Reminds me of when the highest forms of encryption in Netscape couldn't be exported, as if terrorists,criminals and nefarious enemy countries would have paid attention to the geographical download restrictions.
They think terrorists are too stupid to scout out the subways to see if the cops have put up a checkpoint before taking in anything sensitive. Of COURSE they think they're too stupid to use encryption.
They have to assume that terrorists are stupid and it would never occur to them to protect their communications if Snowden leaked the fact that the government was listening on the line...
How binding is a court's claim that something is likely unconstitutional? That actually sounds like the issue still needs to be resolve definitively in another case. So while the police and attorney's probably SHOULD know better than to try to push this, it doesn't sound like they're technically out of line here.
Ah, good. It "doesn't affect you". A perfectly good reason to ban something. Why should you care that not everyone has access to a computer with fast internet at home? You have one, so anyone who doesn't is just out of luck. As long as the law has fixed a non-existent problem with dangerously vague language, all's good in the world.
Re: Re: 'Sacrifices must be made. Your rights for instance, those have got to go'
Just hope word gets around that doctors who cooperate with the CBP will get screwed over by them.
Re:
We want to expand our surveillance powers. We need to justify that power by showing how effective we've been.
What actual support do they say he provided? Less than $1000, but what specifically?
Re: Maybe the financial institutions will put a stop to this
They'll just tell their customers that it's THEIR problem, not the banks'.
Reminds me of when the highest forms of encryption in Netscape couldn't be exported, as if terrorists,criminals and nefarious enemy countries would have paid attention to the geographical download restrictions.
Why would forcing law abiding citizens to use flawed encryption stop terrorists from using secure encryption, anyway?
Re:
Who cares about her position on encryption? We should, since she's running for president.
It's not like the terrorists and criminals couldn't continue to use the encryption without backdoors anyway.
Does this apply to things that are already in the public domain? Most of the 20th century should already have passed in to the public domain.
Extending copyright on existing works is one thing, restoring copyright to works whose copyright has expired is quite a bigger beast.
Re:
They think terrorists are too stupid to scout out the subways to see if the cops have put up a checkpoint before taking in anything sensitive.
Of COURSE they think they're too stupid to use encryption.
Once again start with the assumption that terrorists are stupid
They have to assume that terrorists are stupid and it would never occur to them to protect their communications if Snowden leaked the fact that the government was listening on the line...
Re: Re: Billy's right.
You can trash the whole economy and get off scott-free. But spill the beans on the government's excesses and they'll hunt you down!
Re:
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Re: Re: Re:
I wish we were better at it, at least.
Likely unconstitutional?
How binding is a court's claim that something is likely unconstitutional? That actually sounds like the issue still needs to be resolve definitively in another case. So while the police and attorney's probably SHOULD know better than to try to push this, it doesn't sound like they're technically out of line here.
Re: Re:
Obviously they were skyping with their bookies.
And buying airline tickets to escape their bookies.
Re: WRONG. Has not "effectively banned all computers, tablets and smartphones".
Ah, good. It "doesn't affect you". A perfectly good reason to ban something. Why should you care that not everyone has access to a computer with fast internet at home? You have one, so anyone who doesn't is just out of luck. As long as the law has fixed a non-existent problem with dangerously vague language, all's good in the world.
So if internet slot machines weren't illegal before, why did the charity get shut down?
If it was illegal before, why the need for this law?