The "triple breach" tour guy sits in the back of the boat and when he directs everyone to watch, he slowly sticks his amped up stun gun in the water.

It's an old Sea World trick.

Israel is not, and never has been our ally.
Our support of their racist, genocidal regime is baffling in the extreme.

Nobody asked why? I think it's likely because they didn't want anyone recording their other war crimes. Blaming someone else with hopes of bringing us into their war on their side was probably a secondary motive.

And two days ago Israel restarted it's illegal expansion by once again breaking international law and the Geneva convention by renewing efforts to forcefully 'evict' the native Bedouin living in Khan al-Ahmar since before Israel existed and leveling the township.
This sparks the beginning of another genocidal round of expansion and military bluster from Israel, another one we will undoubtedly turn a blind eye to, or perhaps we'll blame the displaced natives like we do the Palestinians.
The UN has previously warned that international humanitarian law requires an occupying power to protect the population of the territory that it occupies, ensure its welfare and wellbeing, as well as the respect for its human rights. Any destruction of property by the occupying power is prohibited, except when rendered absolutely necessary by military operations, the UN says. The extensive demolition of property is a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and may amount to a war crime, it adds.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45420915

These are the same news presenters from that breaching great white video. They're awesome.

https://videosift.com/video/Australian-News-Duo-Left-Speechless-By-Shark-Breach

Im surprised this hasn't been taken down yet. The original was removed quickly after it was posted.

The below is quoted from an article in the Sporting News article...

Commissoner Rob Manfred said Thursday that MLB made a commitment to the umpires that if they agreed to wear microphones then certain interactions, like the one with Collins, would not be aired publicly.

"We promised them that. It's in the collective bargaining agreement. We had no choice in a situation like that than to do everything possible to live up to our agreement," Manfred said, per the Associated Press. "It is Labor Relations 101. To not do that is the kind of breach of trust that puts you in a bad spot over the long haul." http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news/mets-terry-collins-video-umpire-argument-micd-up-noah-syndergaard-ejection/1ooltz0uohtcg1qkbc5x94ua6i

Not that I saw, but I didn't watch it all.
The glaring issue to me was, when asked 'You found out in 2015 about this data breach, when did you notify your customers?'
he answered with 'When we found out, we removed the apps and asked the thieving companies to delete the data, and took their word that they did...which was a mistake.', never addressing the question because they still haven't notified all the customers whose data was taken by this one breach and never would have if it hadn't been discovered by investigators and made public, and make no mistake it's far from the only breach.
To me, it's outrageous that he's pretending that keeping your data private is a goal, it's not. They exist by selling your data. Nothing's free, and things that claim to be free usually cost far more than you would voluntarily pay.

Just for a little context... so far spectre and meltdown are proof of concept only. No-one has actually found any evidence of a real breach. Still pretty scary though.

That said, most people are probably still more at risk of standard human vector attacks than either of these.

So standard security advice applies. Make your passwords long.
"ThisIsMyReallyLongPasswordThatNooneWillGuess" is far better than "p4$$W0rd". Use a password manager so that each site you visit has a different, unique (and long) password.

And patch your devices.

That was exactly my reaction.

He SEES the whale breaching then turns AWAY from it as quickly as he can.

Dublyutief, boy!

Let me disabuse you of some of your assumptions...

I didn't do gamergate and I don't really give a fuck about feminism/anti-feminism as it pertains to how I treat women in the real world (that being egalitarian, everyone should be equal).

Now that that's out of the way, yeah, I am for fucking real. Whether it was a stunt or just a bunch of people turning up to a talk which they paid their money to get in to, it doesn't really matter. Sarkessian was the aggressor (unless you truly believe that threaten = criticise someone's ideas online then show up in person to let them have their say), using a position of power, backed up by a bunch of like minded people to abuse paying attendees who's only crime was sitting up the front and listening quietly, which they are entitled to do.

/shockfuckinghorror, never mind free speech, you can't even listen to people anymore without them wetting their pants in terror.

There is plenty of video footage of said event and you are more than welcome to point out to me exactly where in that footage any of the so called aggressors did anything actually aggressive. Aka, the point where my opinion of what went on is different to the reality. I don't need to convince people of the reality of the situation, I can just roll the footage.

She broke the code of conduct, and while other YT'ers were being ejected for being in public areas (a breach of the CoC), she was given an explicit pass by the Greens. Sargon and the rest of the so called aggressors were not ejected or banned from Vidcon which indicates to me that they did nothing wrong in the eyes of the organisers. The aggressors seemed to get along fine with other people they met that they ideologically disagree with, with no other incidents being recorded. Sark, on the other hand, also verbally abused Boogie2988, one of the nicest and most considerate people I've seen on YT, and someone who had gone out of his way not to offend her.

All this is a matter of record, not my opinion. So now comes the question of your integrity. Are you going to actually back up your claims with a little actual evidence, or are you just going to go back to calling names... ; P

@bcglorf
you left out that anwar had worked for the CIA and NSC as a consultant,and that in his earlier days as an imam was critical of al qeada and was very pro-american.

look,i am not arguing the fact that anwar did become radicalized,nor am i denying that his shift in attitudes (which was mainly due to americas handling of the iraqi war) had become not only critical,but had gone from condemnation to calls for violence,and praise for violence.

which brings us to the fort hood shooter nidel hasan who was an avid fan of anwar al awlaki,and DID have a correspondence with awlaki.which when examined,was pretty fucking one sided.it was apparent that hasan was attempting to get in the good graces of awlaki who,evidenced by the email correspondence,had no real relationship with hasan.though awlaki did praise hasan,and his violent actions.

so i do not get where 'the emails are closed".just google nidal hasan and anwar al awlaki emails,and you can go read for yourself.

and as for these emails as justification..i really do not see your logic in this respect.

so if someone becomes a huge fan of mine,and emails me constantly because we met ONCE and now they think we are buddies and share common interests (which,maybe we do),and that person perpetrates a violent act.

am i responsible for that act?

and here is where the crux of the discussion REALLY is:
maybe i AM responsible.
maybe i am guilty of inciting violence.
maybe i should be held accountable,because not only did i keep this mans violent intentions to myself,which resulted in death,but then praised his actions afterwards as being the will of god.

there are ALL possibilities,and they are valid questions.
they are legal questions,and maybe there should be a legal accountability.

should the proper pathway to a legal conclusion be:
a.a remotely piloted drone that targets my phone and launches a missile murdering (assasinating0 me,along with innocent by-standers?

or.

b.working with the yemeni government to bring me into a secure facility to be questioned,and possibly charged with inciting violence and prosecuted in an international court of law?

do you see what i'm saying?

the question isn't if anwar al awlaki,as a prominent imam,was vocally against american foreign policy,or that he openly supported violence in the form of terrorism.

the question is:
how do you address that situation,and prosecute the legalities?

because as scahill posited:how do you surrender to a drone?

could anwar al awlaki be guilty of EVERY charge the US accused him of?
quite possibly.
but we will never know because he was assassinated,as was his 16yr old son.

even your counter argument is speculation based on loose affiliations,and tenuous connections.

you will NEVER be able to supply a concrete,and verifiable accounting of anwar al awlaki's guilt,because you CAN'T..he was assassinated.

and THAT is the point.

now let us take this a step further.
let us examine how this can be abused,and watching trump consolidate executive power by surrounding himself with departmental loyalist,loyal only to him,we can begin to see the beginnings of trumps "soft fascism".

now lets take how you made your argument,and supplant a different scenario,but using the same parameters.

do you SEE how easily the drone program could be used to quickly,and efficiently remove opposing political players from the board? dissenting and opposing voices simply painted as violent enemies of the state that were in need of removal,because of the "possibility" that they may one day actually incite or cause violence?

the state can now murder a person for simply what they say,or write but NOT what they actually DO.

anwar al awlaki didn't actually kill anyone,didn't perpetrate any acts of violence.he simply talked about the evils of american empire,the mishandling of the iraq war (which he was originally in support of) and praised those who DID engage in violent acts of terror as doing the work of god.

should he have been held accountable in some fashion?
i think there is case to be made in that regard,but instead of going through proper channels,and adhering to the protocols of international law,he was outright assassinated.

and just how easily this can be abused is incredibly frightening.

again,i understand we approach things from different angles,but you have to see the danger in this practice,and how easily it can be misused to much darker and sinister purposes.

"well,he said nasty things about us and had a lot of friends who were on the terror watch list"

is simply NOT a valid enough excuse to simply murder someone.

there are protocols and legal procedure for a REASON,and anwar al awlaki may certainly have been in breach of international law and therefor possibly SHOULD have been prosecuted under those terms.

but we will NEVER know,because he was killed.
by an american president.
a nobel peace prize winner and constitutional law professor.

anwar al awlaki was an american citizen,his SON was an american citizen,but due to those abominations:MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012.obama had the power and authority to assassinate them both.

where was there right to face their accuser?
habeas corpus..gone...a legal right that dates back to 1205 a.d by the BRITISH..gone.
innocent until proven guilty....gone.
the right to provide evidence in your defense...gone.

all the president has to do..and DID in this case,is deem you an "enemy combatant" and BOOM..dead.

i really hope you reconsider your attitude in this case my friend,because this shit is fascism incarnate,and now trump has his chubby little fingers on the "fire" button.

god help us all......

@Fairbs

i think it would go much farther than impeachment don't you think?
if there is actual,tangible evidence,and not mere speculation,that putin directed russian intelligence to hack the election,this would be:
1.an act of war
2.the election of trump would be illegitimate,and therefore the entire process would have to be a giant "do-over".this has never happened in american history,so to handle it the same way as if a standing president dies,or resigns (nixon),or use the standards of impeachment,in my opinion,should not apply.

if our election was truly manipulated to favor trump,this would be unprecedented,and there simply is no system in place to deal with such a breach.

and let's be honest.
a "do-over" might be time consuming,and bring some delays legislatively speaking.

but considering that this election cycle has been a stroll down surreal lane and we were subjected to not one,but TWO shit candidates.

i wouldn't mind a do-over.
how about you?

When you feel like you have no breath, and the whirlwind is choking your vision, your senses close down, and there is nothing you can do to breach your cocoon and reach out....

"Content removed for breach of use"

Thanks anyway...

Do you know who "those people" are? I don't.

There are some people whose ideology is easily identified and most likely well-entrenched: KKK, white supremacists, nazis, take your pick. They are difficult to talk to and even more difficult to persuade.

I happen to live near a popular gathering spot for nazis (real nazis, not just someone you don't like) and have tried many times over the years: it's no bueno.

But that's only the hard core, a fraction of the ~60 million votes for Trump. If you put all of them into the corner of shame and refuse to interact with them, much less try to understand their point of view, you'll never know their reasoning for voting the way they did. You'll only push them away, reinforcing any feeling of being left behind or ignored by the, for a lack of a better word, liberals. That's no bueno either. Want to see how that turns out? Look at the state of Brandenburg in Germany.

You can either try to breach their echo chamber in an attempt to convince them of your perspective or you'll end up with either an even more divided country than before or a second Trump presidency (or Trump 2.0). It's an uncomfortable thing to do, but looking at the emergence of safe spaces, trigger warnings, blatant groupthink and whatnot on certain university campuses, some people seem to have become outright allergic towards differing opinions -- that's highly unhealthy for a society.

Thanks Rad. I would still imply that there IS a purpose to the refrigerator angle and "rant" form rather than "report" form. The opinion is strong but the reporting is meh.

Glen Greenwald is weak. A journalist should only breach privacy if there is a crime or significant damage to "public interest" involved (oversimplified). What is the crime?

Lee Fang - I see his point on banks and fracking and being a two-faced liar. I understand how exposing this is worthwhile to hurt Hillary. I just see this as repeating the words "email scandal" ad nauseam without enough substance.

You cant read your neighbors mail, hoping to prove they killed someone, and then inform the public that the mail proves they are an unpleasant person.

The claim "if someone had stolen the e-mails sooner she might have lost to Bernie" is just plain funny.

Just say the words "I'm making a citizens arrest", and then you can absolutely destroy that motherfucker if he tries to leave....(from what I've been told, but I'm not a lawyer). I've been told by numerous parties including police that you may use any force required to effect the arrest, up to and including deadly force (but you damn well better be able to prove it was required if you don't want to be prosecuted for killing them).

Any follow up info on what ended up happening?

WIKI-In general, a private person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another if he reasonably believes that: (1) such other person is committing a felony, or a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace; and (2) the force used is necessary to prevent further commission of the offense and to apprehend the offender. The force must be reasonable under the circumstances to restrain the individual arrested. This includes the nature of the offense and the amount of force required to overcome resistance.[11][12]