I see no proof that the govt reaction to Wikileaks has actually caused any harm. Rolling tanks through Afghanistan maybe, reacting to Wikileaks, well, what harm has it actually done?
AC, perhaps you should read the post linked to in the article.
This is clearly not a statement of a written policy, and your subject of this post is misleading. This is a warning passed on from an employee to a career services person.
Having gone through 2 government background checks, this is not surprising in the least. They have to hire people that can be trusted with confidential information, and if you are someone who supports what Wikileaks is doing, then you are a risk.
This is probably one of the more logical reasons for not hiring someone for a job that requires a security clearance. I've heard of people not getting clearances/jobs with the government for far less.
When the band authorized the photographer to act on their behalf, they accepted the rewards and the risks.
IANAL, but it would seem to me that band, having hired the photographer with the expectation that he would produce for them original work, is not liable for the infringement.
Rather, the photographer did not stick to the agreement of producing an original work to which he had full rights. Unless the band was aware that the photographer did not have rights to the photograph, I don't see how they can be liable.
In fact, I think the band should sue the photographer.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Mark.
Re: .....what?
Not to disagree with your main point that this is bad, however, technically they didn't enact any laws.
Re:
>Follow, if you will, the plot of a movie
I found a problem. You're basing your theoretical on a movie, not actual incidents that have happened in real life.
Re:
Note a statement of policy
This is clearly not a statement of a written policy, and your subject of this post is misleading. This is a warning passed on from an employee to a career services person.
Having gone through 2 government background checks, this is not surprising in the least. They have to hire people that can be trusted with confidential information, and if you are someone who supports what Wikileaks is doing, then you are a risk.
This is probably one of the more logical reasons for not hiring someone for a job that requires a security clearance. I've heard of people not getting clearances/jobs with the government for far less.
Re:
IANAL, but it would seem to me that band, having hired the photographer with the expectation that he would produce for them original work, is not liable for the infringement.
Rather, the photographer did not stick to the agreement of producing an original work to which he had full rights. Unless the band was aware that the photographer did not have rights to the photograph, I don't see how they can be liable.
In fact, I think the band should sue the photographer.