A comedian decides the time is nigh to make an intervention.
Tons of posts are appearing on complaintsboard.com suggesting that MagicJack is indeed a scam.
Link is here.
I have seen a flurry of activity on the internet about this, and more so on the news about the Iranian who worked for the Interior Ministry to secure the IT network and may have been assassinated because he leaked results that showed the government used software to manipulate the election results. Those who have seen his information report that Ahmadinejad actually came in third and that Moussavi received 19 million votes; thus making him president.
News like this must be kept alive and reported on, democracy is at stake.
The article found here reports on a new bill that has been signed into law, and which was reportedly never fully debated in parliament.
Not only is this a great example of a government attempting to regulate the lives of its citizens in the privacy of their home, but it is also an example of the steps politicians are willing to go to ensure re-election. Truly disgusting.
To summarize the article, a Yale scholar suggests that the current interpretation of the Fourth Amendment is not correct. Currently it is interpreted as protecting one’s right to privacy, and forces courts to determine whether it outweighs security.
The Yale scholar believes that the Fourth Amendment does the opposite; namely that it specificly protects the security of our personal lives.
It also states that a “shift to a focus on security allows us to bypass the question of when, exactly, a target’s privacy is violated, and deal with the seemingly more tractable question of how these practices would affect our sense of security if they were known to be in broad use”.
In other words, if adopted, this interpretation would serve to protect our rights better (as in many cases it encompases the standard privacy interpretation), but it also means that governments could spy on their citizens as long as that fact is always kept secret and never revealed.
Found this article about those cartoon villains that always lost to the good guys, but in the grand scheme of things should never have lost to them.