Actually, because the entire construct is nothing more than an exercise in:
"What would I do if I were a billionaire asshole and had hold of the reigns of power and was immune to prosecution for my misdeeds?"
... there is almost an unlimited number of situations that can be covered, like:
Section 332 Chapter 12 Rule # 665889
Medication: the practice of manufacturing sick people by selling them poisons that shut down body functions that react to disease, rather then eradicate the actual disease, or of prescribing a drug which includes a counter agent that actually creates the problem the "drug" is supposed to cure.
In this manner, we can make them "feel" fewer symptoms while at the same time, destroying bodily functions that prevent other maladies, or insuring their lifelong need for the drug by counteracting the drug as a side effect, or by including in the drug, compounds that create entirely new side effects that can be then treated using even more "medication"
Example.
For those with C.O.P.D., prescribe inhalants that contain a mucus antagonist that will shut down their body's mucus manufacture - leading to myriad future dysfunctions - but make the inert carrier of the antagonist, that the victim breathes deeply into their lungs, a mucus-making sugar like lactose.
I guess I'll just never understand this whole thing.
When I'm online, I assume that every single person posting under an anonymous handle is actually an 11 year old boy, sitting in his parent's basement - until proven otherwise.
When someone anonymously posts something like "I'm gonna kill you in your sleep!", the most I can muster in reaction is a giggle.
The words on the screen are impotent, and have absolutely no power to do me harm.
Why would I even give such a comment a second regard?
And since I assume the poster is an 11 year old boy sitting in his parent's basement, why would such a comment cause me the least concern?
The old rhyme "Sticks and Stone can break my bones, but Words can never hurt me." comes to mind whenever I see this discussion raised.
To create legislation making the posting of rude, cruel or threatening statements illegal, will necessarily lead to incriminating verbal speech that does the same thing as well - thus a drunk who gets angry at someone who hits him in a bar and yells "I'm gonna kill you mutha fukka.", can be incarcerated longer than the guy who hit him - cuz killing is worse than hitting - attempted murder VS assault.
This whole thing is really about creating new laws that will eliminate free speech, by pretending its "for the children" once again.
This is silliness and designed like so much else, to make people fear the internet.
People who make posted threats should be considered as weak and stupid attention-seekers, and summarily consigned to the realm of the universally ignored by all.
Teach you kids that words on a screen cannot hurt them, and should be, like those who post such things anonymously, disregarded and ignored.
"Don't feed the Trolls" should be the order of the day.
This "problem" will go away as soon as everyone realizes it aint a problem at all and is just another attempt to turn the "dangerous to authority" fledgling hive-mind that is the internet, into another Hollywood advertising channel to sell shit a shinola.
Well, considering that regular bribery of politicians by corporations is perfectly legal, why not!
After all, laws are now being manufactured by Hollywood and Billionaire Koch Brother thin-tanks, for dissemination to "well-oiled" politicians to enact into laws of the land.
Why shouldn't corporations be the only ones to be able to get their phony product-promoting studies published and prevent any contradictory science from doing the same as well.
Its an Ownership Society now and if you aint an owner, then you're owned. Get used to it.
"... it seems pretty clear that he was directly responsible for this DEA program being shut down completely and the data purged."
Well, methinks we should not be jumping to unproved conclusions here just yet, or doing a happy dance "cuz the good guys won one".
Normal procedure in these cases is to simply start up the exact same process under a new agency name with more secrecy and less over-sight and transfer the held data to the new site before purging the old machines.
"...and as far as these documents go, the public is way, way down on the FBI's list of priorities."
Oh I don't know about that.
Looks to me like the public is number one on their list of priorities actually.
After all, its the public that is being spied on by these devices, and its the public that the Feds are doing their criminal best to keep out of the loop concerning the potential and popular uses of these devices.
Nope. I'd say that John Q. Public is absolutely the first one on the priorities list - of suspects and criminals soon to be prosecuted, who must at all costs be kept ignorant of the tools being used against them.
Looks more and more apparent every day, that the Public really is being seriously considered as the enemy - the Adversary - by all branches of the Federal US Government.
When you declare war on Terrorists, you have no choice but to include your own public, as terrorists are nothing more than angry civilians - the public - and the Federal Government intends to make almost all US citizens without 6 to 8 figure incomes, very, very miserable in the very near future. :)
"Why we have to pay for two agencies ostensibly doing exactly the opposite things is an exercise left to the reader."
That's a no brainer actually.
If we did not have the one agency creating the drug problem, we could not have the other agency fighting the drug problem, because, there would be no drug problem to fight.
Keep in mind that this is a double dipping process, where the one agency makes a fortune in un-accountable cash from running the drug trade, while the other agency makes an un-accountable fortune from tax payers, fighting the drug trade.
In USG and MAFIA circles (organized crime circles) its considered to be the biggest and best Win Win business model ever created, since War itself.
And like War, those on the front lines in these phony Wars On Stuff scams are not the ones who start, promote and profit from them.
In fact its so popular, they decided to do the exact same thing with the declared War on Terror, the un-declared War on File-Sharing, and the soon to be announced War on Cyber-Hackers.
One hand manufactures the problem so the other hand can fight the problem.
As long as the hand that creates the crisis is not caught in the act, this whole process makes government appear to be totally necessary - to fight the evil (they created) - to those who cannot see what is directly in front of their faces - like the vast majority of human beings on earth.
Many decades ago, Prohibition One taught both the Mobsters and the Statesmen, just how profitable a morality based contraband substance, or prohibited practice could become and they've both been pulling in massive annual profits from the model ever since.
hehehehe - even the spell check agrees that this just aint a real word - but damn its so lovely and specifically descriptive of so many of our modern morality morons it oughta be immediately adopted into the English language.
"Had the SRT known that the Reviews could become public, its members would likely have been tempted to highlight only the information that would paint the agency’s prior actions in a positive light and to avoid calling attention to information that could have embarrassed the agency or its officials."
Translation - if they had known the public might find out, they would have lied and withheld embarrassing or incriminating information from the review - completely subverting the whole point of a review.
"Protecting the agency’s withholdings in this case is thus consistent with the purposes of this exemption."
This means literally, that the exemption was designed specifically to prevent the truth from reaching the public.
The only thing more outrageous than a law that protects a public-paid federal agency from embarrassing/incriminating itself by disclosing the truth of its actions to the public, is a judge who considers such legislation to be appropriate and necessary.
Boy, we've come a long way baby, but its all been down hill.
The Corporation =============== Rule #3002344 =============
A wise and well informed public is the most dangerous thing a corporate government can face, and must be prevented at all costs - using the tax-payer's money of course.
1.(a) - Science is far too dangerous to be allowed to fall into the hands of the paying public and must by all means possible, be prevented.
Few things are as important as preventing the paying public from becoming aware of the means and methods that science affords the Corporation to exploit the paying public.
Science also has the distinct potential to enable the paying public's ability to perceive ways of throwing off the yoke of corporate control and enacting legal and technical means of preventing the mass exploitation we enjoy currently - as they have in the past - and thus ranks first among the many aspects of civilization that must be stringently kept from their grasp by any and all means possible.
Science must serve the state only, as the state must serve the Corporation only.
That is merely the "public perception ploy", that allows this new "War On ____" to get full tax-traction and support of law.
In this case, its a "War On Hackers", and once you start to realize exactly what this particular "War On" allows the Feds to do, you will be seeing this legislation in a whole new light.
You do remember the recent kerfuffle about letting Corporate America - other-wise known as the Billionaire Fascist Club - run "attack wares" - called "defense wares", legally against "perceived" cyber assaults.
Well, now they have an executive order that will nicely immunize them against any repercussions, should they, say, fry the computers of an on-line chess club by mistake, in their retaliations against some unknown hackers or an Anonymous DDOS attack on their network.
And I'll betcha they now have access to tax-payer funding for research and development of new and better attack, errrr... defense wares, as well, and maybe even access to NSA Brand(TM) anti-cyber tools.
And ya'all should by now, know exactly what total immunity from all consequences of one's actions lead to.
If not, look no further than the CIA, FBI, NSA, NYPD, and all the other so-called public-servants of the USG, who are now laws unto them-selves, answering only to... well.... not you, that's for sure.
If you're having difficulty still, you might want to simply see this new executive order as the declaration of the War on Hackers, which will now be waged like the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror.... that is, forever and on your dime.
"...Not to keep governments from spying on me, though that is a nice side benefit..."
That was probably just the NSA's hard-coded backdoor process, built into all American and most foreign built hard drives for the last decade or so, installing itself - because you said YES to encryption, meaning you must be a bad guy who is hiding something.
So now only you and the USG can read your drive. :)
"...raise an awful lot of questions about the fairness of that trial."
I cannot imagine why anyone would have questions about the fairness of the trial.
After all, this is the DEA, DHS and USG.
There is absolutely no possibility whatsoever of anything remotely resembling fairness when you're dealing with these "law-unto-themselves" criminal organizations.
Any fairness discovered in such a case would obviously have been a simply mistake, or something they overlooked when manufacturing evidence, faking witness testimony or rewriting investigation records.
First of all, we are talking here about the FBI, so the chances that they lied about almost everything they stated, is extremely high.
Thus, it is more likely that they deployed their drones far more often than they kept records for because the uses they put their drones to were very likely not legal, or were simply, as usual, extraneous personal uses, like spying on the young lady in apartment 203 who never pulls her drapes and walks about in her undies all the time.
It is also very likely that they have far more drones than they admitted to having access to, and that these "officially undisclosed" drones were used generally in preference to the officially "owned" drones, specifically to avoid maintaining records.
It is rather sad when the very first thought that occurs after listening to anything stated by one's official law enforcement authorities, is that they are, once again, lying through their teeth, as usual.
Re: Actually doing nothing against "terrorism" works.
Actually, winning the war on terrorism is super easy.
First, you stop bombing third world countries into the stone age, which turns the survivors of these third world countries into terrorists.
Second, you rebuild all the third world countries you already bombed into the stone age and give the survivors a huge pile of cash to make up somewhat for the family members you slaughtered. Use the money you would have spent on bombs and bullets and such to make this payment, since you won't need then anymore. Then you can sell them the material resources they will need to re-establish their civilizational infrastructure - at a discount of course.
Third, promise the world to never invade and destroy any more countries for commercial or religious reasons, and only attack countries that declare war on America, or who send troops to invade America.
Voila - no terrorists, and so, an instant end to the war on terrorism.
Actually it has a far greater chance of passing, since a bill to give every American 1 million dollars obviously calls for taking the money they plan to give to every American, from every American's taxes.
After all, the government does not have any other money to give away.
On the post: Following Canada's Bad Example, Now UK Wants To Muzzle Scientists And Their Inconvenient Truths
Re: Re: The Fascist's Handbook
"What would I do if I were a billionaire asshole and had hold of the reigns of power and was immune to prosecution for my misdeeds?"
... there is almost an unlimited number of situations that can be covered, like:
Section 332
Chapter 12
Rule # 665889
Medication: the practice of manufacturing sick people by selling them poisons that shut down body functions that react to disease, rather then eradicate the actual disease, or of prescribing a drug which includes a counter agent that actually creates the problem the "drug" is supposed to cure.
In this manner, we can make them "feel" fewer symptoms while at the same time, destroying bodily functions that prevent other maladies, or insuring their lifelong need for the drug by counteracting the drug as a side effect, or by including in the drug, compounds that create entirely new side effects that can be then treated using even more "medication"
Example.
For those with C.O.P.D., prescribe inhalants that contain a mucus antagonist that will shut down their body's mucus manufacture - leading to myriad future dysfunctions - but make the inert carrier of the antagonist, that the victim breathes deeply into their lungs, a mucus-making sugar like lactose.
The I-Ching calls it the Advantages of Adversity.
---
On the post: Is It Acceptable For Academics To Pay For Privatized, Expedited Peer Review?
Re: Re: May I take your New World Order please.
I forgot to add the /s.
But to answer your question, no, never.
And it'll likely be the death of me yet. :)
---
On the post: Why Online Abuse Is Not Our Destiny
Sticks and Stones
When I'm online, I assume that every single person posting under an anonymous handle is actually an 11 year old boy, sitting in his parent's basement - until proven otherwise.
When someone anonymously posts something like "I'm gonna kill you in your sleep!", the most I can muster in reaction is a giggle.
The words on the screen are impotent, and have absolutely no power to do me harm.
Why would I even give such a comment a second regard?
And since I assume the poster is an 11 year old boy sitting in his parent's basement, why would such a comment cause me the least concern?
The old rhyme "Sticks and Stone can break my bones, but Words can never hurt me." comes to mind whenever I see this discussion raised.
To create legislation making the posting of rude, cruel or threatening statements illegal, will necessarily lead to incriminating verbal speech that does the same thing as well - thus a drunk who gets angry at someone who hits him in a bar and yells "I'm gonna kill you mutha fukka.", can be incarcerated longer than the guy who hit him - cuz killing is worse than hitting - attempted murder VS assault.
This whole thing is really about creating new laws that will eliminate free speech, by pretending its "for the children" once again.
This is silliness and designed like so much else, to make people fear the internet.
People who make posted threats should be considered as weak and stupid attention-seekers, and summarily consigned to the realm of the universally ignored by all.
Teach you kids that words on a screen cannot hurt them, and should be, like those who post such things anonymously, disregarded and ignored.
"Don't feed the Trolls" should be the order of the day.
This "problem" will go away as soon as everyone realizes it aint a problem at all and is just another attempt to turn the "dangerous to authority" fledgling hive-mind that is the internet, into another Hollywood advertising channel to sell shit a shinola.
---
On the post: Is It Acceptable For Academics To Pay For Privatized, Expedited Peer Review?
May I take your New World Order please.
Well, considering that regular bribery of politicians by corporations is perfectly legal, why not!
After all, laws are now being manufactured by Hollywood and Billionaire Koch Brother thin-tanks, for dissemination to "well-oiled" politicians to enact into laws of the land.
Why shouldn't corporations be the only ones to be able to get their phony product-promoting studies published and prevent any contradictory science from doing the same as well.
Its an Ownership Society now and if you aint an owner, then you're owned. Get used to it.
---
On the post: DEA Phone Tracking Program Would Have Continued If Not For Snowden
SOP
Well, methinks we should not be jumping to unproved conclusions here just yet, or doing a happy dance "cuz the good guys won one".
Normal procedure in these cases is to simply start up the exact same process under a new agency name with more secrecy and less over-sight and transfer the held data to the new site before purging the old machines.
Standard Operational Procedure actually.
---
On the post: New Documents Show FBI Instructing Law Enforcement To Throw Out Cases Rather Than Give Up Info On Stingray Use
The Adversary R U
Oh I don't know about that.
Looks to me like the public is number one on their list of priorities actually.
After all, its the public that is being spied on by these devices, and its the public that the Feds are doing their criminal best to keep out of the loop concerning the potential and popular uses of these devices.
Nope. I'd say that John Q. Public is absolutely the first one on the priorities list - of suspects and criminals soon to be prosecuted, who must at all costs be kept ignorant of the tools being used against them.
Looks more and more apparent every day, that the Public really is being seriously considered as the enemy - the Adversary - by all branches of the Federal US Government.
When you declare war on Terrorists, you have no choice but to include your own public, as terrorists are nothing more than angry civilians - the public - and the Federal Government intends to make almost all US citizens without 6 to 8 figure incomes, very, very miserable in the very near future. :)
---
On the post: EFF, Human Rights Watch Sue The DEA Over Mass Surveillance Program
Re: Re: Re: DEA?
That's a no brainer actually.
If we did not have the one agency creating the drug problem, we could not have the other agency fighting the drug problem, because, there would be no drug problem to fight.
Keep in mind that this is a double dipping process, where the one agency makes a fortune in un-accountable cash from running the drug trade, while the other agency makes an un-accountable fortune from tax payers, fighting the drug trade.
In USG and MAFIA circles (organized crime circles) its considered to be the biggest and best Win Win business model ever created, since War itself.
And like War, those on the front lines in these phony Wars On Stuff scams are not the ones who start, promote and profit from them.
In fact its so popular, they decided to do the exact same thing with the declared War on Terror, the un-declared War on File-Sharing, and the soon to be announced War on Cyber-Hackers.
One hand manufactures the problem so the other hand can fight the problem.
As long as the hand that creates the crisis is not caught in the act, this whole process makes government appear to be totally necessary - to fight the evil (they created) - to those who cannot see what is directly in front of their faces - like the vast majority of human beings on earth.
Many decades ago, Prohibition One taught both the Mobsters and the Statesmen, just how profitable a morality based contraband substance, or prohibited practice could become and they've both been pulling in massive annual profits from the model ever since.
---
On the post: EFF, Human Rights Watch Sue The DEA Over Mass Surveillance Program
Predictability.2
Welcome to Hell Snowflake.
---
On the post: Crunch Time For Surveillance: PATRIOT Act Renewal Vote Next Month A Key Metric In The Fight Against Surveillance
Predictability
Yep. That pretty much sums up the whole thing quite nicely.
Move along folks. Nothing to see here. Just Government Inaction, protecting its ass from the Adversary, as usual.
---
On the post: Fighting Toddler 'Porn Addiction,' UK Lawmakers Demand Porn Sites Include Age Checks Or Face Closure
Ludditical Indeed!
hehehehe - even the spell check agrees that this just aint a real word - but damn its so lovely and specifically descriptive of so many of our modern morality morons it oughta be immediately adopted into the English language.
Thanks.
---
On the post: Judge Shoots Down 'FOIA Terrorist' Jason Leopold; Says 'Panetta Review' Documents Can Be Withheld In Full
Sadly, there are no surpises here.
Translation - if they had known the public might find out, they would have lied and withheld embarrassing or incriminating information from the review - completely subverting the whole point of a review.
"Protecting the agency’s withholdings in this case is thus consistent with the purposes of this exemption."
This means literally, that the exemption was designed specifically to prevent the truth from reaching the public.
The only thing more outrageous than a law that protects a public-paid federal agency from embarrassing/incriminating itself by disclosing the truth of its actions to the public, is a judge who considers such legislation to be appropriate and necessary.
Boy, we've come a long way baby, but its all been down hill.
---
On the post: Following Canada's Bad Example, Now UK Wants To Muzzle Scientists And Their Inconvenient Truths
The Fascist's Handbook
===============
Rule #3002344
=============
A wise and well informed public is the most dangerous thing a corporate government can face, and must be prevented at all costs - using the tax-payer's money of course.
1.(a) - Science is far too dangerous to be allowed to fall into the hands of the paying public and must by all means possible, be prevented.
Few things are as important as preventing the paying public from becoming aware of the means and methods that science affords the Corporation to exploit the paying public.
Science also has the distinct potential to enable the paying public's ability to perceive ways of throwing off the yoke of corporate control and enacting legal and technical means of preventing the mass exploitation we enjoy currently - as they have in the past - and thus ranks first among the many aspects of civilization that must be stringently kept from their grasp by any and all means possible.
Science must serve the state only, as the state must serve the Corporation only.
---
On the post: Massive Anti-Net Neutrality E-mail Campaign Shows Signs Of Faking Many Signatures
Nothing up my sleeve....
They made 1,621,614 follow up phone calls!!!!!!!
Is it just my natural distrust of all things political, or does this sound a tad "absurd" to anyone else??
---
On the post: President Obama Signs Executive Order Saying That Now He's Going To Be Really Mad If He Catches Someone Cyberattacking Us
Re: The King has spoken
And He has accomplished something all right.
You're not gonna like what was accomplished though, as its pretty much the exact opposite of what he has claimed publically - as usual.
Life in the USA is about to become one step closer to Hell.
---
On the post: President Obama Signs Executive Order Saying That Now He's Going To Be Really Mad If He Catches Someone Cyberattacking Us
Welcome to the New War.... same as the Old War.
That is merely the "public perception ploy", that allows this new "War On ____" to get full tax-traction and support of law.
In this case, its a "War On Hackers", and once you start to realize exactly what this particular "War On" allows the Feds to do, you will be seeing this legislation in a whole new light.
You do remember the recent kerfuffle about letting Corporate America - other-wise known as the Billionaire Fascist Club - run "attack wares" - called "defense wares", legally against "perceived" cyber assaults.
Well, now they have an executive order that will nicely immunize them against any repercussions, should they, say, fry the computers of an on-line chess club by mistake, in their retaliations against some unknown hackers or an Anonymous DDOS attack on their network.
And I'll betcha they now have access to tax-payer funding for research and development of new and better attack, errrr... defense wares, as well, and maybe even access to NSA Brand(TM) anti-cyber tools.
And ya'all should by now, know exactly what total immunity from all consequences of one's actions lead to.
If not, look no further than the CIA, FBI, NSA, NYPD, and all the other so-called public-servants of the USG, who are now laws unto them-selves, answering only to... well.... not you, that's for sure.
If you're having difficulty still, you might want to simply see this new executive order as the declaration of the War on Hackers, which will now be waged like the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror.... that is, forever and on your dime.
---
On the post: Congressional Rep. John Carter Discovers Encryption; Worries It May One Day Be Used On Computers To Protect Your Data
Re: My new Mac is encrypted
That was probably just the NSA's hard-coded backdoor process, built into all American and most foreign built hard drives for the last decade or so, installing itself - because you said YES to encryption, meaning you must be a bad guy who is hiding something.
So now only you and the USG can read your drive. :)
---
On the post: Ross Ulbricht's Lawyers Were Told About Corrupt Investigators, But Barred From Using That During His Trial
Fairness??
I cannot imagine why anyone would have questions about the fairness of the trial.
After all, this is the DEA, DHS and USG.
There is absolutely no possibility whatsoever of anything remotely resembling fairness when you're dealing with these "law-unto-themselves" criminal organizations.
Any fairness discovered in such a case would obviously have been a simply mistake, or something they overlooked when manufacturing evidence, faking witness testimony or rewriting investigation records.
---
On the post: DOJ Inspector General: ATF, FBI's Drones Worthless, Expensive And Completely Mismanaged
If their lips are moving....
Thus, it is more likely that they deployed their drones far more often than they kept records for because the uses they put their drones to were very likely not legal, or were simply, as usual, extraneous personal uses, like spying on the young lady in apartment 203 who never pulls her drapes and walks about in her undies all the time.
It is also very likely that they have far more drones than they admitted to having access to, and that these "officially undisclosed" drones were used generally in preference to the officially "owned" drones, specifically to avoid maintaining records.
It is rather sad when the very first thought that occurs after listening to anything stated by one's official law enforcement authorities, is that they are, once again, lying through their teeth, as usual.
---
On the post: Bill Introduced To Repeal Patriot Act And Prevent The Government From Demanding Encryption Backdoors
Re: Actually doing nothing against "terrorism" works.
First, you stop bombing third world countries into the stone age, which turns the survivors of these third world countries into terrorists.
Second, you rebuild all the third world countries you already bombed into the stone age and give the survivors a huge pile of cash to make up somewhat for the family members you slaughtered. Use the money you would have spent on bombs and bullets and such to make this payment, since you won't need then anymore. Then you can sell them the material resources they will need to re-establish their civilizational infrastructure - at a discount of course.
Third, promise the world to never invade and destroy any more countries for commercial or religious reasons, and only attack countries that declare war on America, or who send troops to invade America.
Voila - no terrorists, and so, an instant end to the war on terrorism.
---
On the post: Bill Introduced To Repeal Patriot Act And Prevent The Government From Demanding Encryption Backdoors
Re:
Actually it has a far greater chance of passing, since a bill to give every American 1 million dollars obviously calls for taking the money they plan to give to every American, from every American's taxes.
After all, the government does not have any other money to give away.
---
Next >>