Such activity is not new to [Washington]—the [Americans] have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia [- in fact, across the entire world], for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only [America]'s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
It is not exactly a vote of confidence into their Ultra-HD 4K Superquality formats if the Sony/Disney folks see Handy-cam copies of half a movie as a threat worth fighting with high-tech weapons and rent-a-cops ...
Maybe the committee did not think this through before writing their report: The report tells us a lot more about the state of the American security apparatus thsn about Snowden. Imagine what a qualified hostile hacker could do if a Highschool failure, army dropout and unreliable employee can walk away with the nations secrets, and the worst the United States of America can do to him is have some clueless politicians write a petty report.
While the University of Manitoba is happy to charge overseas students $17 - 30 K in tuition fees, they do not seem to be prepared to have one of their law professors or the legal department stand up to the trolls and refuse to forward the letters unless their comply with both Canadian and international law.
Supporting the extortion tactics of the trolls, and then have a 'copyright strategy director' explain that probably, they are safe (but take this at your own risk) is nothing less than siding with the extortionists.
>> Publishers might have legitimate concerns about their decreasing revenues.
Indeed they might. On the other hand, their job has changed. Before the internet, it could take millions of Euros and a lot of skill to produce and launch a new album or book in the form of physical copies in every retail outlet in Europe.
Now, Youtube and other have taken over the job, and eliminated most of the upfront investment. What's wrong with Youtube taking a part of the publisher's share in return?
Government needs to do more. Congress needs to pass laws to outlaw accessing screener databases, password protected or not. ISPs need to monitor users who access Hollywood stuff without paying. AG Hood must prosecute Chris Vickery. And don't get me started on Google.
How come all these fools fail to do their part in protecting America's future?
If Microsoft and other tech companies were to encrypt customer data with a key handed over to the customer, electronic data would be protected just like paper data in the old days: The warrant would need to be served to the customer to access the data.
The US has turned copyright into a global internet tax payable to Hollywood and Disney - helped by courts who give themselves jurisdiction over the entire world and a USTR with a sole mission to ratchet up copyright and patent terms. Destroying innovation and creativity seems to be seen a bonus rather than a problem - Hollywood and Disney have the deep pockets, not the newcomers.
Can we really blame the French, or the Germans, or Spanish, or the EU for playing the same game and grabbing for their share of the cake, when meaningful discussions about copyright reform are torpedoed by the US before they even start?
If the government considers any and all communication data as fair game, why do they get all upset when the Russian or Chinese government take the same view, and help themselves to data the US would rather not share?
Google's Book project has been compared to the Library of Alexandria, an attempt by the ancient Greeks to collect all the world's knowledge in one place. With the difference that Google books can be accessed by anyone, anywhere. And it is as futureproof as Google's computer network.
As for more personal communication: Between Facebook, NSA and Gmail, it is probably more difficult to delete the more embarrasing parts than retrieving what's interesting ....
Commercial television and news organizations make megabucks with amateur videos they 'borrow' from youtube and other internet sources. Why should they not pay the creators a license fee? Following that logic, why can professional cameramen and photographers charge for their work?
And how can it be that they get the video free under a fair-use exception, then charge their customers for viewing it? Is it really that more creative to slam a logo on a video than to record it in the first place?
A few years ago, a study found that for most articles in the Flagship-journal 'Nature', the original data did NOT support the conclusions made in the paper - bogus research, revealed only when data were made available for independent verification.
The reaction of the editors: "A condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data, code, and associated protocols promptly available to readers without undue qualifications."
As for the "adequate incentives for researchers are important": indeed they are. However, "A key motivation for investigators to conduct RCTs" is not the ability to publish, but the availability of (tax-payer funded) grants to do the studies.
If the public pays for the work, it would seem reasonable that the public gets the results. All of them, and in a timely manner.
Does it snoop around on third party hard disks and send data to the FBI? Does it use third party computers to distribute illegal files? Are there mechanisms to ensure that the FBI can not place files that it subsequently 'finds'?
There a plenty of stories of Chinese hackers and Russian hackers walking away with American data as they please. On a regular basis, some British teenager is shipped over to the US for breaking into CIA and DoD and Pentagon computers.
Other than the Snowden-papers, which are more bragging about capabilities than evidence for successful data retrieval, there are few stories of US hackers getting anywhere with breaking into foreign systems. One can't help but wonder if the US cyberwarriors are really playing in the same league.
If they aren't, it might not be such a good idea to start a cyberwar ...