If there is reasonable suspicion to believe that grand jury proceedings are being UNLAWFULLY disclosed to the public via the twitterers, then the Attorney General is merely doing his duty. Secrecy of grand jury proceedings is absolutely vital to provide fairness to the targets and to the witnesses. Reputations can be destroyed by a leak of grand jury information. The movie 'Absence of Malice' is a good illustration of how the grand jury process can be abused by illegal leakages and result in damage to innocent people.
On the other hand, the secrecy of the grand jury process gives the prosecuting attorney ENORMOUS power that can be abused by bad men or women.
Before I jump on the "enemy of freedom" bandwagon, I'd need to see the tweets. If it looks like they have an 'inside man' in the grand jury room, then I am totally on the side of the Attorney General. On the other hand, if they're just complaining about his behavior based upon what witnesses have reported about their own testimony (that's legal), then you can count me in among the haters.
There's just not enough information available yet.
I do hope Twitter moves to quash the subpoena. That way the Judge overseeing the grand jury proceedings will have to examine the prosecuting attorney's actions. If twitter caves in, then nothing is private on that website.
Parent post omits a key component of the Judge's reasoning: There was evidence galore that the Limewire principals had the purpose of facilitating the illegal transfer of copyrighted materials. That's a big no-no.
There will always be terrorists--does that mean that we must always have war? If we do have war, does this mean that we always have to fight in in the quintessential American way--throwing massive amounts of expensive resources at our enemies at an overwhelming rate?
That strategy is great for WWII and for duking it out with the Soviet Army at the Fulda Gap, but it isn't very sensible for a long term war against a loose coalition of poor, ideologically committed killers.
We're spending tens of thousands of dollars per terrorist kill. If we're going to fight terrorists successfully we need to do it on a budget. Our irresponsible spendthrift congresspeople can only see as far as the money that defense industries bring to their regions. Military spending can easily become just welfare for the upper classes. Gates' point about the military being topheavy with generals and admirals is important. The military leadership is committed to propagating itself and will never act to make its command structure more "lean and mean."
We've remained in Iraq and Afghanistan all these years because our military is a $700 hammer and those countries happen to be the nails that our country's warhammer is adapted to. That approach isn't working and we can't afford it forever.
If there were Flash on Android systems, there'd be a lot more free games and the Android phones would be MUCH more popular. Adobe should have committed substantial resources to facilitating Flash on Android systems.
Maybe there's still time . ... We'll see if functional Flash shows up in June.
Your post does a good job of describing why APPLE cares about HTML5 and control over its platform, but it doesn't address Adobe's apparent unwillingness to just suck it up and adapt to Apple's ecosystem.
What pressures (if any) are keeping Adobe from just redesigning Flash in a way that facilitates the creation of Apple-compliant applications. If Adobe can rework Flash to make it Apple-compliant (and they sure ought to be able to do that), then what other legitimate gripe does Adobe have?
TFA makes the point that these crooks were using purchased code. This indicates that they aren't very sophisticated. Their market value would appear to be zilch.
The retards who keep stealing music are the front line in the defense of internet privacy rights. Do you see anything BAD about that? Wouldn't political speech or expressive speech be a MUCH better way for us to fight to protect our privacy on the Internet?
A bunch of copiers--who provide no value and are just parasites--are driving the focus of the discussion here. That's bullshit. Privacy is important and responsible people (look at the real world, look at the legislative bodies of the world!) don't care about the copiers.
Copiers are going to get screwed by the governing bodies of the world. That's a foregone conclusion. Work to protect privacy by defending something that is defensible!
Bullshit. We don't do collective criminal responsibility here. Victim was only arrested for obstructing.
Obstructing arrests--when the only charge is obstructing--must be carefully screened by the prosecutor. Otherwise, there's a risk of enabling angry SELF-RIGHTEOUS cops. Jurors hate that shit and it gives cops with self-restraint a bad name.
The big game makers are always striving to present the latest and prettiest games, while their businesses are topheavy archaic slugs (modeled on the entertainment industry).
This is exactly why we have criminal law. There is a special place in hell for people who take advantage of vulnerable people, but while they are here on earth we have another place for them--prison.
I think your argument is faulty. You can still COPYRIGHT your ultra-complex original algorithm--just like an author can copyright his story.
Nobody can then COPY it.
But why should you be able to prevent somebody from independently deriving tht same algorithm? They'd have to go through the same expensive creation process that you did. . .
I can copyright my original expression of the algorithm and you can copyright your original expression of pigments, but who is either of us to tell the brilliant kid in the basement that he cannot independently create the same algorithm/cartoon!
Slashdot Mirror
If there is reasonable suspicion to believe that grand jury proceedings are being UNLAWFULLY disclosed to the public via the twitterers, then the Attorney General is merely doing his duty. Secrecy of grand jury proceedings is absolutely vital to provide fairness to the targets and to the witnesses. Reputations can be destroyed by a leak of grand jury information. The movie 'Absence of Malice' is a good illustration of how the grand jury process can be abused by illegal leakages and result in damage to innocent people.
On the other hand, the secrecy of the grand jury process gives the prosecuting attorney ENORMOUS power that can be abused by bad men or women.
Before I jump on the "enemy of freedom" bandwagon, I'd need to see the tweets. If it looks like they have an 'inside man' in the grand jury room, then I am totally on the side of the Attorney General. On the other hand, if they're just complaining about his behavior based upon what witnesses have reported about their own testimony (that's legal), then you can count me in among the haters.
There's just not enough information available yet.
I do hope Twitter moves to quash the subpoena. That way the Judge overseeing the grand jury proceedings will have to examine the prosecuting attorney's actions. If twitter caves in, then nothing is private on that website.
The 75 million dollar liability cap is where my attention is focused right now.
Every single incumbent who voted for that cap should be voted out of office. This kind of accident is so damn foreseeable.
Our Congress got the American people to insure this ultrahazardous venture.
I'm not sure that our "founding fathers" were that unanimous about ANYTIHNG, much less about Flash software.
Parent post omits a key component of the Judge's reasoning: There was evidence galore that the Limewire principals had the purpose of facilitating the illegal transfer of copyrighted materials. That's a big no-no.
There will always be terrorists--does that mean that we must always have war? If we do have war, does this mean that we always have to fight in in the quintessential American way--throwing massive amounts of expensive resources at our enemies at an overwhelming rate?
That strategy is great for WWII and for duking it out with the Soviet Army at the Fulda Gap, but it isn't very sensible for a long term war against a loose coalition of poor, ideologically committed killers.
We're spending tens of thousands of dollars per terrorist kill. If we're going to fight terrorists successfully we need to do it on a budget. Our irresponsible spendthrift congresspeople can only see as far as the money that defense industries bring to their regions. Military spending can easily become just welfare for the upper classes. Gates' point about the military being topheavy with generals and admirals is important. The military leadership is committed to propagating itself and will never act to make its command structure more "lean and mean."
We've remained in Iraq and Afghanistan all these years because our military is a $700 hammer and those countries happen to be the nails that our country's warhammer is adapted to. That approach isn't working and we can't afford it forever.
If there were Flash on Android systems, there'd be a lot more free games and the Android phones would be MUCH more popular. Adobe should have committed substantial resources to facilitating Flash on Android systems.
Maybe there's still time . . .. We'll see if functional Flash shows up in June.
You snooze, you lose.
eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate!
Better to be thought a smallmember by one man, than to kick that man's ass and to be KNOWN to be a smallmember by everyone.
You can't trust TSA with keeping scans confidential.
Your post does a good job of describing why APPLE cares about HTML5 and control over its platform, but it doesn't address Adobe's apparent unwillingness to just suck it up and adapt to Apple's ecosystem.
What pressures (if any) are keeping Adobe from just redesigning Flash in a way that facilitates the creation of Apple-compliant applications. If Adobe can rework Flash to make it Apple-compliant (and they sure ought to be able to do that), then what other legitimate gripe does Adobe have?
Why does Adobe really care? Can't they just redesign Flash CS5 to create HTML5 output in addition to .swf output?
This "debate" appears really stupid to me. What am I missing?
TFA makes the point that these crooks were using purchased code. This indicates that they aren't very sophisticated. Their market value would appear to be zilch.
The retards who keep stealing music are the front line in the defense of internet privacy rights. Do you see anything BAD about that? Wouldn't political speech or expressive speech be a MUCH better way for us to fight to protect our privacy on the Internet?
A bunch of copiers--who provide no value and are just parasites--are driving the focus of the discussion here. That's bullshit. Privacy is important and responsible people (look at the real world, look at the legislative bodies of the world!) don't care about the copiers.
Copiers are going to get screwed by the governing bodies of the world. That's a foregone conclusion. Work to protect privacy by defending something that is defensible!
And that's my rant for today.
Robots mean eventual construction, which means eventual colonization, which means eventual international conflict.
Hope the conflict part waits until I'm dead!
Computer guy felt like he owned the public's computer system. He claimed the power to dictate how public property was used.
Little petty tyrant wannabe.
Looks like a good way to earn a paycheck from the RIAA.
How much does it cost us to kill one Taliban fighter?
Spend the money on researching petroleum alternatives. In the Middle East we're simply building castles in the sand.
First they tell you how much the tax revenue will benefit the "children".
After a few years the money ends up in the general fund. Such BS.
Just another rich special interest that a politician wants to create. I wonder why???
Not just the Pentagon. It's a general's disease. Generals (think McClellan) are prone to take counsel of their fears.
Potential becomes probable becomes weapons of mass destruction. . ..
Bullshit. We don't do collective criminal responsibility here. Victim was only arrested for obstructing.
Obstructing arrests--when the only charge is obstructing--must be carefully screened by the prosecutor. Otherwise, there's a risk of enabling angry SELF-RIGHTEOUS cops. Jurors hate that shit and it gives cops with self-restraint a bad name.
That arrest stinks ten thousand universes away.
The big game makers are always striving to present the latest and prettiest games, while their businesses are topheavy archaic slugs (modeled on the entertainment industry).
Now that is funny, Herr Niemoeller!
The moment Childs was threatened with jail by a credible governmental threat, then he should have surrendered the passwords.
Dude is a hardhead.
This is exactly why we have criminal law. There is a special place in hell for people who take advantage of vulnerable people, but while they are here on earth we have another place for them--prison.
I'm outraged.
I think your argument is faulty. You can still COPYRIGHT your ultra-complex original algorithm--just like an author can copyright his story.
Nobody can then COPY it.
But why should you be able to prevent somebody from independently deriving tht same algorithm? They'd have to go through the same expensive creation process that you did. . .
I can copyright my original expression of the algorithm and you can copyright your original expression of pigments, but who is either of us to tell the brilliant kid in the basement that he cannot independently create the same algorithm/cartoon!