Mind saying who the other corporations doing what Google is that are so respectful? Or are you just content frothing about Obama and injustice?
Really, all rudeness aside, I would love to see this list of companies willing to risk liability for accidental disclosure. And on what planet do you think Google can indemnify themselves from criminal liability?
California defines gross negligence as either a "want of even scant care" or "an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct." In contrast, ordinary negligence consists of a "failure to exercise the degree of care in a given situation that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would employ to protect others from harm."
The "traditional skepticism" concerning agreements to release liability for future torts is expressed, the court said, in a California statute providing that all contracts with the purpose of exempting anyone from their "own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law."
I'd be interested if a lawyer (or other slashdotter) knew of a case where someone was denied remedy in a negligence case because they waived liability.
Management typically holds power over their subordinates, so it's not unreasonable to take that into consideration. And, in this particular case, some of the management is already serving time, so that part isn't exactly presumptuous.
Is it just me or does it seem like the most important details are always left out of these articles? The report clearly raises the question about how much these guys were paid and how willingly they aided their superiors. It also seems an inexplicable role reversal of the big fish cooperating to catch the little fish. Why is this type of info always left out of articles? I gather it's possible that some info was unavailable, but I feel like the journalists who write these articles don't even bother following up to see. As long as we have a bit of controversy it's good to go. At the very least there should be a line such as "we contacted the US Attorney regarding the case but they had no comment about the apparent role reversal or how much money the programmers were alleged to have been paid for the crime."
I know those things are important, but from the article headline I half expected them to be publishing a giant red "Admin" button anyone could click to hack the IRS.
Seems a lot of people are commenting on the recent troubles Google has had in China. To be honest that was the first thing I thought of as well. But how relevant is this? Google is information technology and these guys are hardware. I find it unlikely the Chinese government will be hacking into solar panels. However the information discovered by R&D could certainly be valuable.
So, yeah, totally out of the realm of possibility that crazy people would spam the government with bogus FOIA requests when the Communo-Socialist-Nazi from Kenya is in power. Should we start linking to tea party protest signs? Those are always fun;)
That's actually a good point. Still, I feel like the only thing it seems we can conclude from all of this is that these numbers show trends with numbers. While there may be a percentage increase in total denails, there is no number about partial denalis, and no percentage of information denied (say by line or some other such silly metric). An no total requests vs denials. With all these numbers, it kind of baffles me why the obvious comparisons were left out and instead we got "select" comparisons.
Nevertheless, the real goal that both sides should be fighting for here is that nothing of substance, nothing that the public has a right to know, gets denied. But that is where judicial oversight comes in, rather that these articles trolling slashdot on who's guy has a statistically better number at processing paperwork of unknown value.
I'll probably get modded down for this but it bothers me that you guys dont seem to understand the term "devil's advocate." The purpose was not to compare Brietbart to Stormfront, but to take something way more extreme to use as a contrast. To put into relief that bias matters. And it's clear that it does. The AP often publishes multiple articles so that any one side can pick and choose the one with the numbers that fits their conclusions. Don't believe me? Have a look at this other AP article.
They denied FOIA requests in their entirety based on exemptions 20,005 times last fiscal year, compared with 21,057 times the previous year.
Notice the conclusions are the complete opposite? Welcome to reporting by the AP. They are biased, but they are biased in both directions -- and they do it by spamming out stories to stir up controversy. Don't get me wrong, it's not all bad. But even the usually well respected AP has an angle, and it's important to remember that. So I ask again, is it any wonder why Brietbart picked the article it did?
They denied FOIA requests in their entirety based on exemptions 20,005 times last fiscal year, compared with 21,057 times the previous year.
Oops. So much for the damming evidence. Clearly though, I think we can all agree that we should all be pushing for less denials and more transparent government. If we sit around stirring the shitpot about who's guy is better, then we're doing ourselves no good at all. Well, except for generating a little ad revenue for slashdot and brietbart.
Slashdot Mirror
Just wait, another year or two it will be asking to borrow the car.
Wow, dude chill with the Apple fanboyism. You need a break from slashdot or something.
So you got that list coming right up then?
Mind saying who the other corporations doing what Google is that are so respectful? Or are you just content frothing about Obama and injustice?
Really, all rudeness aside, I would love to see this list of companies willing to risk liability for accidental disclosure. And on what planet do you think Google can indemnify themselves from criminal liability?
FTA:
California defines gross negligence as either a "want of even scant care" or "an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct." In contrast, ordinary negligence consists of a "failure to exercise the degree of care in a given situation that a reasonable person under similar circumstances would employ to protect others from harm."
The "traditional skepticism" concerning agreements to release liability for future torts is expressed, the court said, in a California statute providing that all contracts with the purpose of exempting anyone from their "own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law."
I'd be interested if a lawyer (or other slashdotter) knew of a case where someone was denied remedy in a negligence case because they waived liability.
"OK, what are we testing?"
"How about testing the imaginary scenario of us making billions of off fake trades? We'll have a little fun with it, haha."
"Hah, you're such a kidder, Bernie."
Management typically holds power over their subordinates, so it's not unreasonable to take that into consideration. And, in this particular case, some of the management is already serving time, so that part isn't exactly presumptuous.
I'm a fan of the IRS, I have a t-shirt, mug and one of those giant over-sized nerf hands with the pointed index finger.
Is it just me or does it seem like the most important details are always left out of these articles? The report clearly raises the question about how much these guys were paid and how willingly they aided their superiors. It also seems an inexplicable role reversal of the big fish cooperating to catch the little fish. Why is this type of info always left out of articles? I gather it's possible that some info was unavailable, but I feel like the journalists who write these articles don't even bother following up to see. As long as we have a bit of controversy it's good to go. At the very least there should be a line such as "we contacted the US Attorney regarding the case but they had no comment about the apparent role reversal or how much money the programmers were alleged to have been paid for the crime."
I know those things are important, but from the article headline I half expected them to be publishing a giant red "Admin" button anyone could click to hack the IRS.
Maybe they were paying a mortgage? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yse6M93JHc&feature=related
Maybe, but you have to grant that it was a McCool article.
In Thank You for Smoking the lobbyist called that the 'Yuppie Nuremberg Defense'
Sorry for the Godwin. But I agree, it seems the roles of who is cooperating are reversed here from what I'd expect.
Seems a lot of people are commenting on the recent troubles Google has had in China. To be honest that was the first thing I thought of as well. But how relevant is this? Google is information technology and these guys are hardware. I find it unlikely the Chinese government will be hacking into solar panels. However the information discovered by R&D could certainly be valuable.
Brietbart funded the videos of the two kids going into ACORN offices, and it's gotten so bad that Hawaii's considering a law to ignore the birthers.
;)
So, yeah, totally out of the realm of possibility that crazy people would spam the government with bogus FOIA requests when the Communo-Socialist-Nazi from Kenya is in power. Should we start linking to tea party protest signs? Those are always fun
Well said n/t
Not a bad point, I'm just not sure these metrics help us judge the substance of what's really going on.
If you don't think news aggregation can have bias, you must be new here ;)
Ditching using checks is great, not accepting checks as payment is not so much.
That's actually a good point. Still, I feel like the only thing it seems we can conclude from all of this is that these numbers show trends with numbers. While there may be a percentage increase in total denails, there is no number about partial denalis, and no percentage of information denied (say by line or some other such silly metric). An no total requests vs denials. With all these numbers, it kind of baffles me why the obvious comparisons were left out and instead we got "select" comparisons.
Nevertheless, the real goal that both sides should be fighting for here is that nothing of substance, nothing that the public has a right to know, gets denied. But that is where judicial oversight comes in, rather that these articles trolling slashdot on who's guy has a statistically better number at processing paperwork of unknown value.
No worries, and kudos for your reply :)
Small clarification: If you're a direct relative (child, spouse) of someone who has served you do get those services.
They denied FOIA requests in their entirety based on exemptions 20,005 times last fiscal year, compared with 21,057 times the previous year.
Notice the conclusions are the complete opposite? Welcome to reporting by the AP. They are biased, but they are biased in both directions -- and they do it by spamming out stories to stir up controversy. Don't get me wrong, it's not all bad. But even the usually well respected AP has an angle, and it's important to remember that. So I ask again, is it any wonder why Brietbart picked the article it did?
It just means you need to work on your scrolling :)
They denied FOIA requests in their entirety based on exemptions 20,005 times last fiscal year, compared with 21,057 times the previous year.
Oops. So much for the damming evidence. Clearly though, I think we can all agree that we should all be pushing for less denials and more transparent government. If we sit around stirring the shitpot about who's guy is better, then we're doing ourselves no good at all. Well, except for generating a little ad revenue for slashdot and brietbart.