I really don't know. The only thing I know is that my email account connected to my Netflix was not compromised. There was a big list (1000+ accounts) that was for sale - I have this list in my possession and have passed it on to Netflix. Waiting for them to notify customers but yet to receive an email (notified Netflix 5 hours ago).
I wonder if my account is in that list. I got my account taken over by a hacker close to a year ago. I had to call and get it reset. The only way I knew for sure it was hacked was because the devices they listed contained 1 that I did not own.
I have been a 'victim' a few times ever since the LinkedIn and Adobe brecaches awhile ago. It even happened as early as 2 weeks back. It's becuause I'm a fool and use the same password multiple times. Now, I don't going forward.
Netflix may be contacting the local police and letting them know about you, this list of information stolen from their systems that you sent them, and how you told them it was for sale. You may hear from the police before you hear from Netflix.
That's why I said "aspects of". If I fully disagreed with a project and thought it was evil, I wouldn't work on it.
However, that's not normally the case. There may be aspects I disagree with, and if you get to do research, you can often show problems and affect the direction of the project. But after all, I could be wrong. I've done enough research to know that :)
I would not actually suggest this as a strategy, since you almost certainly won't beat the market. Again, dumb luck. 75% of my investments are in index funds. If you're investing solely for returns, they should be substantially 100% of your equity allocation. (My last 25% is my concession to a deep-seated desire to play WoW with real money.)
As an alternative, "invest in the CEOs you like". One of my fathers better investments was in Rolls Royce, which was based on a chance encounter with the then CEO on a bridge in London watching rowing.
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that taxation is necessary for surveillance.
What I'm proposing is that regulation is one way of legitimizing the role of surveillance. The government has a reason to be involved by virtue of the fact that it's made regulations.
I did a bad job in conveying that idea above. It's certainly possible my analysis is utterly incorrect as well.
Public safety and homeland security are primary functions of the FCC. When government decides to censor, surveil, or manipulate information in the future it seems likely it will be instrumented through the FCC as that relationship was used to do the same for radio and television in the past.
This timeline shows 3 indictments for journalistic sources during the Obama administration (I'm not counting Kiriakou, who was his own source, and leaked CIA secrets during the promotion of a book he wrote, but even if I did, that's 4 indictments, not a half-dozen, and even fewer imprisonments).
So, back to my question:
Who are the half-dozen imprisoned journalistic sources Coll is referring to? I'm sure he's not just making it up!
FWIW: I have done some research here; I asked a similar question the last time the sound bite about Obama/Holder's leak prosecution zealousness came up:
Yes, the evidence would be every Espionage Act prosecution under the Obama administration. Which are more numerous than the total of every previous administration since 1917.
If you could justify how that's not worrisome that would be great.
If you read the link I posted upthread, I won't have to repeat my response to the claim that Obama is more zealous about the Espionage Act than his predecessors.
