Here's a good one: a movie with a $150M budget had $131M in "Advertising and publicity" costs. What are the chances that all those screaming tweens, et al wouldn't have gone to see the movie or known about the movie without all that advertising? The use of the "Advertising and publicity" costs to hide money is the easiest way. On our side of the 49th parallel this resulted in the biggest political scandal in 30 or so years a while back. The Liberal Party of Canada is yet to recover from their little "sponsorship" adventure. I have no way to know if they really did that but spending $131M for a $150M sequel movie that is part of one of the most famous franchises in the world is irresponsible at best. I'd get fired if I did stuff like that at work.
As far as I see it there are the following givens that must be considered:
1. Spc. Manning claimed to be the source of the "Collateral Murder" video.
2. Spc. Manning claimed to have given hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks.
3. Spc. Manning described to Adrian Lamo how he bypassed the security at FOB Hammer and boasted how unprotected it was.
4. Rules and regulations the military depends upon to function properly.
Let us ignore the question whether or not Spc. Manning is in fact the source of the leak as it is not germaine to the points I would like to make.
I will start with the last and the first givens sort of simulateneaously. Whether one agrees with the actions of the military today, yesterday, 50 years ago or 100 years from now, as long as one agrees on the need to have the armed forces, it is imperative to understand that their rules exist for a very good reason. The soldiers depend on each other with their lives. Questions of whether a soldier can be trusted destroy unit cohesion (that is the way human nature works). Couple of weeks ago Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard was recalled after allegations of an affair with a non-commisioned subordinate had surfaced. The soldiers must not have any doubts that they can depend on each other regardless of all other considerations (romantic, political, etc.) Also, the military is barred (and for good reasons) of getting ivolved in politics. A prime example of that is the Fact that General Stanley McChrystal was called in to make a personal apperance in the White House and offered his resignation. Spc. Bradley Manning knew the laws and he chose to ignore them. We all should do what we think is right but we all must be willing to accept the consequences of our own actions. Spc. Manning chose to leak the documents an outside source. I cannot say whether he had other options, perhaps going to the top of his chain of command advising the Army Chief of Staff and President Obama before contacting WikiLeaks. That would have been bad for his career but not as bad as giving the materials to a foreign organization. Though I do believe that the revelation of those tapes is a good thing.
But Spc. Manning did contact a foreign source and he did give them the videos. And that brings us to the given number 2. There is no way that Spc. Manning read through all 260,000 of diplomatic cables so there's no way he could have know whther they contained evidence of a cover-up. So even though he could claim he was doing the right thing leaking the video, he had no business leaking diplomatic dispatches. I am sorry but this does qualify as treason.
And finally, even if we accept the fact that Spc. Manning was acting for a higher purpose in leaking the videos and the documents he MOST CERTAINLY had no business contacting a journalist to brag about how easy it is to penetrate security of the base. That is treason as well.
So he could have just gotten off with a conduct unbecoming had he only released the video(s). But coupled with the 260,000 diplomatic communications and instructions on penetrating base security to a journalist Spc. Bradley Manning has clearly went WAY too far. Provided, of course, that he did not lie to Adrian Lamo about his activities in the first place.
I'll be honest, though I agree that this might make people uncomfortable is this really a problem? As has been discussed on this blog many times, technopanics serve no purpose. We can all agree that texting while driving can lead to accidents. And yet, as has also been discussed many times on this blog, the anti-texting legislation is unnecessary. And as I've read in a number of TechDirt articles, before starting to freak out, let's find out if this really is a problem.
Even if police determine that a relative of a person whose DNA is in the system, has left his own DNA at the scene of a crime, that alone is not enough to convict. The investigators will still need to prove that the suspect was involved in the crime itself.
Do the potential problems involved with this practice outweigh the benefits?
All that is to say that I am not convinced that this is a really big problem that need to be legislated.
This situation is hardly unique. Anheuser-Busch can only advertise/brand Budweiser beer in Europe as Bud. I think Ce De Candy do have a legitimate issue since Nestlé's "Smarties" are not available for sale in USA through the brick-and-moretar stores. So all Amazon would need to do is not to sell the candy to the US customers.
Yes, it may suck for Mr. Murray, but it's difficult to have sympathy for him. While I do have some concerns about the way certain sex offender list laws are structured, this is different. It seems like it is, in fact, newsworthy when someone with a record like Mr. Murray's moves into a certain area -- and barring publication of that fact seems like a dangerous precedent to set when it comes to press freedom.
Somehow I doubt the the press is reporting this out of any kind of sense of civic duty but rather as a way of selling mewspapers. On the other hand, that kind of unrelenting pressure is rather likely to become the trigger that will hasten Mr. Murray to reoffend. Though with his particlar "thing" reoffending is probably just a matter of time.
I'm sure it is. And, personally, I tend to finish my sentences with "eh" (stupid habit, really...). But I make a conscious decision to leave those things off my vocabulary on formal occasions.
In Parks' case, this information indicated that, for the 13 social security numbers he used in the Texas and Louisiana area codes, the two-digit "group number" was 99, meaning that nearly all of those numbers had been assigned.
Wouldn't this mean that he had an almost 100% chance of guessing a correct number? Also, is there anything in the law that says it's illegal to use SSN number of a living person but legal to use a deceased person's one? If not then as soon as he guesses a correct number then he's guilty. At the same time - and correct me if I'm wrong - there's the legal concept that intent follows the bullet. That applies to homicides though. If it applies to fraud as well, then what's the problem? If it doesn't, why the hell not?
On the post: 'Hollywood Accounting' Losing In The Courts
Costs
On the post: Where's The Line Between Whistleblowing And Criminal Leaking Of Classified Works?
Right/Wrong?
As far as I see it there are the following givens that must be considered:
1. Spc. Manning claimed to be the source of the "Collateral Murder" video.
2. Spc. Manning claimed to have given hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks.
3. Spc. Manning described to Adrian Lamo how he bypassed the security at FOB Hammer and boasted how unprotected it was.
4. Rules and regulations the military depends upon to function properly.
Let us ignore the question whether or not Spc. Manning is in fact the source of the leak as it is not germaine to the points I would like to make.
I will start with the last and the first givens sort of simulateneaously. Whether one agrees with the actions of the military today, yesterday, 50 years ago or 100 years from now, as long as one agrees on the need to have the armed forces, it is imperative to understand that their rules exist for a very good reason. The soldiers depend on each other with their lives. Questions of whether a soldier can be trusted destroy unit cohesion (that is the way human nature works). Couple of weeks ago Brig.-Gen. Daniel Ménard was recalled after allegations of an affair with a non-commisioned subordinate had surfaced. The soldiers must not have any doubts that they can depend on each other regardless of all other considerations (romantic, political, etc.) Also, the military is barred (and for good reasons) of getting ivolved in politics. A prime example of that is the Fact that General Stanley McChrystal was called in to make a personal apperance in the White House and offered his resignation. Spc. Bradley Manning knew the laws and he chose to ignore them. We all should do what we think is right but we all must be willing to accept the consequences of our own actions. Spc. Manning chose to leak the documents an outside source. I cannot say whether he had other options, perhaps going to the top of his chain of command advising the Army Chief of Staff and President Obama before contacting WikiLeaks. That would have been bad for his career but not as bad as giving the materials to a foreign organization. Though I do believe that the revelation of those tapes is a good thing.
But Spc. Manning did contact a foreign source and he did give them the videos. And that brings us to the given number 2. There is no way that Spc. Manning read through all 260,000 of diplomatic cables so there's no way he could have know whther they contained evidence of a cover-up. So even though he could claim he was doing the right thing leaking the video, he had no business leaking diplomatic dispatches. I am sorry but this does qualify as treason.
And finally, even if we accept the fact that Spc. Manning was acting for a higher purpose in leaking the videos and the documents he MOST CERTAINLY had no business contacting a journalist to brag about how easy it is to penetrate security of the base. That is treason as well.
So he could have just gotten off with a conduct unbecoming had he only released the video(s). But coupled with the 260,000 diplomatic communications and instructions on penetrating base security to a journalist Spc. Bradley Manning has clearly went WAY too far. Provided, of course, that he did not lie to Adrian Lamo about his activities in the first place.
On the post: Canadian Heritage Minister Says That Those In Favor Of Balanced Copyright Are 'Radical Extremists'
Canadian Heritage Minister, you say?
On the post: If Your Brother Was Arrested For A Crime, Does It Violate Your Privacy When They Store His DNA?
Really?
Even if police determine that a relative of a person whose DNA is in the system, has left his own DNA at the scene of a crime, that alone is not enough to convict. The investigators will still need to prove that the suspect was involved in the crime itself.
Do the potential problems involved with this practice outweigh the benefits?
All that is to say that I am not convinced that this is a really big problem that need to be legislated.
On the post: Official Twilight T-Shirt Contest Won't Let You Use Anything From Twilight
Re: winning Idea
Actually TechDirt should totally enter the contest with the DMCA T-shirt.
On the post: Amazon Sued For Selling Smarties
Trademark infringement
On the post: Amazon Sued For Selling Smarties
Re: Re: Youre smarties SUCK, our's melt in the mouth.
On the post: Bulgarian Chess Tournament Organizers Sue Website For Reporting Chess Moves, Claim Copyright Infringement
Re: Opportunity knocking!
On the post: Bulgarian Chess Tournament Organizers Sue Website For Reporting Chess Moves, Claim Copyright Infringement
Opportunity knocking!
On the post: Newspaper Publisher Defends Filing 22 Copyright Lawsuits Against Sites Who Copied Text... With Links Back
[...]"the "car" analogy makes no sense at all."
Actually it makes perfect sense. Talking about it and linking to the article is the equivalent of
On the post: Convicted Serial Rapist Goes To Court To Forbid Newspapers From Reporting On His Whereabouts
Worse off either way...
Yes, it may suck for Mr. Murray, but it's difficult to have sympathy for him. While I do have some concerns about the way certain sex offender list laws are structured, this is different. It seems like it is, in fact, newsworthy when someone with a record like Mr. Murray's moves into a certain area -- and barring publication of that fact seems like a dangerous precedent to set when it comes to press freedom.
Somehow I doubt the the press is reporting this out of any kind of sense of civic duty but rather as a way of selling mewspapers. On the other hand, that kind of unrelenting pressure is rather likely to become the trigger that will hasten Mr. Murray to reoffend. Though with his particlar "thing" reoffending is probably just a matter of time.
On the post: Are Yahoo & The AP Manipulating Comments? Or Are They Just Really Bad At The Internet? [Updated]
Do you... uh... Yahoo?
It's bizarre that Yahoo would do this, but apparently, that's how Yahoo rolls.
Well, what did you expect? They're yahoos! ;-)
On the post: Using An Online Map As Part Of Your Criminal Activity Gets You A Longer Sentence In Louisiana
Re: Re: Elementary, Watson...
On the post: Using An Online Map As Part Of Your Criminal Activity Gets You A Longer Sentence In Louisiana
Elementary, Watson...
Well, that's where the CCTV surveilance cameras come in. Come on! Get with the program here, comrade.
On the post: Pentagon: If You Don't Let The US Gov't Spy On Your Network, You Place American Lives At Risk
Re:
On the post: Supreme Court Justices Discuss Twitter
Re: Re: Decorum much?
On the post: Judge Tells Newspapers They Can't Report On News About College Trip Since It Might Impact College Funding
The proverbial rake
On the post: Supreme Court Justices Discuss Twitter
Decorum much?
On the post: Louisiana Wants To Put You In Jail If You Embarrass Anyone Under 17 Years Old Online
Typo? :)
your or you're?
Sorry. I'm feeling somewhat grammar nazi-ish at the moment. :)
On the post: The Mathematics Of Proving (Or Disproving) Identity Fraud
Wouldn't this mean that he had an almost 100% chance of guessing a correct number? Also, is there anything in the law that says it's illegal to use SSN number of a living person but legal to use a deceased person's one? If not then as soon as he guesses a correct number then he's guilty. At the same time - and correct me if I'm wrong - there's the legal concept that intent follows the bullet. That applies to homicides though. If it applies to fraud as well, then what's the problem? If it doesn't, why the hell not?
Next >>