Latest Techdirt Comments

Re:

jackn — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:18:34 PDT

from the gov (not for)

Re: Re: That's nice, but WE live in terminally predatory capitalism.

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:18:28 PDT

This is a common theme in many corners of the internet, capitalism has been co-opted to mean crony capitalism. Then it's used to argue against things that would reduce some of the cronyism. It's maddening.

Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:17:25 PDT

"If Dotcom is so darned eager to prove his innocence"

He doesn't have to. The DOJ needs to prove his guilt.

Failed basic civics, did you?

jackn — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:17:23 PDT

You're correct, the DOJ probably wont get away with the dog at my homework.

Actually, dotcom will come out of this pretty well. Ill bet he get a few million for the US gov before this is over.

Generally, its up to the gov to prove guilt. They aint doing so well in that regard.

Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:17:14 PDT

Losing the extradition trial would be a huge blow to the US case even if he DID come here.

Secondly, it doesnt matter, due process, following the law properly requires that evidence NOT be destroyed. Innocent people have gone to jail because they thought if they destroyed things they thought were evidence they wouldn't be found guilty.

Evidence was in DOJs hands and now it's destroyed.

You can't have a trial based on that kind of thing.

Re: Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:16:58 PDT

You mean "fair", right?

Oh, I doubt the mythical exculpatory evidence!

out_of_the_blue — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:13:16 PDT

In any case, you can't rely on "dog ate my homework".

But so long as keeps Mike's hope alive that Dotcom won't be prosecuted for OBVIOUS crimes, it makes Techdirt fare.

If Dotcom is so darned eager to prove his innocence, he can hop on a plane for the US and get it over with.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

Dark Helmet — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:13:12 PDT

"Judging by his other comments in this thread, I assume he's talking about you guys who write the articles for the site."

Well, then he isn't just an idiot, he's absolutely factually incorrect as well....

Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

Leigh Beadon — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:10:56 PDT

And since Mike is clearly a huge hypocrite on this topic, thinks laws against unpaid interns are silly while HE blithely exploits the minions

Well, for one thing, that's not true -- but, er, even if it were, how would that be hypocritical? Wouldn't it, in fact, be perfectly consistent?

Re: Re: Re: Nothing to see here

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:07:24 PDT

Ooo look. Tecdirt is kerned…

monospaced type

Classification is outdated

Kevin L — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:05:19 PDT

One commonality between Snowden and Manning was they both had access to IT infrastructure where classified material was sent in the open. If the DoD were serious about secrets, they would develop their own Linux variant with strong, default end-to-end encryption using the already-existing PKI that covers almost every government employee. That would make it much harder for system admins to see documents they have no "need to know." It might also reduce their reliance on extraordinarily expensive encryption hardware, which of course might not be palatable to those defense contractors.

Re: Question

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:05:15 PDT

That is just the environment that the rich and famous wish to have photography banned, this is where they indulge in questionable behavior in their own home that they do not want plastered over the press.

Startup 3.0 Incentivizes Growth and Innovation for Small IT Businesses

TechVoice — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:00:15 PDT

Please read how a member company discusses Startup 3.0 and its ability to incentivize growth and innovation for small IT businesses.

http://www.techvoice.org/blog/view/13-06-17/Clever_Ducks_Supports_Startup_3_0_and_Maintaining_Small_Business_Expensing.aspx

4 million people is 1.33333% of the US population

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:58:51 PDT

Somehow I doubt it's really secret in the first place if 1.33333% of the population already knew about it.

Interpretation

agalvan — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:57:29 PDT

Actually, Thiessen's interpretation of the law is valid only if "United States" = "Government of the United States". That sounds a lot like "l'etat, c'est moi".

crade — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:53:50 PDT

"An exception from criminal liability is made if the act is justifiable in view of its purpose and other circumstances, and that provision includes journalistic work, according to the committee."

I'm trying to picture circumstances where someone is upset about some innocous photo that was taken for no good reason.

Re:

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:52:35 PDT

One role of secrets is to make politicians feel important, because then then know thing that the public does not. That is why top-secret is the lowest classification of secrets, this allow the politicians to feel important without risking the stuff that really does need to be kept secret.

Re:

S. T. Stone — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:48:56 PDT

Money, dear boy.

Everybody

Re: Re: Re: @"PaulT", compulsive yapper.

S. T. Stone — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:47:24 PDT

Did you ever stop and think, for even a moment, that people other than Mike write for this site out of the desire to share information and start conversations instead of the desire to get paid?

Hell, son, if I had the chops and the brains to put something together for this site, I

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:47:15 PDT

"including to foreign governments."

You make the assumption the government isn't working with foreign governments for a common cause (to further empower and enrich government and industry at public expense). These secretes aren't designed to be kept from governments and corporate entities they are designed to be kept from the public because the public knowing about them would result in public disapproval.