Completely different story. This dicussion is regarding a government agency that is reported to be considering to implement law. Your example is an agency working outside of the borders of the law.

I can tell you the other side of the story right now:

Investigative Media: IRS, could you please give is your side if the story?
IRS: No, we do not comment on pending legislation

--- Jury gives verdict ---

Investigative Media: IRS, could you please give is your side if the story?
IRS: No, we do not comment while we appeal

--- Supreme Court gives verdict ---

Investigative Media: IRS, could you please give is your side if the story?
IRS: No, we do not comment on matters that have been dealt with by the courts, we look at the future now.

It does not matter how you call them. As long as they are not called C.O.N.G.R.E.S.S., they have no legislative powers. And as long as they are not called S.U.P.R.E.M.E.C.O.U.R.T., they do not have the ultimate authority over any law.

I'd say, let's get the entire Australian government and leave them on a deserted island somewhere in the middle of the ocean...

Holy crap, someone call the Washington Post!! Someone on the internet admits they were wrong! IMPOSSIBRU!1!!1!!

:-)

here you go.

On the contrary. As soon as those idiots from the WBC are being silenced, someone else will be next. This is the same mechanism that is used for other methods of government surveillance. It starts out as anti-terrorism or anti-child pornography, but will soon be used for petty crimes and regular unwarranted searches.

German law differs a lot from U.S. law. German law is eventually governed by the European Convention on Human Rights. This, in turn, provides an exception for "protection of morals". Which is exactly the clause that undermines the entire protection, as "morals" are locally defined. The U.S. constitution does not have that exception, which is why it is my belief that freedom of speech is better protected in the U.S.

I was indeed referring to Mein Kampf, so in that regard I stand corrected.

The general complaint is still true: in Germany (and most other EU countries), the freedom of speech is generally limited to what the majority finds acceptable. In the U.S. the opposite is true. For example, the idiots of the Westboro Baptist Church can say and protest as much as they want, even though 99.999% of the U.S. population absolutely hates them (that includes me). Whould they have lived in Germany, they would have been in jail a long time ago.

I totally disagree with the Westboro Baptist Church and I despise their opinions and speech. But I will defend their freedom to express themselves so the U.S. will not become the suppressive that Germany already is, in that regard (note the 'in that regard', I'm sure other things are better in .de).

Last time I checked, possession of a single book could land you in jail, in Germany.

Freedom of speech does not exist there. And you say *I* am a complete idiot? Sie mussen Deutsch sein.

Exactly. Once more, this German court has confirmed that Germany has no freedom of speech. Everything that is outside of the realm of what the majority feels is appropriate, is forbidden. Whether that be related to the war, the poor, the economic situation, or prostitution.

Es ist verboten! I'm surprised people haven't applied for political asylum in the U.S. yet. Here, speech has at least some constitutional protection.

I disagree. I'm sure a number of people would volunteer to be part of that alpha test and report bugs without crying first. The more people test, the more bugs they find, the better the first release will be. I'd volunteer if my phone was not a company phone.

It is not difficult to figure out which netblocks are currently in use by Chinese entities. It is also not difficult to configure a firewall.

Is there proof that it actually was a Chinese citizen behind the keyboard? All they did so far is trace the origin back to a Chinese IP address.

Even if the culprit turned out to be a person with Chinese citizenship, it could very well be the same thing as some pimply faced youth somewhere in a fly-over state hacking into a Chinese database. It does not have to be related to the government. However, if it is, China has some explanation to do.

I'm also wondering whether or not the DOD is purposely saying "it's the Chinese" to avoid people asking them "why don't you secure your shit better?".

Spamhaus does not decide what should and what should not be on the internet. Spamhaus merely maintains an advisory list which network administrators choose to implement. If you don't like what your network administrator chooses to filter, you are free to host your own mailserver and accept whatever spam you wish.

I don't necessarily agree with Spamhaus and their policies, and I operate my own mailservers. However, your statement is simply not true.

You can do that in the U.S. as well. You will just pay the full price.

The reason why lots of cellphones are carrier-locked, is because the carrier subsidizes the purchase and charges less for the phone than the manufacturer does. Your brand new Nokia 6220 will cost Telfort 300 Euries, but you will only pay 49.95 if you sign a 2 year contract. So in that case, Telfort's business model to subsidize your new phone will be based on the assumption that you will use their service. In order to "force" you to do so, the phone is locked to accept only Telfort Sim cards.

This model has evolved to certain manufacturers doing only business with certain service providers and basically locking them in. For example, here in the U.S. the first Iphone could only be purchased at AT&T and thus would be sim-locked for the AT&T network.

The news here is that HTC now breaks that tradition and just offers their cellphone directly to consumers, simlock free. And that does matter.

Having two daughters at home already justifies owning at least a shotgun. At the Dads against daughters dating club, there is one slogan: shoot the first one, and the word will follow.