Give Congress Time to Debate New Government Hacking Rule
eff.org
eff.org
The other issue with this is that with a traditional warrant you know that they are gaining access. You might not be happy with it, they may have even busted down the door on the way in, but whatever damage was done was done once.
With this they break in (potentially damaging your systems), they take your data (potentially in ways that could leak it to other parties), store it (potentially insecurely), and even though your operations are compromised you have no idea.
Who is on the hook when the FBI leaks your SSH keys after they used a 0day to break into your machine and vacuum up everything on the HD? What if those keys are used to issue a software update that crashes every one of your businesses self driving cars all at once?
This rule is just dealing with who can issue a warrant, not with what can be done once a warrant is issued.
Note that this only removes the tie to geography in two circumstances:
1. The location of the targeted data has been "concealed through technological means", or
2. the crime being investigated is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the damaged computers are in five or more districts.
Unlike most groups that have written against this rule change, CDT actually proposes modifications to address their concerns that would still let the rule address the problem that it is trying to solve, which is a very real problem.
>Wyden countered the defense of the rule change we often hear from law enforcement officials that letting investigators hack into computers around the world is only small, procedural tweak.
Both these statements give me very little faith in what our government will do over the next 4-8 years.
I don't think his vanity will allow him to fail without making a really serious and ongoing effort, and those who deny his effectiveness and ability are by and large those who claimed he'd never get win nomination or the election.
So, my advise is don't despair quite yet. Heck, perhaps wait until 2018 to see if he doesn't run a campaign against a "Do Nothing Congress" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80th_United_States_Congress). Aside from Reince Priebus and that part of the RNC which followed Priebus, he owes the political establishment nothing.
The claim sounds incompatible with reality.
And Sessions may be a "dyed-in-the-wool Republican insider", more specifically a de jure member of the establishment, but his positions on immigration put him well outside of the de facto establishment.
I'd never even heard of Wilbur Ross before he was picked, he's not a notable "dyed-in-the-wool Republican insider", in fact, being "a trustee of the Brookings Institution" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/24/...) makes him anything but that. Heck, per Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilbur_Ross#Political_activiti...):
Ross served under U.S. President Bill Clinton on the board of the U.S.-Russia Investment Fund, and later, under New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani as the Mayor's privatization advisor. In January 1998 he put $2.25 million in seed money into McCaughey Ross's campaign.[citation needed, and I add she is a Republican, but obviously of the NY variety] Although he was an early supporter of Donald J. Trump's presidential campaign, Ross in earlier years was a registered Democrat, served as an officer of the New York State Democratic Party and held fundraisers for Democratic candidates at his apartment in New York City.
It is absolutely, totally, and completely wrong to claim he is a "dyed-in-the-wool Republican insider".
His Education Secretary pick is a Common Core fan, that's enough for me (as in, not in a good way at all), but see my other comment about the current state of US K-12 public education. On the other hand, she seems best known for pushing private school vouchers (another bad idea, he who pays the piper picks the tune), but that's definitely not a partisan issue, plenty of Democrats are for it.
The Tea Party was a fringe 'grassroots' movement a few years ago - also intended to clean up government. Once it got elected, it was back to the same old GOP, just with a refreshed mandate for 'no new taxes ever'.
Establishment politicians claiming the mantle of the Tea Party used that to get elected in the notable 2010-14 elections, and you're shocked, shocked that professional politicians lied? Quelle horreur!
And didn't notice that when presented with such blatant betrayal, the Republican base picked a non-professional politician as its Presidential nominee, who ran on a non-establishment platform, in the face of a near total revolt of the GOPe outside of Reince Priebus and enough of the RNC, and, you know, won the election?
Let me turn this around: who specifically would you recommend as being outside of the "orthodox power structure" for his cabinet picks?
Heck, is Trump, according to you, by definition part of the "orthodox power structure"? Did getting elected President make him so, if not earlier? Just what are you asking for?
This election, neo-liberalism was what was rejected - not the establishment.
> Heck, is Trump, according to you, by definition part of the "orthodox power structure"?
That power structure was created to serve the interests of people like him. How could he not be? He's a well-connected, politically-vocal billionaire, who is not at all squeamish about being surrounded by the perception of corruption and impropriety - and he hasn't even taken office yet. How on Earth could we expect anything better when he will?
People keep saying he is not a politician - but that is only true in the sense that he hasn't held public office. Neither has Newt Gingrich (For the past 16 years).
The Tea Party was Koch-funded astroturf.
No, not even close. It was the first serious, spontaneous, "modern era?"; let's say, 21st Century grassroots reaction to the crimes of our ruling class, and was, as I noted, brutally suppressed (really, you think Koch brothers were paying all those people to rally, and to pick up their trash after they were finished???).
Now the reaction is Trump. If he fails, the ruling class will like what comes next even less, and things will start to edge to existential for them, "history history is the graveyard of aristocracies" and all that. One reason their freak-outs are intensifying.
And, yes, I'm now shifting a bit and focusing more on the wider ruling class than the political "establishment" per se, for that's really what we're fighting, much of what's wrong with today's America doesn't emit from the halls of the Congress, the decisions of the Supremes, etc. etc.
For example, suppose the press had treated this actual IRS suppression like they treated Nixon's asking the IRS to attack his enemies, which they of course refused to do.
(Note the wording of the articles of impeachment, that which he "endeavoured" to do, vs. actually did: http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment (this is something I followed in real time back then...), or e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon's_Enemies_List#Purpose Nixon was not popular or powerful enough to carry this off.)
No, it was not. Occupy Wall Street was.
Unlike Occupy, the Tea Party was very easy to turn to serve the needs of the ruling class - just play up the 'no new taxes' and 'small government' bits, and downplay the 'find the people who broke the economy, and punish them' outrage.
The result was that outrage over 2008 turned into another spoke in the GOP tentpole.
So far I've seen all of his cabinet picks going to "establishment" folks, and his supreme court nomination is supposedly going to be based solely on abortion, with no thought whatsoever given to citizen united (you know, the one thing he could actually do to start getting money back out of politics).
Putting Sessions' top dog or thereabouts in operational charge of the transition team. See the next item for why this isn't an establishment pick.
Nominating Sessions as AG; his position on immigration alone puts him way outside the establishment.
His Education Secretary, not so much or at all, I'll admit. But I'm in the "putting your children in today's public school is child abuse" camp anyway, so....
Picking Steve Bannon as his "Karl Rove". That's very much a sign this is not going to be a business as usual administration, as you can see from the Left's and the establishment's (but I repeat myself) total freak-out over that.
Citizens United ended a ban on core political speech, quite literally the government in oral arguments said it could be used to ban books, and it was specifically used to ban a movie about a candidate while she was running for office. Getting "money out of politics" is a pipe dream, but this was about silencing certain segments of the nation, and absent that decision by the Supremes it's hard to see how a civil war wouldn't have resulted sooner or later. That's the sort of thing that happens when you make it impossible for people to participate in the political process, at least, people who aren't going to surrender once that sort of thing happens. TL;DR: don't mess with the Bill of Rights.
That overturning Roe v. Wade is a consideration of his picks is hardly "solely"; long ago he published an initial list of suitable candidates, they're not one dimensional.
But while we're at it, you're eager to kill a core 1st Amendment political speech right while supporting a right literally conjured from the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut). I don't see how there can be any meeting of minds between the two of us.
No, it was very much a personal score settling thing. If it was a drain the swamp thing, the people left behind after the purge wouldn't have been just as covered in muck as those purged.
Law means that there are objective rules to behavior, which don't take into account positive intent, goal, or player.
That's why we have to put up with hate speech, so that not "politically correct" regular speech will be legal.
Same thing here.
If you don't want there to be a "truth committee" which clears all news before publication, you better hope that corporations have freedom of speech. If corporations don't have freedom of speech, then neither does the EFF, ACLU, or your posts on Facebook.
So these include the National Rifle Association, a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation, which is one way America's gun owners combine for collective political action. And which as I recall also filed an amicus curiae in Citizens United, McCain-Feingold very specifically targeted them (McCain, and I assume Feingold, hated it, and if not then, then I would assume for the latter now, after his unexpected failure to return to the Senate).
Heh, and on the ACLU Wikipedia page, "In 2006, the ACLU of Washington State joined with a pro-gun rights organization, the Second Amendment Foundation, and prevailed in a lawsuit against the North Central Regional Library District (NCRL) in Washington for its policy of refusing to disable restrictions upon an adult patron's request."
I'm sure this happened because a) the Second Amendment Foundation's 2 activities are running an important annual conference and b) lawsuits, and they're in Washington state.
And in either case, government censorship of their core political speech, which in theory reflects that of their members (not always entirely true for the NRA), is intolerable and why Citizens United was absolutely necessary.