> As has been pointed out by former CIA guy Barry Eisler, > Snowden did not break his "oath." The "oath" you sign > is to protect the Constitution, not to protect secrecy.
Actually, this is not quite true. The general oath that all government employees take is to protect and defend the Constitution, however, when you are read into a classified program, you take and sign a separate oath, which does indeed include a promise to never divulge or make public the information you have access to.
While Keurig's actions may be shitty and annoying, I don't get the basis for the lawsuit against them. It's not like one has a general legal obligation to design one's products in such a way that makes it easy for others to compete with them. Keurig can't stop someone from designing and selling coffee packs that work with their machines, but neither are they obligated to design their machines to make it easy for others to do so.
So it brings me back to my original comment: It's really not the proper role of government to even be asking these questions or gathering data on how private news entities run their businesses.
Not only that, since the FCC has no jurisdiction whatsoever over newspapers, it's especially inappropriate for them to be inserting themselves into their business, no matter how benign they claim to be.
> In fact they're required to gather much of this > data by the Communications Act
That only raises the "Nunya business" response up one level from the FCC to Congress.
> and the survey was honestly driven by one > commissioner's genuine interest in helping > minorities and the poor get a leg up.
Good intentions don't make a government overreach any less of an overreach.
Bottom line - there's no valid reason for the government to need to know the "editorial philosophy" (or much of the other things they asked) of any newsroom, whether print or broadcast, or cable.
I don't believe the FCC was planning some kind of politburo-style takeover of American news media or anything, but this is just one more example of the government nosing itself into people's private business where it doesn't belong.
> It's a fairly routine and entirely voluntary field survey > designed to gather data.
Why does this data even need to be gathered in the first place? Whether you believe in the black helicopters or not, it's a valid question why the government feels it needs to know these things at all.
It's really not the proper role of government to even be asking these questions or gathering data on how private news entities run their businesses.
Re: I see this shit-storm as only escalated even more.
> Why do you feel compelled to constantly censor [which is illegal > and against the constitution of the United States, i might add]
It's actually neither illegal nor a violation of the Constitution.
Censoring, banning, blocking, etc. on a private forum, whether web-based or real world not only isn't illegal, it's a protected right of the person who owns the forum. It may be a dick move, and a bad idea from a customer-relations standpoint, but it's perfectly legal.
As for the Constitution, it only protects citizens against censorship by the *government*, not web forum moderators. The Constitution has nothing to do with any of this.
> Still though, its really unnerving how > this ugly little program can go crawling > through your files, sending god knows what > back to Valve
How is it that these commercial companies can routinely implement and distribute software that essentially 'hacks' the computers of every customer that uses it, but the moment any Average Joe even downloads 'too much' stuff from a web site that gives it away for free, he's suddenly facing 30 years in a federal ass-raping prison for violating the CFAA?
This is ridiculous. If someone's in a hostile foreign country, plotting attacks on America, Americans, or American troops in a theater of war, then that person is a valid and legitimate military target regardless of the passport he's carrying in his back pocket.
Requiring soldiers on the battlefield to make evidentiary determinations or run out and quickly read the enemy his Miranda warning before engaging him is something out of a Monty Python sketch.
And what the hell is the relevance of objecting to drones? Why does it make any difference whether a drone drops a bomb or whether that same bomb is dropped by a fighter jet piloted by person? The end result is exactly the same. This fixation some people have on drone use is bizarre.
> commercials last weekend had a few ads that > demonstrate (again) that people will actually > want to watch commercials if they're done properly.
I've never had a problem giving most commercials a look. Most people don't. It's the endless repetition of the same commercials over and over and over again that drives people insane. One you see an ad once-- even a clever one-- you really don't need (or want) to see it again, let alone two hundred more times.
Even the best of these Super Bowl commercials will be FFWed over by remote-wielding DVR owners within days of their football game debut.
> Then pull out of the UK, and block all > UK users from accessing their sites > (Google, YouTube, etc.)
They don't even need to block access. Once their physical presence is terminated, the UK government has no authority or jurisdiction over them any more, even if their site(s) are still accessible to UK citizens.
It's going to get to the point where whatever minimal benefit companies like Google get from having a physical presence in the UK will be outweighed by all this ridiculous regulation based on stupdity, and they will just pull out of the UK altogether.
The Google web site would still be available to users in the UK (unless the government blocked it-- and good luck to them enduring the onslaught from their citizens if they tried that) but they wouldn't have to endure this endless parade of idiocy from the UK government.
Re: Re: Good rant, but YES, copyright infringement IS theft!
> The reason why Mike reports on these things > and Tim reports on cop abuses is because > they are NEWS.
Yes, they are news, but I don't understand why the cop stuff is relevant to the stated purpose of this blog. I can see how some of the "cops being video recorded" stories have a tech angle to them and that's fine, but there seems to be an increasing tendency to cover *any* story of police abuse/misconduct here. The Kelly Thomas case? Yes, those cops were out of line and yes it was a big story, but what does it have to do with technology? It was a pretty low-tech incident-- cops beating up a guy with their hands and batons. How is that relevant to the subject-matter of this blog?
In the end, it's Mike's (et al) blog and he can publish whatever he likes, but it seems like more and more that he should rename it to Tech/Cop Misconduct Dirt to provide a better indication of what it's all about.
> And does AMC have a Red Phone, or a Silent Alarm > button under the counter, that notifies both MPAA and > ICE whenever an individual theater operator suspects > something?
What struck me as odd wasn't that ICE was called to the scene-- they have field offices all over the country-- but that the MPAA was right there within minutes, too. I mean, this was Columbus, not Los Angeles or New York. Does the MPAA have field offices and personnel in every city in America? How does the MPAA show up at a theater in Columbus within minutes of someone being suspected of illegal filming?
> Try getting the Feds to respond to ANYTHING within 90 > minutes... good luck.
My agency is federal and we respond when notified by local law enforcement of violations of our core statutes in a lot less than 90 minutes.
> I kind of get that ICE is under DHS, and ICE deals with > customs which occasionally deals with bootleg DVDs > going through customs. But seriously, unless this movie > theater was in an airport or something, this is absurd.
Technically there is no ICE anymore. They were transitioned into the generic Homeland Security Investigations department last year. They still use and refer to their old name ICE because that's what the public knows, but if you look at their badges and creds, they now say HSI - Homeland Security Investigator.
And with that comes greatly expanded investigative jurisdiction. No longer are they limited to investigating customs and border-related crimes. They now have the broadest jurisdiction of any federal law enforcement agency, even the FBI, and they're constantly trying to expand, even to the point of poaching investigations for which they *don't* have any legal jurisdiction. For example, more and more these days HSI has been caught investigating counterfeit currency cases, even though the US Code gives the Secret Service sole jurisdiction over counterfeit currency. And when they're caught, HSI just collectively shrugs and tells the USSS (or the FBI, or whoever) to go pound sand.
This whole HSI thing is the brainchild of former Homeland Secretary Napolitano. She wanted to combine all the distinct agencies under Homeland (Border Patrol, ICE, Coast Guard, etc.) and turn them all into one huge generic investigative agency called Homeland Security Investigations. She ran into a few legal roadblocks-- for example, the US Code dictates that the Secret Service must remain a separate and distinct entity and cannot be combined or absorbed into any other agency or department, so Napolitano couldn't do anything with them without Congress changing the law. And the Coast Guard screamed bloody murder that Napolitano was trying to destroy a 200-year-old maritime tradition and Congress forced her to back off from them, as well. But she did manage to combine ICE and Border Patrol into HSI before she left office, so this is why you see what used to be ICE doing a lot of non-ICE-related enforcement actions.
> > You know there's really no need to insult people > > of faith, of which I am one.
> I know. But it sure is easy. And fun.
I've often found that the people who make sport of Christians and their beliefs and think it's hilarious to mock them, *only* do so with Christians. They never mock Muslims in the same way, for example. Indeed, they're often the first to condemn others for being 'insensitive' and 'bigoted' for doing just that.