If I recall correctly, this very thing happened in the 90's when the FBI lobbied for a law compromising the security features of American technology. For the gazillionth time, our "intelligence" community has failed to learn from its mistakes, and our "representatives" have failed to inform us of how our interests have been sacrificed to build an intelligence system explicitly designed to criminalize dissent and undermine the rule of law.
If it were not for patriots like Snowden, Manning, and others, we would never have the opportunity to fix the system. Refusing to pardon or grant amnesty to them can only be an endorsement of authoritarianism, as that is the only basis for the behavior they brought to light and the only basis of their prosecution.
I can only hope that the possession of illicit media does not become in the future what the possession of illicit drugs is today. Let's nip this one in the bud before we end up with police doing anal cavity searches to find our thumb drives.
I don't think there's a precedent in history (or sanity, for that matter) for a court to make a secret ruling based on the secret legal arguments of the defense and the plaintiff. But I wouldn't be surprised to see it, revealed ex post facto, in the FISA court.
Maybe an effective measure to curtail this sort of madness is to tax companies slightly less (whether by creating a tax penalty or a tax break) in exchange for applying sane copyright limits (less than 15 years until expiration, for one) to their IP. The point being that they'd have to weigh the dubious gains of copyright ownership against the certain benefit of the tax break. Most would probably prefer the latter.
Companies would still argue for maximizing copyright, but many would simultaneously argue that the enormous economic benefits of more limited copyright deserves a larger tax incentive. It would be a lot harder for copyright maximalists to set the terms of the debate.
...when he said "rebuild". Rebuild the massive domestic spying network of such dubious usefulness that puts everyone at greater risk? Why would we want to, after realizing what the NSA did in our name?
Inman believes, as Hayden and Alexander clearly do, that the political controversy is temporary, and whatever law is passed to constrain the NSA will be ineffective, either by its own wording or the NSA's capability to secretly flout it, and there will be no real consequences for NSA officials. Having seen and experienced the results of the Church committee (creation of the secret rubber-stamping FISA court) they may well be right.
We're fortunate that these over-the-top surveillance programs were exposed before the government deployed some kind of technology that can see our naked bodies through clothing.
Oh wait, they did that already. I wonder if the NSA has access to those machines. It'd surely beat any bathroom spying program.
On the post: Leaked Documents Show NSA Compromising Computer Hardware And Communication Technology On A Massive Scale
History repeats itself
If it were not for patriots like Snowden, Manning, and others, we would never have the opportunity to fix the system. Refusing to pardon or grant amnesty to them can only be an endorsement of authoritarianism, as that is the only basis for the behavior they brought to light and the only basis of their prosecution.
On the post: TPP IP Chapter Leaked, Confirming It's Worse Than ACTA
Ugh
On the post: DOJ Refuses To Let Tech Companies See Legal Arguments It's Making Against Them
Re:
On the post: Copyright Extension Goes Into Effect In The UK: More Works Stolen From The Public Domain
An Idea I had
Companies would still argue for maximizing copyright, but many would simultaneously argue that the enormous economic benefits of more limited copyright deserves a larger tax incentive. It would be a lot harder for copyright maximalists to set the terms of the debate.
On the post: Former NSA Boss Says NSA Should Just Reveal Everything Itself And Move On
Exactly what I was thinking
Inman believes, as Hayden and Alexander clearly do, that the political controversy is temporary, and whatever law is passed to constrain the NSA will be ineffective, either by its own wording or the NSA's capability to secretly flout it, and there will be no real consequences for NSA officials. Having seen and experienced the results of the Church committee (creation of the secret rubber-stamping FISA court) they may well be right.
On the post: How Much Does Gold-Plated Corporate Sovereignty Cost? $1 Billion Or About 2% Of A Developing Country's GDP
Re: And you expect this corporation to do ... what?
On the post: Rep. Mike Rogers Angrily Defends Bathroom Spycam
Fortunately...
Oh wait, they did that already. I wonder if the NSA has access to those machines. It'd surely beat any bathroom spying program.
Next >>