What exactly would stop Congress from doing this (other than a lazy electorate that doesn't care enough to make it an issue)?
Are we really that completely helpless? All of this was perpetrated by, and maintained by *congress*. It can easily be fixed by congress. Little will change, however, if we do not step up and hold our elected representatives accountable, by first and foremost, ensuring that the *right* people are serving in office. And by "serving" I do not mean "self-serving," which seems to be standard fare these days.
It should be noted that this comes from the same Old Testament they conveniently ignore day in and day out.
Funny thing - if you read the wikipedia page that covers the NSA, it's mind boggling how much money has been poured into that agency, and what little return we've seen on that investment. The headqurters look like someone's science fiction wet dream.
Feinstein recently commented something to the effect that the reason they collect all this information is because "immediacy is imperative" in order to foil terrorist plots. It's a hilarious statement, because it's something her little pet agency has yet to do. That being the case, how could she possibly know this? Her reasoning defies everything we've ever seen with respect to information and terrorism.
> Bureaucratic overreach is hardly confined to the Federal government, and often occurs in conjunction with it.
Especially if it's funded *by* the federal government. It wouldn't come as a bit of a surprise if the acquisition of this Stingray device was funded by one of many federal grants the the national government has been handing out in an effort to militarize local law enforcement agencies.
Seriously - for the entire history of this country, we've had laws that say, "first you suspect someone of committing, or conspiring to commit a crime, THEN you spy on them." What's not to understand?
It might also behoove us to remember that much of this spying is done by *third-party contractors*. This means that it's not only the government with access to this information, hired hands as well. God only knows where the information might end up.
> So what about Apple kept them from screwing up as bad as M$?
"Shiny" and "Marketing"
Micromanagement is every bit as good as open space.
I don't see how it is possible to make any conclusion with respect to whether or not we have a say in matters, UNTIL we actually say something. By this, I mean that a large number of voters stop feeling sorry for themselves, take a serious look a candidates that do not receive corporate funding, and then VOTE for them.
After this, it is incumbent on the electorate to monitor the performance of their new representative - if the key issue is not being addressed, recall them.
Unfortunately it has become a bit more complex than that because the definition of terrorism keeps changing. For example, in Maury County, Tennessee, Sherwin Smith, a deputy director for the state's Department of Environment and Conservation told a group of residents that complaints about water quality that department deemed unsubstantiated, could be considered an act of terrorism. Protesting something like the XL Pipeline? Terrorism.
There's a legal term for this: due process.
I think this is exactly what Google is afraid of.
"it'll be done when it is done" isn't the only thing that an agile customer has to go on. There are high and mid-level estimates that give them a general idea. If you're doing something other than SCRUM (like Kanban), you can use cycle time to determine a completion timeline. With a little bit of metrics analysis, you can even provide a probability that you'll be able to meet a particular time estimate.
Two other things that will make a HUGE difference is whether or not you have a committed product owner, and how much control you have over external dependencies. With respect to product owners, people can't just say, "here build this," and then disappear until it's finished. I've been there. It sucks. If there is one reason an agile project will fail, this is it. Product owners need to be fully engaged.
Finally, if the agile project is executed correctly, timelines shouldn't be *that* big a deal because the product owner is receiving delivery of the highest priority features along the way. I realize there are ways that this can be sidetracked (if, for example, the product owner decides that a delivered feature needs to be re-designed because of a faulty assumption), but that's what agile is supposed to accommodate.
It's a very big stretch, in my opinion. What they're saying is tantamount to asserting that every time I load different plates onto a printing press, it becomes a "new machine". Nope.