Hmm... http://www.ehackingnews.com/2013/08/almost-half-of-tor-sites-compromised-by.html http://www.ehackingnews.com/2013/08/almost-half-of-tor-sites... http:/

Hmm... http://www.ehackingnews.com/2013/08/almost-half-of-tor-sites-compromised-by.html http://www.ehackingnews.com/2013/08/almost-half-of-tor-sites... http://www.wired.com/2013/09/freedom-hosting-fbi/ http://www.wired.com/2013/09/freedom-hosting-fbi/ Somehow "fiddling with inputs" and "noticing an IP", while innocently phrased, sounds unlikely. It's just so hard to know whether this is parallel construction. The FBI's history with false testimony (i.e. COINTELPRO) is more than damning. The 'not in the US, not subject to US law' is a common trick, and also a way both that the NSA skirts laws about monitoring US citizens (Snowden's leaked documents repeated showed how partners with the NSA regularly traded bulk information on US communications for their own), how the CIA and FBI are able to stop Americans and journalists abroad and how intelligence agencies can propagandize its own citizens while retaining plausible deniability. The CIA is authorized to, and in fact in the past decade and a half heavily decided to, plant stories to international media wire drops that US journalists subscribe and use as a source of information. The CIA also works with partners overseas and private enterprises to engineer foreign stories that the US media will also follow and use for reports (Lincohn Group, Zarqawi PsyOp, etc). Inevitably some of the material released to the Voice of America and other international propaganda outlets make it back to the US Media. Furthermore information is now able to be targeted in very sophisticated ways (i.e. MINERVA, USAID Cuba Twitter program) for the spread of ideas and support (or dissidence) via 'social contagions', all without ever having to directly propagandize any citizens. These sorts of programs are the ultimate and extreme irony of the Soft Power philosophy. I find it unfortunate that the Constitution grants rights restricting search and seizure (and others) but that our representation does not recognize these rights, broadly 'de facto' recognize, as rights worth enforcing outside a strictly domestic interpretation. Are these "rights" or "Rights" if our representation allows and even encourages others to infringe on them?