« Igor Birman for Congress | Main | The Larger Train Wreck Still Looms »

07 September 2013

Comments

Russ Steele

The first thing the Government has to do is regain our trust. And, in my mind that that is going to take regime change, with the appointment of highly ethical and trusted agency heads. That is if there are any left to appoint.

Regime change is a few years away with too much time for mischief of the worst kind. We have already learned about “loveInt” the reading of wife, husband, girl friend, boy friend and hot looking neighbors e-mails.

And, there are hints that some of NSA e-mails were put to political use. Trust once lost is hard to gain back.

Joe Koyote

Regime change isn't going to work. We have had regime change and nothing much changed except the rhetoric. We need systemic changes like campaign finance reform and a multiple party system that requires cooperation and coalition building rather than bullying and stand-offs. The ethical and trusted individuals aren't going to come from the current method of appointing foxes to guard the henhouse. I think those individuals must come from the general public, people without monetary or political ties to the areas they are assigned to oversee. Otherwise there will be built in bias and conflicts of interest. Of course, finding those people and getting them to step up to the plate is another matter. I guess we can all dream on..

Ryan Mount

When Mark Zuckerberg proclaimed in 2010 that age of privacy was over, or more specifically, that companies that protect customers and users' privacy are following "norms,"* I just thought he was being an irreverent and snarky Millennial. For it appears that the upcoming generation, judging on their Tumblr pages, don't seem to "get" what all this privacy fuss is about. They embrace the "I haven't don't anything wrong (that you know about), so why should I be worried?" ostrich head in hole method.

But Zuckerberg's observation seems to be far more insidious than the "we're giving the people what they want because that's the new norm" speech in light of these new Snowden disclosures. Zuckerberg, perhaps, was not talking about market conditions as much as he was discussing how his company is handing over data to the government.

* http://readwrite.com/2010/01/09/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov

Gregory

I just finished three days of jury duty and had reached my tolerance limit going through the bloody metal detector. I do not own a belt that won't set off the thing.

"It's very sensitive"

The amount of metal in my smallest belt buckle isn't enough to make a knife. Penn & Teller have a great bit (I saw it live) where they roll out the metal detector they bought that appears identical to the one at the courthouse, and how they get set for the peasants who progressively undress for the sensitive settings, and how VIP's breeze through at the settings that are OK for the ruling classes.

"Sir, this is for your own protection".

"The bloody hell it is, it's for the jobs of the three or four armed officers sitting and standing around to make sure the Nevada County courthouse is safe from al-Qaida sneak attacks" is what I didn't say.

"It's never going back to the way it was"

"It's hard to roll back stuff like this after it's in place" is what I did say.

Your tax money at work. I never felt threatened when visiting the courthouse, until now. Submitting to a search when fulfilling one's duty to be a juror wasn't a requirement for the first two centuries of the Republic and it shouldn't be a part of the next two centuries, either.

George Rebane

Gregory 249pm - Amen!

Russ Steele

Gregory@2:49PM

I second George's Amen!

rlcrabb

Years ago, there was a nasty divorce trial that ended prematurely when the husband pulled out a gun and shot his wife's lawyer. The metal detector has been there ever since. How would you handle security?

Ryan Mount

Wut? It only takes one nutsack with a weapon to make it a very bad day at the courthouse. People visiting/serving there should have a reasonable level of confidence in their security.

A metal detector is an inconvenience at worst and is perfectly reasonable. Heck, people are more compliant at the McDonalds drive thru. (not sure about that) On the upside, my guess is one might find a treasure chest of knives and other weapons stashed out in the front courthouse bushes at 8:45am each morning. Because the courthouse certainly attracts the most esteemed unarmed members of our community, right?

Anyhow, the detectors are also a product of a few nutsacks across the country (and locally) doing some heinous crimes in public buildings. And I'm assuming that everyone(police, judges, lawyers, etc) goes through the detector. If not, they should. They better.

I got to say nutsack thrice. Four times, actually.

Joe Koyote

It only took one nutsack with a shoe bomb to cause us all to take our shoes off whenever we fly. the odds of getting shot in a courthouse are much better than the odds of getting blown up by a shoe bomb on an airliner.

Al


One ponders on intercepted/modified black-box electronic vote fraud, congressional and judicial donkey pictures/blackmail, elegibility documents, free market foreknowledge,
MSM news advisement/crafting and polling results, etc.

Bill Tozer

History lesson for today: The NSA originally hatched up a plan to spy on the inside of everybody's belly button. They went to the powers to be in the judiciary, aka, the 3rd Branch of Government and were given the "No Way, Jose" answer. So, they plowed ahead anyway using the ole back door. Wasn't it the Allman Brothers that sang that song "I'm A Backdoor Man"?

Appears Google and others are feeling the heat from consumers. They are announcing that all your data is secure and kept from prying eyeballs. Yah, rrrrrighhhhttttt. Is good, no? The information highway is awaiting you boys and girls. Just jump on those keyboards and follow the yellow brick road.

I recall about 20 years ago a firm came up with an encryption that not even The Shadow Government could crack. Think it was a bank. They were told by our Big Brothers in Washington that they could not use that encryption to protect customers' data. No way. Not now, not ever. Or else. Long time no come see.

Q:"President Obama. why did you spent 53 billion dollars to spy on us?"
A: "Look over there, Syria has chemical weapons. Look over there. Them mean Republicans have shut down White House tours."

George Rebane

I guess we are out of ideas about the impact of programs like NSA's Bullrun on our way of life. I admit it's much easier to talk about metal detectors catching terrorists.

Gregory

"Years ago, there was a nasty divorce trial that ended prematurely when the husband pulled out a gun and shot his wife's lawyer. The metal detector has been there ever since. How would you handle security?"

Have a secure location for trials when a high level of anger is a concern. That isn't the case 99.99% of the time, and certainly isn't the case for jurors.

A bunch of people also got shot in a restaurant not all that long ago, and our local greasy spoons haven't sprouted the damn things.

A metal detector set to detect a gun barrel would have let me walk in without emptying my pockets of change, keys, wallet or removing my belt every day. The damn thing never did let my Birkenstocks through (the two tiny metal buckles were enough to scream terrorist), so, hide your deadly weapons in a false Birkie bottom, they'll never suspect it.

Walt

Ahhh,,, the joys of jury duty. Did ya' "hang'm" of set'm free?

Speaking of the courthouse,, why is it that just about every hobby I have
(or had at this point) has been, or is about to become outlawed, or jackboot restricted? A weekend gold digg'n in the creek is just about a capitol offence these days, You can't show up at a gun range without fear
of getting jacked up by a undercover cop " checking" to see if you gun happens to still be legal.( in the state.)At least this week it still was .
Now, my remote controlled airplane seems to be deemed a terrorist weapon, and "must be outlawed". See the verbiage to the proposed law? "Reich’s submission of her ordinance banning the use of civilian unmanned aerial vehicles.". Where is this insanity going to end?
If you go to The Union's web site today, right along with that story, you will find a nice picture of the IMM silos. Any bets that photo was taken from one of those evil "drones"?
How about this idea? If it's hovering over your property, you have the right to shoot it down? ( There happens to be a city somewhere issuing hunting permits just for that.) Or is the proposed ordinance to keep the cop's "drone" from being used for target practice, since it would only theirs allowed in the air?
Yes,, LIBS demand every activity be regulated. No matter what.

The comments to this entry are closed.