Isn't that how it's supposed to work? The defendant is supposed to be given the benefit of every doubt. That's part of being presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you've ever been accused of doing something you didn't do, you'll likely appreciate the value of this system.

Well, the short answer is he isn't, directly. That statement sounds like he's trying to kill his viewers. He's not.

The long answer has to do with his promotion of weight-loss dietary supplements.Since supplements aren't regulated by the FDA, consumers can't always be sure what they're taking. There are some sketchy companies out there and sometimes what's in the pill is not what's on the label.

He also didn't do himself any favors by using incautious language to promote the supplements - things like "magic weight loss cure" and "miracle in a bottle". This earned him a stern talking to by a Senate subcommittee on consumer protection about a year ago.

In his defense he points out these products have studies to show they are somewhat effective when combined with diet and exercise and it's not his fault if companies are misrepresenting product.

I don't know about a sniper, but he was in a no-fly zone. Don't they scramble jets when someone enters a no-fly zone? Especially near the Capitol. I assume they do, but I don't really know.

I think on this issue you'll find that high level GOP officials have an unusually wide stance and are willing to reach around the aisle, pointing fingers when necessary in order to come to a consensus. Many are even willing to bend over backwards to be more accommodating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig_scandal/

From my experience if you delete content or ban a troll, it just encourages them to troll more using a different account, usually from a different IP address.

The most effective way I found to deal with problem users is to make their bad comments only visible to them. That way it appears to them that they've had their say and no one responded to it. Without feedback to encourage them, trolls either quickly get bored and go elsewhere or sometimes they'll surprise you and produce better quality comments.

Yes there is, moron.

Hubris, most likely. If Bruce Schneier is correct there appear to be a number of NSA and CIA leakers still active. Not to mention the foreign spies within the NSA and CIA that we don't hear about because they are doing their job correctly.

We're not fighting the State by using encryption. We're protecting out data from unauthorized access. Like good digital citizens.

Then you have inadequate backups. That's a different issue from encryption.

Comcast throttling of Netflix traffic until extortion money was paid actually happened. You don't need to imagine hypothetical future scenarios to see the issues this legislation addresses.

It's possible, but why not then put a one line message on their web page that said they grew tired on the project and no longer wish to develop it.

That's not what they did. They put up a page that said "ZOMG this is insecure don't use it!" then disappeared.

No matter how you look at it, that's not someone you can trust to keep your data secure.

For commercial certificate authorities, it is principally due to revenue generation as you have to pay them again each time you renew the certificate.

You can (and I encourage you to) create your own certificates with you as the certificate authority. You can specify any amount of time before it expires. How much time you choose before the certificate expires depends on how strongly you feel the encryption method used will stand up to future attacks. One year is probably too short. 100 years is probably too long. Pick a number that you are comfortable with, and send yourself an alert before it expires.

Yes, and it's quite sad to see that type of petulant, childish behavior coming from adults. That is how children behave. When coming from statesmen who are (in theory) representatives of this country it is downright tragic.

Now that I think about it that sounds more like the NSA than Mr. Snowden.