"They wanted to expand surveillance while telling us they were protecting us."
The issue is that they (i.e. government) have always done this. I'm only 35, but I remember this being very clear immediately after 9/11. You just say the boogeyman is terrorism, and that is used to justify end-runs around the constitution via the "PATRIOT" Act, etc. etc. Before terrorism, the excuse was communism. Maybe I'm just cynical now or read too much "1984" as a teenager, but I feel like there will always be a new boogeyman that they use to justify more authority, more powers, and all the while saying it's for our own good and to 'protect' us.
Worse, most people do not even know what they are giving up. But I agree with your sentiment. It is deeply frustrating that the public does not know enough to care and even when they do they believe the government is really there to help us.
I don't know why, but NordVPN has always made me wonder if it might be a honey pot. Just the way they came on the scene, had so much advertising money, made sure to bill themselves as the "no logs" option you heard the most about etc. But that's just pure speculation on my part
Considering the low barrier to entry, I would say that most of them are just run by dilettantes wanting to make an easy buck, but that amounts to the same thing because an intelligence service would be able to have their way with the infrastructure of just about any commercial VPN provider.
My thought was to sell a VPN-business-in-a-box where you plug in your domain name, AWS creds, and payment details and in exchange you get a fully built VPN business including a web site, VPN nodes, iOS app ready to submit to Apple, and so on. Just add customers...
How do these programs impact China collection, if at all? Are they able to collect Chinese SIGINT of any significance through these cables, or does the 'Golden Shield Project' and 'Great Firewall' prevent info from going out?
I've noticed I can see the Milky Way best when I observe off-center. As soon as I try to focus directly on it, it's not as clear. Bortle sky 4 probably, SQM about 21
There's a scene in "True Detective" season 1, where one of sheriff's in the show is driving a Maserati to the country club he golfs at, and says he, "Seized it off some good old boy last year." I'd been aware of civil forfeiture for years before seeing that show, but just the way it was presented really stuck with me for some reason; just how much the system can be abused by "bad actors."
Thanks for that link. I had read parts of the Mueller report before, and learned some of the TTP's that the Russians used during the 2016 campaign/election, but this lays it out more clearly.
There are plenty of federal prosecutors and judges who know how to handle classified evidence in court. I can't remember his name off the top of my head anymore, but I recall when I deep-dived into the Gitmo suspects and military tribunals a long time ago, there was a judge's name who constantly kept popping up in the paperwork of related terrorism cases. Seemed like he was one of the designated "terrorism judges" who had the clearance and authority to review classified intel and info and make determinations on what can be used and presented. I believe he is from the Virginia district courts possibly
Yes, the judge I was referring to was a district court judge in the US (I believe in the state of Virginia but not positive) who hears terrorism cases and makes decisions on whether the classified evidence the prosecution wants to withhold is actually worthy of being withheld -- i.e. if it's actually a threat to national security to disclose, and whether that national security risk outweighs the need for the defendant to be presented with all the evidence used against him to mount a defense. Also, if there is any way to present the evidence with redactions so that the defense can see it, but not reveal sources/methods etc.
Prosecuting cases that depend on classified national security material is nothing new really when it comes to the federal courts. There is a system in place to do so. The military tribunals are an entirely different beast, although some might say different sides of the same coin. I'm inclined to go with the latter, although I don't think the federal courts are quite as bad as the military tribunals in terms of fairness to defendants.
The issue is that they (i.e. government) have always done this. I'm only 35, but I remember this being very clear immediately after 9/11. You just say the boogeyman is terrorism, and that is used to justify end-runs around the constitution via the "PATRIOT" Act, etc. etc. Before terrorism, the excuse was communism. Maybe I'm just cynical now or read too much "1984" as a teenager, but I feel like there will always be a new boogeyman that they use to justify more authority, more powers, and all the while saying it's for our own good and to 'protect' us.