And this is why you should not be a police officer. You obviously do not have the discipline or control to handle the job as required. Not everyone does, and there are those individual police officers who deal with these risks every day, living with the risks. Not taking the shot unless absolutely necessary. They are the ones we do not hear about. They are the ones we need.
I think you are missing the point here. It is not that all cops are bad (some may feel that way) but that the system attempts to hide the error in judgement by some individual police officers by passing the blame to someone else, instead of assigning the blame properly and correcting the situation through better training and discipline. The police are suppose to be professional and in control at all times. There is the difference. Police are only supposed to use deadly force when it is safe and prudent to do so. They lost control of the situation here. Were they totally in the wrong in this situation, no. Were they bad cops, probably not. Could they have dealt with the situation better? YES! The real issue here is that they failed to control the crowd. They failed to properly assess the threat, and finally only those with a clear sight line and low risk of collateral damage should have fired, and that means having the strength and professionalism to NOT pull the trigger if necessary. And yes the crowd bears some responsibility as does the perpetrator. The morons in the crowd that thought it was safe and prudent to stand with the perpetrator bewteen them and the police all deserve darwin awards, or at least honourable mentions.
I have to go with the hippies on this one. Publicly accessible locker on campus with no lock, and in some reports someone else was using it for personal storage. Network with NO restrictions, plug in and go. Aaron had a legitimate account to access JSTOR which "owned" or at least stored the public materials. JSTOR actually dropped all charges. The material was actually public domain unless someone else can correct me, except that JSTOR wanted to charge for downloading the content. My understanding is that MIT users had unlimited access which was why the laptop was on MIT's campus. Outside users could officially download up to 3 free articles. Definitely sounds like overreach to me. Like there was not some drug dealer, murderer, or other scum that could have been given more attention. I think in this case, the witch hunt was held by prosecutor in this case.
You make it sound like protecting private information in bitorrents is a bad thing. There are governments in the world who could monitor such downloads and identify the people (or at least machines) accessing restricted information. By making public sources of said restricted material would make the infrastructure vulnerable to attack, and place the content owners at risk. In this day and age, such things are real risks. Bitorrents are tools like anything else, and have to be designed well to work in real world situations, regardless of use.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by DudeWasHere.