121–130 of 174 posts
If you consider Facebook, LinkedIn, Github, HN, Snapchat, Twitter, Pinterest, Flickr, Google Plus (one profile for each Google-based e-mail I have), Live (one for each outlook.com e-mail I have) social networks, the field will have to be fairly large.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not anymore. For better or worse the definition is being expanded such that we're all going to be classified as terrorists soon enough. Terrorists have fewer rights than the average citizen, so its inevitable. Am I a terrorist? Well, yes, yes I am. My wife donated some money to our local mainline Catholic church and they've participated in some anti-abortion activities and some define that as financial support of ter…
The term "terrorist" doesn't have a single fixed meaning. It's context-dependent. Pretending it's not context-dependent willfully misinterprets the speaker. A lot of words function like this. E.g., "believer". When a christian asks me if I'm a believer I might say yes. But then I'd probably say no if a wiccan asked me the same question. Obviously, that doesn't mean that everyone (or no one) is a believer once you fix…
I used to live in the US. Now I live in a country ruled by a military dictatorship. This year they started with an immigration form that asks for social media accounts, currently optional same as the US. When I left the US I never thought I would be watching the US steadily implement many of the steps of a military dictatorship. The thing is, the US gov is so much more powerful and skilled at surveillance and dirty w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Point being the NSA is collecting a lot of noise.
> a lot of noise Which will simply be filtered out. Technology does not just evolve linearly.
I thought they had info about the boston bomber, 9/11 hijackers, and san bernadino shooter, but didn't act on it because it was lost in the noise?
The article seems to suggest that the proposal can be challenged but there is really nothing that the public can do, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and LinkedIn, Google (G+, Gmail, Analytics), Hacker News, Steam...
> Steam "It says here you've been affiliated with a "Counter-Strike: Global Offensive" where you were a terrorist.."
I find it really problematic: when you fill the US borders paperwork, you are supposed to give objective admin/personal details while on social media you are supposed to speak up your mind. Where do you place the limit between somebody that publicly criticizes the US foreign policy and somebody that can be a threat? How are they going to handle people who posted something like "The US knew about the 9/11 attacks"?
There is already precedent for criminalizing dissent -- Turkey, for example, considers online criticism of Turkey as equivalent to damaging national security by spreading propaganda with the intent to provoke attacks towards the Turkish government. It would be fair to assume the US would be open to such means to improve security.
No need to reach so far. New York just made it illegal to advocate boycotting Israel[0].
[0] http://www.salon.com/2016/06/05/ny_gov_cuomo_signing_unconst...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like you can opt out of the body scan, which induces them to yell, in front of everyone, "OPT OUT!" and then you get to stand in a little roped off area and wait for a while. So, I agree, they'll make it as painful as possible to decline.
Opt out may not be an option[0]. Even though the scanners don't work[1]. [0] http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/23/travel/tsa-airport-screening-c... [1] http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/airport-security-price...
Airtight logic there.
I was always very confused/amused by the questions at the border: "Are you a terrorist or affiliate with a terrorist organization?" "Are you a secret spy" Why would anyone say yes? What's the purpose of this. Do they just need it to avoid arguments like "we dont even ask?" A friend of mine explained it to me: - let's say that they have the suspicion or evidence that you are affiliated w/ a terrorist organization. by…
But I believe the main reason is so that when they catch somebody and prosecute them for terrorism, they can add "making false statements" to the charges and get even more prison time.