He has never stepped inside a courtroom to be officially given a list of them, nor has he ever been able to answer such charges in court, which is one of the steps in due process.
Tell that to Anwar Al-Awlaki who was put on a kill list and specifically targeted for death by a US drone strike without ever having stepped into court either.
I can just picture slightly drunk fliers settling an argument by pulling out their pistols from their carry on luggage and having at it in the air.
How often does this happen on buses, trains, ships, ferries and other forms of mass transit?
What makes you think it'd be a more frequent occurrence on air travel than other forms? Sure it'll probably happen, at the same rate as on other forms of mass transit. Does that risk stop you taking the train or bus? Why would it stop you taking a plane?
How much do you want to pay for perfect security? Safety? As the article states the most effective way to stop plane hijackings is to stop all planes.
Even with today's secure cockpit doors, the other airplane staff and passengers can still be held hostage and the pilots coerced to fly to an alternate destination.
Do you really think after the events of 9/11 where all the passengers died anyway that people would just sit passively by and allow this to happen? That the pilots would really allow a hostage taken from amongst the passengers/crew to coerce them into opening the cockpit door? They know that EVERYONE will die if they do that.
Since 9/11 there have been instances of passengers/crews foiling hijacking attempts (in some cases at cost of their own lives as in the plane in 9/11 that crashed in an empty field after the passengers heard about the other attacks as part of 9/11 and didn't let the terrorists use the plane).
...there is no vulnerability , or “backdoor,” that makes it possible for the US Government or anyone else to achieve unauthorized access.
If the access is approved by the various FISA rulings/congress approved programs that are used for data collection, or via the NSA internal processes, then isn't it, by definition, authorized? At least from an NSA perspective?
Sure I may not have authorized the NSA to decrypt my data, but some other process, warrant, internal NSA process or whatnot may have authorized it.
Say I created a business to offer 'court recording' type services. I offered my services to law firms for depositions and had some certification that said I could be an official recorder at depositions. either taking hand/steno notes, or using a recorder. The purpose of the 'recording' is to document facts. What was/was not said, what actions were taken and so on so it could later be produced in a court of law or kept on file etc.
Could I then say "I'm not going to provide my services to law firm X as they represent gays. "? Or blacks? Asians? Arabs? Whites?
I mean, I'm producing a 'work of art'. Either a recording or a 'book' if I take written notes using a steno machine.
Is this 'free speech' or am I just documenting an event?
How is taking paid photography work to record a wedding any different?
The PURPOSE isn't to create a work of art. The purpose is to document an event. Who was there, what shenanigans (who threw up in the pot plant, who got naked and ran across the dance floor...) they got up to, and so on.
The photographer hasn't been asked to make any comment about the wedding. Just like a court reporter isn't asked to provide any personal comment ("I think they did/didn't do it." or "They're pastafarians, they should be boiled until al dente then eaten, with meat ball sauce") or express any views regarding the event they are documenting.
If the customers wanted the service provider to SUPPORT the event, THEN the provider would be within their rights to refuse service, as that is definitely a free speech issue.
Has the photographer been engaged to support the event? Or have they been engaged to DOCUMENT the event?
If THIS is amicable, I'd hate to see adversarial...
To resolve this matter amicably, we must demand that you remove the infringing material 'from the website immediately. Additionally, we must also demand that you provide compensation to Ms. McPherson in the amount of $1,250.00 per infringing photograph, plus $2,500.00 as the statutory minimum for the removal of Ms. McPherson's copyright notice.
If they regard issuing demands for $4k plus other actions as amicable, I'd hate to see it if they were really pissed!
Even if the truecrypt source code passes an audit, what about the compiled code?
Just because the source code is fine doesn't mean the compiled executables consist solely of the audited source code.
Has there been an audit done of the GCC (and other) compilers and libraries (e.g. random number generators) to see if they insert additional subroutines into compiled code?
I don't want to picture myself rising for the morning coffee, heading for the door on my way to work, only to whip out my smart phone and check where the IEDs and snipers might be on my way to the bus.
I already always check my smartphone whenever I leave a location for mobile speed cameras/RBTs. I avoid the cameras as it's too easy to creep a few km/h above the speed limit and get done. And RBTs are such a huge waste of time, sometimes costing me 10 minutes sitting in the queue to get RBT and sent on my way, turning a 10 minute dash into a 20 minute annoyance.
Re: Careful parsing required, as with any NSA statement
I agree, I had the same thought myself when i was reading this.
it is in fact TRUE that "In open hearings this year, we spoke to Congress.. ". Yes, they did speak to congress, and in that speech they did make the claim. However this quote does not make reference to or statement of support or truth on "54 different terrorist plots".
Therefore calling the quoted statement a lie cannot be supported.
If they had of said something more like "NSA/CSS actions contributed to keeping the Nation and its allies safe from 54 different terrorist plots as was reported to Congress..." then maybe it could be called a lie.
The government has been trying for years to get ID cards, fingerprints and other biometrics on all it's citizens.
Maybe the whole point is not security, but a grab at getting everyone's fingerprints on file.
This way we'll seem grateful to give our fingerprints over to the government to avoid the TSA hassle, and we'll even pay them for the scoop-up of them all.
Spying on foreigners is not a legal problem, it's a political problem.
I think it's both.
Firstly it's a legal issue if in Egypt it is illegal to tap telephones. Then the Egyptian version of the DoJ would be within their rights, nay, it would be their duty, to issue arrest warrants against the people tapping those phones.
It becomes a political issue when the Egyptian DoJ seeks extradition of those who have warrants out for them if they are not on Egyptian soil. It becomes a matter of political will ( or won't ) for them to see through the extradition.
On the post: NY Times Argues, Forcefully, That The US Should Offer Snowden Clemency
Re: Pardons and such
Tell that to Anwar Al-Awlaki who was put on a kill list and specifically targeted for death by a US drone strike without ever having stepped into court either.
On the post: Cost-Benefit Analysis On Why We Should Just Do Away With The TSA Completely
Re: I invite you to fly
How often does this happen on buses, trains, ships, ferries and other forms of mass transit?
What makes you think it'd be a more frequent occurrence on air travel than other forms? Sure it'll probably happen, at the same rate as on other forms of mass transit. Does that risk stop you taking the train or bus? Why would it stop you taking a plane?
How much do you want to pay for perfect security? Safety? As the article states the most effective way to stop plane hijackings is to stop all planes.
Do you really think after the events of 9/11 where all the passengers died anyway that people would just sit passively by and allow this to happen? That the pilots would really allow a hostage taken from amongst the passengers/crew to coerce them into opening the cockpit door? They know that EVERYONE will die if they do that.
Since 9/11 there have been instances of passengers/crews foiling hijacking attempts (in some cases at cost of their own lives as in the plane in 9/11 that crashed in an empty field after the passengers heard about the other attacks as part of 9/11 and didn't let the terrorists use the plane).
On the post: Task Force Report's Langauge Hints At Backdoors In Software
unauthorized access
If the access is approved by the various FISA rulings/congress approved programs that are used for data collection, or via the NSA internal processes, then isn't it, by definition, authorized? At least from an NSA perspective?
Sure I may not have authorized the NSA to decrypt my data, but some other process, warrant, internal NSA process or whatnot may have authorized it.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Is it free speech?
Could I then say "I'm not going to provide my services to law firm X as they represent gays. "? Or blacks? Asians? Arabs? Whites?
I mean, I'm producing a 'work of art'. Either a recording or a 'book' if I take written notes using a steno machine.
Is this 'free speech' or am I just documenting an event?
How is taking paid photography work to record a wedding any different?
The PURPOSE isn't to create a work of art. The purpose is to document an event. Who was there, what shenanigans (who threw up in the pot plant, who got naked and ran across the dance floor...) they got up to, and so on.
The photographer hasn't been asked to make any comment about the wedding. Just like a court reporter isn't asked to provide any personal comment ("I think they did/didn't do it." or "They're pastafarians, they should be boiled until al dente then eaten, with meat ball sauce") or express any views regarding the event they are documenting.
If the customers wanted the service provider to SUPPORT the event, THEN the provider would be within their rights to refuse service, as that is definitely a free speech issue.
Has the photographer been engaged to support the event? Or have they been engaged to DOCUMENT the event?
On the post: Photographer Sends C&D To Something Awful Over Photo 'Shopped To Add A Butt To A Bird
If THIS is amicable, I'd hate to see adversarial...
If they regard issuing demands for $4k plus other actions as amicable, I'd hate to see it if they were really pissed!
On the post: As White House Makes Final Push On TPP, Congress Slams On The Brakes
I'm confused
Wouldn't it require a change to the Constitution to "give it up"?
On the post: NSA Has Spurred Renewed Interest In Thorough Security Audits Of Popular 'Secure' Software
What about the compilers?
Just because the source code is fine doesn't mean the compiled executables consist solely of the audited source code.
Has there been an audit done of the GCC (and other) compilers and libraries (e.g. random number generators) to see if they insert additional subroutines into compiled code?
On the post: Welcome To The Danger Zone: An App For Not Getting Shot And Blown Up
I already check my smartphone...
I already always check my smartphone whenever I leave a location for mobile speed cameras/RBTs. I avoid the cameras as it's too easy to creep a few km/h above the speed limit and get done. And RBTs are such a huge waste of time, sometimes costing me 10 minutes sitting in the queue to get RBT and sent on my way, turning a 10 minute dash into a 20 minute annoyance.
On the post: NSA Seeks To Reassure Family & Friends Of NSA Employees & Contractors By Sending A Letter With More Lies
Re: Careful parsing required, as with any NSA statement
it is in fact TRUE that "In open hearings this year, we spoke to Congress.. ". Yes, they did speak to congress, and in that speech they did make the claim. However this quote does not make reference to or statement of support or truth on "54 different terrorist plots".
Therefore calling the quoted statement a lie cannot be supported.
If they had of said something more like "NSA/CSS actions contributed to keeping the Nation and its allies safe from 54 different terrorist plots as was reported to Congress..." then maybe it could be called a lie.
On the post: Fire Sale: TSA Now Offering You Your Civil Liberties For A Fee!
Get everyone's fingerprints
Maybe the whole point is not security, but a grab at getting everyone's fingerprints on file.
This way we'll seem grateful to give our fingerprints over to the government to avoid the TSA hassle, and we'll even pay them for the scoop-up of them all.
On the post: Microsoft Buying Nokia Reminds Us That Dominant Tech Companies Can Disappear Quickly
Significatn flaw in first graph....
Therefore an Android phone IS a Linux phone.
Therefore the graph should have merged the Linux and Android segments.
On the post: Oh, And Let's Not Forget That The NSA Tried To 'Intercept' A Ton Of Phone Calls From Egypt
Re: Spying on foreigners
I think it's both.
Firstly it's a legal issue if in Egypt it is illegal to tap telephones. Then the Egyptian version of the DoJ would be within their rights, nay, it would be their duty, to issue arrest warrants against the people tapping those phones.
It becomes a political issue when the Egyptian DoJ seeks extradition of those who have warrants out for them if they are not on Egyptian soil. It becomes a matter of political will ( or won't ) for them to see through the extradition.
On the post: FISA Court Rubber Stamps Continued Collection Of All Phone Records, While DOJ Insists No One Can Challenge This
I need to know
On the post: Is Encryption Effective Against Snooping? German Government Says No, Snowden Says Yes
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Umm, then by definition it is no longer a one time pad. Therefore the security of a one-time pad is no longer applicable.
On the post: Our Turn To Get Bizarre Legal Threats From Global Wildlife Foundation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Supply list
On the post: One Of The Funniest S#*$r B$@l Ads You'll See This Year Makes Fun Of NFL Trademarks
natalie portman?
Ahh, so calling the delivery brilliant is an entirely accurate statement?
On the post: Don't Promise $1 Million For Your Lost Laptop Via YouTube & Twitter If You're Not Prepared To Pay
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
On the post: Comcast -- Owner Of NBC Universal -- Admits That DNS Redirects Are Incompatible With DNSSEC
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Top Photographer On Why He Doesn't Care If His Stuff Is Pirated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I.e. these people aren't insinuating, they are explicitly saying that.
Next >>