Forget whether all night parties/raves are/should be illegal... forget whether the police overreacted... Whoever wrote that reading something on a Facebook is "trawling for our private information" is a twit. This is 2009. When will people learn that NOTHING on the web private? That's ESPECIALLY true of a social networking site--the whole purpose of which is to put yourself out there where other people can get to know you! You want to keep your party private? Don't #(*^%@ advertise it on Facebook!
Seriously, people, this is internet 101.
Okay, rant over.
As someone who writes a lot of those news stories (on the local, not national level) I can attest to the fact that sometimes generic scripts are pre-written, with details to be filled in later. Usually they're for events that happen in pretty much the same way every year (parades or festivals, stuff like that).
However, I doubt the Chinese launch article was one of those. It reportedly included detailed dialogue between astronauts and the ground. For obvious reasons, you don't include detailed quotes in a pre-written "skeleton" script or article.
It wasn't really a cover up at all. The mission to investigate the subs was secret, true. However Ballard, who'd always wanted to find the Titanic, cut a deal with the Navy. Essentially, the Navy gave him a certain amount of time (and, of course, funding) for the mission, and Ballard said "I'll do it, if you let me use any extra time to search for the Titanic". The Navy agreed as long as he didn't have to spend any extra money, and the rest is (literally) history.
Valid points, both, but would it not still be much easier and faster to steal that information from downstairs, than to write malicious code, inject it into millions of computers, and collect the data all without anyone at the company noticing anything's up?
Okay, stop and think for a second. What's Blizzard going to steal? Your credit card number? They already have that. You gave it to them when you signed up. They have your CC number, your billing address and your name. If they REALLY want to steal from you, they don't need to sneak information out of your computer to do it. I suppose someone there could go for your social security number, but what do thieves do with those? They get credit cards. Once again, Blizzard doesn't need to do that.
Face it, if Blizzard wants to take millions of dollars from it's customers, all it has to do is A) release an expansion pack or B) jack up it's monthly fee by a dollar or C) both. Just about every WoW player I know would gladly fork it over.
Sounds like we're going BACK to 1980's motherboard designs. Heck, before the Amiga had this setup there was the good ol' C=64. Can we name the other chips SID and VIC just for old times' sake?
Now we just need to put the OS on a flashable chip with its own dedicated swap RAM and we'd really be back to the days of "instant on". That'd be sweet!
That implies that someone was listening in or recording phone calls. The NSA has been asking phone companies to hand over phne RECORDS -- that is, a list of who called what people. Not exactly the same thing. It is, however, very illegal for phone companies to give out that information, which begs the question: Since the NSA is just asking phone companies (and some of those phone companies have refused), if your records are turned over, who should you be angry with--your phone company or the NSA?
By the way, USA Today -- which first reported all of this -- has since backed off part of the story. It seems many those phone companies really didnt' hand over the information, or at least, USA Today can't back up its claims that they did.
That being said, it's still a lousy program. The only way someone's domestic phone records would be useful to the NSA, is if that person were already being investigated and they wanted to see who he/she had been calling and when. Police use this information all the time, but if I am not mistaken they have to get a warrant or subpoena or something to get it. Why couldn't the NSA just do the same thing, if they were already investigating someone?
And while I'm ranting, congress knew this was going on all along, but decided to act all shocked and aghast when it came out in USA Today.
If the government is going to start considering bloggers "journalists", this could end up being a huge roadblock to free speech.
In fact, free speech doesn't really apply to journalists. I'm speaking as someone who has worked in journalism for the past ten years. Let's say I hate Microsoft. As a journalist, if I wrote something like "Microsoft is crap and I'm not just saying that because Bill Gates likes to sleep with young boys and small furry animals" I would be in a load of trouble. Sure, it's an obvious joke, but Gates would have me dragged into court in less time than it took Windows98 to flash a BSOD. Now I could argue satire, but unless I got lucky and had a jury full of Mac addicts, I would probably lose.
The example doesn't even need to be that extreme. News organizations have been sued for defamatory stories about corporations, even though everything in their story was accurate. Once upon a time, journalists could rely on the truth as their defense. This is not always the case anymore. You can be sued for defamation even if the facts are on your side, and you will lose if the jury sides against you.
The only so-called journalists who come close to getting away with things like that are tabloids, and they're being sued left and right. They're losing, too.
Add to that the fact that most bloggers aren't affiliated with big corporations or other entities with loads of cash. Most of them are regular people, who couldn't afford to defend themselves in court even if they were 100% accurate with everything they wrote.
Of course, I haven't talked about political speech, which IS what this ruling is all about. However, if the government really starts treating blogs like other journalistic media, it will have to apply the same standards to all of them. At the very least, blogs could eventually be vulnerable to the same legal actions as traditional media.
I guess what worries me the most is this: As a journalist, I am not at all free to say whatever it is I want to say--nor should I be. Some stories are so heavily "lawyered" to avoid lawsuits, they read like a Microsoft EULA. Most of us couldn't afford to have a legal team on retainer to protect ourselves. Even if we could, what kind of "freedom" is that?
Just what dictators would those be? The Democrats filed a complaint, but no one in the government said the documentary couldn't run.
In fact, the program was NOT pulled in many markets (mine was one of those in which it ran) and in those markets where it WAS pulled, it was done because of public opinion.
So, what you had was individual station managers making a decision based on their viewers. While it could be argued those managers were influenced by a vocal minority, the fact remains that no one ordered them pull the plug.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget whether all night parties/raves are/should be illegal... forget whether the police overreacted... Whoever wrote that reading something on a Facebook is "trawling for our private information" is a twit. This is 2009. When will people learn that NOTHING on the web private? That's ESPECIALLY true of a social networking site--the whole purpose of which is to put yourself out there where other people can get to know you! You want to keep your party private? Don't #(*^%@ advertise it on Facebook! Seriously, people, this is internet 101. Okay, rant over.
As someone who writes a lot of those news stories (on the local, not national level) I can attest to the fact that sometimes generic scripts are pre-written, with details to be filled in later. Usually they're for events that happen in pretty much the same way every year (parades or festivals, stuff like that). However, I doubt the Chinese launch article was one of those. It reportedly included detailed dialogue between astronauts and the ground. For obvious reasons, you don't include detailed quotes in a pre-written "skeleton" script or article.
It wasn't really a cover up at all. The mission to investigate the subs was secret, true. However Ballard, who'd always wanted to find the Titanic, cut a deal with the Navy. Essentially, the Navy gave him a certain amount of time (and, of course, funding) for the mission, and Ballard said "I'll do it, if you let me use any extra time to search for the Titanic". The Navy agreed as long as he didn't have to spend any extra money, and the rest is (literally) history.
Valid points, both, but would it not still be much easier and faster to steal that information from downstairs, than to write malicious code, inject it into millions of computers, and collect the data all without anyone at the company noticing anything's up?
Okay, stop and think for a second. What's Blizzard going to steal? Your credit card number? They already have that. You gave it to them when you signed up. They have your CC number, your billing address and your name. If they REALLY want to steal from you, they don't need to sneak information out of your computer to do it. I suppose someone there could go for your social security number, but what do thieves do with those? They get credit cards. Once again, Blizzard doesn't need to do that.
Face it, if Blizzard wants to take millions of dollars from it's customers, all it has to do is A) release an expansion pack or B) jack up it's monthly fee by a dollar or C) both. Just about every WoW player I know would gladly fork it over.
Sounds like we're going BACK to 1980's motherboard designs. Heck, before the Amiga had this setup there was the good ol' C=64. Can we name the other chips SID and VIC just for old times' sake? Now we just need to put the OS on a flashable chip with its own dedicated swap RAM and we'd really be back to the days of "instant on". That'd be sweet!
That implies that someone was listening in or recording phone calls. The NSA has been asking phone companies to hand over phne RECORDS -- that is, a list of who called what people. Not exactly the same thing. It is, however, very illegal for phone companies to give out that information, which begs the question: Since the NSA is just asking phone companies (and some of those phone companies have refused), if your records are turned over, who should you be angry with--your phone company or the NSA?
By the way, USA Today -- which first reported all of this -- has since backed off part of the story. It seems many those phone companies really didnt' hand over the information, or at least, USA Today can't back up its claims that they did.
That being said, it's still a lousy program. The only way someone's domestic phone records would be useful to the NSA, is if that person were already being investigated and they wanted to see who he/she had been calling and when. Police use this information all the time, but if I am not mistaken they have to get a warrant or subpoena or something to get it. Why couldn't the NSA just do the same thing, if they were already investigating someone?
And while I'm ranting, congress knew this was going on all along, but decided to act all shocked and aghast when it came out in USA Today.
I hate politicians.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/921914/
If so, they're telling us how to turn it off but threatening to shut down our PCs if we follow their own instructions??
Or does that support article not really mean what I thought it meant? I'm so confused!
And I admit, I was spouting out the worst possible case. Still, our government is one of precedence, and I just wonder which kind this sets.
In fact, free speech doesn't really apply to journalists. I'm speaking as someone who has worked in journalism for the past ten years. Let's say I hate Microsoft. As a journalist, if I wrote something like "Microsoft is crap and I'm not just saying that because Bill Gates likes to sleep with young boys and small furry animals" I would be in a load of trouble. Sure, it's an obvious joke, but Gates would have me dragged into court in less time than it took Windows98 to flash a BSOD. Now I could argue satire, but unless I got lucky and had a jury full of Mac addicts, I would probably lose.
The example doesn't even need to be that extreme. News organizations have been sued for defamatory stories about corporations, even though everything in their story was accurate. Once upon a time, journalists could rely on the truth as their defense. This is not always the case anymore. You can be sued for defamation even if the facts are on your side, and you will lose if the jury sides against you.
The only so-called journalists who come close to getting away with things like that are tabloids, and they're being sued left and right. They're losing, too.
Add to that the fact that most bloggers aren't affiliated with big corporations or other entities with loads of cash. Most of them are regular people, who couldn't afford to defend themselves in court even if they were 100% accurate with everything they wrote.
Of course, I haven't talked about political speech, which IS what this ruling is all about. However, if the government really starts treating blogs like other journalistic media, it will have to apply the same standards to all of them. At the very least, blogs could eventually be vulnerable to the same legal actions as traditional media.
I guess what worries me the most is this: As a journalist, I am not at all free to say whatever it is I want to say--nor should I be. Some stories are so heavily "lawyered" to avoid lawsuits, they read like a Microsoft EULA. Most of us couldn't afford to have a legal team on retainer to protect ourselves. Even if we could, what kind of "freedom" is that?
Just what dictators would those be? The Democrats filed a complaint, but no one in the government said the documentary couldn't run. In fact, the program was NOT pulled in many markets (mine was one of those in which it ran) and in those markets where it WAS pulled, it was done because of public opinion. So, what you had was individual station managers making a decision based on their viewers. While it could be argued those managers were influenced by a vocal minority, the fact remains that no one ordered them pull the plug.