So, it's legal for Americans to spy on the Dutch? Who knew!

If it's legal for the US to spy on Dutch citizens, then isn't it also legal for the Dutch citizens to spy on and hack into Americans?

Because, clearly, if it's legal for the US to do the same to external entities, the reverse must be true, right?

"No crime happened here, within our jurisdiction," they'd say.

Which would seem to invalidate pretty much any extradition treaty, wouldn't it?

If you can commit what would be a crime in another country, and there's no law against it, you can't be extradited.

Clearly, nobody could be extradited from the US to the Netherlands for this, so why should anybody ever be extradited to the US for anything? If the stuff America does is outside of everyone else's law, then obviously, anything you do from outside the US to the US is clearly legal, right?

Oh, wait, this only gets applied to governments when they skirt around their own laws, not to the rest of us.

Such bullshit.

It's not dead, it's pining for the fjords.

You're talking about regular phishing. Phishing is not spear-phishing. Phishing, like fishing, involves casting out a bait and hoping that someone (anyone) takes the bait.

Spear-phishing, like spear-fishing, is DEFINED as identifying a specific target and launching your weapon against that target specifically.

Hmmm, because of the rendering, I thought you'd replied to me, but I see you were replying to an AC.

Still, my point stands.

Yeah. You just keep telling yourself that your government would never do anything like this, that it's just an American thing.

Oh, you misunderstand me.

My government is part of the 5 eyes, and is guilty of this exact same kind of reciprocal arrangement.

I think it's all pathetic. But I also think it's being largely driven by the US, because since 9/11 it has become increasingly the case where the US will do anything for their own security. And I have great fears that they're the ones creating the global surveillance state.

But, make no mistake about it, I believe all governments participating in this are undermining rights and freedoms, including my own. The rest of the world hasn't consented to this, it's being done to us by secret treaties, and bypassing our own courts.

The problem is FAR too many people are saying "well, it's OK, as long as they're doing it for our security".

Sooner or later, with this level of widespread surveillance, we'll all be fucked. Because secret agencies will know every damned thing about you, and sooner or later, my worst tin-foil hat fears will come to be normal.

I don't think America is the only one doing this. But I do lay the blame squarely at the feet of the US for feeling it's their right to spy on every goddamned person on the planet.

When did the security of the US trump the rights of everyone else? Who the hell agreed to that?

Papers please, comrade. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Voting? Don't make me { laugh | cry }.

"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order."

So, what box are we up to now again?

I love how pretty much every country has come to the same conclusion: We can bypass our own laws if we have someone else do it for us.

They've all decided, well, we can't spy on our own people, but if the Americans do it for us it's all good.

Essentially reciprocity means that any laws which are intended to protect you will be bypassed as people get other actors to do it for them.

So, it's illegal for the Dutch to spy on their own people, probably illegal when the US spies on the Dutch, but since they've already for the information, why not?

Pathetic. Free societies aren't maintained by using loopholes to get around laws intended to control how your citizens get spied on.

What horsehit.

When governments are getting the take from the blanket surveillance the Americans (and really, the rest of the world), they have very little incentive to actually stop the surveillance in the first place.

Some days it seems like the US has more or less subverted the privacy and rights of everyone on the planet, and every other government is deciding the information sharing is too valuable to recognize they're just lying to us and doing it anyway.

At this point, I don't believe any elected official, or member of any of these state security entities deserves any privacy rights at all. Because they've all decided we don't.

The dystopian future is alive and well, and getting worse every day.

It's not hard not to get phished if you critically evaluate claims and requests as your SOP.

Of course, the problem with this is, anybody who does that more or less gets called a bit of a paranoid loon now and then. :-P

Not everybody understands that a certain level of paranoia is actually required to survive the internet and other scams.

Sometimes people look at you like you're over-reacting, right up until they realize they've given their credit card information to someone who was lying to them.

How did you know that others didn't click on it and then not mention it to anyone?

The company I work for does periodic in-house phishing/spam tests.

If you fail and click the link, you get sent for extra security training. They know, because they're the ones who own the machines you went to.

I gather a surprising amount of people actually fall for them. I find myself looking at "1 in 5800" and thinking "wow, you have some good training".

When my parents got on the interwebs, in so uncertain terms, I sat them down and had "the talk": The internet is a dark and scary place, and not something you just trust. I explained phishing and spam, as well as how to spot fake telemarketers and scams.

My parents have learned to be wary and a little skeptical when someone initiates contact with them, and know to ask for proof. On many occasions they've spotted stuff, though I still worry they might miss something.

But, I still remain amazed at how many people who work in technology fields still blindly click stuff. I expect senior citizens and the like to be less aware of this stuff, but if you've worked in technology for any period of time, you should know better.

Well, around 80% of the time at least. ;-)

Here's the third edition standard for ECMA script. Please point out any way that ActionScript 2.0 doesn't comply with the standard aside from the comparison operator.

http://www.ecma-international....

Does anyone think there's any chance that the next IE version will simply switch to Blink or WebKit

Microsoft switch IE to use components written by someone else?

I place the likelihood of that as pretty small.

Microsoft have always had a huge case of "Not Invented Here", and I don't see that changing.

Are you perhaps confusing ActionScript version numbers vs Flash Player version numbers? ActionScript was introduced in Flash 5. Adobe says they based ActionScript 1.0 on Emacscript. Of course, the first version wasn't complete. It was based on Emacscript, though, according to the people who wrote the friggin language.

Okay so your idea is to take a Superfund site that has already contaminated 100 miles downstream due to natural runoff, and pump 3 trillion gallons of water into it? Into a hole where there have been six earthquakes in nine years, and a major collapse just last year?

What do you think is going to happen next year, with the next quake hits and the collapse releases 3 trillion gallons of very contaminated water? You might want to read up on Banquiao, because you're proposing the same thing, only much larger.