permits for the structure. Had that happened in this case, those buildings wouldn't have been built because the cost to stabilize the hillside would be astronomical pricing the land out of development.
There is a far, far easier way assuming the government really wanted to get the individual who did this.
All federal internet traffic goes through Mount Weather, VA in the East (Denton, TX in the west). Every activity done right down to mouse clicks and keyboard keystrokes are recorded with no expectation of "privacy". It is in fact a part of the agreement you sign every time you take the required network security training every year. So finding out who was accessing Wikipedia at the time of the edits becomes extremely easy.
I know this because I have had access to the federal systems for years. It is a job requirement. I do GIS (among other things) and every time I send a map across the federal network I get a call from someone out of Mt. Weather asking what it is and why I am sending it. So yes, they can identify, by user, who is doing what.
That means there's a good chance we're about to get a look into the ins and outs of Google's advertising backbone: what information is shared with whom, and when.
Google: Judge, we are filing this motion to seal any and all documents for trade secret and proprietary information reasons. To release them would do irreparable harm to our business.
No. Deforestation is not the problem. The problem is the entire area is a natural slide area because of the soil type. People encroached on that slide area and expected it to be stable (much the same as they encroach on floodplains and barrier islands and wetlands).
No, what "caused" the loss of life more than anything was people moving into a high risk area.
But purposely didn't tell the most important party in the chain.... The customer that may have been affected! As I stated above, it isn't like the thieves put a metatag on the stolen data saying "this stolen data brought to you by Catch of the Day". So identity theft resulting from this breech wouldn't be connected to them assuming the thieves even get caught.. And by then it is too late.
Customers deserve a right to be informed IMMEDIATELY of breeches in security that may have an effect on them to alert them to watch for suspicious activity or afford them the opportunity to cancel the card before it racks up the outrageous charges.
No one noticed which means it was the correct plan and course of action to follow.
No one noticed because they didn't know it was Catch of the Day that was the source of their stolen data that may have ruined their credit. And when their customers leave in droves because of this breech of trust, does that sound like a good business decision?
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
You may have patience and understanding with this kind of corporate malfeasance but I don't. I now know to stay leagues away from this company and to inform everyone I know about their nonchalance attitude towards data security and customer notifications of breeches.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is EXACTLY what this executive order does. It is implementing at the Executive Branch the legislation to which it is based, namely the National Security Act of 1947 as amended. It even says so at the start of the order:
http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/...
Also, nothing in this executive order "led to" the warrantless wiretapping as alleged in the story. In fact, there are several places in the order that state that if US citizens are involved, it MUST go through the FBI / Attorney General. Read it. You will see what I mean.
Did you even read the executive order?
First of all, it has been modified many, many times since Ronald Reagen the last that I can find was in 2008. http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/...
Second, and more to your points, sprinkled throughout the document are statements like, any intelligence collected concerning United States citizens must go through the FBI / Attorney General. This is so they can begin criminal investigations using the tools (read WARRANTS) to gain physical evidence of a crime. And the collection of that data, according to the order, is tangential to foreign intelligence gathering. As an example, here is 1.1(a)
[Emphasis added]
This is 20(A):
[Emphasis added]
So sticking to the topic at hand, namely that this order authorizes warrantless surveillance of United States citizens, is patently false. That may be the way it is used but that goes counter to the executive order's language.
By the way, the "human enabled means" is the metadata you are talking about.
My biggest problem is with this line...
So in short, the government is going to mandate yet another thing that nobody wants and that even the manufacturers don't want to make. Brilliant!
You are confusing things. Net neutrality isn't about what tier of service you have. It is about ensuring that you aren't getting purposefully manipulated speed for the tier you have. Let's use your examples since you seem to understand those...
Do you think the MIT researcher should pay for the higher tier and be slowed down to Grandma's speed for some sites?
Do you think your overnight package should be 3 days to certain destinations for the same price of overnight delivery?
Do you think those that pay for the supersonic speed should be shuttled to the Grayhound station for certain destinations because that destination didn't pay the airlines for it?
Reporting on it != viewing the entire episode from grim start to grisly end. There is a huge difference. Add to that the propaganda factor this incident has (for both sides) and it does nothing but damage to the family. Again, I will ask you in the terms of your experience, how would it affect the family had those "unnatural circumstances" been recorded, uploaded to YouTube and used for political purposes?
No it wouldn't since he was only using bank transactions. His idea is to charge that penny on ALL transactions including every transaction made on the stock markets which counts in the hundreds of millions if not billions a day. Add in all the other transactions that occur daily and it is easily in the trillions a day.
It depends on the goal of the censorship. If the goal is to prevent you from ever accessing the restricted content, then you are correct. On the other hand if the goal is to prevent you from using my network to access it, then they certainly can do that.
You just knocked out bittorrent....
Shit... Now I'm in the position of defending Comcast...
If you read the document, you would see that upselling BEFORE the tech support issue was solved is enough to get you a "0" score. Upselling doesn't occur until their issue is resolved and the call is on track to end.
Even Comcast agrees with this which is why the score will drop to 0 if the support tech doesn't solve the reason for the call before trying to upsell.
Now I feel dirty for defending Comcast... Thanks a lot fella!
No it doesn't which is one reason DHS has issued at least a dozen "do not use Internet Explorer" alerts over the years.
Oddly enough though, employees of DHS can't use any other browser so to make those alerts without following it themselves rings hollow to me. And yes, I used to be a DHS employee. Now I'm with my state. You know, you grow...
I read that line quite differently. It IS the job the the Chinese citizens to change a situation they don't agree with and this is one tool to help them do that. To say it is solely up to outsiders to change the system of a country without the support of the citizens is forcing your will on those citizens.
The one that needs to go to jail is the one whose signature is on the bottom of the checks.
That's the part that is sickening to me.
Charleston, WV. The reason they are in the self checkout is because there is only 1 human checkout in this 12 lane store. In short, they are trying to force people to use the machines so they can cut costs.
Yes... At least at the Kroger in my neck of the woods...
It isn't the /. user holding things up it is the granny before him and the twelve other grannies before her. Add to that the one human checkout lane that is backed up around the block because nobody can stand waiting for hours while granny tries to figure out the machine.
I see this argument a lot and it just doesn't hold water. There is a direct cost to the end user in wasted bandwidth if nothing else. Then there is the social cost of being tracked and worse, drive-by infections.
Besides, I never did see how showing an ad that is never followed through (meaning the product being hawked was sold because of the ad) can be profitable. Which is why I think the advertising based business model is extremely flawed.
They can... And I think they should... Put a big red polygon there with the label "Indian Government Declared Sensitive Area" right on top.
Yes we should. Especially since the US has shown it is willing to use them against another country in anger. Not once but twice.
If you have advertising on your site, then your content isn't free and it is false advertising to claim it as such. It simply is being paid by proxy. A more apt statement would be advertising supported.
And the best response that could be given would be to blackhole everything EU. They want to be forgotten, then let's forget them. Removing all links to everything EU including businesses, government and humanitarian sites would fit the bill. Restrict the crawler preventing new EU stuff from being indexed would solve the problem for the future.
The EU wants to be forgotten, let's see how the EU economy survives that.
You seem to be eliminating the most powerful tool in the box. The insurance should reflect the risk. Another tool is requiring FULL disclosure by realtors trying to sell such a structure. Lastly, build sensibly taking the risk into account. If you are building into a flood zone, require the structure to be elevated above the base flood elevation. If you are building in known hurricane territory, require wind resistant building on top of the elevations. For landslide, require the developer to stabilize the slope BEFORE issuing the building permits for the structure. Had that happened in this case, those buildings wouldn't have been built because the cost to stabilize the hillside would be astronomical pricing the land out of development.
There is a far, far easier way assuming the government really wanted to get the individual who did this.
All federal internet traffic goes through Mount Weather, VA in the East (Denton, TX in the west). Every activity done right down to mouse clicks and keyboard keystrokes are recorded with no expectation of "privacy". It is in fact a part of the agreement you sign every time you take the required network security training every year. So finding out who was accessing Wikipedia at the time of the edits becomes extremely easy.
I know this because I have had access to the federal systems for years. It is a job requirement. I do GIS (among other things) and every time I send a map across the federal network I get a call from someone out of Mt. Weather asking what it is and why I am sending it. So yes, they can identify, by user, who is doing what.
Better yet, from TFS...
Google: Judge, we are filing this motion to seal any and all documents for trade secret and proprietary information reasons. To release them would do irreparable harm to our business.
Judge: Granted
No. Deforestation is not the problem. The problem is the entire area is a natural slide area because of the soil type. People encroached on that slide area and expected it to be stable (much the same as they encroach on floodplains and barrier islands and wetlands).
No, what "caused" the loss of life more than anything was people moving into a high risk area.
But purposely didn't tell the most important party in the chain.... The customer that may have been affected! As I stated above, it isn't like the thieves put a metatag on the stolen data saying "this stolen data brought to you by Catch of the Day". So identity theft resulting from this breech wouldn't be connected to them assuming the thieves even get caught.. And by then it is too late.
Customers deserve a right to be informed IMMEDIATELY of breeches in security that may have an effect on them to alert them to watch for suspicious activity or afford them the opportunity to cancel the card before it racks up the outrageous charges.
No one noticed because they didn't know it was Catch of the Day that was the source of their stolen data that may have ruined their credit. And when their customers leave in droves because of this breech of trust, does that sound like a good business decision?
You may have patience and understanding with this kind of corporate malfeasance but I don't. I now know to stay leagues away from this company and to inform everyone I know about their nonchalance attitude towards data security and customer notifications of breeches.