Why do you assume it will be a choice? I think many of us worry it will be a mandate and not a choice

I didn't say foreign country, I said restricted foreign country. As in Syria, Iran, North Korea, and the rest. And yes, if equipment shows up in a restricted country, they will chase it back to the day it was made on the Cisco factory floor and they will question every single partner in the supply chain trying to figure out how it wound up in that country.

You act as though Iran or other sanctioned countries can just go to eBay and buy whatever they want. That's not accurate as sanctions have real teeth (and costs for US companies that don't pay heed).

You see, the US Government is very keen about governing exports. They prohibit shipping many products into restricted countries and they actively police it in a serious manner. Anyone who's product gets found in a restricted country is in hot water. It doesn't matter if the product(s) was sold through an intermediary or 20 middle men, the manufacturer is 100% responsible for asserting, under penalty of law, that their products will not end up in a restricted country and that's that. The treasury department even publishes a monthly list of offenders they catch but I apologize as I cannot seem to find it on google.

To address this issue, many companies that have been caught are required by the US Treasury Dept to document every single end user of their product. Yes, every single unit that is sold must be documented as to where it's final resting place is. I doubt Cisco is under this kind of requirement (unless they've been caught in the past) but it seems this new policy is a huge risk for them in that area. If you were an Iranian supply store trying to procure Cisco equipment, this seems like a good way to do it without anyone knowing or being able to track it --- and that's a serious risk for Cisco.

The minute one of those units gets found in Iran (or any restricted country), all hell will break loose. Again, it doesn't really matter how it got there.....

Here is a good overview of the requirements and Here is a company that has a good policy summary that they live by. Smart on them.

Understand that this has nothing to do with NSA or espionage. This is just a basic requirement of doing business overseas and exporting products. Doesn't matter whether it's plastic dog poo, Intel CPU's, lab equipment, cranes, or other engineered equipment

Symantec is subject to national security letters just like every other US company that exists. If they received one, they are prohibited by law from telling you what they do to assist the government with their products.

This is a solved problem, although by a commercial solution. Symantec's Encryption Desktop....
I stopped reading after that. If you think Symantec is a solution to any problem that exists, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

They aren't reports, they are news stories. Or do you not think the Secretary of State of the United States of America not having a state.gov email address is a big deal?

I think it's astounding. We are not arguing over whether she had one and decided (for whatever reason) not to use one. She was never issued one.

Doesn't that bother you?

Or he's investing in technologies and developments that he has openly and expressly said he believes offers the best economic potential due to what he has learned from those studies.

Hint: If those technologies and developments were not heavily subsidized then Al's investment in those companies would not be worth diddly as they are not economically viable when compared to other non-subsidized alternatives. That is the very reason those industries are subsidized.

To put it another way, I could make a killing if I sold i386 machines for $2000 and the government gave people a $2500 tax credit to buy my stuff. Take away the $2500 tax credit and there is -0- value of owning a company making i386 computers. Al Gore owns many i386 companies who simply cannot compete with other alternatives without massive subsidies.

Even the crown jewel of the greenies, Tesla, wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for massive subsidies.

The market would be more accessible to Iran if they would quit openly calling for the complete annihilation of Isreal. Stuff like that rightfully makes other nations skeptical of their intentions.

You haven't answered the issue: how and who differentiates between dissent and trolling?

To be clear, I 100% understand why Twitter is contemplating this action and I understand the issue annoys lots of people. But so do the Westboro Babtist people. Would they and their ilk be considered trolls or dissenters?

The fatal flaw is obvious: How do you define trolling so it is differentiated from dissent? Answer: you can't in any meaningful way.

This is hard censorship, not the kind of soft self censorship that gets "encouraged". This is actual stifling of voices because someone disagrees with what is being said.

Twitter can do whatever they want because they are a private company. However, we the people can also do whatever we want and find another service. If they start censoring, people will leave for someplace that doesn't. It has happened before and will happen again until we learn that freedom of speech means exactly what it says and there are very few exceptions (threats, fire in theatre, etc, etc). The rest of the speech....even the part that makes us gag.....is allowed

Duh. Regulation gives power to politicians and takes decision-making out of the hands of the citizenry. It should come as no suprise that politicians will use that power to further their own goals and not necessarily those of the public.

For a good example of how this could clusterfuck, consider this: what happens if the FCC sees CONTENT they don't like? Do you think they will stand back with hands off screaming "Freedom!"? No, they will find a reason to intervene and thus, the slippery slope will begin. Of course, that is unthinkable(!) now but give it a few years of regulation and I suspect we'll see that kind of action and more that we haven't even thought of.

Yes, the devil the definitely in the details.

You're not reaching but what you are asking for isn't necessary. We've already got good precedent for encryption with Phil Zimmerman and PGP back in the 1980's.

When they tried to ban his encryption, he just printed the source code in a book and dared them to ban the book. Same thing can happen again. Code = Speech.

Layoffs? In government? Are you kidding or are you high? The government never gets smaller. It is always getting larger and looking for "things to do". Of course they are overfunded and overstaffed. That is why they consistently seek more authority and say in people's lives.

I am surprised people are surprised because this is what governments do. Once whatever problem they have been working on has been solved or greatly diminished, they absolutely must find another reason for existing. This is why they continually seek more and more authority over everyone's life.

For a moment, I thought you were going to knock the Trash-80. But you didn't and for that, I am thankful.

All hail the TRS-80!

How about finding some modern examples that have some relevance instead of going back 200+ years to find your "evidence"? Islam is currently trying to destroy civilizations. Not 100 years ago. Not just in one country. They are doing it across the world and across many different cultures.

That you see them as equivalents is laughable to all but the most gullible.