tokenizer

Absolutely. But it's definitely a double standard based on associations. It's the whole freedom fighter/terrorist coin argument. If you're against the status quo, you're a cyber terrorist who deserves no trial and bullet to the brain. If you're defending the status quo you're a security specialist and you're the beacon of light in a dark world.

So if you are a "hacker", this won't define what people think of you necessarily. It depends on what you do with that power.

Things you should not do, unless you do want to be labeled a cyber terrorist:

* Changing the parameters of a companies URL that might compromise security, then posting that information to the public.

* Downloading copyright protected material.

* Creating porn sites.

* Posting extremist/terrorist/anarchist ideas on the internet.

* Creating a shortcut or bypass that cuts into the profits of a monopolistic company.

If you avoid these things, and hide the fact that you understand computers at an intermediate level, you should be fine.

I mean, every western country right now is a vassal to the states. I doubt my country can really go against US interests (Canada). Most educated people I talk to about these matters agree that the US is not a functioning democracy, but rather a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

> I am not for this, I love my privacy but I am simply pointing out what will happen, regardless of any action taken.

Well if that's the case, what would you suggest a poor foreign person do?

I mean, if I have 12,000$ in the bank, a VC in Canada willing to invest, and can speak French and English, then that should be enough. My main criticism of this Visa is that it isn't inclusive enough. If we could even get 10 more accepted applicants by dropping the educational requirement then it would be worth it in my opinion.

I'm at least a little glad it isn't a requirement to hold a degree or diploma.

I'm assuming this is simply an empty requirement to weed out people during application. That said, if a few very intelligent hacker types who never went to college had successfully achieved all of the other three requirements, then I'd see no reason to deny that application.

I'm pretty sure this rule also extends from my countries intense fascination with secondary education.

See: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/27/and-the-worlds-most-educ..., https://duckduckgo.com/?q=canada+most+educated+country

The individual may think they have choices of what to think, but ultimately the specific forum and/or resource may already be tailored to their biases. We even have our most popular English search engine, google, tailoring your biases at the discovery phase of research.

I can't remember the specific presentation, but I seem to recall an example of the search "Egypt", which displayed revolution in one user window, and vacation opportunities in the other.

If you think this is interesting, try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo1qzjC_5xI

Income works fine, but when I put in the data for wealth (no house, minimalistic materials, and meagre bank accounts) it gives me the error code: "Are you sure about that?"... Apparently, you cannot hold less than $1,500CAD of wealth, nor can you be classed within the bottom 22%.

The income bottom limit is $400CAD, which is much better. It's kind of funny how the stats don't feel so guilty when entering the lower limits. For a $400CAD yearly income: " In 1 hour you make $0.21 Meanwhile, the average labourer in Indonesia makes just $0.50 in the same time. "

People get what they deserve, and the world apparently deserves the US monitoring all of its communications. My only hope is a complete collapse of their government.

Sources:

[1] http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/4100

[2] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2010/03/25/mb-p...

There will be protests on the 4th of July as well in many US cities. Maybe other countries will protest in solidarity as well, like in the occupy protests, but we won't be sure what happens until the 5th of July.

Great point. Honestly, my biggest issue with this is the secret nature of the FISA court and the near 100% approval for warrants.

You NEED to have watchdogs for the watchers. You can't simply have massive ABC orgs having all of this information unchecked like it is now.

The cat is out of the bag however. We can't simply stop using our technology, the question is like what you said: regulation and discussion of how to use this technology.

Going with that, I'll have to research our procedures up here.

However, I think we're diverging on how to tackle fixing it. I mentioned bipartisan because the OP said Wyden/Paul. This would also fragment the center, which would allow the left to take more of a reign.

Where I'm from, the conservatives have a majority due to left vote splitting amongst the liberals, green, and new democrats. But with such right wing fragmentation happening in the states, what really needs to happen is not a fragmentation of the left, but one of the middle IMO.

Personally, I think this would accomplish the goal, as if you had a bipartisan party with good policies, you would then have a very confused and hypocritical left (Democrats) who would then start having to actually pander to its base instead of the imagined center.

I digress. I think ultimately you have to decide to accept current practises as inevitable, or malleable.

I for one, do not think allies should spy on each other. Being caught so would have punitive repercussions such as increases in trade rates. If perpetrator makes a big deal about it, then find better allies, and then they can spy all they want.

So are any Americans actually upset about this, or do us foreigners care more about your country than you guys do?

And this is why/result/symptom of the US collapsing. We've seen these things time and time again. An empire who has no enemies makes an enemy out of itself.

Interesting take on the US collapse preparedness from someone who experienced it in the USSR:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-12-04/closing-collaps...

The definition is: "An agent employed by a state to obtain secret information, especially of a military nature, concerning its potential or actual enemies."

As far as I'm concerned, people should be more concerned about this, unless they feel like they agree with their governments actions as valid, thus confirming they do in fact believe the EU is a potential enemy.

If that's the case, I feel the EU should take some drastic measures against the US.

So basically, your point about the focus being drawn away from the NSA itself seems correct to me.

People argue that this would mean only rich people would be able to go to college, but I think colleges would rather keep the number of students up high, and not become an extremely privileged institution.

Taking your point of immigration, what if the US's unemployment rate continues to climb? I'm sure that many people who would immigrate would not know, as they're going to the US on an advertising pitch (the American Dream), but I'm sure plenty will turn tail and do some sensible research in regards to their prospects in a new country. A 15% to 20% unemployment rate looks rather uninviting. Some interesting statistics that aren't alarmist at the moment: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-r...

There's also the problem with the overton window to the right that we've seen in the past 30 years. I could see a potentiality where an extremist extremely limits immigration. Any specific extremist policy focused inward will also reverberate throughout the world. There's a reason many choose to not go to Greece or Mexico anymore, and that's because of their reputations.

There's no doubt your statement is correct, and that the US will have global hegemony for years to come due to its military, but I'd like you to put on your optimist hat and tell me why that's a good thing at all. Thanks

With the government being able to request your confidential sources, and with the government being able to see all forms of electronic communication, my idea of a whistleblower is the following:

"Anyone who peacefully and in good faith informs the public of government or corporate wrongdoing."

You can definitely agree that Snowden did not violently do this, and we can debate whether or not he has done this in good faith, however, people should be innocent until proven guilty in a free society.

So my opinion right now is that he is a whistleblower. If the government can prove that he is a spy or is subverting the government for nefarious purposes, then the actions they're committing would be justified, but as of now, they are not in the slightest.