This is one of several self-serving tactics the government uses every time something is requested by FOIA that the government doesn't want to release. It's a little suprising to see it in this context, since there's a question of whose privacy could possibly be breached, but...
Suppose there is a dispute between the government and Joe Doakes:
If the government is being asked for information of its actions related to Joe, and that information is embarrassing to the government then, "The information cannot be released because doing so would infringe Joe's right of privacy."
But suppose the government has some information that would embarrass Joe in the dispute: The government hands it out at a press conference, saying afterward, "Joe has privacy?"
You don't trust us? How about we give your data to a bunch of companies whose profit will depend on their cooperation and who will be controlled by us through secret agreements? Better?
The very first question looks to me like it is enough to drive some audiences off the deep end: "What is the news philosophy of the station?" Nearly as provocative is,"Is the news produced in-house or is it provided by an outside source?" and. "Who decides which stories are covered?"
Suppose you are producing extremely ideologically slanted news based on a daily "talking points" memo from political operatives; suppose you are a thinly disguised PAC: Don't you think questions like this would be proof that the Jack boots are coming?
Except, of course, it isn't. Ask any judge: "When does a murder occur? When the act is committed or when the murder is first discovered by the authorities?"
The answer, pure and simple, is: at the time of the the act. Whether or when the murder is discovered is irrelevant; if you kill someone, you have violated the law.
Likewise, an infraction of a citizen's civil rights occurs at the time of the act. The judge keeps trying to hand-wave that away, saying, "It's only illegal if they get caught."
If a citizen had the temerity to make that statement, the judge would throw his gavel and hit the idiot right between the eyes. So then he has the hypocritical nerve to assert the same thing on behalf of the government?
How did they know there were 58,000 GCHQ SECRET documents on his drive? Break the encryption? Know what Snowden copied? Make up the figures?
No, no, and no.
They got the number by a very simple and underhanded strategy: There are 58,000 encrypted documents, therefore they are all GCHQ secrets. So what if Miranda says they aren't? The only way he could prove GCHQ wrong is to decrypt all the documents.
Guilty until he proves himself innocent. Of course he can't do that: if he can't decrypt them, he's stuck; and if he can, he'd show them what he has.
One of the problems with the phrase "net neutrality" is that no one knows what it means. We know what we think it means, but the other side co-opted it simultaneously to mean exactly the opposite.
We need a name for these acts that does not use this phrase and that, preferably, can't be co-opted by the other side. How about pros and cons for "Right to Equal Network Utility Act"?
I've conjectured that red light cameras are more about surveillance than about revenues. (Though the revenues are useful to pay for the cameras and good in themselves.)
With the enthusiasm today about surveillance, it seems like offering to do red light cameras in a community would be kind of like a comic character charging the open door with his battering ram.
Given that: Why do you need bribes? Is your service so overpriced or sucky compared to other offerings that you have to bribe to win a bid?
As an establishment leader (government official or corporate officer closely allied to government) a "terrorist" is anyone who disagrees with policy or embarrasses the policy makers.
Anonymous does both, and is therefore a "terrorist" organization. Of course you send your intelligence agencies to persecute them.
Of course he's willing to reveal all on officers who are punished; because at the same time he puts in 3-day-no-questioning policies to ensure no officer is punished.
Anyone who pays close attention to the FDA knows that it is just as trustworthy as...any government agency chock full of wholly-owned beneficiaries of the industry it is supposed to regulate.
But like all companies, politicians and patricians today, the FDA sees such ugly little details of reality to be irrelevant: What matters to them is their image, as created by their Image Whitewashing Department (usually known as "Media Relations").
They just want to see if the department is earning its pay.
On the post: James Clapper's Office Hilariously Cites 'Privacy' Concerns In Blanket Denial To FOIA Request For NSA Reform Submissions
Nothing new about this
Suppose there is a dispute between the government and Joe Doakes:
If the government is being asked for information of its actions related to Joe, and that information is embarrassing to the government then, "The information cannot be released because doing so would infringe Joe's right of privacy."
But suppose the government has some information that would embarrass Joe in the dispute: The government hands it out at a press conference, saying afterward, "Joe has privacy?"
On the post: IETF Draft Wants To Formalize 'Man-In-The-Middle' Decryption Of Data As It Passes Through 'Trusted Proxies'
When?
On the post: Government Still Pretending That Letting Phone Companies Hold Mass Surveillance Data Would Improve Privacy
Better, huh?
On the post: Internet Goes Crazy Over Ordinary FCC Survey, Claims Agency Wants Draconian Control Over Newsrooms
Depends on the audience
Suppose you are producing extremely ideologically slanted news based on a daily "talking points" memo from political operatives; suppose you are a thinly disguised PAC: Don't you think questions like this would be proof that the Jack boots are coming?
On the post: Federal Judge Paraphrases Mike Rogers; Tells Muslims Their Rights Can't Be Violated If They Don't Know They're Being Violated
It's legal if you don't get caught
The answer, pure and simple, is: at the time of the the act. Whether or when the murder is discovered is irrelevant; if you kill someone, you have violated the law.
Likewise, an infraction of a citizen's civil rights occurs at the time of the act. The judge keeps trying to hand-wave that away, saying, "It's only illegal if they get caught."
If a citizen had the temerity to make that statement, the judge would throw his gavel and hit the idiot right between the eyes. So then he has the hypocritical nerve to assert the same thing on behalf of the government?
On the post: Nintendo: Broader, Awful Anti-Piracy Measures Are Sure To Turn Our Fortunes Around!
More is always better
On the post: DHS Suffers Moment Of Clarity, Shuts Down Plans To Build A Nationwide License Plate Database
Shut down what?
On the post: UK Court Rules Miranda Detention At Heathrow Airport Was Lawful, But Questions Remain About What Was Seized
How they got 58,000
No, no, and no.
They got the number by a very simple and underhanded strategy: There are 58,000 encrypted documents, therefore they are all GCHQ secrets. So what if Miranda says they aren't? The only way he could prove GCHQ wrong is to decrypt all the documents.
Guilty until he proves himself innocent. Of course he can't do that: if he can't decrypt them, he's stuck; and if he can, he'd show them what he has.
On the post: Rep. Eshoo Admits Her Net Neutrality Bill Nobody Thought Would Pass -- Won't Pass
Right to Equal Network Utility Act
We need a name for these acts that does not use this phrase and that, preferably, can't be co-opted by the other side. How about pros and cons for "Right to Equal Network Utility Act"?
On the post: Speed Cam Contractor Redflex Accused Of Bribing Government Officials In 13 States
Why did they need to?
With the enthusiasm today about surveillance, it seems like offering to do red light cameras in a community would be kind of like a comic character charging the open door with his battering ram.
Given that: Why do you need bribes? Is your service so overpriced or sucky compared to other offerings that you have to bribe to win a bid?
On the post: Whether Dumb Starbucks Is A PR Stunt, A Joke Or Real... Its 'Parody' Claims Are Pretty Questionable
A good idea, right up until the judge frowns...
Ummm...Yeah! Good luck with that.
On the post: Snowden Docs Show GCHQ Tried To DDoS Anonymous
Anonymous as Intelligence Target: Positively
Anonymous does both, and is therefore a "terrorist" organization. Of course you send your intelligence agencies to persecute them.
On the post: TSA To Gun Show Attendees: Don't Think You're Getting On Board With Your Bullet-Encased-In-Acrylic Keychains
I Feel Safer!
On the post: FBI Appears To Have Collected Tormail's Entire Email Database... And It's Using It
Punishment by association
It's the equivalent of razing an entire village because one enemy soldier is suspected to be living within it.
On the post: DOJ Says Company That Vetted Snowden Faked 665,000 Background Checks
Big Implications
On the post: Eric Holder Admits That Feds Would 'Engage In Conversation' With Snowden, But Not Grant Him Clemency
Guess how that would go...
Holder: Give yourself up.
Snowden: [thoughtful comment on policy]
Holder: Surrender.
Snowden: [thoughtful comment on policy]
Holder: Capitulate.
Snowden: [thoughtful comment on policy]
Holder: Submit.
Snowden: [thoughtful comment on policy]
Holder: Yield.
...
On the post: FISA Court Waited Until After Snowden Leaks To Actually Explore If Bulk Phone Record Collection Was Legal
Retreating Yet Again...
On the post: Police Chief Publicly Disciplines Officers On Social Media
One hand gives...
On the post: Administration Calls For Schools To Limit Use Of Zero Tolerance Policies, Police Officers For Routine Student Discipline
Finally Recognizing Real Aim of Zero Tolerance
That and the other schools program, "No [Desirable] Child Left Behind", were never really intended for any other purpose.
On the post: The FDA Wants To Dig Through Everyone's Stuff In Order To 'Monitor Online Sentiment'
FDA Assessing the Results of Their Spin
But like all companies, politicians and patricians today, the FDA sees such ugly little details of reality to be irrelevant: What matters to them is their image, as created by their Image Whitewashing Department (usually known as "Media Relations").
They just want to see if the department is earning its pay.
Next >>