The Libertarianism aspect is a key element of the story. The
following are not my words. They are from the
debunking by Salon:
Libertarians typically believe that the government can't
do anything right, and they prefer to forget or ignore the
part government has played in the Net's triumph. Giving
Gore credit means admitting the government's role;
distorting and mocking his claims helps deny it.
McCullagh, who is outspoken in his libertarian views,
argues that, though he didn't use the word "invent," it is
"a not entirely unreasonable paraphrase of the vice
president's remarks," and suggests that the pro-Gore
comments from Cerf may have a partisan basis:...
(n.b., the word "invented" was used in
Declan McCullagh's
SECOND article)
Again, this isn't me. This is
Salon. The Libertarian politics is interwoven all
throughout the events, from origin to resistance to eventual retraction.
An argument ad hominem is a
logical fallacy. It attempts to deduce the truth of a statement
from a personal characteristic. This is very often misunderstood to
imply that a negative personal characteristic should never be
mentioned in connection with a deliberate false statement.
No offense taken, but note what you've written is in fact much closer
structurally to the true argument ad hominem. You've attempted to
infer something about the truth of the statements from impolite
aspects of them. That is, you've stated my some of my comments are
"emotional words" or "political slant", etc. You haven't
said they are false. Note the difference.
In fact, they are emotional, because I have very deep and
complex associations here. It's a
long story. But I'd defend what I wrote as accurate
Moreover, I would assert that a key part of the smear was that it was
deliberate. It was not an innocent misquote. Declan McCullagh
knows, e.g. Dave Farber. He (Declan) knows who he can ask for factual
comments. Rather, the "story" was a deliberate fabrication, and
Declan did his best to dismiss people who were "there" via
published personal attacks.
Note the difference - Declan did not say that Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn
were wrong, AND that the motive for their defense was that they were
"Friends of Al". Rather, he dismissed what they said
BECAUSE of that, which is classical ad hominem.
Consider the two propositions
1) Declan McCullagh wrote a false story
2) Declan McCullagh wrote the story because he's a Libertarian proselytizer
You are correct to note that #1 can be argued independently from #2. However,
it would be incorrect to argue #1 is false because of #2 being argued.
And #2 is relevant in itself, and should stand or fall on its own merits.
There really isn't a nice way to say someone wrote a political hatchet-job.
But I'd say refusing to discuss that aspect does history a disservice.
Remember when Slashdot was not the popular site it is now? (well, most
people won't remember this, that's kind of the point, but bear with me...).
Now scale that up, project it nationally, Internet-wide... The mind boggles...
Maybe this is horror, not humor, but I must laugh here else I'll cry.
This motion presents an issue of first impression - may section 1201
of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act ("DMCA") be applied to a
foreign corporation for conduct allegedly within its purview, but
which occurred entirely on the Internet in cyberspace.
We believe
that law and logic compels the court to conclude that it may not be so
applied. Elcomsoft believes and asserts that because of the unique
nature of the Internet, it's alleged conduct, which only took place on
and by means of the Internet occurred outside of the territorial
jurisdiction United States. That is, it was extraterritorial in
nature.
Even if the court were to find that Congress intended for section 1201
to apply extraterritorially, you must nevertheless conclude that the
exercise of jurisdiction in this case does not meet constitutional
standards. Application of section 1201 extraterritorially is also
improper because its application in that manner would violate the
norms of due process, including: (1) the rule of lenity; (2) the right
of fair warning; and (3) the requirement of a sufficient nexus between
the alleged conduct and the United States. "Under the rule of lenity,
an ambiguous criminal statute is to be strictly construed against the
Government." United States v. Bin Laden, 92 F.Supp.2d 189, 216
(S.D.N.Y.2000). The principle of fair warning requires those subject
to the law have a "fair warning . . . in language that the common
world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line
is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line
should be clear." McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931). In
this case, regardless of whether the actions of Elcomsoft are deemed
to have occurred within or without the United States, Elcomsoft had no
warning that section 1201 could be applicable to its actions.
Project Entropia will have a real economy system that allows you as a
user to exchange real life money into PED (Project Entropia Dollars)
and then back into a real currency again.
Hmm, haven't I heard of something like this before? That is, places
called something like Project Casino, which allows me as customer to exchange
real life money into CHIPS (Cryptic High Intelligence Purchasing Symbols),
use them in contests with random elements and against other players,
like POKER (Popular Open Kard Environment Reaction), and then
back into a real currency again? (assuming I have any left...)
Has anyone else gone to college intending to prepare for one career,
only to fall into another, either by luck or design?
Sure. I went to MIT to prepare for a career as a
theoretical physicist. I double-majored in Physics and Mathematics,
and got BS degrees in both of them. Then I experienced how difficult
it was to advance up the academic ladder, compared to the demand for
programmers. So I became a programmer. The pay was good, I didn't have
to wear a tie, and I could sleep late in the morning (or even not get
up until afternoon if the job conditions were particularly nice).
Many people ended up programming based on these forces. When there
is a scarcity, employers tend not to care much about your degree
(the recent dot-boom was an extreme example of this phenomena).
But inversely, the number of jobs for physics majors per se
has always been far less than the number of people competing for them.
Mathematically, it's the
Pigeonhole Principle.
Small numbers of jobs and large numbers of people chasing them
lead to many people not getting the jobs. So they go elsewhere by
necessity. It's that simple. See what a math education gets you...
Process-saving is known, but not what you want
on
UNIX Process Cryogenics?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The idea of saving the state of a process is very well-known. Take a look
at anything from
emacs dumping
to the
gcore(1)
program. It's been used in everything from saved games of Rogue
to saved states of PERL.
But isn't it overkill for a data-crunching operation? As many other
people have noted, it would seem you're much better off checkpointing
your data to disk, rather than relying on low-level OS process wizardry.
My theory is that the difference between Slashdot and other media is
that they never correct themselves, no matter how inaccurate, so
readers are left with a false picture of accuracy.
Umm, how hard would it have been to go the NY Times web site
and type in
a query for corrections?
I can't resist: Cheap Irony: Are you now going to correct yourself on
the subject of corrections?
Now, what merits a correction, that's lots of fun
fodder for media analysis. Of course you won't have to pay out on the
challenge, because this sort of article isn't the type of material
that is thought to require a correction (but if you were fair, you'd
send me a Thinkgeek T-shirt anyway for catching you out above:-)).
This IS the old Northern Light premium
searching. It's not documents
one can find in Google: (emphasis added)
According to the site, Yahoo plans to charge consumers between $1 and
$4 to retrieve files from a specialized database of some 25 million
research documents culled from 7,100 publications, including academic
periodicals. Yahoo also expects to offer a "Premium Discount Search"
option of 50 documents a month for $4.95.
Iseek have already made provision within the existing server software
for the inclusion of a new category called "ABA". This category will
include all URLs provided by the ABA in accordance with the take-down
notices. Iseek would be able to accept the URLs via FTP etc.. and push
the updated list out to all operational servers daily along with the
normal daily list updates.
[ABA = Australian Broadcasting Authority]
Again, this is old, and modifications in the Australian law
render it no longer applicable. I eventually came to the conclusion
that the "Australian" blacklist bit never got implemented (at
least in what I could examine). So it seems that the bans works,
operationally, by the Australian government just sending the sites
to various censorware companies. The blacklisted sites are then just
mixed into the general huge censorware blacklist itself.
Amusing footnote: A little before everything broke loose in
What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org), I actually
tried to enlist Michael Sims' support in my first idea for a technical
attack on the Austrialian blacklist. This was because at the time he was
well-positioned (as a "journalist", and also with other contacts) to
take certain legal risks which I found extremely worrisome. No help
whatsoever, in any form. Luckily, it seems not to have mattered.
No-reg-required link to article from Yahoo
on
NY Times on Anime
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The article is available on Yahoo, with no registration required, at:
It's possible to make a difference. Though it's a lot of work,
sometimes a lot of risk, and it isn't easy. EFF has made a difference
in my life, and in many other people's lives.
Jon Johansen: I'm 16 now, I was 15 when it happened... and the
encryption code wasn't in fact written by me, but written by the
German member. There seems to be a bit of confusion about that part.
LinuxWorld: The other two people that you had worked with to make
the player are remaining anonymous -- is that right?
Jon Johansen: Yes, that is correct.
...
LinuxWorld: Do you know why they want to remain anonymous?
Jon Johansen: They are both a lot older than me, and they are
employed. So I guess they just didn't want the publicity, and they
were perhaps afraid of getting fired.
He's a wonderfully plain-spoken person. My other favorite Jon Johansen
quote is from when he was responding to reporter
Declan McCullagh, and
Declan was arrogantly giving Jon a hard time for not immediate
returning Declan's request for comment:
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:26:23 +0100
From: Jon Johansen (Micro Media ADB)
Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats
I assume you've read a great deal of articles
on the subject? If you have, you might have
noticed that I'm only 15 years old; which
means I go to school. Norway is GMT+01. You
should be able to figure out the time difference,
and when I would be available for comment:)
Let me try to clarify what I meant in that paragraph. In most
simple discussions of Prisoner's Dilemma competitions, much
is made that the strategy of
Tit-For-Tat
is a winner. This cooperates in response to previous cooperation,
and defects in response to previous defection. When people
then try to draw moral prescriptions from this strategy, they almost
always focus on the respond with cooperation part, and ignore
the respond with defection part
of the strategy. But both responses, even the negative response,
are a vital part of ensuring overall cooperation - and that's the
lesson of the article about punishing freeloaders here.
And this problem manifested itself in the case study of
censorware.org. Many people offered well-meaning advice to simply let
Michael Sims defect on us all without any corresponding action (that
is, completely ignore all the damage and broken links and misdirection
caused by his destroying censorware.org). I understand the
nice-person reasoning behind this advice. But I always thought it was
deeply flawed in a game-theoretic sense.
Now remember, a negative response costs both parties. And
we're dealing with human beings, not program strategies. It's very
tempting to avoid the moral hit associated with initiating a negative
response. I've gotten many a comment that I lessen myself, I lower
my reputation, by discussing
What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
I'm not blind to that. But in game-theory terms, I'm paying the
cost myself of responding to a defection. It's important to do it, even
at a cost.
Where things get even worse, though, is "the power of journalism" problem.
Which is basically, what if someone can't respond?.
What do you do if you're a programmer, and a journalist defects on you?
Sometimes a workable response is to get some other journalist
to champion your cause, but that's not something to rely upon. And even
if so, that tends not to hurt the defecting journalist anywhere near as
much as the defecting journalist can hurt the programmer. This is why
I keep wrestling with the problem.
[Let's see how long this article lasts with a positive score...]
I've been wrestling with the article's issue, on a game-theoretic level,
for years. For example, many people simply do not understand what
I say when I discuss the events and aftermath of
What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
It's far deeper than ego or "personal", which are superficial reactions
I get. In game-theory, the
Prisoner's Dilemma
teaches us that that individuals have an incentive to defect in terms
of cooperative resources. Now, having said that, what
then? What follows? How does one go about organizing a
cooperative venture with this knowledge in mind?
To quote the article:
When penalties were allowed, the common good prevailed, and the
investment by each group member climbed. "But if there's no
opportunity for punishment, cooperation unravels," says Fehr, with
investment declining rapidly.
This is the exact argument I made passionately regarding the
necessity of making there be some penalty for
Michael Sims' actions in destroying censorware.org. It's the
flip side of enlightened self-interest. Cooperation cannot be
supported if someone can defect without penalty. But:
In some games, players could then fine each other, but they had to pay
a small sum for this.
Indeed. It's not costless to create downsides. This makes it tempting to ignore
their role in maintaining cooperation. They're unpleasant, to say the least.
But what if it's nigh-impossible to have a penalty? This is an aspect
where I think about "the power of journalism". As a programmer who has
worked with journalists (many times unhappily), I'm acutely aware that
as a general rule, journalists can harm me with manipulated coverage,
much more than I can punish them via semi-futile protests about their
actions. This is in fact my number-one publicity worry about
anti-censorware work and how I'd ever get covered nowadays in
Slashdot if I ever were to be sued like Dmitry Sklyarov.
So in the end, I don't have a solution. But the implications
of this problem are NOT abstract, in fact are very immediate.
But with the ability to assign "Friend or Foe" you essentially gain
the ability to make the No-Mans-Land of the comments into an area that
only reflects your own views and opinions.
Hmm... That was the argument Cass Sunstein was making in
Republic.com
I don't think it'll be a problem. Look at it this way: People who don't
want to read opposing views, are probably better off not doing so
(i.e. less ill-considered replies).
Now, facilitating friend-or-foe moderation abuse, however,
is another matter. Those green and red indicators make dandy "targets".
Been There - remember the "voice" lie detector?
on
The Eyes Have It
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The article says:
"This is the first technology that allows lying to be measured or
lying to be detected without any contact with the subject whatsoever
instantaneously, in real time," said lead researcher James Levine, an
endocrinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. "You don't need
to hook them up to anything -- you don't need any sophisticated
experts to analyze the data."
Everyone seems to have forgotten
Voice Stress Analysis
which was once similarly hyped as real-time, no-contact, super-duper
lie detection. And where is it now? In fact, it was better, since you could
supposedly apply it to a tape-recording, and there's even
VSA freeware you can run on your own PC (have fun).
Remember, stress is a matter of the body, but a lie is a matter of the mind.
They're correlated in many people, but by no means identical. Just think,
do you know any smooth-talking liars (i.e. ones
displaying minimal stress)?
I'm interested in trying to figure out what this all means, rather
than who is winning the PR battle of perception. The DOJ
is presenting it one way. The defense, understandably, is presenting it
another way. The import of the agreement seems to me something which
is just too complex to sum up in a simple sound-bite. It's not
formally a plea-bargain, as he didn't agree he was guilty.
But the charges weren't dropped either, he could still go to
trial if he was later ruled not to be in compliance with the arrangement
(unlikely, perhaps, but conceivable).
There so much politics and spin involved, it is very difficult to
determine the truth. I got slightly burned somewhere else in being
misperceived as critical of Dmitry, because I didn't think
this was nearly as big a legal concession as
many people seem to believe. I wish there were some commentary
and analysis from independent criminal lawyers.
As others have pointed out the DOJ realized that
they had a good chance of blowing the DMCA...
Maybe I am putting words in your mouth that you never meant but it
seems to me that going back to the "Source" is not quite valid.
On the contrary, I would argue that the
primary source material
is the most valid and important document to examine.
Otherwise, we are proceeding here from a reporter's
excerpting and intepretation of press releases.
Statements and press releases aren't legally binding. But the
"Pretrial Diversion Agreement" (to give it the formal name) is
a formal court document, binding on both parties.
The issue at hand is the perception that he had
admitted "wrongdoing" that is perpetrated by the DOJ / Press release.
This is where things get slippery. The word "wrongdoing" does
not appear in the
DOJ press release. Nor "misconduct". They talk about
admitted his conduct and his conduct in the offense.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't want to get into this too much. But it
seems the argument revolves around exactly what this signifies. But the above document at least
lets us know exactly what was
admitted and agreed on all sides.
"Once again, Ticketmaster took the lead toward resolution of the
deep-linking issues by filing suit against Tickets.com in July
1999. Tickets.com could be characterized as a competitor of
Ticketmaster, acting as a clearinghouse for tickets, linking to
sources for tickets to events (including links to Ticketmaster),
auction services and premium ticket brokers. Ticketmaster alleged
that, in addition to deep linking into Ticketmaster's site,
Tickets.com copied material from the Ticketmaster site and posted
false information about the availability of tickets from Ticketmaster."
...
"On March 27, 2000, U.S. Judge District Judge Harry Hupp issued a
ruling dismissing four counts of Ticketmaster's complaint, including
some counts involving deep linking. In dismissing the first claim,
which alleged copyright infringement, Judge Hupp stated:
"[H]yperlinking does not itself involve a violation of the Copyright
Act (whatever it may do for other claims) since no copying is
involved. The customer is automatically transferred to the particular
genuine web page of the original author. There is no deception in what
is happening. This is analogous to using a library's card index to
get reference to particular items, albeit faster and more
efficiently."
Slashdot Mirror
Again, this isn't me. This is Salon . The Libertarian politics is interwoven all throughout the events, from origin to resistance to eventual retraction.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
No offense taken, but note what you've written is in fact much closer structurally to the true argument ad hominem. You've attempted to infer something about the truth of the statements from impolite aspects of them. That is, you've stated my some of my comments are "emotional words" or "political slant", etc. You haven't said they are false. Note the difference.
In fact, they are emotional, because I have very deep and complex associations here. It's a long story. But I'd defend what I wrote as accurate
Moreover, I would assert that a key part of the smear was that it was deliberate. It was not an innocent misquote. Declan McCullagh knows, e.g. Dave Farber. He (Declan) knows who he can ask for factual comments. Rather, the "story" was a deliberate fabrication, and Declan did his best to dismiss people who were "there" via published personal attacks.
Note the difference - Declan did not say that Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn were wrong, AND that the motive for their defense was that they were "Friends of Al". Rather, he dismissed what they said BECAUSE of that, which is classical ad hominem.
Consider the two propositions
1) Declan McCullagh wrote a false story
2) Declan McCullagh wrote the story because he's a Libertarian proselytizer
You are correct to note that #1 can be argued independently from #2. However, it would be incorrect to argue #1 is false because of #2 being argued. And #2 is relevant in itself, and should stand or fall on its own merits.
There really isn't a nice way to say someone wrote a political hatchet-job. But I'd say refusing to discuss that aspect does history a disservice.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
The story that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet has been thoroughly debunked by Phil Agre in http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.Al.Gore. and.the.Inte.html
and
rebutted further later
That meme was a creation of Declan McCullagh, a "reporter" for Wired News who is politically a dogmatic Libertarian so extreme that he managed to get a book chapter using him as a poster-boy for Libertarian ideologues, and a different book chapter using him as Libertarian joke-fodder.
If you think this is flame-bait, the aspect of his fabricated story being a Liberatarian hit-piece on Al Gore was extensively discussed in a debunking by Salon
After Declan McCullagh was repeatedly taken to task for his hatchet-job, over more than year, by everyone who was there, from Dave Farberto Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf, Declan finally grudgingly retracted the "story"
But people still repeat it, because urban legends never die.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Maybe this is horror, not humor, but I must laugh here else I'll cry.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Maybe there should also be little sysadmin lego-people?
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Elcomsoft Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
But the house always wins ...
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Many people ended up programming based on these forces. When there is a scarcity, employers tend not to care much about your degree (the recent dot-boom was an extreme example of this phenomena). But inversely, the number of jobs for physics majors per se has always been far less than the number of people competing for them.
Mathematically, it's the Pigeonhole Principle. Small numbers of jobs and large numbers of people chasing them lead to many people not getting the jobs. So they go elsewhere by necessity. It's that simple. See what a math education gets you ...
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
But isn't it overkill for a data-crunching operation? As many other people have noted, it would seem you're much better off checkpointing your data to disk, rather than relying on low-level OS process wizardry.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
I can't resist: Cheap Irony: Are you now going to correct yourself on the subject of corrections?
Now, what merits a correction, that's lots of fun fodder for media analysis. Of course you won't have to pay out on the challenge, because this sort of article isn't the type of material that is thought to require a correction (but if you were fair, you'd send me a Thinkgeek T-shirt anyway for catching you out above :-)).
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Again, this is old, and modifications in the Australian law render it no longer applicable. I eventually came to the conclusion that the "Australian" blacklist bit never got implemented (at least in what I could examine). So it seems that the bans works, operationally, by the Australian government just sending the sites to various censorware companies. The blacklisted sites are then just mixed into the general huge censorware blacklist itself.
Amusing footnote: A little before everything broke loose in What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org), I actually tried to enlist Michael Sims' support in my first idea for a technical attack on the Austrialian blacklist. This was because at the time he was well-positioned (as a "journalist", and also with other contacts) to take certain legal risks which I found extremely worrisome. No help whatsoever, in any form. Luckily, it seems not to have mattered.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/nyt/20020120/en/ani me_japanese_cinema_s_second_golden_age_1.html
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
(even if my former colleague Michael Sims did later publicly proclaim he regretted nominating me, and my award probably didn't get any Slashdot coverage because of What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org))
It's possible to make a difference. Though it's a lot of work, sometimes a lot of risk, and it isn't easy. EFF has made a difference in my life, and in many other people's lives.
http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2000-01/lw -01-dvd-interview.html
He's a wonderfully plain-spoken person. My other favorite Jon Johansen quote is from when he was responding to reporter Declan McCullagh, and Declan was arrogantly giving Jon a hard time for not immediate returning Declan's request for comment:
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)And this problem manifested itself in the case study of censorware.org. Many people offered well-meaning advice to simply let Michael Sims defect on us all without any corresponding action (that is, completely ignore all the damage and broken links and misdirection caused by his destroying censorware.org). I understand the nice-person reasoning behind this advice. But I always thought it was deeply flawed in a game-theoretic sense.
Now remember, a negative response costs both parties. And we're dealing with human beings, not program strategies. It's very tempting to avoid the moral hit associated with initiating a negative response. I've gotten many a comment that I lessen myself, I lower my reputation, by discussing
What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
I'm not blind to that. But in game-theory terms, I'm paying the cost myself of responding to a defection. It's important to do it, even at a cost.
Where things get even worse, though, is "the power of journalism" problem. Which is basically, what if someone can't respond?. What do you do if you're a programmer, and a journalist defects on you? Sometimes a workable response is to get some other journalist to champion your cause, but that's not something to rely upon. And even if so, that tends not to hurt the defecting journalist anywhere near as much as the defecting journalist can hurt the programmer. This is why I keep wrestling with the problem.
I've been wrestling with the article's issue, on a game-theoretic level, for years. For example, many people simply do not understand what I say when I discuss the events and aftermath of
What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
It's far deeper than ego or "personal", which are superficial reactions I get. In game-theory, the Prisoner's Dilemma teaches us that that individuals have an incentive to defect in terms of cooperative resources. Now, having said that, what then? What follows? How does one go about organizing a cooperative venture with this knowledge in mind?
To quote the article:
This is the exact argument I made passionately regarding the necessity of making there be some penalty for Michael Sims' actions in destroying censorware.org. It's the flip side of enlightened self-interest. Cooperation cannot be supported if someone can defect without penalty. But:
Indeed. It's not costless to create downsides. This makes it tempting to ignore their role in maintaining cooperation. They're unpleasant, to say the least.But what if it's nigh-impossible to have a penalty? This is an aspect where I think about "the power of journalism". As a programmer who has worked with journalists (many times unhappily), I'm acutely aware that as a general rule, journalists can harm me with manipulated coverage, much more than I can punish them via semi-futile protests about their actions. This is in fact my number-one publicity worry about anti-censorware work and how I'd ever get covered nowadays in Slashdot if I ever were to be sued like Dmitry Sklyarov.
So in the end, I don't have a solution. But the implications of this problem are NOT abstract, in fact are very immediate.
Now, facilitating friend-or-foe moderation abuse, however, is another matter. Those green and red indicators make dandy "targets".
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Remember, stress is a matter of the body, but a lie is a matter of the mind. They're correlated in many people, but by no means identical. Just think, do you know any smooth-talking liars (i.e. ones displaying minimal stress)?
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
There so much politics and spin involved, it is very difficult to determine the truth. I got slightly burned somewhere else in being misperceived as critical of Dmitry, because I didn't think this was nearly as big a legal concession as many people seem to believe. I wish there were some commentary and analysis from independent criminal lawyers.
I don't see this. I don't see it at all.Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Statements and press releases aren't legally binding. But the "Pretrial Diversion Agreement" (to give it the formal name) is a formal court document, binding on both parties.
This is where things get slippery. The word "wrongdoing" does not appear in the DOJ press release. Nor "misconduct". They talk about admitted his conduct and his conduct in the offense. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't want to get into this too much. But it seems the argument revolves around exactly what this signifies. But the above document at least lets us know exactly what was admitted and agreed on all sides.Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
The FULL TEXT of the document regarding Skylarov
Further, deponent sayeth not (at least in this message ...)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Emerging Legal Guidance on 'Deep Linking' By Margaret Smith Kubiszyn
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)