Okay, the first thing that comes to mind is: who were these idiots who consented to this surveillance? The FISC is saying that on the one hand we have the citizens who consented and, oh, let's talk about those who didn't consent...which is like, all the citizens. The amazing thing is that FISC even bothered to distinguish, not that it has any effect on the remainder of their argument.
Then the FISC goes completely off the deep end: we've got to let law enforcement keep the data, because FISA says so; and we've got to let them search it because they get to keep it; also because it's just like any ordinary database, and databases are all searchable, so this one should be as well; and the government shouldn't have to go to all the trouble of justifying a search as important, or legal; and the government shouldn't even have to go to all the trouble to write down that they searched it.
Because, you know, all those unconsenting citizens don't need any Fourth Amendment protections.
I've never seen a clearer indication that the FISC is a wholly-owned lackey of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies; a sham defender of our Constitutional rights.
Make it didn't happen--paraphrased in this case as:
The problem isn't that one of our paid jack-boot thugs pepper-sprayed a bunch of unruly students, the problem is that it makes us look bad. A little public relations whitewash and we can make it didn't happen.
This is the standard response of organizations today. Why be good citizens when it's so much more profitable to commit fraud, crush opposition, and/or sell dangerous products that kill people? All you need is a little reputation management to make people forget it happened, and you can right on being a bad citizen again and again and again.
This is the worst part of the "right to forget" laws. They aren't about individuals, not really: they're about organizations wiping out the memory of their wrongdoings; making them didn't happen.
"The Government has informed the Court that there was no intent to leave the FISC with a misimpression or misunderstanding, and it has acknowledged that its prior representations could have been clearer..."
But hey, no intent to create a misimpression or misunderstanding though. Maybe an intent to outright bamboozle, dupe, gull or hoodwink the FISC; but what's a little perjury before a rubber-stamp court?
When asked if the County Attorney’s Office still suspected Khaleq of being involved in illicit activity, Johnson said: “Yes, we don’t just take money from people for no reason.”
Oh, I understand that, Mr. Johnson. I just think the reason shouldn't be law enforcement's greed.
I started an "Am I Nukeable?" game on a blog, based on an early article on this problem. That particular game uses MaxMind as the geo-source (but you could use any locator service).
The basic idea is this:
1) Go to the locator service from your home computer; 2) Find out where it indicates you are; 3) If needed, use the Google distance measurement to find out how far the location is from your home.
If the distance is less than 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) then you are nukable: someone could look up your IP address and route a missile to you to finish you off.
(The 1-mile radius is that of the Hiroshima blast and was chosen for its historic value. Today, a Topol SS-25 missile from Russia has a radius of 7 miles, approximately, so you could use that if you prefer.)
The game is instructive, for two reasons: First of all, it teaches you about the breadth and depth of the data stored online for each and every one of us. It also teaches about the shoddiness of that data, because many people playing the game find they are not nukeable...which means if someone tried to nuke them, it would be a miss, which wouldn't help the people where it does land, one tiny bit.
(Such as that front yard in Kansas, destined to be a volcanic pit.)
Let's say you do your independent audit, and they know you're going to.
All they will do is spin off the expansion of network capacity into a subsidiary. The provider's books will then show that they spent 100% of that on network expansion (paid that subsidiary)...and since the subsidiary is entitled to profit, half the money the subsidiary takes in will still go to the stockholders.
In the end, after the accounting magic, your audit will accomplish nothing.
"71% Want The Dark Net Shut Down, Showing Most Have No Idea What The Dark Net Is"
That title is exactly wrong. Most people know full well that the Dark Net is a den of scum and villainy; full of murderers, drug dealers, thieves, loan sharks, blackmailers, prostitutes and child pornographers. Not to mention the copyright pirates.
They learned that from propaganda written by the government and published by guileless lap-dog media. Why wouldn't the people want to shut a place like that down?
This article is written as if the author thinks Chase made up. Magically got the idea over its Wheaties one morning, to start searching for the word "Dash" in payments.
Bullshit. The word "Dash" was provided to Chase on a government list, and Chase was told to report any matches.
The intelligence agencies are not "foreign-facing." Their pretensions otherwise are necessary to achieve their domestic aims.
It is obvious that the exemptions written in law, all those "re-interpretations" of the law, all the NSLs, and the FISC interception orders aren't about foreigner nationals or foreign lands, because neither are subject to Constitutional protections: seeking exemptions is a waste of time and effort.
When intelligence agencies expend time and effort to seek an exemption from the law or Constitution, it is to accomplish surveillance of citizens who are (were) protected.
Large companies no longer seek to compete in traditional ways. They are not only "too big to fail" but big enough to steamroller whatever gets in their way.
Those companies no longer compete for customers by traditional means: providing a better product or better service. They sue, for patent infringement, for trademark violation, for copyright infringement, or for industrial espionage. They create unilateral and oppressive contracts--offer products and services--that the customer can take or leave.
Why struggle to have a better product or service when your legal Borg minions will ruin your competitor with $10 million in legal fees--or the individual customer for $150,000?
They punish, cheat, rob, ruin, poison, or kill their customers with impunity; destroy their property. Even if they are prosecuted, the penalties imposed are usually pocket change. But how about a serious fine? BP, responsible for the Gulf oil spill (which did probably $100's of billion in economic and ecologic losses) was fined the largest fine ever: $34 billion. But with their income of $230 billion plus per year, the stockholders didn't get paid for all of eight weeks--boy was that lesson learned (must do a better job of steamrolling government next time).
Should it surprise anyone those companies are using their weight to bully nations? It's only natural they would.
The large corporations are like hurricanes, big devastating storms which neither know nor care what they crush and destroy. Today, all the victims (individuals or nations) of a large company can do is hope or pray the company doesn't crush them.
On the post: FISA Court Rejects Arguments By First Public Advocate To Argue NSA PRISM Backdoor Searches Are Unconstitutional
FISC: sham defender of the Constitution
Then the FISC goes completely off the deep end: we've got to let law enforcement keep the data, because FISA says so; and we've got to let them search it because they get to keep it; also because it's just like any ordinary database, and databases are all searchable, so this one should be as well; and the government shouldn't have to go to all the trouble of justifying a search as important, or legal; and the government shouldn't even have to go to all the trouble to write down that they searched it.
Because, you know, all those unconsenting citizens don't need any Fourth Amendment protections.
I've never seen a clearer indication that the FISC is a wholly-owned lackey of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies; a sham defender of our Constitutional rights.
On the post: UC Davis 'Apologizes' For The Reputation Management Industry's Hyperbole And Your Misunderstanding
Make it didn't happen
This is the worst part of the "right to forget" laws. They aren't about individuals, not really: they're about organizations wiping out the memory of their wrongdoings; making them didn't happen.
On the post: USTR Finally Recognizes That The Internet Matters... And That Censorship, Site Blocking & Link Taxes Are Barriers
Effects on small publishers
On the post: FISA Court Still Uncovering Surveillance Abuses By NSA, FBI
We didn't really lie...
On the post: Law Enforcement Forced To Hand Over $41K It Seized From Businessman At Airport, Plus Another $10K In Legal Fees
Reason for forveiture
On the post: Over 7,800 Prosecutions Questioned After NJ Lab Tech Caught Faking Drug Test Results
Oops...clumsy us
...or that will be "accidentally" destroyed in the next few weeks. Ooops.
On the post: How Bad Are Geolocation Tools? Really, Really Bad
Am I Nukeable?
The basic idea is this:
1) Go to the locator service from your home computer;
2) Find out where it indicates you are;
3) If needed, use the Google distance measurement to find out how far the location is from your home.
If the distance is less than 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) then you are nukable: someone could look up your IP address and route a missile to you to finish you off.
(The 1-mile radius is that of the Hiroshima blast and was chosen for its historic value. Today, a Topol SS-25 missile from Russia has a radius of 7 miles, approximately, so you could use that if you prefer.)
The game is instructive, for two reasons: First of all, it teaches you about the breadth and depth of the data stored online for each and every one of us. It also teaches about the shoddiness of that data, because many people playing the game find they are not nukeable...which means if someone tried to nuke them, it would be a miss, which wouldn't help the people where it does land, one tiny bit.
(Such as that front yard in Kansas, destined to be a volcanic pit.)
On the post: Elizabeth Warren Introduces Bill To Make Tax Season Return-Free
I'm not certain what word you did mean (rebuffs? reneges?) but "rebukes" was not it.
On the post: Sheriff And Deputy Somehow Manage To Screw Up Forfeiture Badly Enough To Be Indicted On Extortion Charges
Re: Re: Re: Call me cynical but...
Never underestimate the ability of police to escape responsibility by dumping it on the citizen.
On the post: Why Doesn't The Anti-Encryption Bill List Any Penalties?
Don't need them
We got National Security Letters, and penalties for those. And rendition, lots of rendition. And government contracts to take away.
We don't need no penalties, not in this law.
On the post: Shoe Company New Balance Says US Gov't Basically Offered It A Bribe To Support TPP
That's a new balance all right
I just wish the crier wasn't a co-conspirator who accepted a promise of a bribe; and, finding they were swindled, has switched to blackmail.
Gives me a funny feeling in my reasonable doubt.
On the post: Sheriff And Deputy Somehow Manage To Screw Up Forfeiture Badly Enough To Be Indicted On Extortion Charges
Re: Call me cynical but...
But I bet that's not the only thing: it looks to me like the motorist is open to a charge of making a bribe. Betcha that doesn't get bargained down...
On the post: The FCC Is Pushing A 'Nutrition Label' For Broadband Connections
Re:
All they will do is spin off the expansion of network capacity into a subsidiary. The provider's books will then show that they spent 100% of that on network expansion (paid that subsidiary)...and since the subsidiary is entitled to profit, half the money the subsidiary takes in will still go to the stockholders.
In the end, after the accounting magic, your audit will accomplish nothing.
On the post: The FCC Is Pushing A 'Nutrition Label' For Broadband Connections
Miniscule accomplishment
I am just so wowed!
On the post: 71% Want The Dark Net Shut Down, Showing Most Have No Idea What The Dark Net Is
The Title is Wrong
That title is exactly wrong. Most people know full well that the Dark Net is a den of scum and villainy; full of murderers, drug dealers, thieves, loan sharks, blackmailers, prostitutes and child pornographers. Not to mention the copyright pirates.
They learned that from propaganda written by the government and published by guileless lap-dog media. Why wouldn't the people want to shut a place like that down?
On the post: Denver Police Officers Improperly Access Sensitive Crime Database Because Department Has No Interest In Stopping Them
Police review board terror
On the post: FBI Won't Tell Apple How It Got Into iPhone... But Is Apparently Eager To Help Others Break Into iPhones
FBI helping others
On the post: Chase Freezes Guy's Bank Account For Paying His Dogwalker For Walking Dash The Dog
Security agency special
Bullshit. The word "Dash" was provided to Chase on a government list, and Chase was told to report any matches.
On the post: ODNI Lawyer Bob Litt Says There's No NSA Data Sharing With Law Enforcement... If You Don't Count The FBI, DEA, Etc.
Citizen-facing
It is obvious that the exemptions written in law, all those "re-interpretations" of the law, all the NSLs, and the FISC interception orders aren't about foreigner nationals or foreign lands, because neither are subject to Constitutional protections: seeking exemptions is a waste of time and effort.
When intelligence agencies expend time and effort to seek an exemption from the law or Constitution, it is to accomplish surveillance of citizens who are (were) protected.
On the post: New Analysis Shows 'Frivolous' Corporate Sovereignty Suits Increasingly Used To Deter Regulation Rather Than Win Compensation
Companies: Devastating Storms
Those companies no longer compete for customers by traditional means: providing a better product or better service. They sue, for patent infringement, for trademark violation, for copyright infringement, or for industrial espionage. They create unilateral and oppressive contracts--offer products and services--that the customer can take or leave.
Why struggle to have a better product or service when your legal Borg minions will ruin your competitor with $10 million in legal fees--or the individual customer for $150,000?
They punish, cheat, rob, ruin, poison, or kill their customers with impunity; destroy their property. Even if they are prosecuted, the penalties imposed are usually pocket change. But how about a serious fine? BP, responsible for the Gulf oil spill (which did probably $100's of billion in economic and ecologic losses) was fined the largest fine ever: $34 billion. But with their income of $230 billion plus per year, the stockholders didn't get paid for all of eight weeks--boy was that lesson learned (must do a better job of steamrolling government next time).
Should it surprise anyone those companies are using their weight to bully nations? It's only natural they would.
The large corporations are like hurricanes, big devastating storms which neither know nor care what they crush and destroy. Today, all the victims (individuals or nations) of a large company can do is hope or pray the company doesn't crush them.
Next >>