In response, the USTR falls back on its standard lame reply, about how draft texts are not "final."
Whether they get want they are demanding or not in the 'final' version, the fact remains that the positions listed are the ones they are arguing for.
As a hypothetical, if someone is arguing in favor of burning down every third house in a town to 'stimulate the economy by increasing demand for home builders and the purchase of home furnishings', even if the idea is shot down as being completely insane, that was the position they were in favor of. That the idea was ultimately rejected does not stop this from being the case, so it doesn't matter if the texts aren't final, they are still the positions being argued by the various parties, and an indication of what they are in favor of.
It's not insanity if you're doing it with a purpose
No, it's ensuring job security and justifying their current budget.
Only watching actual suspects takes a lot less 'wiggle room' in the law, which would remove the excuses for why they need to grab Everything, and it would also require a lot less money, which means their budget would take a hit next year.
By insisting that they need to spy on everyone, all the time, they maintain their power(if not expand it), and keep their budget nice and insanely large.
"... and next on the agenda it looks like we have a vegan with their presentation, 'Eating Death: The Balance Between Meat and Veggies' "
"Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balance Between Public Safety and Privacy,"
Now there's an absurd name if I've ever seen one, given who it's coming from. As far as they're concerned, the 'balance' is completely one sided, with 'Privacy' always being tossed out the window as soon as they claim that what they're doing is related to 'public safety'.
They have no interest, at all, in preserving a 'balance' between privacy and public safety, all they care about is access to all the data they want, whenever they want it, with the minimum of hoops like warrants to jump through, all in the name of 'public safety'.
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.