ianterrell

See ... on the advantages of keeping intelligence agencies small.

Excellent resources. For a counterpoint on the specific organization type we're discussing, governments, see libertarianism.

I agree staging a coup is not the same as running a government. Not sure what you point here is.

You brought up coup as a potential consequence of tightened lines of communication and increased secrecy & concentration of power in a few hands. My point was that even in that hypothetical, in order to transition from coup to government you have to widen the circle again, dilute the power, and we're back to the large-ineffective paradigm again. Short term: maybe maybe consequences; long term: same old story.

smaller Clandestine organisations would by necessary [sic] concentrate more power in fewer hands

I think that "by necessity" is not true here. A smaller organization can not do as much as a larger organization. Ok, a handful of people could stage a coup. Then what? They still need bodies for tax collecting, law enforcement, jailers for the secret prisons, whatever. Those people need information to do their jobs, which increases the circle size, etc, and we're back where we started.

Assange's insight into clandestine organizations as information networks that can be disrupted is profound. You get the choice between large, effective, and open; or small, ineffective, and clandestine.

I can't think of a time when I've needed flowers in the next 90 minutes, but if you want flowers even in the next week, you tend to get gouged...

Exactly. I can't think of a time when I've needed flowers in 90 minutes, but I can think of a half a dozen times when I've wanted them same day, and at least a dozen or more when I've wanted them next day without paying a gigantic surcharge.

From the article:

Three government officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters, said the number would be substantially higher if it included other NSA operating units and regional collection centers.

Oh man, that Nokia sound.

I remember in 2002 I was watching a movie in a London theater, and the lights went dark, and the movie was just about to start, and... that Nokia sound went off. The entire theater groaned, "AWWWWWW". And then, another went off, and another, and several more, until it was an absolute cacophony of Nokia sounds.

Then the Nokia logo came on screen, accompanied by the words, "Please silence your cell phones."

The groans turned into sincere chuckles.

That was one of the earliest pre-movie reminders, and still one of the best. And it only worked (full circle here), because that Nokia sound was so iconic.

I always liked this procedurally generated nighttime cityscape by Shamus Young: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-d2-P...

He wrote a whole article series walking you through it, plus source, etc, starting here: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=2940

LinkedIn probably banned them in order to prevent sexism.

I was annoyed at the condescension of "internet meme", and was commenting on that.

When the clear potential for abuse has been thoroughly documented, getting nitpicky on actual abuse seems like a waste of time.

Of course, were I to get nitpicky, I'd say there is documented evidence of abuse (with NYTimes reporting going back years): http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130731/16193324027/nsa-bo...

--

EDIT: I do believe there's a difference between the potential for abuse and actual abuse. But I further believe the potential for abuse from global surveillance is so significant that even the potential is a dire problem in its own right. I was a bit too flippant about that distinction above.

I believe in the literal truth of those statements.

I do not believe it to be likely that the local PD had evidence that would warrant a raid that they obtained on their own through normal local police procedures.

What's the reconciliation?

We know that the local police visited her house, and that the FBI knew about it.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable in trusting the author that the officers said they were with the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which is one of a few plausible ways the FBI would know about local PD activity.

Her credibility on the big fact is established. What are we missing, then? The details on what the questions were? Whether or not they were asked about their Google history? Where the intel came from?

So you still "don't buy this, at all"? Despite a credible news organization's confirmation that the FBI was aware of a local PD's visit to this family?

The mind boggles.

I agree with sensible skepticism and reserving judgment to wait for more facts.[0]

tptacek, on the other hand, led with "I don't buy this, at all", and "if you're trying to sell a hoax", and many more sentences and comments that attack the author and the story.

([0]: The real life complication is that in most cases you will never get all the facts, and so reserving judgment forever ends up being the worst kind of inaction.)

Oh, "internet memes," such pesky things! Why, every time there's a new Chuck Norris joke there are congressional hearings and amendments being debated! Such trouble! And remember that last time someone posted a cute cat video, and congresspeople made statements left and right (some of them even validating what the cat video said)?

My my, what trouble those "internet memes" get us into.

It does make you wonder about the reporting rate on these sorts of events.

Considering the hostile skepticism on the thread about the article Ms Catalano posted, I would not be surprised if other people (especially those without professional writing credentials and a million-strong twitter audience) had decided not to come forward with their stories in the past.

That's your backtrack? That we don't know enough?

How is it OK that the local PD (acting as part of DoJ's Joint Terrorism Task Force) knows any factors that would reasonably lead them to investigate this family?

Regarding gcb0's pointing out of the Streisand Effect:

https://twitter.com/search?q=%40glasslewis&src=typd

Great UI overall. Very pretty. Here are some suggestions:

* From inside the "photo focus view", add swipe based navigation to move through pictures.

* Add an option to unset the content filter. Could even be detected automatically ("You just removed the filter on 3 photos. Want to disable that for a while?").

Shame there's not a way to do the same thing to existing software patents.

What's stopping anyone from crowd sourcing a database of prior art for existing patents that would invalidate them if it came to it?

A valid defense against patent infringement is to show that the patent shouldn't have been issued in the first place, right? So a database of Ready Made Legal Defense sounds good.

Am I missing something?

Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dRw4c11...

Graphics are easier than you'd think (triply true with library support). Just dive in!

I second brudgers re: noble motives and hard work. :)

Follow up question: Have you stuck it in front of kids to see how they take to it?

Without being based in theory, I'm curious how the language works out in practice.

I'm not sure if it's more accurately described as a middle ground or as a niche: Casual gamers who want to play cheap games on their TV, with a controller, and/or with friends. (Another possible interpretation of "midcore.")

I think Towerfall's popularity is due in some measure to hitting that specific formula: cheap & fun same screen multiplayer; "mobile philosophy" on a television.

I do think overall you're right that the casual market wants to play on devices they already own. It would not surprise me if Apple released a WiFi controller & added a dedicated Games store on the AppleTV (using touch screens while looking at a TV just feels awkward).

The reason the major players haven't made a cheap console is because they (Nintendo excepted) are pushing the boundaries of what "cheap enough" hardware can do. That's necessary for the type of games they want to sell -- but it's not necessary for all games.

I fully expect an Ouya/Google/Apple/GameBerryPi/etc to really find a fun loving, large market at a $100 price tag.

That actually isn't the point. No one is saying it's illegal. They're saying it's creepy that the government has a database of your physical whereabouts that they can store and search through for all time.

Of course, the "rules" have indeed changed. It's pedantic to the point of ignorance to only consider laws and reject the context in which those laws were made (pre-wifi-enabled-streetcorner-cameras). The words on paper might not change, but a rule effectively changes when the environment changes around it. Consider also: every other legal issue that intersects with technology.

There is a significant difference between the expectation of privacy as a platonic ideal and the real life expectation of privacy.

For the former, you're of course right: not much has changed! The local police could have posted someone on every street corner to record every license plate that passed -- probably multiple people to account for traffic!

That's no different than cameras, in theory. You have no less privacy with cameras! But in practice, the police didn't do that (to that scale).

So, given that my expectations of privacy are not about logical possibilities, but rather about actual realities, they certainly have changed.

This seems like something Gittip.com could offer as a feature: employees can log in and pick who to contribute to, and the company account they're associated with automatically makes the payment.

Reduce that logistical hurdle to a signup. :)

Here are three polls that show between 41% and 58% disapproval: http://www.imediaethics.org/Blog/3984/Why_3_polls_on_nsa_sno...

Sure, that's far from unanimous, but "widely disapproved of by the general public" doesn't seem like a terrible stretch.

On the subject of polls, this article also shows the meta trends that this discussion is a part of: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/public-o...

Well, the Air Force has already been caught doing it. Why wouldn't everyone else?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/18/revealed-air-force-ord...

He's not actually saying anything. Don't feed the trolls.

I would take Snowden's claims more seriously in general if he were on United States soil

What bearing does which country he's in have on the content of the disclosures? Do you think he fabricated the PRISM slides since he happens to be in Russia right now?