If they've nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear in releasing the SPOT data
I just love the excuse that, "We can't tell you what or how we do what we do because that would hurt what or how we do what we claim to do;" whether it's the TSA hiding their SPOT program, or the NSA and its spying, or...[insert agency/clusterf-k ad infinitum]... I carry a handgun for personal defense. The fact that ballistics data on the .45ACP cartridge has been widely published for a century doesn't seem to be hampering its effectiveness.
But then, I'm concerned with personal security. They are concerned with their job security if they ever admit how screwed up and useless they are. Which, considering how tough it is to eliminate a federal program, just demonstrates how paranoid they are.
ootb, you have a solution to the "problem" of people here not wanting to read your incessant, off-topic whining about Techdirt and its policies: http://www.blogger.com/home
Get your own blog and dissemble there.
Censorship is preventing a person from speaking (or writing, etc.). But free speech rights don't include the right to use someone else's soap box. Get your own blog.
People saying that you aren't worth listening to isn't censorship. And if other people want to read your drivel here, they can always "click here" to show comments. You aren't even being relegated to a "free speech zone"; we're just ignoring you like we would any other shizophrenic street nut who has long since ceased to be amusing.
But prove us all wrong. Prove the world wants to read your posts. GET YOUR OWN BLOG. It's free. It's easy (even you could figure it out). You have access to blog stats to prove how more popular you are than Techdirt.
So do it. But stop your whining here. I've babysat two year-olds who whined less about getting want they want.
Ah, NASA... Still on the cutting edge of decades-old concepts.
"SpiderFab, for cryin' out loud. I think O'Neill's people dreamed up a beam extruding space station-assembling robot (similar to how custom rain gutters are fabricated onsite) back in the '70s or '80s. Seems like they even built a proof of concept prototype. Maybe NASA should check their files.
Or read a little science fiction. As I recall, the concept showed up as "shelobs" in the Niven et al novel Falling Angels in '91-- just 22 years ago. At this rate, NASA might even come up with the idea of habitats and craft constructed of high tensile strength fabric and inflated with expanding foam (and carved out to create living and working space) in another 10-20 years. I know that idea showed up in SF in the mid '90s, and again in my own novel Net Assets a decade ago (before Bigelow's inflatable "space hotel") (Fee download - http://www.bussjaeger.org/index.html#netassets).
Re: Re: Re: SO, you'd rather someone be convicted of murder!
Sheesh. You can't get it right even after quoting: "the confidential source of the police reports" -- You wrote: "It was just the police reports." -- You are simply wrong that it was the reports and not NAME of the source manifestly NOT available to defense.
I realize you have trouble keeping up with the real world, but please refer to my original comment again. I said that that what Patch published was information from the police reports; I did not say that was what the current hearing was trying to learn, because that was the point of the post on the hearing and fines.
Try to keep up. The court (and defense) does not need the confidential source's name because nothing that Patch published affected the investigation and grand jury proceedings (adversely or otherwise), according to the article.
Again, try to keep up. You are the one who suggested that Patch had other information: "And if a defendant can plausibly show that the reporter has information that'll help clear him, then the reporter is morally obligated to produce it".
The patch reporter reported information already known to the police. Since the defense team obviously knows about this current proceeding, it seems obvious they know what Patch published (and should have gotten that through disclosure as well; if they didn't that is another issue unrelated to Patch). Nothing demonstrates knowledge of the crime above and beyond what the defense has. At most, they are on a fishing expedition, hoping to delay final conviction and sentencing. This case seems to be the very poster child for the state's shield law- there is no apparent reason that forcing revelation of the source's identity serves justice and the public interest.
But... congratulations. This is the longest you've stayed on topic since I noticed your bizarre rants on Techdirt.
Re: SO, you'd rather someone be convicted of murder!
Blue-boy: "LEFT OUT NINE-TENTHS of the story"
Looks like that's what you did.
"Kinney ruled in August that Hosey had to turn over the confidential source of the police reports ..."
It was just the police reports. Not other incriminating (or otherwise) information unavailable to the authorities or defense team.
"Will County Assistant State’s Attorney Marie Czech said during the hearing that the grand jury proceedings in the Hickory Street murder cases were not compromised by Hosey’s articles, nor was evidence compromised."
Just police reports that did not compromise the investigation or grand jury proceedings. So Patch informed the public without affecting the case. Sounds like decent journalism to me, thoroughly protected by the First Amendment.
And from there, you proceed to hop on your usual ranting hobby horse about things completely unrelated to this post. Dude, I generally read all comments, including yours, because -- usually -- comments add valuable elements to a basic post. But roughly 99.9999% of your comments turn out to be worse than useless, and I click the report button to save other people the trouble of scrolling past you.
I'm just going to skip the first part, and go straight to downchecking your bilge waste. If you want to rant about Masnick et al, why not get your own blog and do it there? That way, folks (if any) who want to read your timewasters, can go straight to the source, without wasting time here. And you'll have control of the comments so you won't have to whine that you're being censored.
You don't need to STFU; you just need to go buy your own soapbox... SOME. WHERE. ELSE. Please.
What constitutes a "terrorist tie"? If they're using the NSA "3 hops" definition, that's most of America.
Strictly speaking, according to that statement, it isn't 20% of applicants with terrorist ties. It's 20% of applicants who failed the background check. Without know what percentage failed checks, we don't know the overall percentage.