Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Secret courts and the right to know ... (Score 1) 172

Nice spin there about the FISA court reviewing itself for compliance with the Constitution. You know he is talking about higher court review. Very sly of you.

Fox: I never harm chickens in the henhouse.
Hen: Let's ask Farmer John for an independent review or your activities.
Fox: No need to go to John, I reviewed my actions, and I never harmed chickens in the henhouse ... *burp, spits out chicken down*

Comment Re:wtf (Score 2) 662

Your NDA is a civil contract. Technically, the only consequence you should face is monetary (maybe injunctive if they could get around the 1st Amendment). Though in the modern world, who knows. Soon as the Feds make breaking a contract a crime, we can reopen the debtors' prisons. Imagine the profit potential for the prison industry. Won't that be great. /sarcasm

Submission + - Woz compares U.S. to Soviet Union (

xerxes2044 writes: When asked to weigh in on PRISM, Steve Wozniak, didn't hold back, comparing the U.S. to the Soviet Union while commenting on the Patriot Act, property ownership and more.

Submission + - Snowden kills "metadata" argument during live hosted by The Guardian

An anonymous reader writes: In a live chat hosted by the The Guardian, Edward Snowden has clarified that the NSA does not simply have access to metadata, as has been the media rhetoric, and that large volumes of data relating to US citizens is frequently ingested.

Answering one question, he wrote:

If I target for example an email address, for example under FAA 702, and that email address sent something to you, Joe America, the analyst gets it. All of it. IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything. And it gets saved for a very long time — and can be extended further with waivers rather than warrants.

Answering another:

US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections (and again, it's important to understand that policy protection is no protection — policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens) and one very weak technical protection — a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and can be stripped out at any time. Even with the filter, US comms get ingested, and even more so as soon as they leave the border.

Comment Re:A great service (Score 1) 262

A guy from the Wayback Machine had these estimates: $27m/year in equipment, $2m/yr in electricity (CA price), 5000sqft of space to store all phone communications for a year.

That facility should be good for 20 years worth of calls.

Comment Re:Seems fishy (Score 4, Insightful) 262

How times change. And to think that the US Government once prosecuted WWII Japanese Officers over the war crime of waterboarding. We executed some of those convicted, and others spent a long time in prison. Cheney and his ilk though(*), they profit from the chest thumping book sales.

(*) I include those who excuse such War Crimes, such as Obama, in that "ilk"

Comment Re:OMG (Score 2) 262

Spying on foreign leaders! What will they think of next.

This line is beyond tiresome. Are you too stupid to understand the difference between assuming and knowing?

Assumer: Gov't spies on allies!
Listener: GTFO foil hatter.

Knower1: Gov't spies on allies!
Knower2: We should think about whether we really want to do this.

Comment Re:Seems fishy (Score 4, Insightful) 262

That's part of the problem with massive caches of data -- it's hard to secure. So, setting aside all the potential evils that will absolutely certainly occur because of politicians and career bureaucrats having the data, throw in the random security breach by insiders, contractors, script kiddies, whatever.

It is beyond retarded to trust the government with this data.

Comment Re:Actions to take (Score 5, Insightful) 337

On one hand you have the public backlash if/when an attack succeeds due to inadequate intelligence gathering.

I don't know about this. Take 9/11 for example -- did GWB get voted out? Did he have his power limited? Did Congress refuse to let him do whatever wars he wanted?

No. He was re-elected. He expanded executive power. And even Democrats like Clinton were not reading the Intelligence Estimate calling into question GWB's push for Iraq and falling all over themselves to start a pointless war. All those private contractors profited handsomely. The revolving door between cabinet posts and VP of this or that is lubed up and spinning.

So, perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps an attack results not in backlash, but in uplift for these DC fuckwads.

Slashdot Top Deals

Administration: An ingenious abstraction in politics, designed to receive the kicks and cuffs due to the premier or president. -- Ambrose Bierce