Cool :) And, in case it isn't obvious, I very much appreciated the dry and frank humor in your post.

See, I believe that when we give up our freedoms because we're afraid of terrrorists...now, that's when the terrorists win.

Oh yes, I completely understand. I was not glibly bashing some perceived lack of sufficient jingoism in your comment. I intended to express my own dismay at the painful position these authoritarians are putting us in.

Well, that, and an attempt at some seriously dark humor. Cuz you've gotta find a way to laugh.

If our government believes throwing out the Constitution is what it takes to protect our nation from terrorist threats, I'm less scared of the terrorists than I am of the government.

Jeez -- that's a cold bucket of ice water to the noggin. Our government has become such an afront to our nation that the epithet, "You want the terrorists to win!" invokes the contemplative response, "Well, not exactly..."

a 7-day turnaround of fixes for actively exploited unpatched vulnerabilities, is rather naive and devoid of commercial reality.

I read that and I was thinking, "Well, yeah, sure - I shoot for one hour and can't recall the last time it took more than a day to get a critical bug patch out, but that's not really reasonable for everyone. The team I work on is pretty focused on keeping the tracks polished so we can get high priority things through. I think 7 days is OK. It could be better, but it's OK. And Google isn't even saying it will take 7 days, they're saying 7 days is the max. But, whatever, I guess -- ultimately agitating for faster patches is something I support."

for 95+% of the rest of the world's software development companies making thick-client, server and device-specific software this is unrealistic.

What?!? You mean it's not realistic to get the patch available within 7 days? I mean, obviously you can't expect users to have their systems patched immediately, and sometimes a third party (like a walled garden approval path) can lock you out. But is the writer saying 95% of companies can't even have a patch pushed for release in 7 days?

If that is true, we, as a society, need to drop what we're doing and focus on security, build management, QA workflow, whatever it is that is making that a reality. 7 days is acceptable. 95% of companies can't hit 7 days? First, that is not true in my experience. But if it is? That is not acceptable, if it is true. There really are bad people out there trying to root our electronics. Seven days to get a patch out for an actively exploited in the wild vulnerability is enough. Work the problem. Figure out why you can't hit that number, and fix it.

You tell of a great school, but you don't name it. Surely the sage would not leave the willing novice to wander the desert?

If W3C were to scrap the plans for HTML5 DRM the content providers would simply cling on to proprietary plugins and we'd be no better off than we are already.

And if we start calling proprietary things that almost everyone is forbidden to implement "standards" then we will be worse of than we are already.

With the HTML5 DRM we could atleast shed all the excess weight provided by these plugins

That's it?!? That's all we get for making the term "standards" mean "proprietary thing that you are forbidden to implement"? That is a horrible trade.

the idea of going after the sites as a business, which in practice would mean strangling their (often voluminous) advertising budget.

So this would be another avenue of extrajudicial shutdowns of businesses accused of harming some other, more privileged business, that also has a financial relationship with the largest market-share search engine company, which would be executing the takedown. That doesn't sound like a just and free market to me. That sounds like plutocracy.

And before you say, "But maybe plutocracy would be good, maybe Google loves us and just wants us to be happy," consider this: Most superpower societies in history have bookended their dominance by evolving some close variant of plutocracy or oligarchy.

circulated a video on Facebook of her appearing drunk and disheveled in a bathroom at a party. The Italian Parents Association has filed a criminal complaint against Facebook for allegedly having a role in the instigation of Carolina's suicide.

Why just Facebook? Clearly Sony did nothing to prevent the video from being recorded by the handicam they manufactured. For that matter, the architect of the house where the party took place did nothing to prevent the poor girl from being drunk and disheveled in the bathroom he designed.

And if the architect can't be bothered to be responsible in the first place, where was he when she was being harrassed? Where was he when this poor young girl needed someone to talk to, to explain that people can be horrible sometimes, and it doesn't mean she is any less of a person? That she needs to develop the strength in herself to withstand these kinds of attacks, because they are a part of life in a world that is sometimes cruel? Where was the architect when she needed to understand that getting too drunk and making a fool of herself was a dangerous, but ultimately healthy cautionary tale for a young girl, and that she should take it as a learning experience on the risks of underage drinking and those who might take advantage of her? I mean, obviously her parents -- the ones filing the suit -- weren't doing their job, so where was the architect?

Look, parents: If your daughter gets in a situation like this and kills herself, we don't want to have to point out that you are the best chance she had, because that is a horrible reality for you and it does not necessarily mean you caused her death. You may not have done anything wrong -- these horrible tragedies just happen sometimes. But if you are going to pull out the lawyers and start insisting that the blame be placed on someone -- if you are going to corner society, through its legal system, into putting the blame on someone -- you leave us little choice but to point out that the people most responsible for your daughter's ability to cope with the harsh realities of the world are you. If you can't accept that it is not Facebook's fault, how can we not point out that you are vastly more responsible for your daughter's psychological wellbeing than a website?

Actually, both geurilla and conventional warfare were used by American forces in The Revolution. I didn't didn't say geurilla tactics won the war, I said they were used by one side and not the other, and implied that the willingness to adapt to the battlefield reality unrestrained by traditional propriety -- including the use of unconventional tactics -- was an important element in winning the war. You can point to a dozen other factors from supply lines to Lafayette, as well. So I could just as easily take the piss out of your post by saying, "Actually, the belief that conventional tactics by the American forces won the war is a popularly held misconception. If it were not for long supply lines and war-weariness at home, England would have stayed in the fight longer and broken the American forces."

Also, a tip: The phrase "popularly held misconception" almost always suggests you are calling the other person a member of the unwashed masses. That tends to invite a stern retort, so make sure you have your research down cold when you tread such ground.

I can't help but get an image of the English soldiers in the American Revolution, standing out in the field in ranks, getting shot by George Washingtons troops, thinking, "WTF, man, you're not allowed to hide behind stuff!" Washington thinking, "Well, yeah, but... we're winning."

American diplomats in China saying, "Like, what the fuck, guys? We're not at war, why are you stealing our stuff?" Chinese guy just completely baffled thinking, "Ummm, because we're trying to win? You fuckers have been twisting our nuts in a global economic vise for half a century because you can't get over your own propaganda from the 1950s, and you don't get what we're doing? Idiots."

Strip away the right/wrong of it and just look at the realpolitik, it's kind of funny.

is this accurate? im really confused.

I think you may be mistaking what are actually contrasting and often contradictory statements of discrete individuals across several communities for a monolithic statement of belief by a single collective mind.

Why do you care what I look like?

Why do you care what I think you look like?

He is quoted as saying "I'm starting the Revolution. I'm done waiting." I don't know about you, but when a person trained in war says that they are going to start a revolution, that would make a little worried.

Note that such a thing is the basis for treason..."Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Did you mean to say, "Note" or "Not"? I want to make sure I am giving you the benefit of the doubt -- that you may have intended to disclaim the implication that his actions could be considered treason.

If you did mean "Note", then the above is a non-sequitur. You charge him with this:
a person trained in war says that they are going to start a revolution

You identify the relevant legal statute:
levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

And you imply that the former is a violation of the latter:
such a thing is the basis for treason.

He did not levy war against our nation, he did not adhere to our Enemies, and he did not give them Aid and Comfort. At the most he may have presented a clear and present danger, which grants authority to law enforcement officers to detain or use force to stop the immediate threat. Beyond that moment, the detention authority of the civilian government is only granted under the limits of due process.

In the end Facebook, despite what we want to believe, is a public venue and we should not be plotting revolutions using it.

In this sentence the word "should" can have one of two meanings: You might be saying, "He would be unwise to use this means, because it would elicit the just and lawful scrutiny of the law enforcement community, which would be unhelpful to his pursuit." Or you could mean, "He should be stripped of due process for saying what he did."

If you mean the former, you are quite correct, obviously. But I would hasten to add that regardless of his interests, we prefer it when he speaks in public. We want him to make his plans in public. We want our law enforcement community to hear about his intentions, and to have the opportunity to consider whether he presents a threat and should be detained. We want our health professionals to have the opportunity to detect an illness and engage in community outreach to offer him the help he may need. Regardless of whether his speech has any merit or even if it is a violation of law, and even if he would be a fool for doing so, we want him to speak in public.

But I digress. If you mean the latter, that he should be stripped of due process, you are speaking against the bedrock freedoms on which this nation was formed. The right to speak freely is the right most fundamental to Our Grand Experiment and due process when accused based on dangerous speech is an absolute necessity to the preservation of that right.

He was denied due process. Regardless of whether he broke the law, he was not given due process. That is the problem that is being examined.

The government has some responsibility to monitor public communications to keep the country safe.

The government is not being charged with violating his right to privacy or surveillance without authorization. They are being charged with denying him due process.

In either case, be it prevention or help, I don't see how this is a bad thing.

There are legal means for detaining people when they are believed to be a threat. The government can take them into custody. The government can hold them without explaining its reason for a brief period, and can charge the person with a crime and hold them for much longer, subject to the limitations of due process. They are accused of detaining him unlawfully. They are accused of exceeding the authorization that we, the people, sovereigns of this nation, have granted them. They are accused of breaking the law -- something which, as far as I know, still has not happened to Brandon Raub.