Basically, what the judge said is correct: "just because you-all have set up a system ..., that doesn't in any way lessen the government's right to receive that information".
In other words, US have laws which explicitly allow wiretapping. Nothing extraordinary about it. Remember, this government official gave sword testimony, and judge have no reason to think he's lying. If this official says "we're not looking", what do you thing judge will do, say: "nah, don't believe you"?
OOTB is dead wrong. The whole point of having "the government" is that you can trust them. That, btw is true for _any_ form of government, monarchy included.
With democratically elected one, issue of trust is resolved by the very process - those are people you choose, so choose someone you trust.
Under monarchy, usually king is god-given, which is trustful enough for religious population.
So please, stop this nonsense of "government is evil"/"never trust" etc.
>> ...and this kind of attitude is exactly why these attacks on due process and rights are so dangerous
You are confused about what due process is. Since this is different in every country, let me tell you what it is NOT. It is NOT blind application of pre-coded (in laws) rules. That's what computer does. What a judge does, is another thing entirely.
Let me bring you an example. You drop a hammer from your window and someone is killed. Only human can decide whether you killed someone in cold blood or just was careless. If you're already convicted in murder felon, you will have _very_ hard time arguing "just careless".
That's why in almost _any_ trial intent and character matter. So, yes, it is important whether I "like that guy".
>> Turning a doorknob is not making a request -- it's physically opening
So, by this logic, if I have a door operated by button it will be different, because pressing the button is "a request"? That's not how criminal justice (supposed to) work.
>> A "mere" URL *as presented by the server* and then ...
I think you have no idea how SQL-injection works. You _also_ take "URL as presented by server" and modify it to your needs. Yes, it's quite different from discussed case, but that's not what is argued. The argument is "just because it's URL it doesn't mean it's harmless"; as one can see slightly modified URL can bring a lot of action.
>> They're comparing apples and oranges.
Comparing apples and oranges is OK if all you need to estimate mass of cargo, for example.
I don't mean that guy did "41-months-in-jail-serious-crime". But, I do mean that DOJ's logic is not "insane".
>> Not contacting AT&T doesn't matter
Wrong, it does. It shows intent. You saying that "this wasn't done maliciously", and DOJ arguing otherwise. That's a core of an argument, the rest is technical explanation about what's happened.
Now, going public _can_ be seen as malicious (attack on reputation, for example).
Basically, that's why courts are ruled by judges (or juries) and not by machines - to decide about such fuzzy thing as "intent".
>> Furthermore, they didn't need to "ask permission" because they sent a request to the server and the server answered.
That's irrelevant. If I failed to lock the door, this doesn't mean that it's OK to enter. It doesn't matter that you made a "request" (turned the knob) and door-lock "answered". It's still trespassing.
>> It does this by arguing that because SQL injection attacks can happen via a URL, therefore any "hack" via a URL can be a malicious hack.
Argument here is presented incorrectly. What DOJ tries to tell, is that "mere URL" can be quite dangerous thing, depends on content, like in SQL-injection.
So, like in many other cases it's matter of intent. If this guy is known to be "world-class jerk", he will (probably) have hard time trying to prove that his intentions were harmless.
>>> Remember, guns don't kill people. Desperate people kill people.
So, what do you think guns do? Make funny noises? Guess what - guns kill people, that's what they made for. Sorry, correction: guns _only_ made to kill.
And while I agree that videogames have nothing to do with murder, guns (the real ones) are very related. And yes, military training is also related.
Re: Techdirt exception to "get offa my lawn" for juveniles, eh?
>> I regard guns as a fundamental right, as stated literally in the Constitution.
Do you know how fucking insane this stuff sounds is for any non-US person? WTF do you need a gun for? Really? Is that some form of entertainment? If you love shooting - why not join the military (I heard US spend on military more than rest of the world combined).
In Israel, there are have real terrorists and war-crazy neighbors you can't have a gun "just because". Even if soldiers carry their M16 with them all_the_time, even at homes.
So maybe it IS time to change culture and realize, like rest of the world did, that guns belong to army/police. It's not a "fundamental right", in no shape of form
Re: Re: Ooh, me! "who is really ready to say they're sure"
What is to discuss here? Article is kind of "duh!" moment - cocktails have no copyright, therefore there's lots of them. Now, since there's lots of new movies, that's must be because them have no copyright too. No, wait a minute, movies DO have copyright.
So, "What The Continuous Flourishing Of New Cocktails Can Teach Us ..." - nothing really, except as ootb pointed out, mixing drinks is somewhat different than making movies.
Sometimes copyright makes sense, other times it doesn't. Like any other concept humans invented.
If I were US citizen, I would be enraged on this kind of waste. Even if I don't care about legality of all this crap: it's still wasted money. There's no that many terrorists in US to justify this kind of spending.
It's not even that good for "dissident control" - if you want to harass them, you still have to arrest them, drag through courts etc. You don't have to _find_ those people: they will march for protest on main street.
Re: Mike, Google has already fully indexed your email!
Ah, It's you again. Let's say for argument sake that Mike, indeed, is Google employee. Now what?
Yes, he won't tell bad things about them. Never ever. Now, unless YOU want to employ him - can you shut the fuck up, please.
Since I don't live in US, I don't really care about this NSA scandal. And yes, Google scanning all emails for commercial purposes. Don't care either.
When I have something to hide - I don't post in on Facebook and don't send it over email.
Re: Re: Is Mike naive, or hopelessly naive? Discuss.
While you definitely right about guy being obsessed, his point is correct: Mike is naive or hopelessly naive.
Your administration is corrupt. Corrupt as a whole group. You want to see changes - march to the Washington and demand them out.
No, don't ask to "rebuild the trust". Demand them all fired.
Soviet Union was very real police state. And the day come, and it fell. Once money stream ended, empire was no more.
See, you can't maintain huge army (and NSA-CIA is also "army") without lots of money.
Only when people will be starved, change will suddenly happen. Since US people have weird "right" to pile up guns, this change will not be pretty.
In the end, people will die and empire will fall. That was a fate of _every single empire_ for millennia.
Nothing prevent you from storing your data at your own computer, you know.
Go buy some tiny box with linux inside, connect usb disk, turn encryption on. That's it. Want to communicate with your box over internet - few more checkboxes.
Your government want an ability to wiretap communications. What's new about it? Do you know that you phone has never been encrypted?
Actually I agree.
Are they about to compete with let's say Nokia, that has about 20 years of experience in industrial design? Or with Apple, which have ~10 years in UI design? Or maybe with Samsung+Google, both having budget counted in billions?
Now, 32M is not very big number. It actually means, that custom SoC is out of question; or in simpler terms: not Apple/Samsung level of integration for you.
So, crappy hardware is almost guaranteed. Now, since software is supposed to be "Android-compatible", I don't see much innovation here either.
Re: Limited hangout now into full "Well, maybe it's okay..."
I'm curious - does somebody paying for this shit? I understand that US is big country and all kind of nutcases can be found there, but I never actually met one.
Until now. What's that obsession with Google? Yea, we already _know_ that they're bad, violating privacy and all that. But - did they hurt you somehow? Someone from Google dumped/beaten/cheated you?
Another possibility is that "out_of_the_blue" is several people, each spewing its own nonsense: "Google is bad", "Rich people are evil", "Internet grifters" and so on. They probably doing it for money.
Also possible, (however less probable) that this guy(s) know(s) Mike personally. So he just post opposite opinion, no matter what is the topic.
On the post: Lavabit Tried Giving The Feds Its SSL Key In 11 Pages Of 4-Point Type; Feds Complained That It Was Illegible
Judge is right
In other words, US have laws which explicitly allow wiretapping. Nothing extraordinary about it. Remember, this government official gave sword testimony, and judge have no reason to think he's lying. If this official says "we're not looking", what do you thing judge will do, say: "nah, don't believe you"?
That's not how (any) functional government works.
On the post: NSA Defenders Need To Learn: Trust Is Something You Earn, Not Legislate
Re: Re: Re: Post from OOTB
With democratically elected one, issue of trust is resolved by the very process - those are people you choose, so choose someone you trust.
Under monarchy, usually king is god-given, which is trustful enough for religious population.
So please, stop this nonsense of "government is evil"/"never trust" etc.
On the post: The DOJ's Insane Argument Against Weev: He's A Felon Because He Broke The Rules We Made Up
Re: Re: Mike's arguments are similary ridiculous
You are confused about what due process is. Since this is different in every country, let me tell you what it is NOT. It is NOT blind application of pre-coded (in laws) rules. That's what computer does. What a judge does, is another thing entirely.
Let me bring you an example. You drop a hammer from your window and someone is killed. Only human can decide whether you killed someone in cold blood or just was careless. If you're already convicted in murder felon, you will have _very_ hard time arguing "just careless".
That's why in almost _any_ trial intent and character matter. So, yes, it is important whether I "like that guy".
On the post: The DOJ's Insane Argument Against Weev: He's A Felon Because He Broke The Rules We Made Up
Re: Re: Mike's arguments are similary ridiculous
So, by this logic, if I have a door operated by button it will be different, because pressing the button is "a request"? That's not how criminal justice (supposed to) work.
>> A "mere" URL *as presented by the server* and then ...
I think you have no idea how SQL-injection works. You _also_ take "URL as presented by server" and modify it to your needs. Yes, it's quite different from discussed case, but that's not what is argued. The argument is "just because it's URL it doesn't mean it's harmless"; as one can see slightly modified URL can bring a lot of action.
>> They're comparing apples and oranges.
Comparing apples and oranges is OK if all you need to estimate mass of cargo, for example.
I don't mean that guy did "41-months-in-jail-serious-crime". But, I do mean that DOJ's logic is not "insane".
On the post: The DOJ's Insane Argument Against Weev: He's A Felon Because He Broke The Rules We Made Up
Re: Re: Ugh
Wrong, it does. It shows intent. You saying that "this wasn't done maliciously", and DOJ arguing otherwise. That's a core of an argument, the rest is technical explanation about what's happened.
Now, going public _can_ be seen as malicious (attack on reputation, for example).
Basically, that's why courts are ruled by judges (or juries) and not by machines - to decide about such fuzzy thing as "intent".
On the post: The DOJ's Insane Argument Against Weev: He's A Felon Because He Broke The Rules We Made Up
Mike's arguments are similary ridiculous
That's irrelevant. If I failed to lock the door, this doesn't mean that it's OK to enter. It doesn't matter that you made a "request" (turned the knob) and door-lock "answered". It's still trespassing.
>> It does this by arguing that because SQL injection attacks can happen via a URL, therefore any "hack" via a URL can be a malicious hack.
Argument here is presented incorrectly. What DOJ tries to tell, is that "mere URL" can be quite dangerous thing, depends on content, like in SQL-injection.
So, like in many other cases it's matter of intent. If this guy is known to be "world-class jerk", he will (probably) have hard time trying to prove that his intentions were harmless.
On the post: Study: Claiming That Games And Violence Are Linked Now Linked To Violence
Re:
So, what do you think guns do? Make funny noises? Guess what - guns kill people, that's what they made for. Sorry, correction: guns _only_ made to kill.
And while I agree that videogames have nothing to do with murder, guns (the real ones) are very related. And yes, military training is also related.
On the post: Redefining English: Senator Feinstein Says The Press Needs To Stop Calling Patriot Act Surveillance Program A 'Surveillance Program'
Re: If you're going to be consistent, start calling Google a SPY AGENCY.
On the post: School Suspends Students For Playing With Airsoft Guns In Their Own Yard
Re: Techdirt exception to "get offa my lawn" for juveniles, eh?
Do you know how fucking insane this stuff sounds is for any non-US person? WTF do you need a gun for? Really? Is that some form of entertainment? If you love shooting - why not join the military (I heard US spend on military more than rest of the world combined).
In Israel, there are have real terrorists and war-crazy neighbors you can't have a gun "just because". Even if soldiers carry their M16 with them all_the_time, even at homes.
So maybe it IS time to change culture and realize, like rest of the world did, that guns belong to army/police. It's not a "fundamental right", in no shape of form
On the post: What The Continuous Flourishing Of New Cocktails Can Teach Us About Intellectual Property
Re: Re: Ooh, me! "who is really ready to say they're sure"
So, "What The Continuous Flourishing Of New Cocktails Can Teach Us ..." - nothing really, except as ootb pointed out, mixing drinks is somewhat different than making movies.
Sometimes copyright makes sense, other times it doesn't. Like any other concept humans invented.
On the post: Profile Of NSA Boss General Keith Alexander Reveals: He Wants All The Data, And He Doesn't Care About The Law
What a waste
It's not even that good for "dissident control" - if you want to harass them, you still have to arrest them, drag through courts etc. You don't have to _find_ those people: they will march for protest on main street.
On the post: Wacky NSA Slide Tells Agents Not To Worry About 'Incidental' Collection Of Info On Americans
Re: Mike, Google has already fully indexed your email!
Yes, he won't tell bad things about them. Never ever. Now, unless YOU want to employ him - can you shut the fuck up, please.
Since I don't live in US, I don't really care about this NSA scandal. And yes, Google scanning all emails for commercial purposes. Don't care either.
When I have something to hide - I don't post in on Facebook and don't send it over email.
On the post: White House Changing Its Story On James Clapper's Role In Independent Surveillance Review
Re: Re: Is Mike naive, or hopelessly naive? Discuss.
Your administration is corrupt. Corrupt as a whole group. You want to see changes - march to the Washington and demand them out.
No, don't ask to "rebuild the trust". Demand them all fired.
On the post: Latest 'Think Of The Children' Scaremongering: Pirated Films Might 'Disturb' Them
Re:
On the post: As Russia Expands Its 'Think Of The Children' Laws To Copyright, Agency In Charge Investigated For Infringement
Re: If you think about it...
On the post: What Edward Snowden Has Given Us
Police states fall, too
See, you can't maintain huge army (and NSA-CIA is also "army") without lots of money.
Only when people will be starved, change will suddenly happen. Since US people have weird "right" to pile up guns, this change will not be pretty.
In the end, people will die and empire will fall. That was a fate of _every single empire_ for millennia.
On the post: Feds Trying To Get Master Encryption Keys From Tech Companies
Re: Not that we'd care
Go buy some tiny box with linux inside, connect usb disk, turn encryption on. That's it. Want to communicate with your box over internet - few more checkboxes.
Your government want an ability to wiretap communications. What's new about it? Do you know that you phone has never been encrypted?
On the post: Canonical Goes Big In Attempt To Crowdfund Exclusive Ubuntu Phone
Re: Really, a new phone? Whee! Innovation!
Are they about to compete with let's say Nokia, that has about 20 years of experience in industrial design? Or with Apple, which have ~10 years in UI design? Or maybe with Samsung+Google, both having budget counted in billions?
Now, 32M is not very big number. It actually means, that custom SoC is out of question; or in simpler terms: not Apple/Samsung level of integration for you.
So, crappy hardware is almost guaranteed. Now, since software is supposed to be "Android-compatible", I don't see much innovation here either.
In short - useless gimmick.
On the post: Anyone Brushing Off NSA Surveillance Because It's 'Just Metadata' Doesn't Know What Metadata Is
Re: Same with Google for "mere" search terms and websites.
Or you're getting paid for this bunch of nonsense?
On the post: Newly Leaked NSA Slides On PRISM Add To Confusion, Rather Than Clear It Up
Re: Limited hangout now into full "Well, maybe it's okay..."
Until now. What's that obsession with Google? Yea, we already _know_ that they're bad, violating privacy and all that. But - did they hurt you somehow? Someone from Google dumped/beaten/cheated you?
Another possibility is that "out_of_the_blue" is several people, each spewing its own nonsense: "Google is bad", "Rich people are evil", "Internet grifters" and so on. They probably doing it for money.
Also possible, (however less probable) that this guy(s) know(s) Mike personally. So he just post opposite opinion, no matter what is the topic.
Next >>