25 Jun
2015
25 Jun
'15
4:22 p.m.
2015-06-25 21:44 GMT+09:00 z9wahqvh <z9wahqvh@gmail.com>:
this is absolutely tremendous, original, and insightful. in my opinion.
This is exceedingly strange coming from an In-Q-Tel security officer. In-Q-Tel basically invests in anything performing more collections in the US. Does Dan Geer worry for the future, and effectively betray In-Q-Tel? Does he want to prevent anyone *else* from getting the nice intel? What exactly does he want to make information processors liable for? How can law prevent third parties associating freely available information?