Telling what damage had been done would have provided a lot of context to the leaked materials, and make the leak even more harmful. The government's best move when classified material is leaked is to provide as little information about it as possible.
Specifying what the damage was could cause further damage. When classified information is leaked, the government has a legitimate interest in not providing further context, so they're not going to identify what they kinda wish hadn't leaked and what they really wish hadn't leaked.
I see no clear and definite violation of the Fourth here. The NSA did things I consider violations, but that's my view of it, and it's possible to argue otherwise.
What's a search? In some cases, the NSA stored information without anyone looking at it, and accessed it only with a warrant. I'm not happy about that, but I can't unequivocally call it a search. You may consider it a search, but I can make an argument that it isn't.
How about metadata? The government is not allowed to open my letters and read them without a warrant, but they are allowed to note what's on the outside of the envelope.
One really big problem is Big Data. Before this century, the government typically had to expend significant resources to keep any sort of surveillance going, and that was an inherent limitation on the government's power. Nowadays, a police car can drive down the street, automatically note license plates, and keep complete files as to which license plates were where when. This allows the government to be much more intrusive without changing the law, and that was completely unforeseen by the Founding Fathers.
The impression I get is that the NSA is normally careful not to do anything that is clearly and definitely illegal, and will push right up to that line.
:
Are you sure Powell never had any classified information on his email? I'd think he'd have done a better job of keeping it off than Clinton did, but if he used his email to communicate with diplomats from other countries there was likely secret information on it from time to time. At least some diplomatic communications are classified automatically, and so any Secretary of State using email not secured for classified information (like Clinton and Powell) would be likely to have Secret and Top Secret information on the wrong systems.
I never did get a good feel for what classified information was on Clinton's server, but there are ways for it to be there without intent on her part. They could have been sent to her, or they could have been "born classified" on her server.
There is no precedent for felony prosecution for anyone who did what she did. That, as a matter of practice, seems reserved for those who deliberately put classified information where it shouldn't be. The worst I've seen for someone who was negligent was a misdemeanor charge that was dropped. I'm not going to opine on the law here, but if she were criminally prosecuted it would have been special treatment.
The hunt for Osama wound up seriously hurting efforts to eliminate polio, because nobody in that part of the world counts on doctors and nurses to not be working for the CIA.
I take it as a sign that the parent-child relationship is probably completely broken, and in that case a lawsuit is just another issue among many. She's also likely to not care about communicating with her parents.
The Nuremberg trials, and others, established that "just following orders" is not justification for following illegal orders. It is a justification for following stupid orders. If a company commander orders his men to shoot prisoners, that's illegal and everyone who follows that order is legally responsible. If he orders his men into a stupid frontal attack, they're supposed to obey, and the commander has the responsibility.
It isn't ideological. It's observation that claims on one side usually turn out to be unfounded. While some of the attacks on Clinton are reasonable, most involve lies or misinterpretations or wild speculation. (FWIW, there's lots of unfounded attacks on Trump, as snopes.com makes perfectly clear. The fact that I respond to one and not the other is partly ideological; the fact that I generally discount attacks on either isn't.)
Attacks on global warming, in my experience, include false generalizations, unsupported statements, nitpicking, and libel, along with a distinct shortage of relevant facts and sound reasoning. Defenses of the currently popular EM drive include ignorance of physics and a faith in dubious experimental results with no theory behind them. I'm not going to absolutely say that it isn't a reactionless drive, only that some people are going to have to amass some extremely strong evidence before I take that possibility seriously.
I don't see what the point is. As I said, style and ease of use are partly subjective, and it doesn't take much of an imagination to think some might prefer certain Android phones. The number who prefer iPhones is much larger than the number of computer geeks.
Quite possibly, but I'm sure other bad things would have happened. Using hindsight, siding with rebels was probably a bad idea, but Iraq was already thoroughly destabilized and things were going to get messy and unpleasant no matter what. (Not that living in a country ruled by Assad or Hussein is necessarily pleasant.)
Another question is what part of this was apparent when the decision was made, and the answer is certainly not all of it. I doubt anyone really expected ISIS. There's a lot of decisions that are bad in retrospect, but it's a lot harder to understand that they may have been correct given available information. Human nature is to make stories. If you give people a situation with a result, they'll selectively look at the clues in the situation and construct reasons why the result was predictable. Studies have included giving people the same written situation and different results, and people tend to think that their given result was predictable.
I do perform useful work, but it usually doesn't involve sweating.
However, "sweat" is more of a literary way of saying effort (which I do put in), and most employers don't want to pay for effort. They want to pay for results. If Joe 85-IQ can't do anything cheaper and/or better than a machine can, then his sweat is economically irrelevant. Either he gets a reasonable amount of money for being a human being, or he turns to crime or rioting or voting for populist demagogues or something. There are still jobs for people like Joe, but we may well not have enough, and I really don't think we'll have enough in ten or twenty years. The choice would be providing useless makework, not forcing Joe to work, or shooting Joe.
Approximately nobody pays for sweat. I'm earning very good money in my office chair. I do all my sweating in my off-hours. People pay for useful goods and services.
We're not really talking post-scarcity here, but rather a situation where you can have a decent living without working. There's always going to be limits on most resources. (There have been pre-scarcity economies, where people just didn't care about stuff, but that seems to go away for most people in advanced economies.) Many people will want more money, and will be willing to work for it. I don't anticipate there to be a lack of workers for jobs that are reasonably well-paid for what they entail, and with a basic income we could ditch minimum-wage rules. There will be a shortage of people for crappy low-wage jobs.
So, I'd expect prostitutes in such a world to be pickier about clientele and charge more, probably much more, given that there would be many fewer women working in the field and presumably as much demand.
Bad driving is typically not criminal, although some bad driving is illegal. There's a difference.. Whatever faults a self-driving car has, they're not likely to be against the law. Some of the things that lead to bad driving (like alcohol) are.
Reporters are very heavily Democrats and left-wing. People who own media outlets are very heavily right-wing Republicans. The media is biased both directions in different ways.
There were war crimes, specifically at Abu Ghraib. There were doubtless numerous others, since that's how war works. There were prisoners that were illegally tortured by the CIA. I don't know if Bush was guilty in those. I rather doubt it, and even if he were it would almost certainly be impossible to prove.
I believe the war to have been illegal and in defiance of treaty obligations, but I'm not real sure about that. I think there's enough evidence to justify an investigation, but I'm not an international lawyer and could easily be wrong. Bush would have been guilty of that, if so.
Congress, IIRC, authorized the use of force against Iraq rather than mandated it, because that's how such acts go. Authorizing an action is not the same as performing it. Bush is responsible for the invasion actually happening.
Slashdot Mirror
Telling what damage had been done would have provided a lot of context to the leaked materials, and make the leak even more harmful. The government's best move when classified material is leaked is to provide as little information about it as possible.
Specifying what the damage was could cause further damage. When classified information is leaked, the government has a legitimate interest in not providing further context, so they're not going to identify what they kinda wish hadn't leaked and what they really wish hadn't leaked.
Snowden's actions are much more like Manning's than Assange's.
I see no clear and definite violation of the Fourth here. The NSA did things I consider violations, but that's my view of it, and it's possible to argue otherwise.
What's a search? In some cases, the NSA stored information without anyone looking at it, and accessed it only with a warrant. I'm not happy about that, but I can't unequivocally call it a search. You may consider it a search, but I can make an argument that it isn't.
How about metadata? The government is not allowed to open my letters and read them without a warrant, but they are allowed to note what's on the outside of the envelope.
One really big problem is Big Data. Before this century, the government typically had to expend significant resources to keep any sort of surveillance going, and that was an inherent limitation on the government's power. Nowadays, a police car can drive down the street, automatically note license plates, and keep complete files as to which license plates were where when. This allows the government to be much more intrusive without changing the law, and that was completely unforeseen by the Founding Fathers.
The impression I get is that the NSA is normally careful not to do anything that is clearly and definitely illegal, and will push right up to that line.
: Are you sure Powell never had any classified information on his email? I'd think he'd have done a better job of keeping it off than Clinton did, but if he used his email to communicate with diplomats from other countries there was likely secret information on it from time to time. At least some diplomatic communications are classified automatically, and so any Secretary of State using email not secured for classified information (like Clinton and Powell) would be likely to have Secret and Top Secret information on the wrong systems.
I never did get a good feel for what classified information was on Clinton's server, but there are ways for it to be there without intent on her part. They could have been sent to her, or they could have been "born classified" on her server.
There is no precedent for felony prosecution for anyone who did what she did. That, as a matter of practice, seems reserved for those who deliberately put classified information where it shouldn't be. The worst I've seen for someone who was negligent was a misdemeanor charge that was dropped. I'm not going to opine on the law here, but if she were criminally prosecuted it would have been special treatment.
The hunt for Osama wound up seriously hurting efforts to eliminate polio, because nobody in that part of the world counts on doctors and nurses to not be working for the CIA.
FWIW, 78 is unhealthy if the humidity is high enough. I have trouble functioning at a dew point of 70 or higher.
You're not answering the question. You're walking it back one step. Why is one a crime and the other not?
I take it as a sign that the parent-child relationship is probably completely broken, and in that case a lawsuit is just another issue among many. She's also likely to not care about communicating with her parents.
I doubt she's suing to get money. I'd suspect she is after a court order to take the pictures down.
F-word, that's stupid.
I have hearing aids, so earbuds are completely useless to me.
The Nuremberg trials, and others, established that "just following orders" is not justification for following illegal orders. It is a justification for following stupid orders. If a company commander orders his men to shoot prisoners, that's illegal and everyone who follows that order is legally responsible. If he orders his men into a stupid frontal attack, they're supposed to obey, and the commander has the responsibility.
It isn't ideological. It's observation that claims on one side usually turn out to be unfounded. While some of the attacks on Clinton are reasonable, most involve lies or misinterpretations or wild speculation. (FWIW, there's lots of unfounded attacks on Trump, as snopes.com makes perfectly clear. The fact that I respond to one and not the other is partly ideological; the fact that I generally discount attacks on either isn't.)
Attacks on global warming, in my experience, include false generalizations, unsupported statements, nitpicking, and libel, along with a distinct shortage of relevant facts and sound reasoning. Defenses of the currently popular EM drive include ignorance of physics and a faith in dubious experimental results with no theory behind them. I'm not going to absolutely say that it isn't a reactionless drive, only that some people are going to have to amass some extremely strong evidence before I take that possibility seriously.
I don't see what the point is. As I said, style and ease of use are partly subjective, and it doesn't take much of an imagination to think some might prefer certain Android phones. The number who prefer iPhones is much larger than the number of computer geeks.
There's a very large difference between thinking an invasion might be necessary (or even thinking it would probably be necessary) and launching one.
Quite possibly, but I'm sure other bad things would have happened. Using hindsight, siding with rebels was probably a bad idea, but Iraq was already thoroughly destabilized and things were going to get messy and unpleasant no matter what. (Not that living in a country ruled by Assad or Hussein is necessarily pleasant.)
Another question is what part of this was apparent when the decision was made, and the answer is certainly not all of it. I doubt anyone really expected ISIS. There's a lot of decisions that are bad in retrospect, but it's a lot harder to understand that they may have been correct given available information. Human nature is to make stories. If you give people a situation with a result, they'll selectively look at the clues in the situation and construct reasons why the result was predictable. Studies have included giving people the same written situation and different results, and people tend to think that their given result was predictable.
I do perform useful work, but it usually doesn't involve sweating.
However, "sweat" is more of a literary way of saying effort (which I do put in), and most employers don't want to pay for effort. They want to pay for results. If Joe 85-IQ can't do anything cheaper and/or better than a machine can, then his sweat is economically irrelevant. Either he gets a reasonable amount of money for being a human being, or he turns to crime or rioting or voting for populist demagogues or something. There are still jobs for people like Joe, but we may well not have enough, and I really don't think we'll have enough in ten or twenty years. The choice would be providing useless makework, not forcing Joe to work, or shooting Joe.
Approximately nobody pays for sweat. I'm earning very good money in my office chair. I do all my sweating in my off-hours. People pay for useful goods and services.
We're not really talking post-scarcity here, but rather a situation where you can have a decent living without working. There's always going to be limits on most resources. (There have been pre-scarcity economies, where people just didn't care about stuff, but that seems to go away for most people in advanced economies.) Many people will want more money, and will be willing to work for it. I don't anticipate there to be a lack of workers for jobs that are reasonably well-paid for what they entail, and with a basic income we could ditch minimum-wage rules. There will be a shortage of people for crappy low-wage jobs.
So, I'd expect prostitutes in such a world to be pickier about clientele and charge more, probably much more, given that there would be many fewer women working in the field and presumably as much demand.
Bad driving is typically not criminal, although some bad driving is illegal. There's a difference.. Whatever faults a self-driving car has, they're not likely to be against the law. Some of the things that lead to bad driving (like alcohol) are.
Reporters are very heavily Democrats and left-wing. People who own media outlets are very heavily right-wing Republicans. The media is biased both directions in different ways.
When I read UNSCR 1441, it didn't look like a blessing of invasion to me. It looked one step short of that, with a very dire implied "or else".
There were war crimes, specifically at Abu Ghraib. There were doubtless numerous others, since that's how war works. There were prisoners that were illegally tortured by the CIA. I don't know if Bush was guilty in those. I rather doubt it, and even if he were it would almost certainly be impossible to prove.
I believe the war to have been illegal and in defiance of treaty obligations, but I'm not real sure about that. I think there's enough evidence to justify an investigation, but I'm not an international lawyer and could easily be wrong. Bush would have been guilty of that, if so.
Congress, IIRC, authorized the use of force against Iraq rather than mandated it, because that's how such acts go. Authorizing an action is not the same as performing it. Bush is responsible for the invasion actually happening.
I trust Assange about as far as I could throw the Ecuadorian embassy. He's a paranoid asshole who wants to be seen as relevant still.