National Security Letter No need to hack anything.
Unless the law changes.
Not having backups doesn't make you incompetent when your employer doesn't want you to keep backups.
You're right. In this case, it makes you an accomplice.
Anything she gets will likely be harsher than Karl Rove managed to get for outing Valerie Plame.
All of this has been done before. Complete BS if she gets harsher treatment than the previous administration. I agree that we need to clamp down on the problem, but some retro activity would be nice as well.
User 1 makes a statement that points out an injustice committed by a candidate of Political Party "A".
User 2 jumps in to claim that Political Party "B" had a worse injustice.
This situation plays out the same in comment threads across the internet. Switch the roles either way you want. A or B = Democrat, the other = Republican.
User 2 attempts to marginalize the injustice by claiming that party A did the same thing and received equal or less punishment than what is being suggested this time.
But who wins once the injustice supported by User 1 is carefully stuffed away in the margin? The same pattern will likely be made by User 1 when the roles are reversed. As this pattern continues, the punishment for injustice committed against citizens will only ever be reduced per situation. At best it will be matched.
I'm not looking for a weapon. I'm looking for a shield to neutralize it.
So, you're looking for a shield that's hard enough to stop a weapon, but soft enough that it can't be used as a weapon.
Are you sure that your requirement doesn't contradict itself?
Senator Rand Paul, a Republican presidential candidate who has made opposition to overbroad surveillance central to his platform, tweeted: “The phone records of law abiding citizens are none of the NSA’s business! Pleased with the ruling this morning.”
How fast would his attitude towards surveillance change if were elected president?
Are you suggesting that it's best to elect someone who loves overly broad surveillance and despises the 4th amendment?
Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.