Who gets to define responsible? You, or someone with the same views as you I presume?
While I do not regularly read Wikileaks I pay attention to the big releases and I have not seen anything yet that would constituent a threat to our soldiers or citizens.
I have seen things that were being hidden under the National security blanket that would hurt our government politically but I encourage things that politically hurt governments, its good for the people if the government is politically weak, they cant do as much to us.
The person who was arrested wasn't the one who made the shot, nor did he look anything like him. The person who made the shot was not arrested.
The person who was arrested, was arrested for something that you can not be arrested for in that state (refusing to show ID) and nothing else. His attitude does not matter since it wasn't breaking any laws.
The police department then dragged on a case while refusing to release the tapes because of an active case, then after they dropped the case (after costing the person who was arrested but did nothing that is a crime or arrestable in the state of WA about $3800) refused to release the tapes, implying that they had been destroyed.
An internal review that viewed the tapes, backed the cops version of events even though the tapes clearly support the person who was arrested version of events.
But yea, lets change the focus away from obvious and provable police corruption to someones clearly legal but in your mind "bad" attitude.
The problem is, he did only give the password to the only designated agent according the the policies of the owner of the equipment.
His supervisor, the security person we not designated agents according to the only document that mattered. the cities policies.
He followed policy and yet is still on trial, after being in jail on $5,000,000 bond for more than a year.
He followed the rules and because that pissed some people off he has lost more than a year of his life and is facing more time lost.
Maybe you would give your passwords out to anyone, if so I hope I never work with you or with any company you work for, but I am very careful with the passwords I have been entrusted with and only people that would get those passwords are designated in written company policy.
Childs was following his employers policies by not giving out confidential passwords to unauthorized people (which includes supervisors) and protecting the integrity of the network he was employed to protect.
Whistle blower protections only apply when you report the misdeeds to the congressional oversight committee in charge of the organization in question, not when you leak classified information to the press.
Not that I disagree with the leaking, just that the law is clear on who gets protected.
Slashdot Mirror
Who gets to define responsible? You, or someone with the same views as you I presume?
While I do not regularly read Wikileaks I pay attention to the big releases and I have not seen anything yet that would constituent a threat to our soldiers or citizens.
I have seen things that were being hidden under the National security blanket that would hurt our government politically but I encourage things that politically hurt governments, its good for the people if the government is politically weak, they cant do as much to us.
The person who was arrested wasn't the one who made the shot, nor did he look anything like him. The person who made the shot was not arrested.
The person who was arrested, was arrested for something that you can not be arrested for in that state (refusing to show ID) and nothing else. His attitude does not matter since it wasn't breaking any laws.
The police department then dragged on a case while refusing to release the tapes because of an active case, then after they dropped the case (after costing the person who was arrested but did nothing that is a crime or arrestable in the state of WA about $3800) refused to release the tapes, implying that they had been destroyed.
An internal review that viewed the tapes, backed the cops version of events even though the tapes clearly support the person who was arrested version of events.
But yea, lets change the focus away from obvious and provable police corruption to someones clearly legal but in your mind "bad" attitude.
The problem is, he did only give the password to the only designated agent according the the policies of the owner of the equipment. His supervisor, the security person we not designated agents according to the only document that mattered. the cities policies. He followed policy and yet is still on trial, after being in jail on $5,000,000 bond for more than a year. He followed the rules and because that pissed some people off he has lost more than a year of his life and is facing more time lost. Maybe you would give your passwords out to anyone, if so I hope I never work with you or with any company you work for, but I am very careful with the passwords I have been entrusted with and only people that would get those passwords are designated in written company policy.
Childs was following his employers policies by not giving out confidential passwords to unauthorized people (which includes supervisors) and protecting the integrity of the network he was employed to protect.
Whistle blower protections only apply when you report the misdeeds to the congressional oversight committee in charge of the organization in question, not when you leak classified information to the press. Not that I disagree with the leaking, just that the law is clear on who gets protected.