Perhaps, but coming from a member of the 'traditional media', which absolutely loves to blow things out of proportion when they're not flat out making stuff up, the accusation against the internet of 'overreacting' is more than a little funny and hypocritical.
Less 'what was said', and more 'who is saying it' as it were.
Good thing none of those involved other than the low ranked grunts have any interest in actually decreasing substance abuse then, otherwise they might have to consider re-evaluating their tactics and actions for being completely ineffective at decreasing drug use.
What are you talking about, the politicians involved don't face any personal risk at all. Any lawsuits brought about by corporate sovereignty clauses won't be targeting their money, and with the attention span of most people, probably no-one will remember that they sold out their countries should a lawsuit be brought.
On the other hand, you can be sure that those writing the agreements are being less-than-subtle about the rewards and punishments for those that help or hinder their desires, and that the politicians are very much paying attention to, as that does affect them.
There's really no reason government agencies aren't working with redundant systems at this point.
You kinda answered your own question there with the sentence that immediately followed that line.
It takes little-to-no effort to ensure pertinent files housed on issued electronics are backed up elsewhere, thus ensuring that this sort of sworn "accident" doesn't result in the permanent removal of requested information.
There absolutely is a reason for them not to be working with redundant systems, and you yourself pointed it out. Redundant systems make 'accidental' deletions, like what happened here, a lot trickier to manage, so you can be sure those in public office or similar positions will do everything they can to avoid setting them up, most likely with the excuse of how 'costly' it would be.
All the laws get tossed out the window with those two words, because no judge or politician has the guts to stand up and defend 'those filthy druggies', as it would be political suicide. Even if they do, the vast majority of politicians will immediately jump up and declare that they will never 'coddle' the druggies, and if a few laws need to be bent a little, or flat out broken to get them, then so be it.
... and then enjoy being slammed into the ground a few times, and tossed in a cell for a few days on bogus charges for the 'joke'. Thugs usually don't have a sense of humor, especially when it comes at their expense.
The only way they could have been more blatant with their 'Screw you, we're the city and you get nothing' request would be to personally have the mayor and/or chief of police for the city visit the offices of those who sent the request to laugh and flip them off.
They're not even pretending that they answer to the public here, I imagine the only reason they even responded at all was for a laugh.
Some people break law, get arrested. Others break law, police look the other way
Is torching or otherwise damaging someone's car a crime? I'm guessing 'yes', so where's the arrests and jail time of cabbies who were involved in doing that?
If you're going to say that Uber needs to be punished for 'openly defying a law', then you'd better be calling for the cabbies to be punished for doing the same, unless you're going to try and claim that running a ferrying services is a more serious crime than torching vehicles and therefor deserves harsher punishment.
Sadly there are more than enough brain-dead, idiotic walking-wallets that will buy anything shoveled in front of them, no matter what the seller says, or how they are treated, as long as it's 'New!' of shiny in some way.
To be sure, it's hardly a gamer only thing, but it does make being someone with actual self-respect rather aggravating, as it makes stopping practices like this near-impossible, because the vast majority of morons simply don't care how they're treated, so the companies have no reason not to treat their customers as terrible as possible.
Best you can really do is a personal boycott, so they at least don't get your money on top of the money from the idiots.
So many problems would be solved if that was applied government wide...
Against broadband? You(and your staff) don't get any, enjoy dial-up.
In favor of the public being spied on? Say goodbye to your privacy, all of your devices(computer/phone/tablet) are now accessible(read only though) to anyone from the public, with attempting to keep a 'private' device resulting in automatically losing office.
Against affordable health-care? Say goodbye to taxpayer paid health-care plans, you have to pay for your own plans, from your own money.
Speaking of 'your own money', link government pay to the average national pay(after cutting out the extremes on both ends), and then watch them start clamoring about how people just aren't getting paid enough.
Things would be very different indeed if those that made the laws were the first ones to be affected by them, rather than never having to worry about the after-effects at all.
Nah, it's much simpler than that, his endgame involves him in a nice cushy job where he doesn't have to do anything, paid for by his 'friends' in the cable industry for all the help he gave them while in office.
Re: How come none of these sworn protectors of the law
Because that's perk #1 of being a cop, complete immunity from the law. Break any laws you like, no matter how bad, and as long as you're not unlucky enough to be the fall guy for your given precinct, you'll come out with at most a slapped wrist.
No judge, and especially no DA, will prosecute a cop as it would 'set a bad precedent', namely that cops are actually responsible for their own actions and can be held accountable for them.