I work in InfoSec and this is spot on. Until a lot of people die the private sector will never take security seriously as a whole. Target, Home Depot, Experian, etc. make good news stories, but they really haven't impacted information security practices.

People with those qualifications have the ability to switch jobs in a heartbeat. To say they had no choice but to violate the constitution is absurd. They chose to do this to us.

Let me rephrase. How does that compare to other sites that are in the top 10 for web traffic on Earth? I'm not talking about any random small business.

And how does that compare to for-profit companies of the same size?

That still doesn't change the fact that it is so open to abuse that it is virtually guaranteed. What is to stop a DA from threatening a minor offender of the maximum possible sentences unless they plea guilty? Apparently nothing.

How is it reasonable that the same crime could carry a punishment ranging from 2 to 10 years? I understand variance due to circumstances, but that range seems ripe for abuse.

"Would someone be so kind as to please remind me how we can block posts from a given author?"

Bennett's name is specifically not a link, so that you cannot author block him.

Hear, hear.

It's cute that you think any political party is in charge of the NSA.

I do federal government InfoSec. When there is a conflict between the mission and security the manager will overrule the system administrator every time. Even in the military where lives are potentially at risk.

Sure, there is a lot of less-than-competent admins out there, but a lot more of the problem is political rather than technical than most people realize.

Kids in your day were just as stupid; you are just smart enough to recognize it now.

There is nothing shady about backdoor conversions. They were forbidden in the past, and then made explicitly allowable in 2010. Cheating on tests, even in India, is not explicitly allowed by universities. In that case it is pure corruption.

YOU are the one making the assertion. The burden is on YOU to provide evidence of mass voter fraud.

We are both in agreement that the formula is simple: if a measure stops more fraud than legitimate votes it is good.

The concept I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around is that you apparently genuinely believe that removing mail-in ballots would stop more fraudulent than real voters. The number of fraud cases is likely extremely low, to the point of being a statistical anomaly. Why make it harder to vote for people who have to work, single parents, the elderly, those without transportation, etc?

I disagree that it is "beside the point." If you prevent 1,000 cases of fraud by stopping 10,000 legitimate voters then would you really say that is a solution? For many people the mail in ballot is how they vote. It is disenfranchisement for the sake of exclusion, not actually making the system better.