fukusa

Isn't this the Do Not Track (DNT) header? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track

Do you have a short position on Bitcoin?

They are watching all of you.

"Be Careful Celebrating Google’s New Ad Blocker. Here’s What’s Really Going On." I really don't like these kind of titles.

How can the online market function if some services are throttled?

I recommend pi-hole if you have a Raspberry Pi laying around: https://github.com/pi-hole/pi-hole

Messages are circulating on social media that it has something to do with a datacenter fire. I assume this is not the case?

Good to know, couldn't find that on their website.

As far as I understand this doesn't encrypt communication but authenticates it to ensure it hasn't been tampered with. So it's still out in the open. I also don't understand what the benefit over DNSSEC is.

Edit: Nvm, DNSSEC still has to trust the validating resolver, DNSCrypt solves this.

f

30 potential trackers on a single page and even the video player is a tracker.

1. Is the NSA capable of doing it? YES 2. Does the NSA have a reason to do it? YES

(Fear for) 'Terrorism' is the Swiss knife of government/law enforcement. They can use it to justify/enforce ANY policy they would normally not be able to.

Bill Gates is an influential person and his opinion matters to many people. Some media outlets seem to claim he sided with the FBI. He denies this. It seems to me that he is trying to say that there is a way for Apple to decrypt the phone without providing a backdoor. What's interesting in my opinion is how these so-called independent media outlets are (deliberately?) misinterpreting his words to use the authority of Bill Gates to influence public opinion. I am not saying this is a move by the FBI, but ...

Here's another one: https://theintercept.com/2015/07/13/another-terror-arrest-an...

And another one: https://theintercept.com/2015/04/29/tamerlan-tsarnaevs-path-...

More: https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/fbi-manufacture-plots-te...

And more: https://theintercept.com/2015/02/25/isis-material-support-pl...

Then there's this: https://theintercept.com/2015/01/16/latest-fbi-boast-disrupt...

And this: https://theintercept.com/2015/06/25/fort-dix-five-terror-plo...

Most of the terrorist attacks taking place in the USA are staged by the FBI: https://theintercept.com/2015/03/16/howthefbicreatedaterrori...

Those who disagree with surveillance often don't understand the full implications

No, those invading countries, killing people with drones, torturing people in concentration camps, creating even more animosity against the USA don't understand the full implications. Why aren't we talking about those implications?

Many Americans believe in following the law no matter what.

But if the government breaks the law, it's OK? When others do it, they're traitors?

Just return self, no else, no?

Most of that $1000 will be injected back into the economy (people will spend it), the money does not evaporate. It is more sustainable than you think.

It could have been laying around. "We'll use this when we need to"

There have been dozens of publicly disclosed terror plots interrupted against the USA alone

Many of these terror plots are orchestrated by the FBI. Source: https://theintercept.com/2015/03/16/howthefbicreatedaterrori...

As I have said before: (Islamist) extremism is mostly reactionary. The cause is not Islam.

Daesh has a mother: the invasion of Iraq. But it also has a father: Saudi Arabia and its religious-industrial complex. Until that point is understood, battles may be won, but the war will be lost. Jihadists will be killed, only to be reborn again in future generations and raised on the same books. The attacks in Paris have exposed this contradiction again, but as happened after 9/11, it risks being erased from our analyses and our consciences.

The best summary I have read so far.

It just happens to be so that the people from the countries we have been interfering with for the last decades are mostly Muslim. Before that it was relatively peaceful and extremism was nearly non-existent. The current anti-Western extremism is reactionary.

Like I said, religion is just being used to justify the crime. Like fighting terrorism is being used as an excuse to justify our own crimes (spying on people, torturing people, bombing with drones causing civilian casualties etc.).

That won't help one bit. You make the assumption that extremism originates from religion while it can originate from any kind of ideology. Religion is not the source of violent extremism, just the most convenient justification. Not to mention banning another religion (a very extremist thing to do by the way) is completely impractical and will only increase the division between religious and non-religious people which will only fuel the fire.

I am not blaming the victims at all. For example: You could call many people living in the hood 'bad people' because of the crimes they commit but are they really 'bad people' or do they eventually commit these crimes because of the situation they grow up in and the disadvantages they have had in life? By stating this, am I blaming the victims of armed robberies, of theft of murder? Of course I am not. I just think we should have a nuanced rational discussion about how we can prevent crimes instead of discussing about offenders and victims, bad people and good people.

The problem is that by calling them 'bad people' you imply that they committed the crime because they were 'bad people'. And that's the core of the problem. They were not 'bad people' before they committed the crime. They were just people in need of help. By focusing on how they were 'bad people' you make it seem like you haven't contributed to the problem and there is no other solution then to fight them (using violence) while in fact there are many things we could have done differently and many things we still can do to prevent these crimes from happening. The fact is that it's much easier to blame it on them for being 'bad people' then to look at the consequences of our own actions.

We have to get rid of this narrative of bad versus good people while we're at it. It removes every bit of nuance from the discussion.