The Franklin Cover-up. The pretense that Government people are altruistic angels guarding over us all is idiotic. People really need to get a grasp of that fantasy and treat it for what it is.
If you read the post you will see that the memory is still evaluated for particulars which ANY application could grab if it knew the correct system calls. Pass through is NOT what Windows 10 is doing.
You are attempting to conflate a kernel passing device information, with a kernel capturing and analyzing that information. It is not the same thing, and I think people should be insulted reading posts like yours.
While the main point of the article is about a Windows account there is an underlying discussion on overall privacy using Microsoft Windows. This is just the latest article discussing privacy and security concerns. Sure, "some" businesses are always years behind in releasing a new OS. Others are not so far behind, and are very concerned about security so not approving Win10.
For example, as soon as the OS was released we see how the OS will send your keystrokes to Microsoft. Not just what you type into Cortana, IE, or Edge but ALL keystrokes are recorded by the OS. You can disable sending the data to Microsoft, but we have yet to find a way of disabling the keylogger built in to the Kernel. (recorded does not necessarily mean stored long term, but long enough to evaluate in memory.)
Due to that lack of trust, I may have installed Win10 but never created a MS or Azure account. Anything I do on the device is treated as public knowledge because the OS is built to remove privacy from end users. I won't use online banking on the PC with Win10, and logging in to anything is assessed under the assumption that someone from MS and the Government will have full access to the account. When I'm working on sensitive stuff I use Linux.
To the person who marked this a "troll", it is not a troll because you can't comprehend content or context. Of course those benefiting from the lottery see this as an attack on their income stream.
I think it depends on which book you prefer. I happened to be referring to Milton Friedman, but I read the tax on the stupid not long ago in a fantasy book (Pattrick Rothfuss). I still weigh in the favor of what I stated because many people in poverty play the lottery because it's the only way they can see out of poverty. The further people go into poverty the more likely they are to play. It's very easy for the state to appear egalitarian by offering a lottery, but we all see where those education funds we were promised ended up right? I grew up when lotteries were illegal so there was plenty of active discussion. Today there is no such discussion, most places have legal lotteries and people don't think about them at all.
I fully agree that there are plenty of people who are not poor that play the lottery when the pot goes high, but that does not create steady tax for the State. It also does not harm the wealthy nearly as much as the people in poverty.
Obviously people with mod points are ignorant to any discussion on the topic... *sigh*
I am smelling a troll. You start with an ad hominem and then ignore my example. The example I provided was for contracts under common law. You claim that your (this) case is special and your contract is not a contract. I guess by way of fairy farts and unicorns this contract can be declared something else in your world. (a verbal agreement is a contract)
Your example of the modeling contract exception proves my point, though you probably don't get (or if you are trolling don't care). If there is no contract specifying limitation there is no limitation. A closed contract is closed, the end. There could be damages if the pictures were misused, but they were not misused. Even if the guy said in anger to her that he could publish the pictures later, until he does so there is no crime.
No wrong doing, and no criminal case against this person makes it very obvious that he was sued for the _potential_ to do harm. The court deemed him capable of a future crime. I think you are capable of future crime too, so you should be jailed for what ever the State decides you might do in the future. Justice must be equally applied or it's not justice.
The demands for "Government Backdoor to All Encryption" need to stop! Installing a back door makes it available for _EVERYONE_, not just some agency which may or may not have a warrant. Not that we _will_ see it stop, just that it should.
Was the guy guilty of publishing the photos? NO! Since there was no crime, or even misdeeds, this is a premature conviction of slander and libel based on it being possible for him to do so. The fact that you are defending this is bothersome, and I'm guessing that most Germans don't know this happened or been given the opportunity to consider the ramifications.
As a final note for you, I agree that it's important to consider the societal backdrop against which this happens. Germany in particular used to be painfully aware of this, but I can see that all is now forgotten. FWIW, I am an avid student of history but schools don't really teach much any longer. There is no magic wand that removed human nature and the ability of people to behave tyrannically, and the digital age made it much easier to do. Germany, and the rest of the West is just at the end of that peaceful cycle.
"irrevocable" only covers ongoing actions and agreements If they had an agreement that he could continue to take photos at his leisure, that could be revoked and disputed. That said, there is nobody here saying he should be able to do what ever he wants with her and a camera forever. So you are arguing ad absurdum.
Socratic method time. Lets reduce and look at similar law. For example, one can not revoke a work that was already completed by Common Law (no contract required). For example: You can't come back and destroy my bathroom if you did the work because you no longer consent to me having your work in my house. Your opinion of the value of the work is not considered, nor is the method of payment I gave for the work (if any), nor is the amount of time it took you to do the work. We don't even measure the morality of the work and say "it was a shower installed for sexual pleasure" or anything else. The work was completed and the contract closed. That is supposed to be the end of the story.
This rule of law applies to just about everything, except in Germany. Well in fairness I argue similarly against some US and UK laws, so it's not just Germany. It's a "thought police" thing that people everywhere should be damn scared of.
Being forced to destroy your property is not a punishment? I'm not sure what planet you come from, but imagine the outrage on Earth f China made people destroy images.. Oh wait.. that happened already.. In fact this was one of the things we despised about the old USSR and hard line Communists. Along with propaganda, which the West now fully employs against it's own populaces.
This is not about US Copyright Law, it's about common law which evolved for a couple thousand years from Ancient Greek law. Believe it or not, images are not some new revelation. Paintings were the thing before the Camera, so we have this concept in common law for well over a couple thousand years.
Basically the German court came to a completely contradictory ruling. The man obtained the photo's legally and with consent. The person changing their mind well after the fact is like a person claiming "I was raped for the full duration of our relationship because I no longer consent.". Go read the definition of consent. You don't have to like the logical equivalency I just gave, but revoked consent for past actions is exactly why the court told this man to destroy his property.
As the AC above states, this means that the court order itself is useless after the case is over. During the case the guy consented to the courts request to destroy stuff. After the case he can revoke his consent, and the courts already ruled that it was fine to do so.
I'll give you that there should be a buffer zone for consent, especially to something like photos (sexually graphic or not). I'll further give you that consent does not count at all if a person is drugged or drunk. Those things are not what happened. Actors deal with this kind of thing all the time in their contracts. Once you consent the holding company must abide by their end of the deal , but can do with what you consented to as seen fit in agreement with consent. If the images get used in a way that was not agreed to the actor goes to court against the holding company. If there is only consent then there are NO restrictions. In the case that the holding company never does anything with the material, there would not be a court case (at least that would not be called frivolous).
So in a sense the courts ruled that this guy was guilty of a crime he never committed, in addition to ruling that consent has no meaning because you can revoke consent on past completed actions. In case I'm still too vague, that last part makes their ruling contradictory.
There is a huge tax problem in the US. There is an 80,000 page tax code, where 79,500(1) are favoritism, cronyism, and the results of bribery. Yeah, Apple should probably be paying more, but given the current tax code they are working within the law. You don't have to like it, but if that was not the case people would be in jail for tax evasion (especially given the amount of money we are discussing).
Not only does all this favoritism mean that companies like Apple legally pay a fraction of what small businesses pay, but there is something worse afoot. Namely, that there is a massive economy built on top of this pile of corruption. I laugh when I hear people talk about flat tax or "fixing" the tax code because they ignore that the US has at least 50Billion dollars a year relying on our current corrupt tax system.
A flat tax, or even corrections to make the tax code fair, are going to put massive numbers of CPAs, Attorneys, and Accountants out of work. The few people leaving from the IRS that you hear about on rare occasions is quite frankly peanuts. Where does everyone employed by H&R Block, Quickbooks, Kiplingers, and thousands of Law firms work if we fix the tax code? Those are some high paying jobs too, so lots of middle class income requires them to be there or they take a massive hit as well.
While I absolutely want fairness, if shitty laws are on the books why is it wrong to follow the law exactly? We need to fix it, but it's not like waving a magic wand or voting for "that guy/gal" will fix the problems. I'll get off my soap box.
(1) Giving 500 pages for title, cover page, index, and boasting by writers
idclip was not in the original game so I did not forget it. If you didn't know the strings off the top of your head there is no magic.. it's just another crappy search result.
Not to be a dick, but what part of "filing reports with law enforcement." was difficult to grasp exactly? (Happy to improve my English, but you could be a dick cherry picking content to troll with). In the cases you mentioned, the private person can't legally release the videos because it's evidence. (possible != legal) Police agencies can release evidence to the public after criminal proceedings are completed (sometimes prior) because evidence _is_ public property.
As with GP you are conflating private and public property. I gave the example, and I'd be willing to bet that US and UK law on this is the same.
I'll give you the first part, they can put up signs all day long making such claims. That does not in any way give them legal right to do as they wish with your images.
You are either confusing, attempting to conflate, private property to be the same as public property. It is not the same thing by any legal standard.
If I can walk my dog into the grocery store and have it shit on the ground I'll surely allow the grocery store to be treated as public property. They won't, and it is not.
If a person was not given proper notice that they are being filmed on private property then the owner of the property can not use the film for any purpose except for self viewing and filing reports with law enforcement. Otherwise, people would be perfectly within their rights to install cameras in their toilets and invite the neighbors over. (It has happened and people have been sued and criminally prosecuted).
No, it's not like breaking into someone's house to photocopy their private shit. Your analogy sucks! It's more like having a car manufacturer 'accidentally' unlock your car a few times a day when they detect people are walking next to the car. Is the guy that opens your glove box wrong? Absolutely, but he didn't break into the car. He heard the lock pop so was curious as to what was inside.
Not only are you wrong, but you are wrong by car analogy.
Fair point. My kid was in elementary school and noticed the media blatantly influencing the election. "Dad, why do they mention crazy every time they say Ron Paul's name?" and "Why did they cut the speech to make it look like he said something he didn't?"
That said, Trump is not a career politician and can run his own campaign financially. Carson is another who is pretty popular for a guy who has never been a politician. I don't think that says that the Republican party has changed as much as the American populace is fed up with the corruption. 6 Months ago both parties said "Jeb vs. Hillary" and today it's not quite so clear. I know a whole lot of Dems who are not voting party this time because of how Hillary has been handled by everyone. Media has not crucified her for the scandals (of which there are plenty), or bothered to mention her double speak (where we have some hefty and career ending positions like pro-Feminism but pro Saudi Arabia). The debates have been intentionally hidden from view to protect Hillary as well.
The fact that Bernie Sanders can still hold a lead in many places even after his own party joined in with the media lambasting him as a "Socialist" says as much about the Democratic party as Trump does for the Republican party. People are fed up.
I am wondering if the EFF knows one "Jennifer Lynch - Senior Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation" is providing a huge amount of handy reviews for these products which include gems like.
You’ll feel like a powerful Greek gladiator with the Spartacus II. It’s the smallest high-powered dual-band system on the market and can be moved easily from a plane to a car or even to your body — all without changing the system. While the $180,000 price tag might put it out of reach for smaller agencies, its cross-border capabilities could make it easy to acquire with DHS funding. And if it’s used at the border, you might not even need to get a warrant before you use it.
and
If you want a device that doesn’t just locate your target but makes it impossible for him to make a call, look no further than the Stargazer III. In “attack mode,” the Stargazer can jam a handset and capture its metadata at the same time it pinpoints your target’s location. But watch out — the Stargazer may jam all the other phones in the area too — including your own.
And not to be left out the ACLU has one "Nathan Wessler - Staff Attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project" providing reviews. including things like.
The National Security Agency designed this little number itself, cutting out the usual corporate middleman.
and
From the maker of the Stingray, this device provides the added power to listen in on calls and read text messages. Also useful for kicking nearby phones off the network (you can choose between just blocking a single target phone or scrambling the signals of all phones in the area). Take note: Wiretapping calls and text messages requires a special “superwarrant” signed by a judge. Playing around with a Blackfin without adequate court supervision can get you in a lot of trouble.
Which in fairness this one device mentions a warrant. Most of the others just talk about how great they are at sucking up data and fucking up people in an area.
Aren't the ACLU and EFF supposed to be the good guys? The leak would probably upset me if this was military stuff used in a war zone. What we see is quite different, where the Federal Government is happy to fund these devices for virtually any police agency in the US and devices used against it's own citizens. I'm upset to the point of being nauseous, but not at the leak.
Society does not exist without Government, so you can't separate the two as you attempt to do. Even looking at the two definitions and being pedantic you can not describe one without the other.
What one can do is define various forms of Government and describe their powers and/or limitations. A Tribe of people being one of the smallest societies for humans has a form of Government. Some tribes may use Monarchy, others may use a democracy. Further, some monarchies may be more tyrannical than others. No matter how we define it, "Government" is universally part of society.
What you are attempting to do is claim that Government only exists within parameters of your opinion, which is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
The Franklin Cover-up. The pretense that Government people are altruistic angels guarding over us all is idiotic. People really need to get a grasp of that fantasy and treat it for what it is.
If you read the post you will see that the memory is still evaluated for particulars which ANY application could grab if it knew the correct system calls. Pass through is NOT what Windows 10 is doing.
You are attempting to conflate a kernel passing device information, with a kernel capturing and analyzing that information. It is not the same thing, and I think people should be insulted reading posts like yours.
While the main point of the article is about a Windows account there is an underlying discussion on overall privacy using Microsoft Windows. This is just the latest article discussing privacy and security concerns. Sure, "some" businesses are always years behind in releasing a new OS. Others are not so far behind, and are very concerned about security so not approving Win10.
For example, as soon as the OS was released we see how the OS will send your keystrokes to Microsoft. Not just what you type into Cortana, IE, or Edge but ALL keystrokes are recorded by the OS. You can disable sending the data to Microsoft, but we have yet to find a way of disabling the keylogger built in to the Kernel. (recorded does not necessarily mean stored long term, but long enough to evaluate in memory.)
Due to that lack of trust, I may have installed Win10 but never created a MS or Azure account. Anything I do on the device is treated as public knowledge because the OS is built to remove privacy from end users. I won't use online banking on the PC with Win10, and logging in to anything is assessed under the assumption that someone from MS and the Government will have full access to the account. When I'm working on sensitive stuff I use Linux.
To the person who marked this a "troll", it is not a troll because you can't comprehend content or context. Of course those benefiting from the lottery see this as an attack on their income stream.
I think it depends on which book you prefer. I happened to be referring to Milton Friedman, but I read the tax on the stupid not long ago in a fantasy book (Pattrick Rothfuss). I still weigh in the favor of what I stated because many people in poverty play the lottery because it's the only way they can see out of poverty. The further people go into poverty the more likely they are to play. It's very easy for the state to appear egalitarian by offering a lottery, but we all see where those education funds we were promised ended up right? I grew up when lotteries were illegal so there was plenty of active discussion. Today there is no such discussion, most places have legal lotteries and people don't think about them at all.
I fully agree that there are plenty of people who are not poor that play the lottery when the pot goes high, but that does not create steady tax for the State. It also does not harm the wealthy nearly as much as the people in poverty.
Obviously people with mod points are ignorant to any discussion on the topic... *sigh*
I am smelling a troll. You start with an ad hominem and then ignore my example. The example I provided was for contracts under common law. You claim that your (this) case is special and your contract is not a contract. I guess by way of fairy farts and unicorns this contract can be declared something else in your world. (a verbal agreement is a contract)
Your example of the modeling contract exception proves my point, though you probably don't get (or if you are trolling don't care). If there is no contract specifying limitation there is no limitation. A closed contract is closed, the end. There could be damages if the pictures were misused, but they were not misused. Even if the guy said in anger to her that he could publish the pictures later, until he does so there is no crime.
No wrong doing, and no criminal case against this person makes it very obvious that he was sued for the _potential_ to do harm. The court deemed him capable of a future crime. I think you are capable of future crime too, so you should be jailed for what ever the State decides you might do in the future. Justice must be equally applied or it's not justice.
The Lottery is a hidden Tax on the Poor.
The demands for "Government Backdoor to All Encryption" need to stop! Installing a back door makes it available for _EVERYONE_, not just some agency which may or may not have a warrant. Not that we _will_ see it stop, just that it should.
Was the guy guilty of publishing the photos? NO! Since there was no crime, or even misdeeds, this is a premature conviction of slander and libel based on it being possible for him to do so. The fact that you are defending this is bothersome, and I'm guessing that most Germans don't know this happened or been given the opportunity to consider the ramifications.
As a final note for you, I agree that it's important to consider the societal backdrop against which this happens. Germany in particular used to be painfully aware of this, but I can see that all is now forgotten. FWIW, I am an avid student of history but schools don't really teach much any longer. There is no magic wand that removed human nature and the ability of people to behave tyrannically, and the digital age made it much easier to do. Germany, and the rest of the West is just at the end of that peaceful cycle.
"irrevocable" only covers ongoing actions and agreements If they had an agreement that he could continue to take photos at his leisure, that could be revoked and disputed. That said, there is nobody here saying he should be able to do what ever he wants with her and a camera forever. So you are arguing ad absurdum.
Socratic method time. Lets reduce and look at similar law. For example, one can not revoke a work that was already completed by Common Law (no contract required). For example: You can't come back and destroy my bathroom if you did the work because you no longer consent to me having your work in my house. Your opinion of the value of the work is not considered, nor is the method of payment I gave for the work (if any), nor is the amount of time it took you to do the work. We don't even measure the morality of the work and say "it was a shower installed for sexual pleasure" or anything else. The work was completed and the contract closed. That is supposed to be the end of the story.
This rule of law applies to just about everything, except in Germany. Well in fairness I argue similarly against some US and UK laws, so it's not just Germany. It's a "thought police" thing that people everywhere should be damn scared of.
Being forced to destroy your property is not a punishment? I'm not sure what planet you come from, but imagine the outrage on Earth f China made people destroy images.. Oh wait.. that happened already.. In fact this was one of the things we despised about the old USSR and hard line Communists. Along with propaganda, which the West now fully employs against it's own populaces.
This is not about US Copyright Law, it's about common law which evolved for a couple thousand years from Ancient Greek law. Believe it or not, images are not some new revelation. Paintings were the thing before the Camera, so we have this concept in common law for well over a couple thousand years.
Basically the German court came to a completely contradictory ruling. The man obtained the photo's legally and with consent. The person changing their mind well after the fact is like a person claiming "I was raped for the full duration of our relationship because I no longer consent.". Go read the definition of consent. You don't have to like the logical equivalency I just gave, but revoked consent for past actions is exactly why the court told this man to destroy his property.
As the AC above states, this means that the court order itself is useless after the case is over. During the case the guy consented to the courts request to destroy stuff. After the case he can revoke his consent, and the courts already ruled that it was fine to do so.
I'll give you that there should be a buffer zone for consent, especially to something like photos (sexually graphic or not). I'll further give you that consent does not count at all if a person is drugged or drunk. Those things are not what happened. Actors deal with this kind of thing all the time in their contracts. Once you consent the holding company must abide by their end of the deal , but can do with what you consented to as seen fit in agreement with consent. If the images get used in a way that was not agreed to the actor goes to court against the holding company. If there is only consent then there are NO restrictions. In the case that the holding company never does anything with the material, there would not be a court case (at least that would not be called frivolous).
So in a sense the courts ruled that this guy was guilty of a crime he never committed, in addition to ruling that consent has no meaning because you can revoke consent on past completed actions. In case I'm still too vague, that last part makes their ruling contradictory.
There is a huge tax problem in the US. There is an 80,000 page tax code, where 79,500(1) are favoritism, cronyism, and the results of bribery. Yeah, Apple should probably be paying more, but given the current tax code they are working within the law. You don't have to like it, but if that was not the case people would be in jail for tax evasion (especially given the amount of money we are discussing).
Not only does all this favoritism mean that companies like Apple legally pay a fraction of what small businesses pay, but there is something worse afoot. Namely, that there is a massive economy built on top of this pile of corruption. I laugh when I hear people talk about flat tax or "fixing" the tax code because they ignore that the US has at least 50Billion dollars a year relying on our current corrupt tax system.
A flat tax, or even corrections to make the tax code fair, are going to put massive numbers of CPAs, Attorneys, and Accountants out of work. The few people leaving from the IRS that you hear about on rare occasions is quite frankly peanuts. Where does everyone employed by H&R Block, Quickbooks, Kiplingers, and thousands of Law firms work if we fix the tax code? Those are some high paying jobs too, so lots of middle class income requires them to be there or they take a massive hit as well.
While I absolutely want fairness, if shitty laws are on the books why is it wrong to follow the law exactly? We need to fix it, but it's not like waving a magic wand or voting for "that guy/gal" will fix the problems. I'll get off my soap box.
(1) Giving 500 pages for title, cover page, index, and boasting by writers
idclip was not in the original game so I did not forget it. If you didn't know the strings off the top of your head there is no magic.. it's just another crappy search result.
iddqd idkfa
Let's see who knows those two magic strings...
He ain't going to be bringing you or I any, so not worth the payout.
That is some well hidden sarcasm. I thought that at first, but the article didn't really make it clear. I even turned off NoScript.
Not to be a dick, but what part of "filing reports with law enforcement." was difficult to grasp exactly? (Happy to improve my English, but you could be a dick cherry picking content to troll with). In the cases you mentioned, the private person can't legally release the videos because it's evidence. (possible != legal) Police agencies can release evidence to the public after criminal proceedings are completed (sometimes prior) because evidence _is_ public property.
As with GP you are conflating private and public property. I gave the example, and I'd be willing to bet that US and UK law on this is the same.
I'll give you the first part, they can put up signs all day long making such claims. That does not in any way give them legal right to do as they wish with your images.
You are either confusing, attempting to conflate, private property to be the same as public property. It is not the same thing by any legal standard.
If I can walk my dog into the grocery store and have it shit on the ground I'll surely allow the grocery store to be treated as public property. They won't, and it is not.
If a person was not given proper notice that they are being filmed on private property then the owner of the property can not use the film for any purpose except for self viewing and filing reports with law enforcement. Otherwise, people would be perfectly within their rights to install cameras in their toilets and invite the neighbors over. (It has happened and people have been sued and criminally prosecuted).
No, it's not like breaking into someone's house to photocopy their private shit. Your analogy sucks! It's more like having a car manufacturer 'accidentally' unlock your car a few times a day when they detect people are walking next to the car. Is the guy that opens your glove box wrong? Absolutely, but he didn't break into the car. He heard the lock pop so was curious as to what was inside.
Not only are you wrong, but you are wrong by car analogy.
Fair point. My kid was in elementary school and noticed the media blatantly influencing the election. "Dad, why do they mention crazy every time they say Ron Paul's name?" and "Why did they cut the speech to make it look like he said something he didn't?"
That said, Trump is not a career politician and can run his own campaign financially. Carson is another who is pretty popular for a guy who has never been a politician. I don't think that says that the Republican party has changed as much as the American populace is fed up with the corruption. 6 Months ago both parties said "Jeb vs. Hillary" and today it's not quite so clear. I know a whole lot of Dems who are not voting party this time because of how Hillary has been handled by everyone. Media has not crucified her for the scandals (of which there are plenty), or bothered to mention her double speak (where we have some hefty and career ending positions like pro-Feminism but pro Saudi Arabia). The debates have been intentionally hidden from view to protect Hillary as well.
The fact that Bernie Sanders can still hold a lead in many places even after his own party joined in with the media lambasting him as a "Socialist" says as much about the Democratic party as Trump does for the Republican party. People are fed up.
I am wondering if the EFF knows one "Jennifer Lynch - Senior Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation" is providing a huge amount of handy reviews for these products which include gems like.
You’ll feel like a powerful Greek gladiator with the Spartacus II. It’s the smallest high-powered dual-band system on the market and can be moved easily from a plane to a car or even to your body — all without changing the system. While the $180,000 price tag might put it out of reach for smaller agencies, its cross-border capabilities could make it easy to acquire with DHS funding. And if it’s used at the border, you might not even need to get a warrant before you use it.
and
If you want a device that doesn’t just locate your target but makes it impossible for him to make a call, look no further than the Stargazer III. In “attack mode,” the Stargazer can jam a handset and capture its metadata at the same time it pinpoints your target’s location. But watch out — the Stargazer may jam all the other phones in the area too — including your own.
And not to be left out the ACLU has one "Nathan Wessler - Staff Attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project" providing reviews. including things like.
The National Security Agency designed this little number itself, cutting out the usual corporate middleman.
and
From the maker of the Stingray, this device provides the added power to listen in on calls and read text messages. Also useful for kicking nearby phones off the network (you can choose between just blocking a single target phone or scrambling the signals of all phones in the area). Take note: Wiretapping calls and text messages requires a special “superwarrant” signed by a judge. Playing around with a Blackfin without adequate court supervision can get you in a lot of trouble.
Which in fairness this one device mentions a warrant. Most of the others just talk about how great they are at sucking up data and fucking up people in an area.
Aren't the ACLU and EFF supposed to be the good guys? The leak would probably upset me if this was military stuff used in a war zone. What we see is quite different, where the Federal Government is happy to fund these devices for virtually any police agency in the US and devices used against it's own citizens. I'm upset to the point of being nauseous, but not at the leak.
Society does not exist without Government, so you can't separate the two as you attempt to do. Even looking at the two definitions and being pedantic you can not describe one without the other.
What one can do is define various forms of Government and describe their powers and/or limitations. A Tribe of people being one of the smallest societies for humans has a form of Government. Some tribes may use Monarchy, others may use a democracy. Further, some monarchies may be more tyrannical than others. No matter how we define it, "Government" is universally part of society.
What you are attempting to do is claim that Government only exists within parameters of your opinion, which is wrong.