[NSA] employs its technical collection capabilities in a manner that optimally protects our national security and advances our foreign policy while appropriately accounting for other policy considerations, such as the risk of unauthorized disclosure and our need to maintain the public trust.
Shouldn't the correct order be "optimally maintaining the public trust," "minimizing the harm of unauthorized disclosures," while "protecting our national security," and "advance our foreign policy"?
I, personally, don't see how the NSA has the job to "advance our foreign policy," but I'll give it to them if they want it (I thought that was the job of the CIA).
It may be illegal, or even, more likely, unconstitutional; it is not treason. If it were treason, then working to make an amendment to the constitution is treason.
I think a reasonable definition of treason is: The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies
The US Supreme Court has said that 1st Amendment Rights are not absolute; falsely yelling FIRE in a theater, for example, can be prosecuted. And on (too) many occasions they have said that National Security can take precedence to hold back speech. Unfortunately, from my perspective, they don't ask for proof that National Security is actually involved.
If you think "they" can't find some statute in the encyclopedia they call the US Criminal Code that could go after them, I think you are sadly mistaken. IIRC there is even a law which says if you break *another* country's law, they can go after you (really! and you don't even need to be in that other country; there's a youtube video called Don't Talk to Police which mentions it...)
There are several instances where the US has made things illegal after the fact -- the laws around the SuperFund sites being one of them, so the "ex post facto" limitation is not 100%.
The simple truth is that every Congress-person who voted no has committed treason.
Unfortunately, No. Article III, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
And the action of voting No does not rise to that level (nor does Bradley Manning's for that matter; *or* Mr Snowden). And since it isn't treason, they are therefore protected by Article I, Section 6:
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
But yes, their oath is to the Constitution; I wish they would pay attention to that a bit more.
Only one out of the three Bishops in congress voted Yea. Sigh. Now I have to go looking into changing my last name.
At least my rep (Tierney) voted Yea.
I wonder if the non-voters were abstentions or not present. With Markey now a Senator, Massachusetts is absent a representative for a while (I do wish the list had the state for each of the reps instead of just the duplicates -- I'm somewhat embarrassed to say I don't know the names of our entire [Massachusetts] delegation).
There's no way, none at all, for him to have kept his word
Except, as noted, if he accepted money as USD, converted it to Bitcoins, and then paid people back out in USD (or whatever "real" currency they wanted) during that time. Granted there was no way to guarantee that ROI...
Why People Are Fine With Sharing Data On Facebook But Not With The Government
Why People Are Fine With Sharing Data On Facebook But Not With The Government
Really Simple Answer:
They give something in return
For giving facebook your information, they help you find old school mates, or relatives, or coworkers, or friends. And you control how much of that you want them to use
About all the government can say they give you is "security" and I'm not too sure they use the definition I expect.
A question for the law-literate: what is the likelihood that Prenda/AF Holdings will actually be forced to pay? With Judge Wright they're forced to submit a bond in order to continue their case, but if this is the end of the road for this case, then if they don't pay it just leaves Navasca in the position of spending time/money to collect the debt.
Presumably failure to pay could be used to prevent them from being able to practice law in California, but I'm wondering what the likely sanctions will be.
My understanding of Texas law (and this based solely on what I've heard) is that the special session (such as the one this happened in) is supposed to be called for emergencies, and because it is an "emergency" the rules for passing a law get amended to allow simple majority passage (instead of 2/3s).
So, what was the emergency? Was it just this stupid anti-abortion bill? Was it an emergency because they couldn't get it passed during their normal session? That doesn't sound like much of an emergency.
What is to keep them from just doing away with the "normal" legislative session, and just do everything in 30 day "emergency" sessions?
And lastly, how much do these "emergency" sessions cost? If I were a Texan, I'd be asking why we needed to pay for this travesty.
Tapping directly into the infrastructure has got to be illegal.
The EU won't like this.
It's not illegal with the right warrants... and the power/authority to say "and keep this secret!" (like that ever works). Even if it is illegal, when nobody knows about it, they can't object.
I think there are very few groups that "like this"; the EU will just be one of the bigger ones to object (if/when they do).
But: how in Sam Hill's name does one register a .info domain name for $3.17?
Oh, and just to play along, had you intended for your letter to be taken seriously, even in some small measure, we would have sent in response something along the following lines:
A classic response intro!
To paraphrase the bar exam instructions, feel free to cite any authority you consider relevant, including Federal, state, or local laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, etc.
Which would help if he had ever seen a bar exam; I must say that I have my doubts.
If I ever need the help of an attorney in New Jersey, I will try to seek out Mr Kaplitt. Bravo!
Specifically it covers personal security which is the entire point of this amendment (and really the entire Bill Of Rights) to begin with.
The entire Bill of Rights? I'm not sure if the 10th applies
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Although that closing phrase "or to the people" might qualify it. Just nitpicking.
One would argue the literacy rate is better now than it was back then.
I seem to recall that in Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America that he noticed everyone read, the predominance being newepapers, but otherwise self-teaching manuals, e.g. "Teach yourself to Dance", and "How to be a Carpenter". A historian friend of mine commented that those self-published books (every dance master felt obligated to proclaim themselves as such by publishing a dance manual, quite often "liberating" other dance master's steps -- [infringement!]) made it possible to reconstruct in great detail what the people of that time did, from sewing, to dance steps, to farming.
But the numbers of the popular books of the day, printed and sold, afford the most conclusive proof of the extent to which education is carried in the States. The readers of Tennyson, Thackeray, Dickens, Bulwer, Collins, Hughes, and—Martin Tupper, are to be counted by tens of thousands in the States, to the thousands by which they may be counted in our own islands. I do not doubt that I had fully fifteen copies of the "Silver Cord" thrown at my head in different railway cars on the continent of America. Nor is the taste by any means confined to the literature of England. Longfellow, Curtis, Holmes, Hawthorne, Lowell, Emerson,—and Mrs. Stowe, are almost as popular as their English rivals. I do not say whether or no the literature is well chosen, but there it is. It is printed, sold, and read. The disposal of ten thousand copies of a work is no large sale in America of a book published at a dollar; but in England it is a large sale of a book brought out at five shillings.
(effectively saying literacy in America was 10 times the literacy in England -- oh, maybe that isn't saying much :-) )
Modern literacy? According to the CIA (and by extension the NSA since they read *everything*) the US hit 99.99% literacy in 2008 (according to the CIA World Factbook).
So yes,
One would argue the literacy rate is better now than it was back then.
Literacy is better now, but a comparison of the quality of what is/was/can be read, I believe, would make the "literacy" rate a somewhat poor metric.
Related to the 99.99% literacy is the National Assessment of Reading Level [NAARL] results in 2002/2003 which had
This government study showed that 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information." Further, this study showed that 41% to 44% of U.S. adults in the lowest level on the literacy scale (literacy rate of 35 or below) were living in poverty
If LeaseWeb didn't have backups nobody would ever lease space from them again. This is conjecture, but informed conjecture: they repurposed the hard drives that they had had to keep idle waiting for the Megaupload situation to calm down. They finally decided to just wipe them (has anyone stated how much data this represents?)
If they were diligent they would have done a backup to tape before wiping them. Alternatively, they could have just relied on their last backup. I think it would be prudent for someone to make sure they locate those backups and keep them safe.
The company I work for has 50TB+ of data that gets incrementally backed up each night, with a full backup each week; I would think LeaseWeb would be be engaging in something similar.
We're just being told on faith to "trust the NSA."
I trust them. Of course I trust them. I trust them to ignore the laws of the land and just do what they want to do "for the greater good" (for rather oddly defined values of "good"). But trust does not equate to respect or even ambivalence; trust is that you feel confident in knowing what choices they'll make.
The problem, as I see it, is that the "public" (meaning most of the people hearing about this issue) don't understand what can be done with metadata.
Take, for instance, the case of Target identifying (correctly) a teenage girl as being pregnant before her father knew. Slate provides a wonderful article on using metadata to find Paul Revere (oh! if the British had the techniques back then!).
Metadata can tell you more about someone than the actual content of the message; it documents the connections to other data that provides a feedback to the original point of interest (be it a person, or event; choose your poison).
It can be used to find out if someone is having an affair, or doing drugs, or is "socially unacceptable" by some other metric (the traditional blackmail category would be homosexuality, but that may be losing it's hold these days). With blackmail comes power, and that power is held by people who have virtually no accountability.
FISA Court? It has rejected 0.03% of all requests (since 1978! none in the last year!) which is functionally equivalenmt to being a rubber stamp. The "F" in FISA stands for FOREIGN: what part of "Foreign" covers acquiring information on every Verizon customer in the USA (let alone the other companies)?
Add to that the Judicial Branch's trend to defer to the Executive Branch when they pull out the "But Secret!" card. See US v. Reynolds where the US pulls the "State Secrets Priviledge" to avoid showing documents for a plane crash, when it was later shown (50 years later!) there were no secrets involved at all; to paraphrase Monty Python, It was that other thing: a lie.
I cannot even begin to verbalize how outraged I am about this fiasco, from Bush's TIA to this current incarnation (same thing, just different labels). Al Qaeda was spectacularly successful in 2001, not in killing people or destroying property, but in redefining the ideals that the United States represents.
On the post: Annoyed NY Mayor Attacks Court Decision On Stop And Frisk With Condescension And Hyperbole
the 55:00 mark ?
On the post: Confessed Liar To Congress, James Clapper, Gets To Set Up The 'Independent' Review Over NSA Surveillance
Isn't the order wrong?
I, personally, don't see how the NSA has the job to "advance our foreign policy," but I'll give it to them if they want it (I thought that was the job of the CIA).
On the post: Ed Snowden's Email Provider, Lavabit, Shuts Down To Fight US Gov't Intrusion
Re: 1st Amendment
I think a reasonable definition of treason is: The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies
The US Supreme Court has said that 1st Amendment Rights are not absolute; falsely yelling FIRE in a theater, for example, can be prosecuted. And on (too) many occasions they have said that National Security can take precedence to hold back speech. Unfortunately, from my perspective, they don't ask for proof that National Security is actually involved.
On the post: Ed Snowden's Email Provider, Lavabit, Shuts Down To Fight US Gov't Intrusion
Re: Re:
There are several instances where the US has made things illegal after the fact -- the laws around the SuperFund sites being one of them, so the "ex post facto" limitation is not 100%.
On the post: Former State Dept. Official, Expert On Extremism Says US Terror Alert Is 'Crazy Pants'
Re: Conference Calls Are Destroying The World!
On the post: The 217 Representatives Who Voted To Keep NSA Spying On All Your Data
Re: Treason?
On the post: The 217 Representatives Who Voted To Keep NSA Spying On All Your Data
1 out of 3
At least my rep (Tierney) voted Yea.
I wonder if the non-voters were abstentions or not present. With Markey now a Senator, Massachusetts is absent a representative for a while (I do wish the list had the state for each of the reps instead of just the duplicates -- I'm somewhat embarrassed to say I don't know the names of our entire [Massachusetts] delegation).
On the post: SEC Confirms That Bitcoin Savings & Trust Was A Ponzi Scheme; Files Lawsuit
Re: Re: Tut tut, Mike
On the post: National Intelligence Lawyer Wonders Why People Are Fine With Sharing Data On Facebook But Not With The Government
Why People Are Fine With Sharing Data On Facebook But Not With The Government
They give something in return
For giving facebook your information, they help you find old school mates, or relatives, or coworkers, or friends. And you control how much of that you want them to use
About all the government can say they give you is "security" and I'm not too sure they use the definition I expect.
On the post: More Sanctions Issued Against Team Prenda
What is the likelihood?
Presumably failure to pay could be used to prevent them from being able to practice law in California, but I'm wondering what the likely sanctions will be.
On the post: Internet Catches Texas Senate Fudging Time-Stamps On Abortion Bill
Slightly off topic
So, what was the emergency? Was it just this stupid anti-abortion bill? Was it an emergency because they couldn't get it passed during their normal session? That doesn't sound like much of an emergency.
What is to keep them from just doing away with the "normal" legislative session, and just do everything in 30 day "emergency" sessions?
And lastly, how much do these "emergency" sessions cost? If I were a Texan, I'd be asking why we needed to pay for this travesty.
On the post: Only A Terrorist Would Complain About Tennessee's Water Quality
Re: Re: Terrorism
(I'm looking at you FBI)
On the post: Latest Leak: UK Spies Tap Internet Cables, Collect Nearly Everything With Little Oversight, Then Shares It With NSA
Re:
I think there are very few groups that "like this"; the EU will just be one of the bigger ones to object (if/when they do).
On the post: NSA: If Your Data Is Encrypted, You Might Be Evil, So We'll Keep It Until We're Sure
Re:
On the post: Epic Response To A Bogus Cease And Desist Letter: Bravo For Your Legal Satire!
Epic!
But: how in Sam Hill's name does one register a .info domain name for $3.17?
A classic response intro!
Which would help if he had ever seen a bar exam; I must say that I have my doubts.
If I ever need the help of an attorney in New Jersey, I will try to seek out Mr Kaplitt. Bravo!
On the post: FBI Admits That Obeying The Constitution Just Takes Too Much Time
Re:
The entire Bill of Rights? I'm not sure if the 10th appliesAlthough that closing phrase "or to the people" might qualify it. Just nitpicking.
On the post: The Next Time Someone Says Twitter Is Killing Deep Thinking With Short Quick Messages, Show Them This
Re: (literacy)
I seem to recall that in Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America that he noticed everyone read, the predominance being newepapers, but otherwise self-teaching manuals, e.g. "Teach yourself to Dance", and "How to be a Carpenter". A historian friend of mine commented that those self-published books (every dance master felt obligated to proclaim themselves as such by publishing a dance manual, quite often "liberating" other dance master's steps -- [infringement!]) made it possible to reconstruct in great detail what the people of that time did, from sewing, to dance steps, to farming.
Anthony Trollope's North America made a similar point:(effectively saying literacy in America was 10 times the literacy in England -- oh, maybe that isn't saying much :-) )
Modern literacy? According to the CIA (and by extension the NSA since they read *everything*) the US hit 99.99% literacy in 2008 (according to the CIA World Factbook).
So yes,Literacy is better now, but a comparison of the quality of what is/was/can be read, I believe, would make the "literacy" rate a somewhat poor metric.
Related to the 99.99% literacy is the National Assessment of Reading Level [NAARL] results in 2002/2003 which had "Literacy" is a low bar.
On the post: LeaseWeb Deletes Megaupload's Servers Without Warning, Destroying Key Evidence
Backups
If they were diligent they would have done a backup to tape before wiping them. Alternatively, they could have just relied on their last backup. I think it would be prudent for someone to make sure they locate those backups and keep them safe.
The company I work for has 50TB+ of data that gets incrementally backed up each night, with a full backup each week; I would think LeaseWeb would be be engaging in something similar.
On the post: NSA Claims Surveillance Programs Aided The Stopping Of 50 Attacks; Details Lacking
I trust them!
I trust them. Of course I trust them. I trust them to ignore the laws of the land and just do what they want to do "for the greater good" (for rather oddly defined values of "good"). But trust does not equate to respect or even ambivalence; trust is that you feel confident in knowing what choices they'll make.
On the post: Majority Of Americans Okay With NSA Dragnet... Or, Wait, Not Okay With It; Depending On How You Ask
It is about ideals
Take, for instance, the case of Target identifying (correctly) a teenage girl as being pregnant before her father knew. Slate provides a wonderful article on using metadata to find Paul Revere (oh! if the British had the techniques back then!).
Metadata can tell you more about someone than the actual content of the message; it documents the connections to other data that provides a feedback to the original point of interest (be it a person, or event; choose your poison).
It can be used to find out if someone is having an affair, or doing drugs, or is "socially unacceptable" by some other metric (the traditional blackmail category would be homosexuality, but that may be losing it's hold these days). With blackmail comes power, and that power is held by people who have virtually no accountability.
FISA Court? It has rejected 0.03% of all requests (since 1978! none in the last year!) which is functionally equivalenmt to being a rubber stamp. The "F" in FISA stands for FOREIGN: what part of "Foreign" covers acquiring information on every Verizon customer in the USA (let alone the other companies)?
Add to that the Judicial Branch's trend to defer to the Executive Branch when they pull out the "But Secret!" card. See US v. Reynolds where the US pulls the "State Secrets Priviledge" to avoid showing documents for a plane crash, when it was later shown (50 years later!) there were no secrets involved at all; to paraphrase Monty Python, It was that other thing: a lie.
I cannot even begin to verbalize how outraged I am about this fiasco, from Bush's TIA to this current incarnation (same thing, just different labels). Al Qaeda was spectacularly successful in 2001, not in killing people or destroying property, but in redefining the ideals that the United States represents.
Next >>