Hm. I don't doubt you about the training and so on, but I don't see how that explains the Area 51 easter egg redaction.
From a strict security viewpoint, it would have been better to avoid all comment on the easter egg - asking Apple to remove it is akin to acknowledging that the location is correct (there would have been no removal request if the location given was just a random made-up one).
Just because people receive training, and that training does explain the reasons, doesn't mean the recipients understand what they've been taught or care about the reasons. Many (most?) just thoughtlessly follow the rules.
Which may be a good thing for society - if soldiers rationally ran away, their countries would quickly be conquered. The quasi-religious indoctrinations of young soldiers and spooks may be a necessary thing. But it's still quasi-religious indoctrination.
BTW, I'm not excusing Snowdon, Manning, or anyone else on the basis that the releases were "harmless"; I agree that individuals can't be allowed to decide that by themselves.
Civil disobedience, on the other hand, is different. That's where you break the rules, knowingly, because you've decided a higher moral cause requires it. But it's a little like exercising your "right of rebellion" - the result depends on whether you win.
Usually you're just rabid, but then once in a while (like just now) you say something sensible. In a rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth kind of way, of course.
I have done courses in the military on SECRET equipment, and have been told not to say what the course is, or what it does, even to other people doing the course with me.
I think the intention of these rules is to prevent people from accidentally leaking additional secrets.
If Nathan NSAer sees a PRISM slide on a news site, he might think the whole presentation has become public (not just the 4 slides released so far), and then feel free to talk about stuff that wasn't released.
Their solution is this head-in-the-sand thing which, if followed to the letter, would prevent Nathan from spilling more beans (since he behavior isn't supposed to change when faced with the new facts).
You'd have to be an incredibly obedient automaton to strictly obey the rule (yet I've seen people defend it).
The rules are are dumb, but they're made to stop stupid people from screwing up. And in any sufficiently-large organization, there are going to be stupid people.
The creators of these Gallery images ... grant you the following non-exclusive rights to use them for any reasonable commercial or non-commercial purpose:
... followed by a list of conditions that NSA doesn't seem to have violated. It says:
You acknowledge the author, including in derivative works, if possible with a caption of the form...
Emphasis mine. I don't see how they can be expected to include a link in JPG image of a PowerPoint slide. So I think they're in the clear on this.
Much as I dislike the snooping, I'm actually pleased that the NSA seems to have made an effort to find a freely released graphic.
I'm tempted to say "Who are you going to believe - Page and Zuckerberg or Obama and the NSA?".
But this is an odd one. Altho the government obviously lies all the time, and tech CEOs usually don't, what motive does the POTUS have for admitting that spying is going on, if it isn't?
All I can think of is this - Obama really thinks the techs are cooperating, but they're not. The NSA has infiltrated moles inside Yahoo, Google, etc. The moles are (illegally) supplying NSA with access. The NSA tells the executive branch that the techs are cooperating (per the leaked slides - tho it's not true), in order to cover up the source of the intelligence.
If so - the leaked slides are falsely claiming to the "users" of the intelligence that the data comes from the techs - when in fact it comes from moles without the tech's management's knowledge.
Imagine you're an infrastructure manager with Apple or Google - would you hire some bright young thing with A++ recommendations from their previous employer - the NSA? Sure you would...
If this is it, it's a far bigger scandal than anything revealed so far.
I've been reading this site for a long time, and while TechDirt regularly opposes copyright and patent law (at least as currently implemented), I've never seen them opposing trademark law, at least not when used to truthfully brand products and services.
Suppose I setup a US company and website, servers in the US.
I've no presence in, say, Saudi Arabia, at all.
Some Saudi comes to my website and does some transaction - maybe I get paid by PayPal, credit card or something. I've no way to even know this person is in Saudi Arabia.
Are, then, suggesting that I, as US person doing business in the US, with no presence in any other country, should be liable for possible violations of the laws of Saudi Arabia?
This would imply that EVERY online vendor of anything (products or services) is liable for violations of ANY law of ANY country in the world.
So we can just shut down the Internet and go home.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even to the other people ding the course with me
Hm. I don't doubt you about the training and so on, but I don't see how that explains the Area 51 easter egg redaction.
From a strict security viewpoint, it would have been better to avoid all comment on the easter egg - asking Apple to remove it is akin to acknowledging that the location is correct (there would have been no removal request if the location given was just a random made-up one).
Just because people receive training, and that training does explain the reasons, doesn't mean the recipients understand what they've been taught or care about the reasons. Many (most?) just thoughtlessly follow the rules.
Which may be a good thing for society - if soldiers rationally ran away, their countries would quickly be conquered. The quasi-religious indoctrinations of young soldiers and spooks may be a necessary thing. But it's still quasi-religious indoctrination.
BTW, I'm not excusing Snowdon, Manning, or anyone else on the basis that the releases were "harmless"; I agree that individuals can't be allowed to decide that by themselves.
Civil disobedience, on the other hand, is different. That's where you break the rules, knowingly, because you've decided a higher moral cause requires it. But it's a little like exercising your "right of rebellion" - the result depends on whether you win.
Re: Not the government...
Eisenhower called it the "military-industrial complex".
Re: Re: Re: If by "jokers", you mean "lawyers justifying jack-booted fascist tyranny",
Maybe.
I notice his post was missing the usual footer calling Mike names. (And I thought he had a script that automatically appended that.)
Maybe it's meant as some kind of tell.
Re: Re: Re: Even to the other people ding the course with me
Most people obey rules without understanding, or caring, why they exist.
If you have a rule like this, and staff who follow it obediently without understanding, then you get formal requests to remove Area 51 easter eggs.
The people who bother to comment here (even the crazy ones) are exceptions - they have their own opinions (sometimes nutty ones, but still their own).
But most people just follow rules (and spook agencies select for blind obedience).
Maybe that's a good thing for social stability, I don't know, but that's the way it is.
Re: If by "jokers", you mean "lawyers justifying jack-booted fascist tyranny",
Blue, sometimes I don't know what to make of you.
Usually you're just rabid, but then once in a while (like just now) you say something sensible. In a rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth kind of way, of course.
Do you do this just to confuse us?
Re: Even to the other people ding the course with me
If Nathan NSAer sees a PRISM slide on a news site, he might think the whole presentation has become public (not just the 4 slides released so far), and then feel free to talk about stuff that wasn't released.
Their solution is this head-in-the-sand thing which, if followed to the letter, would prevent Nathan from spilling more beans (since he behavior isn't supposed to change when faced with the new facts).
You'd have to be an incredibly obedient automaton to strictly obey the rule (yet I've seen people defend it).
The rules are are dumb, but they're made to stop stupid people from screwing up. And in any sufficiently-large organization, there are going to be stupid people.
online
Re: Re: Erm...I think they DID have permission
I haven't seen the original PowerPoint slides - just JPGs of them. Have you? (The metadata would be interesting.)
Anyway, putting an acknowledgement and caption on every use of a logo is hardly practical. And it says "if possible".
Re: Re: Erm...I think they DID have permission
Touche.
Re: Erm...I think they DID have permission
Ha - irony of ironies.
I realized I said the NSA was "in the clear". Get it? NSA "in the clear"? I bet THAT doesn't happen very often!
Erm...I think they DID have permission
I'm upset about the NSA snooping too, but fair's fair - I think they're in the clear on the copyright thing.
... followed by a list of conditions that NSA doesn't seem to have violated. It says:From http://gallery.hd.org/terms.html:
Emphasis mine. I don't see how they can be expected to include a link in JPG image of a PowerPoint slide. So I think they're in the clear on this.
Much as I dislike the snooping, I'm actually pleased that the NSA seems to have made an effort to find a freely released graphic.
Who are you going to believe?
I'm tempted to say "Who are you going to believe - Page and Zuckerberg or Obama and the NSA?".
But this is an odd one. Altho the government obviously lies all the time, and tech CEOs usually don't, what motive does the POTUS have for admitting that spying is going on, if it isn't?
All I can think of is this - Obama really thinks the techs are cooperating, but they're not. The NSA has infiltrated moles inside Yahoo, Google, etc. The moles are (illegally) supplying NSA with access. The NSA tells the executive branch that the techs are cooperating (per the leaked slides - tho it's not true), in order to cover up the source of the intelligence.
If so - the leaked slides are falsely claiming to the "users" of the intelligence that the data comes from the techs - when in fact it comes from moles without the tech's management's knowledge.
Imagine you're an infrastructure manager with Apple or Google - would you hire some bright young thing with A++ recommendations from their previous employer - the NSA? Sure you would...
If this is it, it's a far bigger scandal than anything revealed so far.
Re: Whatever happened to the Privacy Act of 1974?
"unless expressly authorized by statute"
Unfortunately.
Re: Re: Why do people always cave
What huge cost?
They are probably bluffing and won't really sue.
If they do, you write a letter to the court saying "this is BS", then show up and say it again in person.
No lawyers involved. If it's an open-and-shut case, you'll still win.
If you lose, you can still appeal on the basis that you had a lousy lawyer.
If you are clever as that
If you are as clever as those people, you don't need a college degree.
Unfortunately, most people are not that clever.
(untitled comment)
Why do people always cave immediately when they get a baseless C&D letter? And then complain publicly about it?
Why don't any of them simply say "Ha - you have no case. See you in court, asshole."?
I don't get why people are so easily cowed.
(BTW, I can't stand Nutella either.)
Re: Re: It's annoying to see you treat Google as less problem!
(Google <> God) == 0
Waste of managment time
Wow. Think of how much of Intel top management's time & attention must have gone into negotiating and analyzing that deal.
Time that could (should) have been spent on running the business - making better and more competitive products.
Re:
How is it hypocritical?
I've been reading this site for a long time, and while TechDirt regularly opposes copyright and patent law (at least as currently implemented), I've never seen them opposing trademark law, at least not when used to truthfully brand products and services.
Re: Re: SO no US address = immune from all prosecution?
Suppose I setup a US company and website, servers in the US.
I've no presence in, say, Saudi Arabia, at all.
Some Saudi comes to my website and does some transaction - maybe I get paid by PayPal, credit card or something. I've no way to even know this person is in Saudi Arabia.
Are, then, suggesting that I, as US person doing business in the US, with no presence in any other country, should be liable for possible violations of the laws of Saudi Arabia?
This would imply that EVERY online vendor of anything (products or services) is liable for violations of ANY law of ANY country in the world.
So we can just shut down the Internet and go home.
Re: California is ridiculous
"public health" is not the same as "health". That's why the word "public" is in there - to distinguish it.
He was endangering his own _private_ health, not anybody else's. That's why it's ridiculous.
(Next, I suppose you'll be wanting to ban fatty foods, mountain climbing, and poor posture at the keyboard.)