You don't want to get rid of licensing, then. You'd want a transferable license with no restrictions on use. Getting rid of licensing entirely would mean that either copying would be unrestricted, or restricted so tightly that you can't even use what you've bought.
Licensing, like all copyright law, is intended to protect the interests of the author. In this case, that's Sony. If you don't like it, don't agree to the license, and don't buy Sony's products.
They sold you silicon and a license for software, which when combined as instructed make a games console. In Slashdot tradition, I present a car analogy: You go to a dealer, buy a car, then leave the engine in the parking lot. It's your own fault the car doesn't run.
Good luck getting them to agree to that. If you're successful, let me know. I want to see it. No, really... I despise Sony's tactics as much as the next guy, so if you can get them to agree to something like that, I want to see pictures. It would make me happy.
That "ok" button is enough. Make sure your computer is locked when you're not there. If your signature is forged, no matter how easy it is to do so, you have other legal issues to work through.
Yes, they can. You can take the book, draw the cat, and display it in a museum as a work of art. They can sue, which would cost them a few thousand dollars, and you can just send the court a note saying "it's a derivative work of art that displays one page of the book."
It should be obvious to a judge that you're using merely the book itself, and not so much the literary work it contains. You're not affecting the market for selling the book, and using/publishing only the minimum amount of the book that you need. That's three of the four tests of fair use (commercial use, nature of work, amount used, and effect on market) passed with flying colors. The judge will probably dismiss the suit between fits of laughter.
Or you could just not buy a console. Not to start a decades-old flame war, but PCs are much nicer in this regard: There are freely-licensed software solutions for pretty much everything you need, and you can have complete control of what you run. Sure, you'll miss out on an ultra-exclusive game, but is it really so important that you have that particular game on your own legal terms?
Yep. They sold you a nice chunk of hardware. Once again, the terms are online. Go look them up if you're concerned, before you buy something. Is that so hard to think about?
I see no problem whatsoever with suing when terms are found to be unreasonable after the fact. Once again, if you don't like terms, don't agree to them in the first place. Yes, clicking "OK" counts.
Not all licenses say the same thing at all. There are some licenses that are better, some that are worse, and some that are just plain weird. Licenses usually protect the interests and rights of the copyright holder, and it shouldn't be surprising that most companies have similar interests.
Now, IANAL, and this is certainly not legal advice, but if there's some term of a contract that's outright unreasonable, I'd say go ahead and break it. Don't complain when you get sued, but by all means, drag the contract through court and fight it out. Get that unreasonable term invalidated!
The "one part invalidated" clause protects the company against having the whole contract thrown out by a jurisdiction who finds some small part unacceptable. Usually, that protection is provided by legislation anyway, but it's not hard to imagine a jurisdiction's laws containing wording like "Any contract that requires X is invalid".
He bought the PS3 hardware itself, but not the software inside. At most he may have bought a copy of the functional form of the software, but that's still an open issue.
Regardless, it's still governed by copyright law, which grants the copyright owner the exclusive right to perform/display the work (which, as I understand, is how "using" falls under copyright. Since he wouldn't have the right to use the software, it just makes a lovely paperweight until he agrees to Sony's license contract or removes the software completely.
It's much simpler than that. Sony never agreed to the modified contract, so there is no mutual assent, and it's not a valid contract. Then you're stuck without a license to use the software.
Doodling in the margins to produce a derivative work would then have the use of the book be governed by fair use, which typically involves the copyright holder liking the use (and issuing a separate license for that use), or a judge deciding if the use was appropriate.
Photocopiers are legal because they have significant legal use, such that their primary function is not copyright infringement. Relatedly, I recall back in the early 90's when there was a news story about a publisher using paper that wouldn't copy correctly in most copiers. Fun times.
You're not the first to point out the difference in signing. There's already a solution, by making electronic agreements equivalent to a signature.
The EULA is available online, as well as included in the box. If you don't like it, you can return the unused PS3 to the store. Like all contracts, it is binding on both parties. The fact that it grants the company the ability to make changes is just another term that you're agreeing to, along with surrendering use of certain features if you don't update. To continue the analogy, you won't get to use the new in-apartment garbage chute if you won't let the maintenance guy in to install it.
Relatedly, I recently had an apartment lease that was 27 pages, including addenda. It had two pages relating to pets, about 7 for lead paint, a few for asbestos, one for "criminal activity", and a bunch of other trivial stuff that I no longer remember.
I'm not reading your post. I'm reading Geeknet's retransmission of your post, which does not carry those terms. You agreed to their terms when you posted.
If I were actually bound by your terms, I could sue to have the objectionable items (probably all except deleting from the computer) nullified.
Only two rental places right downtown, but a place down the street that will build you a lovely custom mansion toward the edge of town.
That's before you can see it while sitting inside your rented apartment. The agreement itself is publicly available
That's one of the conditions in the lease that you agreed to. If you don't like a change you can continue to live there, but the landlord won't be responsible for basic maintenance any more.
But if you build your own house, you get to make your own terms.
If that's in the lease agreement, you should expect it. If not, sue.
If those are all terms you agreed to, then sure. Why not? That's pretty similar to what's in most employment contracts. If you don't like a contract, don't agree to it. Don't buy Sony's products, and encourage others to do the same.
erk: home planet of Merk.
riv: Ohio.
pub: in my home directory, where I keep shared stuff.
r: me hearties!
n: a partridge in a pear tree.
k: a konstant, equal to 17 in this case.
da: da da dum da dum da da dum
Yes, you own the console, and Sony has been kind enough to grant you a license to use a certain bit of their software on it. Remove all their software (and anything else with a legally-binding contract limiting its use) and you'll be able to do whatever you want with it. That also includes the chip firmware, so you'll have a lovely paperweight that might barely have the functionality to turn on a LED, but it will be all yours.
If I paid $1000 for rent this past month, who owns the house I live in? THE LANDLORD. I still can't do major changes to the house or property, can't burn it down, can't use it as security for a loan... and I have to abide by all the terms I agreed to in the lease, which is a legally-binding contract just like the software license you agreed to. You did read it, didn't you?
Sorry, but you seem to misunderstand me a bit. My problem is mostly with Anonymous, not Wikileaks.
My opinion is that what Wikileaks has done is not against the law, but morally wrong nonetheless. They release sensitive information with only minimal care for whether harm could come from it. Whether it's against U.S. law or now is for a U.S. court to decide, which hasn't happened yet.
Since it wasn't apparently clear here, I draw the parallel between Jack Ruby and Anonymous. They break the law to do what they think is right, and as such they ought to face the consequences of breaking the law. Where they come from doesn't particularly matter. Jack Ruby was a boxer and business owner before he decided, apparently on a whim, to commit murder out of patriotism. Likewise, Anonymous might be touting "human rights" or "free speech" or whatever their cause of the week is, but at the end of the day they're still just causing havoc.
What sets the U.S. government apart from Scientology (or most other non-governmental groups, for that matter) is that the U.S. government is duly appointed by me to serve my interests. I voted for it, and I continue to express my interests to my representatives. Corruption and elitism, for as much as the media loves a good scandal, simply aren't that common. What's more common is plain old disagreement. It's hard for any politician to get anything accomplished, and I can understand that. I'm not going to start attacking businesses when my opinion isn't in the majority. The government isn't this elitist group of politicians from a higher caste. They're elected people like you and me. My hometown's mayor was the local barber before and after his term.
I intend to paint Anonymous as I see them: a disorganized mass of people without the courage to actually commit anything significant to a cause. They don't offer their time, their money, their name, their reputation, or any meaningful skills to a protest. That's why letters and petitions are actually meaningful. They represent an actual person's opinion, carrying the full weight of that person's contributions to society. In a DDoS, the only statement carried by an attack is "I cause harm." How is that kind of sentiment supposed to convince anyone that your cause is worthy?
You missed "jury box" which is where law and order is upheld, and those who disrupt civilization for their own motives are brought to justice. Conveniently, it's also right where the DDoS participants are headed, where it will (possibly) be decided whether a DDoS is an act of protest or malice.
And wikileaks certainly helped the USA there. There is the virtue.
I'm in agreement all the way up to that point. Is it virtue to set someone on fire if they're freezing to death?
My complaint isn't with the idea behind Wikileaks. I'm all for a transparent government, where it's necessary. I don't believe it's necessary to have every detail of daily military action paraded out for enemies to see, whether or not the war was justified. What I want to see is responsible redaction, impartial releases, and input from the public on every released item. So far, Wikileaks has failed on all of those.
As for throwing rocks, I think that just about everyone involved in the DDoS attacks could have sent an email or two to MasterCard's customer support, instead. A few hundred thousand emails has caused change before, and wouldn't involve breaking laws. Prior to the American Revolution, the colonists petitioned for over ten years to have their injustices addressed. Likewise, the Tunisian and Egyptian governments have ignored protests for quite a while.
It's certainly time for transparency and accountability, but not by abandoning all pretense of civil action.
I've personally been involved in several successful protests. Make enough of a show, and representatives can plainly see what their constituents want. On the commercial side, yes, protests also often work.
DDoS isn't harm, it is interruption, in much the same way picketing is.
Picketing works because it's visible. A DDoS harms because innocent bystanders, with nothing to gain from either side. To quote another poster in another thread, "what about all those mom-and-pop online stores that lost a day's business because of the attacks?" A DDoS is less like picketing and more like setting off a bomb inside the store. It's an interruption for a while, with no concern for consequences.
On the nature of Wikileaks
There is a major difference between honest reporting and actively seeking to cause damage. Did Wikileaks consult with the U.S. military to make sure its many war documents didn't reveal troop placement? Did they verify that the embassy cables didn't jeopardize diplomatic relations? Wikileaks isn't just punishing bad activity. They're pushing a political agenda that punishes anything Julian Assange doesn't like, with no concern for consequences.
That's not to say I approve of everything my government is doing, but I don't think Wikileaks' policy of bridge-burning is an appropriate mechanism for change. I'd rather stick to the more civil methods of protest, that don't involve putting others needlessly at risk.
Politicians, like most humans, actually do care about doing what's right, and can be swayed by well-presented arguments. Show them a bunch of whining children, and they're not likely to think that cause if justified. Show them a well-written evaluation of options, and they're likely to listen. That's how lobbyists work: They're skilled at making persuasive presentations from any perspective.
Laws as you say apply to everyone, the US govt has broken many laws over the last 10 years
Laws do apply to everyone. If after a thorough investigation there is sufficient proof of wrongdoing, punishment may be applied. The military officers who intentionally commit war crimes get disciplinary measures. Fortunately, there is forgiveness for acting without criminal intent. Almost all reputable intelligence in 2003 believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Also fortunately, just because you do not like something does not make it a crime. The issue of depleted uranium munitions has not been considered by the U.N., so it is not yet a crime. That's mostly because a bit of trivial research shows that there's no conclusive evidence that depleted uranium is particularly more harmful than any other kind of weapon.
When is Bush going to go on trial for selling his Arbusto shares?
Let's see, here... Bush sold $800,000 worth of his oil holdings in 1990, after investing in a baseball team in 1989 which had required a $600,000 loan. He devoted his time to the team and his father's presidential campaign. It looks like a standard financial shift to me. I could be wrong, though... I'm sure your keen investigative skills will come up with more evidence, despite a SEC investigation finding no wrongdoing. It looks like the answer to your question is "never, thankfully."
It seems the U.S. justice systems serves only laws, and not every whim of an easily influenced society. It also seems like that might be intentional. The representatives can quickly meet the opinions of those they represent, but actually passing laws takes time and stable effort. Enforcing those laws is steadfast and comes after an investigation. Those folks 200 years ago must have actually been thinking.
I recall hearing about an "upcoming" Bank of America leak as one of Wikileaks' first projects. Apparently it's become a bigger deal in the past few weeks, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
The Cablegate documents still had exact names, places, and times included. It's enough to easily reveal cover identities for traveling VIPs, common itineraries, and political opinions that are supposed to remain private for diplomacy to work. Competent sanitizing requires removing not just things that look risky, but also tiny details that are only meaningful to someone who knows what to look for. To this end, leaked documents are usually (prior to publication) given to someone who already knows everything, to provide a chance for those little details to be cleaned up properly. Were the embassies given such a chance? Not by a long shot.
I'm talking about public editing and commenting, which used to be a major part of WikiLeaks when it launched, just like you'd expect from the name. Since then, however, less and less public input has been allowed, and now all editing comes from within Wikileaks itself.
Everything I want is a human right, guaranteed by that Constitution I read last week in high school. I can say anything to anybody, and they can't complain because I have free speech. Freedom of religion means that anything contradicting my religion should be prohibited from being within the same state as me, and right to bear arms means I can have keep a cruise missile in my bedroom.
There's some other stuff too, but I got bored reading. Lawyers ned 2 lern 2 rite, u no? I think that since the Constitution gets amendments, it gets new rights when new things happen. That's why I have a right to have my PS3 do what I want, no matter what that contract says. I have a right to listen to any music I want, even without paying anybody for it. I have a right to get paid without actually working, and a right to get the latest medical treatments even if I can't pay. I have a right to use the Internet, and a right to go to any website, and a right to post anything anywhere anytime. If I don't like what somebody else says or does, I have a right to protest however I want, even if it means breaking laws. I have a right to live a comfortable life, because I voted last election. Well, I didn't, but I'm sure somebody else did.
</painfulsarcasm>
Now that I've written that, I'm going to go cry a little...
Slashdot Mirror
You don't want to get rid of licensing, then. You'd want a transferable license with no restrictions on use. Getting rid of licensing entirely would mean that either copying would be unrestricted, or restricted so tightly that you can't even use what you've bought.
Licensing, like all copyright law, is intended to protect the interests of the author. In this case, that's Sony. If you don't like it, don't agree to the license, and don't buy Sony's products.
They sold you silicon and a license for software, which when combined as instructed make a games console. In Slashdot tradition, I present a car analogy: You go to a dealer, buy a car, then leave the engine in the parking lot. It's your own fault the car doesn't run.
Good luck getting them to agree to that. If you're successful, let me know. I want to see it. No, really... I despise Sony's tactics as much as the next guy, so if you can get them to agree to something like that, I want to see pictures. It would make me happy.
That "ok" button is enough. Make sure your computer is locked when you're not there. If your signature is forged, no matter how easy it is to do so, you have other legal issues to work through.
Yes, they can. You can take the book, draw the cat, and display it in a museum as a work of art. They can sue, which would cost them a few thousand dollars, and you can just send the court a note saying "it's a derivative work of art that displays one page of the book."
It should be obvious to a judge that you're using merely the book itself, and not so much the literary work it contains. You're not affecting the market for selling the book, and using/publishing only the minimum amount of the book that you need. That's three of the four tests of fair use (commercial use, nature of work, amount used, and effect on market) passed with flying colors. The judge will probably dismiss the suit between fits of laughter.
Or you could just not buy a console. Not to start a decades-old flame war, but PCs are much nicer in this regard: There are freely-licensed software solutions for pretty much everything you need, and you can have complete control of what you run. Sure, you'll miss out on an ultra-exclusive game, but is it really so important that you have that particular game on your own legal terms?
Yep. They sold you a nice chunk of hardware. Once again, the terms are online. Go look them up if you're concerned, before you buy something. Is that so hard to think about?
I see no problem whatsoever with suing when terms are found to be unreasonable after the fact. Once again, if you don't like terms, don't agree to them in the first place. Yes, clicking "OK" counts.
Not all licenses say the same thing at all. There are some licenses that are better, some that are worse, and some that are just plain weird. Licenses usually protect the interests and rights of the copyright holder, and it shouldn't be surprising that most companies have similar interests.
Now, IANAL, and this is certainly not legal advice, but if there's some term of a contract that's outright unreasonable, I'd say go ahead and break it. Don't complain when you get sued, but by all means, drag the contract through court and fight it out. Get that unreasonable term invalidated!
The "one part invalidated" clause protects the company against having the whole contract thrown out by a jurisdiction who finds some small part unacceptable. Usually, that protection is provided by legislation anyway, but it's not hard to imagine a jurisdiction's laws containing wording like "Any contract that requires X is invalid".
He bought the PS3 hardware itself, but not the software inside. At most he may have bought a copy of the functional form of the software, but that's still an open issue.
Regardless, it's still governed by copyright law, which grants the copyright owner the exclusive right to perform/display the work (which, as I understand, is how "using" falls under copyright. Since he wouldn't have the right to use the software, it just makes a lovely paperweight until he agrees to Sony's license contract or removes the software completely.
It's much simpler than that. Sony never agreed to the modified contract, so there is no mutual assent, and it's not a valid contract. Then you're stuck without a license to use the software.
Doodling in the margins to produce a derivative work would then have the use of the book be governed by fair use, which typically involves the copyright holder liking the use (and issuing a separate license for that use), or a judge deciding if the use was appropriate.
Photocopiers are legal because they have significant legal use, such that their primary function is not copyright infringement. Relatedly, I recall back in the early 90's when there was a news story about a publisher using paper that wouldn't copy correctly in most copiers. Fun times.
You're not the first to point out the difference in signing. There's already a solution, by making electronic agreements equivalent to a signature.
The EULA is available online, as well as included in the box. If you don't like it, you can return the unused PS3 to the store. Like all contracts, it is binding on both parties. The fact that it grants the company the ability to make changes is just another term that you're agreeing to, along with surrendering use of certain features if you don't update. To continue the analogy, you won't get to use the new in-apartment garbage chute if you won't let the maintenance guy in to install it.
Relatedly, I recently had an apartment lease that was 27 pages, including addenda. It had two pages relating to pets, about 7 for lead paint, a few for asbestos, one for "criminal activity", and a bunch of other trivial stuff that I no longer remember.
I'm not reading your post. I'm reading Geeknet's retransmission of your post, which does not carry those terms. You agreed to their terms when you posted.
If I were actually bound by your terms, I could sue to have the objectionable items (probably all except deleting from the computer) nullified.
If those are all terms you agreed to, then sure. Why not? That's pretty similar to what's in most employment contracts. If you don't like a contract, don't agree to it. Don't buy Sony's products, and encourage others to do the same.
erk: home planet of Merk.
riv: Ohio.
pub: in my home directory, where I keep shared stuff.
r: me hearties!
n: a partridge in a pear tree.
k: a konstant, equal to 17 in this case.
da: da da dum da dum da da dum
Yes, you own the console, and Sony has been kind enough to grant you a license to use a certain bit of their software on it. Remove all their software (and anything else with a legally-binding contract limiting its use) and you'll be able to do whatever you want with it. That also includes the chip firmware, so you'll have a lovely paperweight that might barely have the functionality to turn on a LED, but it will be all yours.
If I paid $1000 for rent this past month, who owns the house I live in? THE LANDLORD. I still can't do major changes to the house or property, can't burn it down, can't use it as security for a loan... and I have to abide by all the terms I agreed to in the lease, which is a legally-binding contract just like the software license you agreed to. You did read it, didn't you?
Sorry, but you seem to misunderstand me a bit. My problem is mostly with Anonymous, not Wikileaks.
My opinion is that what Wikileaks has done is not against the law, but morally wrong nonetheless. They release sensitive information with only minimal care for whether harm could come from it. Whether it's against U.S. law or now is for a U.S. court to decide, which hasn't happened yet.
Since it wasn't apparently clear here, I draw the parallel between Jack Ruby and Anonymous. They break the law to do what they think is right, and as such they ought to face the consequences of breaking the law. Where they come from doesn't particularly matter. Jack Ruby was a boxer and business owner before he decided, apparently on a whim, to commit murder out of patriotism. Likewise, Anonymous might be touting "human rights" or "free speech" or whatever their cause of the week is, but at the end of the day they're still just causing havoc.
What sets the U.S. government apart from Scientology (or most other non-governmental groups, for that matter) is that the U.S. government is duly appointed by me to serve my interests. I voted for it, and I continue to express my interests to my representatives. Corruption and elitism, for as much as the media loves a good scandal, simply aren't that common. What's more common is plain old disagreement. It's hard for any politician to get anything accomplished, and I can understand that. I'm not going to start attacking businesses when my opinion isn't in the majority. The government isn't this elitist group of politicians from a higher caste. They're elected people like you and me. My hometown's mayor was the local barber before and after his term.
I intend to paint Anonymous as I see them: a disorganized mass of people without the courage to actually commit anything significant to a cause. They don't offer their time, their money, their name, their reputation, or any meaningful skills to a protest. That's why letters and petitions are actually meaningful. They represent an actual person's opinion, carrying the full weight of that person's contributions to society. In a DDoS, the only statement carried by an attack is "I cause harm." How is that kind of sentiment supposed to convince anyone that your cause is worthy?
You missed "jury box" which is where law and order is upheld, and those who disrupt civilization for their own motives are brought to justice. Conveniently, it's also right where the DDoS participants are headed, where it will (possibly) be decided whether a DDoS is an act of protest or malice.
...except that a DDoS harms innocent bystanders, breaks laws, and carries all the tact and civility of a flying ball of manure.
And wikileaks certainly helped the USA there. There is the virtue.
I'm in agreement all the way up to that point. Is it virtue to set someone on fire if they're freezing to death?
My complaint isn't with the idea behind Wikileaks. I'm all for a transparent government, where it's necessary. I don't believe it's necessary to have every detail of daily military action paraded out for enemies to see, whether or not the war was justified. What I want to see is responsible redaction, impartial releases, and input from the public on every released item. So far, Wikileaks has failed on all of those.
As for throwing rocks, I think that just about everyone involved in the DDoS attacks could have sent an email or two to MasterCard's customer support, instead. A few hundred thousand emails has caused change before, and wouldn't involve breaking laws. Prior to the American Revolution, the colonists petitioned for over ten years to have their injustices addressed. Likewise, the Tunisian and Egyptian governments have ignored protests for quite a while.
It's certainly time for transparency and accountability, but not by abandoning all pretense of civil action.
Does that EVER work?
I've personally been involved in several successful protests. Make enough of a show, and representatives can plainly see what their constituents want. On the commercial side, yes, protests also often work.
DDoS isn't harm, it is interruption, in much the same way picketing is.
Picketing works because it's visible. A DDoS harms because innocent bystanders, with nothing to gain from either side. To quote another poster in another thread, "what about all those mom-and-pop online stores that lost a day's business because of the attacks?" A DDoS is less like picketing and more like setting off a bomb inside the store. It's an interruption for a while, with no concern for consequences.
On the nature of Wikileaks
There is a major difference between honest reporting and actively seeking to cause damage. Did Wikileaks consult with the U.S. military to make sure its many war documents didn't reveal troop placement? Did they verify that the embassy cables didn't jeopardize diplomatic relations? Wikileaks isn't just punishing bad activity. They're pushing a political agenda that punishes anything Julian Assange doesn't like, with no concern for consequences.
That's not to say I approve of everything my government is doing, but I don't think Wikileaks' policy of bridge-burning is an appropriate mechanism for change. I'd rather stick to the more civil methods of protest, that don't involve putting others needlessly at risk.
Politicians do not care
Politicians, like most humans, actually do care about doing what's right, and can be swayed by well-presented arguments. Show them a bunch of whining children, and they're not likely to think that cause if justified. Show them a well-written evaluation of options, and they're likely to listen. That's how lobbyists work: They're skilled at making persuasive presentations from any perspective.
Laws as you say apply to everyone, the US govt has broken many laws over the last 10 years
Laws do apply to everyone. If after a thorough investigation there is sufficient proof of wrongdoing, punishment may be applied. The military officers who intentionally commit war crimes get disciplinary measures. Fortunately, there is forgiveness for acting without criminal intent. Almost all reputable intelligence in 2003 believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Also fortunately, just because you do not like something does not make it a crime. The issue of depleted uranium munitions has not been considered by the U.N., so it is not yet a crime. That's mostly because a bit of trivial research shows that there's no conclusive evidence that depleted uranium is particularly more harmful than any other kind of weapon.
When is Bush going to go on trial for selling his Arbusto shares?
Let's see, here... Bush sold $800,000 worth of his oil holdings in 1990, after investing in a baseball team in 1989 which had required a $600,000 loan. He devoted his time to the team and his father's presidential campaign. It looks like a standard financial shift to me. I could be wrong, though... I'm sure your keen investigative skills will come up with more evidence, despite a SEC investigation finding no wrongdoing. It looks like the answer to your question is "never, thankfully."
It seems the U.S. justice systems serves only laws, and not every whim of an easily influenced society. It also seems like that might be intentional. The representatives can quickly meet the opinions of those they represent, but actually passing laws takes time and stable effort. Enforcing those laws is steadfast and comes after an investigation. Those folks 200 years ago must have actually been thinking.
I recall hearing about an "upcoming" Bank of America leak as one of Wikileaks' first projects. Apparently it's become a bigger deal in the past few weeks, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
The Cablegate documents still had exact names, places, and times included. It's enough to easily reveal cover identities for traveling VIPs, common itineraries, and political opinions that are supposed to remain private for diplomacy to work. Competent sanitizing requires removing not just things that look risky, but also tiny details that are only meaningful to someone who knows what to look for. To this end, leaked documents are usually (prior to publication) given to someone who already knows everything, to provide a chance for those little details to be cleaned up properly. Were the embassies given such a chance? Not by a long shot.
I'm talking about public editing and commenting, which used to be a major part of WikiLeaks when it launched, just like you'd expect from the name. Since then, however, less and less public input has been allowed, and now all editing comes from within Wikileaks itself.
Nonsense. This is the 21st century!
Everything I want is a human right, guaranteed by that Constitution I read last week in high school. I can say anything to anybody, and they can't complain because I have free speech. Freedom of religion means that anything contradicting my religion should be prohibited from being within the same state as me, and right to bear arms means I can have keep a cruise missile in my bedroom.
There's some other stuff too, but I got bored reading. Lawyers ned 2 lern 2 rite, u no? I think that since the Constitution gets amendments, it gets new rights when new things happen. That's why I have a right to have my PS3 do what I want, no matter what that contract says. I have a right to listen to any music I want, even without paying anybody for it. I have a right to get paid without actually working, and a right to get the latest medical treatments even if I can't pay. I have a right to use the Internet, and a right to go to any website, and a right to post anything anywhere anytime. If I don't like what somebody else says or does, I have a right to protest however I want, even if it means breaking laws. I have a right to live a comfortable life, because I voted last election. Well, I didn't, but I'm sure somebody else did.
</painfulsarcasm>
Now that I've written that, I'm going to go cry a little...