111–120 of 131 posts
Is there precedent that backs up the legality of National Security Letters?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Canaries still work, though, don't they? I.e. put up a cryptographically signed and timestamped statement that you haven't received a request, then don't update it (or simply take it down) once you receive a request. Don't some open source projects do this?
You can do it right now by embedding such message in Bitcoin blockchain. It will give you tamper-proof and timestamped message.
http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt
It's not as sophisticated as the blockchain, etc., but about as good - if you pick sensitive pieces of financial news it's clear you could not have known about them in advance. Or sports results.
Back when I was in 8th grade, there was a guy who claimed he had a girlfriend. She lived in [two towns over]. But no one believed him because they never saw her. Never got her last name. There were just claims that "she's from [town], and she's awesome". I have the same reaction to the national security theatre that we're always presented with from classified space. "Trust us there's a real threat, but you don't know…
This is pretty much it. I boarded a commuter plane (prop plane, less than 50 seats) last month at a small town airport. It had pre-9/11 security in place and a broken metal detector. I got a quick pat down that didn't even cover all my pockets. From there, I got on a cross country jet identical to the ones that hit NYC or the Pentagon on 9/11. It is pretty clear either: A) The government is so incompetent they can't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is pretty much it. I boarded a commuter plane (prop plane, less than 50 seats) last month at a small town airport. It had pre-9/11 security in place and a broken metal detector. I got a quick pat down that didn't even cover all my pockets. From there, I got on a cross country jet identical to the ones that hit NYC or the Pentagon on 9/11. It is pretty clear either: A) The government is so incompetent they can't…
As a person who lives in a small town with a small town airport, my self-interest implores you to not talk about that sort of thing. I really like getting out of bed at 7:15 for an 8:00 flight - getting to the airport 15 mins before departure time and being at the gate right when boarding starts is fantastic.
Would you say I am wrong tho?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We want to stop them by catching them . Them stopping and changing their operation to reduce the chances of being caught is not the desired outcome.
If we have to choose between criminals just stopping crime but getting away, and maybe catching them while destroying freedoms in the process, let's go with the first one. The goal should be to stop crime, period, without damaging the lives of the innocent.
I'm saying that disclosures that add no value to the public discourse but are of value to criminals are not a good choice of tool for protecting freedoms.
To put it another way: supplying useful information to criminals while not helping the public is not a desirable state of affairs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a person who lives in a small town with a small town airport, my self-interest implores you to not talk about that sort of thing. I really like getting out of bed at 7:15 for an 8:00 flight - getting to the airport 15 mins before departure time and being at the gate right when boarding starts is fantastic.
I don't blame you at all. I've been trying to move to a smaller town for awhile. Massive metropolises are nice and all but I'm kinda bored of it. Would you say I am wrong tho?
I have made the same observations in the past when traveling.
Back when I was in 8th grade, there was a guy who claimed he had a girlfriend. She lived in [two towns over]. But no one believed him because they never saw her. Never got her last name. There were just claims that "she's from [town], and she's awesome". I have the same reaction to the national security theatre that we're always presented with from classified space. "Trust us there's a real threat, but you don't know…
Back when I was in 8th grade, there was a guy who claimed he had a girlfriend. She lived in [two towns over]. But no one believed him because they never saw her. Never got her last name. There were just claims that "she's from [town], and she's awesome". I have the same reaction to the national security theatre that we're always presented with from classified space. "Trust us there's a real threat, but you don't know…
shouldn't it be classified because it would warn the terrorists their plan is revealed ?
The government’s position, the complaint said, “forces Twitter either to engage in speech that has been preapproved by government officials or else to refrain from speaking altogether.” Isn't that the definition of censorship? I'm surprised they don't actually use that word in the lawsuit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/201...
If you present a conclusion, your opponent can claim it's an invalid conclusion based on faulty premises. However, if you only present evidence-backed facts, your opponent can't argue against the evidence and you force your opponent to reveal their hand earlier. In this case, the hand being revealed is ultimately one of national security... but by structuring the argument in this way, they are likely to avoid a prolo…