Given their concerns, I would suggest a compromise. No names, no pseudonyms except: senior agency policymakers, general counsel, head of the CIA, cabinet positions or above.
For people lower in the hierarchy, names and pseudonyms may be removed, but an "authority class" should be used in place. For example: agent, senior agent, clandestine agent, foreign agent, foreign senior agent, and etc. The classes assigned should reflect the individual's tier in the CIA or foreign authority hierarchy.
The purpose of this compromise would be to overcome most of the name/pseudonym objections, retaining only those names that are top-level public policymakers, so we can assess the legality of their actions. For lower level people, it should clarify the authority position for assessment of the control hierarchy, without allowing identification of individuals.
Which would raise the question: Why do you bother?
There's little or no point to complaining about any large company product these days. There's never an organized system for complaints; because if a company actually accumulated complaints, someone might use that as evidence their product is less than perfect. From the company perspective, what they offer is what you get, take it or leave it.
That's why so few people bother to complain these days. If something is truly unacceptable, most people just vote with their feet. Your choice today is to pick the company that has the problems you can live with; very like voting for politicians. (If you don't have a choice, well that sucks.)
If the product offerings get bad enough, the loss of market share forces the company to improve; that's the only "complaint" companies understand. The rest of the complaints go in the round file.
I had always had the impression that a "plain dealer" was someone who dealt straightforwardly without trickery. I take it the Cleveland Plain Dealer doesn't exactly reflect that?
You have a point. So what we should do is amend the Fourth and Sixth Amendments to delete the Rights of druggies, suspected druggies, anyone who knows a druggie, anyone who might have shaken hands with someone who knows a druggie, and anyone living in the same state as a druggie. That will eliminate all these infernal problems with the Constitution interfering in the investigation of druggies.
Once that is done, the only thing we have to worry about is police or FBI agents showing up for unannounced searches of our homes.
Implicit in the amicus curiae is the presumption that the party is impartial to the case in question; having no interest other than justice. Therefore, the reasoning goes, cross-examination isn't needed.
That's great, if it is so. But today, so many of these briefs are from wholly self-interested groups who are friends only to their own interests. That shouldn't be news, because most of the cases these days are exactly the same way. If the court takes that into account, I see no problem with the use of amicus briefs.
There's no middle road: pot calls kettle black; kettle rejoins that pot is blacker. No matter which one wins, the other one will bitch about the court's method, no matter how the court decided. Possibly the most perfect example of this was the SCOTUS ruling on the ACA. Prior to that time, the far right had viewed SCOTUS as their great friend and protector against the horror of government oppression. After the ruling upheld ACA, all of a sudden: "Chief Justice Roberts is cognitively challenged due to drugs." (That's not a joke; it was a dead serious accusation.)
So to ask a dead serious question: If Wiley had won, do you think anyone would have raised the possibility of the court's being improperly influenced by this amicus brief? Of course not.
In the end, the court decides (however it decides to do so) and one side will cheer and the other will whine about "improper court procedure" sour grapes.
I really enjoyed the reasoning in Band's counterpoints: "The number wasn't challenged, so the number is good." Perhaps he is correct and the number was meaningful, but...
Possibly the best joke of all is the unspoken corollary: If someone presents a number, and that number is challenged, then it is obviously wrong.
I'm left with a mental image of the nation (or it's Supreme Court) nodding happily to an unchallenged number from a dodgy source. (Such as, to paraphrase T. K. Ryan, "His cousin's uncle's best friend knowed a feller what actually shook hands with the feller what said this was the right number.")
Meanwhile, numbers painstakingly and repeatably validated using the best scientific and mathematical methods are rejected out of hand because pundit Porky Pig says, 'Th-th-th-th-th-th-th-that's wrong folks!"
Like the numbers themselves are witnesses to be (dis)credited, when in actuality the witnesses are the sources from which the numbers derive.
It doesn't matter what the allegations are, really.
This is not the way companies are prosecuted here in the United States: What happens here is the company is fined (rarely even charged with a crime); maybe occasionally one or two officers will be charged with a crime.
"39 infringing copies" a civil theft; is a $6 million fine in this country. In civil court, with the company hopefully learning its lesson at the end.
That is not what we see.
What we see in the prosecution of Megaupload and Dotcom is equivalent to a scorched earth campaign: The utter destruction of a company with its resources and stockholders; already accomplished before even the court case is heard. Combined with a frantic effort to assure that the prosecution of Dotcom and the other officers takes place in a true kangaroo court, without defense evidence or even a defense attorny; and, no doubt, with firing squad at the end if only they can argue the court into it.
This is not what is done for copyright infringement; this is something else entirely.
In the EU, as here in the US, the "incumbents" have captured government and made it their tool; which they then use to crush all competing innovation. Surely Neelie Kroes, given his former position as one of the lead crushers, is aware of this: his surprise at the resultant lack of innovation is entirely disingenuous.
If the camera company worked a contract similar to that which most private companies work, in these privatization schemes, it is guaranteed a minimum profit out of this camera scheme.
If that's the case, not only does the budget have a shortfall now, but it's going to be even worse when the bill from the camera company arrives.
On the post: Senator Wyden Attacks CIA Redaction Demands As 'Unprecedented'
Re: Compromise
On the post: Senator Wyden Attacks CIA Redaction Demands As 'Unprecedented'
Compromise
For people lower in the hierarchy, names and pseudonyms may be removed, but an "authority class" should be used in place. For example: agent, senior agent, clandestine agent, foreign agent, foreign senior agent, and etc. The classes assigned should reflect the individual's tier in the CIA or foreign authority hierarchy.
The purpose of this compromise would be to overcome most of the name/pseudonym objections, retaining only those names that are top-level public policymakers, so we can assess the legality of their actions. For lower level people, it should clarify the authority position for assessment of the control hierarchy, without allowing identification of individuals.
On the post: Mobile Providers: No One Has Complained* About Our Service, So Net Neutrality Shouldn't Apply To Us
Re: Hmmmmmm
There's little or no point to complaining about any large company product these days. There's never an organized system for complaints; because if a company actually accumulated complaints, someone might use that as evidence their product is less than perfect. From the company perspective, what they offer is what you get, take it or leave it.
That's why so few people bother to complain these days. If something is truly unacceptable, most people just vote with their feet. Your choice today is to pick the company that has the problems you can live with; very like voting for politicians. (If you don't have a choice, well that sucks.)
If the product offerings get bad enough, the loss of market share forces the company to improve; that's the only "complaint" companies understand. The rest of the complaints go in the round file.
On the post: Wisconsin Town Sends In The BearCat Tank To Collect Civil Fine From Seventy-Year-Old
Overkill?
On the post: Cleveland Plain Dealer Owner Demands Takedown Of Unflattering Video Featuring Candidate It Endorsed In Governor's Race
Plain dealer?
On the post: FBI's Use Of 'Sneak And Peek' Warrants Still Steadily Increasing, Still Has Nearly Nothing To Do With Fighting Terrorism
Re:
Once that is done, the only thing we have to worry about is police or FBI agents showing up for unannounced searches of our homes.
...oh, wait: We have that now.
On the post: FTC Fines Online Dating Site For Using 'Fake, Computer-Generated Profiles' To Lure Guys Into Buying Premium Memberships
Re: Re:
On the post: Hackers Breached White House Network... And Some Other Country Told The US About It
This is a surprise?
On the post: Europe's New Digital Commissioner Explores Imposing An EU-Wide 'Google Tax'
Re:
I predict that after Google simply removes all links in Europe from its results, that this will be the shortest tax in history.
On the post: FTC Sues AT&T For Selling 'Unlimited' Data Plans That Were Actually Throttled
Cable next, please...
On the post: The Supreme Court Succumbs To Truthiness, Leading Librarians And Stephen Colbert To Bicker
Re: Point of Clarification
That's great, if it is so. But today, so many of these briefs are from wholly self-interested groups who are friends only to their own interests. That shouldn't be news, because most of the cases these days are exactly the same way. If the court takes that into account, I see no problem with the use of amicus briefs.
There's no middle road: pot calls kettle black; kettle rejoins that pot is blacker. No matter which one wins, the other one will bitch about the court's method, no matter how the court decided. Possibly the most perfect example of this was the SCOTUS ruling on the ACA. Prior to that time, the far right had viewed SCOTUS as their great friend and protector against the horror of government oppression. After the ruling upheld ACA, all of a sudden: "Chief Justice Roberts is cognitively challenged due to drugs." (That's not a joke; it was a dead serious accusation.)
So to ask a dead serious question: If Wiley had won, do you think anyone would have raised the possibility of the court's being improperly influenced by this amicus brief? Of course not.
In the end, the court decides (however it decides to do so) and one side will cheer and the other will whine about "improper court procedure" sour grapes.
On the post: The Supreme Court Succumbs To Truthiness, Leading Librarians And Stephen Colbert To Bicker
Numbers only wrong ... if challenged
Possibly the best joke of all is the unspoken corollary: If someone presents a number, and that number is challenged, then it is obviously wrong.
I'm left with a mental image of the nation (or it's Supreme Court) nodding happily to an unchallenged number from a dodgy source. (Such as, to paraphrase T. K. Ryan, "His cousin's uncle's best friend knowed a feller what actually shook hands with the feller what said this was the right number.")
Meanwhile, numbers painstakingly and repeatably validated using the best scientific and mathematical methods are rejected out of hand because pundit Porky Pig says, 'Th-th-th-th-th-th-th-that's wrong folks!"
Like the numbers themselves are witnesses to be (dis)credited, when in actuality the witnesses are the sources from which the numbers derive.
On the post: Guidelines On Who Might Be Suspicious: Too Nervous? Too Calm? Blending In? Standing Out? It's All Suspicious
Re: Re:
To be: Suspicious.
On the post: Keith Alexander Now Being Vetted By Everybody For Everything After Leaving The Protective Shelter Of The NSA
Well, after all...
Like those guys at TSA that wanted to search the passenger after arrival; everybody figures that now Alexander has left, maybe we ought to vet him.
On the post: IP Is No Excuse: Even If Someone Is Using Fake Chips, It's Not Okay To Kill Their Devices
Ignoring the important point
This reveals that it is possible to permanently brick any USB device by software command.
This is a lovely target for both malware and planned obsolescence.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is not the way companies are prosecuted here in the United States: What happens here is the company is fined (rarely even charged with a crime); maybe occasionally one or two officers will be charged with a crime.
"39 infringing copies" a civil theft; is a $6 million fine in this country. In civil court, with the company hopefully learning its lesson at the end.
That is not what we see.
What we see in the prosecution of Megaupload and Dotcom is equivalent to a scorched earth campaign: The utter destruction of a company with its resources and stockholders; already accomplished before even the court case is heard. Combined with a frantic effort to assure that the prosecution of Dotcom and the other officers takes place in a true kangaroo court, without defense evidence or even a defense attorny; and, no doubt, with firing squad at the end if only they can argue the court into it.
This is not what is done for copyright infringement; this is something else entirely.
On the post: Departing EU Digital Commissioner Warns Against 'Analogue Europe' Blocking Digital Innovation
Crusher
On the post: One Of The NSA's Biggest Critics In The Senate May Lose His Seat
Pathetic
(Maybe there are more than that, but as little criticism as we hear, it sure seems like less than two hands.)
On the post: Complete Failure: Chicago's Speed Camera Traps Fail To Bring In The Revenue Mayor Emanuel Counted Upon
Guaranteed income
If that's the case, not only does the budget have a shortfall now, but it's going to be even worse when the bill from the camera company arrives.
On the post: Apple May Want To Protect Your Phone Data From Snooping, But It's Snarfing Up Your Local Desktop Searches
So typical
Such "enhancements" almost always grab more control over your life and turn over more data to the company. Or else "twice as much enhancing spam!"
"Enhancement" translates to "enhance our bottom line" and if the customer doesn't like it, too bad.
Next >>