Slashdot Mirror
CIA Manual Thought Lost In 1973 Available On Amazon
An anonymous reader writes "At the height of the Cold War, the Central Intelligence Agency paid renowned magician John Mulholland $3,000 to write a manual on misdirection, concealment, and stagecraft. All known copies of the document were believed to be destroyed in 1973. Turns out one survived — and is now available on Amazon."
So the Slashdot summary links to an article in the Huffington Post. And the HuffPo article links to an article in Wired. And the Wired article links to the actual story in the Boston Globe.
Genius idea: have the Slashdot summary link to the actual story. YES!!!
> One of the questions raised on the Amazon page is: shouldn't this material
> be public domain? It is owned by the US Government...
If the author wrote thing as a US Government employee then the goverment is the author and is not permitted to enforce its copyright. If he was acting as a contractor he is the author in which case he may still own the copyright.
> ...and any copyright would seem to have expired at this point...
Not yet.
> ...it seems like we should be able to get a copy for free under the FOIA.
The FOIA does not work the way you think it does.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
> And yes, unless its classified, it is in the American pubic domain on day
> one since it was paid for by US citizens.
Not true. The government cannot enforce its copyright on "works for hire" where the government is the employer but it can enforce copyrights it acquires. Contractors also often retain copyright is works produced while performing a contract (the government usually acquires a nonexclusive license). The mere fact that a work was paid for by tax money does not put it in the public domain.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Did you ever read the prince? It's the K+R C Programming Language for politics. The book in TFA is about being a spy. I wouldn't say the topics are unrelated but one is a practical handbook and the other is on concepts.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Stripped of his position, and having been barred from holding any political office by the de' Medici, after a lifetime of public service, embittered, Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" basically saying: "if you want to grab, hold, and expand your political power," (adding under his breath, "like those de' Medici bastards,") he continued, "this is what you do..." (He could not insult them openly, he had already been imprisoned and tortured by them once, and I guess he wasn't "feeling strong" anymore.)
It was not meant literally! I guess the De Medici had the last laugh though, whether by their actions or not, Machiavelli's name is associated NOT with his own good and noble life's work, but with the behaviours and beliefs of those he most loathed and despised. For a better idea of what this great Renaissance figure really thought, try instead his "Discorsi sulla prima deca di Tito Livio", or "Discourses on the first ten books of Livy", (Titus Livius, Roman historian)
~ Hallux
You do know The Prince was meant as satire, right?
That's very much a minority view, and certainly not as obvious as your sarcastic tone implies. Most people do not subscribe to that view at all, and reading the book shows exactly why: it doesn't come across as a satire at all. The satirical interpretation is based largely on extrapolating from biographical details and making a lot of tenuous assumptions.