71–80 of 115 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I understand the law correctly, only military people have any prohibition about touching, reading, distributing, etc classified data. Normal citizens agreed to no such terms.
If I understand the law correctly, U.S. citizens cannot be assassinated by its own government without the benefit of due process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So make an account without personal information. What's the big deal?
HN, reddit, digg et al. would have failed long long ago if half the websites required a login before you could see the linked content. I see no good reason to make an exception for just one particular website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I understand the law correctly, only military people have any prohibition about touching, reading, distributing, etc classified data. Normal citizens agreed to no such terms.
If I understand the law correctly, U.S. citizens cannot be assassinated by its own government without the benefit of due process.
I hope some creative writer is out there doing some exploration out there in a novel. Lots of interesting questions to think about with regard to the mechanics of this whole story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN, reddit, digg et al. would have failed long long ago if half the websites required a login before you could see the linked content. I see no good reason to make an exception for just one particular website.
This entire discussion is moot since Facebook does not, in fact, require you to log in to see content. At least not the content linked in this thread.
So what is the chance they put out an insurance file that they know can be decrypted by the NSA and has really damaging documents in it? I mean it would be a way of showing the NSA what you have, having it already in the hands of a bunch of other people. I wonder if that would be a useful strategy. It could give the NSA time to build a counter story (parallel construction :-) which would be mitigate some of the impac…
It would be safer to just send the decryption key directly to the NSA on a CD. ;)
So what is the chance they put out an insurance file that they know can be decrypted by the NSA and has really damaging documents in it? I mean it would be a way of showing the NSA what you have, having it already in the hands of a bunch of other people. I wonder if that would be a useful strategy. It could give the NSA time to build a counter story (parallel construction :-) which would be mitigate some of the impac…
If they're releasing something that they could reasonably expect the NSA to be able to crack, there's a non-zero chance other governments would be able to read it as well. That's not really "responsible disclosure" anymore. It would be safer to just send the decryption key directly to the NSA on a CD. ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I understand the law correctly, only military people have any prohibition about touching, reading, distributing, etc classified data. Normal citizens agreed to no such terms.
If I understand the law correctly, U.S. citizens cannot be assassinated by its own government without the benefit of due process.
It means literally what it says: everyone is entitled to "due" (i.e. warranted) process, not judicial process. What process is "due" in any given case? It is, on its face, a context-sensitve inquiry.
If you trace the due process clause back to its origins in Clause 39 of the Magna Carta, you'll see that it is not a guarantee of a trial in every case, but rather a protection against arbitrary action: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." The AUMF is, for better or worse, the law of the land.
People gave Eric Holder a lot of flak when he stated that the Constitution guarantees due process and not judicial process, but his comment was a totally uncontroversial statement of the law. I'm pretty sure Greenwald knows that too, since last time I checked NYU (where he got his JD) doesn't teach some bizarro version of Constitutional Law where down is up and due process always requires a trial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And why is that, exactly?
Can't speak for the OP, but I often find myself reacting in a similar way. The reason is that in the past, more often than not all I got when clicking on such a link was a page asking me to login to see the actual content. I don't have a fb account, hence there's nothing to see for me. This is not always the case because as far as I know you can see some pages without having to login first, but they seem to be a mino…