It's more simple than that. Another case of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... aka bad posts from a bad author who consistently posts complete fucking garbage.

This is hilarious. You don't have to be born powerful to be in those situations. In fact, it's likely the small fry at companies who are targeted. Other NSA ops seem to confirm this. You're just confirming that you would be a target.

See, ain't this shit grand?

Please. This was debunked already. http://www.techdirt.com/articl...

What I find is hilarious is that "being forced to comply" is considered "assisting".

Apparently when your only choice is jail or compliance, somehow you're assisting in the process.

Oh hey, maybe there's a lot of details you could be missing before you make up something like this. You know, like "what you're using" and "Where you make this shit up"?

You can access google drive from any browser, unless you plan on running IE6.

Anything refused under that angle is basically denial of working with the FOIA process, basically using "national security" as an excuse to get out of everything via the loophole as designed.

That is exactly a lack of transparency, not an excuse for it.

Them being ethnically russian has absolutely zero bearing on intentionally driving up tensions between people in a single region, as you note yourself in the second sentence. This isn't an "ethnic cleansing" like Armenia. Just as there are peaceful middle eastern folk who live freely in Israel, there are peaceful Russians who live freely in Ukraine.

I don't know how someone in such a position can't even pronounce Kiev properly though, that's pretty fucking sad from a cultural perspective. That part of things (and US involvement in general) is indeed a fucking insult/joke. However, I certainly wouldn't be able to tell you what the right answer/response is here.

"Some part of Crimea wants them there"?

You mean the part that is 100% false and this has been shown via evidence?

http://news.slashdot.org/story...

What makes you think they would?

This is all posturing and nothing more. It's almost all brought upon by Russia.

You have this backwards. There is no right you have to privacy from public photos. Do show me where you suppose one exists.

Maybe you're still missing the "being in public means being in public" part? You don't get to choose when that's somehow no longer true based on your own non-legal definition when you're still in public.

Factually incorrect.

Let me tell you outright, you are explicitly wrong. Paparazzi exist to make a profit off public photos without people's permission. There is no such right or law that proves otherwise.

Yep. There are other countries that require this and it becomes quite a problem in general. I believe france may be one of them?

Requiring permission makes it impossible to exercise free speech and/or take photos, basically.

Actually, don't forget - if there's a killswitch on your phone, then the people up top would also have it.

It's not that they are or aren't free (BSD), is that the freedom can be removed.