"These charges send a clear message... In the United States, you can't spy on people."
"The American people have the right to assume that their private documents will remain private and won't be collected by someone in the government for his own purposes."
"Only by bringing Mr. Snowden to justice can we safeguard the most precious of American rights: privacy"...
Doesn't work on Slashdot, which hates Tor and has banned all the exit nodes.
See, that's the problem with TOR. It can't hide its exits nodes and blend in with all the other traffic. An exit node shouldn't look any different than any other http(s) request.
Ship by air! The passengers don't have to know.
So waddya gonna do, eh? Vote republican???? BWAHAHAHA!
Boy, these bastards got you good... And to watch all you all get tied up in knots about 'right and wrong' instead of finding ways to defeat it makes them laugh even harder..
Maybe you missed it the first time it was pointed out
14.9.2 What May be Stored by Caches
no-store
The purpose of the no-store directive is to prevent the inadvertent release or retention of sensitive information (for example, on backup tapes). The no-store directive applies to the entire message, and MAY be sent either in a response or in a request. If sent in a request, a cache MUST NOT store any part of either this request or any response to it. If sent in a response, a cache MUST NOT store any part of either this response or the request that elicited it. This directive applies to both non- shared and shared caches. "MUST NOT store" in this context means that the cache MUST NOT intentionally store the information in non-volatile storage, and MUST make a best-effort attempt to remove the information from volatile storage as promptly as possible after forwarding it.
Even when this directive is associated with a response, users might explicitly store such a response outside of the caching system (e.g., with a "Save As" dialog). History buffers MAY store such responses as part of their normal operation.
The purpose of this directive is to meet the stated requirements of certain users and service authors who are concerned about accidental releases of information via unanticipated accesses to cache data structures. While the use of this directive might improve privacy in some cases, we caution that it is NOT in any way a reliable or sufficient mechanism for ensuring privacy. In particular, malicious or compromised caches might not recognize or obey this directive, and communications networks might be vulnerable to eavesdropping.
Does this resolve the issue?
No, Barack Obama and Joe Biden are actors.. And they're the real deal, more convincing than those putzes from Hollywood.
race bating
By golly, you're right! Somebody is...
Nixon got the troops out. I've always felt he didn't get the credit for that he deserved.
Credit?! What the fuck are you talking about?
They will just do it anyway, a bit more covertly perhaps. Public opinion is bullshit. The majority of us are against war (I assume), yet we are at war. We hate congress, yet reliably reelect almost all of them. Eh, that's politics for ya. Doesn't matter the country.
I didn't know HSBC was part of the Fed... Oh wait, which government are we talking about?
With their markup, I'm sure Mcdonalds is taking no losses. If they gave away everything but the soda-pops, they would still make huge profits.
But how do you get more privacy out of a centralized repository? Centralization and privacy don't mix. And that word... trusted... please...
Everybody is a little bit crazy. You never know what will set them off...
How convenient, hot and cold running war...
No such thing!
Don't hit the keys so hard, it hurts.
