He's completely full of it on the collaboration bit, yes. Enforcing federal law is the job of the feds, not local cops. Funny how the states rights arguments go out the window as soon its biggest proponents get into power.
Re: Let's make children work 18 hours a day cleaning rich peoples chimneys...
"In a sane land, anyone who makes a statement like that..."
In this insane land, anyone who makes a statement like that could be next up for the Supreme Court! Sweet Goddess, imagine the masterpieces of legal scholarship that would flow like honeyed wine.*
*3-1 odds he would rule the first amendment unconstitutional. OK, you're right, make it 12-1.
Don't bother with the Congressional bloviating. This occurs on a regular basis and everyone involved knows it means only one thing. Reps will bitch and moan, then reauthorize the bill overwhelmingly. SSDD
Smith v. Maryland and United States v. Miller form the basis of what has become the third-party doctrine. Under this doctrine, if you voluntarily provide information to a third party, the Fourth Amendment does not prevent the government from accessing it without a warrant. The Court wrote in Smith, you have “no legitimate expectation of privacy” from warrantless government access to that information.
Without a warrant, or even probable cause, the Feds can ask Facebook to turn over any and all information they have on you already. We only have Zuckerbergs assurance that they aren't doing that already and that they won't in the future. Facebook is becoming a smorgasbord fit to tempt the LEO community into becoming a true glutton.
It will be up to the Supreme Court to ultimately decide, and all of the speculation I have read basically says "shake the magic-8 ball". Until then, placing this much raw data in any one companies hands is problematical.
Unfortunately, this kind of behaviour really can, and should, affect their credibility. They are demonstrating that they are willing to sell out the people they claim to advocate for. Makes you wonder what other positions they have, say on judges or legislation, they have that are amenable to change based on their donors wishes.
If the colonies refused to give up slavery, then they should not have allowed in, it really is that simple. Hindsight does not play in to it at all. Simple ethics and humanity does.
"The founders understood that the way the constitution was written would help set the tone for the freedom of the slaves slowly over time so they took what they could get at the time"
All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Kicking it down to your ancestors to fix your fuckups is quintessentially American, I will give you that.
The history of the US is replete with incidences that by the the countries professed morals can only be considered evil in nature. Today that evil is most embodied in the right wing of the Republican Party. Certainly not exclusively, Democrats certainly have to share some of the blame. The Randians however, evil to the core.
And no, I'm not bankrupt, just someone who has never been Christian. (And no, not an atheist either.)
And while yes, the Enlightenment did inform the Founders, it primarily informed their writings. Unfortunately many of their actions did not comport with their ideals. The three-fifths compromise was proof enough that many did not have the fortitude to back their ideals with actions. And it is their actions they should be judged on, not their professed ideals. The Founders idea of 'Liberty' only applied to landed white men, no one else. I judge them on what they did (and still do) not on what they said.
It's about distraction. That's it. It's one of the first things I was taught about dealing with chronic pain and tinnitus over 25 years ago. They may try and make it all scientific sounding, but it's something that's been done for many decades.
I think that most, if not all, countries dabble in this. It's really doesn't seem to be aimed at the other country, but to its domestic audience. Just trying to get people to think that the other countries leaders have no clothes, while our esteemed leader is garbed in the finest invisible raiment money can buy.
Relative morality is always difficult to judge between nations. Yet the very foundations of Western society are morally bankrupt. As long as they are built on the back of Old Testament moralism they always will be. I think that any society which builds itself on the explicit ideal that they are fully human, and that non-Westerners (ie non-Christians) are by definition sub-human is built on a lie. And has no real claim to legitimacy, nor can it. Note, I am not comparing the West to the East or anywhere else. Why they act as they do is irrelevant. All that matters is how we act. If a child points out that your actions are unethical, does that make the observation less ethically relevant, or true? Any moral system that starts with the basic premise that it's adherents are the 'chosen ones' is more than problematical; it is repugnant.
Evil done in the name of Good, is still Evil. Good in the name of Evil is still Good. Just because the US is occasionally doing good, doesn't make it good. It's not Neutral or Chaotic Good, it fluctuates between Neutral and Lawful Evil. Look at the actions (and their results), not the jingoistic so-called moral reason for those actions.
I think that you are making a mistake in assuming the the US, or the West in general, have ever really held the high ground.
The Treaty of Tordesillas and Treaty of Zaragoza divided the world for the peoples of the West to pillage. Let's face it, to China, and most of Asia, the UK, the West, and the US have generally been regarded as the bad guys for literally 500 years.
While the Chinese are certainly no angels (they can be and have been absolute bastards) the West has never really been "morally superior" to them. Just technologically superior.
I think the key word in the statute is the 'or' between bii and biii. It puts any of the three in play. I guess I should have stated that the way that Federal and State laws are interpreted by US Attorneys and the courts make almost literally everyone a criminal. See all of the coverage on this site about how the laws are misapplied, misinterpreted and misused.
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by Harvey Silverglate and various other books show how the law makes it a matter of whether a particular US Attorney wants to see you in jail that determines your fate. My point is that, as written, anyone at a high level in the government routinely makes decisions that can be considered deleterious to human life. Even DeVos makes decisions of that scale. There really is no good definition of terrorist or terrorism beyond 'I know it when I see it'. And like the obscenity reference, it lends itself to mischief all too easily. A lot of it really boils down to perception, and as we have seen recently, perception can be easily manipulated. My worry is that some idiot in Congress or the White House will peg to this. Not necessarily Trump or Ryan or whomever. The definitions and precedents make it all too plausible for someone to use things like for purely political purposes. While this begs for some good old fashioned schadenfreude, this is just potent of a weapon for anyone to be allowed to have.
According to the US governments definition I can't think of a single high level government official that is NOT engaged in terrorism against their own citizens. Section (B)(i) is especially problematic with regards to the Trump administration. If I'm reading this right, then many of his executive orders are instruments of terrorism, plain and simple. Hell, the recently withdrawn AHCA fits (B)i and (B)ii to a tee, and possibly (B)iii.
Definitions that are hard coded into the law can be just as big a security breach as security keys hard coded in software. But potentially far more devastating. After all, you can't patch the law the second Tuesday of every month.
18 Us Code s2331 (5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
It has never been about encryption per se. It has always been about power and essentially, laziness. Why actually investigate something when you don't have to? Easier to coerce a confession, false or real doesn't matter. Just a conviction. If breaking someones encryption is the easiest APPARENT way to 'solve' a crime, it's a no-brainer from the LEO perspective.
People need to remember, it never has been about 'justice', just closing cases.
Last sentence in the article: "If you're going to go full corruption, after all, why bother hiding it?"
I think that this is one of the things that has bothered me about politics in America since I was a kid.
If i'm a corrupt Mexican president I privatize the Telecoms and leave office a billionaire.
If I'm a corrupt Russian president I privatize the petroleum industries and stay in office forever, but as a billionaire.
If I'm a corrupt lawmaker in most of the world (Brazil best current example) I make millions and am nigh untouchable.
Here, Congress critters (and Governors etc) routinely go down for just thousands of dollars. Have they no shame? Or competence? (Looking at you Illinois governors.)
At least the Hungarians are doing it for something worthwhile though. Beer. Puerile maybe, but hey... beer.
On the post: Attorney General's Memo Indicates Trump's DOJ Is Only Interested In The Blue Side Of The Justice Equation
Re: Brown eyes for a reason....
On the post: Revenge Pornster Craig Brittain Issues DMCA Notices Demanding Google Delist Entire Websites, Including Wikipedia
Re: Let's make children work 18 hours a day cleaning rich peoples chimneys...
In this insane land, anyone who makes a statement like that could be next up for the Supreme Court! Sweet Goddess, imagine the masterpieces of legal scholarship that would flow like honeyed wine.*
*3-1 odds he would rule the first amendment unconstitutional. OK, you're right, make it 12-1.
On the post: Oh, Sure, Now Congress Is Serious About Asking NSA About Surveillance On Americans
On the post: Revenge Pornster Craig Brittain Issues DMCA Notices Demanding Google Delist Entire Websites, Including Wikipedia
On the post: If Facebook Becomes The Internet's Authentication System, Can Citizen Scores Around The World Be Far Behind?
Third Party Doctrine
Without a warrant, or even probable cause, the Feds can ask Facebook to turn over any and all information they have on you already. We only have Zuckerbergs assurance that they aren't doing that already and that they won't in the future. Facebook is becoming a smorgasbord fit to tempt the LEO community into becoming a true glutton.
It will be up to the Supreme Court to ultimately decide, and all of the speculation I have read basically says "shake the magic-8 ball". Until then, placing this much raw data in any one companies hands is problematical.
On the post: Comcast Paid Civil Rights Groups To Support Killing Broadband Privacy Rules
On the post: New Regulations Appear To Authorize Chinese Law Enforcement To Hack Into Computers Anywhere In The World
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral High Ground
"The founders understood that the way the constitution was written would help set the tone for the freedom of the slaves slowly over time so they took what they could get at the time"
All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Kicking it down to your ancestors to fix your fuckups is quintessentially American, I will give you that.
On the post: Canadian Prosecutors Cut Loose 35 Mafia Suspects Rather Than Turn Over Info On Stingray Devices
*Name redacted due to NDA
On the post: DOJ Refuses FOIA Request On Emails, Claiming 'Personal Privacy'
Well they got that corollary to Murphy's Law down pat.
On the post: New Regulations Appear To Authorize Chinese Law Enforcement To Hack Into Computers Anywhere In The World
Re: Re: Re: Re: Moral High Ground
And no, I'm not bankrupt, just someone who has never been Christian. (And no, not an atheist either.)
And while yes, the Enlightenment did inform the Founders, it primarily informed their writings. Unfortunately many of their actions did not comport with their ideals. The three-fifths compromise was proof enough that many did not have the fortitude to back their ideals with actions. And it is their actions they should be judged on, not their professed ideals. The Founders idea of 'Liberty' only applied to landed white men, no one else. I judge them on what they did (and still do) not on what they said.
On the post: Studies: New Source For Therapy For PTSD And Addiction Is Mind-Rotting Video Games
Re: pwned?
On the post: New Regulations Appear To Authorize Chinese Law Enforcement To Hack Into Computers Anywhere In The World
Re:
On the post: New Regulations Appear To Authorize Chinese Law Enforcement To Hack Into Computers Anywhere In The World
Re: Re: Moral High Ground
Note, I am not comparing the West to the East or anywhere else. Why they act as they do is irrelevant. All that matters is how we act. If a child points out that your actions are unethical, does that make the observation less ethically relevant, or true? Any moral system that starts with the basic premise that it's adherents are the 'chosen ones' is more than problematical; it is repugnant.
Evil done in the name of Good, is still Evil. Good in the name of Evil is still Good. Just because the US is occasionally doing good, doesn't make it good. It's not Neutral or Chaotic Good, it fluctuates between Neutral and Lawful Evil. Look at the actions (and their results), not the jingoistic so-called moral reason for those actions.
On the post: New Regulations Appear To Authorize Chinese Law Enforcement To Hack Into Computers Anywhere In The World
Moral High Ground
The Treaty of Tordesillas and Treaty of Zaragoza divided the world for the peoples of the West to pillage. Let's face it, to China, and most of Asia, the UK, the West, and the US have generally been regarded as the bad guys for literally 500 years.
While the Chinese are certainly no angels (they can be and have been absolute bastards) the West has never really been "morally superior" to them. Just technologically superior.
On the post: Oversight Committee Finds FBI's Facial Recognition Database Still Filled With Innocent People, Still Wrong 15% Of The Time
Re: Re: misidentify more black people than white people
On the post: FBI's Presence At The Garland, Texas Shooting Appears To Show It Prefers Easier Terrorism Arrests
Because it has nothing to do with anti-terrorism and everything to do with security theater. I swear it's spelled FBI but pronounced Tee-Ess-A.
On the post: Twitter Reports On Government Agencies Using 'Report Tweet' Function To Block Terrorism-Related Content
Re: Re: They're All Terrorists
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by Harvey Silverglate and various other books show how the law makes it a matter of whether a particular US Attorney wants to see you in jail that determines your fate. My point is that, as written, anyone at a high level in the government routinely makes decisions that can be considered deleterious to human life. Even DeVos makes decisions of that scale. There really is no good definition of terrorist or terrorism beyond 'I know it when I see it'. And like the obscenity reference, it lends itself to mischief all too easily. A lot of it really boils down to perception, and as we have seen recently, perception can be easily manipulated. My worry is that some idiot in Congress or the White House will peg to this. Not necessarily Trump or Ryan or whomever. The definitions and precedents make it all too plausible for someone to use things like for purely political purposes. While this begs for some good old fashioned schadenfreude, this is just potent of a weapon for anyone to be allowed to have.
On the post: Twitter Reports On Government Agencies Using 'Report Tweet' Function To Block Terrorism-Related Content
They're All Terrorists
Definitions that are hard coded into the law can be just as big a security breach as security keys hard coded in software. But potentially far more devastating. After all, you can't patch the law the second Tuesday of every month.
18 Us Code s2331
(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
On the post: Encryption Workarounds Paper Shows Why 'Going Dark' Is Not A Problem, And In Fact Is As Old As Humanity Itself
People need to remember, it never has been about 'justice', just closing cases.
On the post: Trademark Censoring: Hungary Considering Banning Heineken Red Star Trademark Because Communism
I think that this is one of the things that has bothered me about politics in America since I was a kid.
If i'm a corrupt Mexican president I privatize the Telecoms and leave office a billionaire.
If I'm a corrupt Russian president I privatize the petroleum industries and stay in office forever, but as a billionaire.
If I'm a corrupt lawmaker in most of the world (Brazil best current example) I make millions and am nigh untouchable.
Here, Congress critters (and Governors etc) routinely go down for just thousands of dollars. Have they no shame? Or competence? (Looking at you Illinois governors.)
At least the Hungarians are doing it for something worthwhile though. Beer. Puerile maybe, but hey... beer.
Next >>