Compare with: Unnamed NSA official, no doubt with the blessing of his bosses, anonymously reveals the same kind of information about NSA spying - but this time because it is convenient for the administration and it fits into their political agenda, there won't be any legal consequences, prosecutions etc., absolutely nothing will happen, we all know it - and even worse - we all passively accept it.
Laws are being selectively enforced by the government; there are no actually classified documents. There are "things the government wants you to know", those can be leaked and released on demand by "unnamed officials" - screw the legality of it - and there are "things the government doesn't want you to know", and anyone revealing those things will be spied on, harassed and prosecuted (James Risen? Laura Poitras?), it doesn’t matter that the people writing about those are journalists who have no duty of any kind towards the US government, they’re just doing their job.
If the administration has proof of North Korean involvement, they can present it to try to convince the American public... but wait, no they can’t. They can't do that because the evidence they have comes from the NSA exploiting and hacking systems all over the internet. "Yes, your honor, I saw it all, it was the North Koreans who painted that graffiti. How do I know? I was there that night, burying a few bodies in the empty lot next door".
The NSA giving actual proof of NK involvement is equivalent to them coming forward and admitting what they are: a threat far more dangerous for the security of the Internet than anything North Korea will ever be capable of.
by AthanasiusKircher (#48256537)
Judging by the comments, the feedback was immediate and clearly negative.
I cannot speak for the forum moderation side, but my reaction to the front page was an knee jerk: "Oh no!, not another portal full of noise I cannot speed-read through." Text and hyperlinks are what we need, please, and as little graphics as possible. Think lynx, thank you."
That said, I want to ask Dice why they are so eager to kill off Slashdot.
Is there a secret buyer somewhere waiting to grab this domain, Dice ? Just tell us. There are those amongst us who can afford to pay for the domain. What we want is to have a Slashdot that we know, that we can use, that we can continue to share information with all others.
Please stop all your destructive plans for Slashdot, Dice."
by Procrasti (459372) (#46109717)
> every single problem you can find with fighting hard drugs is smaller than the negative effects of hard drugs themselves (heroin, cocaine, meth)
Every single problem with hard drugs (heroin, cocaine and meth) is smaller than the negative effects of fighting them.
by Valdrax (32670) (#44822747)
Seriously, Americans? What do you care? What do you have to hide!?
I don't know yet. Personally, I don't want to find out after the fact that there was something I would have wanted hidden. Maybe I'm doing nothing wrong by today's standards, but who knows how we'll think about ourselves 10, 20, or 40 years from now?
National Intelligence James Clapper has been forced to publically admit he lied to congress when he said the NSA was not collecting any kind of data about "millions of Americans". Do you think he would have done so had it not been for Snowden's whistleblowing? By the way, lying to congress is a felony, why is Clapper not being prosecuted? Law enforcement in the US appears to be highly selective: Are you a government insider lying or a Wall Street firm committing fraud? All you will need to do is apologize or pay a token fine and all will be forgiven. Are you a regular citizen who is embarrassing the government, denouncing crimes or corporate abuses? You will be put in jail for life, just look at Aaron Schwartz or Bradley Manning, do you think any current or former US government official will ever face that kind of “justice”?
Snowden made a difference in the US, but in the rest of the world, governments’ reactions so far have been "It's a US problem, nothing to see here, move along". This is because all western governments and intelligence services either knew what was going on or they were actively collaborating with the NSA. They aren't going to do anything besides empty posturing to protect themselves from their citizen's outrage.
The point is that the NSA's spying in not only unconstitutional in the US but that they are also breaking the law abroad. Germany has strong privacy laws, if German citizens and businesses have to abide by them, yet the NSA gets a free pass even when they are spying on German citizen en masse or spying while on German soil, it essentially means that those laws are meaningless. The respective European judiciaries have a responsibility to open formal investigation against the NSA. And that's what Snowden is trying to by revealing the NSA illegal action abroad. He’s trying to get the public attention so that the people and independent courts do what governments failed to do: protect people’s fundamental right to privacy and put an end to dragnet surveillance.
- Ubuntu Touch
- Firefox OS
- Sailfish OS (based on MeeGo/Mer)
- Tizen (Samsung)
Software merit aside, Ubuntu seems like the least likely option to succeed. As far as I know (please correct me), they don't have much in terms of phone maker or carrier support. Firefox OS has Telephonica and GeeksPhone (still just a startup). Sailfish is developed by Jolla (a bunch of former Nokia employees), they seemed to be backed by a Finnish carrier. All these projects are relatively small scale compared to Samsung's Tizen. NTT Docomo is also backing Tizen which means the project both has the world's largest smartphone manufacturer and one of the world's largest phone carrier behind it.
I want at least one or two of these projects to actually succeed. Why? Because we badly need open source/linux alternatives to Android, which has severe problems (not all caused by Google - the carriers/manufacturers bear a large part of the blame):
- The security/updates situation is a mess, there's no way to deny it. Can you imagine a world where both PC manufacturers and/or ISPs must approve and deploy Windows updates before they reach the end user? This is Android right now.
And before the inevitable "Buy Nexus if you want updates" answer: Do you know how insane that sounds? "Buy Toshiba if you want to access Windows update", that's how.
- For Google, Android is just another platform to deliver adds, which means they built the system in a way that won't let the average user block them: The consequence is no effective root access for the user (in order to prevent - amongst other things - host file based and system wide ad blocking). This means Google or the manufacturer owns your phone, not you.
And no, being able to unlock the bootloader and install an after-market rom because you have a Nexus phone is *not* enough. Regular users don't need to install a special version of Windows/OS X/Ubuntu to have root access to their computers. Why should it be different with phones?
Linux is Free. Windows and OS X have to be purchased, Android on the other way is paid for by looking at Google's ads... hardly a sane and secure model for an OS. We need to get away from ad-based computing.
Additional information could include a combination of factors, like whether the passenger paid for their ticket in cash, or if they have ever been on a watch list
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"?
Too easy. Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, September 14, 2001.
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?
Who cares? It won't be the first time a US citizen on side of the enemy was killed in military action.
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.
They are not assassinations. As you note, this is a war.
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?
If this pisses off their supporters
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?