This isn't a question of a list, but of methods and goals.
There is a correct method for addressing any problem, which is "to question the actions and orders of those over them and escalate them up the chain if needed" as AC said above.
If his goal is to fix a problem, he needs to use the correct method.
Voice of experience -
If you work for an abusive boss, telling them about it doesn't do any good. Often, it just makes things worse.
If you work for an abusive boss within a corporation that protects its management staff at all costs, going up the chain of command will only result in making your own life miserable. In such cases, the only viable option you have is to circumvent the chain of command and report the abuses to an outside, third party for resolution.
Besides, as far as I'm aware, no one related to the case has made any comment regarding whether or not he actually did circumvent the chain of command at all. Considering that his superiors are the ones who thought it wise to give an E1 (that's the lowest Army rank, for the laymen) access to all those classified documents, I for one would definitely take any claims they make with a heapin' helpin' of NaCl.
Speaking of which... is Manning the only one on trial here? What about the officers who gave him access he shouldn't have had in the first place?
However, I think his decision to give it to Wikileaks rather than to take it to some element of the government who would play a watchdog role (e.g. a congressman opposed to the war) does cast doubt on the purity of his intentions -- or at least on his judgment.
Considering the federal government's recent track record, I would counter that trusting any Congressperson to come forward and make the info public would be the real folly of judgement.
Bah. Just find one who wants to commit political seppuku.
FTFY.
Aligning themselves with a person that the American public has been brainwashed into considering a traitor would not bode well for any elected official, and they know it.
If its the same as Windows7, you touch the icon and hold for a second until a symbol pops up.
That seems obtuse.
Considering that damn near everything is multi-touch now, wouldn't it be more intuitive to, say , tap your middle finger on the screen while your index finger is on the icon?
Sorry, his only options were "obey orders," or "leak millions of classified documents to Julian Assange"? That's a curiously short list of alternatives. How about... report it to the Inspector General (essentially, "internal affairs" for the military), or up his chain of command, and failing any action from any of them, end with:
How do you know he didn't take it up the chain of command? Because his superiors claim he didn't? As in, the same superiors who gave access to shit-tons of top secret documents to a private?
Doesn't sound like a trustworthy group if you ask me.
You think a letter like that would be completely ignored, especially if he "accidentally leaked" a copy of it to a couple major news outlets, even Wikileaks?
Wait... I thought you were trying to argue against his releasing the info to Wikileaks, and now you're supporting it?
If they have Dates & locations, how hard is it for a couple journalists to start digging and saying, "whoa whoa whoa, we have some strong evidence that a bunch of Army soldiers kicked in the door, raped all the women, and then executed all the people in this house."
Reuters did, and were told "the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".
Those 'Rules of Engagement' happened to be classified, and were changed several times before, during, and after the murder of the Reuters journalists.
Had the video of the execution never surfaced, you know damn well the entire incident would have been swept under the rug.
There are ways to whistleblow which would make it impossible for the government to ignore the issue, without actually copying the entire database of classified materials and releasing it unedited to Wikileaks.
Such as? Can you provide an example?
Any argument that there were only 2 options available to him is completely false,
Yet you seem unable to provide a third option...
and to suggest that he was right to disregard the numerous measured responses he could have pursued
Options which, again, you appear incapable of providing.
I agree with what you say except I envision the follow scenario:
Doctor: Ok Mrs 6Pack where did Joe store his medical records and what was the decryption key?
Mary 6Pack: Oh he gave those to his momma in city on other side of country and what is a decryption key?
Doctor: Well we can get a copy from the archive, but we really are going to need that password!
Yea, that could happen.
Of course, I can imagine a few nightmare scenarios for placing control in the hands of the for-profit healthcare industry. Patient: Yea, hi, I decided to get a second opinion from [competing medical facility], Please hand over a copy of my records Hospital Bureaucratic: Sorry, looks like you don't have the clearance to access that information... of course, we can adjust your clearance for a nominal fee...
Among others. I suppose the moral is, no system will ever be perfect.
It does suck that Windows now ships with crapware default, but at least they make it far, far easier to uninstall than the hardware vendors. Simply right click on any of the shipping apps and they can be uninstalled with one click.
Except that the total amount of proof of anything Manning has done at the moment, is ZERO.
You mean, except for the thing about him pleading guilty to charges? You know, described in that thing at the top of this page we call a summary?
You've never been charged with a crime by the government, have you?
Lemme drop a little free-range wisdom on ya: The justice system is fucked. Often times, accused people are given 2 choices by prosecutors: plead guilty and get a lesser sentence, or fight to prove your innocence (yes, that's right, it's no longer 'innocent until proven guilty') and risk having the book thrown at you. It doesn't matter whether you're actually guilty or not, it's all just a farce to keep the money flowing through.
Don't take my word for it, go steal a candy bar from Walmart* and enjoy the anal-raping courtesy of the US corporate court system.
This wasn't whistle blowing material. If say the US was using chemical weapons to devastate a town. Where the US is in violation of war crimes and showed a policy of knowing about and supporting such crimes, that is whistle blowing material. What he did was just stupid and deserves to be locked up for.
However, I think his decision to give it to Wikileaks rather than to take it to some element of the government who would play a watchdog role (e.g. a congressman opposed to the war) does cast doubt on the purity of his intentions -- or at least on his judgment.
Considering the federal government's recent track record, I would counter that trusting any Congressperson to come forward and make the info public would be the real folly of judgement.
I'm of the opinion that if you give anyone the power to declare information secret if will be abused to some degree X. What can be done to keep X as small as possible while still protecting real secrets?
I don't think there is a simple answer
Aw, sure there is! We hear it all the time from cops, when we refuse to let them search us without warrant:
"If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide."
If it works for us proles, it's gotta work for the Party members, right?
You also swear you will obey the "orders of the officers appointed over me."
Which comes after the oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution, and protect the nation from threats foreign and domestic. Contrary to popular belief, it is an ordered list.
By the oaths he swore, Manning did the right thing here.
First off, Obama did what he could with a Republican party that wanted nothing more than for him to lose his second term. Dont believe me? They even said this.
Secondly, the Republican party is full of nut jobs and puppets. The last few candidates that the Republicans presented were such big shills (including Bush), that you could clearly see the strings that were being pulled to make them talk
That's why they used fishing line when they built Obama.
FYI, I'm one of those people who voted for the O in 2008 but not this year, and my decision had fuck-all to do with what Republicans do or say.
I chose to vote against Obama because of NDAA, "Disposition Matrix's," Gitmo's continued existence, P.A.T.R.I.O.T II, CISPA (so much for that veto promise), expanded drone strikes, etc., etc., etc.
Put simply, I voted against Obama because the last thing I wanted was another 4 years of Bush.
re: determining factors were basics like age, sex, race, neighborhood and voting record.
Voting record? I thought we had secret ballots in this country and that no one is supposed to have access to individual voters' voting records? Do they mean simply registration records and if they voted in a particular election?
No, they meant your actual votes.
Ever notice, when you walk up to the poll worker, how they scan your ID, write a number next to your name in their little book, then write the same number on the top of your ballot?
Obonga is gonna bankrupt this nation and let the mud races defile white women as your slavery reparations payment, too. Now that he has now political accountability you will see his true colors shine through.
Well, if the alternative is having the nation led by the people a bigoted simpleton like yourself would vote for, I'd say we came out ahead.
DRM is a bad thing and should not be used with something as important as medical records.
Tech isn't good or evil, only how it's implemented is.
I recommend putting the management part of DRM in the hands of the patients, not the hospitals.
Encryption however should be used, it should be using open standards. An encrypted text file or similar is far more secure then a DRM encumbered file, how many DRM schemes are there that have been broken?
One could easily argue that encryption is a type of DRM, as it fits the definition.
It should also be easy to move from one encryption standard to the next by simply: decrypt file -> encrypt using new standard.
Sure, assuming the equipment used to encrypt/decrypt is the same, and you have access to the keys, and Jupiter is in alignment with Venus...
Not to say encryption would be a bad thing (it's not), but rather that my experience with American healthcare is that fucking up is pretty much industry standard. So long as it's the patient in charge of the encryption and not some overpaid hospital bureaucrat, there should be no issue.
That's what I was thinking. Around here, healthcare spends as much as possible to keep their "non-profit" status.
Not to mention the insane price gouging that is standard in American healthcare.
For those who don't know and are too lazy to RTFA, in American healthcare a hospital may charge uninsured patients upwards of 500x more than they would charge an insured patient for the exact same procedure.
Slashdot Mirror
The third option, you dimwit,
When a person starts resorting to ad hominem attacks and other childishness, they have forfeited the argument.
You can go fuck yourself, Chief.
This isn't a question of a list, but of methods and goals.
There is a correct method for addressing any problem, which is "to question the actions and orders of those over them and escalate them up the chain if needed" as AC said above.
If his goal is to fix a problem, he needs to use the correct method.
Voice of experience -
If you work for an abusive boss, telling them about it doesn't do any good. Often, it just makes things worse.
If you work for an abusive boss within a corporation that protects its management staff at all costs, going up the chain of command will only result in making your own life miserable. In such cases, the only viable option you have is to circumvent the chain of command and report the abuses to an outside, third party for resolution.
Besides, as far as I'm aware, no one related to the case has made any comment regarding whether or not he actually did circumvent the chain of command at all. Considering that his superiors are the ones who thought it wise to give an E1 (that's the lowest Army rank, for the laymen) access to all those classified documents, I for one would definitely take any claims they make with a heapin' helpin' of NaCl.
Speaking of which... is Manning the only one on trial here? What about the officers who gave him access he shouldn't have had in the first place?
You use a finger on your right hand, duh
What, so we have to stop fapping anytime we want a context menu?
That's a sure-fire way to alienate Microsoft's user base...
You've obviously never taken the oath or worn the uniform
Have you? If so, please feel free to enlighten me on how and why I'm in the wrong here.
If not, go piss up a rope.
However, I think his decision to give it to Wikileaks rather than to take it to some element of the government who would play a watchdog role (e.g. a congressman opposed to the war) does cast doubt on the purity of his intentions -- or at least on his judgment.
Considering the federal government's recent track record, I would counter that trusting any Congressperson to come forward and make the info public would be the real folly of judgement.
Bah. Just find one who wants to commit political seppuku.
FTFY.
Aligning themselves with a person that the American public has been brainwashed into considering a traitor would not bode well for any elected official, and they know it.
If its the same as Windows7, you touch the icon and hold for a second until a symbol pops up.
That seems obtuse.
Considering that damn near everything is multi-touch now, wouldn't it be more intuitive to, say , tap your middle finger on the screen while your index finger is on the icon?
Sorry, his only options were "obey orders," or "leak millions of classified documents to Julian Assange"? That's a curiously short list of alternatives. How about... report it to the Inspector General (essentially, "internal affairs" for the military), or up his chain of command, and failing any action from any of them, end with:
How do you know he didn't take it up the chain of command? Because his superiors claim he didn't? As in, the same superiors who gave access to shit-tons of top secret documents to a private?
Doesn't sound like a trustworthy group if you ask me.
You think a letter like that would be completely ignored, especially if he "accidentally leaked" a copy of it to a couple major news outlets, even Wikileaks?
Wait... I thought you were trying to argue against his releasing the info to Wikileaks, and now you're supporting it?
If they have Dates & locations, how hard is it for a couple journalists to start digging and saying, "whoa whoa whoa, we have some strong evidence that a bunch of Army soldiers kicked in the door, raped all the women, and then executed all the people in this house."
Reuters did, and were told "the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".
Those 'Rules of Engagement' happened to be classified, and were changed several times before, during, and after the murder of the Reuters journalists.
Had the video of the execution never surfaced, you know damn well the entire incident would have been swept under the rug.
There are ways to whistleblow which would make it impossible for the government to ignore the issue, without actually copying the entire database of classified materials and releasing it unedited to Wikileaks.
Such as? Can you provide an example?
Any argument that there were only 2 options available to him is completely false,
Yet you seem unable to provide a third option...
and to suggest that he was right to disregard the numerous measured responses he could have pursued
Options which, again, you appear incapable of providing.
Last I checked you can't actually cast a negative vote, so you have to either abstain or vote FOR something.
Yea, I disagree with that. Abstaining should count as a vote against all candidates.
A vote for Romney would hardly be a vote AGAINST Gitmo, etc.
Word.
Voted against that asshole, too.
I agree with what you say except I envision the follow scenario: Doctor: Ok Mrs 6Pack where did Joe store his medical records and what was the decryption key? Mary 6Pack: Oh he gave those to his momma in city on other side of country and what is a decryption key? Doctor: Well we can get a copy from the archive, but we really are going to need that password!
Yea, that could happen.
Of course, I can imagine a few nightmare scenarios for placing control in the hands of the for-profit healthcare industry.
Patient: Yea, hi, I decided to get a second opinion from [competing medical facility], Please hand over a copy of my records
Hospital Bureaucratic: Sorry, looks like you don't have the clearance to access that information... of course, we can adjust your clearance for a nominal fee...
Among others. I suppose the moral is, no system will ever be perfect.
http://www.zenmagnets.com/index.php?p=1_20_November_Update
Great, extremely informative link, thank you.
It does suck that Windows now ships with crapware default, but at least they make it far, far easier to uninstall than the hardware vendors. Simply right click on any of the shipping apps and they can be uninstalled with one click.
How do you right-click a touchscreen?
Perhaps we could execute you instead? It would be an improvement.
Well, I completely disagree with any state-sanctioned murder, but I would go so far as to recommend mandatory castration for people like AC here.
Too dumb to breed...
Because we'd do the same if an American citizen published a secret horde of Australian government or military papers.
This is how civilized nations interact, whether formally or informally.
nice non-answer there.
What are you, some kind of Congressperson or something?
Except that the total amount of proof of anything Manning has done at the moment, is ZERO.
You mean, except for the thing about him pleading guilty to charges? You know, described in that thing at the top of this page we call a summary?
You've never been charged with a crime by the government, have you?
Lemme drop a little free-range wisdom on ya: The justice system is fucked. Often times, accused people are given 2 choices by prosecutors: plead guilty and get a lesser sentence, or fight to prove your innocence (yes, that's right, it's no longer 'innocent until proven guilty') and risk having the book thrown at you. It doesn't matter whether you're actually guilty or not, it's all just a farce to keep the money flowing through.
Don't take my word for it, go steal a candy bar from Walmart* and enjoy the anal-raping courtesy of the US corporate court system.
* Wal-mart always prosecutes. Always.
This wasn't whistle blowing material. If say the US was using chemical weapons to devastate a town. Where the US is in violation of war crimes and showed a policy of knowing about and supporting such crimes, that is whistle blowing material. What he did was just stupid and deserves to be locked up for.
Murdering journalists and children isn't what you would consider a war crime???
What the hell is wrong with you?
However, I think his decision to give it to Wikileaks rather than to take it to some element of the government who would play a watchdog role (e.g. a congressman opposed to the war) does cast doubt on the purity of his intentions -- or at least on his judgment.
Considering the federal government's recent track record, I would counter that trusting any Congressperson to come forward and make the info public would be the real folly of judgement.
I'm of the opinion that if you give anyone the power to declare information secret if will be abused to some degree X. What can be done to keep X as small as possible while still protecting real secrets?
I don't think there is a simple answer
Aw, sure there is! We hear it all the time from cops, when we refuse to let them search us without warrant:
"If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide."
If it works for us proles, it's gotta work for the Party members, right?
You also swear you will obey the "orders of the officers appointed over me."
Which comes after the oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution, and protect the nation from threats foreign and domestic. Contrary to popular belief, it is an ordered list.
By the oaths he swore, Manning did the right thing here.
First off, Obama did what he could with a Republican party that wanted nothing more than for him to lose his second term. Dont believe me? They even said this. Secondly, the Republican party is full of nut jobs and puppets. The last few candidates that the Republicans presented were such big shills (including Bush), that you could clearly see the strings that were being pulled to make them talk
That's why they used fishing line when they built Obama.
FYI, I'm one of those people who voted for the O in 2008 but not this year, and my decision had fuck-all to do with what Republicans do or say.
I chose to vote against Obama because of NDAA, "Disposition Matrix's," Gitmo's continued existence, P.A.T.R.I.O.T II, CISPA (so much for that veto promise), expanded drone strikes, etc., etc., etc.
Put simply, I voted against Obama because the last thing I wanted was another 4 years of Bush.
Que sera, sera.
re: determining factors were basics like age, sex, race, neighborhood and voting record .
Voting record? I thought we had secret ballots in this country and that no one is supposed to have access to individual voters' voting records? Do they mean simply registration records and if they voted in a particular election?
No, they meant your actual votes.
Ever notice, when you walk up to the poll worker, how they scan your ID, write a number next to your name in their little book, then write the same number on the top of your ballot?
Yea, secret my ass.
Obonga is gonna bankrupt this nation and let the mud races defile white women as your slavery reparations payment, too. Now that he has now political accountability you will see his true colors shine through.
Well, if the alternative is having the nation led by the people a bigoted simpleton like yourself would vote for, I'd say we came out ahead.
DRM is a bad thing and should not be used with something as important as medical records.
Tech isn't good or evil, only how it's implemented is.
I recommend putting the management part of DRM in the hands of the patients, not the hospitals.
Encryption however should be used, it should be using open standards. An encrypted text file or similar is far more secure then a DRM encumbered file, how many DRM schemes are there that have been broken?
One could easily argue that encryption is a type of DRM, as it fits the definition.
It should also be easy to move from one encryption standard to the next by simply: decrypt file -> encrypt using new standard.
Sure, assuming the equipment used to encrypt/decrypt is the same, and you have access to the keys, and Jupiter is in alignment with Venus...
Not to say encryption would be a bad thing (it's not), but rather that my experience with American healthcare is that fucking up is pretty much industry standard. So long as it's the patient in charge of the encryption and not some overpaid hospital bureaucrat, there should be no issue.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/11/cowards-lose.html
To save everyone else the trouble of falling for this AC's link-bait, the site above is nothing but the butthurt ramblings of a xenophobic loser.
The irony of the URL is not lost on me.
Healthcare is always strapped for cash...
Huh, must be a British thing.
That's what I was thinking. Around here, healthcare spends as much as possible to keep their "non-profit" status.
Not to mention the insane price gouging that is standard in American healthcare.
For those who don't know and are too lazy to RTFA, in American healthcare a hospital may charge uninsured patients upwards of 500x more than they would charge an insured patient for the exact same procedure.
and DRM-free, too?"
Do you understand what "DRM" and "DRM-free" would equate to when it comes to your medical records?
No kidding - personally, I think medical records would be the one place you would want some pretty strong DRM...