Slashdot Mirror

I've got a few ties in the area and have an idea what might actually be going on A few URLs that are useful: Actual text of the lawsuit (which seems to be the basis of most of the news stories): http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/04 26072pirate1.html Public statement from the high school involved: http://www.cvsd.k12.pa.us/DS/tempNews/snyderLawsui t05_07.pdf Now consider 1) The picture swap. According to the lawsuit: " To date, Defendants have not provided Plaintiff with a copy of the picture in question. However, a similar picture is attached hereto..." Pretty sneaky, considering the plaintiff must know full well what the picture (it was on her page) was and seemingly has substituted a much more innocuous one as a substitute. 2) Only the plaintiff claims the picture is the reason the teaching certification was not granted. Lack of professionalism is the reason that is on paper. 3) According to the high school, the plaintiff was directing her high school students to her myspace page, it wasn't just "found" by someone out to get her. 4) The documentation from the high school seems to indicate the plaintiff was criticizing someone at the high school (presumeably one of her supervisors) on the myspace page. My deduction (induction?) - the plaintiff was actually complaining to the class about her supervisor (their teacher) in a way she thought the teacher wouldn't notice. The picture was submitted as supporting evidence and has been used as a red herring to confuse the real issue. What do you think? 2)

This is the picture that is actually in dispute, described in this news article

Apparently, Conestoga Valley School District were threatening to not recruit any more teachers from her university, unless she was punished in some way.

I agree the photo provided by Conestoga Valley School District shows her in a worse light, but the fact that (1) the photo was provided by CVSD and (2) it's in black and white implies some info which neither side is telling. Apparently someone at CVSD felt strongly enough about the photo to print it out and save a copy; perhaps to document a report on Ms. Snyder? CVSD is downplaying their involvement in this case, but their possession of the photo (or a related photo) would seem point to them being very involved in the decision to deny her her teaching certificate.

She received a grade of "R" for her professionalism. Seriously: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/04 26072pirate4.html

Nice username. Don't let anyone tell you it's too soon.

Wrong. You have obviously never seen a search warrant before. They are not a generic search "free pass" for the cops. It must state specifically what they are looking for, and the location.

Look here for a quick example noting page two the Attachment A part.
Or here for the Duke Lacrosse search warrant. Notice the "description of items being seized" section.
Or here if you want to see the search warrnat for the Virgina Tech shooter. Notice the first blank is where they fill in the location, and the second blank under "for the follwing property,objects, and/or persons".

My question is: What kind of "research" was Pete Townshend doing? He seems to have used his own credit card and visited a site where this stuff was available.

Every country which has ratified the UN declaration on human rights (and followed through on their obligations, for example the UK) has equal free-speech to the USA. We just have different bugbears to you (in Europe, this is mainly we-hate-Nazis instead of we-hate-Terrorists).

I know this is touching on a political nerve, so I'm hesitant to say much, but regardless of those who ratified the UN declaration, the USA has a better track record than others.

Let's start with looking at the declaration. I believe the relevant section is article 19:
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Sounds good. Now I'm going to use Canada as an example as I'm more familiar with them (being that they are in close proximity to the US so more of their news makes it to me). Wikipedia mentions the following:

Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada's freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the Charter states:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

This section is double edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. The former case has been used to uphold limits on legislation which are used to prevent hate speech and obscenity.

This is something I can offer some anecdotal evidence on as well. There's a website called The Smoking Gun that publishes police reports/mug shots/random documents from celebrity arrests and other amusing news in the United States. One of their reports each year is a list of porn from the US that is prohibited in their country... a testament to more permissive US laws regardless of the prevailing public opinion of such matters in the US.

More shocking to me (and I do apologize for this being anecdotal only) was a friend who visited Canada and had his computer's hard drive inspected by customs. He asked what they were looking for and was told "hate speech literature, etc". You may not believe it, but as a US resident I've never had to worry about the political contents of my computer. Further, I do have a number of Muslim friends. While some of them have voiced a concern to me that they fear government inspection in their lives (which is I believe what you were mentioning in your post) none of them actually fear imprisonment. They're more concerned with their loss of privacy and/or time wasted explaining to the government officials that they're not a problem. Now is that opinion prevailing in the US Muslim community? That I don't know and I've never seen a good poll on the subject.

Again, I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, and I'm certainly not trying to absolve the USA of its many wrongs and problems, but free speech is something that they actually have a very good track record on. I think a lot of the XXX political "discussion" has been more posturing and catering to voters than politicians actually trying to effect change. This may sound odd, but in the US, we have many many policy decisions brought up that politicians *know ahead of time* will never come to be, how

Every country which has ratified the UN declaration on human rights (and followed through on their obligations, for example the UK) has equal free-speech to the USA. We just have different bugbears to you (in Europe, this is mainly we-hate-Nazis instead of we-hate-Terrorists).

I know this is touching on a political nerve, so I'm hesitant to say much, but regardless of those who ratified the UN declaration, the USA has a better track record than others.

Let's start with looking at the declaration. I believe the relevant section is article 19:
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Sounds good. Now I'm going to use Canada as an example as I'm more familiar with them (being that they are in close proximity to the US so more of their news makes it to me). Wikipedia mentions the following:

Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada's freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the Charter states:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

This section is double edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. The former case has been used to uphold limits on legislation which are used to prevent hate speech and obscenity.

This is something I can offer some anecdotal evidence on as well. There's a website called The Smoking Gun that publishes police reports/mug shots/random documents from celebrity arrests and other amusing news in the United States. One of their reports each year is a list of porn from the US that is prohibited in their country... a testament to more permissive US laws regardless of the prevailing public opinion of such matters in the US.

More shocking to me (and I do apologize for this being anecdotal only) was a friend who visited Canada and had his computer's hard drive inspected by customs. He asked what they were looking for and was told "hate speech literature, etc". You may not believe it, but as a US resident I've never had to worry about the political contents of my computer. Further, I do have a number of Muslim friends. While some of them have voiced a concern to me that they fear government inspection in their lives (which is I believe what you were mentioning in your post) none of them actually fear imprisonment. They're more concerned with their loss of privacy and/or time wasted explaining to the government officials that they're not a problem. Now is that opinion prevailing in the US Muslim community? That I don't know and I've never seen a good poll on the subject.

Again, I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, and I'm certainly not trying to absolve the USA of its many wrongs and problems, but free speech is something that they actually have a very good track record on. I think a lot of the XXX political "discussion" has been more posturing and catering to voters than politicians actually trying to effect change. This may sound odd, but in the US, we have many many policy decisions brought up that politicians *know ahead of time* will never come to be, how

Every country which has ratified the UN declaration on human rights (and followed through on their obligations, for example the UK) has equal free-speech to the USA. We just have different bugbears to you (in Europe, this is mainly we-hate-Nazis instead of we-hate-Terrorists).

I know this is touching on a political nerve, so I'm hesitant to say much, but regardless of those who ratified the UN declaration, the USA has a better track record than others.

Let's start with looking at the declaration. I believe the relevant section is article 19:
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Sounds good. Now I'm going to use Canada as an example as I'm more familiar with them (being that they are in close proximity to the US so more of their news makes it to me). Wikipedia mentions the following:

Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada's freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the Charter states:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

This section is double edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. The former case has been used to uphold limits on legislation which are used to prevent hate speech and obscenity.

This is something I can offer some anecdotal evidence on as well. There's a website called The Smoking Gun that publishes police reports/mug shots/random documents from celebrity arrests and other amusing news in the United States. One of their reports each year is a list of porn from the US that is prohibited in their country... a testament to more permissive US laws regardless of the prevailing public opinion of such matters in the US.

More shocking to me (and I do apologize for this being anecdotal only) was a friend who visited Canada and had his computer's hard drive inspected by customs. He asked what they were looking for and was told "hate speech literature, etc". You may not believe it, but as a US resident I've never had to worry about the political contents of my computer. Further, I do have a number of Muslim friends. While some of them have voiced a concern to me that they fear government inspection in their lives (which is I believe what you were mentioning in your post) none of them actually fear imprisonment. They're more concerned with their loss of privacy and/or time wasted explaining to the government officials that they're not a problem. Now is that opinion prevailing in the US Muslim community? That I don't know and I've never seen a good poll on the subject.

Again, I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, and I'm certainly not trying to absolve the USA of its many wrongs and problems, but free speech is something that they actually have a very good track record on. I think a lot of the XXX political "discussion" has been more posturing and catering to voters than politicians actually trying to effect change. This may sound odd, but in the US, we have many many policy decisions brought up that politicians *know ahead of time* will never come to be, how

[I've also seen wikipedia delete (hide from non-admins) all revisions of "non-notable entries." I'm not sure I would consider that a wise idea, but maybe the current system just isn't capable of different degrees of page deletion, and all of it is handled the same.]
Anyway, back on topic:
What if part of the allegations are true?

"Today's most voluble drinker may be U.S. Open and Masters champion Fuzzy Zoeller, who says surgery will be necessary on his chronic bad back 'only if the bars run out of vodka ..."

There's some other interesting bits at worldgolf.com, both about this current story (wikipedia claiming part of rush limbaugh's entry got switched? huh?) and about other interesting things about Zoeller *grin*. It's funny to hear about Zoeller getting offended about an Internet posting when, while in the Deep South, he told Tiger Woods not to order fried chicken and collard greens.

The lawsuit text on the smoking gun ( http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/02 22071fuzzy1.html ) says that the paragraph in question (which contains several allegations) is false. It does not, however, deny individual allegations. So his lawsuit could be accurate while still leaving "wiggle room" for some of the allegations to be true (e.g. alcoholism), while others are false (e.g. violently beating his family members). I'm sure more details will emerge in coming days.

Right. Because there won't be any publicity, will there?

Ask Richard Hatch how that works.

Fun? If you think jail is fun, and you would like to share this man's fate, I suggest you do so.

Do the people who support racial profiling only support it because they know that it's not them that will be profiled?

I think they demand racial profiling because they're offended by being treated like criminals, when only the people who look like they might be criminals should be treated like criminals. Never mind that Oklahomans are responsible for the second largest terrorist attack on US soil, or more recently, attempting to bring a pipebomb on the plane. Never mind that kid with the gun in a teddy bear. Or the right-wing racists with their hydrogen-cyanide bombs. Of course, the UK has their share of right-wing homicidal nutters defended by the government. I'm even willing to bet the Russians who dragged radioactive crap through a number of European airports didn't look Islamic at all.

"But that's ok, as long as I don't have to stand in line and be searched, and they don't have to go over my children's stuff all that closely, I'm perfectly fine with getting blown up as long as it's not by a Muslim." pretty much sums up their thought process.

Some voted him in because of non-science issues like Supreme Court nominations and anti-abortion stance. (Please don't say abortion isn an issue of science - it's an issue of metaphysics and ethics.)

No, abortion is a simple question of science and public health. Abortions are due to (a) a lack of reliable, scientific, high-school sexual education (or even a lack of education in general) including an ethical outlook on procreation and gender relationships, and: (b) a lack of available medical products, such as the pill, condoms, RU-486 (etc) to the general public. Uninformed, sexually active adults and teen-agers then become pregnant, and are unable to terminate the pregnancy before egg implantation, due to the fact that RU-486 is extremely hard to obtain in most of the States.

Check the stats: most countries where sexual education are a part of a normal school curriculum (Scandinavia, Germany, etc) have a much lower rate of abortion than the USA. Therefore, basic biological science is a way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Considering that an unwanted pregnancy can seriously mess your life up -- especially for teen-agers -- I consider abortion the least bad solution anyway. Feel free to disagree with me on that (and I am sure you will).

Many of us who voted for him realized we were getting some good things (Justice nominations, etc.) and accepted that being at the cost of known bad things (leaning toward corporate interests), and never realized how bad a deal we were getting (settlement with Microsoft, ignoring global warming research, lying about and invading Iraq, caving to terrorists by trading away our liberties and refusal to torture, etc.)

Considering the fact that George W. Bush already had strong psychopathic tendencies long before the 2000 election, as well as a history of alcohol abuse (and, possibily, drug abuse), I consider your argument to be extremely weak. And that's putting it politely.

The fact is, when it comes to your country, you should always, always, always make an informed decision. Regardless of your religious affiliation. Voting for someone with a history of, shall we say, substance abuse, disregard for human life and violent behaviour is not exactly what I'd call an informed decision. No matter what you believe.

There's nothing anti-science about intelligent design. Intelligent design is just saying, "Hey, the universe seems pretty well ordered. What are the chances of that?" It's a metaphysical inquiry that's informed by science. There's no problem with teaching that (or don't you want students to question assumptions, such as reductionistic Darwinism (aka Epicurianism)?) You're probably upset with the teaching of a 6,000 year old earth based on the book of Genesis. I agree that that's a hard one to reconcile with carbon dating, etc., but that's truly a step beyond intelligent design.

Oh my, oh my. Where to begin?

• First of all, if I remember well, I never talked about Intelligent Design in my original post. I wonder why you have to drag this question in this discussion... But I am nit-picking, I guess.
• Second, if you think the Universe is pretty well ordered, I think you should read a lot more about science. Subjects like, let's see... basic biology, chaos theory,

Maybe at one time.

These days, I hear, they try to keep things more low key. Besides, they probably own RIAA stock at this point. These days they are far more likely to let it be a court challenge... and maybe bringing the Italian American Anti-Defamation League into it :)

Did you ever see the attempts by the FBI to ignite violence by the maffia against the communist party? Some hillarious stuff. Gotta love the FOIA.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/hoodwink1.htm l

-Steve

Bill O'Reilly's reality is having phone sex with one of his terrified female associate producers.

Simple. While the logic of the situation is obvious to anyone who knows anything about computers, The Ballmer knows he only needs to convince a judge who believes that the internet is a series of tubes through which he may attach a penis pump that Micro$oft's IP has been stolen. Although, I am somewhat curious as to what the relation is between Donald D. Thompson and Jack Thompson, apart from the rather obvious meeting of the minds, as it were.

I thought the Republican Party was already fined heavily and some members arrested and imprisoned for performing denial of service attacks against Democratic phone pools trying to contact voters on election day during the 2004 election? If I had not read the multiple testimonials about this robo-calling illegality already, I would have a hard time believing the Republicans would break the law again in this way. Politics in America has become shameless under this administration. It is time to throw the lying bums out.

I thought the Republican Party was already fined heavily and some members arrested and imprisoned for performing denial of service attacks against Democratic phone pools trying to contact voters on election day during the 2004 election? If I had not read the multiple testimonials about this robo-calling illegality already, I would have a hard time believing the Republicans would break the law again in this way. Politics in America has become shameless under this administration. It is time to throw the lying bums out.

Not to mention the 500,000 Iraqi deaths

You are going to count the Iraqi deaths due to George Bush invading Iraq and occupying the formerly-sovereign nation against Saddam Hussein? Damn, you 'Pugs are some clever bastards. It is like when you go on the air and claim your misinterpretations (or re-interpretation out of context) of what John Kerry said means Kerry must have said what you misinterpreted him to say. No. Sorry. Your mistake is not someone else's fault. George Bush lying about WMD being in Iraq is not someone else's fault. The occupation of Iraq appearing to have no end in sight is not someone else's fault. Bush ignoring intelligence about the foolishness of invading Iraq with an understaffed force and ignoring intelligence before 9/11 is not someone else's fault.

A conviction in a sham court is worth what a conviction in a sham court is worth: nothing. Bush has been convicted in many sham court proceeding throughout the world for his involvement in the murders committed at his order. So, no, you have not shown any difference between these two men. George Bush and Saddam Hussein are two peas in a pod. Or, if you like, two sides of the same coin. It is time to count the over 3,000 U.S. soldiers who have died at Bush's order and the near 3,000 U.S. citizens who died in the United States due to George Bush's neglect. As far as Iran and its citizens are concerned, that is for Iran to reckon not the U.S.

The cited International Law that would make the U.S. government very much culpable for the illegal invasion of Iraq are incorporated into U.S. law by means of treaty. The U.S. Constitution makes treaties on equally footing with the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution itself. The U.S. Constitution really is a remarkable document, when it is not being ignored by lawbreakers. George Bush is, unfortuantely for his rubber-stamp supporters, a convicted criminal. It will not be a day too soon when he is in prison for the murders he has committed in invading the sovereign nation of Iraq (murders in the same sense of Saddam Hussein having committed murders -- by ordering them done).

Maybe you missed the memo.. but Saudi Arabia is NOT considered an ally anymore!

Maybe Bush should be re-read that memo. Of course, given his history with memos that were read to him, I wouldn't expect any positive action.

Yeah, why can't he be classy like Noelle Bush (Jeb's Daughter), or Jenna and Barbara Bush. Is it so hard for Gore's son to behave in a classy manner like, say Jenna Bush?

Those Democrats are just so trashy, arent't they?

The Smoking Gun's Legal Document of the Year from a couple years ago is a brief filed in defense of someone accused of disorderly conduct and interfering with the staff, faculty, or students of an educational institutional for swearing at the principal did a Google search for the phrases "fuck," "fucking," "fucker," "mom," "baseball," "apple pies," "Chevrolet," "freedom of speech," "first amendment," "unconstitutional," and "sticks and stones may break my bones" and included the number of hits in the legal brief.

The whole document is absolutely hilarious; next time you start to get cynical towards lawyers take a look, and you'll see at least one good guy out there. ;-) (And a public defender no less.)

Microsoft CEOs also have criminal records... Bill Gates' Mugshot

The fact [...] Dan Rather [...] presenting a fraudulent document

The person who is discussing this with you is being too generous. CBS News performed a high level investigation of the documents showing Bush did not attend his National Guard service (how did a C student get into the Texas National Guard during the Vietnam War to begin with?). The investigation was headed by a Republican. The conclusion of the investigation: it is impossible to say whether or not the document was a fabrication or a copy of the real document due to it having gone through too many generations of copies. They did find criticisms, like typography and font, without basis, as these methods of typography and fonts were in fact available at the time the document is dated.

But even if you do not agree with the results of the investigation, the other point still stands: multiple people corroborated the contents of the documents and there exists a high degree of certainty George Bush failed to perform his duty even in the cush job of national guardsman during the Vietnam War.

Another interesting fact: the same month Bush's record of attendance slips (and there is no record of Bush receiving the required yearly physical that year or after) coincides with the National Guard implementing a new policy of mandatory drug testing. Several years later Bush will be arrested and convicted of drunk driving, making him the first criminal to reside in the white house as Commander-in-Chief.

Don't you mean a falafel?

Agreed. Clinton's show of courage and genuine straight-talking against the lies and misdirection propagated by the likes of Fox News (and far too much of the media) energized the Democratic base (and independents who don't like the daily Republican shredding of the Constitution) as much as the revelation the Republican leadership is taking responsibility for allowing Foley continued access to teenaged pages the same way Bush has taken responsibility for the failure in Iraq (i.e., by not taking responsibility).

I saw a great bumper sticker today: "Foley. Just another "page" from the Republican playbook."

In a way it is. This truly disgusting Republican sex scandal has taken away media air time from analysis of the revelations in Woodward's new book that the supposedly independent 9/11 Commission completely left out the fact that George Bush's Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice received an intensive briefing back in July before 9/11 about the level of terrorism threat increasing, the imminence of attacks inside the United States, and specific information that airplanes would be involved. None of this information was passed on to the general public. For those who believe her lies about the meeting, Ashcroft, the then-attorney general, received the same briefing one week later. That same week he stopped flying on commercial airliners. This fact is documented by contemporaneous news reports.

Oh, and then there is always the PDB. This briefing George Bush received. It is from more than a month before 9/11. The title is Bin Ladin Determined to Strike In the US.

Clinton left a plan that the Bush White House immediately jettisoned. When Clarke arrived on the first day of Bush's presidency to deliver the plan to Condi Rice for combatting terrorism, that plan was not made in the preceding 24 hours. That plan was made during Clinton's presidency. Bush jettisoned the plan.

So please stop lying to us.

Bush's failure to protect the American people from the 9/11 attack (or even warn us of the threat) is a bell that cannot be un-rung.

Let me put that out there again. A briefing Bush received more than a month before 9/11 (with an interesting title) provides conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence that:

Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US .

If only Bush had not jettisoned Clinton's anti-terrorism plan 7 months earlier. It would have been nice to be protected, but Bush had other priorities.

Clinton left a plan that the Bush White House immediately jettisoned. When Clarke arrived on the first day of Bush's presidency to deliver the plan to Condi Rice for combatting terrorism, that plan was not made in the preceding 24 hours. That plan was made during Clinton's presidency. Bush jettisoned the plan.

So please stop lying to us.

Bush's failure to protect the American people from the 9/11 attack (or even warn us of the threat) is a bell that cannot be un-rung.

Let me put that out there again. A briefing Bush received more than a month before 9/11 (with an interesting title) provides conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence that:

Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US .

If only Bush had not jettisoned Clinton's anti-terrorism plan 7 months earlier. It would have been nice to be protected, but Bush had other priorities.

Do spam filters work for printed documents? I think this is a good place to post a link to the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing on the state of security for the United States. This particular PDB had some pretty stunning statements that President Bush seemed to have firmly ignored.

The title of the briefing is "Bin Ladin Deteremined to Strike in US." What did Bush do after being read this briefing? He continued his month long vacation.

Gonzales is now enforcing a decades old law which states that using a common carrier to transfer pornography is illegal.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0907061bukk1. html

Internet providers are also considered common carriers, which means viewing anything poronographic on the internet is illegal.

There is no court involved. You people have got to stop lying. America is sick of it.

Fortunately, there is also no ex-post facto law. So what Bush has already done will be reviewed come November and he will be going to prison for breaking the laws of the United States of America.

I have never understood why people supported this criminal.

Or perhaps this word "pretexting" comes from HP and was used to obfuscate what they did.

If the chirman knew of the breach of law, or instructed it directly, then surely it is they who deserve the focus.

Mr Perkins' letter here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0905061hp1.ht ml .. uses the phrase "chairman's methods", and states that he attempted to notify the board of the issue several times.

None of this liberal 'think about her feelings, criminals have rights too' bullshit here. The article was totally on target.

We shall see who is convicted, right now it's just an embarrassingly well documented accusation that the AG and most sensible people believe. It's only on conviction, when guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that your rights end and only in a manner prescribed by law. That said, shame on Forbes.

You can go to the MBA porn glossy, Forbes, where Tom Van Ripper writes an unabashed defense of witch hunt. Without really naming the content of the "leaks" or debating the morals of bringing information to the public, he cries and calls for more "oversight" and "information security." They even go so far as to blame the victim for "an atmosphere of distrust". It's a sickening endorsement of all the wrong kind of behavior.

The whole affair stinks like punishment of a whistle blower. That's unambiguously immoral and illegal.

No, they didn't "waive", or even wave their dubiously legal actions about.

HP hid quite a lot. They consulted lawyers becuse they doubted the legality of their actions. They then did their best to hide their actions, despite claiming they were mostly legal - check their more recent SEC filings.

The board member who was chair of the *governance* committee resigned over HPs actions, and HP did not report anything other than his resignation - despite their legal obligations, and despite his requests - so he reported it himself.

Check out his letters here:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0905061hp1.ht ml

not pretty

In other words, if someone claiming to be reporter Joe Blow somehow gets Joe Blow's records... how do you pin it on Private Eye S. Bullets (s for sweating)?

PI Bullets had an IP address. Namely, 68.99.17.80.

I think it's almost certain that she authorized it directly because she apparently announced the investigation and made accusations of leaks at a board meeting. The result was that Perkins abruptly quit.

The Smoking Gun

Interesting reading...

. . . has documents here: Hewlett-Packard Targeted Board In Leak Probe

"Ethics Training?" What do you do, live in Wonderland with Alice?

The President and FEMA - nearly a year ago to the day - let thousands of people die when they had five (5) days notice that Katrina was headed into the Gulf. We have Tom Delay and Duke Cunningham as sterling examples of thieves in government (with Duke in the Stir and The Hammer soon to follow)....

Tell me where those "ethics training" courses are held? And don't tell me "Church" because All OF THE TOP LEADERS of the US Government vigorously claim that they are "true believers." And I haven't noticed a waive of ethics washing over the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. (Go see this: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0121051judge1 .html/ or this: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0928051delay1 .html/ and tell me all about the "ethics" of our leaders.

You can't teach what you don't know.

Turning to the porn issue: yeah, I'd agree most people want to see images close to their ages - from about 16 - 28; but, after they get older and flabby most people are interested in pictures of the hard bodies of 18-28 year olds. BUT, that wasn't the case here - this was material that was ILLEGAL TO POSSESS and that was the lure. The porn was for trading for other goods.

Now, you talk about training prodigies - in the traditions and ethics of the technology professions???! What are you talking about? Wiretapping was invented as soon as Bell had a network up (and the telegraph was constantly intercepted from the day that lines were strung where access could be had without a witness).

Are you perhaps talking about the traditions of the munitions-makers? Alfred Nobel, the inventor of a stable nitroglycerine (Dynamite), donated a vast fortune made from the deaths of untold thousands - to create the Nobel Prize in the fervent hope that he could atone for the misery and suffering that his invention brought to the victims - while making him rich....HE COULD HAVE STOPPED PRODUCTION - but didn't. Was that the tradition that you refer to?

How about the Physicians in the US who left untreated Syphilis in black males from 1932 through 1972! See, http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/tuskegee/time.htm/

As for the skills these kids brought, hmm, is a willingness to invade the private data and personal financial records of as many people as they could a skill that transfers well to modern society? How about trafficking in WAREZ? And, trafficking in illicit pornography? Yep, regular little "G-Men" - ready and willing to set to work for the Homeland Security wiretapping party.

As for Mom and Pop - well, they had a polite call from a polite attorney and they were just to damn stupid to bother to go look at little Cartman's computer. I know that my clients and I cost them a small fortune in attorney's fees. Damn shame that they didn't get to have their parental rights terminated and thrown in the slammer for the rest of their reproductive years.

Where do you think the botnet creators came from but idiotic parents who didn't monitor their kids.
I'm still running my Copernic Searches for their names..... If you are one of the two guys, speak up - I know a nice prison or two....
For the record, I had an ISDN line in my home in 1993. The Well had a substantial presence as did Byte Magazine through the (mostly UNIX command line) community BIX - and it was dumped in 1993 when McGraw Hill sold it off.... There was a heck of a lot out there in 1993 - try looking at the WAYBACK MACHINE.....
Finally, when you have been screwed a few more times by nasty little shits - you will adopt my "take no prisoners" viewpoint. OR, tell me how you will solve the SPAM problem with peace, love and understanding? Ball's in your court....

"Ethics Training?" What do you do, live in Wonderland with Alice?

The President and FEMA - nearly a year ago to the day - let thousands of people die when they had five (5) days notice that Katrina was headed into the Gulf. We have Tom Delay and Duke Cunningham as sterling examples of thieves in government (with Duke in the Stir and The Hammer soon to follow)....

Tell me where those "ethics training" courses are held? And don't tell me "Church" because All OF THE TOP LEADERS of the US Government vigorously claim that they are "true believers." And I haven't noticed a waive of ethics washing over the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. (Go see this: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0121051judge1 .html/ or this: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0928051delay1 .html/ and tell me all about the "ethics" of our leaders.

You can't teach what you don't know.

Turning to the porn issue: yeah, I'd agree most people want to see images close to their ages - from about 16 - 28; but, after they get older and flabby most people are interested in pictures of the hard bodies of 18-28 year olds. BUT, that wasn't the case here - this was material that was ILLEGAL TO POSSESS and that was the lure. The porn was for trading for other goods.

Now, you talk about training prodigies - in the traditions and ethics of the technology professions???! What are you talking about? Wiretapping was invented as soon as Bell had a network up (and the telegraph was constantly intercepted from the day that lines were strung where access could be had without a witness).

Are you perhaps talking about the traditions of the munitions-makers? Alfred Nobel, the inventor of a stable nitroglycerine (Dynamite), donated a vast fortune made from the deaths of untold thousands - to create the Nobel Prize in the fervent hope that he could atone for the misery and suffering that his invention brought to the victims - while making him rich....HE COULD HAVE STOPPED PRODUCTION - but didn't. Was that the tradition that you refer to?

How about the Physicians in the US who left untreated Syphilis in black males from 1932 through 1972! See, http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/tuskegee/time.htm/

As for the skills these kids brought, hmm, is a willingness to invade the private data and personal financial records of as many people as they could a skill that transfers well to modern society? How about trafficking in WAREZ? And, trafficking in illicit pornography? Yep, regular little "G-Men" - ready and willing to set to work for the Homeland Security wiretapping party.

As for Mom and Pop - well, they had a polite call from a polite attorney and they were just to damn stupid to bother to go look at little Cartman's computer. I know that my clients and I cost them a small fortune in attorney's fees. Damn shame that they didn't get to have their parental rights terminated and thrown in the slammer for the rest of their reproductive years.

Where do you think the botnet creators came from but idiotic parents who didn't monitor their kids.
I'm still running my Copernic Searches for their names..... If you are one of the two guys, speak up - I know a nice prison or two....
For the record, I had an ISDN line in my home in 1993. The Well had a substantial presence as did Byte Magazine through the (mostly UNIX command line) community BIX - and it was dumped in 1993 when McGraw Hill sold it off.... There was a heck of a lot out there in 1993 - try looking at the WAYBACK MACHINE.....
Finally, when you have been screwed a few more times by nasty little shits - you will adopt my "take no prisoners" viewpoint. OR, tell me how you will solve the SPAM problem with peace, love and understanding? Ball's in your court....

Hate speech is banned, even books like "The Turner Diaries" will be confiscated.
They don't like certain kids of porn either. linky

He probably uses a driver now since his arrest in 1977. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/gatesmug1.ht ml maybe he squashed some grannies then as the details of it are now lost.. ;)

"Dubya eats babies!"
 
I don't expect George Bush eats babies. But I do know he did not cut his vacation short in 2001 when he received the intelligence briefing more than a month before 9/11 telling him that "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US". He may not eat babies but George Bush is grossly negligent.

It's from the sexual harrassment lawsuit filed against Bill O'Reilly in which he calls up a subordinate and launches into a variety of lewd and disgusting sexual advances including a fantasy involving sex in shower using a loofah as a tool which he later calls "the falafel thing."

Al Fraken loves to bring it up on his show occasionally because it not only shows how much of a creepy, disturbed hypocrite O'Reilly is (on matters of sexual morality at the very least), but the suit also contains a bizarre rambling about how people at the top of FOX and of the Bush administration are keeping an eye on Al Fraken and that "one day he's going to get a knock at the door and life as he's known it will change forever."

Full complaint here at the Smoking Gun.

I've seen a lawer cite it in a brief he filed in defense of client. (NSFW language, but an absolutely hilarious piece of work.)