now why would i do that?got any corroborating sources?
if push came to shove, i'd play it off like "yeah, i was an egyptian brick maker; doesn't mean the pyramids would not have been built without my work"
pardon the obfuscatory triple-negative
now why would i do that?got any corroborating sources?
The idea that NSA would add backdoors or vulnerabilities to its submissions, when all the source code is publicly accessible and is combed through by thousands of people, is simply ridiculous. It is just as preposterous to think that the best way to gain access to any operating system is to publicly announce that you are contributing to the OS, and make the tainted code accessible to anyone with an interest in it.
Former Democratic Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel thinks lawmakers opposed to the National Security Agency's phone and Internet surveillance programs should have exposed them long before fugitive whistleblower Edward Snowden provided NSA documents to reporters in June.
Unlike Snowden, who is seeking asylum abroad in lieu of a stiff prison sentence, the senators would have been immune from prosecution because of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause, Gravel told U.S. News.
"Any member of Congress can release any information that they think the public should see," Gravel said. "No member of Congress has availed themselves of that privilege since 1971. That's unfortunate."
Vague warnings to the public, such as those made by Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado were "not good enough," Gravel said.
Before Snowden disclosed the surveillance programs, skeptical senators argued against the 2012 passage of FISA provisions, questioned administration officials about snooping during public hearings and cautioned that Americans would be shocked if they knew the extent of government surveillance but they did not disclose the programs.
"They're afraid of losing their prestige in the Senate," Gravel said. "That's a clear case and they're the best of the best, think of all the others. It's a clear case of putting your personal ambition above your responsibilities to the people as a leader of the nation."
In 1971 Gravel, then a freshman senator opposed to the Vietnam War, entered the so-called "Pentagon Papers" into the Congressional Record, making the top secret cache of documents public. The action prompted a court battle that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that congressional staffers are also protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.
"Nixon sent the Pentagon Papers to Congress, where the members could read them, but not take notes. I made that process moot by releasing them," Gravel recalled. Before entering the documents into the record, he met leaker Daniel Ellsberg at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., to acquire the records.
Gravel, 83, left office in 1981. He returned to politics with a 2008 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Despite his disappointment in senators who oppose the NSA programs, Gravel's disdain for President Barack Obama is even more apparent.
Obama, he says, is "a total fraud" and should be put on trial for murder by the International Court of Justice, a branch of the United Nations commonly known as the World Court. Gravel is confident that Obama would be found guilty.
"Let the World Court prosecute Obama and Bush for the crimes and murders they've committed," he said. "When you take the whole program of the drones, it's unconscionable the number of people killed innocently."
Gravel sees leakers as an essential part of democracy who are, in his view, unjustly persecuted by tyrants posing as democrats. All three branches of government, he said, collaborated in keeping secret for years the NSA programs exposed by Snowden.
"From my point of view Snowden, Manning and the other whistleblowers are people who are following the law a lot more closely than the people who prosecute them," he says. "If you see a crime being committed you have a responsibility to report it."
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/07/09/former-sen-gravel-nsa-leaks-should-have-come-from-senators
If you don't have an expectation of privacy, you can be recorded in public or private places which is why fly overs, video surveillance, etc are all legal on private property. If they're taken from public locations/airspace were you are provided visual access without trespassing, its no problem too.saw that yesterday, and my only objection is if it scans plates parked on private property (which i assume would include not just residences, but shopping malls & other commerce)
the rub here is this: if (when!) technology advances such that communications can be collected using clever methods that are also legal (or more accurately: not explicitely banned), it's going to simply be an arms race.If you don't have an expectation of privacy, you can be recorded in public or private places which is why fly overs, video surveillance, etc are all legal on private property. If they're taken from public locations/airspace were you are provided visual access without trespassing, its no problem too.
Exactly. Airplanes, telescopes, and cameras have been in use for over a hundred years now. The laws for flyovers are established.also, i think the real issue here isn't that the data is being collected - but how its being stored (specifically retention periods), who has access to it, and what's being done with it.
unbelievably inappropriate, when you consider most users employ passwords that are connected b/t systems that are not (global password, or global pattern associated to user)
It's an interesting time, though, esp. vis-a-vis GPS or other warrantless, potentially universal monitoring.If you don't have an expectation of privacy, you can be recorded in public or private places which is why fly overs, video surveillance, etc are all legal on private property. If they're taken from public locations/airspace were you are provided visual access without trespassing, its no problem too.
not surprised, but part of me was hoping they'd already hit rock bottom.the guardian has a good article on it too. if anyone is surprised by this, then you are very naive
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/31/nsa-top-secret-program-online-data
c'mon, its the u.s. government we're talking about. theyll keep pushing the envelope until they cant...and im sure theyll still go past that point.not surprised, but part of me was hoping they'd already hit rock bottom.
How often is the government ahead of the private sector?c'mon, its the u.s. government we're talking about. theyll keep pushing the envelope until they cant...and im sure theyll still go past that point.
knowing a lot of coders from college, thankfully the cream of the crop aren't working government jobs.c'mon, its the u.s. government we're talking about. theyll keep pushing the envelope until they cant...and im sure theyll still go past that point.
theyre not. thats why they use people like Snowden to develop and implement what they want/need. the private sector is doing their dirty workHow often is the government ahead of the private sector?
Its naive to ignore the private sector has been tracking people for longer. Why is that acceptable?theyre not. thats why they use people like Snowden to develop and implement what they want/need. the private sector is doing their dirty work
im sorry, did i say that it was?Its naive to ignore the private sector has been tracking people for longer. Why is that acceptable?
red herring is crimson.Its naive to ignore the private sector has been tracking people for longer. Why is that acceptable?
So the private sector never violates your privacy or commits espionage, I see. Status quo, move along, nothing to see.red herring is crimson.
facebook knows what you want to buy before you do.So the private sector never violates your privacy or commits espionage, I see. Status quo, move along, nothing to see.
fixedfacebook knows which ex-gf you're going to stalk for 'material' before you do.