161–170 of 420 posts
This is the trailer: https://vimeo.com/57182041
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny thing though... if Fox goes after Obama over this, it's tacitly admitting that Bush was evil too. I doubt they'll do that.
That's suggesting that they have even the slightest compulsion to not be hypocritical. I'd expect them to hit him hard on this (and good for them, even if their reasons for doing so might be dishonest).
I think it's interesting to ask why these programs are so widely hated. These are national security assets: evidence gathered here will never be used in a drug case, or a tax evasion case. Why not? These tools exist for the bigger fish: the dozens of Soviet-era nuclear weapons believed to be missing, or the small amounts of dangerous pathogens that periodically vanish from research labs. These are what the government…
>We have rights to privacy and protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
I want those rights too. I might have them on paper (since it's a democracy here in Europe as well, and there are agreements), but it seems like nobody in charge cares either way.
> If you -- Hacker News reader -- decided to run for congress tomorrow, you might not win, but you won't be killed, sabotaged, or secretly blocked.
I cannot run. I'm not from the US. I can't even vote. I can try to make my government do something about it, but you know how that goes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Willingly" is the point of contention. The CEOs complied. Whether they felt like they had a choice in the matter is another question entirely.
Twitter isn't on the list. Obviously someone put up a fight.
I think it's interesting to ask why these programs are so widely hated. These are national security assets: evidence gathered here will never be used in a drug case, or a tax evasion case. Why not? These tools exist for the bigger fish: the dozens of Soviet-era nuclear weapons believed to be missing, or the small amounts of dangerous pathogens that periodically vanish from research labs. These are what the government…
As many have stated, the problem is with inevitable abuse of power. It may or may not be happening now, but it will. Recent IRS disclosure that they targeted Tea Party-linked organizations for audits is one example. I doubt it was deliberately ordered by the administration, but someone, somewhere thought it was a good idea. Search queries alone will probably tell you which way a person is leaning in an election. That…
I'm saddened to see Dropbox on the list. Did they choose to participate or is it mandatory? In any case, we've moved several projects to BTSync recently from Dropbox (for no other reason than to free up space on Dropbox for our personal files) and have been enjoying the service. As a p2p encrypted protocol, I imagine it's much more difficult to eavesdrop on your files and would actually require a warrant to obtain. I…
Is there an open source dropbox-style app that I can install on my own server?
I think it's interesting to ask why these programs are so widely hated. These are national security assets: evidence gathered here will never be used in a drug case, or a tax evasion case. Why not? These tools exist for the bigger fish: the dozens of Soviet-era nuclear weapons believed to be missing, or the small amounts of dangerous pathogens that periodically vanish from research labs. These are what the government…
Yes, "national security assets" would never be used for silly things like the war on drugs:
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-01-12/local/me-147_1_drug-c...
That is the problem with this sort of argument. Things done to catch terrorists usually wind up being used for law enforcement purposes years down the road. Terrorism just is not common enough to justify the expenditure; eventually, after the well-connected companies and contractors have laughed their way to the bank, some politician comes in and says, "This is a waste of money, but it would be less wasteful to use it to help our poor, overburdened cops!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Three letter agencies approach the executive team directly. A decision to participate has to be made at the exec team/board level. If the CEO doesn't know about it, then the company has some serious communication issues.
"Willingly" is the point of contention. The CEOs complied. Whether they felt like they had a choice in the matter is another question entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bullshit. LE requests to FB simply do not work that way. They can make a request online, which is checked for proper authority, etc. The guidelines FB follows can be viewed at https://www.facebook.com/safety/groups/law/guidelines/ and the idea that FB just randomly hands out full read access to user data is either a paranoid delusion or calculated deception. Maybe you can tell us which one you were aiming for.
He's referring to the linked article, so your personal attack is misdirected. 'With a few clicks and an affirmation that the subject is believed to be engaged in terrorism, espionage or nuclear proliferation, an analyst obtains full access to Facebook’s “extensive search and surveillance capabilities against the variety of online social networking services.”'
Again: Questioning the motives behind an attempt of persuasion argument isn't a personal attack.
I think it's interesting to ask why these programs are so widely hated. These are national security assets: evidence gathered here will never be used in a drug case, or a tax evasion case. Why not? These tools exist for the bigger fish: the dozens of Soviet-era nuclear weapons believed to be missing, or the small amounts of dangerous pathogens that periodically vanish from research labs. These are what the government…
The loss of privacy is massive in comparison to the lives lost to terrorism. More people die each year due to car accidents than have lost their lives to all terrorist attacks on US Soil. If the information that is being gathered is about safety, then why isn't the government isn't creating a massive program to strictly monitor highway speeds, traffic roadways, and increase traffic safety then? Answer: The informatio…
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
This seems a rather inappropriate aphorism, since most people here would very much like to deny the NSA access to information about their phone usage. This is an argument against censorship rather than one in support of privacy.
I don't think you've really thought this argument through. I don't think the government is so much interested in vastly expanding its powers of information gathering (although as I've noted elsewhere, the government has had unlimited access to your phone records, by order of the Supreme court, since 1979), as it is in maximizing its predictive abilities within its existing legal limits - which is also considered by many to be part of its job. It's not so much you vs. the government as you vs. a large number of your fellow citizens that simply don't share your beliefs about privacy, and who choose to elect law-and-order types more often than civil-liberties types.