Oh, I know that. You start with the broadest thing you can think of, and then slowly narrow the claims down to what you think might actually hold up in court if it's actually challenged.
However, that doesn't mean it's moral, and as an aging hippy, I'd like to see corporations behaving morally. And it doesn't mean I have to like it, or agree with what you've done.
"But everyone else was doing it" stops being a valid excuse for bad behaviour around 6th grade.
That's not really the Peter Principle, though, is it? He hasn't been promoted from his position of competence, because he has never held a position in which he was demonstrably competent.
It's more a case of the "promoting your mates over those better qualified is rarely a good thing" principle.
It's first creating the software to even work with the data
Your software is protected by copyright.
and then coming up with an algorithm that does what would normally be the function of an intelligent person
If the algorithm is hard to find, patent the algorithm. Unfortunately, this patent doesn't cover your method for solving the problem, it patents every method for solving the problem.
Fortunately Celebrimbor had previously ontained Middle Earth Patent #182375
Method for construction of Jewelry Of Power (for example, but not limited to, Rings) utilising Elvish smithing techniques and the heat of a fiery mountainand Sauron only obtained cross-licensing rights for the 9 human and the 7 dwarvish rings.
And when the police ascertain that, they'll give it back. They convinced a judge that they had reasonable suspicion that it might. The burden of proof to obtain a search warrant is nowhere near as high as to obtain a conviction.
The problem isn't that you are arguing with "very right wing people", which in fact you're not
Don't confuse the poor lad. He needs to fit everyone into his little pigeonholes, and the fact I've been a leftie since before he was a foetus will only make his brain hurt.
In the first, you're talking about the public interest of the story. In the second, you talk about the public interest of protecting the criminal's identity. I think the second argument is much more persuasive than the first, and it has nothing to do with whether or not the person is a journalist.
You're right, again. I've gotta stop with the examples.
All I'm trying to say is: the vast bulk of us are obliged to answer questions posed by lawyers or police, or risk prosecution for obstructing justice. I believe this to be a necessity of an effective judicial process. If certain people are to be immune from this obligation, they'd better have a bloody good reason -- one better than mere possession of an NUJ card.
Digression : US citizens have the right of free speech, constitutionally guaranteed. But they also have perjury laws, so it's pretty clear that that right doesn't extend into the witness box. They even have an explicit amendment for when you can withhold information in a trial. I wonder how the constitutional lawyers reconcile Amendments 1 and 5.
Hey, I'm with you on the ID card thing but passports are meant to uniquely identify their bearer. That's the entire point of them. I presume you also against passports having your photograph on them for the same reason, and if not, why not?
especially with changes to the court systems to avoid the use of juries in certain cases and the 'anti-terrorism' laws
Nice conflation... I think it would be intellectually honest to point out that juriless trials apply only to minor offences (magistrate's courts, which have been in existence for ever) and extremely complex fraud trials (because they keep collapsing when the jury members say "I'm sorry, you lost us sometime during the 7th month of evidence.")
Sure, you should try for an unbiased point of view
Which is why Indymedia and bloggers (and Fox news correspondents) deviate from journalism. No-one there even tries to be impartial. At best, they produce what would be editorial pieces in actual newspapers.
Well, if that "very" was a "slightly" I met let it slide but... really? Very left leaning? Which left is that?
Do you see the BBC campaigning for renationalisation of the railways, or higher taxes, or a stronger welfare state... or, well, anything really? In fact, your opinion of the BBC reveals far more of your own biases than the Beeb's.
In short, I believe protecting your source is completely justifiable if you can convince a court that your story is in the public interest (and that's the usual legal criterion applied to such cases.)
Oops. I'm wrong here, so let me quote the appropriate law. The 1981 Contempt of Court act says : 1981 Contempt of Court Act states:
No court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible unless it is established to the satisfaction of the court that it is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.
I'm just saying such a narrow view of who is and isn't journalists renders any protections given to journalists rather meaningless.
Funnily enough, I'd argue the exact opposite. A broad view of who is or isn't a journalist defeats the object. Imagine you haul in a drug dealer... You've got enough evidence to convict him of dealing, but you're really after the higher up connections. So you tell them that if they don't grass their dealer, you'll add "obstruction of justice" to the charge. Would you really want them to have a "protection of source" just because they once had a blog, or posted to indymedia?
In short, I believe protecting your source is completely justifiable if you can convince a court that your story is in the public interest (and that's the usual legal criterion applied to such cases.) Since there's evidently no public interest in protecting the identity of these violent thugs, that defence is simply not going to fly.
[NB : I choose drug dealers not because of any anti-drug stance, but because they're an organised heirarchical criminal group]
Actually most responsible journalists will allow annoymous, unchecked facts into their news output, as long as they can independently confirm the facts from two separate sources.
You're right. In fact, in a thread further down I bang on at some length about the importance of double sourcing.
Freedom of the press means nothing if the government can simply respond with "yeah, but you're not a real journalist"
Freedom of the press has never included freedom to incite or encourage violent criminal behaviour.
So using your logic, I cannot post something because someone else didn't back me up?
You can post what the hell you like. But don't pretend it's journalism.
I have been interviewed by newspapers who send 1 reporter and then produce an article from that persons experience. This isn't double sourced
That's not news. That's an interview. And you can bet your ass that the journalist involved recorded what you said for reference and as documentary evidence, and probably took copious notes during the interview.
Well, I've got to confess that being an honest person does tend to leave me in the minority.
As stated by you comment about indymedia having weak ethics - they stand for protecting everyones freedom, the earth and animal rights, how is this not a high ethical policy?
What about the freedom not to have a concrete block dropped onto your train? Surely, the best way to preserve that freedom would be to cooperate with the people who want to incarcerate the sort of people who drop concrete blocks onto trains.
This should lead the police to believe that the informant is a moron.
What? That's amongst the dumbest things I've read. Why should the police believe the denial but not the accusation?
If two people say contradictory things, you don't automatically disbelieve either of them. The smartest thing to do would be to make further enquiries. For example, you could get a search warrant and find out for yourself whether logs are kept.
I post news to indymedia... As stated before it is not possible to 'double source' everything.
Sorry kiddo. If it's not double-source, it's not news. It's gossip.
You post gossip to indymedia.
The point is to be able to get the information out quickly and efficiently
And safely removed from such journalistic niceties as fact checking, proper sourcing... And this obsession with speed explains why Indymedia has the same relationship to news that McDonalds has to cuisine...
There is no evidence of the crime being committed other than the original post
No evidence except a confession. And besides, the original post encouraged other people to do the same. That's a crime in itself.
What is violent crime?
Dropping concrete blocks on manned trains is violent crime. You're possibly too young to remember, but during the miners' strike, several strike breakers were killed by miners who dropped concrete blocks through their car windscreens from a motorway bridge.
Now, I supported the miners' strike, but that doesn't mean I'm not glad that those cold hearted murdering bastards were locked up.
Mark 'Zaskar' Watson contacted the police and said 'hey, they keep IP logs' - thus showing they do believe every tom dick and harry regarding evidence.
Someone gave them a lead. They followed it. If it was motivated by malice, I hope they nail Mr Watson to a cross for wasting police time. But, assuming Mr Watson was not known by the police to be unreliable, you can't blame them for following a lead. That's what they do. Some of them don't pan out, but that's police work for you.
Slashdot Mirror
However, that doesn't mean it's moral, and as an aging hippy, I'd like to see corporations behaving morally. And it doesn't mean I have to like it, or agree with what you've done.
"But everyone else was doing it" stops being a valid excuse for bad behaviour around 6th grade.
I knew Ricki Lake had a fat ass, but I didn't know you could see it from space.
That's not really the Peter Principle, though, is it? He hasn't been promoted from his position of competence, because he has never held a position in which he was demonstrably competent.
It's more a case of the "promoting your mates over those better qualified is rarely a good thing" principle.
That's just stupid.
Goddammit. I hate it when people improve on my jokes. :P
All I'm trying to say is: the vast bulk of us are obliged to answer questions posed by lawyers or police, or risk prosecution for obstructing justice. I believe this to be a necessity of an effective judicial process. If certain people are to be immune from this obligation, they'd better have a bloody good reason -- one better than mere possession of an NUJ card.
Digression : US citizens have the right of free speech, constitutionally guaranteed. But they also have perjury laws, so it's pretty clear that that right doesn't extend into the witness box. They even have an explicit amendment for when you can withhold information in a trial. I wonder how the constitutional lawyers reconcile Amendments 1 and 5.
Do you see the BBC campaigning for renationalisation of the railways, or higher taxes, or a stronger welfare state
In short, I believe protecting your source is completely justifiable if you can convince a court that your story is in the public interest (and that's the usual legal criterion applied to such cases.) Since there's evidently no public interest in protecting the identity of these violent thugs, that defence is simply not going to fly.
[NB : I choose drug dealers not because of any anti-drug stance, but because they're an organised heirarchical criminal group]
That's what journalists do. You're a blogger.
I guess I kinda thought an infallible being would be, I dunno, smarter somehow.
If two people say contradictory things, you don't automatically disbelieve either of them. The smartest thing to do would be to make further enquiries. For example, you could get a search warrant and find out for yourself whether logs are kept.
Hey! Waddya know! That's what they did.
You post gossip to indymedia.And safely removed from such journalistic niceties as fact checking, proper sourcing... And this obsession with speed explains why Indymedia has the same relationship to news that McDonalds has to cuisine...No evidence except a confession. And besides, the original post encouraged other people to do the same. That's a crime in itself.Dropping concrete blocks on manned trains is violent crime. You're possibly too young to remember, but during the miners' strike, several strike breakers were killed by miners who dropped concrete blocks through their car windscreens from a motorway bridge.
Now, I supported the miners' strike, but that doesn't mean I'm not glad that those cold hearted murdering bastards were locked up.
Wouldn't "I have no idea how the universe started" be more honest than "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"?