I wasn't really talking about those kind of leaks, when you leak classified information you will, and should, be punished. I'm all for that. I'm talking about leaks such as when a low-level staffers talks to the press about what goes on behind closed doors, future plans of the administration, what somebody said about an opponent in a meeting, and so on. Such leaks are by no means illegal, but if you leak stuff like that, you'll almost certainly get fired. That wouldn't happen in sweden, it would be illegal. Even trying to find out who did it is illegal, you can't check peoples phone logs, you can't ask the journalist, you can't badger your employees into telling you, nothing. This law makes it certain that the government is not hiding sensitive information, it makes it certain that the government can't lie to you and it makes people not afraid to talk about things they feel the public should know. There is no such protection in US law.
Yes we have very (very!) high taxes. We also have free healthcare and schooling, up to college level. Yes companies pay alot to the government in employment-fees. We also have a national pension system that wont collapse. We are also almost completly unionized, which means that you wont get fired for being sick three days in five months. We take care of the poorest in society, and it comes at a cost. The richer people pay it. I'm part of the richer people, and I'm fine with paying it. It just.
We have a radically different view here in Sweden on welfare, and we pay for it. I'm fine with paying higher taxes, as long as the government will take care of me,and my fellow citizens, when we need it. It's called a social contract. That makes us no less free (it's not communism), and alot more safe. I can understand the economic argument for lowering taxes, but what I don't get is how having a strong welfare state makes the government bad.
Yeah, I know the difference between civil and criminal law (I mean, IANAL, so I don't know know the difference, but I sorta know the difference), but I was wondering how it would make any difference that slander was a civil violation, since both civil, common and criminal law should be subject to the first amendment.
Umm, ofcourse.....can't you in the US? You can't march the streets chanting "Jews should die!!", but sure you can advocate naziism. Freedom of Expression, and all that. I was under the impression that this was perfectly legal in the states as well, arn't there several nazi-parties there (Aryan Brotherhood, National Socialist White People's Party, the KKK, etc.) I mean aslong as you stick to political activism and not killing people, I don't see how that would be illegal.
No it's not. A leak is per definition unauthorized, that's why it's called a leak. Look, this is not uncommon. Many times presidents wants to put information out to the press, but without the hassle of having a big pressconference with a bunch of reporters asking tough questions. It's also very common that before a major announcement, the administration will "leak" (note the "s) what it is a few hours beforehand so that reporters and the people wont be caught totally offguard. It's perfectly acceptable behaviour. It's a communications strategy, not a leak.
It is my understanding that not only does the president have this power, he has very recently executed it. The National Intelligence Estimate was highly classified, to the point were Bush didn't want to show it to congress. However, as soon as it would work in his favour that the press knew, he simply declassified it, took Cheney by the arm and said "Go get em fella!" (Cheney then told Scooter, who told the press).
As you correctly surmise, I'm not an american (nor do I wish to be), so if I'm wrong, can you explain to me what happened here? He obviously didn't go through any channels, he just declassified it, and gave it to the media. And as I said, it's very common for presidents to tell their staff to "leak" stuff to the press (although I guess it isn't as common to leak declassified stuff).
Unless you live in the EU, not very good, I'm afraid. But if you do get here, we've got free healthcare! And not only don't you have to pay to go to college, the government actually pays you money to do it! Also, kickass babes.
I should say that way-back when, during the 18th century (especially the early 18th century), we were pretty much as violent as anybody. We had what is called the Great Northern War which started in 1700 and ended in 1721 (we lost it, but it was us against Russia, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Prussia and Hanover, so it's not like we were pushovers). It was much because of that war that we started to impose democracy and civil liberties, which led to the constitution of 1766. Unfortunatly, King Gustav III went and ruined everything with a coup d'etat (a bloodless one) sometime in the beginning of the 1770s (I think it was in 1772, but I'm not sure), once again establishing absolute monarchy. But by 1809, we were back on track:P
I agree that the laws are similar, these kind of laws are fundamental to all democracies, the difference is (as you point out) the culture. We simply do not have a culture of a government that oversteps it's boundaries, nor a culture of hostile dealings with other countries. We try to act, always, in a diplomatic fashion. We were (I think) the first western country to diplomatically recognize The Peoples Republic of China as a countr for instance, back when everyone was scared shitless of communists.
This might have something to do with not having fought in any war since 1814 (which must be the world record, most countries haven't even existed that long), but Denmark and Norway fought in WWII and in Denmarks case Iraq, and they have similar openness to us. I think it has very much to do with our labour unions. We always have had very, very strong unions, and that tends to dampen any sort of mentality tends to be unforgiving to abuses of authority.
The president (I'm assuming that's what you meant by white house, if anyone else at the white house leaks it, that's just a normal leaker) can't "leak" anything, it's a contradiction in terms. If the president orders the release sensitive material to the press, he automatically declassifies it. The president can give anyone any information about anything legally. Even if it appears as if it's a leak ("A senior white house official tells us...", when it's really the press secretary acting under POTUS orders), it's not, it's a communications strategy.
This is not a matter of irrelevant semantics, ALL modern presidents (every single one) has done this, this is not something that is remotely unusual. This is a common way to release information to the press, even if it's a little shady (I should say less common in this administration, but it still happens)
So no, nothing the white house/president releases to the press can be, in any way, be construed as illegal.
Libel and slander are subject to _civil_ law, not criminal law.
What's the difference between civil law and criminal law? Is civil law not subject to the 1st amendment?
(PS. I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'm genuinly wondering what you meant)
There is a Swedish law that I am very, very fond of. In sweden, if someone leaks information to the press about the government, the government is not only forbidden to prosecute, or even fire, the person who leaks, but it is infact illegal for the government to even investigate to try and find out who the leaker was (this obviously does not apply to cases where the leak is illegal, ie someone has leaked classified information. Though almost all leaks to the press, in terms of quantity, are not illegal, neither here nor in the US). Note also that this only applies to the government, not the private sector.
I don't mean to brag about my country (although I enjoy it, it's such a rare occorance;), but freedom is something we do really well. Infact of the four parts of the swedish constitution, the Freedom of the Press Act is the oldest one, dating back to 1766 (the three other parts are The Act of Succession, The Fundamental Law of Freedom of Expression and The Instrument of Government). That act also includes whats known as "Offentlighetsprincipen", roughly translated as "The Publicity Principle", stating that all government documents (with certain exceptions, such as documents that would endanger national security and documents relating to matters under investigation, although no document may be withheld more than X number of years (I believe X=70, but I'm not sure)) should be readily available to the entire public. Basically, it's the same as The Freedom of Information Act. But Offentlighetsprincipen was included into the constitution in 1766! 1766! The US got it's in 1966, 200 years later.
I realise that I sound like a ridiculous patriot here, and I don't mean to offend anybody. It's just that while My Country might be lacking in many areas where other nations excel, there is one thing nobody can beat us in: Freedom, Civil Liberties, and a the most solid defence against a corrupt government in history.
It's certainly being shared, my torrent lists over 30000 seeders right now. Might have something to do with slashdot, yes, but it's still pretty impressive. That's basically as much as the newest episode of lost gets.
There's also the matter of respect for those who died on that day. If I was brutally murdered, I would not want the video of my demise to become public. If it helps the police catch whoever did it, then they (and the people at the trial) can see it, but it really should stop there.
I actually think that this is not something that maybe needed to become public....at all.
Yeah, 'cause, the big chunk of a plane found at the side of the building proves NOTHING. They must have built it and put it there when noone was looking >)
Ofcourse they wont! They are scientists, not members of some absolutist moral cult! Especially when it comes to language, such things are crucial to document if one is to get a complete picture of the development of the child.
Well, yeah, that and 15 million compasses will stop working:P
I imagine that the animals dependant on the magnetic field for direction will simply adapt, natural selection style. I realise that 2000 years aint that long, evolutionary wise, but they've survived it before, they'll do it again.
All of your replies seem to have been negative, so I'd thought I'd voice my opinion.
You are absolutely right. 100%. It's when people stop believing that their vote counts that democracy truly is fading. It has nothing to do with counting-machines.
You, my friend, are what the world needs, not more cynics. Voting truly is everything!
I mostly agree, his WMF-thing was just ridiculous, but the Security Now podcasts are rather good if you are not to experienced in computer security related matters. They are informative, fairly comprehensive, and not too advanced.
Saying WPA "might have a hole" is like saying that AES "hasn't been proven to be completely secure". Technically correct, but really stupid. If WPA is broken (which it wont be, ever) MAC address filtering WILL NOT save your system. Do you even know why it's broken? The thing is, every packet sent to a router will contain the MAC-address of the card that sent it, if you sniff ONE PACKET of data, you can impersonate the sender. A few ARP packets later, and the entire LAN is yours to play with. It's as simple as that.
Look, I don't have the energy to put up a defense of WPA insted of MAC-filtering, simply because it's so ridiculos to do, so I'll just point you to a fun little resource: The Security Now podcast has some great introductions to network security. In episode 11 they explain why WEP and MAC-address filtering sucks. If you want all the details, you can go there. Episode 13 explains why WPA is a quadrillion time better.
Using MAC-address filter is just a plain waste of time and energy.
Look, let me make this as clear as possible. Mac filtering offers NO security. NONE. All your security lies in your WPA key. If someone cracks the WPA key, MAC filtering offers no (NONE) additional security. Whatsoever! Let me say this again, if someone cracks your WPA key, it makes no difference if you have MAC-address filtering. No difference at all.
Adding MAC address filtering to a correctly setup WPA with a strong key is like adding a banana-peel infront of Fort Knox. Sure, I can get past the 30000+ strong army guarding it, but as soon as I get to that vault, I always slip and hurt my head!
Using MAC address filtering as an additional layer of security over WPA is not prudent, it's just moronic.
In fact, it is security-wise much more important that nobody can gain access to this link and have bidirectional communication with the LAN behind it, than that someone might be able to snoop the traffic going across
Fair enough, let me state this as clear as possible. MAC address filtering does not protect your lan in any way except from the occasional neighbor. WPA protects you from the combined forces of all the intelligence community in the world for a billion+ years (and btw, WPA does prtect your lan from outside connections, you have to have the password to connect!) All that, and it's a million times easier to set up! You are just being an idiot.
Actually I'm pretty sure that the fair use status of Google News blurbs wouldn't be impacted in any way by posting ads. If something is non-profit a judge might take that into consideration and it might help a little, but it's not like Google is a non-profit corporation. Wikipedia is non-profit, and copyright (especially fair use-issues) is one of the major concerns. Also, Google do the EXACT same thing to normal webpages (copyrights-wise anyhow) and they make plenty of money from AdWords. How would Google News be any different?
People say it all the time on slashdot, but I don't think it's true.....
I think (I'm not sure) that the duplicate MAC thing would be a problem, which means that you'd only be able to connect when the other computer is down. That's not the point though, the point is that why bother with MAC-filtering at all? You'd still want to encrypt it using WPA so as to disallow snooping, and if you've done that properly, using MAC-filtering just makes no sense at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't really talking about those kind of leaks, when you leak classified information you will, and should, be punished. I'm all for that. I'm talking about leaks such as when a low-level staffers talks to the press about what goes on behind closed doors, future plans of the administration, what somebody said about an opponent in a meeting, and so on. Such leaks are by no means illegal, but if you leak stuff like that, you'll almost certainly get fired. That wouldn't happen in sweden, it would be illegal. Even trying to find out who did it is illegal, you can't check peoples phone logs, you can't ask the journalist, you can't badger your employees into telling you, nothing. This law makes it certain that the government is not hiding sensitive information, it makes it certain that the government can't lie to you and it makes people not afraid to talk about things they feel the public should know. There is no such protection in US law.
We have a radically different view here in Sweden on welfare, and we pay for it. I'm fine with paying higher taxes, as long as the government will take care of me,and my fellow citizens, when we need it. It's called a social contract. That makes us no less free (it's not communism), and alot more safe. I can understand the economic argument for lowering taxes, but what I don't get is how having a strong welfare state makes the government bad.
Ohh, ok, i get it, sorry. Yeah it's legal here
Yeah, I know the difference between civil and criminal law (I mean, IANAL, so I don't know know the difference, but I sorta know the difference), but I was wondering how it would make any difference that slander was a civil violation, since both civil, common and criminal law should be subject to the first amendment.
Umm, ofcourse.....can't you in the US? You can't march the streets chanting "Jews should die!!", but sure you can advocate naziism. Freedom of Expression, and all that. I was under the impression that this was perfectly legal in the states as well, arn't there several nazi-parties there (Aryan Brotherhood, National Socialist White People's Party, the KKK, etc.) I mean aslong as you stick to political activism and not killing people, I don't see how that would be illegal.
No it's not. A leak is per definition unauthorized, that's why it's called a leak. Look, this is not uncommon. Many times presidents wants to put information out to the press, but without the hassle of having a big pressconference with a bunch of reporters asking tough questions. It's also very common that before a major announcement, the administration will "leak" (note the "s) what it is a few hours beforehand so that reporters and the people wont be caught totally offguard. It's perfectly acceptable behaviour. It's a communications strategy, not a leak.
As you correctly surmise, I'm not an american (nor do I wish to be), so if I'm wrong, can you explain to me what happened here? He obviously didn't go through any channels, he just declassified it, and gave it to the media. And as I said, it's very common for presidents to tell their staff to "leak" stuff to the press (although I guess it isn't as common to leak declassified stuff).
Unless you live in the EU, not very good, I'm afraid. But if you do get here, we've got free healthcare! And not only don't you have to pay to go to college, the government actually pays you money to do it! Also, kickass babes.
I agree that the laws are similar, these kind of laws are fundamental to all democracies, the difference is (as you point out) the culture. We simply do not have a culture of a government that oversteps it's boundaries, nor a culture of hostile dealings with other countries. We try to act, always, in a diplomatic fashion. We were (I think) the first western country to diplomatically recognize The Peoples Republic of China as a countr for instance, back when everyone was scared shitless of communists.
This might have something to do with not having fought in any war since 1814 (which must be the world record, most countries haven't even existed that long), but Denmark and Norway fought in WWII and in Denmarks case Iraq, and they have similar openness to us. I think it has very much to do with our labour unions. We always have had very, very strong unions, and that tends to dampen any sort of mentality tends to be unforgiving to abuses of authority.
This is not a matter of irrelevant semantics, ALL modern presidents (every single one) has done this, this is not something that is remotely unusual. This is a common way to release information to the press, even if it's a little shady (I should say less common in this administration, but it still happens)
So no, nothing the white house/president releases to the press can be, in any way, be construed as illegal.
I don't mean to brag about my country (although I enjoy it, it's such a rare occorance ;), but freedom is something we do really well. Infact of the four parts of the swedish constitution, the Freedom of the Press Act is the oldest one, dating back to 1766 (the three other parts are The Act of Succession, The Fundamental Law of Freedom of Expression and The Instrument of Government). That act also includes whats known as "Offentlighetsprincipen", roughly translated as "The Publicity Principle", stating that all government documents (with certain exceptions, such as documents that would endanger national security and documents relating to matters under investigation, although no document may be withheld more than X number of years (I believe X=70, but I'm not sure)) should be readily available to the entire public. Basically, it's the same as The Freedom of Information Act. But Offentlighetsprincipen was included into the constitution in 1766! 1766! The US got it's in 1966, 200 years later.
I realise that I sound like a ridiculous patriot here, and I don't mean to offend anybody. It's just that while My Country might be lacking in many areas where other nations excel, there is one thing nobody can beat us in: Freedom, Civil Liberties, and a the most solid defence against a corrupt government in history.
It's certainly being shared, my torrent lists over 30000 seeders right now. Might have something to do with slashdot, yes, but it's still pretty impressive. That's basically as much as the newest episode of lost gets.
Apparently, their looking for the road-side Jesus for help with the research.
Ohh, stop coming here and making sense, you're ruining it for all of us!
I actually think that this is not something that maybe needed to become public....at all.
Yeah, 'cause, the big chunk of a plane found at the side of the building proves NOTHING. They must have built it and put it there when noone was looking >)
Ofcourse they wont! They are scientists, not members of some absolutist moral cult! Especially when it comes to language, such things are crucial to document if one is to get a complete picture of the development of the child.
I imagine that the animals dependant on the magnetic field for direction will simply adapt, natural selection style. I realise that 2000 years aint that long, evolutionary wise, but they've survived it before, they'll do it again.
You are absolutely right. 100%. It's when people stop believing that their vote counts that democracy truly is fading. It has nothing to do with counting-machines.
You, my friend, are what the world needs, not more cynics. Voting truly is everything!
I mostly agree, his WMF-thing was just ridiculous, but the Security Now podcasts are rather good if you are not to experienced in computer security related matters. They are informative, fairly comprehensive, and not too advanced.
Look, I don't have the energy to put up a defense of WPA insted of MAC-filtering, simply because it's so ridiculos to do, so I'll just point you to a fun little resource: The Security Now podcast has some great introductions to network security. In episode 11 they explain why WEP and MAC-address filtering sucks. If you want all the details, you can go there. Episode 13 explains why WPA is a quadrillion time better.
Using MAC-address filter is just a plain waste of time and energy.
Adding MAC address filtering to a correctly setup WPA with a strong key is like adding a banana-peel infront of Fort Knox. Sure, I can get past the 30000+ strong army guarding it, but as soon as I get to that vault, I always slip and hurt my head!
Using MAC address filtering as an additional layer of security over WPA is not prudent, it's just moronic.
Fair enough, let me state this as clear as possible. MAC address filtering does not protect your lan in any way except from the occasional neighbor. WPA protects you from the combined forces of all the intelligence community in the world for a billion+ years (and btw, WPA does prtect your lan from outside connections, you have to have the password to connect!) All that, and it's a million times easier to set up! You are just being an idiot.
People say it all the time on slashdot, but I don't think it's true.....
I think (I'm not sure) that the duplicate MAC thing would be a problem, which means that you'd only be able to connect when the other computer is down. That's not the point though, the point is that why bother with MAC-filtering at all? You'd still want to encrypt it using WPA so as to disallow snooping, and if you've done that properly, using MAC-filtering just makes no sense at all.