Perhaps, but I think a more likely reason is that the ones talking haven't done enough research on the matter, and are unaware of how mandatory licencing works.
To be sure with copyright constantly trumpeted as being 'To protect the artists(the public can get bent)', the idea that an artist could have no say in who uses their music, even if it's someone or some group that they vehemently disagree with or flat out loathe does seem rather contradictory, but such is music licencing, and if certain individuals, musician or otherwise have a problem with that they they need to address mandatory music licencing, not the people they don't like using their music after they pay for it.
If they're going to go nuts with the 'winnings', demanding amounts that they know full well will not, and can not be paid, they really should go all the way. $66 million? Please, they should have asked for $66 billion, or perhaps $66 x googol.
I mean really, if one number that's impossibly high is good for PR purposes, clearly if they make the number even more insanely high that can only help, right? Demand more money than has ever existed, that'll really drive home the point of just how bad copyright infringement is right?
Nice try, but no. The point is that whether it was a nefarious plot by those dirty commies or just some bored hackers the contents of the emails remain the same, and as such remain just as newsworthy no matter who got them.
It has nothing to do with 'Ends justify the means' thinking and everything to do with 'the source doesn't really matter so long as the contents are legitimate'.
And yet, because this is the peak of political silly season, some are freaking out and claiming that anyone reporting on these emails "has been played" by Putin and Russia.
Leaving out of course the fact that those that don't cover the leak because it supposedly came from those dirty commies is being played by the DNC. As the article and numerous others have noted, content matters, who it came from not so much. It's a laughable attempt to try and deflect attention away from said contents, and disappointing that anyone bought it, but I suppose politics are politics...
As always, nice idea, rather difficult to do in practice given both judge and prosecutor would strike a potential juror from the jury pool in a second if they so much as admitting to knowing about the concept of jury nullification.
Judges and prosecutors hate the very idea that they can go through their whole song and dance and have the jury decide that nope, laws or not the accused doesn't deserve what they want to do to them, as it makes the jury more powerful than them, and for people used to being the most powerful in the room that really burns.
When the law has absolutely no real penalty for false accusations when it comes to copyright, and making sure that you have the right target takes time and money, it's not surprising that those out 'enforcing copyright' would range from slightly to extremely sloppy in picking targets.
Why spend a bunch of resources narrowing down the potential guilty suspect(s) from a group of ten when you can just accuse all ten in the hopes that the guilty party is in the group?
When it comes to copyright trolling especially there is a very high incentive not to care about accuracy, as the aim is not to stop infringement it's to profit off of accusations of it. Innocent or guilty, all that matters is how many people they can get to settle and avoid a costly court battle defending themselves, which means the more names they can get the better.
Yeah, these days a good rule of thumb is never cross a US border carrying anything you're not willing to lose. Electronics, money... if it looks valuable it's just one claim of 'suspicious activity' away from being stolen from you.
Course it doesn't exactly get much better once you're past the borders either, so a better rule of thumb would probably be to avoid the US if at all possible should you have anything of value.
For all the talk through history about equal treatment under the law and justice being blind, it has always been the case that the scales of 'justice' are influenced by station and/or wealth, the only difference is the extent that the influence applies and that at times it's hidden better.
These days, not so much. The facade is paper-thin at best, to the point that only the naive or insanely optimistic expect equal treatment under the law.
Clearly this only happened because they weren't using encryption/security with a built in unicorn gate, as everyone knows that with those in place the only people who can access something are 'good guys', of which the hackers almost certainly wouldn't have counted.
Had they been using unicorn gate encryption this would never have happened, making for yet another perfect example of the kinds of dangers trying to use secure encryption can cause, and one that I can only hope the tech companies take note of for their own future good.
If an even playing field, or even one slightly more even is enough to undercut the prosecution's case then they're essentially admitting that they could not win the case without underhanded tricks. If they're doing things properly then it shouldn't matter if the defense knows everything they're going to do and present, because the evidence should still be on their side.
That they feel the need for trickery and obfuscation positively reeks of weak cases that could not be won on the evidence alone and requires sleazy legal(-ish) tricks.
The new guidelines were supposed to make things better.
As for the idea that the new guidelines are supposedly better than the old ones? The fact that they're doing everything they can to prevent the exposure of those new guidelines demonstrates without a doubt that that's a lie. At best they're no worse, but I'd put good odds on them being either the same thing packaged in different language, or even more dishonest and underhanded than the previous guidelines.
It's a strange mindset from my point of view, and unfortunately one that tends to be fairly common, but far too many people think that a position or uniform is enough to 'earn' respect.
(Personally I don't care what uniform and/or badge someone has, I care what they do while they're wearing and/or carrying it. Actions, not outfits or accessories are what make a person worthy or not worthy of respect.)
In the situation of schools I imagine they think that simply being teachers/principals is enough to make them worthy of respect, with no actions beyond that needed, so from their mindset they already have 'earned' the respect they demand from the students, which simply isn't the case.
It doesn't appear that any words were wasted discussing the underlying causes of the protests officers are now facing -- none of which will be resolved with increased police militarization.
I think at this point they've fallen prey to the 'Just a little more' disease, where rather than admitting that hey, the current way of doing something is clearly not working they instead double, triple, and quadruple down, assuming that they just need to do it even more and suddenly it will work.
If police with some military surplus isn't cutting it and getting people to respect the police, then clearly the only possible response is to give them more military gear. If a pistol isn't getting them the respect they so clearly deserve then swap it out for a shotgun or rifle, and so on.
It would be a hefty uphill battle at this point but police could actually drastically reduce the problems they find themselves facing such as protests, lack of trust and respect, that sort of thing. Given that doing so would require actions that they have fought stridently every step of the way up till now(accountability, holding their own responsible and so on) that's not likely to happen any time soon or ever at this rate.
Actions like militarizing the police even more and granting them even more special treatment under the law on the other hand is just going to make things worse, to the point where you really have to wonder if they've given up on being worthy of actual respect and figure fear will work just as well.
If that is the case I certainly hope someone influential enough on the police side wakes up and changes things quick, because while you can cow a populous into obedience using fear that only works for so long, and when it fails things tend to be all sorts of messy for everyone, and other than the gun-happy nutters on both sides I don't imagine many people would care for that in the slightest.
I could drive a tank to get groceries and it would do the job, that doesn't mean I needed a tank to do so.
There is already such a thing as armored vehicles, they don't need military grade/surplus armored vehicles. As John Fenderson notes if a situation develops that requires military-level gear, call in the actual military.
Oh yeah, /much/ better way to spend taxpayer money
No really, tell us how municipal broadband must be blocked in order to protect the taxpayers from having their money wasted on something that might not be as successful as it could have been, as opposed to entirely wasted throwing it at a company that just uses it to pad out their profits and buy politicians.
Given we're talking about people who are theoretically employed to protect the public insisting on deliberately crippling security and making the public less safe, colossally incompetent in the general sense is pretty much a given, as they are showing that they seriously suck at their jobs.
Rather the distinction I was trying to make was between 'Intentionally lacking in knowledge' and 'Knows better and lying'. Stupid or dishonest essentially, one or even both is possible, but at this point 'neither' isn't.
'Put your money where your mouth is' in a more literal sense
At this point I'd love to see someone call their bluff by demanding that if they really don't think crippled encryption is that big of a deal they should match actions to words by having all of their personal data protected by deliberately crippled encryption. Medical, bank, personal email... all of it should be 'protected' by the very same level of security that they are insisting should be acceptable for anyone else.
They'd hire someone, or someone would volunteer(and I imagine there would be many volunteers for something like this) to intentionally create crippled encryption with a unicorn door, with the key to be held in a 'secure' location that is as accessible as a major company could manage. Once that's done all their personal data would be 'protected' by the encryption, and the public would be informed that it exists, though given no other details beyond that.
They'd never do it of course, because while they're incredibly dishonest I doubt any of them are that stupid, but it would be nice watching them squirm for a bit and try to explain how crippled encryption is plenty to protect the public, but not enough for public servants like themselves.
the measure would also increase criminal penalties for any crimes in which the victim is a law enforcement officer and “create a culture of respect for law enforcement by organizing a campaign to educate young Texans on the value law enforcement officers bring to their communities,”
Respect isn't something you teach, it's something you earn, and if more and more people don't respect police it's because they've shown that they're not worthy of respect.
If he wants to 'create a culture of respect for law enforcement' then he needs to start with law enforcement. Actual accountability, real oversight, equal treatment under the law... giving an already highly 'protected' group even more special treatment is not going to increase anything but resentment and disrespect, and rightly so, 'education' or not.