If nothing else seem comment-worthy, I think it's notable (while chuckling) that it's only Monday morning, and the Streisanding has snowballed. There are already negative (for WSG) articles and/or threads on (at least):
Only Long Practice in Cynicism Keeps My Head from Exploding
...while trying to reconcile my inclination to renewed faith that the gov't owns "a few good (wo)men" with my horror at Ms.Callahan's treatment.
I can only hope there are others of integrity as high as Ms. Callahan's, who are sneaking around and protecting our privacy while keeping a low profile. Not that I'm betting anything I cherish on that hope.
So hard to know for which to root, Amish judge's opinion or reality. On the AJ tip, we're all at risk for running wireless networks at all, since our machines listen to everything, but, hypothetically, we now have a defense against cops who snoop sans wiretapping orders. Got 'o hope EFF, ACLU, et al. are standing in the wings, waiting to jump on the first case brought by ANY cop organization, operating in the 9th circuit's demesne, that is based on one of these newly illegal wiretaps.
Re: Ooh, me! "who is really ready to say they're sure"
Just want to note that, ad hominem arguments and (trollishly yikes-level) vitriol aside, the observation that it's a bit of a stretch(ed analogy) from mixed drink to commercial music and movies is not unreasonable. The article was interestingly offbeat, squinting-and-head-a-tilt insightful, and entertaining - not the prescription for a serious normative model by which to direct copyright reform.
The major flaw in Snowden's actions was his failure better to plan his getaway. He obviously (correctly) expected beforehand that all protections of U.S. law would be forfeit once he blew his whistle. I can admire his willingness to sacrifice his citizenship and, indeed, all semblance of normal life on the altar of anti-fascism for the benefit of his (practically speaking, ex-)fellow-citizens. However, he seems quite reasonably to prefer not to be required to spend the rest of his life in federal prison; his handling of that part seems shaky.
That his goal was worthy, I accept. That he had no alternate path in pursuit of his end, I accept. Wyden's remarks have made clear there is NO "legal" channel by which to reveal the excesses of the NSA. Side note - without open, judicial review and full disclosure to the members of Congress as to the specifics of what they are voting on, is "legal" really a valid usage?
The happy ending to the story would include having Snowden receive a full, Presidential pardon, a lifelong, federal stipend, and an invitation to provide extensive testimony before Congress with complete immunity. Ah, well - there's a reason I am not an author by trade...too fabulist.
I thank Snowden for his personal sacrifice. I simply wish he'd managed his escape with a bit more alacrity and hope he manages his ongoing evasion of government "retribution" (read "revenge") with less drama than we've witnessed thus far.
From Judge Williams' confirmations hearing, in her own words, addressing her varied experience:
"But if there is one thing that comes out from all of those things, it is this: that litigants, clients, parties cherish it when a judge is locked in on the facts, is a hard worker, has mastered the record, has gone beyond the briefs, and really is dedicated to getting things right. And contrary-wise, it is dispiriting when a judge comes unprepared."
Not so much an elephant as a fairy, "a la" Tinkerbell...you have to believe. The whole polygraph scam is based on the subject being sufficiently "suggestible" (read "gullible") to believe that he will evince an orienting response ( http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/432446/orienting-response ) when lying. The chap administering the test has to tell you convincingly that lies produce orienting responses. If you don't believe, Tinkerbell dies.
I suggest they try auguring with the entrails of federal officials. It's similarly accurate and WAY more useful.
Jefferson: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
Comment: Occasional, even violent, social insurgence effectively stirs the pot of politic awareness.
Jefferson: "Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them."
Comment: Even when the gov't suppresses acts of resistance up to and including full insurrection, those issues that led to the rebellion are disclosed and reveal how the gov't is abusing its power as respects at least some members of society, and a goodly gov't ought to attend to the repair of its excesses.
Jefferson: "An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much."
Comment: The gov't ought to turn a relatively blind eye to the criminality of rebellious misbehaviors in exchange for the valuable identification of needed reforms that were disclosed.
We can but hope that death is truly the final slumber so as not to be required to imagine how tortured a spirit must be that of Jefferson.
Ladar Levison's (LL) actions strike me as highly laudable patriotism. PJ's not so much. I can certainly relate to her trepidation and don't begrudge PJ the choice to avoid spying and to discourage others from having their privacy violated by communicating with her/Groklaw. I can sympathize with PJ's choice to withdraw from conflict and cower in hiding, but I admire LL's heroic iconoclasm.
There has never been "beauty and safety in the rule of law." The law invests the power of the rod and sword, the authority to coerce and destroy. Keeping the abuse of that power in check requires public resistance.