One of the things that civil liberties activists like to lament about is that the general public seems to care more about Google and Facebook using their personal data to target advertising than the government using it to target drone strikes.
Sitting in a restaurant with a friend recently, I asked a simple question: How many cameras are in this place?
Enhancing cybersecurity is important--and Congress should take meaningful steps to protect cyberspace. But the Senate's Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) would be a mistake.
While there is nothing new about espionage or hacking, the size and depth of these attacks make them extremely serious. The ubiquity of technology and poor security have caused both crime and surveillance to skyrocket in frequency and specificity.
We cannot forget that real love and connection is a person-to-person experience. We need eye-contact and touch to experience connection, not just a screen.
Cybersecurity threats change on a daily basis, and BSA member companies are at the forefront of these battles. BSA urges the Senate to pass legislation that gives a helping hand to these companies and provides government necessary tools in the continuing fight against cyber crime.
So, if inherent in the ruling is the underlying acceptance that everyone is equal under the law and that our relationships are legit, therefore there is no reason to hide our relationships or enable others to hide: This is the "new" gay-positive/post-bigoted America: The court has basically said so.
The "security vs. liberty" strawman argument remains the rhetorical weapon of choice for National Security State officials terrified by the spread of public encryption technologies. They argue that, absent some form of technological "back door" to break into private encrypted communications, federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies will be blinded, unable to fend off potential terrorist attacks here at home.
Reputation. It is hard to get, hard to maintain, hard to control; especially in an era of hacking by governments and criminals alke.
Facebook's policy disproportionately affects certain categories of users, and whether intentional or not, that's discriminatory as well as dangerous for many. So, Zuck, let's cut through the confusion and make things perfectly clear: it's time for Facebook to be accountable to its community and delete this policy once and for all.
You'll never know where the next "hit" is going to come from, but if or when it does, the efforts brought into it should certainly pay off.
There's a growing bipartisan push in some states to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether in a surprisingly good, "smaller government" way. SamePageNation's "There's a Contract for That" imagines what life might look like and pokes fun at the outlandish extremes some have suggested would be possible.
The same week the Supreme Court voted to recognize same sex marriages, the Justices upheld another important human right: the right to privacy. On June 22, the Supreme Court struck down a Los Angeles city law requiring hotels to turn over guest information to local authorities.
FBI Director James Comey published a column on July 6, 2015, calling for a robust public debate about the benefits and costs of strong encryption that protects users' privacy and overall network security. I join Director Comey in that call.
The public needs to understand the risks and benefits of putting connected sensors into our gadgets, appliances, homes, cars and cities and connecting them to external networks.