The signal to noise ration between Ron Paul supporters and violent criminals is arguably less than people of a certain skin color and being a violent criminal. Can someone support political profiling while dismissing racial profiling?

(this is a mental exercise in principled reasoning. I'm not racist).

There is a difference between noting an association between characteristics and acting on them.

"Racial profiling" isn't bad because it's based on the (correct, though specious -- they're poorer) observation that young black men commit more per-capita crimes, it's bad because it leads to law enforcement behavior that causes young black men to be stopped, frisked, detained, prosecuted and incarcerated at rates MUCH HIGHER than their per-capita crime statistics would indicate.

Basically: the idea that "black kids are criminals" leads police to disproportionately enforce the laws against black kids while letting "non-criminal" demographics off the hook.

But no one argues we should censor reports that detail youth crime statistics by race, which is what's happening here.

> If the government couldn't break in to Tails

Or they didn't want to. Now we all know it costs a measly "six figures" (100k??) to zero day a system used by journalists and activists.

Thats 100k for Facebook. They have the ability to find these white- or black-hat folks, and pay them. For you, random dude or dudette on the street, that might be a little more expensive.

I would assume a huge, IT-focused org like FB already has 3-4 high-end security orgs doing pen-testing and digging for zero-days in their code; they just poured a little sugar on top of an existing contract to help squash this one online predator douche.