Most favored nation clauses - state ban ends antitrust ...

Do I sound more like a Democrat or Republican?

Here are my positions -
  1. Should the federal government institute a mandatory buyback of assault weapons? No
  2. Should a business be able to deny service to a customer if the request conflicts with the owner’s religious beliefs? If they are not engaged in interstate commerce, the Federal Government shouldn't hold any power to legislate on the matter. At the state level (and federal if interstate) Yes, so long as they are not discriminating on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, transgender, or other uncontrollable factors.
  3. Should the government continue to fund Planned Parenthood? Yes, with oversight to make sure the money is going o where it is supposed to.
  4. Should universities provide “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” for students? No
  5. Do you support the death penalty? Generally no, with the possible exception of treason during an insurrection or invasion.
  6. Should the government support a separation of church and state by removing references to God on money, federal buildings, and national monuments? No, this is referring to God as a concept.
  7. Should businesses be required to have women on their board of directors? No
  8. Do you support the legalization of same sex marriage? Yes, through a constitutional amendment. At the state level, yes.
  9. Should the military allow women to serve in combat roles? Yes as long as they meet the same physical standards as men and pass the same tests.
  10. Should marital rape be classified and punished as severely as non-marital rape? This should be a state-level issue, but yes.
  11. Should terminally ill patients be allowed to end their lives via assisted suicide? Only if there is no chance of survival.
  12. Should hate speech be protected by the first amendment? It is, and yes.
  13. Should gay couples have the same adoption rights as straight couples? Yes
  14. Should states be allowed to display the Confederate flag on government property? They have the right, but I would prefer my state not.
  15. Should women be allowed to wear a Niqāb, or face veil, to civic ceremonies? I am not fully certain. I am leaning towards yes, as long as another woman has verified her identity.
  16. Should welfare recipients be tested for drugs? Only if they have a criminal history related to drug abuse.
  17. Should employers be required to pay men and women the same salary for the same job? This shouldn't be a federal issue unless it involves interstate commerce. But at the state-level (and federal if interstate), Yes if they work the same positions and for the same hours and conditions.
  18. Should there be fewer or more restrictions on current welfare benefits? More, reform it so it supplements, rather than replaces, an income.
  19. Should the government raise the federal minimum wage? The federal government should not have the power to enact minimum wage laws unless it involves interstate commerce, in which case yes, it should be $15 an hour. Each state should be able to set its own laws on the matter.
  20. Should the government make cuts to public spending in order to reduce the national debt? No.
  21. Should the U.S. increase tariffs on imported products from China? Yes, China should be punished for violations of international law.
  22. Should businesses be required to provide paid leave for full-time employees during the birth of a child or sick family member? At the state-level, yes. At the federal level, yes, if they are involved in interstate commerce.
  23. Should the government increase the tax rate on profits earned from the sale of stocks, bonds, and real estate? Capital gains should be taxed the same as ordinary income.
  24. Should the current estate tax rate be decreased? No, I am satisfied with the current system.
  25. Should the U.S. continue to participate in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)? No.
  26. Should the President offer tax breaks to individual companies to keep jobs in the U.S.? No, but put tariffs on all imported goods.
  27. Should the government prevent “mega mergers” of corporations that could potentially control a large percentage of market share within its industry? No.
  28. Do you believe labor unions help or hurt the economy? Help, in theory, but are sometimes harmful.
  29. Should the government break up Amazon, Facebook and Google? No.
  30. Should the government add or increase tariffs on products imported into the country? Yes, all imported goods should be taxed 20%.
  31. Should the U.S. raise or lower the tax rate for corporations? Keep at current rate, but close all loopholes.
  32. Should the government require businesses to pay salaried employees, making up to $46k/year, time-and-a-half for overtime hours? At the state level, yes. At the federal level, only if they are involved in interstate commerce.
  33. Do you support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)? No.
  34. Would you favor an increased sales tax in order to reduce property taxes? No.
  35. Should pension plans for federal, state, and local government workers be transitioned into privately managed accounts? No.
  36. Should the government subsidize farmers? For now, yes, but once we get out of trade deals, put tariffs on all imports, and tax all interstate sales, subsidies should be ended.
  37. Should the government use economic stimulus to aid the country during times of recession? No, recessions are natural cycles.
  38. Should the Federal Reserve Bank be audited by Congress? Yes, we should know where that money is going.
  39. Should the IRS create a free electronic tax filing system? Yes.
  40. Should an in-state sales tax apply to online purchases of in-state buyers from out-of-state sellers? No, the federal government should not enact an intrastate sales tax.
  41. Should pension payments be increased for retired government workers? Yes, adjust them yearly for inflation.
  42. Should U.S. citizens be allowed to save or invest their money in offshore bank accounts? Yes, as long as all income is reported.
  43. Should the government classify Bitcoin as a legal currency? Yes, but maintain the system of the dollar and cash as a legal currency.
  44. Should the government acquire equity stakes in companies it bails out during a recession? No.
  45. Do you support charter schools? No.
  46. Should the government decriminalize school truancy? No for Elementary school. For middle and high school, no social studies and English, yes for everything else.
  47. Should there be more restrictions on the current process of purchasing a gun? States and the federal government should not be allowed to enact any restrictions on black powder weapons or ammunition for them. For cartridge firearms, the federal government should only have the power to regulate interstate sale of them. At the state level, cartridge firearms should require a license to obtain. The process should involve passing a mental and physical health exam, having a decent criminal record, and passing a written and shooting exam. Handguns and centerfire semi-automatic weapons should have higher standards for licensing and should be registered before being obtained, but automatic CCW to anyone who has a license for a handgun. fully automatic weapons should be illegal to sell, except to collectors, who must meet an even higher standard to obtain.
  48. Should victims of gun violence be allowed to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers? No, this is just dumb.
  49. Should the President of the United States have the power to deploy military troops in order to stop protests? If any state governments are overthrown, yes. Otherwise, only if the Governor of a state requests assistance.
  50. Should teachers be allowed to carry guns at school? Yes if they have a valid license 9see above).
  51. Should it be illegal to burn the American flag? No, but I have no respect for anyone who does.
  52. Should the state government order schools to provide online only classes in order to combat coronavirus? No, let each school decide.
  53. Should there be term limits set for members of Congress? Yes, maximum four terms for the House, and maximum two for the Senate.
  54. Should people on the “no-fly list” be banned from purchasing guns and ammunition? No, this denies one of due process rights.
  55. Are you in favor of decriminalizing drug use? Yes, for most but not all drugs (basically the really bad ones, e.g., meth, heroin, etc;)
  56. Should the NSA (National Security Agency) be allowed to collect basic metadata of citizen’s phone calls such as numbers, timestamps, and call durations? Only with a warrant and probable cause of a crime.
  57. Should the Supreme Court be reformed to include more seats and term limits on judges? No, this is just trying to pack the court, which should not be politicized.
  58. Should the government regulate social media sites, as a means to prevent fake news and misinformation? No, this violates free speech.
  59. Do you support the Patriot Act? Not the clause that allows warrantless searches.
  60. Should the government be allowed to seize private property, with reasonable compensation, for public or civic use? Only for public land and not for privatization, and the owner must be paid for losses in full.
  61. Should college sports be played in the fall of 2020? Yes, but let teams decide.
  62. Should local police increase surveillance and patrol of Muslim neighborhoods? No, this just breeds resentment.
  63. Should the government raise the retirement age for Social Security? No
  64. Should the government pass laws which protect whistleblowers? Yes, so long as national security isn't compromised.
  65. Should the redrawing of Congressional districts be controlled by an independent, non-partisan commission? Yes, gerrymandering breeds corruption.
  66. Should internet service providers be allowed to speed up access to popular websites (that pay higher rates) at the expense of slowing down access to less popular websites (that pay lower rates)? If they are privately owned, yes.
  67. Should the U.S. government grant immunity to Edward Snowden? For his leaks on domestic surveillance, yes. Some other things, maybe not.
  68. Should foreign terrorism suspects be given constitutional rights? Yes.
  69. Do you support the killing of Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani? Yes.
  70. Should the U.S. continue to support Israel? Yes.
  71. Should the U.S. accept refugees from Syria? Yes, but only after extensive background checks to confirm that they are not a threat and are genuine refugees and not economic migrants.
  72. Should the government increase or decrease military spending? Decrease by streamlining it, and making it more efficient, through eliminating wasteful spending.
  73. Should the military fly drones over foreign countries to gain intelligence and kill suspected terrorists? No, unless said country has approved it, and American citizens should be given fair trials.
  74. Should the military be allowed to use enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, to gain information from suspected terrorists? No.
  75. Should every 18 year old citizen be required to provide at least one year of military service? No, but maintain the Selective Service system and allow states to draft people if necessary.
  76. Should Jerusalem be recognized as the capital of Israel? Yes.
  77. Should the U.S. go to war with Iran? No, they should be disarmed through diplomatic channels.
  78. Should the U.S. remain in the United Nations? Yes.
  79. Should the U.S. remain in NATO? Yes.
  80. Should the U.S. defend other NATO countries that maintain low military defense budgets relative to their GDP? Yes, but get them to pay their share.
  81. Should the United States pull all military troops out of Afghanistan? If the Afghan government wants us to, then yes.
  82. Should the U.S. sell military weapons to India in order to counter Chinese and Russian influence? Yes.
  83. Should the U.S. conduct military strikes against North Korea in order to destroy their long-range missile and nuclear weapons capabilities? No, use all diplomatic means first.
  84. Do you support President Obama’s move to lift the trade and travel embargo on Cuba? Yes.
  85. Should it be illegal to join a boycott of Israel? No.
  86. Should the government cancel production of the F-35 fighter? Yes, until the price has been lowered or our deficits have been drastically reduced, and its hardware is drastically improved.
  87. Do you support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)? No.
  88. Should people be required to work in order to receive Medicaid? No.
  89. Should cities open drug “safe havens” where people who are addicted to illegal drugs can use them under the supervision of medical professionals? Yes.
  90. Do you support the legalization of Marijuana? The federal government should not have the power to ban marijuana, except to regulate or ban its interstate sale, which it shouldn't at the state level, legalize.
  91. Should the government regulate the prices of life-saving drugs? No.
  92. Should health insurers be allowed to deny coverage to individuals who have a pre-existing condition? At the federal level, no, if they are operating in interstate commerce. At the state level, no.
  93. Should there be more or less privatization of veterans’ healthcare? Less, improve the current system.
  94. Should the federal government increase funding of health care for low income individuals (Medicaid)? Yes.
  95. Should the federal government be allowed to negotiate drug prices for Medicare? Yes.
  96. Should the government fund the World Health Organization? Yes.
  97. Should the government increase environmental regulations to prevent climate change? No.
  98. Should researchers be allowed to use animals in testing the safety of drugs, vaccines, medical devices, and cosmetics? Yes, but not for cosmetics.
  99. Should the U.S. expand offshore oil drilling? No, but maintain current rigs.
  100. Do you support the use of hydraulic fracking to extract oil and natural gas resources? Allow it to be legal, but don't subsidize.
  101. Should the government stop construction of the Dakota Access pipeline? No.
  102. Should disposable products (such as plastic cups, plates, and cutlery) that contain less than 50% of biodegradable material be banned? No.
  103. Should drilling be allowed in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge? No.
  104. Should cities be allowed to offer private companies economic incentives to relocate? Yes.
  105. Should the government give tax credits and subsidies to the wind power industry? No, no industry should be favored.
  106. Should the government require children to be vaccinated for preventable diseases? No.
  107. Do you support the use of nuclear energy? Yes, lessen restrictions, but no subsidies.
  108. Should producers be required to label genetically engineered foods (GMOs)? Yes.
  109. Should illegal immigrants have access to government-subsidized healthcare? No.
  110. Should immigrants be deported if they commit a serious crime? Yes, after serving their sentence.
  111. Should illegal immigrants be offered in-state tuition rates at public colleges within their residing state? No.
  112. Should the U.S. build a wall along the southern border? No, but make a high tech surveillance barrier instead of a physical wall. This is because a physical wall would be too costly and ineffective.
  113. Should local law enforcement be allowed to detain illegal immigrants for minor crimes and transfer them to federal immigration authorities? Yes.
  114. Should sanctuary cities receive federal funding? No.
  115. Should the U.S. increase restrictions on its current border security policy? Yes.
  116. Should immigrants be required to pass a citizenship test to demonstrate a basic understanding of our country’s language, history, and government? Yes.
  117. Should children of illegal immigrants be granted legal citizenship? Yes, if they were born here.
  118. Should Muslim immigrants be banned from entering the country until the government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists? No.
  119. Should immigrants be required to learn English? Yes, if they wish to become citizens.
  120. Should there be a temporary ban on all immigration into the United States? No, but increase border security.
  121. Should the US increase or decrease the amount of temporary work visas given to high-skilled immigrant workers? Increase, our economy relies on businesses hiring the highest skilled workers at the lowest cost.
  122. Should working illegal immigrants be given temporary amnesty? No.
  123. Should immigrants to the United States be allowed to hold dual citizenship status? Yes.
  124. Do you support Common Core national standards? Yes, but only for English and social studies.
  125. Should a photo ID be required to vote? No, but gradually update voter rolls and purge voters who are required to be according tot eh Voting Registration act of 1993.
  126. Should foreigners, currently residing in the United States, have the right to vote? No, only citizens should.
  127. Should the minimum voting age be lowered? No.
  128. Should the electoral college be abolished? No.
  129. Should the US have a mail-in ballot process for whole states in local, state, and federal elections? No.
  130. Should foreign lobbyists be allowed to raise money for American elections? No.
  131. Should there be a limit to the amount of money a candidate can receive from a donor? No.
  132. Should corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations be allowed to donate to political parties? No.
  133. Should there be a 5-year ban on White House and Congressional officials from becoming lobbyists after they leave the government? No.
  134. Should political candidates be required to release their recent tax returns to the public? No.
  135. Should funding for local police departments be redirected to social and community based programs? No, increase funding and training for police departments in higher crime rate communities
  136. Should police officers be required to wear body cameras? Yes.
  137. Should convicted criminals have the right to vote? Yes, but only after completing their sentence and probation.
  138. Should drug traffickers receive the death penalty? No.
  139. Should non-violent prisoners be released from jail in order to reduce overcrowding? Yes, but have them do community service.
  140. Do you support mandatory minimum prison sentences for people charged with drug possession? No.
  141. Should the government hire private companies to run prisons? No.
  142. Should prisons ban the use of solitary confinement for juveniles? No, but it is currently being overused
  143. Should the US assassinate suspected terrorists in foreign countries? No, capture, interrogate, and imprison them instead
  144. What is your position on Abortion? Adopt a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v Wade and allow state to enact their own laws. At the state level, abortion should be legal within the first 20 weeks, but afterwards, should be banned except for exceptional cases.
  145. Do you support affirmative action? No.
submitted by Maximum-Lingonberry2 to NoStupidQuestions [link] [comments]

[Table] I am an ex-NSA candidate for Congress, Matthew Molyett. Ask me anything!

Verified? (This bot cannot verify AMAs just yet)
Date: 2014-06-17
Link to submission (Has self-text)
Questions Answers
Do you support reining in the NSA domestic surveillance programs or not? I feel that there needs to be a tighter association between US person data that is held by the government and the warrants issued to authorize the receiving of it, as discussed recently in the media. As an insider, I never experienced anything to support the truth of that lackadaisy approach to data handling which I read about in the papers. All of my personal experiences as well as the extensive regular oversight training suggest otherwise. With such a disconnect, I feel the question and answer is loaded in a way that any yes or no answer will be misconstrued.
I do feel there is a need for significant reform of the relevant laws to address the fact that technological growth will continue to make the determination of foreign versus domestic communications harder to make.
For clarity: I do support additional, significant restrictions on NSA data collection and use of that data. Much more detail on that is in an editorial that is currently under pre-publication review.
Edit 2: Yes I do, though without agreeing with your assertion that they have a "domestic surveillance program". That phrasing implies, to me at least, a certain kind of intent that I have no reason to believe exists. I am not trying to say that the NSA never intentionally collects domestic data, because they do in response to warrants, but that it is never done with a domestic surveillance intent. They do it because "the Signals Intelligence mission collects, processes, and disseminates intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations. This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties."
I'm not an expert by any means. I am just trying to gauge the opinion of an "insider", as you say. I didn't mean the question to be loaded, and indeed, I don't think it is. But I could be wrong. I often am. Just loaded because the context of the question and the answer is so different for the audience versus for me.
I can't provide all my background nor can I refute all the misinformation that is providing the context for the audience. That is why the question ends up so loaded. I wasn't accusing you of malice.
I can't provide all my background nor can I refute all the misinformation that is providing the context for the audience. That is a very difficult question and one that people have spent entire careers trying to solve. I'm an Eagle Scout, father, and former employee of the National Security Agency here trying my best. You'll have to decide if you can trust me. We both know I can't lay my cards on the table and try to fix the things I see as broken, so trust is all that is left.
If you must consult the NSA before answering questions you don't belong in politics. We don't need someone running the country who has his strings pulled buy a secret organization that is not accountable to people of this country. It is just me holding to my legal responsibilities. I can't change those right now, I'm not in Congress.
>Why a pre-publication review? All NSA/CSS affiliates (past and present) are responsible for forwarding for review any information intended for public disclosure which is or may be based on protected information gained while associated with NSA/CSS.
Link to www.nsa.gov
If elected, would you consider invoking the Speech or Debate Clause in order to "lay your cards on the table" and educate the public on what you clearly see as a legal and necessary program despite its classified nature? If put into a position such that I thought something was happening which was improperly classified and needed to be revealed then I do think that I would go that route. Senator Wyden's trap questioning of Director Clapper is a time when he should have taken that path to reveal the implementation of the 702 program instead of trapping the Director between two conflicting oaths to do so.
In the case of something properly classified, lets look at the definitions of classification from EO12356...
(1) "Top Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
(2) "Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.
(3) "Confidential" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security.
Would I take it upon myself to unilaterally cause serious or exceptionally grave damage to nationally security for the purposes of educating the public? No.
All this said, I am not a supporter of what I see is an excessive focus on terrorism. I am especially not a supporter of curtailing Constitutionally guaranteed rights, especially the 9th Amendments', in the name of counter terrorism.
Finally what's a meal you eat at least once a week? For the past few months, the only meal I have at least once a week (More like every few days) is a Shakeology shake as breakfast or a between meal snack.
In all seriousness, being an NSA employee, I'd be interested in your thoughts on granting immunity to Edward Snowden, what areas you feel you will have the most success working with the other side, and what was that "eureka" moment that made you decide to pursuit a political career? As the distribution of his collection is out of his hands, I don't see where national security could benefit from providing him immunity. The case for granting immunity seems based in the value of triggering a public discussion of the 702 and 215 implementations, but that was barely a scratch of what he took.
I feel I will have success leading the addressing of technical roadblocks and shortfalls of existing federal law. I can usually explain down the technical problems to folks when given some time, which is important for actually getting other legislators to grasp why the change is vitally needed.
I idly told my wife back in December that I thought I should run for Congress and she surprisingly and enthusiastically supported it. Once the seed was planted, I've been unable to stop thinking about it.
I don't see where national security could benefit from providing him immunity. The laws he violated were written to promote and protect national security -the information he compromised caused damage to national security -only the barest sliver of the information he compromised did anything to "supporting a principal of democratic accountability" If you can an exterminator because of a cockroaches in your house and they lock your shutters and burn it to the ground would you pay them for killing the roaches, which you requested? That is approximately the relative damage vs benefit of the Snowden disclosures, and something that could have been addressed if he'd so decided by... only taking information that supported the alleged goal of revealing 702/215 implementations.
It's not a question of national security, it's a question of civic decency, a question of supporting a principal of democratic accountability, a question of preserving the gift of freedom entrusted to us for the enjoyment of future generations.
If these concepts are alien to you, if you can't see past national security as a sole motivating factor in public life, then frankly, you are not fit to hold office as a public representative.
I feel I will have success leading the addressing of technical roadblocks and shortfalls of existing federal law. I can usually explain down the technical problems to folks when given some time, which is important for actually getting other legislators to grasp why the change is vitally needed. I do not support the use of NSA signals intelligence for law enforcement or non-military related counter terrorism work.
I'm curious though, how can you justify the NSA's function for so few tangible benefits compared to humanity's real problems? I justify the NSA's function on the great deal of other benefits that they provide to the country through situational awareness of policy makers and support to the military (it is DoD)
Do you believe that wiretapping all Americans at all time is a violation of the Fourth Amendment? I most assuredly do, which is why I feel more restrictions are necessary on the dissemination of information by NSA.
I won't vote for you. Fuckwad. Oh you silly bear.
You suggested in your Gazette piece that Congress has been lax on securing networks. What should Congress be doing on cybersecurity and what would you do to make that happen? Also, I see you're both former NSA and in favor of legalizing and regulating marijuana. Do you agree with FBI Director Comey's (later semi-retracted) remark that strict policies on marijuana use are keeping some of the best cyber talent from taking government jobs? 17 U.S. Code § 1201, Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems makes most instances of reverse engineering and other advanced software analysis illegal. As such, our higher education industry doesn't extensively teach it or software exploitation. Until most (nearly all) of our software is being written and QA tested by software analysts and exploiters then the critical bugs will continue be discovered by the cybercriminals.
We need to have a legal system that encourages the training and use of high end security researchers and allows them to publicly shame companies for their weaknesses. When a company can use DMCA to silence a researchers briefing, that means a vulnerability stays open. Criminals don't try to present their bug finding, they just exploit for profit.
Ill bet this AMA is feeling like a bad idea about now. Actually, the only part I feel bad about is that most of this emotion came out after I was finished and then while I was at work today. I had time set aside yesterday such that I was able to respond to all of the top level questions and most of the responses. Today, once it became an echo chamber, I wasn't able to respond in a timely manner and most of my responses have become hidden.
I knew the general response I may get by not coming in here shouting that all DoD employees are traitors deserving the chair, but I was hoping it would result in a civil discussion, which it did.
I noticed you believe we should tax and regulate all safe drugs, what do you define as safe? Initially, Congress needs to definitely open up marijuana as almost half the states have already done so in some manner. They need to loosen the restrictions on general testing and studying of all kinds of drugs to be able to come up with a good, quantitative manner for determining "safe."
The current blanket prohibition doesn't work and gets in the way of robust scientifically valid studies to be able to determine what is safe. I don't have a list, but most of the current drugs approaches tend to be fairly gut based, especially when dealing with brand new synthetics.
Why should we be more open about weed? It is a drug! If people want to mess up their minds there are plenty of options on the market unfortunately so why do people need another one? Because people are already doing it and there is evidence that suggests potential benefits.
Money flows through the drug markets, and will continue. Under prohibition that money flows through criminals and cartels with violence traveling alongside. This is just like it did with alcohol in the 20s and early 30s. Just like with alcohol, we won't be able to get it under control unless local jurisdictions are able to manage it. The creation, the distribution, and the use. If prohibition was working we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because it would be off everyone's radar since it wasn't being grown, sold, or used.
Robust, repeatable scientific studies cannot reliably occur as long as the procurement of the study material, distribution to participants, and use by participants is a federal felony. The requisite documentation becomes potential evidence against all involved. Legalization allows for studies which allows for solid fact-based advertising which has been shown to reduce demand for tobacco.
To play devil's advocate here, alcohol did not really get "under control" after the repeal of prohibition, as much as it just became another thing for the gov't to tax. It also ceratinly didn't get rid of organized crime. Good points, and I agree strongly with the conclusion. Also, making things available though easy, legal channels cuts down on the illicit acquisitions just as the most effective thing against video piracy has been Netflix and Amazon rather than region coded films.
Perhaps the main benefit here is that it is easier for people get help with legal addictions than with illegal ones. And I wasn't saying that alcohol was made under control by the repeal of Prohibition, but that the violent crime associated with the creation and distribution was. As you point out, organized crime adapts and finds other funding streams, it is true.
That's a good parallel with Netflix and Amazon. Thank you. One of the writers I follow, Mike Masnick, regularly discusses on his Techdirt blog about business model changes that can compete against piracy. He shows how changing how you do business can shape the market where just mandating the market shape through law doesn't.
We need to change how we handle drugs because pretending that the market can be wished or prosecuted away doesn't let us shape it.
Do you think Edward Snowden should have started his chain of leaks? And is it possible that there will be more leaks in the future that can have more of an impact on society than anything we have learned so far? I do not think he should have done it, and have watched the work of good friends of mine misrepresented and slandered across the 'Net as a result. Work that was entirely unrelated to anything resembling a violation of rights, yet those sorts of disclosures are forgotten in the discussions about whether the 215/702 revelations were a good thing.
I don't know what else may be forthcoming and won't speculate. You can contact NSA directly at.
Phone: (301) 688-6524.
E-mail: [email protected].
Is slander on the net the only reason you don't think we should have known that everyone can be spied on? Winner! We have another example of misrepresentation! :)
I didn't say that was any reason at all, just that was a consequence which occurred needlessly.
Had Edward Snowden revealed only information relevant to revealing the implementations of 702/215 programs (the things you seem to be asking about), then I may be of a different mind. There would have been better routes still to take.
I do not think he should have done it. If, given his stated intentions and mindset, he felt the need to reveal the details about the implementations of 702/215 programs, then he should have limited himself to that. Minimized the impact to national security while carrying out the mission he'd set for himself.
What should he have done? What would you have done if you came across something against the constitution? (Edit: Witnessed through life, CSPAN, and the bills passed by Congress. Not through my time working for the NSA) For myself, I have witnessed public act after public act that is counter to the Constitution, carried out through Acts of Congress and the executive. My solution is to offer to go in and try to change it from the inside. I am offering to be that change I've bitched about for years.
What would those other routes be? NSA Office of General Council.
NSA Inspector General.
DoD/Office of the Director of National Intelligence IG.
Intelligence Oversight Committees of Congress (I do know how difficult it is to contact members of Congress though, thats a big part of why I'm running)
Congress at large. I suggested below a way to make sure that this route didn't get ignored, with the worst case being the story being broke by the media with the addition of "... and we have proof Congress ignored this"
Let me just assume that people are still doing the illegal acts you say you reported up the chain. To me, that means YOU DID NOTHING! You are an accessory to the crimes of your former agency. I didn't witness the acts as an employee of the NSA, but as a common man of the United States. Never have I seen such fervor for the Constitution and emphasis on oversight and compliance as I experienced from the training and coworkers I had at the Agency. The Acts I mean are things like the January 1, 2013 passage of the "Fiscal Cliff" deal.
Aren't the NSA Officials you mentioned mostly aware that those documents already existed? I don't know what they were aware of, nor do I know if they had ever had those policies directly questioned from the view of them being illegal.
Yes, NSA OGC probably wouldn't be effective to question, since they are the ones that would have meticulously went over the policies for legality before they were started. But they could have provided back their analyzes about why they felt the policies were legal.
Link to washingtonpost.com. Out of all the documents he collected, it seems silly to have forgotten to have brought out evidence of those 10+ attempts.
Its a silly idea to go internally with something like this. Fruitless and then you are shunned. Shouldn't have violated our trust in the first place and we won't violate yours. I would have expected a claim like that to be accompanied by the release 10+ email chains.
Maryland District 3 is absurdly shaped and reeks of gerrymandering. What is your opinion on algorithmic redistricting, such as using shortest split line? It is most absurdly shaped and gerrymandered. Meeting the district has been difficult because so many locations have folks in a different district than their neighbor or even the next block. Districts should be as compact as possible to better facilitate meetings which allow the members to get behind the same ideas. Congressmen that can get a unified message from their district can better represent that message.
I can't get to your linked page, but anything would be better than Maryland 3rd!
Lol. Nice. If the NSA shared all this information freely maybe I wouldn't distrust them so much. Unfortunately, everything shared with the people is also shared with potential adversaries. Some secrets must be kept to facilitate the intelligence generation that is required to keeping policy makers acting on true facts.
More effort should be made to push the policy slider toward Open as much as possible though.
Some secrets must be kept to facilitate the intelligence generation that is required to keeping policy makers acting on true facts. Sources and methods are fragile things, something that is expensive to gain, but often trivial to lose. If the CIA published a monthly list of their foreign contacts, how effective do you think their reporting to policy makers would be?
I'm not asking for nuke blue prints, but just saying, "It's for national security!" is a cop-out answer. A building with two doors. The police know a perp is inside, but can't enter. They only have the resources to watch one door and have discovered which the perp will exit by. If they announce this to the news, and therefore the perp, he will exit by the door not being watched. Once their method is known, it can be avoided.
This seems like a resource problem, not worthy of "we'll break the law now and clean up afterwards" mentality. You didn't ask for specific secrets, you asked why secrets at all. I provided an off the cuff parable that showed the resource problem and sources/methods problem.
If they announce this to the news, and therefore the perp, he will exit by the door not being watched. Once their method is known, it can be avoided. If I knew secrets that I felt needed to be announced, then Congress would be the best place for me. Under Article 1, Sec 6 they can state whatever needs stating on the floor of their House without being legally punished. From there a member could announce to CSPAN any secrets needing broadcast.
I think you would have done better to answer my original question. Redditors are going to react to the NSA in your title. If you want to defend the NSA, you will do better to just outright defend it. Oddly enough, Reddit is more likely to respect that than to like sidling away. I'm sorry you felt I was avoiding the spirit of your question. I read your question as to how can there be secrets kept out of the hands of the people by their Representatives. I answered that with a clear analogy. Here is a tale directly from the NSA Center of Cryptologic History about how the secrets of the NSA were important. Imagine this story being told in real time on the NSA twitter page... it would have turned out differently! [The Battle of Midway: How Cryptology enabled the United States to turn the tide in the Pacific War.](Link to www.nsa.gov) I just tracked back to which question was your original question. I've edited in that my answer is yes I do, though without agreeing with your assertion that they have a domestic surveillance program. That phrasing implies, to me at least, a certain kind of intent that I have no reason to believe exists.
Most of the time, I think. If there is a reasonable case to make for the NSA, make it. Really. Analogies are tough to process.
Sup? Trying out a few different ways to reach out to people at once.
Never done an AMA before, never used a public Google Hangout, and trying to coordinate it all through Twitter and Facebook.
Should be interesting.
What are your thoughts on bitcoin? I don't use it, though I don't have anything against it.
Full disclosure: One of my close personal friends is a founding member of a company that is exclusively focused on legitimate bitcoin commerce.
I'd the batman were real would you suggest the govt go after him? It wouldn't be the prosecution I would want to see, but it would be the prosecution he deserves.
I'm a Republican/Libertarian campaign consultant. You and I are likely opposed to one another on many many issues; however, there is some commonality...namely Federal weed legalization. Having said that, I need a little extra work this election cycle -- how badly do you want to hire me? ;) As my campaign has been self funded and that credit card is about maxed out, I won't be hiring anyone. Thankfully the primary campaign ends on July 24th.
We'll see what happens after that based on the results.
I respect the hell out of that. I self-funded my own state legislative campaign back in 2004. Nobody knows how difficult it is to be a candidate until you're actually a candidate. Much respect, sir! Much appreciated! It has been nuts, but also pretty cool.
People expect you to shake their hand and otherwise ignore them, but once you make it clear that you are having a conversation they really open up about their concerns and experiences. Very enlightening and educational for me as a future sitting member. The vocal constituents will reach out regularly, but a lot of the pulse of the people will only be able to be read by immersion and really listening.
Last updated: 2014-06-22 01:14 UTC
This post was generated by a robot! Send all complaints to epsy.
submitted by tabledresser to tabled [link] [comments]

Most Favoured Nation Clauses - YouTube E-Learning short videos - Most-favoured nation (MFN) - YouTube Most Favoured Nation Principle MFN  Explained WTO  क्या है MFN ?  UPSC  CSE Block 6: Most Favored Nation Status Let's Talk Most Favoured Nation - YouTube

The Most Favored Nation Clauses. Having given up this price control, Apple has one remaining problem: no guarantee of being able to offer attractive content at an attractive price if it is forced to try to sell e-books at a high price while its competitors can undercut it. And so, as is common in this sort of distribution agreement, Apple obtains “Most Favored Nation” (MFN) clauses from ... Despite opposition and Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina's claim that it "has not used 'most favored nation' clauses in [its] new contracts… A “most favored nation” (MFN) clause is a contractual agreement between a supplier and a customer that requires the supplier to sell to the customer on pricing terms at least as favorable as the pricing terms on which that supplier sells to other customers. They are common both in the retail distribution of a number of products, as well as ... President Trump signed a Favored Nations Clause to drastically lower drug prices for Americans. Aug 8, 2020 Brian Robert Hyland Leave a comment. Share this: Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Like this: Like Loading... Related. Youtube ... But a proposal akin to a “most favored nation” clause, which is typically used in trade agreements to ensure one country receives the best terms available, would be a more far-reaching step. Nations like Greece and Portugal have notoriously low prices and forcing drugmakers to offer their products in the U.S. at those levels would erode profit margins and could even lead some companies ...

[index] [10241] [23607] [29343] [3466] [7670] [20148] [11165] [25750] [32980] [5252]

Most Favoured Nation Clauses - YouTube

A most favored nation (MFN) clause is a level of status given to one country by another and enforced by the World Trade Organization/हिंदुस्तान ... Most Favoured Nation is a treatment accorded to a trade partner to ensure non-discriminatory trade between two countries vis-a-vis other trade partners. The importance of MFN is shown in the fact ... In international economic relations and international politics, "most favoured nation" (MFN) is a status or level of treatment accorded by one state to another in international trade. The term ... Discrimination makes people angry. Discriminating against a trading partner has the same effect at a much larger scale. The Most Favoured Nation principle wa... Session 1 of the CCP 2020 Conference: Vertical Relations and Platforms - Updating for the Digital Dimension Chaired by Sean Ennis, Director of the Centre for...

#