Unless you are comfortable with the idea of items you are storing ending up on the front page of a newspaper the "dropbox" front end to Amazon storage is a bad idea. Those clowns have so many epic failures that plain FTP from 20 years ago is more secure. They still haven't closed the exploit where you can change your password but it doesn't revoke access to anyone you've let in previously. Then there was the day when their authentication failed entirely and they just let anyone that could guess a username on. There were other little exploits based around their deduplication which were used to obtain other people files (making it a bittorrent replacement for popular video files) that could have been put to sinister use but mostly showed that those clowns really were way out of their depth on anything other than an MSDOS box with no network.
There's google drive, spideroak, a really long list of others including rolling your own SFTP that are vastly superior to dropbox. Then there's plain old FTP at any ISP on the planet - still in some ways superior to dropbox despite drawbacks.
Dropbox is an example of marketing hype selling a polished turd.

Crapware.
Because we care
About our bottom line.

I used to use cloud sync, but I found that none of them were robust enough for my abusive ways. Most required periodic manual merges.

I switched to Synkron syncing to a network drive (VPNed when I'm on the road) and I've been happy ever since.

This has nothing to do with "possession" or even crime in and of itself.

This has to do with the hysterical overreaction of the general public towards anything which is so much as suspected as being involved with or related to child pornography. Victims of this ransom-ware may well pay in fear of being ripped to pieces by an angry mob, and their fears would not be all that far fetched at this point. At the very least, they stand a good chance of having their entire life ruined should even a hint of suspicion fall on them.

Child pornography, like all hysterias, has become an excuse for a segments of the public to indulge in chaos, anarchy and criminal behaviour in their reaction to it. Even a pointed finger can now be a life or death sentence for innocent people. This is why it was important not to let the rule of law slide on this or any other issue.

But no. People wanted to indulge their outrage. I suppose democracies get what they deserve.

Some people deliberately choose to be complete selfish arseholes without having the excuse of a mental illness forcing them to act in a certain way.

After Reagan got in didn't the entire country become a set of low tax low education states?

because she claims PetaPixel's screenshot of her site is copyright infringement (when in reality it is fair use)

Which if the DMCA was applied the way it was written would put her in deep shit similar to perjury for making a false DMCA claim, but of course it's never actually been applied that way.
That law should never have been passed but the US is busy trying to spread the cancer to other places.

It does, it's all in the way you read the map, for example in a traditional topology map you can see valleys AND you can see hills, does the fact that erosion exits mean the hills are getting smaller or the valleys are getting wider? The global trend is currently toward deforestation so the article takes that as the background context, there is no need to feel your nation has been slandered. Look up "how to grow a rainforest" on TED talks if you're really interested in seeing how this technology has been used exactly as you propose for last 20yrs and with spectacular results.

Despite our best attempts to eliminate trees there are still vast and physically remote areas of the planet that are chock full 'em. In some of these areas illegal logging and clearing occurs on a massive scale, (which for some bizzare reason is often estimated in units of footy fields lost per minute). Surveys such as this provide a valuable tool for answering such questions as; Who's stealing the people's (or plantation owner's) property? Where is poverty, neglect, or overuse causing a detrimental impact to both people and environment? How can we make best use of our aid/environment dollar to try and reverse, or at least slow, the trend in the fastest growing areas?

Yes I understand how Sadam got hold of the weapons and to be fair I did use the caveate: "or at least when the bloated bodies turned up on the BBC". Whatever the wests true motives, those reports put a huge amount of pressure on the west to drop their military support, which they did like the proverbial hot potato.

Was the public outrage against the west's support diliberately triggered by the west themselves as a convienient excuse to isolate him for other reasons? - Occam's razor says no, the west simply underestimated him and didn't expect him to use the weapons in the glare of the press and on that particular group, but you, occam and I don't know, and probably never will.

That sort of machevelian shit hasn't stopped, since Hamas won the palestinian election* by a landslide 70% the US has been supplying arms to Fatah (Arrafat's group and Hamas' political rivals). It's was kind of amazing to see Powel walk into Arrafat's bunker when it was under siege by the IDF, not so amazing to see Arrafat pass away shortly afterwards, I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall for that meeting.

Palestinian election* - Rightly demended by the west as a step in the 'peace process" and independently judged by international observers as "free and fair". Arrafat procrastinated about having one for way too long, but when he was 'out of the way' the silly palestinians screwed everything up by voting for the 'wrong team'. The west instantaneously reacted by abandoning any pretense of democratic principle, they isolated them even further from the international economy and bombed the fuck out of Lebannon (again). This was despite the fact that Hamas demonstrated they had enough control over their forces to stop all rocket attacks for almost 2yrs (another step in the so called process).

Predictably the US media in particular took the 'moral highground' and made a lot of noise about the words "right to exist' while at the same time convieniently ignoring the actual deeds that were happening on the ground, which is the exact opposite of what the BBC did back in the 80's on the supply and use of the gas(you may recall it was also smeared and attacked by all sides for doing the same thing in the run up to the latest Iraq war, Al Jazeera was doing it when they were 'accidently' bombed). /rant

Disclaimer: I have no time for grand conspiracy theories where simpler group think explainations suffice. The above rant about hamas is not support for hamas or a political conspiracy, It is IMHO support for a principled democracy and evidence that all sides have people who are willing to compromise, and all sides have people who are willing to go to war to stop that from happening, These opposing personalities are in all of us and they present themselves when-and-where ever we 'draw a line' under the amount we are willing to compromise. Ultimately results on the ground are what count, and with 20/20 hindsight the results of compromising with a ruthless dictator by taking him off that WMD blacklist should have been obvious to all concerend, the real problem is that very few were concerned until the obvious occured.