Or, as in at least one state (IL I think?), it's actually punishable by prison. Maybe a 30 day sentence for certain blatant FOIA "failures" would encourage them to get it right. I'm not one for overly-criminalizing things, but I believe that offenses against government, against the people, like corruption and tampering and such, should carry strong criminal penalties. When people undermine the operation of government, they undermine its legitimacy.
Note that the intro of OnTheMedia Podcast says that"Aaron] had been indicted on federal charges after illegally downloading 4.8 million articles from JSTOR"
This is wrong. Swartz was using MIT's network, which had a license from JSTOR for the whole MIT campus, regardless of whether a user is a guest or MIT member. His access was thus authorized, though the prick US Attorney twisted the CFAA to try to say it was "illegal."
The alleged architect of the plot, Mr. Abaaoud, who traveled to Syria last year...
Mr. Abaaoud was already a suspect, according to officials and local news reports, in a failed terrorist plot in Belgium in January and an attempt in August to gun down passengers on a high-speed train to Paris from Brussels.
Mr. Amimour was known to the French authorities, having been charged in October 2012 with terrorist conspiracy, according to the authorities. He was placed under judicial supervision but violated the terms of that supervision in the fall of 2013, prompting the authorities to put out an international arrest warrant.
This is deceptively conflating where Google Fiber is actually live versus where they're deploying it (you know, that thing many of us refer to as investment). They're actively deploying fiber in several cities right now, including, praise Cthulhu, here in Nashville.
Thompson said the donations were proper and that all gifts to the department are reviewed to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
I do not think that means what she thinks it means.
Jeez, do they not even try to restate the question as different one, or to give a long-winded response that doesn't actually address the question but then pretend that it did anymore? Nope, just goes straight for the blatant denial of self-evident reality. I can't decide whether that's badass or just bad at the job.
For just sitting outside on the patio, one the best defenses is to run 1 or 2 large oscillating fans. They will disperse the exhaled carbon dioxide that attracts mosquitoes to begin with, and can physically repel them too, as they're very weak flyers.
What if the "hate speech" commenters sent the comment to the "victim" via an anonymous letter? Is the postal system similarly liable as the website? Will the postal system now have to read every letter to make sure they're not conveying hate speech?