81–83 of 83 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should we not hold the government to a higher standard than random individuals?
Not when we are outsourcing our intelligence collection to government. Its the Government's responsibility to spy on our enemies, is it not?
It's rather convenient that the same organization that spies on "enemies" also gets to define what an "enemy" is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think even most prosecutors would have the balls to say something as fucked-up as that. One who scoffs at the threat of criminal court proceedings, in this nation, does so from a very privileged position. A more charitable person than I would hope you never have the misfortune to discover how wrong you are.
What I'm saying is that you cannot have your cake here and eat it too. Strong laws? Great, you'll have an Aaron Swartz every 5 years at least, especially as long as those laws continue to make common-sense computer crimes like breaking into a subnet (now matter how easy or difficult that was to do technically!) legal crimes as well. Weak laws? That's fine too, but don't be surprised what a dedicated "advanced persist…
If APT were "real" instead of marketing/lobbyist bullshit, like "al Queda" and "the domino theory", what could we imagine "strong laws" doing to combat it? Does anyone suggest we pull a Baghdad in Shanghai or St. Petersburg? How strong is a law that can't be enforced, really?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not when we are outsourcing our intelligence collection to government. Its the Government's responsibility to spy on our enemies, is it not?
Its the Government's responsibility to spy on our enemies, is it not? It's rather convenient that the same organization that spies on "enemies" also gets to define what an "enemy" is.
For the most part, the US Government is composed of very many different organizations who are specifically designed to not work together very well.