Preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications
Because the NSA can't know to preserve "foreign intelligence information" contained within attorney-client communications unless it has read the privileged communications already.
I'm not sure whether to become a hermit, or to go all activist guns-a-blazing over this. (That's a metaphor you knee-jerk reactionary govt. fucks.)
Regarding stopping terrorism - my wife says, "We'll take our chances, thanks."
And the concern for us is what happens 25 years down the line if this data collection isn't abated. Then every living citizen will have most or all of his/her life, movements, contacts on file with the US Govt. And what if another Nixon or J. Edgar gets in office and starts cleaning house of ... you know, anyone they don't like? They'll have the goods on everyone.
We've been looking at our pets these last few weeks and been actually, vocally relieved we did not have children. That's scary.
Agreed. That's why I noted the ethics rules are for the "obviousness impaired." We have to take ethics CLE units as well, which my dad notes are silly -- you can't *teach* an adult ethics. They got it or they don't.
Oh, it's an ethical duty ... for obviousness-impaired lawyers.
The CA Rule: B&PC 6068(m) and CRPC 3-500 are essentially the same as MR 1.4(a). Each requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about significant developments relating to the representation and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
* * *
ABA Model Rule 1.4: Communication
(a) A lawyer shall:
(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(e), is required by these Rules;
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished;
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and
(5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
I have dealt with the NYT over claimed copyright issues regarding its content. What I surmise as a result is:
The NYT Legal Dept. is focused on 1) Protecting the NYT brand and content, without any thought whatsoever to the big picture; and 2) justifying the legal department's own existence, which includes sending at-times meritless threat letters.
They also have shown a penchant for black/white thinking; refusal to negotiate or consider circumstances; and for making absolute threats of suit, but rarely actually pulling the trigger and suing.
IANALP but I understand that if the sole question is who owns the copyright in a work (rather than infringement issues), then that does not confer Federal jurisdiction. Pretty much everything else related to copyright is exclusively fed.
For many, many people, the incentive to create is not because of money, but because they can't not create.
This is the part that I think needs to be stressed to death. Most people who create do so because they have to; getting paid for it is a great perc when you can get it.
The idea of copyright as incentive to create is bullshit, and the people who say that are clearly not persons who feel the compulsion that creators do.
I'm so thrilled to have lived long enough that high quality video, animation, and recording studios can be had by us commoners with little overhead, and generate pro product. (When I started, a 2-oscillator 5-voice analog synth was $5k, in 70s bucks. Yikes!)