> In warning the site not to disclose the brochure, SSG’s attorney reportedly claimed the document is protected under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), though the notice did not point to any specific section of the law, which was enacted to regulate arms exports at the height of the Cold War.<p>We <i>really</i> need an overhaul of all these old laws that were enacted for a completely different era, which are now being misused. Another example is 200 year old laws being used to get companies to break encryption.
I don't know how I feel about hidden surveillance cameras in public. I know I shouldn't have any expectation of privacy in public and all that, but CCTV cameras in plain view are a different matter.<p>Are we going to live in a world where we're constantly being recorded and analysed by hidden cameras? This makes me <i>very</i> uneasy. Whatever happened to the idea that democratic governments should be <i>for</i> the people?<p>I'm sure there's no way that this can ever possibly be misused /s.<p>If agencies are using these for surveillance on specific targets then that's maybe okay, but as far as I'm aware, there is not much regulation regarding hidden cameras in public - at least, not in many parts of the world.
SLAPP normally means a strategic lawsuit against public participation.<p>In a significantly less expensive variant here, it means strategic letter against public participation.
It's not like they compromised SSG's website to get it. It was produced in response to at least two FOIA requests. So if anyone's culpable, it's arguably whoever produced it.
Time for the Streisand effect
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect</a>
Seriously, what kind of a company will design "Tombstone Cam" for surveillance in cemetery ? To catch a pervert or predator or human-eater? This is bizarre.