But what probably mattered more was they thought Steven Talley "could be convicted." That is far too often the only criteria for prosecution these days, while in re guilt or innocence, the prosecutor says, "Meh."
The intelligence agencies are just going to come back with, "You say po-tay-toe, we say po-tah-toe..." Then another two-decade argument will ensue, and the end result will be a shrug...because, after two decades, the argument will be incredibly moot...
Tribunal might just as well rubber-stamp the intelligence agencies' programs.
It doesn't matter. He's tied to the defendant, and their defense depends upon his cooperation.
They sue you; then they involve your wife, son, daughter, employer, church...anyone they can find a tenuous theory to tie to your case and increase the leverage on you to surrender.
So ask yourself, since they weren't suing him, why were they tearing his house apart? Right, looking for leverage on him, so he would surrender and quit his new job. (Or get fired.) Which would be what they really wanted, wouldn't it?
This lawsuit was BS from the start. He quit, went to work for a competitor...and he must be punished. That's what the lawsuit was about. Think they'll give up now that they have a pound of his flesh? Somehow I doubt it.
"...but his personal web browsing habits still made it into the public record..."
Of course they did. Lawsuits today aren't about the legal issues at hand. They're about which party can make it so expensive for the other party, that will force the latter party has to surrender.
That can be either a matter of who has deeper pockets, or who has the most embarrassing facts to hide. And, if the latter, who cares if those facts are relevant to the legal issues at hand? Usually, NOT the judge.
If Mr. Moyse wanted those facts kept private, he should have surrendered to Catalyst demands.
That's exactly wrong, but a win by any means is a win.
@Rapnel Are we actually insinuating here that we "trust" government to, I don't know, never behave in a solely self-preserving and protectionist manner?
IANA is now a private company, which means the last thing it wants to do is piss any country off. So now civil rights are set by every government each according to its whimsical decisions to fine or ban IANA (reduce income) or to pay extra for a few "extras" (increase income). In short IANA just became a money-grubbing slave to every government's civil rights whims.
Some people claim that is much better than IANA being dominated by one government...even the government that dominated it. I say wait 5 years or 10 and let's see what tune you're singing then. And I'll even go so far as to say my bet is that it won't be a happy tune.
It does not provide any products or services critical to the US, or anyone in it.
The DNC is a political party that provides some of the people (presidents, senators, representatives, even justices) that set policy for our nation. How could that be anything but critical to the United States?
Oh, wait, I get you: RNC needs to provide the critical people, right? Just arguing for a one-party system, right?