He pretty clearly broke a, or several laws. And given his was (is?) in the military and signed various agreements concerning confidential information, I doubt this is any surprise to him.
But this does seem the now common case of piling on the charges.
It's especially ironic because those leaked cables seem to have played a material role in the revolutions in (at least) Tunisia and Egypt both of which seem to be in the US's long term interest!
Such backdoors will almost certainly be hacked by those with malicious intent.
Is it really so likely? CALEA put back doors into phone switches and I only know of one exploit (Greece) in 16 years.
Don't interpret this as supporting these kinds of things -- I certainly don't. I just don't know how prevalent surreptitious use of these back doors is (not surprising because it's surreptitious).
Scope creep is the real problem (e.g. all the the warrantless wiretapping that's happened) but unfortunately that is not an effective argument to use against wiretap supporters.
Before Glass–Steagall was revoked, banking was sliced in two: parts that needed to change slowly, and needed protection (e.g. deposit-taking commercial banking) was highly regulated and the more risk-taking side (investment banking) was less highly regulated.
Instead of trying to regulate or deregulate everything, allow experimentation as long as it is decoupled from systemic risk. Stuff that can cause systemic risk can be left to its own devices.
So in this example, as long as the only people who can invest in Facebook are people who can afford to lose 100% of their investment, what's the harm?
DV Henkel-Wallace (profile), 22 Dec 2010 @ 11:23am
Answer is obvious, of course
C'mon, the title of this post is essentially a rhetorical question. Financial organizations like Mastercard et al know that jettisoning wikileaks will cost them essentially nothing while not doing so threatens them with onerous regulation (the same issue affects their relationship with porn and gambling organizations, despite the revenues). Apple doesn't have the same set of regulators, but still has lots of opportunity for regulatory harassment (and has a desire/need to curry regulatory favor).
Cutting of the NYT wouldn't garner the same kind of value (since they are seen as "legitimate journalism", and have a clear precedent with the Pentagon Papers).
Re: Its not physical so it has no value according to Mike, so they cannot profit from it.
So if they discover a drug lab in your area, they will seize the drugs, and they will seize the equipment, and the raw materials.
Its what they do, its what we elected our/your government for, and why we pay taxes, to ensure our rights are upheld.
Darryl, the point is that these seizures aren't controlled by a trial or even subpoena. Clearly if the cops catch you breaking into a car they can confiscate the crowbar, and if (unlikely in my example, but still) you are proven innocent you get your crowbar back.
These civil seizures aren't connected with any criminal charges; worse the authorities get to profit (as an organization, generally, although Mike describes an exception even to that) from the proceeds.
Domain names aren't physical but they are an excludable good so are the logical equivalent of a physical asset.
Yes, the government is elected, and taxes are paid to help keep order and safety. And I am sure there are bad guys that the cops clearly know about but can't catch in flagrante delecto. But there is a reason we developed due process, and short-circuiting that is a recipe for exploitation.
To be fair, the pilot searching part has its own internal logic: if you don't search pilots, a pilot could carry something naughty through and then give it to a confederate who is on a completely different flight.
All this ignores the rest of the issues around whether this process adds any value etc etc.
This allows someone to sue in small claims court rather than having to have to try to lawyer up (it's unlikely you could find a lawyer to take most such cases). In this case the press coverage is a free bonus penalty for the debt collector.
...and for whatever reason, the newspaper and the reviewer "settled" the lawsuit (which seems unfortunate)...
Most likely what happened is the newspaper and reviewer handed the lawsuit to their respective insurance companies, who decided that settling would be cheaper. This is a pretty common case and unfortunately encourages clogging the courts. But as with any externality it's not worth any one insurance company's time and money fighting these spurious suits, and for them to combine to fight them would likely be treated as collusion.
DV Henkel-Wallace (profile), 23 Sep 2010 @ 11:52am
Seems legitimate to me
The court's issue here is the point of law. Patents by definition provide a monopoly and I can see how it's legitimate to make a patent settlement be removal of a product from the market rather than a direct cash payment. This does not look like traditional collusion (which is the only part of anti trust law that I could see would even be relevant).
Whether it should be allowed is a completely different thing, but current practice is not for judges to make that kind of decision.
DV Henkel-Wallace (profile), 15 Sep 2010 @ 12:22pm
I agree it makes no sense
A news site that wants to block external links can/should use two mechanisms, actually: robots.txt (for search engines and other automatic tools) and by rejecting / redirecting references that come with external, or no Referrer: field.
The fact that the sites aren't doing this demonstrates clearly that they value the aggregators. They are just trying to gouge them.
I have no sympathy at all for news sites that attack aggregators and search engines.
DV Henkel-Wallace (profile), 26 Aug 2010 @ 10:30pm
There is a legitimate reason
Which is that in the early days your story is probably not that coherent, as you struggle to figure out which features are important in your technology, what benefits match up with which market segments, what your unifying pitch it etc.
So if you can flail around in secret, you can make a much better impression when you finally start talking....at which point of course you will continue to refine your message etc.
That being said it's easy to stay in stealth too long, or suffer the problems you mentioned. But it should be acknowledged there is a legitimate reason.
DV Henkel-Wallace (profile), 30 Apr 2010 @ 11:37am
Surely there's plenty of precedent
You can publish books about making bombs, committing murder etc. You can discuss any number of gruesome crimes, even do so approvingly. So why throw all that out the window when the word "digital" is attached?
A winning interface would be more like an RSS feed that you could glance at when you wanted to know where someone in particular was. And a smart filter that would mail/txr/whatever you when someone was in an interesting spot (perhaps close to you, or someplace unusual, or something else).
Another interface would be to be able to see a historical overlay on a map, again on an on-demand rather than push mode.
Lots of other ways to think of it too. I have ignored these services because they're so crude, but someday someone will take them seriously and think about how they could usefully be used, rather than just how to get the data out there at all.
In other words, don't blame the message, blame the messenger!
This is how medicine worked in ancient Persia (for example): if you were sick you'd ask around (or perhaps sit in the street on a bed and ask passers by), "have you seen this symptom? What or who helped?"
Are things any better today? All the net has done is change the scale, not the nature.
Check out Truth or Consequences New Mexico. Or rather, just check it out online; I've been there and there's not much to write home about (apologies to all you Techdirt readers from T&C).
Come on, it's obnoxious, but hardly "abuse". FN license their stuff to people whose view they agree with. That's well within their right.
I could choose to licence a program I wrote only to redheads. It's no different.
And the DMCA was intended precisely to crack down on people using things in an unlicensed manner. Wether it does so, or is being exploited or abused....well there are plenty of good stories about that on TD. But this is, regrettably, a legitimate use.
On the post: Bradley Manning Hit With New Charges; Could Face Death Penalty
Hafta agree with the AC
But this does seem the now common case of piling on the charges.
It's especially ironic because those leaked cables seem to have played a material role in the revolutions in (at least) Tunisia and Egypt both of which seem to be in the US's long term interest!
On the post: It's Back: FBI Announcing Desire To Wiretap The Internet
Back door exploits certain?
Don't interpret this as supporting these kinds of things -- I certainly don't. I just don't know how prevalent surreptitious use of these back doors is (not surprising because it's surreptitious).
Scope creep is the real problem (e.g. all the the warrantless wiretapping that's happened) but unfortunately that is not an effective argument to use against wiretap supporters.
On the post: Facebook, Goldman Sachs & How Money Seeks Regulatory Free Zones
What about carving out an experimental zone?
Instead of trying to regulate or deregulate everything, allow experimentation as long as it is decoupled from systemic risk. Stuff that can cause systemic risk can be left to its own devices.
So in this example, as long as the only people who can invest in Facebook are people who can afford to lose 100% of their investment, what's the harm?
On the post: Will Visa, MasterCard, Paypal, BofA & Apple Terminate Relationships With The NYTimes For Revealing Military Secrets?
Answer is obvious, of course
Cutting of the NYT wouldn't garner the same kind of value (since they are seen as "legitimate journalism", and have a clear precedent with the Pentagon Papers).
On the post: As The Feds Seize Domains, More Attention Paid To How Law Enforcement Regularly Abuses Asset Seizures
Any documented cases of the opposite?
On the post: As The Feds Seize Domains, More Attention Paid To How Law Enforcement Regularly Abuses Asset Seizures
Re: Its not physical so it has no value according to Mike, so they cannot profit from it.
These civil seizures aren't connected with any criminal charges; worse the authorities get to profit (as an organization, generally, although Mike describes an exception even to that) from the proceeds.
Domain names aren't physical but they are an excludable good so are the logical equivalent of a physical asset.
Yes, the government is elected, and taxes are paid to help keep order and safety. And I am sure there are bad guys that the cops clearly know about but can't catch in flagrante delecto. But there is a reason we developed due process, and short-circuiting that is a recipe for exploitation.
On the post: DailyDirt: Somewhat Alien Life And Outer Space
typo
(speaking of nerds)
On the post: Pilot Group Urges Pilots To Refuse Naked Backscatter Scans, And Avoid Groping Pat Downs
Partially not brain damaged
All this ignores the rest of the issues around whether this process adds any value etc etc.
On the post: Using MySpace Photo Of Debtor's Daughter As An Intimidation Tactic Is A No-No
Actually that's not so bad
On the post: Can The 'Gist' Of A Book Be Defamatory, Even If Nothing Is Proven False?
On the subject of settling
On the post: Court Won't Rehear Pay-For-Delay Patent Lawsuit; We Pay, They Delay
Seems legitimate to me
Whether it should be allowed is a completely different thing, but current practice is not for judges to make that kind of decision.
On the post: The Legality Of News Aggregators
I agree it makes no sense
The fact that the sites aren't doing this demonstrates clearly that they value the aggregators. They are just trying to gouge them.
I have no sympathy at all for news sites that attack aggregators and search engines.
On the post: Stealth Mode = Miss The Boat Mode
There is a legitimate reason
So if you can flail around in secret, you can make a much better impression when you finally start talking....at which point of course you will continue to refine your message etc.
That being said it's easy to stay in stealth too long, or suffer the problems you mentioned. But it should be acknowledged there is a legitimate reason.
On the post: How Should Facebook Respond To The Social Network Movie?
Create a page
On the post: Is Just Talking About Infringing Content Infringing?
Surely there's plenty of precedent
On the post: Are Automated Status Updates From Location Check-In Apps Degrading Your Social Network?
This is a UI problem
A winning interface would be more like an RSS feed that you could glance at when you wanted to know where someone in particular was. And a smart filter that would mail/txr/whatever you when someone was in an interesting spot (perhaps close to you, or someplace unusual, or something else).
Another interface would be to be able to see a historical overlay on a map, again on an on-demand rather than push mode.
Lots of other ways to think of it too. I have ignored these services because they're so crude, but someday someone will take them seriously and think about how they could usefully be used, rather than just how to get the data out there at all.
In other words, don't blame the message, blame the messenger!
On the post: Open Sourcing A Disease Diagnosis
Back to the Future
Are things any better today? All the net has done is change the scale, not the nature.
On the post: Topeka (Sorta) Changes Its Name To Google, In Blatant Suck Up For Fiber
Longstanding precedent
On the post: Can Rolling Stone Sell T-Shirts Of Its Covers? It's Not That Simple, Apparently...
Re: Design your own cover shirts
On the post: Fox News Tries Selective DMCA Takedowns: If Liberal Bloggers Use It, Take It Down
This is hardly an abuse
I could choose to licence a program I wrote only to redheads. It's no different.
And the DMCA was intended precisely to crack down on people using things in an unlicensed manner. Wether it does so, or is being exploited or abused....well there are plenty of good stories about that on TD. But this is, regrettably, a legitimate use.
Next >>