ianterrell
Excellent resources. For a counterpoint on the specific organization type we're discussing, governments, see libertarianism.
> I agree staging a coup is not the same as running a government. Not sure what you point here is.
You brought up coup as a potential consequence of tightened lines of communication and increased secrecy & concentration of power in a few hands. My point was that even in that hypothetical, in order to transition from coup to government you have to widen the circle again, dilute the power, and we're back to the large-ineffective paradigm again. Short term: maybe maybe consequences; long term: same old story.
I think that "by necessity" is not true here. A smaller organization can not do as much as a larger organization. Ok, a handful of people could stage a coup. Then what? They still need bodies for tax collecting, law enforcement, jailers for the secret prisons, whatever. Those people need information to do their jobs, which increases the circle size, etc, and we're back where we started.
Assange's insight into clandestine organizations as information networks that can be disrupted is profound. You get the choice between large, effective, and open; or small, ineffective, and clandestine.
Exactly. I can't think of a time when I've needed flowers in 90 minutes, but I can think of a half a dozen times when I've wanted them same day, and at least a dozen or more when I've wanted them next day without paying a gigantic surcharge.
> Three government officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters, said the number would be substantially higher if it included other NSA operating units and regional collection centers.
I remember in 2002 I was watching a movie in a London theater, and the lights went dark, and the movie was just about to start, and... that Nokia sound went off. The entire theater groaned, "AWWWWWW". And then, another went off, and another, and several more, until it was an absolute cacophony of Nokia sounds.
Then the Nokia logo came on screen, accompanied by the words, "Please silence your cell phones."
The groans turned into sincere chuckles.
That was one of the earliest pre-movie reminders, and still one of the best. And it only worked (full circle here), because that Nokia sound was so iconic.
He wrote a whole article series walking you through it, plus source, etc, starting here: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=2940
When the clear potential for abuse has been thoroughly documented, getting nitpicky on actual abuse seems like a waste of time.
Of course, were I to get nitpicky, I'd say there is documented evidence of abuse (with NYTimes reporting going back years): http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130731/16193324027/nsa-bo...
--
EDIT: I do believe there's a difference between the potential for abuse and actual abuse. But I further believe the potential for abuse from global surveillance is so significant that even the potential is a dire problem in its own right. I was a bit too flippant about that distinction above.
I do not believe it to be likely that the local PD had evidence that would warrant a raid that they obtained on their own through normal local police procedures.
What's the reconciliation?
I don't think I'm being unreasonable in trusting the author that the officers said they were with the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which is one of a few plausible ways the FBI would know about local PD activity.
Her credibility on the big fact is established. What are we missing, then? The details on what the questions were? Whether or not they were asked about their Google history? Where the intel came from?
The mind boggles.
tptacek, on the other hand, led with "I don't buy this, at all", and "if you're trying to sell a hoax", and many more sentences and comments that attack the author and the story.
([0]: The real life complication is that in most cases you will never get all the facts, and so reserving judgment forever ends up being the worst kind of inaction.)
My my, what trouble those "internet memes" get us into.
Considering the hostile skepticism on the thread about the article Ms Catalano posted, I would not be surprised if other people (especially those without professional writing credentials and a million-strong twitter audience) had decided not to come forward with their stories in the past.
How is it OK that the local PD (acting as part of DoJ's Joint Terrorism Task Force) knows any factors that would reasonably lead them to investigate this family?
* From inside the "photo focus view", add swipe based navigation to move through pictures.
* Add an option to unset the content filter. Could even be detected automatically ("You just removed the filter on 3 photos. Want to disable that for a while?").
What's stopping anyone from crowd sourcing a database of prior art for existing patents that would invalidate them if it came to it?
A valid defense against patent infringement is to show that the patent shouldn't have been issued in the first place, right? So a database of Ready Made Legal Defense sounds good.
Am I missing something?
Follow up question: Have you stuck it in front of kids to see how they take to it?
Without being based in theory, I'm curious how the language works out in practice.
I think Towerfall's popularity is due in some measure to hitting that specific formula: cheap & fun same screen multiplayer; "mobile philosophy" on a television.
I do think overall you're right that the casual market wants to play on devices they already own. It would not surprise me if Apple released a WiFi controller & added a dedicated Games store on the AppleTV (using touch screens while looking at a TV just feels awkward).
I fully expect an Ouya/Google/Apple/GameBerryPi/etc to really find a fun loving, large market at a $100 price tag.
Of course, the "rules" have indeed changed. It's pedantic to the point of ignorance to only consider laws and reject the context in which those laws were made (pre-wifi-enabled-streetcorner-cameras). The words on paper might not change, but a rule effectively changes when the environment changes around it. Consider also: every other legal issue that intersects with technology.
For the former, you're of course right: not much has changed! The local police could have posted someone on every street corner to record every license plate that passed -- probably multiple people to account for traffic!
That's no different than cameras, in theory. You have no less privacy with cameras! But in practice, the police didn't do that (to that scale).
So, given that my expectations of privacy are not about logical possibilities, but rather about actual realities, they certainly have changed.
Reduce that logistical hurdle to a signup. :)
Sure, that's far from unanimous, but "widely disapproved of by the general public" doesn't seem like a terrible stretch.
On the subject of polls, this article also shows the meta trends that this discussion is a part of: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/public-o...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/18/revealed-air-force-ord...
What bearing does which country he's in have on the content of the disclosures? Do you think he fabricated the PRISM slides since he happens to be in Russia right now?