Simple answer is that if the FBI uses a clandestine decryption method, it will not only no longer be clandestine, but it will spur efforts to defeat that method.
The NSA has marginally plausible deniability now, and letting the FBI break that would not serve them well.
I've had that problem for a few days now. Adding https:/// gives me a page not loading. If I request the desktop site, it points me to https://slashdot.org/mylogin, which isn't quite what I expected.
You know, m.slashdot.org is a hot mess on Android Chrome and Chrome Dev. This is merely the latest insult.
Software doesn't know the difference between legitimate and illegitimate use. It just executes instructions. It has no morality, no honor, no conscience. Those are human traits.
Forcing Apple to code access to this one phone guarantees that either the code will be used again, or forced onto every phone 'just in case' the government 'needs' it again. Over time, the government will demand access for lesser needs , then for less probable cause, then in secret. Then, my friends, they will use it constantly without constraint.
In America, we should be operating from a presumption of privacy.
No, that *is* the point. While she was a presumptive candidate last year, these allegations and overwhelming public reports predate even that.
To try and excuse her transgressions as if they are common, or to abandon prosecution because others have been unfairly and/or wrongfully attacked with similar accusations is wrong. Either side is guilty of these offenses or not. We deserve to know, and to know before she is the nominee.
Using LiHeap as an example is not anecdotal. It is a fundamental example. One of many.
And it is not an exceptional or unique one. This program has run like this most of its existence. Year after year.
An example of how such federal programs fail by determining the need arbitrarily, being funded inadequately, and squelch ingredients other solutions. Which leaves blame at the door of local / state governments that often let federal programs absolve them off further responsiblity.
Pension funds offer a good model. My wife draws a pension from a state teachers system, and it is funded from her and her employers' contributions in the past. Her contributions did not fund payments to previous pensioners.
And it's complex. Social Security would probably need to be run as both a pension and entitlement, since Asians other programs prevent a pure pension model.
And fundamentally, government entitlement programs are risky, as they expose the government, and therefore - US -, to substantial costs exceeding anticipated contributions.
This is good reason to both restrict entitlements to minimum necessary, and to employ them as close as possible to the recipients, local, municipal, county governments being good choices.
As we have seen, federal government can escape our control...
The public information available supports conviction under ;
18 U.S. Code  793(e) and (f) 44 U.S. Code  3106 18 U.S. Code Â1001 18 U.S. Code  1924 18 U.S. Code  2071(b) 18 U.S. Code  641 18 U.S. Code  1505 18 U.S. Code  1519
Some of these are derivatives of other charges, but the first three statutes are all primary offenses, easily supported by the public record, and there is one felony charge available there.
If you wish references and sources, Google is replete with those. You should be offering me complete and sound refutations of the many public statements supporting indictment on any of these charges. Note that some of these do not or require intent, and Hillary was trained in these and other laws and the handling of information while Secretary of State.
We can't. A free market is the closest thing to fair, and a dominant unassailable player will both appear to be a monopoly (and that may be true) and discourage competition for several reasons. Natural monopolies may not be bad or undesirable.
But life is not fair, and trying to make it so is the cause of much trouble.
Don't you revalue the currency based on current value as a function of the metal backing it? So that when your local mine unions get a new contract and pay goes up, so does the cost of bread and motorcycles, and dollars are worth less?
Or do you have to accept that being successful and expanding your nation's wealth requires you to gather more of the metals backing your currency to keep pace with growth?
Oh no, that can't work, neither one. We have to let smart people figure these things out of thin air.
"Nevermind that public assistance isn't only an expense, it also boosts the economy and eases the burden on hospitals because people can afford to eat and heat their homes so they don't get sick."
Please explain how this is not an example of the broken window fallacy
Now, I'm not oblivious to the need. But the federal government is perhaps the worst method to provide the needed assistance. LiHEAP for instance would parcel out assistance based not on degree-days or income, but on funding levels. People are just as damned cold if Congress fails to authorize funding, or the bureaucracy squanders more of it on administrative costs, as they would be if they had no program at all. Let these programs be run by local government, where need is recognized better and responded to with less waste and failure.
And yes, if your norther community refuses to care for the poor and needy, either someone else will, or the poor will move where they have a chance.
Remember, even if your miserable community lets the poor freeze in the dark, it's no different than if the Feds merely misallocate funding. Just as cold. Just as dark.
Reading the public reports, there is ample reason to conclude that Hillary mishandled official. emails while Secretary of State. Whether intentional or not doesn't shield her from prosecution.
Her reputation is already tainted, but does it matter to her supporters?
Reports are that the FBI people objecting to the cover-up are career civil service agents and investigators, not appointees. Same in the intelligence and diplomatic communities.
Obama most likely fears retribution from the Clintons.
Rumors that Hillary will face questioning by investigators in a few weeks.
This should be a familiar timeline:
- Rumors that the FBI is interviewing lots of people. - Immunity granted to a key person of interest. - Grand Jury empaneled - Interview the subject of the investigation. - Compare the interviews. - Give your results to the Grand Jury - Indictments.
Whether a prosecution is forthcoming is an open question of course. And plenty of opportunity to fiddle with the interviews to get the outcome you want.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple answer is that if the FBI uses a clandestine decryption method, it will not only no longer be clandestine, but it will spur efforts to defeat that method.
The NSA has marginally plausible deniability now, and letting the FBI break that would not serve them well.
"To opt out, they make you mail a paper form"
I don't for a moment believe they actually honor that request.
Were you asked for your email address or phone number when paying cash recently? Ever?
I've had that problem for a few days now. Adding https:/// gives me a page not loading. If I request the desktop site, it points me to https://slashdot.org/mylogin, which isn't quite what I expected.
You know, m.slashdot.org is a hot mess on Android Chrome and Chrome Dev. This is merely the latest insult.
I don't think IPv6 is a coding issue...
And this is an example of failed discourse. Grow up or get serious. Or step aside and let serious people continue.
Software doesn't know the difference between legitimate and illegitimate use. It just executes instructions. It has no morality, no honor, no conscience. Those are human traits.
Forcing Apple to code access to this one phone guarantees that either the code will be used again, or forced onto every phone 'just in case' the government 'needs' it again. Over time, the government will demand access for lesser needs , then for less probable cause, then in secret. Then, my friends, they will use it constantly without constraint.
In America, we should be operating from a presumption of privacy.
No, that *is* the point. While she was a presumptive candidate last year, these allegations and overwhelming public reports predate even that.
To try and excuse her transgressions as if they are common, or to abandon prosecution because others have been unfairly and /or wrongfully attacked with similar accusations is wrong. Either side is guilty of these offenses or not. We deserve to know, and to know before she is the nominee.
Using LiHeap as an example is not anecdotal. It is a fundamental example. One of many.
And it is not an exceptional or unique one. This program has run like this most of its existence. Year after year.
An example of how such federal programs fail by determining the need arbitrarily, being funded inadequately, and squelch ingredients other solutions. Which leaves blame at the door of local / state governments that often let federal programs absolve them off further responsiblity.
Pension funds offer a good model. My wife draws a pension from a state teachers system, and it is funded from her and her employers' contributions in the past. Her contributions did not fund payments to previous pensioners.
And it's complex. Social Security would probably need to be run as both a pension and entitlement, since Asians other programs prevent a pure pension model.
And fundamentally, government entitlement programs are risky, as they expose the government, and therefore - US -, to substantial costs exceeding anticipated contributions.
This is good reason to both restrict entitlements to minimum necessary, and to employ them as close as possible to the recipients, local, municipal, county governments being good choices.
As we have seen, federal government can escape our control...
The public information available supports conviction under ;
18 U.S. Code  793(e) and (f)
44 U.S. Code  3106
18 U.S. Code Â1001
18 U.S. Code  1924
18 U.S. Code  2071(b)
18 U.S. Code  641
18 U.S. Code  1505
18 U.S. Code  1519
Some of these are derivatives of other charges, but the first three statutes are all primary offenses, easily supported by the public record, and there is one felony charge available there.
If you wish references and sources, Google is replete with those. You should be offering me complete and sound refutations of the many public statements supporting indictment on any of these charges. Note that some of these do not or require intent, and Hillary was trained in these and other laws and the handling of information while Secretary of State.
No, I'm telling you that Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme if it is funded as intended.
The root question is 'how do we make this fair?'
We can't. A free market is the closest thing to fair, and a dominant unassailable player will both appear to be a monopoly (and that may be true) and discourage competition for several reasons. Natural monopolies may not be bad or undesirable.
But life is not fair, and trying to make it so is the cause of much trouble.
Don't you revalue the currency based on current value as a function of the metal backing it? So that when your local mine unions get a new contract and pay goes up, so does the cost of bread and motorcycles, and dollars are worth less?
Or do you have to accept that being successful and expanding your nation's wealth requires you to gather more of the metals backing your currency to keep pace with growth?
Oh no, that can't work, neither one. We have to let smart people figure these things out of thin air.
At this point, what does it matter?
It wasn't supposed to be. Fix that.
Yes. And thinking it through, it is possible that we will soon enough be spending 101% of our federal budget on 'welfare programs'.
And then it's over.
Only a Ponzi scheme if it's underfunded. And that is a choice.
Yes, fully funding Social Security would mean admitting that it has been used to float much other spending, and then all the other lies come ablaze.
"Nevermind that public assistance isn't only an expense, it also boosts the economy and eases the burden on hospitals because people can afford to eat and heat their homes so they don't get sick."
Please explain how this is not an example of the broken window fallacy
Now, I'm not oblivious to the need. But the federal government is perhaps the worst method to provide the needed assistance. LiHEAP for instance would parcel out assistance based not on degree-days or income, but on funding levels. People are just as damned cold if Congress fails to authorize funding, or the bureaucracy squanders more of it on administrative costs, as they would be if they had no program at all. Let these programs be run by local government, where need is recognized better and responded to with less waste and failure.
And yes, if your norther community refuses to care for the poor and needy, either someone else will, or the poor will move where they have a chance.
Remember, even if your miserable community lets the poor freeze in the dark, it's no different than if the Feds merely misallocate funding. Just as cold. Just as dark.
"Buytaert is pitching the idea as part of a broader push for a more open Web that reduces the dominance of a handful of platforms."
So, to state this plainly, the plan is to get the government involved to make the marketplace more open to other competitors.
Sure, that's gonna work out real well. Morons.
Reading the public reports, there is ample reason to conclude that Hillary mishandled official. emails while Secretary of State. Whether intentional or not doesn't shield her from prosecution.
Her reputation is already tainted, but does it matter to her supporters?
Reports are that the FBI people objecting to the cover-up are career civil service agents and investigators, not appointees. Same in the intelligence and diplomatic communities.
Obama most likely fears retribution from the Clintons.
You accuse me of misogyny?
You are indeed an arrogant bigot. Go away and don't pollute my life further.
Rumors that Hillary will face questioning by investigators in a few weeks.
This should be a familiar timeline:
- Rumors that the FBI is interviewing lots of people.
- Immunity granted to a key person of interest.
- Grand Jury empaneled
- Interview the subject of the investigation.
- Compare the interviews.
- Give your results to the Grand Jury
- Indictments.
Whether a prosecution is forthcoming is an open question of course. And plenty of opportunity to fiddle with the interviews to get the outcome you want.
It also usually means the interrogators and prosecutors already know what will be said.