Re: Minion parrots: "Won't work, ya can't stop us pirates! Awk!"
"Adult society values copyright..."
I'd call that a gross exaggeration of reality. Greedy corps certainly value copyright, but most people have merely tolerated it, until those corps reactions to the digital age resulted in a dramatic loss of respect for the whole copyright system.
"Snoden is not being charged for "harming America" he is being charged for theft, and wrongfull use of classified information.
And for providing classified info to people not cleared to view it.
I dont see anything about "harming America" on his charge sheet, so what is the point of your argument."
This actually made me giggle. Not really a high-level thinker are you?
"Also NSA officials are allowed to make statements and provide information, Snoden signed legal documents and made statements under oath that he understood he is NOT allowed."
What you clearly want (like the USG apparently) is to prevent whistle-blowing. And the only people who want to prevent whistle-blowing are people who know the public would not be happy with the info provided by whistle-blowers, i.e. people who know what they're doing is wrong, legally or otherwise. People like you who want to suppress knowledge of governmental misdeeds sicken me. You are an anathema to good democratic government process.
"Does it just not occur to you that since you're making a legal claim such as your claim here that this is not espionage that you should back it up with an actual discussion of the law?"
I don't see Mike making a legal claim, I see a statement of common frickin' sense, something you seem to be drastically lacking in.
And ironically you cannot offer any argument, legal or otherwise, against what Mike's said. Nothing of any substance, just personal attacks as usual. Pathetic.
"If a crime can be committed in a second, but justice takes years..."
In the context of the 'terrorism' we're told this surveillance is supposed to prevent, neither of these statements are true.
"If you don't like my comments, that's fine, but censorship?"
There are commenters that are far more deserving of being 'disappeared' than you, and they seem to be commenting just fine. I think you overestimate your impact on this site.
You say they didn't listen to their customers, then say dismal preorders were a factor in this decision. You realise that preorders come from customers right?
Hey, thanks for providing a detailed and complete rebuttal of the article, and providing sources to back up your claims so we can check them out and weigh up Mike's claims against yours, and make up our minds based on who provided the strongest argument. Well done!
Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
"In any case, you can't rely on "dog ate my homework"."
Actually, in court you can rely on that when the dog is the prosecutor and the homework is material evidence.
"If Dotcom is so darned eager to prove his innocence, he can hop on a plane for the US and get it over with."
I'm not sure if this statement is made out of ignorance, malice or both...
If you were accused of a crime in another country and set to be extradited, and you considered yourself to be innocent, would you willingly jump on a plane and present yourself to the authorities knowing that you'll spend the next year or two stuck in that country and having to put your entire life on hold? Do you leave your family? (Dotcom has a wife and five kids remember.) Or do you uproot them from their lives too? Do you just quit your job? (Probably no choice there.) Is that what you'd do Blue?
No, of course it's not. Since you believe you're innocent you'd fight every effort to you drag you into that hell. Even if you assume Dotcom would get a fair trial (far from guaranteed) and can win, it's still something no sane person would volunteer for.
The extradition process is not just to ensure criminals can be returned to the country where a crime was committed, but also to ensure people who are innocent or unlikely to be found guilty are not unduly punished before a verdict is even delivered.
Re: Mike and Tolles against AG investigating Google for antitrust.
"Anyhoo, when more than one AG comes after you, it's just possible that you're engaged in fairly obvious fiddling."
Nice appeal to authority there. Obviously there's no reason to believe that if one AG seeks to improve their chances of career advancement by grandstanding on a stupid issue like this, that others would jump on the bandwagon for the same ulterior motives. No, AG's clearly have moral superiority when in numbers...
So you're trying to convince us that you've never done anything in your life that was completely legal but you'd still like to keep completely private? Man your life must be dull...
"What a shame that you can't be bothered to defend anything you publish. That says it all about you, unfortunately."
The fact that you feel fully entitled to an author's time and attention says a lot about you. You have an unrealistically high impression of your own worth.
"So Mike, are you saying that whistleblowers should just not even try to report whatever wrongs they perceive through proper channels first?"
Did you even read the link that was in the text you quoted? Clearly not, or you'd realise how ignorant your comment sounds. Why would you choose a path that will have the exact opposite outcome that you want?
Feel free to link to examples of Mike attacking someone while ignoring the merits of what they said. If it's so common it should be easy for you. Way you go, we'll wait...
On the post: SOPA Didn't Die, It Just Emigrated
Re: Minion parrots: "Won't work, ya can't stop us pirates! Awk!"
I'd call that a gross exaggeration of reality. Greedy corps certainly value copyright, but most people have merely tolerated it, until those corps reactions to the digital age resulted in a dramatic loss of respect for the whole copyright system.
On the post: MPAA's Actions, Emails Show That They're Doing Everything Possible To Screw Over The Blind
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Snowden's Secrets 'Belong To The People Of The US' & He's A Traitor For Giving Them What They Own?
Re: Re:
On the post: Snowden's Secrets 'Belong To The People Of The US' & He's A Traitor For Giving Them What They Own?
Re:
On the post: NSA Now Revealing A Lot More About What It Does Than Snowden Leaks Did; So Is That Harming America?
Re:
And for providing classified info to people not cleared to view it.
I dont see anything about "harming America" on his charge sheet, so what is the point of your argument."
This actually made me giggle. Not really a high-level thinker are you?
"Also NSA officials are allowed to make statements and provide information, Snoden signed legal documents and made statements under oath that he understood he is NOT allowed."
What you clearly want (like the USG apparently) is to prevent whistle-blowing. And the only people who want to prevent whistle-blowing are people who know the public would not be happy with the info provided by whistle-blowers, i.e. people who know what they're doing is wrong, legally or otherwise. People like you who want to suppress knowledge of governmental misdeeds sicken me. You are an anathema to good democratic government process.
On the post: Ed Snowden Leaves Hong Kong, Seeks Asylum In Ecuador, As US Officials Flip Out
Re: Re: Re:
You have to wonder how he got the job in the first place. Surely he should've been weeded out during the interview process...
On the post: Candidate Obama Debating President Obama On Civil Liberties vs. Government Surveillance
Re: Re: President and Candidate not the same thing
On the post: Edward Snowden Charged With Espionage By US Government
Re:
I don't see Mike making a legal claim, I see a statement of common frickin' sense, something you seem to be drastically lacking in.
And ironically you cannot offer any argument, legal or otherwise, against what Mike's said. Nothing of any substance, just personal attacks as usual. Pathetic.
On the post: FBI Admits That Obeying The Constitution Just Takes Too Much Time
Re: yet they are correct
In the context of the 'terrorism' we're told this surveillance is supposed to prevent, neither of these statements are true.
"If you don't like my comments, that's fine, but censorship?"
There are commenters that are far more deserving of being 'disappeared' than you, and they seem to be commenting just fine. I think you overestimate your impact on this site.
On the post: More Details Emerge As States' Attorneys General Seek To Hold Back Innovation On The Internet
Re: Expected Techhive to be one of Mike's piratey pals...
Hard to take seriously someone who compares a search engine to TV and newspapers. Not hard for Blue though...
On the post: Microsoft Capitulates, Removes Online DRM From Xbox One
Re:
On the post: Hollywood's New Talking Point: Gatekeepers Are Awesome
Re:
On the post: LeaseWeb Deletes Megaupload's Servers Without Warning, Destroying Key Evidence
Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!
Actually, in court you can rely on that when the dog is the prosecutor and the homework is material evidence.
"If Dotcom is so darned eager to prove his innocence, he can hop on a plane for the US and get it over with."
I'm not sure if this statement is made out of ignorance, malice or both...
If you were accused of a crime in another country and set to be extradited, and you considered yourself to be innocent, would you willingly jump on a plane and present yourself to the authorities knowing that you'll spend the next year or two stuck in that country and having to put your entire life on hold? Do you leave your family? (Dotcom has a wife and five kids remember.) Or do you uproot them from their lives too? Do you just quit your job? (Probably no choice there.) Is that what you'd do Blue?
No, of course it's not. Since you believe you're innocent you'd fight every effort to you drag you into that hell. Even if you assume Dotcom would get a fair trial (far from guaranteed) and can win, it's still something no sane person would volunteer for.
The extradition process is not just to ensure criminals can be returned to the country where a crime was committed, but also to ensure people who are innocent or unlikely to be found guilty are not unduly punished before a verdict is even delivered.
On the post: States Attorneys General Want Special Exception To Blame Sites For Actions Of Users
Re:
On the post: States Attorneys General Want Special Exception To Blame Sites For Actions Of Users
Re: Mike and Tolles against AG investigating Google for antitrust.
Nice appeal to authority there. Obviously there's no reason to believe that if one AG seeks to improve their chances of career advancement by grandstanding on a stupid issue like this, that others would jump on the bandwagon for the same ulterior motives. No, AG's clearly have moral superiority when in numbers...
On the post: States Attorneys General Want Special Exception To Blame Sites For Actions Of Users
Re: Re:
Very little you have to say at the moment has any merit. You have quite literally lowered yourself to the level of spam.
On the post: More Than Half The Senate Skips Town Rather Than Attend Briefing About NSA Surveillance
Re: Who cares
On the post: First French File-Sharer Sentenced To Disconnection Under Hadopi; But Judgment May Be Unenforceable
Re:
The fact that you feel fully entitled to an author's time and attention says a lot about you. You have an unrealistically high impression of your own worth.
On the post: CISPA's Sponsors Can't Keep Their Story Straight: If Snowden's Leaks Are False, How Do They Harm America?
Re:
Did you even read the link that was in the text you quoted? Clearly not, or you'd realise how ignorant your comment sounds. Why would you choose a path that will have the exact opposite outcome that you want?
On the post: CISPA's Sponsors Can't Keep Their Story Straight: If Snowden's Leaks Are False, How Do They Harm America?
Re:
Next >>