I mis-read "dictator" for "director".
Somehow the meaning of the article didn't change.
A really good law would be one to ban the government from treating entites as "enemies" or "advesaries" unless Congress has declaired war on them.
We can't have government agencies deciding who to fight and how to fight them without congressional oversight, and we certainly can't prosecute someone for "aiding the enemy" when we haven't publicly and lawfuly defined them as an enemy.
You haven't had to file for a copyright since 1978.
Yet another thing has been bothering me about the NSA warehousing the data. If an NSA OFFICIAL, not just an agent, walks over to a database administrator and asks for data, what exactly is there to stop him? We've already seen a network admin in California get jailtime for refusing to hand out passwords. What would they get for refusing to disclose data to a government official?
I'm guessing that is the REAL reason to store the data on-premeses. No one can rationally buy that a 24-48 hour delay is going to negatively affect an investigation.
Maybe he made some choices, and maybe they were made for him.
It took him 2 weeks to go back on his promise not to appoint lobbyists in his administration. That's abnormally quick. Who is to say that the intelligence that was being gathered was not on him as well?
He was very pricipled up until his election. Then, suddenly, he was all national security and Hollywood.
Of course, no one would think to blackmail the President of the United States of America, that's just tinfoil-hat talk.
But then, so is gathering all the data of all the communications in the world and sorting through it as you see fit.
What about, "Give me liberty or give me death"? That seems to have been totally forgotten, and certainly foregoes the balance sheet.
They said it all the time when I was a kid growing up in the '70s, and even paraphrased it in Scooby Doo, with Shaggy stating, "Give me liberty or give me pizza-pie!".
This is my concern. Obama did a serious 180 within two weeks of entering into office. Hiring lobbyists now seems to be one of the lesser of his changes.
Now, what would make a person change like this? A simple "change of heart"? Did he not intend to keep his promises? Or had the intelligence community come across something in his background which they could use to blackmail him.
Regardless of your opinion of him, you have to admit that a career politician doesn't publically break a campaign promise in 2 weeks without some sort of extenuating circumstances.
Well, that's definately NOT the police, then.
Not in New York, anyway.
As I said before, I really can't see how encrypting your message cannot result in a reasonable expectation of privacy, meaning that encrypted messages should not legally be captured without a court order.
Hopefully someone brings this up to the administration. I'm sure it won't be anyone from the mainstream media, and certainly not NPR.
I caught this as well. You can say that giving information to a third party removes your expectation of privacy, but I would think ENCRYPTING it would put that expectation back.
I really can't see this one passing ANYONE's laugh test.
So what you are saying is when you drop into the shit, the way out is to start spouting more shit and become a shit-geyser. Next you invert said shit-geyser, making you a sort of shit-propelled rocket which can then be blown over stable ground.
Seems like a shitty way to go about things.
Isn't it odd that the NSA info comes out at the same time that the government becomes more reasonable about IP? I'm sure it's just a coincidence...
A big part of this that everyone misses is, "who are the admins running the system?" Yes, the FBI, CIA, NSA must get a court order to "officially" examine records, but who says an agent can't just buddy-up to an admin and get whatever info she wants whenever she wants it? It seems like our data is now doubly exposed to social engineering. And considering the lack of technical skills the government has so far shown, the lack of oversight on a database like this is appalling.
I read some of your rant at your link and if I were you, AC, I would seek counceling.
There are some seriously odd things going on in your head. Something you should work out with a trained professional.
This isn't a flame. I'm not kidding.
Remember: the only people who are positive they are sane are the crazy ones.
Then what's your view?
Gutless wonder here dodges the statement, doesn't debate me on the stupidity of his comment.
Damn, I heard there was an ENTIRE COUNTRY of people who are supposed to think for themselves, and not just follow the chain of command and do what they are told.
What was the name of that country again? Oh, yeah, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
The top-secret surveillance theater was obviously making someone happy. The questions are who and how.
Is ancedotal evidence. Only one of our commenters actually brought up actual statistical evidence of their dieting opinions. 4 of 7 comments (as of the time of my commenting) are personal accounts of how they lost weight. That's great for them, but how well does it work for the population at large?
On a side note, seaweed is also very high in iodine, a nutrient that seems to have fallen away from use in recent years. Some quacks are hawking it as a cure for cancer an obesity, but do we have good studies on ideal iodine levels, and if the average person is getting enough? I haven't seen anyone walking around with goiter lately, but iodine is the key nutrient in the thyroid gland, and that gland is the major player in metabolism.
Why destroy evidence?
Could it be that another whistleblower had documents to distribute on the server, and the destruction of the documents was one of the main goals, or at least a nice plus?