Verizon & Obama: all your calls are belong to us.
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
Not everybody can be a revolutionary, especially when it's not a corporation you're fighting (who can only drive you into bankruptcy), but the government, who can silence you and take away your liberty forever. That is a far different fight. I can't blame people for dis-engaging with the process at a certain point. I wish they wouldn't, but I do understand it.
GasBandit
Staff member
Welcome to my house, I saved you a comfy chair.
Guess it's time to send all my friends the notebooks with one time pad encryption codes in them.
Sad.
Sad.
By shutting down, they are essentially scuttling their own ship rather than letting it be commandeered by the spooks. Recently-revealed evidence would seem to suggest that the services they provide were being perverted by one or more third parties for their own purposes.
To analogize it a different way, if you discover that someone has set up a TSA-style stop-and-grope search checkpoint outside the front door of your business, and the evidence suggests that this is guaranteed to recur even if you try to relocate, then the only guaranteed way to ensure your patrons cease having their 4th Amendment rights violated might be to shut down. On your own, you can't force the predators to leave, but you can end the stream of prey going through the checkpoint. The patrons may not enjoy it, but their rights are preserved...at the cost of your business.
--Patrick
A
Anonymous
Anonymous
The Prisoner. It's Your Funeral.
We need the Jammers more than ever.
We need the Jammers more than ever.
If you haven't been keeping up on what the UK has been up to, it might be worth a read. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ne-hour-interrogation-of-journalists-partner/
On Sunday they detained the husband of the reporter publishing the leaks. They stopped him at the Heathrow airport on his way back home to Brazil. They held him for 9 hours, the maximum, and all his electronics were taken. They are claiming this was to help stop terrorism. Greenwald, the reporter, is obviously not happy. He's now threatening to release info on the UK government they were planning not to.
They also went to the Guardian offices and had them destroy a computer that had a copy of the leaked materials on it. Even though there were copies of it elsewhere, and most of the reporting wasn't even done from there.
On Sunday they detained the husband of the reporter publishing the leaks. They stopped him at the Heathrow airport on his way back home to Brazil. They held him for 9 hours, the maximum, and all his electronics were taken. They are claiming this was to help stop terrorism. Greenwald, the reporter, is obviously not happy. He's now threatening to release info on the UK government they were planning not to.
They also went to the Guardian offices and had them destroy a computer that had a copy of the leaked materials on it. Even though there were copies of it elsewhere, and most of the reporting wasn't even done from there.
As the UK once again reminds us that they don't have the same rules on Freedom of Speech as the states. Not that this wasn't done at the behest of the US government, or that the US government wouldn't love to get away with that over here.
Fixed. WB gets a cut off of every mask sold.
GasBandit
Staff member
Last I checked, Warner Brothers wasn't detaining journalists... so how is this hypocritical?
Time Warner. Corporate masters. Gleefully complying with surveillance requests. Generally making a nice profit off of Anonymous.
Sadly, the government has an internal power source.
Definitely wind. I believed the patented name is "blow-hard tech".
I hope this catches on: Guy calls the NSA to try and get his email restored from their backup.
It's a Youtube video. He's not "serious" in that he obviously knows what he's doing and asking for, but it is hilarious.
It's a Youtube video. He's not "serious" in that he obviously knows what he's doing and asking for, but it is hilarious.
She should have added "IANAL" before that part.
Still, not too surprising, considering that Yahoo was one of the first to actually push back and got stomped for it.
Part of the secret orders says that you're not allowed to admit that you have received any secret orders.
Someone has come up with a possible way around this:
--Patrick
Someone has come up with a possible way around this:
I know it wouldn't be as easy as that (they could compel you to keep sending the message, for instance), but I approve of the idea.
--Patrick
I'd like, for once, to see this on the google homepage:
"Due to court orders which we are no longer able to comply with in good conscience Google, Inc, is shutting down all business operations and units in 30 days."
Then see how the US Gov't dodges that oncoming train. It would shake the stock market to the core, at minimum.
The ultimate "take your ball and go home" game of chicken.
"Due to court orders which we are no longer able to comply with in good conscience Google, Inc, is shutting down all business operations and units in 30 days."
Then see how the US Gov't dodges that oncoming train. It would shake the stock market to the core, at minimum.
The ultimate "take your ball and go home" game of chicken.
Considering the delivery of secret orders often prevents the presence of an attorney, it's already defacto unconstitutional.
How so? Attorneys have to maintain client confidentiality or risk being disbarred, so they can be read in to any secret orders their client is subject to.
This is all from something I read a few weeks back, so bear with me.
Attorneys have to be vetted before they can receive top secret or higher clearance, which they need before they can be involved in this sort of thing. There are maybe a few dozen such individuals in the entire Untied States and most of them are ether involved with prisoners in Gitmo or other such things. Very few are in private practice, mostly because it's almost impossible to make money with the clearance. The few that are are, once again, doing stuff for prisoners at Gitmo.
This means the government is doing an end run around representation by it's use of secret orders, simply because they aren't providing council (which would be tainted already) and are preventing the search for outside council. As such, the individuals/companies being issued the orders aren't being adequately represented and could be unaware of all the legal culpability they are exposed to by complying with said orders.
Basically, it's a legal sham and the only reason it hasn't been stopped is because no one wants to be the guy who goes to jail while this is all sorted out.
Has that actually happened? Because as far as I'm aware, the people who have shut down their services have all explicitly said that they have lawyers and went to court over this.
I'm pretty sure I read in an interview with the lawyer for the Lavabit owner that even he didn't have the whole story. He said the government gave his client strict rules on what could be shared with the lawyer and what couldn't. I tried looking for it, but couldn't find it.
The lavabit thing is what I read, I believe. He shutdown everything because he wasn't willing to compromise his principles or his service for an illegal demand of the government.