IOW, every classified hearing where Congress is providing oversight must then be followed by a public hearing so that the public (both domestic and otherwise) can learn about and weigh in on the classified information presented at the classified hearing.
Would you quit your idiotic sarcastic strawmen? They just make YOU look stupid.
NO ONE is saying that everything that is classified must be discussed. But, what you still fail to concede, is that what Wyden asked Clapper was NOT for CLASSIFIED information. He did not ask him to reveal a classified program. He asked a general question about whether or not information was collected on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.
That could have been answered with a simple yes or no, without revealing the nature of that program.
I don't know why you feel the need to act like a complete idiot around here. It does not reflect well on you or your buddies.
Lately Techdirt has taken strong turn to the progressive side.
No. We haven't.
Techdirt does great fighting back against the copyright nonsense, but lately there have been more and more stories that spout the progressive line and libertarians need not show up.
We are neither progressive nor libertarian. We don't focus on ideology, but on the actual issues at play. People who worry about whether a position is "progressive" or "liberal" or "conservative" or "libertarian" or "socialist" or, well, anything, are a waste of time.
We explore issues for what they are. We don't care about political labels or ideology.
Wyden's conduct, far from being noble, in my opinion (and that of others you will certainly accuse of being morally bankrupt) is particularly reprehensible and cowardly. He knew the answer, but rather than do what he believed to be the right thing and accept the consequences, he instead chose to throw someone else under the bus.
You have a bizarre way of looking at how someone on the Senate Intelligence Committee is supposed to handle public hearings. Very bizarre.
The point of public hearings is to ask these individuals questions for the public record. Every question at a public hearing involves something that the person asking already knows the answer to. For you to assume otherwise suggests you either are totally ignorant of how this works or you're just lying to cover up for Clapper.
I'm not an employee, nor am I shill - I've had my issues w/Comcast as a customer - but overall, I, nor ANYONE else that has Comcast has ever, EVER had the problems and issues described in this article.
On the contrary, everytime I've had an issue, not only has Comcast quickly, fairly and honestly handle the situation IMMEDIATELY, they were very friendly and knowledgeable as well.
I don't use Comcast, because back when I was a customer of their's I went through the October from hell. Every day between 9am and 10am, the service would stop working entirely. Blinking red light rather than a connection. I would call, and after being handed off from person to person with long hold times, I'd be told that the downtime was due to "scheduled maintenance."
"Does the schedule show it will be happening tomorrow too?"
"We don't know."
"Not much of a schedule, then, is it? Also, if it's scheduled, why didn't you warn me ahead of time that my connection would be useless pretty much all day, every day?"
"It's scheduled maintenance."
This went on for four weeks until I finally switched to AT&T. No great bargain there either. I'm finally on Sonic.net now.
I've wondered if the outrageous prices paid for these companies might have been due to patents. Why else (other than sheer stupidity) would a company like Yahoo pay billions of dollars for a small website operation with relatively few customers and little to no revenue? And broadcast.com is far from the only one.
While the price for broadcast.com was shocking at the time, to argue that it had relatively few customers and little to no revenue is way off. At the time, broadcast.com really was *the* dominant player in any sort of audio online. You could easily look at it and think it would become something like YouTube today.
And the "real" problem is? DOJ found what it believed was sufficient and then returned full control back to the servers' owners. The reason MU has a problem is because it wants the owners to incur all of the data retention costs. If MU wants continuing retention, then MU should be the one to pay.
You're so full of shit it's not even funny. MU has indicated it is absolutely willing to pay. It just needs the assets unfrozen in order to pay -- and the DOJ has blocked it. It asked specifically for funds to pay for this very thing and the DOJ told the court not to allow it. Because the DOJ wants the exculpatory data destroyed.
Think what you will about Clapper, but at least fairly and objectively consider the propriety of Wyden did
The *propriety of what Wyden did*? That's not even in question. He did exactly what he was supposed to do, being a part of the *oversight* committee, designed to make sure that the NSA is not spying on Americans.
We've gone over your line of bullshit before and it's pure bullshit. If Clapper was afraid of revealing classified information he could have easily said "that's better left answered in a classified session" -- which is the same thing he's said in open hearings both before and after that hearing.
The idea that he had to lie is a lie. We've told you this before. Why do you keep repeating it? The only possible reason is that you are intellectually dishonest.
The DOJ seizes some 3rd party servers used by MU, it secures copies of files on such servers, and then it informs the 3rd parties that it has completed its search for evidence and the servers are once more under the operational control of the 3rd parties.
That's incredibly misleading spin. First, they secured copies of *some* files -- just the ones they wanted, not anything that might be exculpatory. Second, they ALSO seized all of Megaupload's money, meaning that it can no longer pay to keep those servers. You make it sound like they returned them to Megaupload. That's simply misleading.
To say this means the DOJ is countenancing or encouraging the destruction of files residing on those private service is misleading to a fault
No, you're the one misleading to a fault. The DOJ flat out told Carpathia that it should go ahead and destroy the evidence. You can't do that in a criminal case.
Sheesh...the issue of these servers and what they contain is a private matter between the server owners and their former customer MU. If MU deems the information residing on those servers as critical to the pending legal action, then it is up to MU to find a way to pay the bills needed to keep the data residing on the servers.
Easy to say that when the DOJ has also sezied all their assets. You can't honestly believe what you said above.
As for the truly innocent having files that are still resident on those servers and are in no way anything associated with the suit at hand, perhaps they should take a lesson from the fallout associated with the Bernie Madoff saga and other sagas of similar ilk. Be more discriminative with whom you deal and always retain a local backup.
Kyle Goodwin did retain a local backup. And it failed. So when he went to restore it from one of the MOST POPULAR cloud backup solutions out there, the US government shut it down completely, based on a highly questionable indictment.
So, your argument is, once again, completely bullshit.
Since it seems like these debates quickly turn into screaming matches, I just wanted to point to a recent episode of EconTalk which was a very interesting and reasoned debate on the issue of climate change:
when you run your mouth about it, then you deserve the shit you got!
Easy to say. You're not the one facing decades in jail.
Don't be surprised, should Snowden ever come back if he takes a plea deal as well. You DO NOT understand the calculus that goes into the decision -- OR the pressure that the DOJ puts on people to accept a deal.
People who insist that no one should accept a plea deal are people who have never been in that situation.
That'd take a slight variation in language. Make it clear that it's not the posting without permission, but the posting without permission of material that the subjects had a legally recognized expectation would not be made public. So, a photograph taken in a public place where photographs were being taken? The subject has no expectation that photographs wouldn't be made public. Photographs taken in your bedroom when they weren't being taken for public distribution, or where they were taken without your knowledge? That's when the site needs to be careful.
So... Gawker and the Toronto Star would be in *criminal* trouble for posting photos of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack in a private home?
Or... what about Chad Hurley taking a short video at Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's wedding and posting it online. That was a private event.
It might be better to criminalize, not the hosting of such material, but the solicitation of such material.
Still a potential can of worms. How about the celebrity gossip site that solicits photos of celebrities, and some of those show celebrities in a less than flattering light. How do you distinguish that situation?