What "civil liberties" are you worried about losing? I'm not aware of any that explicitly grant you the ability to phone-bomb some organization.
How about the liberty to build software? You must be pretty naive to not see the connection between threat and legislative response, between legislation and executive power, between power and government encroachment, and between encroachment and abuse*. Try reading a wide variety of news sources for 1 or 2 years and you'll wise up.
*Footnote: If you're one of those types that thinks government should have all the tools it wants to control individuals but none whatsoever to regulate to businesses, substitute "stifling bureaucracy" for "abuse"... the fruits of accumulated power are bad all around.
That's the way it should be, and that's definitely the way it is at my job....
If you are allowing common users to install their own software, you are doing it wrong.
Security groups tend to define "the way it should be" by whatever makes life most convenient for them. In their ideal environment, no software can run, no hardware can be introduced, no websites can be visited, and no emails can be received. Or at least, they'd like to get as close as possible to that environment as they can without management figuring out that they're responsible for organizational deadlock. Many of the promises of computing are lost to this mindset, and the bureaucratic "no" takes significant time, energy, and political influence to overturn or circumvent.
Ideally, however, "the way it should be" is defined by whatever makes the organization most capable for the least amount of risk. There's a balance to be struck, and we haven't figured out how to organize IT departments so that security policymakers have an intrinsic interest in finding that balance.
I find it very much unlikely that Zuckerberg would've somehow unlearned how to use apostrophes, capitalization and ellipsis correctly every time he contacted the other person, but again picked up on the correct grammar every time he was communicating with other people.
I see five possibilities:
The emails are fabricated and Ceglia's claims are false.
The emails are fabricated and Ceglia's claims are true in substance. (E.g., the emails were fabricated to bolster a weak but legitimate case.)
The emails are not fabricated and the expert (who was hired by the defense) is compromised.
The emails are not fabricated and Zuckerberg used a different linguistic style by accident. (E.g., personal style can shift depending on audience [do you cuss in front of your parents?] or technology [do you use shorthand when texting?].)
The emails are not fabricated and Zuckerberg used a different linguistic style on purpose. (E..g, to purposefully deny authorship later.)
Interesting facets about these conclusions:
Conclusion 3 seems unlikely because the linguistic arguments stand on their own... you and I can read them and make sense out of it without problem (unlike, say, a debate about climate change). If there's a hole in the argument (such as incorrect citing or an incomplete corpus), the plaintiff will be able to find and explain it to a jury easily.
It's hard to imagine a college student to have the foresight required by conclusion 5, but as linguistic analysis becomes more widely known and understood by the general public, so too will the number of folks who deliberately plan this obfuscation ahead of time.
(Opinion) To me, the affidavit seems to overwhelmingly favor conclusion 1. If the emails were fabricated, watch for the plaintiffs to try ignore or hand-wave the linguistic arguments aside.
That's quite dangerous world we live in, with all those "specially constructed JPEG images that can execute arbitrary code" and all.
Right now the only plausible thing in there is DoS - which would be fault of drivers, not inherent standard flaw.
Don't be so sure... it only took 14 days for the GDI+ JPEG exploit to go from being a "half-assed theoretic" threat to being an "actually attacking people's computers out there" threat. Security companies certainly try to scare up business--I won't disagree with you there--but theoretical threats are the larval form of actual threats.
I don't think you can just blame the driver manufactures either. The exploits that will be found are inevitable given the history and realities of graphic driver development, and that makes it tremendously cavalier of web browser venders to turn WebGL on by default.
However, thanks to the media slurping this up and using words like "run arbitrary code on the GPU", "render an entire machine unusable", etc., people who read these articles and know nothing about the subject (i.e. idiots) will start to ask browser vendors to turn those features off.
The other response said it better, but you must disable WebGL if you want a secure browsing experience. It's going to take ten years for the manufacturers to get this right: you will still be reading about consequential WebGL vulnerabilities in 2021. By then, you will also see that the practicality of WebGL exploits have expanded beyond the seemingly useless list we know of currently.
I'd love to be wrong and discover that it's safe to run WebGL on even the most suspect of websites, but we've seen this flick a hundred times...
People are going to freak out at cases where the driving AI is responsible for a fatal accident.
Bruce Sterling's novel Distraction has a scene where a guy sits in a chair consisting of several articulated rods that emerge, tentacle-like, from a control box as the user sits down. The rods move so as to support your weight as you shift around, etc., but the chair is a commercial failure because "people don't trust computation".
Course, from what I've seen of software, that's probably wise.:-)
The current broadcast model on smart meters combined with the potential to brute force the master key for broadcasting means someone with a bit of knowledge and desire could inject into the meshed network a flag to shut down broad swaths of power consumers.
A neat solution for this is to give all customers a meter that physically lacks the remote control capability. Then, if a customer is bad about paying their bill, you swap out their meter for one that IS remote-controllable while doing the disconnect. This approach (1) saves the power company money on the initial smart meter implementation [each meter is a little cheaper without the remote control capability, I would think], (2) prevents a wide-scale attack, (3) saves a whole bunch of truck miles, and (4) lets the frequent offender get their power back quicker after a disconnect.
I know of one large-scale smart meter implementation that is doing exactly this... I think they wait until the second or third disconnect too.
In the absence of real justice, vigilantism will inevitable fill the vacuum.
The SCOTUS should have considered that.
THIS
There's really no other purpose to a justice system except to prevent violence. Remove the avenue for legal remedy and you get gang wars, mafias, family feuds, etc.
There was no standards process. It will probably now be rushed as a standard.
Aren't most standards in our industry derived from some defacto implementation? Most of the history of web standardization is a story of playing catch-up with vendors. Indeed, the first HTML client was completed several years prior to the first HTML specification. For some reason, it's way faster to write some code and get developer buy-in then it is to draft a standard and get industry buy-in.
Not to pick on you in particular but I am sooooooo tired of hearing the claim that "choice is a good thing". It's not. In fact, a good way to frustrate people is to give them too many choices. Moreover, the wide choice of windows managers is an example of Linux market failure. People don't use computers to run various windows managers, they use computers to run applications that perform tasks. The fragmentation of low-level libraries for sound, graphics, UI, packaging, etc., means that developers don't have a clear target for Linux apps. For open source efforts, this means wasted efforts on ports, plugins, and duplicate projects. For commercial ventures, it means that additional money must be invested to reach a more restricted market segment.
I'm a Firefox dev. I'd like to point out that we are not resting on anything.
For what it's worth, I just want to say "thanks" to you and the rest of the Firefox team for building the browser that provides my primary interface to the internet all day long. Glad to hear about the split-process model... can't wait to try it out!:-)
it's my belief that social networks will rise and fall, endlessly in succession
I see this idea on slashdot often. I want it to be true, and in some sort of ultimate all-companies-eventually-fail sense, it probably is true. But don't be so sure that Facebook can't achieve some sort of long term hegemony... it may very well still be king 5, 10, or 20 years down the road.
ubiquity eventually becomes a liability amongst a crowd who views exclusion and superiority to be more important
You are proposing that there exists a fundamental instability in the membership dynamics of social networks. That's a good way to prove your point, but I'm doubtful that exclusivity itself will be a large driver of membership migrations: whenever people talk about Facebook they emphasize that it allows them to keep touch with a large number of people (Kelly's more give more principal). As long as they don't abuse their base too much or muck up the user experience (like myspace), their adoption rate will exceed their defection rate for the foreseeable future (as more and more of humanity gets online).
facebook will not become ubiquitous plumbing. because they need to make money to survive. to make that money, they need to sell the personal details of their members. which is a force that will drive people from facebook as they wise up to how creepy that really is
Except that so far, they haven't. (Heck, if humanity were more like you and me, marketing data would be illegal and nobody would pay for cable TV that's one-third advertisements.) I think you'd have to see this spectacularly mismanaged before it made a dent. Facebook is not (to use your example) a night club: it's a communications venue and it could very much become like mail, email, telephone, etc... that is, obsolete but still necessary.
Java is a cleaner language than C# which suffers from infections from VB
Java was clean to a fault though... it so steadfastly refused basic language innovations that the ecosystem moved to this weird hybrid world where every framework has stuff you've got to do from both the XML side and the Java side. Now C# has passed it by and Java's playing a very sloppy game of catch-up. It may yet come out on top because it won a huge installed based at a critical moment in internet history (and C# is starting to sniff to much XML too), but I can't say it's a joy to program in yet...
But an IP address (at any specific given time) does have a direct correspondence to a customer of the ISP, a specific person who has agreed to (often in writing) the ISP's terms of service, and would have already had to be prepared to assume accountability for how their connection to their ISP was utilized, even if it wasn't by them personally.
That's okay for billing purposes, but I hope you're not suggesting that we as a society should prosecute people for someone else's criminal actions. If person A is using person B's wifi to send bomb threats or conduct wire fraud, I sure hope our justice system is focused on finding person A. (Of course, this is ignoring your premise that a civil contract can be used to shift criminal liability...)
Are [breeder reactors] actually illegal, or is that just the way a certain non-nuclear proliferation treaty has been interpreted to date in order to protect the high price of nuclear fuel?
Executive order. Jimmy Carter banned reprocessing, presumably to encourage other nations to follow suit and reduce proliferation risk. He's always been criticized for that move but who knows... maybe it spared New York or London or Moscow from being hit with a dirty bomb.
Side note: the only power source capable of generating 1.21 gigawatts of electricity is a bolt of lightning.
Japan has two ABWR's at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa that output 1.3 GW's each.
Of course, it's not individual power sources that matter but the fleet as a whole, and, if I interpret DOE 2009 figures correctly, Japan's fleet has a generation capacity of 280 GW and an average load of 112 GW. I have no idea what peak capacity is this time of year or how load/generation are distributed geographically, but it's easy to see how the 1.21 GW conversion capability is a mere straw through which to sip power (~equivalent to 1 large reactor).
We find solid artifacts of ancient civilizations' advanced technology all the time (pyramids, extremely complex mechanical clocks, etc), not to mention legends of places like Atlantis with flying machines and solar resonant crystals supplying tons of power.
Been watching a lot of StarGate rerun marathons, have we? I hate to bust your bubble, but our ancient predecessors give no cause for dropping one's jaw in gaping wonder until we unearth the massive tangles of steel and concrete that our own cities will undoubtedly leave behind some day (either that or we find on the ocean floor the still-smoldering ruins of the resonant crystal powerplant whose mismanagement doomed civilization for 10,000 years).
Cute story about the rib/XY chromosome, but also very superficial and indicative of the parlor tricks creationist lecturers like to do. Medically the anecdote makes no sense (did Adam start out with XX and have breasts?) and semantically the text ([God] took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. --NIV) doesn't mesh at all when you start thinking about the connotations of terms like ribs and flesh that are appropriate for metaphorical usage.
If you're in danger of dozing off, you shouldn't be driving.
This. Two of my high school classmates died in separate incidents while driving home from college; we buried them on the same day in near back-to-back funerals. Driver fatigue was the suspected primary cause in both cases. Shortly after that, a third classmate had a really close call after falling asleep and swerving across all oncoming lanes on the interstate.
If you get sleepy, don't chance it: blast the cold A/C, pull off at the next exit, caffeinate if possible, and find a spot to take a 30-60 minute nap. Big empty church/warehouse/mall parking lots work well. I did it a few times in college and once or twice since then (even when it pissed off my boss once), and it has always made the drive thereafter easier and more pleasant...
How can you tell when you're too fatigued to drive safely?
One big red alert is the situation where you start trying to rest one eye while keeping the other eye open... when you starting doing that, it's only a matter time before you close both eyes. More generally speaking, one goal every driver should have is to self-monitor: detect when you aren't processing the road very well (due to fatigue, emotions, or other distractions) and take decisive corrective actions.
I think it's good that HIPAA is being enforced. If you med types want to arrogantly view yourselves as gods or even scientists because you know a little biology, you could at least use a bit of ethics in your daily lives. Dicking around with confidential information and using it for your own amusement/revenge is not ethical.
Parent said that he observed doctors dodge HIPAA when the bureaucracy of doing it interfered with patient care and other time demands. That's not the same as the amusement/revenge scenario you recounted.
Rules can create stability, improve efficiencies, and establish clear accountability. They can also bog things down in bureaucratic nightmares that completely strip out common sense. Guess which camp these top-heavy approaches (HIPAA, SOX, etc.) tend to fall in...
It is not enough to have good intentions: a wise rule-maker must have domain expertise and a thorough appreciation of human nature and the special circumstances the world continually thrust upon folks.
Re:Another great Python 3.x series release
on
Python 3.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
and we should have gotten rid of this one-class-def-per-class-file non-sense.
Why? Doing this is almost always a sign of poor design
You may fear that this leads novice developers to a god-class scenario, but my experience was just the opposite: when I moved from Java (which features the one-class-per-file-restriction) to C# (which doesn't), I ended up being more aggressive in describing real world concepts via classes instead of trying to cram little pieces of data or functionality into look-aside collections and flow logic. The overhead of file management, while small, adds a touch of bureaucracy to creating a class. In turn, this make classes seem big and ponderous whereas the real world wants them to be small and lightweight... the mental resistance to creating a new class should not be that much greater than the mental resistance to creating a new method.
Less subjectively, I'd say that there are several places where the one-(public)-class-per-file restriction becomes rather onerous. Example and test code, for instance, benefits from being able to define multiple small classes in the same file without the overhead of file management. Similarly, auto-generated code is best delivered in a single physical unit that is easily segregated and managed separately from one's real code. I think it also makes sense for a group of small, related classes, such as hierarchy of exceptions or token classes in a compiler. Finally, (for the subjective reasons mentioned previously), I think it benefits the scenario where you have to design one large class with a small number of support classes, although it may be a good idea to split these classes across files once their design is stable.
"The right of the people to receive and provide information services without tracking, interception, or interruption thereof shall not be violated by the Government or agent thereof except by judicial warrant naming persons, data, and services to affected."
Amendment XXVIII of the U.S. Constitution, as I think it should be. We need to go on the offensive instead of watching Washington wonks progressively wank away our rights year after year... who wants to spearhead a campaign?
It's understandable Microsoft doesn't want to be specific on how they know he cheated, since other cheaters may be able to figure out how to remain undetected from such information.
You don't have to be specific to be more convincing. Instead of saying "yes he cheated", say "He was penalized not on the basis of his scores but on the basis of technical details that indicate a know cheat tool was in use. Extremely good scores are never considered proof of cheating at XBox Live.".
I have not RTFA, so maybe they said something like that already. I don't know. (Or maybe they do consider a score alone as "proof", as alleged.)
Slashdot Mirror
How about the liberty to build software? You must be pretty naive to not see the connection between threat and legislative response, between legislation and executive power, between power and government encroachment, and between encroachment and abuse*. Try reading a wide variety of news sources for 1 or 2 years and you'll wise up.
*Footnote: If you're one of those types that thinks government should have all the tools it wants to control individuals but none whatsoever to regulate to businesses, substitute "stifling bureaucracy" for "abuse"... the fruits of accumulated power are bad all around.
Security groups tend to define "the way it should be" by whatever makes life most convenient for them. In their ideal environment, no software can run, no hardware can be introduced, no websites can be visited, and no emails can be received. Or at least, they'd like to get as close as possible to that environment as they can without management figuring out that they're responsible for organizational deadlock. Many of the promises of computing are lost to this mindset, and the bureaucratic "no" takes significant time, energy, and political influence to overturn or circumvent.
Ideally, however, "the way it should be" is defined by whatever makes the organization most capable for the least amount of risk. There's a balance to be struck, and we haven't figured out how to organize IT departments so that security policymakers have an intrinsic interest in finding that balance.
I see five possibilities:
Interesting facets about these conclusions:
That's quite dangerous world we live in, with all those "specially constructed JPEG images that can execute arbitrary code" and all.
Right now the only plausible thing in there is DoS - which would be fault of drivers, not inherent standard flaw.
Don't be so sure... it only took 14 days for the GDI+ JPEG exploit to go from being a "half-assed theoretic" threat to being an "actually attacking people's computers out there" threat. Security companies certainly try to scare up business--I won't disagree with you there--but theoretical threats are the larval form of actual threats.
I don't think you can just blame the driver manufactures either. The exploits that will be found are inevitable given the history and realities of graphic driver development, and that makes it tremendously cavalier of web browser venders to turn WebGL on by default.
The other response said it better, but you must disable WebGL if you want a secure browsing experience. It's going to take ten years for the manufacturers to get this right: you will still be reading about consequential WebGL vulnerabilities in 2021. By then, you will also see that the practicality of WebGL exploits have expanded beyond the seemingly useless list we know of currently.
I'd love to be wrong and discover that it's safe to run WebGL on even the most suspect of websites, but we've seen this flick a hundred times...
Bruce Sterling's novel Distraction has a scene where a guy sits in a chair consisting of several articulated rods that emerge, tentacle-like, from a control box as the user sits down. The rods move so as to support your weight as you shift around, etc., but the chair is a commercial failure because "people don't trust computation".
Course, from what I've seen of software, that's probably wise. :-)
A neat solution for this is to give all customers a meter that physically lacks the remote control capability. Then, if a customer is bad about paying their bill, you swap out their meter for one that IS remote-controllable while doing the disconnect. This approach (1) saves the power company money on the initial smart meter implementation [each meter is a little cheaper without the remote control capability, I would think], (2) prevents a wide-scale attack, (3) saves a whole bunch of truck miles, and (4) lets the frequent offender get their power back quicker after a disconnect.
I know of one large-scale smart meter implementation that is doing exactly this... I think they wait until the second or third disconnect too.
THIS
There's really no other purpose to a justice system except to prevent violence. Remove the avenue for legal remedy and you get gang wars, mafias, family feuds, etc.
Aren't most standards in our industry derived from some defacto implementation? Most of the history of web standardization is a story of playing catch-up with vendors. Indeed, the first HTML client was completed several years prior to the first HTML specification. For some reason, it's way faster to write some code and get developer buy-in then it is to draft a standard and get industry buy-in.
Do you have something to replace it with? You can't end the CA fantasy just on rhetoric alone.
Oops... here's a non-paywall'ed article about the tyranny of choice.
Not to pick on you in particular but I am sooooooo tired of hearing the claim that "choice is a good thing". It's not. In fact, a good way to frustrate people is to give them too many choices. Moreover, the wide choice of windows managers is an example of Linux market failure. People don't use computers to run various windows managers, they use computers to run applications that perform tasks. The fragmentation of low-level libraries for sound, graphics, UI, packaging, etc., means that developers don't have a clear target for Linux apps. For open source efforts, this means wasted efforts on ports, plugins, and duplicate projects. For commercial ventures, it means that additional money must be invested to reach a more restricted market segment.
For what it's worth, I just want to say "thanks" to you and the rest of the Firefox team for building the browser that provides my primary interface to the internet all day long. Glad to hear about the split-process model... can't wait to try it out! :-)
I see this idea on slashdot often. I want it to be true, and in some sort of ultimate all-companies-eventually-fail sense, it probably is true. But don't be so sure that Facebook can't achieve some sort of long term hegemony... it may very well still be king 5, 10, or 20 years down the road.
You are proposing that there exists a fundamental instability in the membership dynamics of social networks. That's a good way to prove your point, but I'm doubtful that exclusivity itself will be a large driver of membership migrations: whenever people talk about Facebook they emphasize that it allows them to keep touch with a large number of people (Kelly's more give more principal). As long as they don't abuse their base too much or muck up the user experience (like myspace), their adoption rate will exceed their defection rate for the foreseeable future (as more and more of humanity gets online).
Except that so far, they haven't. (Heck, if humanity were more like you and me, marketing data would be illegal and nobody would pay for cable TV that's one-third advertisements.) I think you'd have to see this spectacularly mismanaged before it made a dent. Facebook is not (to use your example) a night club: it's a communications venue and it could very much become like mail, email, telephone, etc... that is, obsolete but still necessary.
Thank goodness he bet on the wrong social network. If you think Facebook is evil now, imagine that tyrant at the wheel...
Java was clean to a fault though... it so steadfastly refused basic language innovations that the ecosystem moved to this weird hybrid world where every framework has stuff you've got to do from both the XML side and the Java side. Now C# has passed it by and Java's playing a very sloppy game of catch-up. It may yet come out on top because it won a huge installed based at a critical moment in internet history (and C# is starting to sniff to much XML too), but I can't say it's a joy to program in yet...
That's okay for billing purposes, but I hope you're not suggesting that we as a society should prosecute people for someone else's criminal actions. If person A is using person B's wifi to send bomb threats or conduct wire fraud, I sure hope our justice system is focused on finding person A. (Of course, this is ignoring your premise that a civil contract can be used to shift criminal liability...)
Executive order. Jimmy Carter banned reprocessing, presumably to encourage other nations to follow suit and reduce proliferation risk. He's always been criticized for that move but who knows... maybe it spared New York or London or Moscow from being hit with a dirty bomb.
Japan has two ABWR's at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa that output 1.3 GW's each. Of course, it's not individual power sources that matter but the fleet as a whole, and, if I interpret DOE 2009 figures correctly, Japan's fleet has a generation capacity of 280 GW and an average load of 112 GW. I have no idea what peak capacity is this time of year or how load/generation are distributed geographically, but it's easy to see how the 1.21 GW conversion capability is a mere straw through which to sip power (~equivalent to 1 large reactor).
Been watching a lot of StarGate rerun marathons, have we? I hate to bust your bubble, but our ancient predecessors give no cause for dropping one's jaw in gaping wonder until we unearth the massive tangles of steel and concrete that our own cities will undoubtedly leave behind some day (either that or we find on the ocean floor the still-smoldering ruins of the resonant crystal powerplant whose mismanagement doomed civilization for 10,000 years).
Cute story about the rib/XY chromosome, but also very superficial and indicative of the parlor tricks creationist lecturers like to do. Medically the anecdote makes no sense (did Adam start out with XX and have breasts?) and semantically the text ([God] took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. --NIV) doesn't mesh at all when you start thinking about the connotations of terms like ribs and flesh that are appropriate for metaphorical usage.
This. Two of my high school classmates died in separate incidents while driving home from college; we buried them on the same day in near back-to-back funerals. Driver fatigue was the suspected primary cause in both cases. Shortly after that, a third classmate had a really close call after falling asleep and swerving across all oncoming lanes on the interstate.
If you get sleepy, don't chance it: blast the cold A/C, pull off at the next exit, caffeinate if possible, and find a spot to take a 30-60 minute nap. Big empty church/warehouse/mall parking lots work well. I did it a few times in college and once or twice since then (even when it pissed off my boss once), and it has always made the drive thereafter easier and more pleasant...
One big red alert is the situation where you start trying to rest one eye while keeping the other eye open... when you starting doing that, it's only a matter time before you close both eyes. More generally speaking, one goal every driver should have is to self-monitor: detect when you aren't processing the road very well (due to fatigue, emotions, or other distractions) and take decisive corrective actions.
Parent said that he observed doctors dodge HIPAA when the bureaucracy of doing it interfered with patient care and other time demands. That's not the same as the amusement/revenge scenario you recounted.
Rules can create stability, improve efficiencies, and establish clear accountability. They can also bog things down in bureaucratic nightmares that completely strip out common sense. Guess which camp these top-heavy approaches (HIPAA, SOX, etc.) tend to fall in...
It is not enough to have good intentions: a wise rule-maker must have domain expertise and a thorough appreciation of human nature and the special circumstances the world continually thrust upon folks.
You may fear that this leads novice developers to a god-class scenario, but my experience was just the opposite: when I moved from Java (which features the one-class-per-file-restriction) to C# (which doesn't), I ended up being more aggressive in describing real world concepts via classes instead of trying to cram little pieces of data or functionality into look-aside collections and flow logic. The overhead of file management, while small, adds a touch of bureaucracy to creating a class. In turn, this make classes seem big and ponderous whereas the real world wants them to be small and lightweight... the mental resistance to creating a new class should not be that much greater than the mental resistance to creating a new method.
Less subjectively, I'd say that there are several places where the one-(public)-class-per-file restriction becomes rather onerous. Example and test code, for instance, benefits from being able to define multiple small classes in the same file without the overhead of file management. Similarly, auto-generated code is best delivered in a single physical unit that is easily segregated and managed separately from one's real code. I think it also makes sense for a group of small, related classes, such as hierarchy of exceptions or token classes in a compiler. Finally, (for the subjective reasons mentioned previously), I think it benefits the scenario where you have to design one large class with a small number of support classes, although it may be a good idea to split these classes across files once their design is stable.
"The right of the people to receive and provide information services without tracking, interception, or interruption thereof shall not be violated by the Government or agent thereof except by judicial warrant naming persons, data, and services to affected."
Amendment XXVIII of the U.S. Constitution, as I think it should be. We need to go on the offensive instead of watching Washington wonks progressively wank away our rights year after year... who wants to spearhead a campaign?
You don't have to be specific to be more convincing. Instead of saying "yes he cheated", say "He was penalized not on the basis of his scores but on the basis of technical details that indicate a know cheat tool was in use. Extremely good scores are never considered proof of cheating at XBox Live.".
I have not RTFA, so maybe they said something like that already. I don't know. (Or maybe they do consider a score alone as "proof", as alleged.)