While I agree, I'm not sure how much of a transformation happened. If you look at the origins of the CIA, they were about making the world safe for American business pretty much from the beginning. That's not all they did, or do of course. But Allen and John Foster were Wall Street lawyers after all.
The CIA was about having an American intelligence agency suitable to face the challenge of the Cold War: the enormously powerful and dangerous Communist bloc lead by the nuclear armed Soviet Union which was further fortified by the Warsaw Pact nations, Communist China, and the growing number of Communist insurgencies across the world. Trying to explain the CIA as "making the world safe for American business" is silly.
The Communists killed 100,000,000 people in the last century in all manner of cruel tortures, executions, forced starvations, and many other crimes against humanity. Why wouldn't countries want to prevent that from befalling their people? Of course! The real danger is "Wall Street bankers and lawyers!" Please.
Terrorist groups... The United States National Security Agency, the US Military, and other terrorist operations...
I'm pretty sure that nobody from the US National Security Agency is going to come and detonate a suicide vest while you are in a shopping mall or buying groceries whereas Isis will do that if they can.
The report is a lie.
Well, it certainly doesn't discuss all the facts, it's basically a white wash on Snowden's behalf.
If I was a member of a spy/security agency who wanted more than anything to wipe away the last, feeble laws protecting the privacy and freedom of my country's sheeple, this is precisely the kind of operation I'd set up. All it would take is a few words whispered in the right ear.
The problem is that there is no shortage of extremists around the world that actually want to do this sort of thing, and they actually have caused enormous problems for many governments.
One of the problems with "cynicism" is not knowing where to stop, or when you've gone too far. Then you end up being a kook.
Well, other than the state ownership of the means of production, being ruled by a Communist party, the mandatory classes on Marxism, trying to stamp out bourgeois values and religion, you almost have a point.
Since 2007, Al-Qaeda’s use of encryption technology has been based on the Mujahideen Secrets platform which has developed to include support for mobile, instant messaging, and Macs.
Following the June 2013 Edward Snowden leaks we observe an increased pace of innovation, specifically new competing jihadist platforms and three (3) major new encryption tools from three (3) different organizations – GIMF, Al-Fajr Technical Committee, and ISIS – within a three to five-month time frame of the leaks.
Like every other part of the Constitution and the law the 4th Amendment has specific meanings. Unfortunately many people here fail to understand that and think it has unlimited scope and whatever meaning they can dream up and ignore the actual law. You aren't going to get it right like that.
This particular fact is rife for abuse, because as far as the Courts are concerned it's very hard to be unsuspicious and black at the same time.
What a pity, I thought you had more on the ball than going there, especially since it is nonsense. Well,... it's worse than nonsense.
The Check that keeps this power from being abused isn't that some third party with unique legal knowledge (ie: the Courts) safeguards the people's rights, it's that there's a paper trail and any officer who has a habit of arresting people for no damn good reason is gonna have to explain himself to his superiors.
I guess you haven't heard of the JAG corp, military judges and magistrates, military courts, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, review of sentences, or much else involving military justice. Would it surprise you to learn you might be missing out on some inportant details?
None of that comes from the Constitution proper. It comes from statutes. And the rights granted under the statute are much more limited.
Members of the mlitary have Constitutional rights.
If the NSA and federal government didn't change after the info was released publicly, why are they acting like an internal complaint might have made a difference?
If Snowden had actually identified a genuine legal problem it probably would have. The problem is that he didn't, and that is why nothing really changed. Snowden compromised the national security of the United States and its allies (UK, UK, AU, NZ, CA, FR, GE, SE, ES, IT, others) because of his personal vendetta based on faulty ideas.
You can play with punctuation all you want, but you are stuck with two clauses joined by an and. You're just traveling terrain we've already passed over, and nothing has changed.
I don't think you can identify what constittues honest discussion. What I bring to discussions is typically unwanted facts to puncture the BS coming from people like you. You are blinded to this by your fringe poiltics.
Investigating his fellow Navy personnel he doesn't need warrants,....
You don't know what you are talking about. It is common for military investigators to need a warrant to search the property of service members. It isn't rare at all.
But you should be clear there isn't a universal requirement for warrants to search civilians even for civilian police. There are a number of exceptions in fact.
Since this case is breaking new ground legally and it is working its way through the appellate process it may not be settled yet that what he did was meaningfully out of bounds.
Everyone but you is construing your post to mean that the government investigators was OK to exceed his authority because child molesters are scum.
Not everyone is, no. But a certain portion of people posting are pretending that is what I wrote to suit their own purposes. It is a common problem, especially when you aren't going with the crowd and the mistaken ideas they may have on any particular subject.
When you call enough people idiots for misunderstanding you, you should start to think that you were perhaps unclear.
In an honest discussion with people making good faith posts based on reasonable understandings, perhaps. I'll allow that it does seem possible I may have overtaxed the ability of some portion of the Slashdot community by suggesting something requiring an "AND" to understand: child molesters are scum, AND the investigator exceeded his authority.
Unfortunately on Slashdot there is no shortage of straw man arguments, deliberately misrepresentations, axe grinding, grandstanding (I'll defend my misunderstandings of the Constitutions to the death!), and so forth. There are a range of other explanations from unsavory to far worse. Slashdot doesn't lack for pedophiles, defenders of pedophiles (as opposed to people holding a rigorous view of the law and civil rights), (selectively anti-government) narcissists, anti-Americans, anti-Semites, and people that hold extremist views or are otherwise from the political fringe.
Of course since I have regularly been mod bombed over the years for simply quoting the law or the news contrary to popular opinion, who can tell? Some people have made it clear in the past that they will mod bomb me whenever they have mod points, and I seem to be getting some "interesting" moderation today over a range of posts. On the plus side I haven't seen much in the way of death wishes today.
Or as the old saying goes "if everyone you see is an asshole, look in the mirror".
Don't worry, I already know I have some behind me too. But thanks for the tip.
Just to clear that up for you, Welch asked that because of McCarthy's abusive treatment, not because Communists weren't a threat. The Communists certainly were a threat, and you pretending they were an imaginary boogeyman doesn't change that.
There are enough bodies in the ground and missing limbs or scars on the living due to terrorists associated with al Qaida that we know they aren't imaginary boogeymen either.
As to sex trafficking and pornography involving children.... that's real too.
The so called "security theater" of the TSA has keep thousands of guns and various other dangerous materials off from planes, and it seems pretty clear that militants have tested the boundaries over the years just looking for an opportunity. Is it flawed? Certainly. Is it useless? Probably not.
So your thinking is that the judge didn't understand the legal basis under which the evidence was excluded? Nonsense.
Fourth Amendment challenges are commonplace and the law is well developed there. If there was a strong case it would have presented little burden to make it. PCA law is much more of a reach.
You apparently either didn't read or don't understand the content of the link you provided and how it applies. Didn't this jump out at you?
Military members that reside off base have the constitutional protections against unreasonable and warrantless searches and seizures as any other civilian. The only real exception being that a military member may still be ordered to report to a commander’s office or law enforcement office without an arrest warrant being issued.
Or this?
Military members that reside in on-base housing have significantly greater protections from intrusion from the government. Once junior military members are released from their obligation to live in barracks/dorms, they are given an option to rent on-base housing. Command has virtually no ability to order inspections without a warrant being issued in on-base housing.
Or this?
In some respects, the military is legally obligated to provide additional protections to military members suspected of criminal wrongdoing.
You don't think that every house and computer in a state resides on a military base, do you?
You've misunderstood the quote. He's talking about being a pirate ("black flag"), about going against the state. That you take it as an endorsement of abusing state power to go after a comparatively minuscule threat is sad, predictable, but sad.
What a surprise, you're a liar, and quite possibly a fool. Here is what Mencken wrote:
Pound, it seems to me, is the most picturesque man in the whole movement - a professor turned fantee, Abelard in grand opera. His knowledge is abysmal; he has it readily on tap; moreover, he has a fine ear, and has written many an excellent verse. But now all the glow and gusto of the bard have been transformed into the rage of the pamphleteer: he drops the lute for the bayonet. One sympathizes with him in his choler. The stupidity he combats is actually almost unbearable. Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -- H. L. Mencken, Prejudices: First Series, p. 90
The battle is against human stupidity. You are exactly the sort that Mechken writes about as being temptation to slit throats, a jackass of the lowest character, and a liar. What a pity you didn't post under your own account. I have little doubt we would recognize the name.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree, I'm not sure how much of a transformation happened. If you look at the origins of the CIA, they were about making the world safe for American business pretty much from the beginning. That's not all they did, or do of course. But Allen and John Foster were Wall Street lawyers after all.
The CIA was about having an American intelligence agency suitable to face the challenge of the Cold War: the enormously powerful and dangerous Communist bloc lead by the nuclear armed Soviet Union which was further fortified by the Warsaw Pact nations, Communist China, and the growing number of Communist insurgencies across the world. Trying to explain the CIA as "making the world safe for American business" is silly.
The Communists killed 100,000,000 people in the last century in all manner of cruel tortures, executions, forced starvations, and many other crimes against humanity. Why wouldn't countries want to prevent that from befalling their people? Of course! The real danger is "Wall Street bankers and lawyers!" Please.
The Soviet Story - trailer
Are the new communication methods adopted by jihadists since Snowden's disclosures more effective against surveillance?
Yes.
If you can't show the superiority of these new methods over the old, then Snowden's disclosures didn't really cause any harm in this area.
It's demonstrable.
How Al-Qaeda Uses Encryption Post-Snowden (Part 2) – New Analysis in Collaboration With ReversingLabs
Russian, yes. American? Not so much.
Terrorist groups ... The United States National Security Agency, the US Military, and other terrorist operations ...
I'm pretty sure that nobody from the US National Security Agency is going to come and detonate a suicide vest while you are in a shopping mall or buying groceries whereas Isis will do that if they can.
The report is a lie.
Well, it certainly doesn't discuss all the facts, it's basically a white wash on Snowden's behalf.
Washington Post: The Volokh Conspiracy - As evidence mounts, it’s getting harder to defend Edward Snowden
Looks like a moderator is out to try to hide the truth, or at least dissenting views backed by facts.
No matter how conclusively this is proven, these idiot officials will continue to use Snowden as their scapegoat.
No matter how conclusively it is proven that Snowden caused harm there will be people that continue to proclaim Snowden their hero.
Washington Post: The Volokh Conspiracy - As evidence mounts, it’s getting harder to defend Edward Snowden
If I was a member of a spy/security agency who wanted more than anything to wipe away the last, feeble laws protecting the privacy and freedom of my country's sheeple, this is precisely the kind of operation I'd set up. All it would take is a few words whispered in the right ear.
The problem is that there is no shortage of extremists around the world that actually want to do this sort of thing, and they actually have caused enormous problems for many governments.
One of the problems with "cynicism" is not knowing where to stop, or when you've gone too far. Then you end up being a kook.
Well, other than the state ownership of the means of production, being ruled by a Communist party, the mandatory classes on Marxism, trying to stamp out bourgeois values and religion, you almost have a point.
How Al-Qaeda Uses Encryption Post-Snowden (Part 1)
Analysis Summary
Since 2007, Al-Qaeda’s use of encryption technology has been based on the Mujahideen Secrets platform which has developed to include support for mobile, instant messaging, and Macs.
Following the June 2013 Edward Snowden leaks we observe an increased pace of innovation, specifically new competing jihadist platforms and three (3) major new encryption tools from three (3) different organizations – GIMF, Al-Fajr Technical Committee, and ISIS – within a three to five-month time frame of the leaks.
Washington Post: The Volokh Conspiracy - As evidence mounts, it’s getting harder to defend Edward Snowden
Washington Post: The Volokh Conspiracy - As evidence mounts, it’s getting harder to defend Edward Snowden
How Al-Qaeda Uses Encryption Post-Snowden (Part 1)
We are not amused.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass.
Like every other part of the Constitution and the law the 4th Amendment has specific meanings. Unfortunately many people here fail to understand that and think it has unlimited scope and whatever meaning they can dream up and ignore the actual law. You aren't going to get it right like that.
This particular fact is rife for abuse, because as far as the Courts are concerned it's very hard to be unsuspicious and black at the same time.
What a pity, I thought you had more on the ball than going there, especially since it is nonsense. Well, ... it's worse than nonsense.
The Check that keeps this power from being abused isn't that some third party with unique legal knowledge (ie: the Courts) safeguards the people's rights, it's that there's a paper trail and any officer who has a habit of arresting people for no damn good reason is gonna have to explain himself to his superiors.
I guess you haven't heard of the JAG corp, military judges and magistrates, military courts, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, review of sentences, or much else involving military justice. Would it surprise you to learn you might be missing out on some inportant details?
None of that comes from the Constitution proper. It comes from statutes. And the rights granted under the statute are much more limited.
Members of the mlitary have Constitutional rights.
If the NSA and federal government didn't change after the info was released publicly, why are they acting like an internal complaint might have made a difference?
If Snowden had actually identified a genuine legal problem it probably would have. The problem is that he didn't, and that is why nothing really changed. Snowden compromised the national security of the United States and its allies (UK, UK, AU, NZ, CA, FR, GE, SE, ES, IT, others) because of his personal vendetta based on faulty ideas.
You can play with punctuation all you want, but you are stuck with two clauses joined by an and. You're just traveling terrain we've already passed over, and nothing has changed.
I don't think you can identify what constittues honest discussion. What I bring to discussions is typically unwanted facts to puncture the BS coming from people like you. You are blinded to this by your fringe poiltics.
Presumably Snowden, being an intelligent guy, kept copies of those emails he said he wrote and will be able to produce them one day.
I doubt it. If he had he would have produced them by now. There is no advantage to waiting.
His claims about making complaints are nothing more than a cover story, a sugar pill to make his massive betrayal of his country palatable.
Of course he betrayed your country too, but you would cheer him for that given your politics.
Investigating his fellow Navy personnel he doesn't need warrants,....
You don't know what you are talking about. It is common for military investigators to need a warrant to search the property of service members. It isn't rare at all.
But you should be clear there isn't a universal requirement for warrants to search civilians even for civilian police. There are a number of exceptions in fact.
Well, he didn't molest a child, did he?
Since this case is breaking new ground legally and it is working its way through the appellate process it may not be settled yet that what he did was meaningfully out of bounds.
When you milk it you shouldn't over do it.
Yes, I'll elaborate. You omitted something which is what creates the misunderstanding.
At worst he seems to have exceeded his statutory jurisdiction in pursuit of actual crimes.
"Exceeded his statutory jurisdiction" != "agreeing with another."
Everyone but you is construing your post to mean that the government investigators was OK to exceed his authority because child molesters are scum.
Not everyone is, no. But a certain portion of people posting are pretending that is what I wrote to suit their own purposes. It is a common problem, especially when you aren't going with the crowd and the mistaken ideas they may have on any particular subject.
When you call enough people idiots for misunderstanding you, you should start to think that you were perhaps unclear.
In an honest discussion with people making good faith posts based on reasonable understandings, perhaps. I'll allow that it does seem possible I may have overtaxed the ability of some portion of the Slashdot community by suggesting something requiring an "AND" to understand: child molesters are scum, AND the investigator exceeded his authority.
Unfortunately on Slashdot there is no shortage of straw man arguments, deliberately misrepresentations, axe grinding, grandstanding (I'll defend my misunderstandings of the Constitutions to the death!), and so forth. There are a range of other explanations from unsavory to far worse. Slashdot doesn't lack for pedophiles, defenders of pedophiles (as opposed to people holding a rigorous view of the law and civil rights), (selectively anti-government) narcissists, anti-Americans, anti-Semites, and people that hold extremist views or are otherwise from the political fringe.
Of course since I have regularly been mod bombed over the years for simply quoting the law or the news contrary to popular opinion, who can tell? Some people have made it clear in the past that they will mod bomb me whenever they have mod points, and I seem to be getting some "interesting" moderation today over a range of posts. On the plus side I haven't seen much in the way of death wishes today.
Or as the old saying goes "if everyone you see is an asshole, look in the mirror".
Don't worry, I already know I have some behind me too. But thanks for the tip.
Just to clear that up for you, Welch asked that because of McCarthy's abusive treatment, not because Communists weren't a threat. The Communists certainly were a threat, and you pretending they were an imaginary boogeyman doesn't change that.
There are enough bodies in the ground and missing limbs or scars on the living due to terrorists associated with al Qaida that we know they aren't imaginary boogeymen either.
As to sex trafficking and pornography involving children.... that's real too.
The so called "security theater" of the TSA has keep thousands of guns and various other dangerous materials off from planes, and it seems pretty clear that militants have tested the boundaries over the years just looking for an opportunity. Is it flawed? Certainly. Is it useless? Probably not.
So your thinking is that the judge didn't understand the legal basis under which the evidence was excluded? Nonsense.
Fourth Amendment challenges are commonplace and the law is well developed there. If there was a strong case it would have presented little burden to make it. PCA law is much more of a reach.
You apparently either didn't read or don't understand the content of the link you provided and how it applies. Didn't this jump out at you?
Military members that reside off base have the constitutional protections against unreasonable and warrantless searches and seizures as any other civilian. The only real exception being that a military member may still be ordered to report to a commander’s office or law enforcement office without an arrest warrant being issued.
Or this?
Military members that reside in on-base housing have significantly greater protections from intrusion from the government. Once junior military members are released from their obligation to live in barracks/dorms, they are given an option to rent on-base housing. Command has virtually no ability to order inspections without a warrant being issued in on-base housing.
Or this?
In some respects, the military is legally obligated to provide additional protections to military members suspected of criminal wrongdoing.
You don't think that every house and computer in a state resides on a military base, do you?
You've got it pretty much all wrong.
You've misunderstood the quote. He's talking about being a pirate ("black flag"), about going against the state. That you take it as an endorsement of abusing state power to go after a comparatively minuscule threat is sad, predictable, but sad.
What a surprise, you're a liar, and quite possibly a fool. Here is what Mencken wrote:
Pound, it seems to me, is the most picturesque man in the whole movement - a professor turned fantee, Abelard in grand opera. His knowledge is abysmal; he has it readily on tap; moreover, he has a fine ear, and has written many an excellent verse. But now all the glow and gusto of the bard have been transformed into the rage of the pamphleteer: he drops the lute for the bayonet. One sympathizes with him in his choler. The stupidity he combats is actually almost unbearable. Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -- H. L. Mencken, Prejudices: First Series, p. 90
The battle is against human stupidity. You are exactly the sort that Mechken writes about as being temptation to slit throats, a jackass of the lowest character, and a liar. What a pity you didn't post under your own account. I have little doubt we would recognize the name.
People like you are a danger to life and liberty.
I've got a question for you. Since your post wasn't really connected to anything in the thread, why didn't you just start a new thread?