Disclaimer: This is my personal view/analysis of the subject.
Google owns Mozilla, plain and simple.
Yes, and no...
Thing flip side of the coin is that as long as Firefox has any significant share of the market, Google can't take the risk of dropping Mozilla.
Sure if Mozilla did a deal with bing, many users would change back or drop Firefox in favor of Chrome to get Google.
The keyword here is many, that could be anywhere from all Firefox users to none. But Google can't take that risk, not when they already have a good business. 20% marked share (hence, extra data) might just be what bing needs to take off.
Not paying Mozilla is a huge risk for Google, and a risk without significant rewards.
So you argue that you need to spy in order to trust your allies... I'm not sure the argument is invalid.
But I'm a hesitant to align with it.
Do you think your allies need to spy on you? and your citizen?
If not, then clearly this puts limitations on the amount of trust we can have in the US.
I have reasonable faith that no NATO member is going to sellout the alliance, and even so, the effects would be limited.
Note, the cold war is over, we're not going to have a third world war... If so it's an end of world event, no need to prepare, it doesn't matter:)
I only went as far as to read the summary, but when I saw:
Then look at what we know, what we don't know, and what we should know.
Where have I heard that before... Fox News... Rings a bell... They talk a lot about things they don't know:)
Which is easy, especially if the author of TFA is too lazy to do any real research, then obviously, there's a lot the punk doesn't know...
It's all FUD - talking about arbitrary concerns without any substance to support claims, is FUD and very easy to do... tsk tsk, move along..
I still don't see the problem. Spying on foreign countries has happened since they were invented, it's entirely legal and expecting it not to happen strikes me as hopelessly naive.
Spying on citizens of foreign countries is still a violation of the human rights convention. It's not legal!
Spying on foreign diplomats is a violation of Vienna convention, tapping into foreign government networks is an aggression (act of war, US. govt. said so a while ago) not legal without prior declaration of war (not all declarations of war are legal either).
Sure "legal" is hard to define, but let's just say there's nothing honest, fair or acceptable about spying on your allies!
On topic, I don't see a problem with having some level of surveillance, but it must be transparent!
If you tap cables or whatever, let the public know and make sure access, disclosure and queries are all subjected to public court hearings.
Then it's fair, honest and acceptable, let's call that "legal".
This can be solved by technical means... and wikipedia ought to be more aggressively experimenting with this on beta sites etc.
Editors could be asked to identify themselves, or to post bail after committing a bad edit... Edits could be reviewed, the entire system could be based on reputation.
And the system could fortified against hacks, secret court orders, etc. by requiring each edit and/or review to be cryptographically signed.
I also think that wikipedia should go after these PR companies by legal means. With a sufficiently aggressive EULA, one could probably go after PR companies and their clients for violation of computer fraud act.
The irony of nailing a big cooperation that supported the computer frauds act would be well worth it.
Wikipedia isn't as distributed and independent as Usenet was, there is a central entity here, setting rules and guidelines. This problem is solvable by technical means, and both PR companies and their legitimate clients could probably be sued.
Sure, it's hard to do... but the PR blowback for the companies involved would be massive, I'm sure maintream media would report it if wikipedia sued Viacom:)
Yes, it would be hard to do... probably not realistic, but still viacom surely did have malice intent, that's no legal - we don't need an internet government to figure that out...
Okay, maybe that was just a crazy rambling... I should get some work done instead... moving on:)
limits surveillance of US civilians by our government.
It shouldn't just be US citizens, but innocent people in general.
It shouldn't just be US citizens, but people in general.
There fixed it for you... privacy is a human right, I'm not saying convicted criminals can't be tracked. But even such surveillance should have limit both in time and reach.
We have a rule in the US that a human must make the final call before delivering any ordinance, be it by soldier, drone, or robot. The problem is that many foreign countries that figure this out won't have this moral impediment. Yes, this is worth worrying about...
Having a human making the call is not enough, if take your soldiers out of the battlefield you don't have a reason to use lethal force anymore.
The use of lethal force in only acceptable because the alternative is that the enemy kills you. But if you deploy a robot, the alternative is that the enemy destroys
an expensive piece of hardware. You no longer have a valid reason to employ lethal force, once you deploy robots.
The thing I don't get is why there's all this research into killer robots... They're useless, as is drones are used for assassinations, I'm sorry I don't hear many
US allies backing the US on that policy. Using them on the ground won't win you anything but further alienation from your European allies.
I don't get why the US is so focused on killing, that's not the goal, we're involved in a different kind of conflicts, they require non-lethal weapons, and sure if we can keep humans out of it, I'm all pro that... but you shouldn't shoot somebody for throwing rocks at $ 10k robot, if there's no humans on the line it's just mallice, not warfare!
Most people don't know what this is about... most don't understand how the internet works now...
If ISPs tells them this will be better, why shouldn't they believe them...
In a world as complex as today, only a few things can be solved by wallet voting...
Please don't hold me accountable for human right, animal welfare, workers rights, net neutrality, global warming, etc. whenever I use my credit card.
There's no way I can possibly choose the politically correct product every time, it's a lost cause...
Just fyi greenland isn't a sovereign country... it's a self governing providence of Denmark.
And have been a part of Denmark for about a 1000 years - by comparison the US is a young country:)
In any event, I wouldn't try my luck with greenland, it's really dark and they're not super rich either... and have lots of problems...
But Norway, might actually be a good choice these days... They have too much money/oil, anyone with a university degree in something even remotely useful has a good chance of landing a job... (Which is a pretty essential thing in any immigration procedure).
That said, most European countries aren't particularly open to immigration, unless you're useful or willing to marry some one:)
But the end-points would still be known... Essentially, leaking your entire address book...
Sure, there's TOR and similar ideas, but requires trusting third party servers, that might very well be NSA hubs as well...
And forget about running your own TOR instance unless you want the police to come knocking on your door, we've heard about that on slashdot before...:)
Looking at the other replies too, this should probably also be done a national plan...
In Denmark where registration fees are 2x car price, people don't use cars with number plates on tracks (unless they have too much money).
Anyways, a workaround would be to make it legal to remove it... But requiring that cars are fitted with it once sold...
Most people wouldn't care to remove it... and insurances premiums might be affected by removal...
Mitigate biggest risk and immediately something else becomes biggest. At some points you have to stop because every next risk is smaller and more has to be sacrificed for smaller piece of safety.
Who says we always have to sacrifice freedom for increased safety. Yes, protecting us against risk from other humans often involve this, but it doesn't have to.
We can reduce risk of violent crimes by giving people an alternative (decent social benefits, unemployment support, free education or just after school programs).
We can reduce of traffic accidents by requiring more education for driver licenses.
We can reduce risk of repeat offenders by making better rehabilitation or just prisons that honor the human rights convention.
The list goes on...
My point is: We need to stop thinking hard solutions are the only solutions...
Things like after school programs have been shown to reduce crime. And we don't have to reduce crime much in a neighborhood in order for the money to come back tenfold in terms of reduce insurance payout, less police work, fewer prison cells, more contributing members of society, etc..
(Notice how suggestions above doesn't require anybody to sacrifice essential freedoms).
Soft solutions are also solutions, they reduce risks and have a high return on interest, it's just not as simple to prove that they work.
So no, we need to rethink how we reduce risks... Yes, there are also some risk which we must accept, obviously, but there is still work to do.
I don't know if I'll apply for a permanent visa at some point
Hate to break it to you, but you yourself can't. Your employer could, or your american spouse, if you'd happen to have one, could. That's it.
Yeah, okay... but none of them are going to apply for a permanent visa on my behalf unless I want them to:)
So, at the end of the day, it is my decision as to whether or not I'm interested...
They should just start small instead...
Make a law that says from 2016 all new cars must be limited to 150 km/h.
There aren't many places where you are allowed to drive 150 km/h, and even fewer places where this is possible.
No it wouldn't stop much, it would make highspeed highway chases a bit slower, and prevent total morons from driving 180 km/h through small towns killing innocent children on their way to school.
Small step, easy to make, cost efficient and nobody can say that 150 km/h limits the freedom of motorists.
Ontopic: The news here is not what the EU is considering, but the fact that they choose not to go through with this because it would extremely unpopular in the general population.
IMO, a decent call, everybody have something to say about speed limits, therefore these things are better left to be decided at state level.
At state level more people would be able to say there piece, instead of being discontent with a decision made at EU-level, furthermore there may be valid reasons for different speed limits and restrictions in different countries. (Technically, this might also be done using the GPS system, then leaving it to each country to decide whether or not they want speed limits strictly enforced, or by what percentage they want it enforced, who ever said it had to be strict!).
So keep it together, please; somebody's going to have to step up for refugees if the US keeps going downhill towards tyranny, and that's a LOT of people looking for 'any port in a storm.'
I don't hope the world will come to that... Seriously, I'm moving to the US next month:)
Actually, and maybe I'm just naive, but I think that the US will get better... I mean you got healthcare fixed...
Yes, yes, it's not perfect, but at least anyone who is responsible and isn't poor will be able to get/change healthcare insurance despite pre-existing conditions (starting 2014, I think).
The U.S. isn't perfect, but you're are big country, there're also dubious countries in the EU too.
Only, in the EU poverty, corruption, etc. is just more geographically clustered than in the US.
College saving really should be a family affair. From the moment you are born, your parent or parents should be putting away something regularly. That something over the course of 18 years and coupled with one working themselves when they are of age should amount to a fair chunk of change.
I don't want to do the numbers, that's hard:)
And we probably make numbers that says both things... In any event for this plan to succeed you need not to have any unexpected problems.
Medical issues, job issues, loss of spouse, disability, car accident, really any form of bad luck...
And when that's done, you need to be perfect... Meaning you can't make any mistakes, sign a bad contract, buy Christmas presents, go on a vacation or just pop a soda...
Please don't tell me you want people to be perfect, nobody is perfect, I know sodas are bad, but I pop one every now and then anyways...
The difference between me a poor person is that if I make a financial mistake, sign a contract on a phone, apartment, TV, cable...
Then it might cost me a lot of money, I'll be pissed, I'll feel stupid, I'll learn, but fees and interest won't land me in bottomless dept.
A poor person who sign a bad contract for an phone will likely end up in bottomless dept, considering late-payment fees, interest, etc.
If we're going to open our doors to foreign technology workers, it shouldn't be because some technology or pharma executive wrote an editorial in the WSJ.
Well, said... As someone moving to SF on an H1B next month, I'm usually pro the H1B program:)
But I do want to point out that not everybody abuses the H1B program.
I'm not relocation from a third world country, or to work at a third world salary, in fact could get similar wage here... actually I could just do job remotely.
Or get a well paying job at a company here... but the job wouldn't be as fun:)
I think mobility is important for many reasons, in my considerations are things such as SF having a lot of tech companies, startups and etc...
I don't know if I'll apply for a permanent visa at some point, but if I move back the contacts I'll be making will be invaluable, on both ends.
At the end of the day, if you don't let tech workers from around the world in, tech workers from around the globe will cluster in another valley.
Note. with all the NSA scandals, lack of welfare, poor security, crime, human rights violations, war crimes, etc. that the US has got going, I'm starting to wonder why I'm relocation.
On the other hand, I did all the paper pushing... So I might as well try it out:)
Anyways, feel free to tell me why the US is so awesome, I kinda need it...
weapons that deliver a chemical reaction causing bits of metal flying through your eye, skin and lung are good.
It's only in American you'll hear someone say that weapons are good.
Also conventional weapons are not allowed to kill indiscriminately either... They are not allowed to be dangerous generations later, i.e. mines forbidden.
You'll also find that most responsible countries are taking steps towards forbidding cluster munition:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions
The phrase "most responsible countries" obviously excludes the U.S.
The point is, it's not always easy to see when a weapon is illegal, teargas if okay for instance...
But releasing toxic gas killing civilians is obviously crossing a line.
Madsen named seven EU countries that have been substantially engaged in communications intelligence... US
The article you refer says Madsen has
hmm, rather “out there” views
And later quotes Madsen for:
Wayne Madsen: I don’t believe the attacks were planned by the FBI. I believe they were an operation carried out by Mossad, Saudi intelligence,...
I'm not saying that European countries don't collaborate with US intelligence agencies, it's their job to do so.
They probably also share information, but at request, and with a court order to collect the information.
Madsen said the countries had “formal second and third party status” under signal intelligence (sigint) agreements that compels them to hand over data, including mobile phone and internet information to the NSA if requested.
Emphasis mine...
Also warrantless wire tapping on a large scale wouldn't be legal here.
All of that said, if the Snowden revelations have taught us anything, it's that we're not paranoid... So yeah, maybe things are as bad as we can possibly imagine.
It is an American, patriotic act of nonviolent civil disobedence.
Awesome... That's the kind of thing we need... and the right way to respond...
Unfortunately this is a tech issue, you need to reach a significant amount of people, do you really think that's realistic?
I mean just getting people to use duckduckgo would take forever, TOR, probably never going to happen.. Encrypted emails, I seriously doubt it...
Slashdot Mirror
Google owns Mozilla, plain and simple.
Yes, and no...
Thing flip side of the coin is that as long as Firefox has any significant share of the market, Google can't take the risk of dropping Mozilla.
Sure if Mozilla did a deal with bing, many users would change back or drop Firefox in favor of Chrome to get Google.
The keyword here is many, that could be anywhere from all Firefox users to none. But Google can't take that risk, not when they already have a good business.
20% marked share (hence, extra data) might just be what bing needs to take off.
Not paying Mozilla is a huge risk for Google, and a risk without significant rewards.
So you argue that you need to spy in order to trust your allies... I'm not sure the argument is invalid.
:)
But I'm a hesitant to align with it.
Do you think your allies need to spy on you? and your citizen?
If not, then clearly this puts limitations on the amount of trust we can have in the US.
I have reasonable faith that no NATO member is going to sellout the alliance, and even so, the effects would be limited.
Note, the cold war is over, we're not going to have a third world war... If so it's an end of world event, no need to prepare, it doesn't matter
Then look at what we know, what we don't know, and what we should know.
Where have I heard that before... Fox News... Rings a bell... They talk a lot about things they don't know :)
Which is easy, especially if the author of TFA is too lazy to do any real research, then obviously, there's a lot the punk doesn't know...
It's all FUD - talking about arbitrary concerns without any substance to support claims, is FUD and very easy to do... tsk tsk, move along..
I still don't see the problem. Spying on foreign countries has happened since they were invented, it's entirely legal and expecting it not to happen strikes me as hopelessly naive.
Spying on citizens of foreign countries is still a violation of the human rights convention. It's not legal!
Spying on foreign diplomats is a violation of Vienna convention, tapping into foreign government networks is an aggression (act of war, US. govt. said so a while ago) not legal without prior declaration of war (not all declarations of war are legal either).
Sure "legal" is hard to define, but let's just say there's nothing honest, fair or acceptable about spying on your allies!
On topic, I don't see a problem with having some level of surveillance, but it must be transparent!
If you tap cables or whatever, let the public know and make sure access, disclosure and queries are all subjected to public court hearings.
Then it's fair, honest and acceptable, let's call that "legal".
Nope, bad idea...
This can be solved by technical means... and wikipedia ought to be more aggressively experimenting with this on beta sites etc.
:)
:)
Editors could be asked to identify themselves, or to post bail after committing a bad edit... Edits could be reviewed, the entire system could be based on reputation.
And the system could fortified against hacks, secret court orders, etc. by requiring each edit and/or review to be cryptographically signed.
I also think that wikipedia should go after these PR companies by legal means. With a sufficiently aggressive EULA, one could probably go after PR companies and their clients for violation of computer fraud act.
The irony of nailing a big cooperation that supported the computer frauds act would be well worth it.
Wikipedia isn't as distributed and independent as Usenet was, there is a central entity here, setting rules and guidelines.
This problem is solvable by technical means, and both PR companies and their legitimate clients could probably be sued.
Sure, it's hard to do... but the PR blowback for the companies involved would be massive, I'm sure maintream media would report it if wikipedia sued Viacom
Yes, it would be hard to do... probably not realistic, but still viacom surely did have malice intent, that's no legal - we don't need an internet government to figure that out...
Okay, maybe that was just a crazy rambling... I should get some work done instead... moving on
Sure you run script of the internet as root, just like on Windows XP :)
limits surveillance of US civilians by our government.
It shouldn't just be US citizens, but innocent people in general.
It shouldn't just be US citizens, but people in general.
There fixed it for you... privacy is a human right, I'm not saying convicted criminals can't be tracked. But even such surveillance should have limit both in time and reach.
We have a rule in the US that a human must make the final call before delivering any ordinance, be it by soldier, drone, or robot. The problem is that many foreign countries that figure this out won't have this moral impediment. Yes, this is worth worrying about...
Having a human making the call is not enough, if take your soldiers out of the battlefield you don't have a reason to use lethal force anymore.
The use of lethal force in only acceptable because the alternative is that the enemy kills you. But if you deploy a robot, the alternative is that the enemy destroys
an expensive piece of hardware. You no longer have a valid reason to employ lethal force, once you deploy robots.
The thing I don't get is why there's all this research into killer robots... They're useless, as is drones are used for assassinations, I'm sorry I don't hear many
US allies backing the US on that policy. Using them on the ground won't win you anything but further alienation from your European allies.
I don't get why the US is so focused on killing, that's not the goal, we're involved in a different kind of conflicts, they require non-lethal weapons, and sure if we can keep humans out of it, I'm all pro that... but you shouldn't shoot somebody for throwing rocks at $ 10k robot, if there's no humans on the line it's just mallice, not warfare!
No, in Europe... he would probably be considered a conservative nationalist, on the far far right... This just on his foreign policy.
Yes, but tools given to one are (ab-)usable by the other.
Tell that to the NRA :)
Mozlla also does webmaker, education and let's not forget Firefox OS...
Vote with your wallets people.
Most people don't know what this is about... most don't understand how the internet works now...
If ISPs tells them this will be better, why shouldn't they believe them...
In a world as complex as today, only a few things can be solved by wallet voting...
Please don't hold me accountable for human right, animal welfare, workers rights, net neutrality, global warming, etc. whenever I use my credit card.
There's no way I can possibly choose the politically correct product every time, it's a lost cause...
Just fyi greenland isn't a sovereign country... it's a self governing providence of Denmark. :)
:)
And have been a part of Denmark for about a 1000 years - by comparison the US is a young country
In any event, I wouldn't try my luck with greenland, it's really dark and they're not super rich either... and have lots of problems...
But Norway, might actually be a good choice these days... They have too much money/oil, anyone with a university degree in something even remotely useful has a good chance of landing a job... (Which is a pretty essential thing in any immigration procedure).
That said, most European countries aren't particularly open to immigration, unless you're useful or willing to marry some one
But the end-points would still be known... Essentially, leaking your entire address book...
:)
Sure, there's TOR and similar ideas, but requires trusting third party servers, that might very well be NSA hubs as well...
And forget about running your own TOR instance unless you want the police to come knocking on your door, we've heard about that on slashdot before...
Looking at the other replies too, this should probably also be done a national plan...
In Denmark where registration fees are 2x car price, people don't use cars with number plates on tracks (unless they have too much money).
Anyways, a workaround would be to make it legal to remove it... But requiring that cars are fitted with it once sold...
Most people wouldn't care to remove it... and insurances premiums might be affected by removal...
Mitigate biggest risk and immediately something else becomes biggest. At some points you have to stop because every next risk is smaller and more has to be sacrificed for smaller piece of safety.
Who says we always have to sacrifice freedom for increased safety. Yes, protecting us against risk from other humans often involve this, but it doesn't have to.
We can reduce risk of violent crimes by giving people an alternative (decent social benefits, unemployment support, free education or just after school programs).
We can reduce of traffic accidents by requiring more education for driver licenses.
We can reduce risk of repeat offenders by making better rehabilitation or just prisons that honor the human rights convention.
The list goes on...
My point is: We need to stop thinking hard solutions are the only solutions...
Things like after school programs have been shown to reduce crime. And we don't have to reduce crime much in a neighborhood in order for the money to come back tenfold in terms of reduce insurance payout, less police work, fewer prison cells, more contributing members of society, etc..
(Notice how suggestions above doesn't require anybody to sacrifice essential freedoms).
Soft solutions are also solutions, they reduce risks and have a high return on interest, it's just not as simple to prove that they work.
So no, we need to rethink how we reduce risks... Yes, there are also some risk which we must accept, obviously, but there is still work to do.
I don't know if I'll apply for a permanent visa at some point
Hate to break it to you, but you yourself can't. Your employer could, or your american spouse, if you'd happen to have one, could. That's it.
Yeah, okay... but none of them are going to apply for a permanent visa on my behalf unless I want them to :)
So, at the end of the day, it is my decision as to whether or not I'm interested...
They should just start small instead...
Make a law that says from 2016 all new cars must be limited to 150 km/h.
There aren't many places where you are allowed to drive 150 km/h, and even fewer places where this is possible.
No it wouldn't stop much, it would make highspeed highway chases a bit slower, and prevent total morons from driving 180 km/h through small towns killing innocent children on their way to school.
Small step, easy to make, cost efficient and nobody can say that 150 km/h limits the freedom of motorists.
Ontopic: The news here is not what the EU is considering, but the fact that they choose not to go through with this because it would extremely unpopular in the general population.
IMO, a decent call, everybody have something to say about speed limits, therefore these things are better left to be decided at state level.
At state level more people would be able to say there piece, instead of being discontent with a decision made at EU-level, furthermore there may be valid reasons for different speed limits and restrictions in different countries. (Technically, this might also be done using the GPS system, then leaving it to each country to decide whether or not they want speed limits strictly enforced, or by what percentage they want it enforced, who ever said it had to be strict!).
So keep it together, please; somebody's going to have to step up for refugees if the US keeps going downhill towards tyranny, and that's a LOT of people looking for 'any port in a storm.'
I don't hope the world will come to that... Seriously, I'm moving to the US next month :)
Actually, and maybe I'm just naive, but I think that the US will get better... I mean you got healthcare fixed...
Yes, yes, it's not perfect, but at least anyone who is responsible and isn't poor will be able to get/change healthcare insurance despite pre-existing conditions (starting 2014, I think).
The U.S. isn't perfect, but you're are big country, there're also dubious countries in the EU too.
Only, in the EU poverty, corruption, etc. is just more geographically clustered than in the US.
College saving really should be a family affair. From the moment you are born, your parent or parents should be putting away something regularly. That something over the course of 18 years and coupled with one working themselves when they are of age should amount to a fair chunk of change.
I don't want to do the numbers, that's hard :)
And we probably make numbers that says both things... In any event for this plan to succeed you need not to have any unexpected problems.
Medical issues, job issues, loss of spouse, disability, car accident, really any form of bad luck...
And when that's done, you need to be perfect... Meaning you can't make any mistakes, sign a bad contract, buy Christmas presents, go on a vacation or just pop a soda...
Please don't tell me you want people to be perfect, nobody is perfect, I know sodas are bad, but I pop one every now and then anyways...
The difference between me a poor person is that if I make a financial mistake, sign a contract on a phone, apartment, TV, cable...
Then it might cost me a lot of money, I'll be pissed, I'll feel stupid, I'll learn, but fees and interest won't land me in bottomless dept.
A poor person who sign a bad contract for an phone will likely end up in bottomless dept, considering late-payment fees, interest, etc.
If we're going to open our doors to foreign technology workers, it shouldn't be because some technology or pharma executive wrote an editorial in the WSJ.
Well, said... As someone moving to SF on an H1B next month, I'm usually pro the H1B program :) :)
:)
But I do want to point out that not everybody abuses the H1B program.
I'm not relocation from a third world country, or to work at a third world salary, in fact could get similar wage here... actually I could just do job remotely.
Or get a well paying job at a company here... but the job wouldn't be as fun
I think mobility is important for many reasons, in my considerations are things such as SF having a lot of tech companies, startups and etc...
I don't know if I'll apply for a permanent visa at some point, but if I move back the contacts I'll be making will be invaluable, on both ends.
At the end of the day, if you don't let tech workers from around the world in, tech workers from around the globe will cluster in another valley.
Note. with all the NSA scandals, lack of welfare, poor security, crime, human rights violations, war crimes, etc. that the US has got going, I'm starting to wonder why I'm relocation.
On the other hand, I did all the paper pushing... So I might as well try it out
Anyways, feel free to tell me why the US is so awesome, I kinda need it...
Anything with 'science' in the name isn't a science.
If only someone had told me that before I spend 5 years on an MSc. in Computer Science :)
weapons that deliver a chemical reaction causing bits of metal flying through your eye, skin and lung are good.
It's only in American you'll hear someone say that weapons are good.
Also conventional weapons are not allowed to kill indiscriminately either... They are not allowed to be dangerous generations later, i.e. mines forbidden.
You'll also find that most responsible countries are taking steps towards forbidding cluster munition:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions
The phrase "most responsible countries" obviously excludes the U.S.
The point is, it's not always easy to see when a weapon is illegal, teargas if okay for instance...
But releasing toxic gas killing civilians is obviously crossing a line.
Madsen named seven EU countries that have been substantially engaged in communications intelligence... US
The article you refer says Madsen has
hmm, rather “out there” views
And later quotes Madsen for:
Wayne Madsen: I don’t believe the attacks were planned by the FBI. I believe they were an operation carried out by Mossad, Saudi intelligence, ...
I'm not saying that European countries don't collaborate with US intelligence agencies, it's their job to do so.
They probably also share information, but at request, and with a court order to collect the information.
Madsen said the countries had “formal second and third party status” under signal intelligence (sigint) agreements that compels them to hand over data, including mobile phone and internet information to the NSA if requested.
Emphasis mine...
Also warrantless wire tapping on a large scale wouldn't be legal here.
All of that said, if the Snowden revelations have taught us anything, it's that we're not paranoid...
So yeah, maybe things are as bad as we can possibly imagine.
It is an American, patriotic act of nonviolent civil disobedence.
Awesome... That's the kind of thing we need... and the right way to respond...
Unfortunately this is a tech issue, you need to reach a significant amount of people, do you really think that's realistic?
I mean just getting people to use duckduckgo would take forever, TOR, probably never going to happen.. Encrypted emails, I seriously doubt it...