Depends what your target is: - if it is justice, then it is not detrimental - if it is maximising "guilty" pleas and verdicts then it is detrimental Now, the court system is meant to be the former, not the latter.
If the only viable option is to reject CETA entirely, its an outcome I for one would welcome. These "Trade Deals" are generally corporate wishlists that do little for the benefit of the people in these countries, and impose substantial costs on them, often by dismantling social and environmental protections.
These corporates have little interest the value of the deal to the trading countries - just to themselves, so it should be no surprise that they add little if any value.
If a few more go the way of SOPA, then just maybe a more reasonable negotiation style may come about - one that includes the people.
I take it as read that these agencies have free reign to hack into anyone elses computer (including the accused, and have probably done so) without fear of prosecution. I wonder how the irony is lot on them.
This happened a lot in the UK as well. The incentives given to floor staff are usually in terms of "conversion rates". The targets are based on the "best" staff calculated on those conversion rates. The "best" are invariably those that are cheating.
In one case I am aware of, one staff member "upgraded" the accounts of all 13 customers she saw that day. In return, she was: - rewarded with a commission for each sale - rewarded with a bonus for being a top op - given recognition throughout the company
When her manager reviewed those upgrades, it was plain that the customers had not agreed to them. So what happened? The manager had to contact all 13, explain the "mistake" and put it right. This member of staff: - kept the commission, bonus and recognition - was not reprimanded (how could you having so publicly congratulated her)
The new targets the following week were increased in proportion to this record achievement. The reason this gets really out of hand is that those staff not making the targets face criticism and sometimes even dismissal for poor performance.
My wife was a co-worker in this branch. As she said, you could do you job with integrity, or you could hit your targets which were spectacularly unattainable. My guess is that stupid incentives structures combined with a refusal to reprimand dishonest behaviour is behind this too. The management need to be sacked whether they knew or not.
CC licenses are far from perfect. The train wreck here is copyright law which created the need for CC. Due to laws requiring registration being dropped (I guess Hollywood just couldn't be bothered keeping track of it's rights) every trivial thing is now bound for life + (50 / 70 / 100?) years, whether people want it to be or not this change means that Public Domain is no longer the Defacto standard - which it should be. It is not even possible to simply state that something is in the Public Domain, and every use of something risks silly battles like this. Nor is it possible in the vast majority of cases to work out what copyright may apply to a work. CC should not generally be necessary. In this case - a simple attribution should have been all that was needed.