This is nothing but censorship piled on censorship. The whole investigation was to discourage publication of things the government didn't like. Now they're censoring that the investigation ever occurred
The next stage is going back and burning all those inconvenient books and newspapers.
"...by virtue of the following exemptions..." There is nothing virtuous about these. The proper word would be tortuous.
* No lips, so as to not leak secrets. * Spies on everyone, even Ken. * Has a form letter to be given to deny all FOIA requests. * Has a Constitution carpet to wipe her feet on. * Has a heap of documents, all fully redacted. * Package includes a cardboard cutout Senator doll in boot-licking position. * Package contains a folding cardboard zettabyte data center. * Package contains a folding cardboard work center with neon blue lighting. * Automatically takes over every wireless device in your house. * Trains your child to be a citizen "helper". * Reports all findings to the real NSA.
All this intense resistance can only mean one thing: The capabilities of the Stingray are far beyond what has been hinted and will create a firestorm if exposed.
The capability most likely being concealed is that Stingray permits recording of all voice calls, without a warrant.
Possible other capabilities: Take over any phone, turn on any phone microphone, download software onto any phone, more?
Make up your own. The point is: they are concealing something that will raise alarms with everyone. There's no other reasonable explanation for this fight-to-the-death protection of the secrets of Stingray.
Now just what I want to know is: Where y'all been?
All this heat over surveillance has not been about the three-letter agencies watching foreigners. It's been about those agencies watching U.S. citizens, which is supposed to be illegal under the constitution.
- All the best technology they've built has been built to be used against U.S. citizens. - All the exceptions to the law they've sought have been so they could watch U.S. citizens. - The data they have collected has mostly been from surveillance on U.S. citizens. - The legal techniques they've invented, like parallel construction, were developed to be applied against U.S. citizens. - The torture they developed...well, I'm sure they intended to use it on U.S. citizens, but then the infernal politics got in the way.
It's really not possible to tell if they give a rat's whisker about watching any particular foreigner. But everything we've seen, that has raised a concern, demonstrates that their surveillance is primarily drected at U.S. citizens.
Why would anyone wonder, "why the following news makes so little sense." It doesn't make "little sense"; it makes perfect sense.
I'm wondering if that document linked isn't explicitly literal: That the government's original warrant said exactly the ranges specified in the document (such as "30 days following the first posting"); and that Google was not told what the posting dates were.
That either they failed to inform Google that the posting date related to a Craigslist advertisement, or that the government refused to give them the posting dates involved. That the government told Google privately not to worry about the dates, but just give us everything and we'll filter it.
The parody is clear to me, but not so obvious--I had to look twice to see that it was actually a different comic. It is a small part, perhaps 5% of the overall work.
Imagine I took the original comic and changed one pixel to black, then claimed all the other pixels were mine. Should that be considered "transformation"? If I change one word of a 10,000 word book in "parody", shall I then be able to call the rest of the 9,999 words mine?
It's not a matter of whether transformation or parody occurred, but how much as a proportion of the work. If I were the judge in this case, I would rule it was not enough; therefore that infringement occurred.
So, after they start their moratorium and piracy promptly goes through the roof, they'll realize their lack of wisdom in trying to herd customers to the abattoir; and start giving the customers what they want. Right?
If I were to make such a change to a cartoon, I would expect to run afoul of copyright. There's simply not enough transformation in this work, especially since the "parody" is buried within the larger artwork.
So my position is that this was theft of artwork to support an almost invisible parody; and that's not enough to avoid infringement.
It would have been quite easy to transform it sufficiently. The simplest concept that occurred to me was showing a TV on the wall containing the comic to be parodied, and having a different pair of watchers comment on the cartoon on the TV. That would have been as effective and, I think, would have avoided any copyright conflict.