"...intervening facts have rendered these provisions unnecessary. As explained below, a copy of the SSCI Report is already being preserved in the Executive Branch..."
A backup in two places... how "unnecessary" is that? So if a rogue operator (snicker) maliciously deletes the Executive (DOJ/CIA) copy, which (snicker) could happen some day, the Judicial Branch could "help out" by producing its own, much to their chagrin.
I wouldn't give a copy to the Legislative Branch for safe keeping... not much is safe once it gets into those monkeys' hands.
Boy, do I hate the stupid term "sheeple"... but it's hard not to think of it in regard to net neutrality. I'm not convinced we'll ever see the kind of backlash that Wheeler's trying to threaten the telecoms with; and I think those execs know it. And they're having a good chuckle.
Hate to be this way, but I think the vast majority of consumers are happy to grab the tiny discounts thrown at them and call it "value"; they'll never attempt to grasp the admittedly confusing, upside-down concept of discounts as evil. Similarly, I can't recall a mass demonstration of consumers chanting "More competition! More competition!"
I think this is a battle among the cognoscenti... those who understand and are outraged, versus those who understand and are hoping nobody notices.
Simple logic aside, and dismissing the LEOs' chronic sneak-one-by attitude, how does Judge Weinstein reconcile his own condemnations...
"... vitiated Lambus’s reasonable expectation of privacy... where the invasion of privacy is so substantial... a search is likely unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional... such a search could not be justified..."
... with his casual dismissal:
"Neither the NYSDOCCS officers nor the federal law enforcement officers behaved inappropriately."
DOJ lawyers are largely concerned with nuts and bolts, not pie-in-the-sky. They can tell you about the United States Code and maybe even the CFR, but not so big on the Constitution... no citations to fill in the boxes on a warrant. Fourth Amendment? Say what?
So... if I email someone, let's say, an animated GIF of flaming dog shit, I would be liable for the cost of their laptop if they tried to stamp out the fire?
This instance is abhorrent and idiotic, but it's hard to think of any other hypothetical situation where a simple electronic message induces a harmful physical reaction... hard to believe there's a legal remedy.