Let's consider this, it doesn't matter if they spend the $ for real security or just keep with the status quo. Breaches are now accepted so why bother really fixing anything in a meaningful way.
more likely they wanted to avoid bad PR that the only one being prosecuted for state sponsored torture carried out by the CIA was a journalist who blew the whistle.
Funny thing, the US is a country that applies its laws to citizens even when on foreign soil. A prime example is the Foreign Corrupt Practices act. Grease a palm in a foreign county, come back home to US and the consequences (assuming you've been caught).
...the next time US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli appears before the court one of the Justices can ask why they should believe ANYTHING he is saying as he has been proven to mislead the court on at least one previous occasion.
This won't happen of course because apparently executive branch officials can lie to the legislative and judicial branches with no fear of consequences....
You make a good point. Given that there is almost zero consequences (especially for individuals responsible) there is very little dis-incentive to not abuse laws.
My dis-incentive to not break the law is I could go to jail, the government's is well.....very little in all too many cases.
My guess over what happened is someone at APL saw the post and due to their contracts with NSA and the silly pretense than documents freely available to all are still considered classified contacted JHU to ask for the removal of the post to prevent NSA was accusing APL to leaking classified documents which would put them in breach of contract.
All very dumb yes, but no conspiracy to suppress the post from the internet just from Johns Hopkins associated resources.
I think someone needs to document "crimes" committed (innocently) by Federal judges to illustrate that the theory of "ignorance of the law is now excuse" is a hopelessly outdated concept.
I fear even if a case was was brought to address the constitutionality of the FISA court the courts would toss the action out on the grounds that the plaintiff lakes standing to challenge the statute. You know because plaintiff can't prove they were affected by court.
Using that standard, hardcover books should need to be stowed for take off and landing....oh and lap babies too, need to go under the seat or in the overheard bins for take off and landing.
And honestly the 'I fear they will become projectiles' has to be one of the weakest arguments.
That is almost certainly what they did. However one wonders how much it will help them in my experience most 'forensics' people are clueless with anything but Windows.
and by denying Senator Paul access to his flight is effectively preventing a sitting member of the legislative branch from attending to his official duties. This is effectively an abuse of the powers of the Executive branch which is EXACTLY what that section of the Constitution is seeking to restrict.
Keeping documents classified LONG after they have become public knowledge is nothing new for the US Government. Take a look at the Pentagon Papers that were just declassified 40 years after Daniel Ellsberg leak to the NY Times was published.
Re:
that was an unfinished comment.
Let's consider this, it doesn't matter if they spend the $ for real security or just keep with the status quo. Breaches are now accepted so why bother really fixing anything in a meaningful way.
Spend the money
Re: Re: Character witnesses
more likely they wanted to avoid bad PR that the only one being prosecuted for state sponsored torture carried out by the CIA was a journalist who blew the whistle.
Deal!
SWAT teams claiming private corp status can have it PROVIDED they are also treated as private citizens in all other matters.
Re: How does that work.
Funny thing, the US is a country that applies its laws to citizens even when on foreign soil. A prime example is the Foreign Corrupt Practices act. Grease a palm in a foreign county, come back home to US and the consequences (assuming you've been caught).
Maybe.....
...the next time US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli appears before the court one of the Justices can ask why they should believe ANYTHING he is saying as he has been proven to mislead the court on at least one previous occasion.
This won't happen of course because apparently executive branch officials can lie to the legislative and judicial branches with no fear of consequences....
Re: Compensation
You make a good point. Given that there is almost zero consequences (especially for individuals responsible) there is very little dis-incentive to not abuse laws.
My dis-incentive to not break the law is I could go to jail, the government's is well.....very little in all too many cases.
Re: Re: Re:
the FBI doesn't have a backdoor, the NSA might but isn't sharing.......
Hopkins, APL and contracts
My guess over what happened is someone at APL saw the post and due to their contracts with NSA and the silly pretense than documents freely available to all are still considered classified contacted JHU to ask for the removal of the post to prevent NSA was accusing APL to leaking classified documents which would put them in breach of contract.
All very dumb yes, but no conspiracy to suppress the post from the internet just from Johns Hopkins associated resources.
The real tragedy...
is even if EVERYONE ponied up $85 it wouldn't reduce the TSA by 1 person......
Re: Re:
EXACTLY!!!!
I think someone needs to document "crimes" committed (innocently) by Federal judges to illustrate that the theory of "ignorance of the law is now excuse" is a hopelessly outdated concept.
Standing
I fear even if a case was was brought to address the constitutionality of the FISA court the courts would toss the action out on the grounds that the plaintiff lakes standing to challenge the statute. You know because plaintiff can't prove they were affected by court.
maybe there is a secret dictionary....
that re-defines words like aquire, target and unlimited....it would explain a LOT.
If he had courage.....
He'd read it into the Congressional Record on the floor.
Re: Safety?
Using that standard, hardcover books should need to be stowed for take off and landing....oh and lap babies too, need to go under the seat or in the overheard bins for take off and landing.
And honestly the 'I fear they will become projectiles' has to be one of the weakest arguments.
Re:
That is almost certainly what they did. However one wonders how much it will help them in my experience most 'forensics' people are clueless with anything but Windows.
One of the big problems with DMCA takedowns....
is there are no consequences for bogus take down requests. With out any consequences the incentive is to abuse the statute for ones own gain.
Re: Bombs?
But your laptop is a bomb. Short out that lithium ion battery and BOOM!
let's not forget TSA is part of the executive branch
and by denying Senator Paul access to his flight is effectively preventing a sitting member of the legislative branch from attending to his official duties. This is effectively an abuse of the powers of the Executive branch which is EXACTLY what that section of the Constitution is seeking to restrict.
Pentagon Paper Insanity
Keeping documents classified LONG after they have become public knowledge is nothing new for the US Government. Take a look at the Pentagon Papers that were just declassified 40 years after Daniel Ellsberg leak to the NY Times was published.