France Broadens Surveillance Powers; Wider Scope Than NSA 169
krakman writes "With the NSA disclosures, French media was 'outraged'. Yet they appear to be worse than the NSA, with a new law that codifies standard practice and provides for no judicial oversight while allowing electronic surveillance for a broad range of purposes, including 'national security,' the protection of France's 'scientific and economic potential' and prevention of ;terrorism' or 'criminality.' The government argues that the law, passed last week with little debate as part of a routine military spending bill, which takes effect in 2015, does not expand intelligence powers. Rather, officials say, those powers have been in place for years, and the law creates rules where there had been none, notably with regard to real-time location tracking. French intelligence agencies have little experience publicly justifying their practices. Parliamentary oversight did not begin until 2007."
Support Freedom Box! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Not on my watch (Score:2)
But the Freedom Box will be located in your home.
Exactly whatever shadowy security (and/or criminal) forces backing it are counting on...
I wouldn't care where it is from, I'm not putting such an obviously open target to mount internal attacks on my home infrastructure in my house.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I may use GPL software, but I have no way to verify what it does. Sorry not a programmer here.
Well I am a programmer, and I trust it even less than you do. Knowing how hard it is to figure out a problem in other people's code I am dubious my own inspection would cough up anything placed there by someone determined to obfuscate it.
Re: (Score:3)
Knowing how hard it is to figure out a problem in other people's code I am dubious my own inspection would cough up anything placed there by someone determined to obfuscate it.
This is true, its very difficult and time consuming to read even a modest amount of code.
But add your eyes to mine, and several hundred others, (maybe thousands), and once verified, all you need do is look at changes. Look very carefully at changes.
Its harder to obfuscate code these days, because its harder to easily turn data blocks into code blocks without attracting attention
to the fact that you did so. DEP [wikipedia.org] has found its way into almost every operating system these days.
Still there are ways to use horrib
Thanks (Score:2, Interesting)
Now everybody wants what the NSA has, and the next time someone brings up human rights, every dictator will brush off the criticism, and will be JUSTIFIED in doing so.
Re: (Score:3)
It's already going on on a smaller scale.
After the US, Germany and a few other countries have adopted the concept of "Free Speech Zones" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone [wikipedia.org] ) the Russians are now planning to do the same: http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-protest-zone-at-2014-sochi-olympics-20131210,0,7900728.story#axzz2n6VNDMNf [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, dictators didn't really care that much in the past either way. They do ignore criticism in all case.
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt that even the French would record and store all telephone conversations made in and via France. Quite apart from the cost, only the American executive class could be do dystopianly gauche.
Goddamnit (Score:2)
I was hoping that if I ever expatriate, France would have been a good choice.
Re:Goddamnit (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you complaining about such a system or just jealous?
In the defense of French secret services -- they were only collecting the MIME-TYPES of the messages. For instance, you Mime might be caught in an invisible box, or being swept away by an invisible wind. Find out the type of mime, makes a big difference but doesn't involve personal information.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry. Knowing the French, they will just use these expanded surveillance powers searching for and punishing users of forbidden "franglais" terms [bbc.co.uk]. Violators will be captured by SWAT teams wearing stylish berets and ascots, then locked in solitary confinement to read "The Little Prince" over and over again for as long as it takes until the next time the jailers go on strike.
And the province of Quebec, Canada will follow suite.
European Union flag (Score:5, Insightful)
This summary displays the European Union flag
As a french citizen, I am getting more and more upset to see the European flag used instead of France's one for stories about France. 10 years ago I was very fond of the EU, but now I realized EU is not a democracy and I am not a EU citizen. It is quite the contrary, as EU project is to destroy democracy.
I wish Slashdot could add a logo for France, even something full of clichés, it will make me more comfortable.
Re: (Score:1)
Why? If TFA is anything to go buy you'll be changing the flag soon anyway... right?
Re: (Score:2)
As an EU citizen you could try to change the institution. However, it is easier to whine about it. And honestly, in most cases things coming down from the EU are planted there by the governments of the member state, so the bad things you talk about are actually from your government.
BTW: France is part of the EU as much as Germany or the Netherlands, therefore it is only fair to summarize all these countries with the EU flag, just like US states are all summarized by the US flag. Yes we are not that one coun
Re: (Score:3)
As an EU citizen you could try to change the institution.
Are you one of these scumbags paid by the European Parliament to troll on forums? Of course one can try though with the current system, it's doomed to failure.
BTW: France is part of the EU as much as Germany or the Netherlands, therefore it is only fair to summarize all these countries with the EU flag, just like US states are all summarized by the US flag. Yes we are not that one country as the US is, but it is very close.
This is not the united states of Europe. Nobody wants that in Europe (I mean, as in, the people doesn't want this, at least anymore). There's more and more sovereign movements raising, and they will get even stronger as time passes. So, it has never been, and never will be fair to replace the flags of individual countries (did you notice I didn't use
Re: (Score:2)
Actually from what I have seen Europe is slowly turning into the united European states. It won't be this generation or the next but when the current kids are running the show It will be talked about more openly.
First comes money sharing, then power sharing, and finally people sharing. as people are more inclined to move around for jobs over time the viewpoint no one wants a united europe will slowly fall to the side.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not the united states of Europe. Nobody wants that in Europe (I mean, as in, the people doesn't want this, at least anymore). There's more and more sovereign movements raising, and they will get even stronger as time passes. So, it has never been, and never will be fair to replace the flags of individual countries (did you notice I didn't use the word state?) by the European flag.
Give it time. That description is very much like the USA pre-civil war when a person's nationality was more often described by their home state rather than as the USA. Then, there will be a crisis that will come along and make or break the EU (many people are looking at the current Euro currency things going on). It could fall the way you want, but then it could fall the other way also.
Re: (Score:2)
But he's not an EU citizen. He's French. The only people who can claim in any sense to be "EU Citizens" are the various political classes across the continent. They (mis)manage, decide and direct the operation of their own countries and the EU in general, in the direction they choose, with or without the consent or support of their general populations.
As un-democratic as that sounds, in the post-war period this attitude among the EU political/executiv
Re: (Score:2)
If it makes you feel better: Note the page background. French flag.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh you are an EU "citizen". You just didn't realize the EU definition of citizen differs substantially from your own.
Re: (Score:3)
You know the European Parliament is parody of a parliament right? The MEP we elect cannot propose a EU directive (only the commission can). They do not have the last word in law making, as the commission can strip the amendments voted by the parliament.The EU parliament only real power is to reject a directive, but that can happen only where it is involved, and for many fields, the EU parliament is not involved at all.
MEP also do not say their word on EU budget. And of course they have to operate within the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, you are right : I cannot prove it is intentional, that is just my own opinion.
But OTOH, the EU being no democracy is a fact, and we can see it moving toward less and less control from the People : is is getting more and more antidemocratic over the time.
Therefore, if this is not intentional, that mean EU leaders are very mediocre professionnals. We should fire them ASAP. Um... Too bad we cannot!
Re: (Score:2)
There are no "good guy" countries here (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what we have learned is that given the opportunity, no country's intelligence/police/security apparatus is truly more ethical than that of other countries. There's a huge difference between cheap, public words spoken by politicians and what's really going on behind the scenes. If they have the technical option, they will collect and spy and monitor whatever they can.
The NSA gets a bad rap, since (a) it has access to most information and thus is most scary and (b) in the US there is the constitution, which at least in principle should curtail certain government activities, giving critics something to use in their fight. In other countries there often aren't the constitutional documents, which aim to codify personal freedoms and liberties in the same way. Therefore, in the US the surveillance opponents at least have a document in their support that they can point at, while the same people in other countries often have no such thing. In that respect, the surveillance debate in the US could be more forceful with at least some ammunition for the opponents. In this regard, other countries aren't that lucky.
However, in the end it's all academic: Surveillance/intelligence agencies will do whatever they damn well feel like doing. Whatever local laws they have will matter little. These are agencies that have secrecy baked into their DNA. They know - for the most part - to keep their activities away from the public and also the politicians for that matter.
Pass whatever laws you want, it won't matter anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Other countries do have things like Canada's "Charter of Rights" section of our Constitution. Just because the US is famous for it's Constitution doesn't mean other countries don't have them.
However, unless/until the leaks come out to document that our nations are involved in spying similar to the NSA, it's not like the agencies in question are going to respond to a FOI request as to whether they're spying within a nation's boundaries or not. While I'm comfortable that CSEC isn't spying within Canada,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But that's why our civil forfeiture laws don't have to break our constitution to be enforced. If you don't have the right to own property, it can be seized.
Re: (Score:2)
It also means children under legal age can't sign purchase contracts. In the US, there could be an argument that even a child has the right to make purchases.
Re: (Score:3)
Two words, you cheesemonkey: Rainbow Warrior.
Re: (Score:2)
I second hognoxious: Well done France.
Misleading title? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the score: they just legalized much more spying than the French people thought was happening. And in their surprised defense they've admitted this is all already being done, and that prior to this French intelligence, and even law enforcement, were believed by the French government to have unlimited powers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Because this is the first time they admitted what was going on.
Re: (Score:2)
This is /. Just like "it's ok if Google does it", the thinking is "it's okay if EUians do it".
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't you be out smoking meth and racing tractors?
You forgot to mention intimate relations with close family members.
Wider scope (Score:3)
Outraged? (Score:4, Interesting)
Are they really outraged? We know the French can get barricades-and-guillotines outraged, or at least their forebearors could.
Or is this more "I shall say snippy things at parties?"
Re: (Score:2)
" We know the French can get barricades-and-guillotines outraged, or at least their forebearors could."
So could ours. Now we are far too comfortable to fight.
Re: (Score:3)
Now we are far too comfortable to fight.
Speaking of which, Owell vs. Huxley [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Jules Verne is apropos here. He wrote Paris in the Twentieth Century in 1863.
From a review: "This novel ... shows Verne in a darker, frankly dystopian mood. His mid-20th century Paris is an enormously wealthy society, a place of technological wonders, but, like Huxley's Brave New World, it is also a society without meaningful art. Engineering and banking are the prime industries of this civilization and, as the book's protagonist discovers, not even the most talented poet can find a place for himself unle
Re: (Score:1)
The French political system traditionally involves street-demostration-cum-riot-level protest a lot more often than most other countries, definitely more often than America's.
Generally, controversial measures get passed into law before most people even know about them. Then, if enough people care, there are street demos with options on violence, which are contained rather than put down by police. Then the law gets changed to something more acceptable.
It's the common French pattern, in contrast to the US sys
France made it legal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No. Every french governement since the 4th republic has legally spied on the French public with little/no reaction by the press or public. Pompidou asked Kennedy "How can you control the population whe you do not control the radio or the TV as we do?"
The Start (Score:2)
Pompidou asked Kennedy "How can you control the population when you do not control the radio or the TV as we do?"
Thus the Democratic party's relationship to the modern day press. Thanks a ton for the suggestion Pompidou.
At least the press do the jobs they are supposed to do when Republicans are in office, it's ashamed they are asleep at the switch the other half of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
I can has two cellphones! (Score:1)
"Lets fit everyone with a radio tracking device so we know where they are at all times"
"What, they would never allow that, it would never work"
2013
I can has two cellphones!
Mission achieved
Damn I thought our news sucked (Score:1)
French media was 'outraged'. Yet they appear to be worse then the NSA
that's some hard core reporting!
Re: (Score:1)
European SIGINT is much worse than the US SIGINT in many cases. While they tend to be stronger regulated, the SIGINT in Europe is effectively tapping every fiberoptic cable in the EU. NSA fiberoptic taps are on exit / entry points in the US, european state SIGINT taps the fiberoptic cables on exit / entry points of the country.
Consequently, if I email someone in NY from California, it is likely that the email content will never pass an NSA collection point/tap. If do something similar in Europe, say email f
Not sure it's any different (Score:2)
With the revelation of the NSA having collection points on an internal network between data centers, it sure seems like there's not a way to send any email within the U.S. without going through a collection point.
Boundaries: real vs. legal? (Score:2)
Are the French legal guidelines broader than the US legal guidelines. Broader than what the NSA and CIA are known to do? Narrower than what the French are known to do?
Thanks to Snowden we know the US agencies have exceeded their legal boundaries (or at the very least operated in secret to avoid any legal or constitutional challenge.) What is the situation in France WRT their intelligence agencies and their laws.
I commend the French govt ! (Score:2)
I don't like this practice.
But if at least they have the balls to admit it, put in the law, and let everybody know that in France you're being watched, then I'm kind of ok with it.
Not happy, grinning, but ok.
At least they have the balls to be transparent.
I wish the USA did the same, aka: "Complain all you want, but the NSA will continue to do it, if you don't want to be tracked at all, don't use the internet, don't use a cell phone, live a early 20th century live.
Obilgatory Claude Raines Reaction (Score:3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME [youtube.com]
"Yet they appear to be worse then the NSA" (Score:2)
Does the editor not understand grammar? Seriously...
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
That's because you're a stupid racist fuck.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And what about the Catholics. (Score:5, Insightful)
If say 30 -50% of them profess their loyalty to the pope before the country then do you profile them?
That's not comparable. The "ummah" isn't a person or even an institution, it means "community." What the racist fuck has lost his head over is the equivalent of someone saying he's 'loyal' to his fellow christians no matter what country they live in.
Re: (Score:2)
What the racist fuck has lost his head over is the equivalent of someone saying he's 'loyal' to his fellow christians no matter what country they live in.
That's not exactly how he formulated it, though. What he actually meant is the equivalence of saying that he has a problem with someone being more loyal to his fellow Christians in other countries, than to his fellow non-Christian citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
A religion != a race, you thick fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
> A religion != a race, you thick fuck.
Right. The real problem here is the use of the word racist instead of bigot. He totally deserved to be called a thick fuck for mixing up two faces of the same coin. The actual bigotry, that's not a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't change your race, so it's a bit unfair to bag on people over it. Same with spackers.
However religion is your choice, so it's a perfectly valid basis for criticism, especially if you choose a stupid one.
Re: (Score:2)
However religion is your choice, so it's a perfectly valid basis for criticism, especially if you choose a stupid one.
So any criticism about something the person can change is not bigotry. How convenient for all the assholes of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Is Islam a race now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Islam (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather take the chance of mass surveillance being misused
This sort of attitude is why we're rapidly losing freedom and privacy in some areas.
Re:Islam (Score:5, Insightful)
We could start with the entire process of getting on an airplane. Due to my 4th amendment rights, I should be able to board a plane without being searched by a government agent unless there is reasonable suspicion that I'm committing a crime. If the airport's or airline's private security wishes to search me, that's between me and them as private entities.
There's also the 100 mile zone where the Department of Homeland Security claims they don't need warrants for searches.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/aclu-assails-10/
Re: (Score:2)
You should really start referring to them as "my opinions of how the 4th amendment works". As far as I can tell, not a single practicing or academic legal authority has ever endorsed this construction.
Now, of course, it's a free country -- you can represent your views however you want. But you don't get to pick your facts and you definitely don't get to reinterpret the law just because you don't like it (hellooo segregationists).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The question isn't what the 4th Amendment says, but what does it mean, how does it apply legally under the given circumstances? There are many searches that the courts have found that require no warrant, boarding a plane is among them, along with sobriety checkpoints, and border crossings. Beyond that, there is the issue of Article II powers and how they play into this. Napolitano takes no notice of this issue, but the courts have, and it has a role, not to mention actions by Congress involving Article I
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, not a single practicing or academic legal authority has ever endorsed this construction.
Why would that be? Because they are complicit in the crimes against the American people. The correct interpretations of the fourth amendment are ignored because they do not provide as much power to the government. To me, these are blatant violations of the fourth amendment, but I wouldn't expect bootlickers like cold fjord to understand that.
But you don't get to pick your facts and you definitely don't get to reinterpret the law just because you don't like it (hellooo segregationists).
Much like courts' interpretations aren't magically automatically correct. Of course, if you need an authority figure to tell you how to think in the land of the free an
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, why should we trust judges when they explain the law? And what's with these pesky biologists trying to explain biology. And don't get me started on mathematicians telling me that I'm doing matrix multiplication wrong! And historians! Talking about history!
Anti-intellectualism at its finest.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, why should we trust judges when they explain the law?
Why should we trust judges to be automatically correct when they interpret a document that was written in plain English in a way that gives the government (which they are part of) more power? The Supreme Court overruled itself in the past. Would you believe everything they say? Do you not have a mind of your own?
Fact is, I read the constitution and I don't see where such ridiculous interpretations make any sense whatsoever.
Anti-intellectualism at its finest.
Authority worship at its finest. In fact, I'd say it's more like anti-intellectualism
Re: (Score:2)
It's sad that some people living in a country founded on a distrust of government need authority figures to tell them how to think.
Re:Islam (Score:5, Insightful)
So, there is no actual freedom being lost then when boarding an airplane since you are still free to travel.
Just like freedom of speech isn't being infringed upon if you force people into a free speech zone; they're still allowed to speak, after all! Let's apply this logic to an entire city: If you live in a certain city, you sign away your fourth amendment rights and give the government permission to search you whenever they please. Don't like it? Move. You still have that freedom, so it's okay!
The searches for boarding an airplane go back about 40-50 years.
That's utterly irrelevant, and the TSA wasn't molesting people 40-50 years ago.
They are completely legal and don't infringe on your 4th amendment rights.
If you need a court to tell you how to think, then you're nothing more than a mindless drone. It's sad how people in a country that was founded on a distrust of government put so much trust in the government and even allow it to control how they think.
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech is the big one. As long as the government is listening in on your conversations it puts a damper on speech, especially political speech. Want to run for office? It's much harder to win when the opposition can listen in on all your strategy sessions.
The right to fundamental justice is another one. The prosecution listening in on client lawyer conversations gives the prosecution an unfair advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
Is anyone actually being held back by this, though? The fact that you might be a crack addict who sleeps with interns while hanging out with crime lords is something that can easily be found out by the news media anyway. If you are that sort of person to begin with, perhaps you shouldn't be in government.
What information is the NSA going to provide that is going to cause problems for legitimately non-criminal candidates? You don't need the NSA to frame someone.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the central jobs of a state is to protect it people by any means necessary and then some that aren't.
No, it's not. The constitution is the highest law of the land, and any powers not given to the government are not powers the government has. The government can't violate people's rights to give them 'safety'.
If you can't trust your state to spy for your best interests perhapes it is time to move to another state.
Selfish nonsense. I believe they should only spy against explicit enemies. Perhaps you only care about things that benefit you, but I don't want government thugs spying on random people and people in my country.
Being a U.Sian I have not problem what so ever with the NSA.
Not going to say it again. [slashdot.org]
Intelligence has saved lives. Lives that you will never know about due to the classification.
And yet you're gullible enough to believe these thugs even when th
Re:Islam (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, jackboots feel pretty much the same whether they're European or Muslim. Neither 'side' has a particularly defensible history. The harder question to answer is how effective a surveillance society actually is. Does monitoring every phone call, watching every street corner help you much?
My guess, given the lack of examples the NSA / FBI / CIA have trotted out is that the answer is 'no'. I'd rather take the chance that somebody will 'slip through' rather than live in a police society. Even counting up every terrorist action everywhere, one doesn't create a particularly dangerous environment. If you want to be rational about this, you would first ban cars, alcohol, cigarettes, guns, knives, kitchen utensils and cell phones. They are arguably more dangerous than 'terrorists'.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They feel much better when I am the one wearing them. That goes for pretty much all footwear, except perhaps stiletto heels.
Re: (Score:1)
That rules out a promising career as a stripper.
Re: (Score:3)
They can do it for economic reasons, which means spying on foreign companies. That might be more advantageous to the average French than counterterrorism.
Re: (Score:3)
Besides that, it's not a chance that 'mass surveillance' will be misused by the government, it's only a matter of when.
If it can be misused for the purposes of furthering political power, it will be, it's always been as simple as that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't mistake being regularly "religious" for being a candidate for terrorism. Most of these "jihadis" become full-on religious only fairly late in the process. I'm less worried about the regular mosque-goers than I am about fairly recent converts or the kids brought up Islamic, but who didn't care about it until they were lured in by extremist recruiters. The more you are educated about a particular religion, the less chance they can pull the wool over your eyes with their radicalized version of that re
Re:Islam (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you ever been an immigrant? Ever seriously talked to one? They left their home country for a reason - as often as not, because they have an oppressive autocracy, theocracy or dictatorship. They tend to love their new country more than their old, and why not? You love France because you were born there by random chance. They love it because they looked at every country in the world, and decided France was the best one to emigrate to.
So immigrants tend to embrace their new culture. Most people who fled Soviet Bloc countries turned into ardent haters of communism - why wouldn't people who fled Muslim theocracies turn out to be pretty ardent haters of Muslim theocracies? They may keep the religion, but in a more moderate, modern form instead of the controlling throwback currently dominant in the Arab region.
And those are first-generation immigrants. What about their children? They'll raise them Muslim, of course, but they'll raise them *French*. They'll be well-educated and (knowing children) liberal. They'll hear the stories about how bad the home country was, and unless their new country does something to disillusion them (like your racist shitspouting) they'll be patriotic for *that* country, not some country they've never been to and hear only bad things about.
Since you call them the "Fifth Column", look at the supposed Japanese "Fifth Column". According to US Army reports from the time, most Japanese immigrants were Americans first, and the concentration camps not only went against the best intelligence, but was outright counterproductive, turning Japanese-Americans against America. And then look up the 442nd Infantry Regiment - Japanese-Americans fighting for America in WW2. With 3800 members, they earned nearly 9500 Purple Hearts (severely wounded or killed in action), 4000 Bronze Stars (acts of heroism or merit in combat) and 21 Medals of Honor (the absolute highest award in the US military). Oh, and they fought many of their battle in France - your country, in a small part, owes its current non-fascist existence to immigrants fighting against allies of their native land on behalf of a country that imprisoned their families for the very logic you support.
If you are an example of the other 90-95% of France, I think your country might be better off if you do let the Muslims take over. I know my fair share of people of that religion, and none of them are as reactionary and racist as you seem to be.
Re:Islam (Score:4, Insightful)
And those are first-generation immigrants. What about their children?
That's actually the interesting question here. First-generation immigrants from Muslim countries in Europe are exactly how you've described above - they tend to appreciate and support the increased freedom of their new society. Their kids, for some mysterious reason, not so much. All the extremist Sharia BS is much more popular among Muslim second- and third-generation immigrant youth than it is among their parents. That's where you get those insane numbers from, like 20% of youth in favor of Islamic law in UK.
Perhaps it is because they don't know how life has actually been where they came from, while on the other hand there's a Saudi-funded and trained Salafi preacher in the nearby mosque who tells them epic stories about heroic mujahideen fighting the forces of Satan. One thing that our free societies aren't particularly good at, is immunizing people against aggressive brainwashing by professionals who know very well which strings to pull.
I honestly don't know why European countries don't put an absolute ban on any travel by Saudi clerics to their territory. That alone would cut forced radicalization of their youth significantly. Better yet, embargo KSA completely, and destroy it by economic means (which, due to the structure of their economy, is very feasible). Not only is that country breeding terrorism in our societies, but their own society is so retrograde and oppressive that it rivals North Korea. Dismantling it is both in our interests, and in the interests of most of their people (other than the ruling elite).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Voltaire (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Crush any law that provides for no judicial oversight.
I've learned we can't trust our own judges not to knuckle under to government pressure. Still, when you start out by denying judicial oversight, there is no chance or unringing that bell.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are referring to the USA, we know we are being watched. It's in the news every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry if this seems fussy. I keep feeling that I need to suspend my disbelief each time
I see obviously bad grammar in posts.
Hey lighten up, it's not like programming is a field where you need to be able to understand syntax and type keywords exactly, right?
Re: (Score:2)
"With the NSA disclosures, French media was 'outraged'. Yet they appear to be worse then the NSA
Dear USA,
You wrote these new rules, now we (and everybody else who used to be your friends and allies) will play by them. Please stop complaining, you asked for it.
Sincerely,
The French
Oh good, a nice little French poodle to go along with the British bulldog we've been toying with for years.
Sincerely,
'Murica. Fuck yeah.