Technology needs content, and content needs technology.
Chris Dodd's worldview is distorted by the cynical company he keeps, where technology is seen only as a vehicle for pushing content to "consumers". Technology does not need content; tech is quite capable of generating content on its own. Does content need tech? It depends on the content, of course - a capella singing obviously doesn't need it, but enabling that moment to persist does.
For those who don't know, Adobe recently announced changes to their e-book DRM scheme, which would have had the effect of disabling older e-readers unable to update their software. Although Adobe itself backed off this draconian mandate, it merely pushed the timeline for implementation onto resellers and publishers, who, it should be noted, have a vested interest in making current e-books unusable in order to sell "new" versions.
The Virginia Supreme Court confirmed in Network Solutions that neither telephone numbers nor domain names were garnishable personal property because "neither one exists separate from its respective service that created it."
This may have been true in the days of Ma Bell, when phone numbers were assigned, but with number portability (i.e., your number is transferable to different carriers) and with domain names since the beginning, the respective services are not creating or assigning the numbers/names so much as they are registering them.
Contrast this writer's group (which according to Wikipedia, is a labor union) with another - the Authors Guild (which, again according to Wikipedia, is a "not-for-profit American organization of and for authors").
While both groups purport to represent writers, their attitudes towards the implementation of copyright could not be more different. This paper by the WGA shows a practical and nuanced acknowledgement of the way the world is, rather than the "All infringers must die!" ravings of the Authors Guild, the MPAA/RIAA and others.
It's almost like they want to reach the widest possible audience. Huh.
I somehow doubt the inadvertent naming of an NSA employee responsible for preparing PowerPoint slides carries the same emotional loading as the rather breathless declaration that:
It’s finally happened. The name of an NSA agent has been accidentally leaked to the public via an NSA document stolen by Edward Snowden.
...unless that employee was working out of a rathole in Iraq, smuggling dangerous presentation materials out of the country by shoving up his bum, in which case I'd have to ask, what, they don't have affordable office space in New Jersey or some other comparable american rathole?
Nixon lived in the sweaty nightmare world of a paranoiac; he came by his attitudes honestly. Rogers is just a cynical, paid-for politician who will be working for some aspect of the defense industry once he leaves office.