He can publish his opinion on whatever platform will publish it. Just as with my opinion that the sun rises in the west. But it does reflect very badly on the platform that would publish opinions based not on facts, but rather contrary to the facts. Made up facts. Or just outright distortions (if not actual lies).
Similarly, I'm just trying to persuade people to a point of view. Everyone should enjoy the benefits of watching an early morning sunrise in the west. The NYT should be PROUD to use its credibility to publish my opinion about western sunrises.
... again, it makes you wonder, why is Congress so intent on hiding this taxpayer funded research -- which has a history of being credible, factual and useful -- from the public?
If this information were made public, then it wouldn't have any value. Keeping it private makes it valuable. (Ask Disney why their DVDs are only available for sale for limited times, and then not again for many years.)
If this information didn't have any value, then what incentive would there be for Congress to have the research done in the first place?
Furthermore, if it were easy to debunk the statements of congresscritters, then this would undermine their business model. How would these artists get paid for their amazing creative works of fiction? There would be no more incentive to create such fact free fanciful tales for political purposes if this information were made public.
a representative from Fox was adamant about pushing for stronger punishment for sites that hosted infringing content. But she also made sure to respond to a point raised earlier about abusive takedowns.
Both of those things need to bite Fox. Hard.
Their broadcast might contain infringing content. These are people who very likely do not believe in any kind of fair use. And if they acknowledge fair use at all, then their same standard should be applied to them. "fair use is a defense in a lawsuit, but the use is considered infringing until you raise the fair use defense", etc
Fox filed a bogus takedown, and should be punished accordingly. Fox demonstrated an abusive takedown after complaining that abusive takedowns are unusual, which we all know is not true any more than copyright infringement is unusual. There needs to be seriously steep punishments for doing this. Takedown notice issuers need to abide by the same high standards as they expect everyone else to abide by in not infringing copyright. Do by example.
Therefore, this Court, in an effort to ensure that all Justice Department attorneys who appear in the courts of the Plaintiff States that have been harmed by this misconduct are aware of and comply with their ethical duties, hereby orders that any attorney employed at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. who appears, or seeks to appear, in a court (state or federal) in any of the 26 Plaintiff States annually attend a legal ethics course. It shall be taught by at least one recognized ethics expert who is unaffiliated with the Justice Department. At a minimum, this course (or courses) shall total at least three hours of ethics training per year. The subject matter shall include a discussion of the ethical codes of conduct (which will include candor to the court and truthfulness to third parties) applicable in that jurisdiction.”
In a footnote, Judge Hanen noted this was not the first time the DoJ has faced such an issue:
Just recently, the Sixth Circuit expressed a similar conclusion. It wrote:
In closing, we echo the district court’s observations about this case. The lawyers in the Department of Justice have a long and storied tradition of defending the nation’s interests and enforcing its laws—all of them, not just selective ones—in a manner worthy of the Department’s name. The conduct of the IRS’s attorneys in the district court [like the attorneys representing the DHS in this Court] falls outside that tradition. We expect that the IRS will do better going forward. And we order that the IRS comply with the district court’s discovery orders of April 1 and June 16, 2015—without redactions, and without further delay.
Concluding the order, Judge Hanen wrote, “This Court would be remiss if it left such unseemly and unprofessional conduct unaddressed.”
According to the FBI agent, this software isn't malware because it doesn't do any permanent damage.
Similarly, enhanced interrogation isn't torture because it doesn't do any permanent damage.
Nice way to divert from the fact that there was harm, rather than on how long the harm lasts. While the harm may or may not be permanent, which can be debated, the fact is that harm WAS DONE. The computer has malware, a rootkit, of some sort installed on it.
Does the FBI do anything to remove this malware?
What makes the FBI so sure that without any updates, their brand of malware will not actually make the computer more vulnerable to other hacking efforts? They seem awfully confident of this.