If they were to ignore the the stuff published in various newspapers or magazines, then they would be seriously derelict in their duties.
Do you really think that everything bad that happens in the world exists in a privileged and/or confidential fashion, or shall we say vacuum? Or might there be some edge considerations that may or may not be dealt with in a privileged or confidential fashion? Then comes the question, who makes that decision, or better yet, how does one control that so no one else finds out, especially when it's already out there?
While I think that various government individuals make the decision that things should be confidential far to often, and for far too long, and often for all the wrong reasons (butt hurt and other forms of embarrassment as examples) there are still some thing that should be held close, for some reasonable amount of time. Part of that question is how long, and sometimes the answer is days, and sometimes the answer is weeks, and sometimes the answer is years, and sometimes the answer is decades. It should never be longer than that, and should often be shorter than what the original classifiers suggests.
In the mean time, the question is how to deal with things that they wish to be privileged or confidential that get out anyway, for whatever reason. Then there is the question of whether the determination for information to be privileged or confidential is the correct determination? Then there is the question of whether that determination is or is not in the interest of the public. The determination is more often than not that it isn't, and for whatever excuse, that is the way they often determine.
What if it isn't, regardless of excuse? When does the determination of privilege or confidentiality become criminal? Then, given the way secrecy is dealt with these days, how do we know when we do actually need to know? And, what do we do then?
The way you put it, it sounds more like she was aiding in their agenda, rather than interfering. Their walk across the street was wrong, as is their alleged agenda.
How about apologizing to the two poor souls sitting in jail? I sure hope they are being paid double overtime for the total amount of the effort they have exerted, and are exerting.
"She had no cause to be filming and should think that over next time."
Why not? She's a reporter and they are public servants doing a job in public. To her credit, she wasn't waiting for the 'if it bleeds it leads' opportunity.
And, in simple fact, she caught those public servants doing things they shouldn't have been doing. The public has a right to know about those things.
Actually, it's kind of interesting. Amazon lists Metropolitan Books as the publisher, and Metropolitan Books is a subsidiary of Henry Holt and Company which has gone through a series of being bought and sold and re-partnered. Which includes an association with "...Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group based in Stuttgart..."
With such a far flung company already, it doesn't seem impossible to collect the revenue someplace, rename or purpose it, and move it eventually to the correct arm. Yes I know this is called money laundering, and that fiscal transactions are often traceable. But where there is a will, there is a way, and various bad people get away with it all the time. Why not some who aren't so bad, that is so long as they pay the appropriate taxes.
Snowden, and his publisher, could put a copy of the book on the torrents and include a link to a donation site, out of the reach of the US Government. The publisher gets 10% and Snowden donates some portion of his take to the ACLU. It might work.
That the US Government is exercising their absolute power, likely because they are scared of (or embarrassed by) what might be revealed shows how vulnerable they feel. That the 'classified' items they worry about have already been revealed, but they are not allowed to recognized such, as they are forbidden to read the articles that reveal them, expresses their head in the sand posture.
The best outcome will be that the courts allow the 'in the public interest' argument creating an exception to the so called Espionage Act. One can only hope.
Um, how about the rich determining the law? Similar to the problem we have now where money is considered speech which creates the issue where those with money can speak louder than those who have less money. That doesn't speak well for equal protections, or as it is said equal protections under the law when the law benefits one economic class more than other economic classes.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: By the way, WHO else wants others to pay for
No, but I am under the impression that currency uses the word God, rather than Jesus, as an indication that those who pushed for the statement took at least some umbrage to the Constitution, regardless of their motivations.
Re: By the way, WHO else wants others to pay for their mistakes?
The government printed "In God we trust" on our paper money, but they didn't say which god. They intended it to be 'your' god for each and every god imagined by each individual. That some want 'that' god to be 'their' god doesn't change the nature of the god mentioned on our currency, no matter how much they want it to.
Unfortunately, using a bible during swearing in ceremonies and at least sometimes in courts when taking oaths, somewhat supports their notion. But that isn't what was intended by the framers. They intended that people be free to choose their religion, any religion. The pro-American ACLU understand that. You don't.
Is it really 'growth for growth's sake' or is is 'growth for executive enrichment's sake'? One of the most heavily indebted company in the world, but who has looked into how this has impacted executive compensation, especially in the bonus area? I'm thinking that not only were no bonus payments missed, but that they weren't significantly reduced. What is the impact of bonuses paid on the debt load?
That brings the question, if bonuses are supposed to be performance based, but obviously aren't, isn't that just pay (and what are the income tax implications of that)? Or, if performance based, based on what performance? This vaudeville act doesn't seem to be the kind of performance bonuses should be based upon. Or is it burlesque?
Here's hoping that all of those bonuses were paid with stocks that are declining rather than growing in value. That might teach those executives something about measures of performance where declining customers counts and revenues don't. But share price shouldn't be the primary measure.
So far as I know, actual innocence isn't a reason to overturn a conviction, yet convictions get overturned. This is one of the places where our legal system absolutely baffles me.
Well, they could enable the account in France and disable it in the US or anywhere else that objects. Of course this would create confusion for those in France who correspond with folks elsewhere, and it would be fairly simple to put some sort of sign on the account naming names of countries that rule differently on the same subject.
To what end I don't know but it might highlight the issue, to the consternation of all.
I wonder how in a show by show a la carte system the providers would introduce new programs? Free introductory offers, but only from their silo? If I was to subscribe to one brand, say NBC or DIsney, how would CBS or ABC or ESPN entice me with new programs? Put them on YouTube for free as introductions or hope that the buzz over the company water cooler will be sufficient?
Personally, I don't like any of the silo'd options. Nor do I like the bundled option. Nor do I have any suggestions. As markets will do, this will get sorted out messily and over a long time. Since I don't use either method, silo or bundle, I will miss the fight, except as a spectator, and probably as it is documented here.
Re: 'Look, I 'punished' myself, no need for you to.'
I must be in a strange mood today. When I read your subject line, and considering the subject of the article, I imagined a different kind of 'punishment' than what your comment is actually about. Did you intend the double entendre?
With such extensive research into such a particularized subject by government employees, one would think that at the very least they would release some results. Did they find any good porn, and if so, where? After all, we did pay for the research.
Thank you for the clarification. Who knew lawyers could be useful? :-)
I do like your definition better than mine, though it doesn't seem to change much in terms of what should be considered property. Except the debt thing. I hadn't considered debt.
Oh, and mea culpa for the 10 vs 20 year longevity on patents. Still, both seem way too long, at least in this day and age where the rate of change is changing faster and faster.
If we keep things patented for 20 years, they will be obsolete by the time the patent expires, and whole bunches of money will be wasted litigating potential 'infringements' whether they were actually infringing or not. Taking the iPod as and example, according to Wikipedia "The first version was released on October 23, 2001..." which is just under 20 years ago, yet that product has been replaced with newer technologies, almost in its entirety. But that example may be another argument for your suggestion that subject matter might be important when determining the longevity of any particular patent, rather than a static term.
On the post: Buried Whistleblower Report Apparently Involves President Trump's Conversations With A Foreign Leader
Re:
If they were to ignore the the stuff published in various newspapers or magazines, then they would be seriously derelict in their duties.
Do you really think that everything bad that happens in the world exists in a privileged and/or confidential fashion, or shall we say vacuum? Or might there be some edge considerations that may or may not be dealt with in a privileged or confidential fashion? Then comes the question, who makes that decision, or better yet, how does one control that so no one else finds out, especially when it's already out there?
While I think that various government individuals make the decision that things should be confidential far to often, and for far too long, and often for all the wrong reasons (butt hurt and other forms of embarrassment as examples) there are still some thing that should be held close, for some reasonable amount of time. Part of that question is how long, and sometimes the answer is days, and sometimes the answer is weeks, and sometimes the answer is years, and sometimes the answer is decades. It should never be longer than that, and should often be shorter than what the original classifiers suggests.
In the mean time, the question is how to deal with things that they wish to be privileged or confidential that get out anyway, for whatever reason. Then there is the question of whether the determination for information to be privileged or confidential is the correct determination? Then there is the question of whether that determination is or is not in the interest of the public. The determination is more often than not that it isn't, and for whatever excuse, that is the way they often determine.
What if it isn't, regardless of excuse? When does the determination of privilege or confidentiality become criminal? Then, given the way secrecy is dealt with these days, how do we know when we do actually need to know? And, what do we do then?
On the post: Lawsuit Settlement Over Detainment Of A Journalist Will Force Denver Police Department To Admit The First Amendment Exists
Re: She did interfere
The way you put it, it sounds more like she was aiding in their agenda, rather than interfering. Their walk across the street was wrong, as is their alleged agenda.
On the post: Security Researchers Whose 'Penetration Test' Involved Breaking And Entering Now Facing Criminal Charges
Stopping short of the line.
How about apologizing to the two poor souls sitting in jail? I sure hope they are being paid double overtime for the total amount of the effort they have exerted, and are exerting.
On the post: Lawsuit Settlement Over Detainment Of A Journalist Will Force Denver Police Department To Admit The First Amendment Exists
You contradict yourself
Why not? She's a reporter and they are public servants doing a job in public. To her credit, she wasn't waiting for the 'if it bleeds it leads' opportunity.
And, in simple fact, she caught those public servants doing things they shouldn't have been doing. The public has a right to know about those things.
On the post: DOJ Decides To Help Publicize Snowden's Memoir By Suing Him For Failing To Run His Book By The CIA And NSA First
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, it's kind of interesting. Amazon lists Metropolitan Books as the publisher, and Metropolitan Books is a subsidiary of Henry Holt and Company which has gone through a series of being bought and sold and re-partnered. Which includes an association with "...Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group based in Stuttgart..."
With such a far flung company already, it doesn't seem impossible to collect the revenue someplace, rename or purpose it, and move it eventually to the correct arm. Yes I know this is called money laundering, and that fiscal transactions are often traceable. But where there is a will, there is a way, and various bad people get away with it all the time. Why not some who aren't so bad, that is so long as they pay the appropriate taxes.
On the post: DOJ Decides To Help Publicize Snowden's Memoir By Suing Him For Failing To Run His Book By The CIA And NSA First
Re:
Snowden, and his publisher, could put a copy of the book on the torrents and include a link to a donation site, out of the reach of the US Government. The publisher gets 10% and Snowden donates some portion of his take to the ACLU. It might work.
On the post: DOJ Decides To Help Publicize Snowden's Memoir By Suing Him For Failing To Run His Book By The CIA And NSA First
Proof is in the pudding
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
That the US Government is exercising their absolute power, likely because they are scared of (or embarrassed by) what might be revealed shows how vulnerable they feel. That the 'classified' items they worry about have already been revealed, but they are not allowed to recognized such, as they are forbidden to read the articles that reveal them, expresses their head in the sand posture.
The best outcome will be that the courts allow the 'in the public interest' argument creating an exception to the so called Espionage Act. One can only hope.
On the post: New Mexico City Starts Crowdfunding Effort To Pay For Its Stupid Defense Of Constitutional Violations
Re:
Um, how about the rich determining the law? Similar to the problem we have now where money is considered speech which creates the issue where those with money can speak louder than those who have less money. That doesn't speak well for equal protections, or as it is said equal protections under the law when the law benefits one economic class more than other economic classes.
On the post: New Mexico City Starts Crowdfunding Effort To Pay For Its Stupid Defense Of Constitutional Violations
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: By the way, WHO else wants others to pay for
No, but I am under the impression that currency uses the word God, rather than Jesus, as an indication that those who pushed for the statement took at least some umbrage to the Constitution, regardless of their motivations.
On the post: New Mexico City Starts Crowdfunding Effort To Pay For Its Stupid Defense Of Constitutional Violations
Re: Re: Re: By the way, WHO else wants others to pay for their m
I think I'll stand by the First Amendment and its commitment to freedom of religion.
BTW, are those the same bridges to nowhere sold to the taxpayers?
On the post: New Mexico City Starts Crowdfunding Effort To Pay For Its Stupid Defense Of Constitutional Violations
Re: By the way, WHO else wants others to pay for their mistakes?
The government printed "In God we trust" on our paper money, but they didn't say which god. They intended it to be 'your' god for each and every god imagined by each individual. That some want 'that' god to be 'their' god doesn't change the nature of the god mentioned on our currency, no matter how much they want it to.
Unfortunately, using a bible during swearing in ceremonies and at least sometimes in courts when taking oaths, somewhat supports their notion. But that isn't what was intended by the framers. They intended that people be free to choose their religion, any religion. The pro-American ACLU understand that. You don't.
On the post: Some Investors Are Fed Up With AT&T's Costly Obsession With Merger Mania
What goes up, must come down.
Is it really 'growth for growth's sake' or is is 'growth for executive enrichment's sake'? One of the most heavily indebted company in the world, but who has looked into how this has impacted executive compensation, especially in the bonus area? I'm thinking that not only were no bonus payments missed, but that they weren't significantly reduced. What is the impact of bonuses paid on the debt load?
That brings the question, if bonuses are supposed to be performance based, but obviously aren't, isn't that just pay (and what are the income tax implications of that)? Or, if performance based, based on what performance? This vaudeville act doesn't seem to be the kind of performance bonuses should be based upon. Or is it burlesque?
Here's hoping that all of those bonuses were paid with stocks that are declining rather than growing in value. That might teach those executives something about measures of performance where declining customers counts and revenues don't. But share price shouldn't be the primary measure.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Schooled yet again
cpt kangarooski stepped up and once again set me straight. This time on the classic definition of property. It is worth looking at his correction.
On the post: Denmark Releases 32 Prisoners Convicted Because Of Flawed Mobile Phone Tracking Data
Re: At least it wasn't the US.
So far as I know, actual innocence isn't a reason to overturn a conviction, yet convictions get overturned. This is one of the places where our legal system absolutely baffles me.
On the post: High-Level DOJ Official Latest Gov't Employee To Be Caught Watching Porn While On The Clock
Re: Re: Re: 'Look, I 'punished' myself, no need for you to.'
Well then, kudos to your subconscious mind, and may you (and it) continue to excel in your endeavors.
On the post: Content Moderation Is Impossible: Facebook Settles Legal Fight Over Famous Painting Of A Woman's Genitals
Re:
Well, they could enable the account in France and disable it in the US or anywhere else that objects. Of course this would create confusion for those in France who correspond with folks elsewhere, and it would be fairly simple to put some sort of sign on the account naming names of countries that rule differently on the same subject.
To what end I don't know but it might highlight the issue, to the consternation of all.
On the post: Comcast Sues Maine For Demanding It Sell TV Channels À La Carte
Re: Re: surprisedpikachu.gif
I wonder how in a show by show a la carte system the providers would introduce new programs? Free introductory offers, but only from their silo? If I was to subscribe to one brand, say NBC or DIsney, how would CBS or ABC or ESPN entice me with new programs? Put them on YouTube for free as introductions or hope that the buzz over the company water cooler will be sufficient?
Personally, I don't like any of the silo'd options. Nor do I like the bundled option. Nor do I have any suggestions. As markets will do, this will get sorted out messily and over a long time. Since I don't use either method, silo or bundle, I will miss the fight, except as a spectator, and probably as it is documented here.
On the post: High-Level DOJ Official Latest Gov't Employee To Be Caught Watching Porn While On The Clock
Re: 'Look, I 'punished' myself, no need for you to.'
I must be in a strange mood today. When I read your subject line, and considering the subject of the article, I imagined a different kind of 'punishment' than what your comment is actually about. Did you intend the double entendre?
On the post: High-Level DOJ Official Latest Gov't Employee To Be Caught Watching Porn While On The Clock
The Governments dime, funded by us!
With such extensive research into such a particularized subject by government employees, one would think that at the very least they would release some results. Did they find any good porn, and if so, where? After all, we did pay for the research.
Let us not forget to move the conversation forward:
https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/09/10/moving-encryption-policy-conversation-forward-pub- 79573
On the post: Intellectual Property Is Neither Intellectual, Nor Property: Discuss
Re: Re: Yet another analogy...
Thank you for the clarification. Who knew lawyers could be useful? :-)
I do like your definition better than mine, though it doesn't seem to change much in terms of what should be considered property. Except the debt thing. I hadn't considered debt.
Oh, and mea culpa for the 10 vs 20 year longevity on patents. Still, both seem way too long, at least in this day and age where the rate of change is changing faster and faster.
If we keep things patented for 20 years, they will be obsolete by the time the patent expires, and whole bunches of money will be wasted litigating potential 'infringements' whether they were actually infringing or not. Taking the iPod as and example, according to Wikipedia "The first version was released on October 23, 2001..." which is just under 20 years ago, yet that product has been replaced with newer technologies, almost in its entirety. But that example may be another argument for your suggestion that subject matter might be important when determining the longevity of any particular patent, rather than a static term.
Next >>