And for the most part, this is what the FAA does, or historically has done. Only recently they have started to phase out the 40 year old system that pre-dated the internet and move to IP based communications.

Also, I don't agree with your approach of just stringing up your own infrastructure for communications. IP networks can be built with LOTS of redundancy and using a couple of internet connections and routing your traffic over them can add huge redundancy gains with low cost. I think the FAA needs an "all of the above" solution, where it provides secure and redundant communications over as many different paths as they can. Nail up direct links, backup links over the internet, throw some satellites up with data link capacity, and even use direct RF links. Just don't depend on any ONE link for mission critical communications... Of course all these links need to be secure, but there are secure ways to tunnel though public channels, you just have to use them.

Perhaps, but the FAA did actually manage to control physical access to that terminal fairly well.

All in all, my quick skim though the report tells me that where the FAA does have issues with security (Mostly with, network security, management of users and patches) they don't do that badly given their large size. They have similar problems to just about everybody else that has systems of similar complexity and by my estimation do better than average on just about all aspects of security. Given the "mission critical" nature of what these systems do and how complex the total system is things need to be better, but IMHO they are doing a bang up job now keeping aircraft from bouncing off each other in the sky.

Your winnings sir!

Yes, thank you.

If you go swimming in the shark tank with the bookies, expect to loose your money or worse.

Yea, but any disassembly that starts with "Retrieve Rover and place on jack stands with the emergency break set" is going to be impossible from the get go..

They WHERE the lowest bidder...

They obviously got smuggled onto the launch behind the back-shell by Neal Armstrong...

Dude, seriously?

Snowden had voluntary access to classified information and had voluntarily signed a non-disclosure agreement. He is bound by that agreement, legally, forever. Contract law has to work that way.

As to the *rest* of your little rant... IF you are a US citizen who is overseas and actively engaged in fighting the USA and a drone strike kills you, to bad, so sad. If you are captured as a combatant on foreign soil you first get adjudicated by the military under their rules and they may or may not be required to ship you back to the states for criminal trial. But REMEMBER that if you are with the sovereign territory of the United States the military is NOT the police, and CANNOT act like law enforcement arresting people and holding them for trial.

So drop all this cloak and dagger stuff and realize that it's not as bad as you make it sound...

Nope. Report away. Snowden's problem was HOW he reported it and to whom.

Of course he would receive a fair trial... Unless of course you have already predetermined what the outcome SHOULD be from that trial and have decided to define that as unfair... Look, the system in this country, despite what you think, is generally fair. Snowden would face a trial before a group of peers just like everybody else which would likely be more than fair to him. After all, the legal system in this country is "innocent until PROVEN guilty" and is slanted in favor of the accused in just about every way possible. Even trial procedure is slanted towards the defense, which gets the privilege of "answering" the charges by presenting it's arguments AFTER the prosecution presents it's case. So Snowden would get a fair trial, despite the people who claim otherwise...

Snowden is also afforded a "speedy" trial, so if the defense pushes for a trial ASAP, they get it. Long Delays in a trial only come when the defense agrees to it, otherwise you have grounds for appeal. But I doubt there would be much delay for Snowden. The facts are pretty much not in dispute and well known, getting to a trial quickly is likely what the prosecution would want anyway now...

Don't be so down on the US legal system. We have our issues, but generally it works reasonably well.

Well if calling attention to the government's problem was really his motive, there was no need to run away. In fact, running away actually hurt his case, both in court and in public opinion.

He KNEW what the potential punishments where before he broke the law. I say that if you care that much about the cause, do the right thing and don't run, stand and fight injustice in court in front of a jury. You don't run away to avoid trial because it is the trial that lets you air your opinion to a jury of your peers and it is the way you can address the issues with the law.

Anything less just means you are no better than a hoodlum, committing a crime and running away from the law, then claiming the punishment isn't fair when you get caught. REAL civil disobedience is when you break the law, full knowing the consequences, ready to make your case about how the punishment isn't fair to a jury and if you loose, being punished.

Did Rosa Parks say to herself, "I'm going to break the law today and show these people how unfair it is, but when the police show up I'm going to run and hide so they don't punish me!" No, she stood her ground, did what she thought was right, ready to be punished if that's what it took to call attention to the injustice of the law. That's what a valid protest looks like.

As I've said before, if he's really this stand up guy, why did he run? IF he really had good and legal reasons to do what he did, take it to court and face the music.

Civil disobedience has ALWAYS carried the potential for punishment and if you break the law to make your point that the law is unjust you should stand ready to be arrested, imprisoned and tried in court for what you choose to do. You don't break the law and then run away like a coward...

You may be right, but I think South Korea might be a bit miffed if China gets the whole pie and I'm not so sure China wants to get involved in North Korea's struggles if it can avoid it. It will cost a LOT of money and resources to bring the north up to third world standards and I don't think China wants to be forced into spending on this. South Korea, on the other hand, has both the resources and the will to do this. I think the key will be what the USA does in partnership with South Korea and how committed the two countries are to ending the decades long war (or police action or what ever it really is/was). So it will likely fall to who is in the Whitehouse and how the United Nations tries to deal with the crisis.

Either way, we will be very lucky if the Korean war doesn't start up again... China will want something so they won't let the whole country go, but South Korea *will* make noticeable gains though this process.

Of course this is assuming things are similar in the world as they are now.... Things could change and if the USA is occupied elsewhere or incapable of controlling events, obviously China will drive the outcome more. However, I don't see the USA in that condition right now...