However ratting your employer out to the BSA is a dickhead move.
I see you are from "don't snitch" school of thought. Well, that is a dumbass move. The company would gladly slit his throat and throw him to the BSA if they thought it would protect themselves, and you know it. He owes them nothing.
Personally, I hope you get to be on the receiving end of the negative side of "don't snitch".
advertising code that blocks page display until the ad loads.
Which is means that even though the desired page may have already been retrieved, the page content will not display until the ads have been downloaded. If the ad server is slow, then the page will load slow, even using SPDY.
While you might have a point with Firewire and ADB, those are two hardware innovations by Apple being compared to Microsoft, which has been primarily a software company and whose hardware side has used established hardware standards. Basically, you are having to reach into an area in which Microsoft does not compete in order to find examples which provides Apple an unfair advantage.
And, about ADB becoming USB:
USB was created by a core group of companies that consisted of Compaq, Digital, IBM, Intel, Northern Telecom, and Microsoft
While the use of ADB in Apple computers was superseded by USB, USB was not created from ADB. The USB 1.0 specification was first introduced in 1996, two years before ADB was removed from Apple devices. About the only thing the two specification have in common is the number of pins commonly used.
And, while I am thinking about it, can you imagine the outcry if Microsoft made computers and used proprietary hardware and connectors and stated that one could only run Microsoft software on Microsoft hardware? That is exactly what Apple does, yet many turn a blind on to it.
You are right, you are NOT a lawyer. First, I suggest you look up subpoena and warrant and learn the difference between the two. Second, the fact that a subpoena was issued means that a court considered this subpoena to be reasonable. Third, in regards to the aforementioned "department regulations" which reads:
Policy with regard to the issuance of subpoenas to members of the news media, subpoenas for telephone toll records of members of the news media, and the interrogation, indictment, or arrest of, members of the news media.
Now, lets look at what IndyMedia claims to be:
The Independent Media Center is a network of collectively run media outlets.
Indymedia is a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage. Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth.
IndyMedia is not actually a member of the news media. It is a news aggregation and distribution service set up and run by independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists. IndyMedia is, in effect, the same thing as Reuters or the AP.
Going back to my other post, if the law said that you can subpoena for my unicorns, would you look any less stupid if you went to court to demand my unicorns?
That is a red herring. Unicorns are mythical creatures and are not consisted to exist by any rational person. All the information in the subpoena exists and may have been gathered by Indymedia regardless of whether or not it was actually gathered. The subpoena asked for all information that might be available, not knowing exactly what information was available.
The gag order was not against a journalist. It was against a service provider. If IndyMeida is not a service provider, what exactly is it?
That line of argument is not pointless and if you had read the previous posts you would know that.
In other words, you are saying that one should blindly accept anonymous statements as long as you already believe or want to believe said statements. I am amazed at your critical thinking skills.
I noticed you didn't specify how it was unconstitutional.
I point you to F.R.Crim.P(6)(e)(6):
Records, orders, and subpoenas relating to grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury.
However, this is not an illegal abuse of power, or an illegal request, and it is definitely not a "crime against humanity". It is a request for information within bounds of laws and within the duties of his office. He is acting ethically in the discharge of his duties.
People are called to account for their actions in a public capacity when they violate the public trust, commit a crime, abuse their authority, etc. Not when they faithfully discharge their office within the bounds of law.
Not all court documents and evidence are public. Also, I believe that Grand Jury information is not public. And, the court can seal documents and evidence. And, I believe that this sort of information is sealed as a matter of course.
Once sealed by the court, a FOIA request will not net the data.
Tim Morrison is requesting the data in is role as a public official. How would it be fair for a public officials private information to be given to people whose private data has been requested by said official as a part of his official public office? The person is the agent of the public office. Should it not be the public office's data that would be provided? And, isn't that data already provided?
You seek to make this a personal act by Morrison when it is an act by a public official in his official capacity as a public servant.
OK, but none of that is considered protected journalistic information.
The identity of readers, editorial letter writers, and/or commenters is not protected by journalist shield laws nor is it protected from subpoena. The identity of the journalist may possibly be considered protected if the journalist is anonymous, but I highly doubt it.
The subpoena itself was issued under the authority of USC 18 2704 C paragraph 2. The information requested in the subpoena is the same data listed in the statute listed.
Please explain what part of the First Amendment is being violated.
Please explain how the gag order is unconstitutional, including the relevant sections of the Constitution and other law.
Please show where there is a right from "unreasonable release of stored information", especially in light of the above referenced law.
Remember, what is being searched is the records of the service. The subscriber, commenter, etc. has no standing under the Fourth Amendment because the property of the subscriber, commenter, etc. is not being searched.
Slashdot Mirror
As near as I can tell, your version of "greater good" is "whatever benefits or doesn't hurt me".
I wish ill upon you so that you will learn that "don't snitch" is a bad thing.
You believe in karma? That explains a lot, as it shows you are an idiot.
I see you are from "don't snitch" school of thought. Well, that is a dumbass move. The company would gladly slit his throat and throw him to the BSA if they thought it would protect themselves, and you know it. He owes them nothing.
Personally, I hope you get to be on the receiving end of the negative side of "don't snitch".
Did you even bother to read the GGP post that started this thread?
I am a decent hacker. But, a kludge is never good programming and hacking is rarely good programming and usually shitty design and implementation.
Being a hacker is one thing. Being a good programmer is another. That is the reason why software "engineering" isn't actually engineering.
No, the reason that HTTP/HTML has become so popular is that companies and developers are cheap, lazy, and stupid.
Oh, and nice anti-MS troll, however MS has nothing to do with it.
Not the World Wide Web.
Not Hypertext Transport Protocol.
Not Hypertext Markup Language.
You have a hammer (HTTP/HTML) so everything looks like a nail to you.
Again, that is hardware, not software. Back then MS wasn't into hardware at all, so again, it is an unfair comparison.
Actually, what he said was
Which is means that even though the desired page may have already been retrieved, the page content will not display until the ads have been downloaded. If the ad server is slow, then the page will load slow, even using SPDY.
How about we don't use HTTP/HTML for things they were not designed or ever intended to do? You know, that "right tool for the right job" thing.
While you might have a point with Firewire and ADB, those are two hardware innovations by Apple being compared to Microsoft, which has been primarily a software company and whose hardware side has used established hardware standards. Basically, you are having to reach into an area in which Microsoft does not compete in order to find examples which provides Apple an unfair advantage.
And, about ADB becoming USB:
While the use of ADB in Apple computers was superseded by USB, USB was not created from ADB. The USB 1.0 specification was first introduced in 1996, two years before ADB was removed from Apple devices. About the only thing the two specification have in common is the number of pins commonly used.
And, while I am thinking about it, can you imagine the outcry if Microsoft made computers and used proprietary hardware and connectors and stated that one could only run Microsoft software on Microsoft hardware? That is exactly what Apple does, yet many turn a blind on to it.
I mentioned this idea in a different post. I was thinking something semi-self-regulating, like the Bar is for lawyers.
Quick, name one technology Apple has invented.
Remember, the GUI, mouse, etc. were all invented at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center.
Perhaps you should read IndyMedia's own description of itself.
You are right, you are NOT a lawyer.
First, I suggest you look up subpoena and warrant and learn the difference between the two.
Second, the fact that a subpoena was issued means that a court considered this subpoena to be reasonable.
Third, in regards to the aforementioned "department regulations" which reads:
Now, lets look at what IndyMedia claims to be:
IndyMedia is not actually a member of the news media. It is a news aggregation and distribution service set up and run by independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists. IndyMedia is, in effect, the same thing as Reuters or the AP.
I did see the EFF's second letter. There is nothing in it that states the subpoena is unconstitutional. You concede defeat. Thanks for playing.
That is a red herring. Unicorns are mythical creatures and are not consisted to exist by any rational person. All the information in the subpoena exists and may have been gathered by Indymedia regardless of whether or not it was actually gathered. The subpoena asked for all information that might be available, not knowing exactly what information was available.
The gag order was not against a journalist. It was against a service provider. If IndyMeida is not a service provider, what exactly is it?
That line of argument is not pointless and if you had read the previous posts you would know that.
In other words, you are saying that one should blindly accept anonymous statements as long as you already believe or want to believe said statements. I am amazed at your critical thinking skills.
I noticed you didn't specify how it was unconstitutional.
I point you to F.R.Crim.P(6)(e)(6):
Emphasis added.
I have no reason to trust to anonymous sources, so why should I?
However, this is not an illegal abuse of power, or an illegal request, and it is definitely not a "crime against humanity". It is a request for information within bounds of laws and within the duties of his office. He is acting ethically in the discharge of his duties.
People are called to account for their actions in a public capacity when they violate the public trust, commit a crime, abuse their authority, etc. Not when they faithfully discharge their office within the bounds of law.
Not all court documents and evidence are public. Also, I believe that Grand Jury information is not public. And, the court can seal documents and evidence. And, I believe that this sort of information is sealed as a matter of course.
Once sealed by the court, a FOIA request will not net the data.
Please see my other comment in this thread concerning USC 18 2703.
Tim Morrison is requesting the data in is role as a public official. How would it be fair for a public officials private information to be given to people whose private data has been requested by said official as a part of his official public office? The person is the agent of the public office. Should it not be the public office's data that would be provided? And, isn't that data already provided?
You seek to make this a personal act by Morrison when it is an act by a public official in his official capacity as a public servant.
OK, but none of that is considered protected journalistic information.
The identity of readers, editorial letter writers, and/or commenters is not protected by journalist shield laws nor is it protected from subpoena. The identity of the journalist may possibly be considered protected if the journalist is anonymous, but I highly doubt it.
The subpoena itself was issued under the authority of USC 18 2704 C paragraph 2. The information requested in the subpoena is the same data listed in the statute listed.
Please explain what part of the First Amendment is being violated.
Please explain how the gag order is unconstitutional, including the relevant sections of the Constitution and other law.
Please show where there is a right from "unreasonable release of stored information", especially in light of the above referenced law.
Remember, what is being searched is the records of the service. The subscriber, commenter, etc. has no standing under the Fourth Amendment because the property of the subscriber, commenter, etc. is not being searched.
You mean besides the fact it is evidence in an investigation and that it is covered by privacy laws?
Why do you assume it? Why do you think the government would release such records when people just like yourself are much more likely to do so?