I think the people who hate on Bush, but praise Obama, can point to the fact the Obama never ordered the invasion of a country that had done no harm to America, had no weapons of mass destruction, and was not supporting terrorism. We're talking about the blood of 100,000 civilians give or take. When it comes to morality, George W. Bush's standard is an easy bar to get over.

All that said, Bush never ordered the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. Obama has done it more than once.

I say, put them both on trial.

Why does the public let go unchallenged the claim that there will be a "next 9/11" to prevent?

The 9/11 attacks were the most ambitious terrorist attacks in history. They certainly terrorized the United States, and government officials obviously remain terrorized to this day. So in that sense, they were kind of a success. They also had massive blowback that Al Quaeda might not be keen to repeat.

Before 9/11, bin Laden was a folk hero in some parts of the Muslim world because he fought the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. After the atrocity he masterminded, most of his financiers and sympathizers dropped him like he was radioactive. Middle Eastern governments that had formerly turned a blind eye to Al Quaeda started shutting down its finance network and jailing its contributors, raiding training camps and arresting radical clerics. Then there is the US armed response, which was deeply misguided in important ways but which undeniably brought ruin on Al Queada and the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Since at least the battle of Tora Bora, Al Quaeda has been struggling to survive. It's hard to see how redoubling American resolve, just now when the public is war-weary, cynical, and worried about the war debt, would advance the aim of a global Caliphate.

It has also been said that the 9/11 attacks were self defeating in the sense that exactly because they were so devastating and well-planned, they are nigh impossible to surpass. Next to them, just bombing an embassy looks like small time. So the effectiveness of typical terror attacks may actually have been diminished because the public's expectations have been raised.

So, even if any organization could pull off "another 9/11", I seriously question whether they would want to. I believe the radicals' current objective is to get the US out of Afghanistan so they can rebuild their safe haven there. In other words, to pick up the pieces from the blowback from 9/11 and get back to where they were on Sept. 10, 2001. There is considerable doubt whether this is possible: the US will definitely pull out, but its drones will still rain Hellfire missiles from the sky day or night, and the US-backed Afghan army is in a position to keep the pressure on for a good long while.

Which brings me back to why preventing the "next 9/11" is something we should be worried about. If bin Laden had 9/11 to do over again, knowing the consequences for his organization and his agenda, would he go for it? I have to go with "no." Why can't any politician stand up and say that? Claim some credit for the progress in the "war on terror" instead of jumping at shadows?

Of course, I can answer my own question. The bogeyman of terrorism serves the authoritarian purposes of the government, so they refuse to abandon it. But please, let's start calling them on it.

There comes a point when cynicism and apathy become mutually reinforcing and, soon, indistinguishable.

I think this is a case where Poe's Law applies.

There's no pleasing some people.

I only agree there is "no expectation of privacy" for a car in the sense that cars are not invisible. If my car is parked outside Starbucks, then anyone on the street can see it, and it is not a breach of my privacy to say "I saw Sir Garlon's car parked at Starbucks this morning." This is perfectly reasonable.

It is one hell of a leap from there to "it's perfectly OK for the government to track someone's vehicle 24/7." Pretending that "no expectation of privacy" in the first sense is congruent with "no expectation of privacy" in the second sense is totally disingenuous. As Jules from Pulp Fiction said, that "ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same fuckin' sport!"

Boston police apparently abandoned their license-plate reading program after reporters found out they weren't using it for the stated purpose of finding stolen vehicles.

Of course, it is easier to get a crooked, ineffective police program killed when it is funded from the local budget, not windfall "homeland security" dollars in the US.

And they're a lot less expensive and a lot more powerful.

That depends on how much value you place on an hour of your time and how fast you can configure free software. For me the comparative advantage probably lies with paying someone else to get the thing working.

TFA doesn't make any claims about privacy. That must be the opinion of the submitter, not the FSF.

Countries that benefit from trade with the US will mostly either defy that decision, or claim to obey it while doing it under the table.

Sure, self-interest applies, but it is not necessarily that simple. The United States, or, rather, its corporate citizens, benefited from trade with South Africa, but they eventually sided with the divestment movement and hit South Africa where it hurt.

I don't claim it's a likely outcome, but if my government keeps behaving like a bully, there has to be some major blowback eventually.

Don't laugh. If the sleeping giant we call the UN General Assembly were to awaken and get angry, woe betide the country on whom its wrath should fall. Unlike the Security Council, there is no veto in the General Assembly, so one or a handful of countries could not stop the hammer of sanctions from coming down.

I have long thought my country (US) needs a large dose of humility in international affairs, but I would much rather it acquire that humility by gentler means than meaningful economic sanctions.

At this point, I think it's inevitable that spying will be a central issue in the 2016 Presidential election, and neither party will dare to defend the status quo. Corporate campaign donors are starting to see the economic implications, and they'll be raising a hell of a fuss by the time two more years have gone by.

I wonder if Windows 8 was designed by parolees from Microsoft Bob.

And here I thought from the headline that TFA would be about a group at Microsoft in charge of *committing* digital crimes!

(That would have been funnier 15 years ago. At this point, I would say if Microsoft needed a full-time team to commit crimes, it would be only so they could catch up to the competition.)