Great idea, that way anybody that has ever been put on a watch list can be harassed for ever! Not because a court of law determined they did anything wrong, no, but because they're on a list (or have been on one). You see, they probably did something wrong or else they wouldn't have been on that list in the first place...

Never mind the fact that this is all done in secret, with no judicial oversight, no accountability and no way to appeal those decisions and that people basically end up on those lists for exercising their political rights.

Try working as a journalist/filmmaker and reporting on the global war on terror, try actively opposing the US drone war or try supporting wikileaks (or any organization that the US has secretly decided they do not like) and see how quickly you end up on those watch lists.

Of course, you'll never know you're on one of those lists until the next time you try flying to the US, then you'll be detained and questioned (not to mention laptop seizure etc.). It happened many times to Jacob Appelbaum, a Tor developer, it happened to Imran Khan, one of the most popular politician in Pakistan and it happened repeatedly to Laura Poitras, an Oscar-and Emmy-nominated filmmaker. These people are spied on and harassed because of their political opinions, thanks to the global surveillance state we now live in.

How submissive have we become that as people living in democracies we even accept the existence of "watchlists"?

Best missile defense shield : peace treaty.

AUMF only authorized force “against those nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided” the 9/11 attack and those nations which harbored them.

Problem is The US is now going after groups didn’t even exist at the time of the attack. The intent of AUMF was to go after the people involved in 9/11 (a legitimate goal no ones disputes). But AUMF is now interpreted to mean: "The US government reserve the right to strike anyone it determines an enemy, with no limitation of time or place". In other words AUMF interpreted this way is essentially a carte blanche for global and endless war. Is that really what you're arguing for?

Citation needed? Also, in the Yemen case, the individuals were nowhere near a battlefield. There was no "military action" other than drones flying by. I'd be really curious if you can find any prior example of US citizens killed outside of military action on direct order from the executive branch.

But anyway, according to you all the US government needs to do to legally kill a US citizen (without any trial or any form of judicial process) is to declare them "an enemy". Better hope you won't be declared one... hard to argue Habeas corpus, Fifth Amendment and fundamental rights with a done missile.

Remind me: when did the US declared war to Yemen? Did Congress vote on any of this? Calling it "war on terror" does not actually make it a war in the eyes of international law. Also: if you accept the concept of "global war against terrorism", how do determine when that was is over? Will the war continue until the US sign a peace treaty with the Concept of Terrorism?

Two US citizens (that weren't anywhere near a combat zone) have been killed by drone strikes - with no judicial oversight, simply because the president said so:
"The strike marked the first known time that the US had deliberately targeted US citizens in a drone attack.".

Doesn't that bother you in any way? Who does Obama need to kill in order for you to realize this is a dramatic power grab?

The problem is that killing civilian turns people that had no animosity towards Amercia into "terrorist supporters". How hard an idea is this to grasp?

Got to love how Obama went from "Blackberry Candidate" to "Cyber Sabotage & Drone 'Secret Kill List' President". He's clearly in love with the unaccountable power that technology offers.

It's sickening to see how everyone in the US political establishment (Democrats, Republicans ie. all "respectable" people) cheer when the executive branch orders drone assassinations abroad. And boy do they love how "clean" and "efficient" those are. Hey, no Americans were hurt, the public loves to hear about the military killing bad guys and since these are conducted in remote areas, the US government doesn't even have to deal with the bad PR of "weeping widows" videos. It's all good! Who needs to seek Congress approval for declaring war, when technology allows you to wage a permanent and global secret war?

It is believed that having more democracies around will ultimately increase world stability because democracies loath going to war and the voting public sees it as a last resort solution. Well, so far the biggest democracy in the west seems to have a giant boner for secret drone wars. Well, its executive branch at least, the public doesn't need to hear know about it in details, those informations are classified you see, national security and all.

Don't these people realize the real damage caused by drones strikes? They are breeding generations of new enemies. The next time terrorists successfully blow up Americans or Americans allies, ask yourself: how would you react if people from your home town/area/country were droned in the night by a foreign power?

And if you were Iranian and you heard that the US is actively trying to sabotage your country's nuclear program, wouldn't that increase your support for the Iranian government and its policy to get nuclear technology, even when you actually loath Ahmadinejad and his authoritarian regime?

I too, like the Yahoo Mail UI (and use it), however:

- pop3 access is for paying customers only ("free" pop3 servers are only accessible through ip assigned to mobile networks)
- if you use their "forward" option to forward your mail to another address, then you can't use pop3 anymore (true story)
- No Imap option *even for paying customers*
- Unlike Gmail, Yahoo doesn't warn you if somebody logs in to your webmail from an unusual ip, they also don't offer anything like a list of recent login ip.
- And worst of it all: Yahoo still doesn't offer https. They only offer https login, which is a joke security wise, as sessions can be hijack with something as trivial as a browser plug in.

I could swallow a few things, like no imap which is only a sign of how technically obsolete Yahoo mail is, but the inadequate level of security is really Yahoo taking a giant shit on the head of their users.

And that's also why most of the rural UK doesn't have access to electricity, running water and landlines.

Oh wait...

Windows RT : as in... Windows Russia Today?

Don't you see that by mixing advertisement with content you are casting doubt on *every single* story posted? You had a great thing but you're killing it.

Who thought this would a good idea? How dumb are the corporate owners?

If this goes on, I'm going to start using those threads to list as many slashdot alternatives as possible. There many good sites out there looking for active commenters.

Watch how mods are going to help your audience leave your site.

Let me guess: You don't own a passport?

Keyboard layout

Why Making Facebook Private Won't Protect You?

- Because posting something you consider private on facebook (aka publishing it on the Internet) is stupid and careless
- Because facebook employees have unrestricted access to your account
- Because it will be hard if not impossible to *actually* remove your information from their servers and backups
- Because facebook contracts moderating content to outsourcing firms and everything you post there risks being reviewed by an under-vetted, unfulfilled person on a dollar an hour in an internet café in Marrakech.

This is for all you "If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?" and "You're one in a million, nobody cares about your insignificant neck-beard life" apologists: Don't you see why it is bad that all that private information is aggregated and under the control of a single entity?
Even if it is done with reasonable safeguards and the best of intentions, which is definitely not the case with facebook, the simple fact that all this information exists online, tied to your real name, means that the potential for abuse is immense. And this is time it's not even facebook doing the abusing and profiteering, it's just an external third party.

And when you've been unemployed for a substantial amount of time and you are desperate for a job, who has more power over you than a potential employer?

Give up your privacy, pledge allegiance to your employer. Don't you love the neofeudalist world we live in?

They caught him about 8 months ago. He has allegedly been an informant since then, which must have given him more than enough time to ponder on how he got caught.