Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re: The founding documents present a path... (Score 1) 161

Wait, are you suggesting the Confederate flag be repurposed as a symbol for freedom-loving people? I mean that in the true sense of the word, which implies opposing these secret spy programs, not the security theater perversion.

Yeah, somehow I don't think that will fly.

Comment Re:Reporters without borders? (Score 3, Informative) 37

Yeah, it's not actually that clear in this case: the Saudi regime for instance, most evil theocracy on the planet and great friends of the U.S., do not get a pass from these guys, as your theory would predict.

And the U.S. themselves only rank around #30 on their Press Freedom Index, last time I checked. But that is compiled from reports by actual journalists in the field, IIRC, so might be more difficult for them to doctor.

Comment Re:Reporters without borders? (Score 3, Interesting) 37

Because Reporters Without Borders is an organization of considerably more dubious repute than the similarly named Doctors Without Borders. For one thing Otto Reich was involved, and besides State Dept there are very persistent accusations of ties with Western intelligence outfits. They were active in propaganda campaigns all over South America, Cuba in particular.

Comment FOIA (Score 5, Insightful) 609

Seems to me the reasons for her decision to use a private server for government business are pretty simple. It means that she (and her staff) get to decide which documents should be forked over in response to FOIA requests.

In a just world this server would now at an independent expert for thorough inspection.

Same thing for congressional oversight. Case in point: Benghazi.

Also, it keeps all of her correspondence out of the official protocols. She wants to delete some stuff? No problem. That would be more complicated if she had used her government-issued means of communication.

I seem to remember from earlier incidents (like the hack of Sarah Palin's personal mail) that this is *not legal*. For good reasons.

Finally, it is basically a given that some of her correspondence contains sensitive, if not outright secret, information. If someone like Thomas Drake gets threatened with ridiculous punishment for having *un*classified information on his home PC, surely this here should land Mrs Clinton in a whole lot of trouble. But, well, who am I kidding, right?

Comment Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 1) 517

The point is they were widely being used before being scrutinized.

Some of the compounds listed in that report (which I don't think claims to be exhaustive) are known or suspected carcinogens. Depending on the local geology, much of them stay in the ground -- never mind that the fossil fuel lobby argued otherwise when they managed to prevent EPA from regulating fracking.

Comment Re:Lots of weird crap coming out of Congress latel (Score 5, Informative) 517


Requiring EPA to use publicly available data sound reasonable enough until you realize that many of these same (mostly GOP) people have no problem with (often times heavily subsidized) companies refusing to share data.

Like the fracking example parent mentioned; nobody is able to research their methods and the compounds used, because trade secrets. Something similar happened with GM crops, which have been widely planted for over a decade before the scientific community at large were able/allowed to research them.

"Seeking to remake the membership and procedures" is just code for subverting, eroding, EPA until it is a hollow shell of what it was intended to be.

Comment Re:why start after the fact? (Score 1) 219

Sorry, late reply and not much time... Just wanted to point out that yes there are cases where unarmed folks are a real threat (Chuck Norris et al, or the severely deranged or psychotic, say due to substance abuse).

But mostly the mere fact that LEO are armed should be sufficiently threatening to subdue and solicit cooperation of unarmed individuals. So when shots are fired in such circumstances it merits rigorous scrutiny via a transparent investigation.

Second, the Grand Jury system as I understand it is a bit of a quirky thing, discarded in most places except the U.S. It was meant as a protection of the public from excessive use of executive power, but arguably used in cases such as Ferguson to the opposite effect. Why not simply a regularly prosecuted case?

Finally, your argument that bodycams will mean that "friendly" and informal police actions like letting people off with warnings for minor offenses... That is a good thing. Because it is arbitrary judgment on the part of the officer in question, as to what constitutes "minor" and when to exercise such leniency, and as such is subject to bias. That you would mention this suggests to me you probably don't belong to a group regularly considered victims of the corollary "bad" kind of police bias.

Comment Re:why start after the fact? (Score 3, Insightful) 219

They probably try to avoid torturing with Tasers. This happens when the Taser is activated multiple times or for extensive durations (e.g. 3 minutes, causing death)

Well, torture is certainly something that we'd want to avoid... But I agree with someone further up, this trigger for recording misses the circumstances leading up to the event. Was the person actually a threat? is one of the important questions that remain unanswered. Technically the continuously overwritten ring buffer seems hardly more difficult to implement.

Btw, I found this turn of phrase in the story a bit unsettling:

unfair intrusion into their routine activities

Tasering is a routine activity now? I would hope not, although it is better than discharging live rounds at unarmed kids of course.

A commune is where people join together to share their lack of wealth. -- R. Stallman