Better healthcare could explain it
Better healthcare could explain it
even if the UN passes something to assert "universal human right to online privacy", we know that the ones doing the snooping are still going to keep snooping with no regard for the law.
Sure, UN laws aren't trivial to enforce... And yes, it's hard to say to what extend a US court will acknowledge treaties signed by the US.
And hey, the US maybe not even choose to sign such a treaty.
But highlighting the problem, and making in bluntly obvious that the US is spying on people to an extend Stasi could onl y dreams of is a good start. Nothing ever changes over night, NSA wasn't built in a day, and it'll take more than day to shut it down.
But when to US makes moves like this, is bluntly obvious to the rest of the world that going forward internet cables needs to be routed around the US. That's not going to happen over night either, if ever...
Google owns Mozilla, plain and simple.
Yes, and no...
Thing flip side of the coin is that as long as Firefox has any significant share of the market, Google can't take the risk of dropping Mozilla.
Sure if Mozilla did a deal with bing, many users would change back or drop Firefox in favor of Chrome to get Google.
The keyword here is many, that could be anywhere from all Firefox users to none. But Google can't take that risk, not when they already have a good business.
20% marked share (hence, extra data) might just be what bing needs to take off.
Not paying Mozilla is a huge risk for Google, and a risk without significant rewards.
But I'm a hesitant to align with it.
Do you think your allies need to spy on you? and your citizen?
If not, then clearly this puts limitations on the amount of trust we can have in the US.
I have reasonable faith that no NATO member is going to sellout the alliance, and even so, the effects would be limited.
Note, the cold war is over, we're not going to have a third world war... If so it's an end of world event, no need to prepare, it doesn't matter
Then look at what we know, what we don't know, and what we should know.
Where have I heard that before... Fox News... Rings a bell... They talk a lot about things they don't know
Which is easy, especially if the author of TFA is too lazy to do any real research, then obviously, there's a lot the punk doesn't know...
It's all FUD - talking about arbitrary concerns without any substance to support claims, is FUD and very easy to do... tsk tsk, move along..
I still don't see the problem. Spying on foreign countries has happened since they were invented, it's entirely legal and expecting it not to happen strikes me as hopelessly naive.
Spying on citizens of foreign countries is still a violation of the human rights convention. It's not legal!
Spying on foreign diplomats is a violation of Vienna convention, tapping into foreign government networks is an aggression (act of war, US. govt. said so a while ago) not legal without prior declaration of war (not all declarations of war are legal either).
Sure "legal" is hard to define, but let's just say there's nothing honest, fair or acceptable about spying on your allies!
On topic, I don't see a problem with having some level of surveillance, but it must be transparent!
If you tap cables or whatever, let the public know and make sure access, disclosure and queries are all subjected to public court hearings.
Then it's fair, honest and acceptable, let's call that "legal".
Nope, bad idea...
This can be solved by technical means... and wikipedia ought to be more aggressively experimenting with this on beta sites etc.
Editors could be asked to identify themselves, or to post bail after committing a bad edit... Edits could be reviewed, the entire system could be based on reputation.
And the system could fortified against hacks, secret court orders, etc. by requiring each edit and/or review to be cryptographically signed.
I also think that wikipedia should go after these PR companies by legal means. With a sufficiently aggressive EULA, one could probably go after PR companies and their clients for violation of computer fraud act.
The irony of nailing a big cooperation that supported the computer frauds act would be well worth it.
Wikipedia isn't as distributed and independent as Usenet was, there is a central entity here, setting rules and guidelines.
This problem is solvable by technical means, and both PR companies and their legitimate clients could probably be sued.
Sure, it's hard to do... but the PR blowback for the companies involved would be massive, I'm sure maintream media would report it if wikipedia sued Viacom
Yes, it would be hard to do... probably not realistic, but still viacom surely did have malice intent, that's no legal - we don't need an internet government to figure that out...
Okay, maybe that was just a crazy rambling... I should get some work done instead... moving on
limits surveillance of US civilians by our government.
It shouldn't just be US citizens, but innocent people in general.
It shouldn't just be US citizens, but people in general.
There fixed it for you... privacy is a human right, I'm not saying convicted criminals can't be tracked. But even such surveillance should have limit both in time and reach.
We have a rule in the US that a human must make the final call before delivering any ordinance, be it by soldier, drone, or robot. The problem is that many foreign countries that figure this out won't have this moral impediment. Yes, this is worth worrying about...
Having a human making the call is not enough, if take your soldiers out of the battlefield you don't have a reason to use lethal force anymore.
The use of lethal force in only acceptable because the alternative is that the enemy kills you. But if you deploy a robot, the alternative is that the enemy destroys
an expensive piece of hardware. You no longer have a valid reason to employ lethal force, once you deploy robots.
The thing I don't get is why there's all this research into killer robots... They're useless, as is drones are used for assassinations, I'm sorry I don't hear many
US allies backing the US on that policy. Using them on the ground won't win you anything but further alienation from your European allies.
I don't get why the US is so focused on killing, that's not the goal, we're involved in a different kind of conflicts, they require non-lethal weapons, and sure if we can keep humans out of it, I'm all pro that... but you shouldn't shoot somebody for throwing rocks at $ 10k robot, if there's no humans on the line it's just mallice, not warfare!
Yes, but tools given to one are (ab-)usable by the other.
Tell that to the NRA
Vote with your wallets people.
Most people don't know what this is about... most don't understand how the internet works now...
If ISPs tells them this will be better, why shouldn't they believe them...
In a world as complex as today, only a few things can be solved by wallet voting...
Please don't hold me accountable for human right, animal welfare, workers rights, net neutrality, global warming, etc. whenever I use my credit card.
There's no way I can possibly choose the politically correct product every time, it's a lost cause...