That is probably a marketing "VP" asking for that, and looking at the result only on the internal intranet. The same breed that think people want to watch crappy ads. The Web designers will simply be writing what they were told to write.
It's not so much a flip flop, as the ability to hold multiple contradictory opinions on the same topic. All they need to do is trot out the one that is most convenient at the time. It's a talent many politicians have.
Gotta say, religion and copyright have a lot in common: - follow long established doctrine - suspend logic - seem to be endlessly open to re-interpretation by the practitioners - require blind faith Let them slug it out. Popcorn ready :)
No. God did not write it. The people that did died more than [50 | 70 | 90][select as inappropriate by location] years ago. You could argue that God wrote everything, that everything is a religious gathering and therefore exempt...
What I find astounding is that people, even the apologists like Fienstien, really don't understand the logic of these bulk collections. For instance, the AT & T taps take everything. There is no possibility of not taking communications involving senators, privileged legal communications, or anything other prohibited communications. It is ALL. The only way the NSA could avoid any of these is to collect none of them in bulk. It's largely the same story for minimisation. You actually need to know it's priveledged to minimise it, and in most cases, they never get that far. No amount of legislation will change that logic. The NSA crossed the rubicon quite some time ago, and as we have seen, they aren't going back.
You know, marketing peoples ideas when advertising doesn't work is often simply to stuff more aggressive / intrusive ads down any pipes they can find. If customers are already pissed off with that (ie TV programming that is 50%+ ads), stuffing more ads in is counter-productive. People leave. Unfortunately, marketing people are often too simple to understand this.
Initially, I found it a little creepy just how much they were tracking me to do this pointless thing. Still do if I think about it. It is also clear from the data that my metadata (linked to real comms channels) are being sold ion a marketplace. I'm a little bemused that they think this generates sales. Not from me it doesn't.
Hmmm. Ads. I hate them. There are two ways of doing them. Make them unobtrusive enough that they don't fight for my attention, and I'll ignore them. Make them aggressive and I'll avoid the site. What I will NOT do is use any of those advertisers - at least not in response to the ads. If I want to purchase something, I'll go to a store I trust or I'll research the issue. We did some home improvements a couple of years ago - and I still get ads for floorboards, furniture and paint. Sure it's targeted - but guys, the purchases were made years ago, I'm not buying more floorboards in the next couple of decades... why am I a target?
Just astounding how accurately the FOIA response actually describes the situation: - scatter gun approach (this is what the Govt is doing) - the response is plainly vexatious I wonder what GCHQ has on her?