"Um... well... I don't know the answer to that, George. Um.... All we know is that... um... this is effectively the official position of the British government"
Oh, really? It's the official position of the British government? You'd think that, if it were the official position, you'd be able to rely on named sources, and not ones who are only willing to provide anything if their anonymity is protected.
This is incredibly shoddy journalism, and any self-respecting journalist should be hanging their head in shame and promising they'll try to do better next time, not going on international TV and trying to defend the indefensible.
I can't help feeling that if there were any evidence to show that he had done this - or even could do this - in real life, he'd already have been deposited in a nice secure cell while some prosecutor somewhere spent a few months pouring through his or her law books trying to sum up every single thing he could possibly be charged with and seeing if they could get the maximum possible sentence to get into triple figures ...
On the other hand, as he's saying he was taken 'out of context', I wouldn't be at all surprised if he'd had a nice rambling conversation with some FBI agents during those interviews, mentioned what he thought the dangers might be, how interference could be technically possible, remarked how he might have had some initial successes in simulation etc ...
And then the FBI drew up an affadavit using the scariest-sounding bits they could find - with 'in simulation' omitted - to get a worried judge to sign off on things.
Mr CEO : Why, Mr. NSA. It's really nice to meet you too. This guy to my right? Oh, you haven't met. Now, I'm not saying he's with Chinese Intelligence and I'm not saying he's not. But he's awfully knowledgeable about your children, practically a trivia buff on the subject.
The article specifically stated that "hundreds" of photographs were taken. It's not unusual for one or two to be focused well out of a sea of badly focused shots.
By the way, why on Earth would this guy even try at this point to claim that he, not the monkey, took the photo?
1) It ruins the selling power of the photo. Suddenly it's gone from '1 in a million shot' to 'Meh, it's an OK picture of a monkey.'
2) It's devastating to any possible credibility should this ever go to court. 'So, Mr. Photographer, for many many years you've claimed that you should have the copyright on this photograph that you claimed a monkey took. Now, when it's quite convenient to your case, you claim that actually it was you that took the shot. Tell me, have you been lying for the last few years or are you lying now? Why should the jury believe a word you say?'
To which, they presumably point to their agreement ...
"Photographer agrees to execute all papers and to perform such other proper acts, as Amtrak may deem necessary or desirable to secure for Amtrak the rights herein granted, assigned and/or transferred. "
And say, "Right, we require you to transfer your copyright in writing, as agreed."
At which point, hopefully, everyone would laugh in their face and tell them they'd see them in court, but there could be some people out there intimidated enough by the legalese ...
"1. Automobiles traveling on country roads at night must send up a rocket every mile, then wait ten minutes for the road to clear. The driver may then proceed, with caution, blowing his horn and shooting off Roman candles, as before.
2. If the driver of an automobile sees a team of horses approaching, he is to stop, pulling over to one side of the road, and cover his machine with a blanket or dust cover which is painted or colored to blend into the scenery, and thus render the machine less noticeable.
3. In case a horse is unwilling to pass an automobile on the road, the driver of the car must take the machine apart as rapidly as possible and conceal the parts in the bushes."
Good job those suggestions never made it into the statute book :)
Does the blog actually guarantee true anonymity? I must admit I didn't dig too deeply into the site after I read their 'About' (not a good layout, imho), but all I could see was the usual Wordpress 'Name, email (which we don't disclose)' bit. I don't know if that's supposed to constitute a guarantee of full anonymity or whether that's just designed to stop people trawling for e-mail addresses ...