The thing to remember is that after that, indeed in large part because of that, there were some massive reforms to try to avoid such poor subjective judgements.
Now days treatments go through actual clinical trials, much like with other drugs great effort is expended on trying to make sure that they actually work.
however if you work as a contractor or freelance programmer or some such then it's fairly trivial to sketch in an exclusion for a handful of libraries + a licence for your employer to use them whenever it comes time to sign contracts.
your boss doesn't automatically own anything you created before you started working for them.
I find myself thinking of some insane felonies now... imagine this-
Some college kid burning an unlicensed copy of Adobe CS3 Extended Premium(over the 1000 dollar limit making it a felony) when the DVD by freak chance explodes in the drive and a flying shard lodges in his room-mates throat.
Once you have a legal department handling lots of patents the marginal cost drops a lot. Employee moral was probably in the shitter after the company almost got screwed followed by requiring the devs to write hordes of innane patent apps. Of course people are going to act out a little and write some crazy applications. It is quite funny in a dry way. The point is that no matter how stupid the op got a valid patent on the light switch. It doesn't matter that it's stupid, someone could still use a patent like that to extort money from small companies without the resources to fight the battle to get it invalidated.
"default permit" is where you give everyone access to everything unless you're given a good reason not to.
"default deny" is where you only give people access if there's a good reason to.
"default permit" is terrible. It sounds nice but any system bases on "default permit" is doomed to failure when it comes to security.
It shouldn't be possible for one person to grab a copy of the entire database unless they're at the very top of the chain of command, if the leaker had the word "general" or similar in their title this might be excusable but otherwise it means the security systems failed spectacularly.
For every oddball who'll shout it to the world there's many more who'll just hand over a USB stick in exchange for a wad of cash. It shouldn't be possible for anyone that junior to have the keys to the kingdom.
"There is no parallel there because neither Bin Laden or Al Qeada faced such a threat if prosecuted in the US in 2001."
of course, they wouldn't torture them on US soil, they'd have sent them over to gitmo or some other facility first.
If you don't remember the UK stopped sending prisioners to the us a while back because
"Given the clear differences in definition, the UK can no longer rely on US assurances that it does not use torture " - Foreign Affairs Select Committee
Remember a while back when the US government decided that it's not torture, it's freedom tickling as long as it's the US doing it?
Lets make the situation clearer for you- say American terrorists killed a lot of people in another country.
Random scenario, lets say some crazy chirstian sect who think the muslims are taking over the world blew up the Royal Méridien Hotel and killed a few thousand people. Lets say the people who carried out the bombing were mostly mexicans with a few canadians in the mix but no americans took part.
So the UAE demands the united states turn over the leader and members of one of the crazy terrorist chirstian organisations, probably the ones responsible but not certain.
The UAE offer no evidence, they offer no proof at all that people they're demanding are responsible.
At this point what should the US do?
1:Just hand over US citizens with no proof that they've committed any crime?(Would this even be constitutional?) 2:Demand proof that they're actually responsible rather than just hand over US citizens on the good word of an unfriendly forgien government? 3:Tell the UAE to fuck off.
Now lets say the UAE had a much stronger military than the US.
Now lets say the US has demanded proof, would the correct course of action for the UAE now be to
1: Give proof? 2: Bomb the shit out of some US cities to show that they really mean buisness?
Something to remember- in the EU everything electronic basically has to have a minimum 1 year warrenty as far as I know. In some countries in the EU it's 2 years. Sometimes you'll see electronics with a big showy "FREE 1 YEAR WARRANTY!!!" as if it's something amazing that they have any choice about or all their competitors don't have.
And whoever you bought it from has the responsibility of handling it even if they try to claim "No returns, go to the manufacturer", they can suggest you do that and in some cases it will save you time but ultimately the buck rests with whoever you gave money to.
Also using thermal paper and then insisting you have the reciept 6 months later should be treated as the scam it is.
If you have been charged or are in custody but have not been charged with a crime there are rules here about the police divulging your identity to the press.
If they're trying to identify or catch you that's a different matter but once they have you in custody there's no good reason to say anything to the press till after the trial.
I'm just surprised that they can list you before you're actually convicted. If you suffer negative consequences, say you get fired from a job as a bus driver or something after your boss sees the accusation and you are later found innocent how do you not have the right to sue for lost earnings etc?
wow, you're getting into really garbled analogy territory. I take it you want the new york times to be punished as well then?
in the case of information "recover your stolen crap from the pawn shop" makes about as much sense as trying to empty the ocean with a bucket. There is no recovering information in the wild unless you've not actually still got your own copy.
the damage is done, it was not done by wikileaks, it was done by the armies failure to secure their systems and by whoever sent the info to wikileaks. Whoever it was could have just distributed it over freenet or some other medium if wikileaks didn't exist.
if a bunch of soldiers get drunk in the field, pass out and get shot by an enemy patrol have they fucked up? yes.
is this equivalent to some braindead analogy about you getting drunk at home and some thug breaking in and shooting you? no.
If army intelligence keeps such a pisspoor control of it's classified documents that their entire database can be sent to a forgien activist group and international newspapers have they fucked up? yes.
is this equivalent to some braindead analogy about robbing a bank? no.
did the serviceman who stole the documents steal from the US army? yes.
Did the new york times steal from the US army? no. did the guardian steal from the US army? no. did wikileaks steal from the US army? no.
did they handle classified US documents? yes.
Is this an issue for organisations which are not under US juristiction? no.
no but armies really couldn't exist without enemies.
I can see how you delude yourself that army intelligence has no duty to do more than a half arsed job protecting secrets from foreign agents. If some organisation like wikileaks can get their hands on it without even trying, seriously- they just offered the equivalent of an open mailbox, you don't think the actual enemy who make an actual effort to get their hands on it don't already have it?
If the victim of a theft is an old granny living in the suburbs your logic would be fine when it's army intelligence in the middle of a fucking war then the blame rests squarely on them for not doing their jobs and not the newspaper, activist group or other which publishes the leaked info.
so someone from wikileaks approached staff in the army and tried to convince them to send copies off military databases?
or was it more like reality, where they just offered a safe place to send documents if you felt it was important enough that the public hear about it. As such in what way is that different from what any (good)newspaper does?
On a side note, given that employees of the guardian did approach wikileaks when they heard about the documents it would be far more accurate to say that the guardian SOLICITED classified documents than to say that wikileaks did. Wikileaks accepts classified documents, it doesn't send reporters into the field to try to convince people to hand them over.
they put an open invitation on their site to send them "classified, censored or otherwise restricted material of political, diplomatic or ethical significance.".
Soliciting implies trying to convince people to send them documents or offering something in return.
Which they do not do.
They simply leave an open offer to anyone who has information which fits the criteria.
Not exactly the clearest lot and you can see the work of a committee-
Stressing the inalienable right of the Afghan people themselves freely to determine their own political future,
Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Afghanistan,
and
Recognizing that the responsibility for providing security and law and order throughout the country resides with the Afghan themselves,
but at the same time
Supporting international efforts to root out terrorism
Condemning the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base for the export of terrorism by the Al-Qaida network and other terrorist groups and for providing safe haven to Usama Bin Laden, Al-Qaida and others associated with them, and in this context supporting the efforts of the Afghan people to replace the Taliban regime
Slashdot Mirror
"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it"
the GP seems to have no idea what "
Libertarian" actually means.
different scales,
"be murdered"
vs
"rape my children"
It's normal for people to add weight to harm to their offspring vs harm to themselves.
but if you want to compare crimes to make the scales make sense then use the same victims.
So it should be
"kill my children"
vs
"rape my children"
That sounds like a garbled version of the Rosenhan experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
Though it was the 70's.
The thing to remember is that after that, indeed in large part because of that, there were some massive reforms to try to avoid such poor subjective judgements.
Now days treatments go through actual clinical trials, much like with other drugs great effort is expended on trying to make sure that they actually work.
however if you work as a contractor or freelance programmer or some such then it's fairly trivial to sketch in an exclusion for a handful of libraries + a licence for your employer to use them whenever it comes time to sign contracts.
your boss doesn't automatically own anything you created before you started working for them.
I find myself thinking of some insane felonies now... imagine this-
Some college kid burning an unlicensed copy of Adobe CS3 Extended Premium(over the 1000 dollar limit making it a felony) when the DVD by freak chance explodes in the drive and a flying shard lodges in his room-mates throat.
boom(literally) , felony-murder.
you assume they'd get their costs back.
Once you have a legal department handling lots of patents the marginal cost drops a lot.
Employee moral was probably in the shitter after the company almost got screwed followed by requiring the devs to write hordes of innane patent apps. Of course people are going to act out a little and write some crazy applications.
It is quite funny in a dry way.
The point is that no matter how stupid the op got a valid patent on the light switch. It doesn't matter that it's stupid, someone could still use a patent like that to extort money from small companies without the resources to fight the battle to get it invalidated.
Ever worked in IT security?
it's "default permit" vs "default deny"
"default permit" is where you give everyone access to everything unless you're given a good reason not to.
"default deny" is where you only give people access if there's a good reason to.
"default permit" is terrible. It sounds nice but any system bases on "default permit" is doomed to failure when it comes to security.
It shouldn't be possible for one person to grab a copy of the entire database unless they're at the very top of the chain of command, if the leaker had the word "general" or similar in their title this might be excusable but otherwise it means the security systems failed spectacularly.
For every oddball who'll shout it to the world there's many more who'll just hand over a USB stick in exchange for a wad of cash.
It shouldn't be possible for anyone that junior to have the keys to the kingdom.
"There is no parallel there because neither Bin Laden or Al Qeada faced such a threat if prosecuted in the US in 2001."
of course, they wouldn't torture them on US soil, they'd have sent them over to gitmo or some other facility first.
If you don't remember the UK stopped sending prisioners to the us a while back because
"Given the clear differences in definition, the UK can no longer rely on US assurances that it does not use torture " - Foreign Affairs Select Committee
Remember a while back when the US government decided that it's not torture, it's freedom tickling as long as it's the US doing it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7515517.stm
Lets make the situation clearer for you- say American terrorists killed a lot of people in another country.
Random scenario, lets say some crazy chirstian sect who think the muslims are taking over the world blew up the Royal Méridien Hotel and killed a few thousand people.
Lets say the people who carried out the bombing were mostly mexicans with a few canadians in the mix but no americans took part.
So the UAE demands the united states turn over the leader and members of one of the crazy terrorist chirstian organisations, probably the ones responsible but not certain.
The UAE offer no evidence, they offer no proof at all that people they're demanding are responsible.
At this point what should the US do?
1:Just hand over US citizens with no proof that they've committed any crime?(Would this even be constitutional?)
2:Demand proof that they're actually responsible rather than just hand over US citizens on the good word of an unfriendly forgien government?
3:Tell the UAE to fuck off.
Now lets say the UAE had a much stronger military than the US.
Now lets say the US has demanded proof, would the correct course of action for the UAE now be to
1: Give proof?
2: Bomb the shit out of some US cities to show that they really mean buisness?
If they're going bankrupt would that not make you just another creditor?
Something to remember- in the EU everything electronic basically has to have a minimum 1 year warrenty as far as I know.
In some countries in the EU it's 2 years.
Sometimes you'll see electronics with a big showy "FREE 1 YEAR WARRANTY!!!" as if it's something amazing that they have any choice about or all their competitors don't have.
And whoever you bought it from has the responsibility of handling it even if they try to claim "No returns, go to the manufacturer", they can suggest you do that and in some cases it will save you time but ultimately the buck rests with whoever you gave money to.
Also using thermal paper and then insisting you have the reciept 6 months later should be treated as the scam it is.
also it cuts down on cabling . Wifi can be great for convenience. Plus teacher and students devices. Why not?
Ah well, on this I'm happy I'm not in the US.
If you have been charged or are in custody but have not been charged with a crime there are rules here about the police divulging your identity to the press.
If they're trying to identify or catch you that's a different matter but once they have you in custody there's no good reason to say anything to the press till after the trial.
I'm just surprised that they can list you before you're actually convicted.
If you suffer negative consequences, say you get fired from a job as a bus driver or something after your boss sees the accusation and you are later found innocent how do you not have the right to sue for lost earnings etc?
wow, you're getting into really garbled analogy territory.
I take it you want the new york times to be punished as well then?
in the case of information "recover your stolen crap from the pawn shop" makes about as much sense as trying to empty the ocean with a bucket.
There is no recovering information in the wild unless you've not actually still got your own copy.
the damage is done, it was not done by wikileaks, it was done by the armies failure to secure their systems and by whoever sent the info to wikileaks. Whoever it was could have just distributed it over freenet or some other medium if wikileaks didn't exist.
the point where they are the military at war.
if a bunch of soldiers get drunk in the field, pass out and get shot by an enemy patrol have they fucked up?
yes.
is this equivalent to some braindead analogy about you getting drunk at home and some thug breaking in and shooting you?
no.
If army intelligence keeps such a pisspoor control of it's classified documents that their entire database can be sent to a forgien activist group and international newspapers have they fucked up?
yes.
is this equivalent to some braindead analogy about robbing a bank?
no.
did the serviceman who stole the documents steal from the US army?
yes.
Did the new york times steal from the US army?
no.
did the guardian steal from the US army?
no.
did wikileaks steal from the US army?
no.
did they handle classified US documents?
yes.
Is this an issue for organisations which are not under US juristiction?
no.
don't forget that the guardian and the new york times are the other 2 pawn shops.
which would be great if wikileaks was the burglar even by any twisting of that analogy.
no but armies really couldn't exist without enemies.
I can see how you delude yourself that army intelligence has no duty to do more than a half arsed job protecting secrets from foreign agents.
If some organisation like wikileaks can get their hands on it without even trying, seriously- they just offered the equivalent of an open mailbox, you don't think the actual enemy who make an actual effort to get their hands on it don't already have it?
If the victim of a theft is an old granny living in the suburbs your logic would be fine when it's army intelligence in the middle of a fucking war then the blame rests squarely on them for not doing their jobs and not the newspaper, activist group or other which publishes the leaked info.
so someone from wikileaks approached staff in the army and tried to convince them to send copies off military databases?
or was it more like reality, where they just offered a safe place to send documents if you felt it was important enough that the public hear about it.
As such in what way is that different from what any (good)newspaper does?
On a side note, given that employees of the guardian did approach wikileaks when they heard about the documents it would be far more accurate to say that the guardian SOLICITED classified documents than to say that wikileaks did.
Wikileaks accepts classified documents, it doesn't send reporters into the field to try to convince people to hand them over.
they put an open invitation on their site to send them "classified, censored or otherwise restricted material of political, diplomatic or ethical significance.".
Soliciting implies trying to convince people to send them documents or offering something in return.
Which they do not do.
They simply leave an open offer to anyone who has information which fits the criteria.
Citations:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/708/55/PDF/N0170855.pdf?OpenElement
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/681/09/PDF/N0168109.pdf?OpenElement
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/638/57/PDF/N0163857.pdf?OpenElement
Not exactly the clearest lot and you can see the work of a committee-
Stressing the inalienable right of the Afghan people themselves freely to
determine their own political future,
Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial
integrity and national unity of Afghanistan,
and
Recognizing that the responsibility for providing security and law and order
throughout the country resides with the Afghan themselves,
but at the same time
Supporting international efforts to root out terrorism
Condemning the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base for the
export of terrorism by the Al-Qaida network and other terrorist groups and for
providing safe haven to Usama Bin Laden, Al-Qaida and others associated with
them, and in this context supporting the efforts of the Afghan people to replace the
Taliban regime
It's an old theme.
people will generally side with an oppressive regime that puts food on the table over a more appealing one which fails to do that.
"the Taliban ALREADY control a big part of Iraq"
wow.
they've been ambitious.
see there you missed the chance to say "make leakers leaky."
For russia at least i image the fact that most of what's on wikileaks is in english makes a difference.
people don't leak to a site they don't know about.