Maybe it's like religion. If you say it enough, and believe it enough, you can convince yourself that something, no matter how much data exists to prove it false, is true.
All praise the mighty Cable Box, and let those tempted to stray burn in the Noise of the Evil Lord Cord Cutter.
Technically, those are posts on the other person's Timeline, and merely relayed to yours and seen by your friends. I would say they don't count as far as preserving evidence.
The trick is getting a judge technical enough to understand that distinction.
On Thursday, the government and Bryan held a private meeting, where the government presented its reasons for nondisclosure of the Tor Browser exploit.
The Defense wasn't allowed at this meeting? Seems a bit one-sided... why is this not allowed/illegal?
Look, give the FBI the option of showing the code, but add the stipulation that without sharing the code, all evidence is tossed. I'd rather the judge just throw some FBI guys in jail for contempt until the code is revealed, but tossing the evidence is a decent consolation prize.
While I wish the rules were applied evenly and fairly, and that she was prosecuted for mishandling classified information the same way others (who have done less) have been, that's not the most infuriating thing about this private e-mail server.
The real issue I have with her actions/decisions is the fact that anything on that private server wouldn't be included in a FOIA request. It is a very easy way to avoid any accountability to the public by using personal channels of communication rather than taxpayer funded means (so that We the People are the owners, not our self-declared masters). This has become a common occurrence with elected officials, I even see the same shit in my local and nearby municipalities.
They are smart enough to know how to work the system by claiming ignorance of the technical side of things. They are smarter than we think, and they are playing us for fools.
Exactly what I was thinking. For all the FBI knows, there actually was important information on the phone, but due to their desire to set precedent and then subsequently escape the court case that was going to set the antithesis of the precedent they wanted, they have handed over the phone to an unknown entity, that may or may not be Daesh sympathizers, that may or may not have modified the contents of the phone...for better or worse.
They royally screwed up an investigation into a single, solitary cell phone, and these jackholes want access to everything?
The anti-encryption crowd, with their constant cries of "think of the children", really need to ask themselves if encryption is the problem, or if the FBI/DOJ's complete disregard for constitutional protections is.
While I would love for the media and the government to actually do their jobs for the first time in my lifetime...is Trump as President really worth it? Have we gotten so desperate that he is our nuclear option?
And this is the problem. The people eating up his gibberish are no more intelligent, but THINK they are. They think they are hearing someone honest, smart, and caring.
They believe that by over-simplifying complex issues that he is intelligent. Where in actuality, he's giving grade school-level answers to university-level problems. The number of legitimate "what if" scenarios not covered by his answers should scare everyone.
There's something to be said about problem solving by breaking down the problem into it's smallest parts, but that is NOT what he is doing. He's giving a sales pitch, full of bullshit, with half-realized thoughts about marginally-understood issues.
I guess you dumb down the public education system enough and this is the blowback.
I just don't understand how this "right" to be forgotten can be so misplaced. Google and other search engines are not the arbiters of the internet. They search for what is there, that's it.
If this truly is a "right" (and I don't think it is), then the specific sites hosting the information are to blame. Google's role in this is non-existent. Are the French politicians so out of touch, even in the 21st century, that they can't grasp that simple fact?
Actually, the Constitution doesn't limit the Government, as that would mean the Government can do anything not expressly forbidden to it. How it really works is like this:
The Government can't do anything, unless it is explicitly granted the ability by the Constitution.
The People can do anything, unless it is explicitly forbidden by laws (hence illegal) made by the Government working within its explicitly granted abilities.
If the sole difference is their experience, doesn't that make Hillary the more threatening choice? She can actually accomplish something that is negative towards the populace overall.
Trump on the other hand, will be so ineffective that nothing will change (for better or worse) until 4 years go by.
On the post: Once Again With Feeling: Cord Cutting Is Not A 'Myth'
Cableism
All praise the mighty Cable Box, and let those tempted to stray burn in the Noise of the Evil Lord Cord Cutter.
On the post: Judge: Taking Your Facebook Account Private During Litigation Isn't Exactly 'Preserving Evidence'
Re:
The trick is getting a judge technical enough to understand that distinction.
On the post: Judge In Child Porn Case Reverses Course, Says FBI Will Not Have To Turn Over Details On Its Hacking Tool
On Thursday, the government and Bryan held a private meeting, where the government presented its reasons for nondisclosure of the Tor Browser exploit.
The Defense wasn't allowed at this meeting? Seems a bit one-sided... why is this not allowed/illegal?
Look, give the FBI the option of showing the code, but add the stipulation that without sharing the code, all evidence is tossed. I'd rather the judge just throw some FBI guys in jail for contempt until the code is revealed, but tossing the evidence is a decent consolation prize.
On the post: Cable Lobbying Group Claims More Competition Would Hurt Consumers
Re: Re: Re: Re: economics 101
It's not the addition of more players, its the benefits of a competitive market that we need, whatever form that may take.
On the post: Cable Lobbying Group Claims More Competition Would Hurt Consumers
Re:
Grunk need only one choice.
Ford tell Grunk what to buy.
Grunk SMASH!
This is how they see us.
On the post: Not Just Hillary: State Department As A Whole Pretty Careless With Handling Of Classified Communications
The Real Issue
The real issue I have with her actions/decisions is the fact that anything on that private server wouldn't be included in a FOIA request. It is a very easy way to avoid any accountability to the public by using personal channels of communication rather than taxpayer funded means (so that We the People are the owners, not our self-declared masters). This has become a common occurrence with elected officials, I even see the same shit in my local and nearby municipalities.
They are smart enough to know how to work the system by claiming ignorance of the technical side of things. They are smarter than we think, and they are playing us for fools.
On the post: FBI Spent $1.3 Million To Not Even Learn The Details Of The iPhone Hack... So Now It Says It Can't Tell Apple
Re:
They royally screwed up an investigation into a single, solitary cell phone, and these jackholes want access to everything?
Federal Bureau of Incompetence
On the post: Yet Another Court Says FBI's Hacking Tool In Child Porn Case Was An Illegal Search
What Protects Child Pornographers More?
On the post: Trump's Incomprehensible 'Cyber' Policy: 'Make Cyber Great Again'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Trump's Incomprehensible 'Cyber' Policy: 'Make Cyber Great Again'
Re: Re: His words in print
They believe that by over-simplifying complex issues that he is intelligent. Where in actuality, he's giving grade school-level answers to university-level problems. The number of legitimate "what if" scenarios not covered by his answers should scare everyone.
There's something to be said about problem solving by breaking down the problem into it's smallest parts, but that is NOT what he is doing. He's giving a sales pitch, full of bullshit, with half-realized thoughts about marginally-understood issues.
I guess you dumb down the public education system enough and this is the blowback.
On the post: France Still Thinks It Regulates Entire Internet, Fines Google For Not Making Right To Be Forgotten Global
If this truly is a "right" (and I don't think it is), then the specific sites hosting the information are to blame. Google's role in this is non-existent. Are the French politicians so out of touch, even in the 21st century, that they can't grasp that simple fact?
On the post: Apple's Response To DOJ: Your Filing Is Full Of Blatantly Misleading Claims And Outright Falsehoods
Re: Re: Re: Re: DOJ request vs. MS Win10
On the post: Apple's Response To DOJ: Your Filing Is Full Of Blatantly Misleading Claims And Outright Falsehoods
Re: Re: DOJ request vs. MS Win10
The Government can't do anything, unless it is explicitly granted the ability by the Constitution.
The People can do anything, unless it is explicitly forbidden by laws (hence illegal) made by the Government working within its explicitly granted abilities.
On the post: California Legislator Looking To Close Law Enforcement's Open Records Loophole
Re:
Sen. Mark Leno is trying to make them accountable, it is Harry Stern who is trying to shelter the police from public scrutiny.
On the post: Of Cockpits And Phone Encryption: Tradeoffs And Probabilities
On the post: Yes, Donald Trump Can Create Problems For Free Speech & The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Sad but true
Trump on the other hand, will be so ineffective that nothing will change (for better or worse) until 4 years go by.
Next >>