This article constantly cites "UC's letter of support..." or states that "UC's position is..." and so forth. How about digging a little and telling us WHO exactly wrote this letter or formulated this position?
Most likely it was some committee of highly overpaid administrators who are completely detached from both faculty and student body. Some small body of managers in the vast UC system is essentially making a decision that is obviously contrary to the best interests of the students, the faculty and researchers.
But this is no surprise. American Corporations as well as Universities and other government agencies are now basically run for the benefit of the Manager class who have accrued all power and control and reap the majority of the financial gains.
And one thing is certain: these managers and administrators who decide this kind of policy feel vastly more kinship with the managers at the big academic publishers than they do with the students or the faculty at the University.
Police need to be trained to understand the basic legal concept that members of the public are not their slaves.
Unless there exists an ongoing life-threatening or serious public safety threat then we don't have to bow, scrape, instantly jump when ordered and otherwise show absolutely obedience to every whim or random utterance made by a cop.
These types of incidents often seem to boil down to the citizen failing to properly bow down and kiss the ass of the officer which leads the officer to assert his brute power by escalating a minor peaceful violation into a violent encounter.
A sadly large percentage of humanity enjoy absolutely nothing so much as attaining a small position of power and lording over other people by enforcing great webs of petty inane, rules. These control-freak authoritarians are my least favorite type of people.
And how exactly do you "out" anonymous blog commenters? For example, my real name is not Binko; in fact I strive to use my real name on the internet as little as possible. Do blogs typically store each commenter's IP Address along with their supposedly anonymous post? Even if so, it's hard to imagine that courts would grant the right to subpeona poster's true identity from their ISP for something that is so clearly an expression of personal opinion.
There is a significant percentage of the public who actively enjoy seeing other people punished. Once a class of people are demonized there is no limit to the punishment that can be meted out. Aaron Swartz belonged to the generally demonized classes of "troublemaker", "hippy", "activist" etc. To the mind of those who love doling out punishment, this justifies any degree of torment.
There is a another, even larger, percentage who are essentially passive. They don't pay attention to details and tend to have a rose-tinted view of institutions like our Justice System. They vaguely support whatever their mainstream media outlet of choice supports.
Perhaps only 5% of the public actually care about legal principals, proportionate punishment and similar issues.
There's obviously not enough money to be made any longer in squeezing higher and higher tuition out of students. So here's the new game plan for universities.
1) Get maximum grant money and develop obscure technologies.
2) File for maximum number of broad patents.
3) Sit on patents and keep them secret.
4) Sue any company doing any work in these obscure technologies, effectively shutting down all innovation.
5) Make billions!
6) Massive bonuses for administrators!
Sounds like par for the course in the new America where the goal is always to maximize wealth for administrators, executives, lawyers and insiders and nobody gives a shit for the damage done to society as a while.
Patents create work for lawyers. More patents means more patent applications, more patent review, more patent litigation, more patent negotiation and so forth. And who do you think runs the Patent Office? Patent lawyers, of course!
I find this kind of blanket grab of rights to be very offensive. Corporations fight endlessly to preserve their own IP. Yet they are willing to seize the IP rights of their customers whenever it suits them.
Essentially this says that you are granting them the copyright on all the pictures that you post. They can do whatever they want with them and you have no recourse and receive no compensation. This is pretty extreme.
Pictures of you could show up in support of things you don't support. Multi-million dollar ad campaigns could use your pictures without compensating you. Pictures of your kids, your dog, your house, your friends and your family could show up in an endless number of places that you find offensive or embarrassing. It's hard for me to believe that some commentators are saying that this is no big deal.