The unwritten understanding of the intelligence community is that everybody is spying on everybody else, yet nobody will actually admit to doing it.

The revelations about Angela Merkel's phone resulted in a bit of diplomatic banter and point scoring, plus a few blushed faces, but the Germans too would have been naive to believe the US wasn't trying to spy on them. Though the Germans may have been a little surprised at how good the US was at spying. However this hasn't changed the underlying alliance and trade relations between the US and the EU. A major PR flap, but no harm done.

Even if we consider enemies such as Osama Bin Laden, before the Snowdon revelations. Al-Qaeda seemed to have an understanding that the US had secret backdoor access to much of the modern digital infrastructure, even if they didn't understand the technical details. Their counter strategy was to organize themselves using pre-digitial methods, using secret face-to-face meetings and hand couriered letters.

The law is nothing more than a threat that the government will use all its available power against you should you violate its written law. The call by John Kerry to "man up" and face trial is nothing more than an admission of defeat by the CIA that they are unable or unwilling to secretly kill, capture or rendition him back to the USA without creating a martyr out of him. The US has already invoked it full power, he is being actively monitored, they have revoked his passport and have pulled alot of diplomatic strings to prevent him traveling outside Russia. Snowdon has effectively beat them at their own game.

A Snowdon trial would not reveal any truth that is not already known. The only thing to be achieved by a "trial" would be to place Snowdon in the custody of the US government and allow them to keep incommunicado and prevent him access to the media. His revelations have all been about putting the US government itself on trial, by exposing the evidence to the court of public opinion.

Don't I wish.

A cynic might argue that the key difference in this case was that, for a change, the ISP's, and not merely defendants, were challenging the subpoenas; but of course we all know that justice is 'blind'.

An ingrate might bemoan the Court's failure to address the key underlying fallacy in the "John Doe" cases, that because someone pays the bill for an internet account that automatically makes them a copyright infringer; but who's complaining over that slight omission?

A malcontent like myself might be a little unhappy that it took the courts ten (10) years to finally come to grips with the personal jurisdiction issue, which would have been obvious to 9 out of 10 second year law students from the get go, and I personally have been pointing it out and writing about it since 2005; but at least they finally did get there.

And a philosopher might wonder how much suffering might have been spared had the courts followed the law back in 2004 when the John Doe madness started; but of course I'm a lawyer, not a philosopher. :)

Bottom line, though: this is a good thing, a very good thing. Ten (10) years late in coming, but good nonetheless. - R.B. )

The irony is that the US is a nation that can easily kill an armed "suspected terrorist" from half way round the world, with just a touch of a button from a drone, yet still has trouble killing a man strapped to a chair.

If it becomes technically possible to build a fully functioning humanoid robot, regardless of the price, then one will be built. Once this happens, Moore's law will start to kick in, as will the cost benefits of mass production. In fact all you need to do is to build a self-replicating robot, and call it skynet.

  "While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility." -- Lee DeForest, inventor.

The NSA was never here, we just happened to be passing a sniffer patrol unit infront of your house, the dog barked so we got a warrant, didn't find any drugs after we broke down the door, but we did find one hell of a sign.

The bitcoin protocol itself works by having every transaction public, this is all stored in the blockchain. I send you a coin, and publicly announce this with a message signed with my private key. If I try to spend the same coin twice, then this is where the transaction confirmation chain kicks in (and why you need to wait for X number of confirmations). When you announce sending a coin to somebody else, I see the message, and additionally sign your transaction message with my private key and add it to the blockchain. The next person to see the transaction, will again sign on top of all the previous confirmations.

If I try to double spend a coin, then there will be two different sets of transaction history. The bitcoin client is configured to accept the transaction confirmation chain with the most number of signatures as valid, the other one is ignored. Additionally, clients in the network will only additionally sign the chain they believe is valid. Once you get more than a few signatures, its almost computationally impossible to fake a confirmation chain faster than the network, assuming you don't have 51%+ CPU dominance (which is the worry about cex.io going rogue).

The MtGox issue is that they wrote their own custom bitcoin software to deal with the running of a high transaction volume exchange. They where not waiting for transaction confirmations from the network to check their own internal transactions. Their software was buggy and suffered from an exploit using Transaction Malleability. See https://freedom-to-tinker.com/...

The best real world bank analogy, is if you where to go to a cashpoint ATM outside a bank, withdraw money from the system, then enter a special code into the ATM which makes it display an error message. You then go into the bank and show them the error message, and ask them to refund the ATM withdrawal from your account claiming the ATM never gave you any cash (but in truth you did get the cash). This process didn't create new cash out of thin air, in practice you just got the bank to give you free money.

Eventually the bank becomes bankrupt, and you discover that what you actually own is not cash but rather an IOU from the bank for cash, which the bank can't pay.

Its a rather average ruling

Obligatory XKCD
https://xkcd.com/865/

I once got asked a question which I found hurtful and offensive, and felt tempted to 'blow up' the interview at that point. Fortunately, I resisted the temptation. As it turns out, the question was his way of introducing the next thing, which was telling me that he was offering me the job.

Ah but we want a "civilized" execution. The last meal is the buy the prisoners cooperation with the process.

The prisoner may or may not have accepted his fate, but you don't want that "oh shit, its finally happening" moment and for him to suddenly fight and struggle, it would ruin the show for the "civilized audience". The prisoner may know logically, knows he is going to die at some point in the near future, but survival instincts can be very powerful.

The unfortunate side effect of this is now we will have to invent a better system for killing people

But an eye for an eye was indeed pacifism compared to ten-fold retribution