Most of this post seems to be semantic. Aggressive versus perhaps irritated. A Homeland Security Special Agent versus what he may be recalling as an FBI agent, or Port Police versus local Police. I think the only really divergent point is the apartment search. Either he made that up, or it happened and it was covered up.
I also noticed that, and I bet the words were choose carefully. Still, placing an image of Snowden with Greenwald in their article is quite a bit misleading.
Yes, especially when they saw the rescuers come and try to save the injured, they just had to kill those as well. How dare rescuers try to save lives! This is war, which clearly means shooting anything that moves is the best policy. </sarcasm>
In Canada, even if you destroy all paperwork and tell the taxman that you don't remember anything, the law permits them to look at your assets and decide how much you owe. Then it's your burden to prove otherwise. Is it different in the US? Hell they could even force exchanges or code mainteners to build in a tax system.
This will never go away, what we need is strong email encryption to become the norm. Then the US would need to go see the individual users if they wanted to spy.
I've thought about writing a program that would randomly send search queries to Google, Facebook, etc for specific keywords like pressure cooker, drug, bomb, etc. Just overwhelm them with traffic.
I don't see how this is busting her story much. The FBI confirmed that cops went to her house, just not FBI agents, but local ones. Still, if the FBI knew, then clearly it was a joint operation in some way. Then, the WP says that the reason they went could be something other than Google searches, and instead something that they posted on Facebook or a jumpy neighbor (although that's doubtful because they never actually bought any of the stuff, just search the web for it). But does it really matter? Whether the feds got the info from Google or Facebook, it still appears to be the case that this family did research online about various items, and then cops went and knocked on their doors. No actual crime, no presumption, purely based on search terms. That's still pretty ridiculous.
Police has been using fear for quite some time now. Those who terrorize others in order to obtain their goal are called terrorists by definition. Many police officers are terrorists.
Email used to be fun, then spammers came, then good email providers added spam filters and made email fun again, now email providers are sending us spam. The circle is almost complete.
It's completely legitimate to say Americans for acts done by your government, because you have a democracy. You don't get to have it both ways. If too many people are apathetic and don't care enough what the US military does to thousands of people all over the world rather than stop it, then be ready to accept the responsibility.
You mean would the NSA bring up the CEO of the company on random charges after he says no, put him in jail, and get someone more agreeable to run the company? They've done it before! Look up Qwest.
When you're a global power and have no scruple, like the US, then there's nothing any country can do. Either they do exactly what the US agencies tell them, or they risk getting thrown out of trade agreements, financial treaties, diplomatic consequences, and in the end, the US will just do whatever it wants anyways, since they have military bases all around the world and enough power to monitor and spy as much as they want, international laws be damned.
I've never used Chrome, always been on Firefox so that part is really not a big deal for me, but I did try DDG in the past and there always comes a point where results aren't quite up to par.
The bigger deal here to me is the data sharing. Who cares if one agency isn't allowed to spy on Americans? Or if another agency has this or that court oversight? All the data collected is shared between the NSA, FBI, CIA, foreign intelligence, etc. This means regardless of who you are or what you are doing, there's someone who has the authority to spy on you, and now they have all your data as well.
As I writer I know well the devaluation of our trade, especially with online content farms. It used to be that all texts were paid based on quality and intended use, such as for a print magazine and so on. Now, everyone pays by the word, and most people now expect to get content for $2 or less for a full article, because regardless how low they pay, someone out there will accept to write. I guess on the case of Medium, make the site look nice enough and people write for free.
Except Mozilla doesn't try to hide that fact, and it can be argued to be in users interest by providing a search bar, instead of no search function at all. Here, someone who uses Adblock Plus decided to block ads. Adding them behind their backs is dishonest.
But that has nothing to do with this. Reasons don't matter here. If someone is using Adblock Plus, it's because they made the choice to use their technical knowledge to not see ads. There's no question here that by doing this, Google and the extension maintainer knew full well that this was going against user wishes.
I suspected something like that when I realized Google Ads were now showing up on my screen a few weeks ago. I went to the Adblock Plus forum and all it said was that those ads had been added to the list, no reason why. I personally find it appealing and hope everyone switches away to an Adblock fork, if only by principle. Sure it's the extension' maintainer's right to take bribes, but the consequence should be that no one trusts the extension again.
In a normal world, authorities would look at whether he has a motive to commit a crime, means to do it such as having illicit firearms, and plans to do it such as written statements.
In the fucked-up US of A, a sarcastic Facebook comment is enought to terrorize people enough to send him to jail.
I've long ago taken this approach to all ads myself. Whenever I'm forced to see an ad (because I block or skip ads as much as I possibly can) then I make a mental note not to buy from that company. Whenever I go to buy something, I always go for a brand I've never seen in an ad. I find that this on average saves me money.
If true, it's surprising that it took so long for someone to find this. Isn't it trivial to check on what your phone is sending off if you use wifi with a network scanner?
With that said I bet this is all for their social networking integration, some engineer thinking it would be cool for them to aggregate all your social data in the cloud, with no concept of the privacy implications.
I tend to like doing: sha256(sha256($password) . $ip)
This encrypts the password and makes the cookie only usable by the IP it was set for. Then to verify the cookie, since I already store sha256 of the password, it's trivial to do, without having to store an additional token for persistence. Of course you can replace sha256 with your fav hashing function.
I personally run JavaScript turned off by default, but I'm still ok with Mozilla's decision. I use NoSxript which provides the right functionality to do this, and anyone can download the add on. Completely disabling JavaScript for all sites breaks a ton of stuff and very, very few users would want to do that, hence no point in having it in the UI.
Mark my words, if this keeps going we'll soon see ISPs ordered to block some foreign media sites, and see news sites becoming regulated. You know, just to make sure no one credible publishes leaks anymore, for national security and so on.