The information *is* classified until declassified by the classifying authority. This is why the military issued warnings to service members that they should not be reading the recently-leaked data on Wikileaks, since that would constitute mishandling of classified data. It does not automatically declassify just because it's been published.
The NYT v USA case decided that the Times had the right to publish articles based on the Pentagon papers, and that the Nixon administration did not have a legal basis for issuing a restraining order. The supreme court then ruled that the government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint," and must show that it would cause "grave and irreparable danger" to US interests.
Nowhere did they decide that "classified information is automatically not classified if you publish it," nor did they say that it is unconstitutional for the government to seek a restraining order barring publication of classified information - what they said was that the government must show that the level of damage is "grave and irreparable" to be allowed to prevent publication.
So, the question boils down to whether or not somebody feels that naming intelligence operatives by name in the service of "the people must know," is worth the chance they'll be made into a new test case.
Please point out the personal attacks I've leveled at you?
Please point out the lies and deceit that I've communicated here?
You haven't responded to a single fact or point that I've made. Your entire history posting in this thread has been nothing but innuendo, opinion, and thinly veiled insults at Americans.
Pro tip: Calling names at someone who disagrees with you and asks you to back up your unsubstantiated claims doesn't make you any more right, or any less foolish, than you were before you were challenged with facts.
There's precedent for going after cases like this under the Espionage Act, which has been ruled to not infringe on free speech.
Charges were dropped against the lobbyists in that case because the judge ruled that the prosecution also had to demonstrate that "US interests were harmed," and not just that the lobbyists "relayed information to a foreign power." Given that disclosing the name of undercover agents in print can be harmful to them, and basically make that agent useless to the intelligence community, I think the hurdle of "demonstrating it harmed US interests" could be cleared.
Well, let's guess that those people will probably care about staying out of prison more than they will care about letting the public know about the names of undercover operatives.
I'm not certain what your point is, here- the politicians lead the military, the geeks work for military contractors delivering hardware with the specifications required by the military.
Considering who's pulling the trigger, who's operating under the rules of engagement, and who's getting shot at, I'd say the military. Better weapons help, but a cruise missile fired indiscriminately isn't much better than a dumb 500 pounder. Plus, we don't normally attribute kills to the bomb-makers and the politicians.
You're right. I keep hoping for rational discussion from this sort of poster, but it never happens. Instead of discussing the actual facts, it seems more important to throw charged rhetoric around in order to sound "smart".
1) It wasn't an ad hominem attack, learn the meaning of the word. I already explained the difference, but it apparently failed to sink in.
2) I enjoy how you ignored the data I cited, FROM THE UN, showing that we have substantially reduced civilian casualties even farther. By way of comparison, look at civilian casualties in past wars - even on our WORST day in Afghanistan and Iraq, we haven't approached the levels that have been seen in past wars. This is fact, and it is due to better weaponry, intelligence, and rules of engagement.
3) I'm not shifting the subject to the Taliban, most of my previous post was about the ISAF's further reductions in civilian casualties this year. I'm merely asking where your outrage is for them, since there is ample evidence that they are deliberately targeting civilians. If you can't at least condemn their actions as well, then we have no basis for rational discussion because it's obvious that your goal isn't discussion, but empty rhetoric.
I suspect that to be the case, from the way you avoid any FACTS, in favor of throwing around emotionally charged language in the hopes that someone will think you're smart for including 10-cent words. I'm not impressed so far, but maybe your blatant karma whoring will receive a sympathetic view or two from the mods.
As far as America in decline, two comments:
1) don't need you to save my ass, thanks. I have a well trained and well equipped military to do that, and I'm more than capable of defending myself and my family if it comes down to it, as well.
2) if America falls, may god have mercy on all of your souls, too. Because if you think we're bad, just wait until every tin pot dictator in the world decides to make a land grab in the post-American future you seem to relish the thought of. I suspect you'll learn the ACTUAL meaning of fascism, because you won't have the means or the will for self defense.
But what's a little boot leather stew and stinking privation among friends, eh comrade?
I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. An ad hominem argument would have been me saying "you're an ignorant twat, therefore your points are wrong." That's not what I said. I said your statements are incorrect, therefore you are making yourself look like an ignorant twat by espousing them. There is a difference.
The military has drastically reduced the impact to non-combatants (so-called 'collateral damage') in the past 50 years. If you think that the collateral damage of Iraq and Afghanistan are somehow an indication that we are deliberately, *systematically* targeting civilians and killing them, you are a fool.
You could, for instance, go look at this study, produced by the UN, which reports that, 'anti-government elements,' e.g., the Taliban, are responsible for 76% of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan for the first half of 2010, versus 12% by 'Pro-Government Forces,' (e.g., ISAF, Afghan military & police forces), which is a decrease of 30% from 2009. Presumably the remaining 12% were indeterminate - in other words, the UN reporting agency couldn't tell who caused it.
Where is your condemnation for the Taliban, then - who is targeting their own civilians: children, women, teachers, government officials...? The ISAF is reducing their impact to civilians, applying new policies and directives to actively reduce civilian casualties even further, while at the same time, the Taliban is stepping up its attacks on civilians, including 55% more attacks on children & 12% more attacks on women this year.
I know that reports like what I linked don't fit in neatly with your little "america is just a big mean bully who is killing civilians indiscriminately," narrative, so you probably like to ignore them in favor of heavily edited video with provocative titles from Wikileaks, but really - educate yourself. Understand what's *actually* happening on the ground, don't just read Julian Assange's innuendo-laden, sensationalist press releases and accept them uncritically.
Cruise missiles and JDAMs cause a hell of a lot less collateral damage than fire bombing a city, or carpet-bombing a couple square miles of jungle just to make sure you got the people who you think are there.
See also:
Operation Rolling Thunder;
Dresden, Firebombing of;
Educate yourself before you open your mouth and make yourself look like an ignorant twat.
I have a reasonable expectation of privacy due to the fact that access to my profile is limited to those who are authorized to see it.
You are wrong. You have an unreasonable *wish* for privacy. Facebook's privacy policy does not prevent a subpoena of records, nor do they make any guarantees against disclosure of your data. Their policy tells you up front that your data *may* be disclosed to the public, and that they WILL cooperate with legal requests they consider to be "good faith".
If you can read those two items in their policy and still think you have any expectation that your data will not be disclosed, you are engaging in - as the judge stated - "wishful thinking".
Facebook's privacy policy is an agreement between you and Facebook which dictates the terms and conditions under which your data may be disclosed to the public (or third parties) by Facebook, and their privacy policy more or less states "if we think we need to, or we screw up, or your friends don't have any discretion we or they will disclose your data." You may consider the information private. In that case, the privacy policy is pretty clear that it doesn't belong on Facebook.
The court is looking at the facts of the matter before it: The plaintiff posted some stuff on Facebook, and the defendant has requested access to that stuff, claiming that it is relevant to the case. This request might be denied if there were sufficient privacy concerns to show that the request would violate the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy.
The court looks at the type of service (social networking, a public space where people connect with one another); the privacy policy of the site (which states that FB "cannot control the actions of other users [ . . . and . . . ] cannot ensure that information you share on FB will not become publicly available"); From this, he draws a conclusion that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy for posts made on Facebook.
Please explain why you WOULD have a *reasonable expectation* of privacy, in light of the fact that Facebook specifically tells you that anything you post could be revealed to the public? You may have a deep *desire* for privacy... you may wish very hard for it, in fact, but Facebook specifically and completely disavows any responsibility for keeping your secrets.
You: "I really want someplace online where I can store my deepest darkest secrets, and I think Facebook is the place to do it." Facebook: "Well, anything you post here could be revealed to the public." You: "But you have these privacy controls!" Facebook: "Yes, but they're not guaranteed to work properly, and besides, if you share your secrets with friends, they can share them with anybody else without your permission." You: "I don't care. I want to poke people." Facebook: "Okay... but just so long as you're clear that everything you say or post could end up being revealed to the public." You: "Yeah yeah, I know, everything I say is private." Facebook: "No, that's not what we said at all. That's completely the opposite of what we said, in fact." You: "LOL FARMVILLE!"
Why not spend the weekend studying the law - go to law school, pass the bar, become a judge, and then you can subpoena records legally... no need for all that messy and illegal hacking.:)
For anybody else who's confused by your link, it's *awful* for explaining the problem clearly to someone who's never heard the term - I couldn't make heads or tails of it.
The wikipedia entry on the subject does a much better job of explaining it clearly.
An "expectation of privacy" has a context, and in this case, the context for that "expectation of privacy" is posts made on Facebook. Given FB's privacy policy, it is not reasonable to assume that your data on FB is private, because FB makes it quite clear that your data isn't really "private," though they "make efforts to keep it private," but specifically call out that it may be disclosed accidentally, or by friends, FB applications, or to properly-constructed and applicable legal requests (subpoenas, etc.)
If your bank offered "social features" that allowed you to link your accounts with a bunch of your friends' accounts, and said "We can't promise other people won't find out how much money you have"... would you bank there? I sure wouldn't, because I want my financial information to be private and secure - and so I wouldn't put my money into a bank that shared my financial info with others.
(And even with a "reasonable expectation of privacy" from a bank... that information is still subject to subpoena and other discovery methods.)
Pro tip: If you're trying to hide your diabetes from your insurance company, don't tag pictures of yourself on Facebook titled, "HERE I AM IN DIABETIC SHOCK - DON'T TELL BLUE CROSS LOL!"
See, the problem with that is that hacking into a computer system is a violation of the law. Facebook responding to a subpoena during the discovery phase of a lawsuit is not.
Facebook's privacy policy specifically states the following:
Facebook is about sharing information with others — friends and people in your communities — while providing you with privacy settings that you can use to restrict other users from accessing some of your information. We share your information with third parties when we believe the sharing is permitted by you, reasonably necessary to offer our services, or when legally required to do so.
Further on, in the context of "when we might share your data:"
To respond to legal requests and prevent harm. We may disclose information pursuant to subpoenas, court orders, or other requests (including criminal and civil matters) if we have a good faith belief that the response is required by law. This may include respecting requests from jurisdictions outside of the United States where we have a good faith belief that the response is required by law under the local laws in that jurisdiction, apply to users from that jurisdiction, and are consistent with generally accepted international standards. We may also share information when we have a good faith belief it is necessary to prevent fraud or other illegal activity, to prevent imminent bodily harm, or to protect ourselves and you from people violating our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. This may include sharing information with other companies, lawyers, courts or other government entities.
And still further down:
Risks inherent in sharing information. Although we allow you to set privacy options that limit access to your information, please be aware that no security measures are perfect or impenetrable. We cannot control the actions of other users with whom you share your information. We cannot guarantee that only authorized persons will view your information. We cannot ensure that information you share on Facebook will not become publicly available. We are not responsible for third party circumvention of any privacy settings or security measures on Facebook. You can reduce these risks by using common sense security practices such as choosing a strong password, using different passwords for different services, and using up to date antivirus software.
In other words: If it's a secret and needs to remain so, you don't share it with your 20 closest Facebook friends on the Internet, because you have no reasonable expectation that those people (or others who manage to get elevated access privileges) will keep your secret safe. The court's reasoning is entirely consistent with the privacy policy Facebook has laid out. As far as "if you put it online, even for only one person to see," yes, and that's always been the case. A subpoena can (and often will) result in this information being disclosed, and anybody who thinks that Facebook is magically exempt from subpoenas because "it's a social network with a privacy policy and stuff," is foolish.
This is a ridiculous semantic argument. The entire context of this was in response to someone saying that somebody not wearing jeans to go out on the weekends was "probably a douche." The discussion is about attracting & meeting women. Given that, it's likely that you SHOULD "value the impression you are making":
When I value the impression I am making, I dress to suit the occasion.
So we can agree then. Valuing the impression you're making, and wanting to make an impression that you're not just another Old-Navy-clad clone at the bar, putting on a nice pair of pants, a good shirt, and some newly-shined shoes will do that. You may not like that I've chosen to call that "looking like a successful adult," but most adults aren't wearing sloppy t-shirts, jeans, and flip-flops when they care about making a good impression - this is the clothing a college student wears to play beer pong.
You could also dress up "LIKE a clown" or "LIKE David Hasselhoff on Baywatch," but that's probably not going to make a *good* impression in the majority of social settings.
What conceivable relation, if any, exists between whether or not someone is successful and your approval of his wardrobe?
You may have noticed the keyword in my sentence: "LIKE".
Dress LIKE a successful adult male.
It's the same principle as "dressing for your next promotion." It's a way of differentiating yourself from the mass of jeans-clad ironic t-shirt wearing clones at the bar, and your pedantry aside, I think most people will agree that most people don't think "untucked t-shirt and rumpled jeans" generally projects an image that says "I am successful." That type of clothing tends to project an image that says "I am a young guy who probably still lives at home, or with 2-3 other young guys in a frat-house environment."
So, dress *like* a successful adult, who cares about not looking like an unpressed slob, and who values the impression they are making, and is willing to take a few minutes to make themselves look good.
You can argue all you want about how "dressing well" is some fatuous societal construct designed to ruin our individuality - in that case, good luck dressing exactly the same as every other 16-30 year old male in an effort to express your individuality and disregard for social conventions. Jeans are not formal wear unless you make a couple million per film, or run a company like Apple. Until then, you're an average guy, and as an average guy, cleaning up a bit and taking the time to dress nicely now and then will do a lot for your success with women.
Slashdot Mirror
The information *is* classified until declassified by the classifying authority. This is why the military issued warnings to service members that they should not be reading the recently-leaked data on Wikileaks, since that would constitute mishandling of classified data. It does not automatically declassify just because it's been published.
The NYT v USA case decided that the Times had the right to publish articles based on the Pentagon papers, and that the Nixon administration did not have a legal basis for issuing a restraining order. The supreme court then ruled that the government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint," and must show that it would cause "grave and irreparable danger" to US interests.
Nowhere did they decide that "classified information is automatically not classified if you publish it," nor did they say that it is unconstitutional for the government to seek a restraining order barring publication of classified information - what they said was that the government must show that the level of damage is "grave and irreparable" to be allowed to prevent publication.
So, the question boils down to whether or not somebody feels that naming intelligence operatives by name in the service of "the people must know," is worth the chance they'll be made into a new test case.
No you didn't. You voiced a lot of opinions and called a lot of names, but you didn't offer any facts.
You are a troll, because that is what you are doing: trolling.
So you can't point anything out, or provide any facts, and all you have to offer is poorly-constructed rhetoric that's designed to offend?
Troll on then.
Please point out the personal attacks I've leveled at you?
Please point out the lies and deceit that I've communicated here?
You haven't responded to a single fact or point that I've made. Your entire history posting in this thread has been nothing but innuendo, opinion, and thinly veiled insults at Americans.
Pro tip: Calling names at someone who disagrees with you and asks you to back up your unsubstantiated claims doesn't make you any more right, or any less foolish, than you were before you were challenged with facts.
There's precedent for going after cases like this under the Espionage Act, which has been ruled to not infringe on free speech.
Charges were dropped against the lobbyists in that case because the judge ruled that the prosecution also had to demonstrate that "US interests were harmed," and not just that the lobbyists "relayed information to a foreign power." Given that disclosing the name of undercover agents in print can be harmful to them, and basically make that agent useless to the intelligence community, I think the hurdle of "demonstrating it harmed US interests" could be cleared.
Well, let's guess that those people will probably care about staying out of prison more than they will care about letting the public know about the names of undercover operatives.
Considering the author and the publisher are cooperating, let's guess never?
I'm not certain what your point is, here- the politicians lead the military, the geeks work for military contractors delivering hardware with the specifications required by the military.
Considering who's pulling the trigger, who's operating under the rules of engagement, and who's getting shot at, I'd say the military. Better weapons help, but a cruise missile fired indiscriminately isn't much better than a dumb 500 pounder. Plus, we don't normally attribute kills to the bomb-makers and the politicians.
You're right. I keep hoping for rational discussion from this sort of poster, but it never happens. Instead of discussing the actual facts, it seems more important to throw charged rhetoric around in order to sound "smart".
1) It wasn't an ad hominem attack, learn the meaning of the word. I already explained the difference, but it apparently failed to sink in.
2) I enjoy how you ignored the data I cited, FROM THE UN, showing that we have substantially reduced civilian casualties even farther. By way of comparison, look at civilian casualties in past wars - even on our WORST day in Afghanistan and Iraq, we haven't approached the levels that have been seen in past wars. This is fact, and it is due to better weaponry, intelligence, and rules of engagement.
3) I'm not shifting the subject to the Taliban, most of my previous post was about the ISAF's further reductions in civilian casualties this year. I'm merely asking where your outrage is for them, since there is ample evidence that they are deliberately targeting civilians. If you can't at least condemn their actions as well, then we have no basis for rational discussion because it's obvious that your goal isn't discussion, but empty rhetoric.
I suspect that to be the case, from the way you avoid any FACTS, in favor of throwing around emotionally charged language in the hopes that someone will think you're smart for including 10-cent words. I'm not impressed so far, but maybe your blatant karma whoring will receive a sympathetic view or two from the mods.
As far as America in decline, two comments:
1) don't need you to save my ass, thanks. I have a well trained and well equipped military to do that, and I'm more than capable of defending myself and my family if it comes down to it, as well.
2) if America falls, may god have mercy on all of your souls, too. Because if you think we're bad, just wait until every tin pot dictator in the world decides to make a land grab in the post-American future you seem to relish the thought of. I suspect you'll learn the ACTUAL meaning of fascism, because you won't have the means or the will for self defense.
But what's a little boot leather stew and stinking privation among friends, eh comrade?
I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. An ad hominem argument would have been me saying "you're an ignorant twat, therefore your points are wrong." That's not what I said. I said your statements are incorrect, therefore you are making yourself look like an ignorant twat by espousing them. There is a difference.
The military has drastically reduced the impact to non-combatants (so-called 'collateral damage') in the past 50 years. If you think that the collateral damage of Iraq and Afghanistan are somehow an indication that we are deliberately, *systematically* targeting civilians and killing them, you are a fool.
You could, for instance, go look at this study, produced by the UN, which reports that, 'anti-government elements,' e.g., the Taliban, are responsible for 76% of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan for the first half of 2010, versus 12% by 'Pro-Government Forces,' (e.g., ISAF, Afghan military & police forces), which is a decrease of 30% from 2009. Presumably the remaining 12% were indeterminate - in other words, the UN reporting agency couldn't tell who caused it.
Where is your condemnation for the Taliban, then - who is targeting their own civilians: children, women, teachers, government officials...? The ISAF is reducing their impact to civilians, applying new policies and directives to actively reduce civilian casualties even further, while at the same time, the Taliban is stepping up its attacks on civilians, including 55% more attacks on children & 12% more attacks on women this year.
I know that reports like what I linked don't fit in neatly with your little "america is just a big mean bully who is killing civilians indiscriminately," narrative, so you probably like to ignore them in favor of heavily edited video with provocative titles from Wikileaks, but really - educate yourself. Understand what's *actually* happening on the ground, don't just read Julian Assange's innuendo-laden, sensationalist press releases and accept them uncritically.
Cruise missiles and JDAMs cause a hell of a lot less collateral damage than fire bombing a city, or carpet-bombing a couple square miles of jungle just to make sure you got the people who you think are there.
See also:
Operation Rolling Thunder;
Dresden, Firebombing of;
Educate yourself before you open your mouth and make yourself look like an ignorant twat.
You are wrong. You have an unreasonable *wish* for privacy. Facebook's privacy policy does not prevent a subpoena of records, nor do they make any guarantees against disclosure of your data. Their policy tells you up front that your data *may* be disclosed to the public, and that they WILL cooperate with legal requests they consider to be "good faith".
If you can read those two items in their policy and still think you have any expectation that your data will not be disclosed, you are engaging in - as the judge stated - "wishful thinking".
Facebook's privacy policy is an agreement between you and Facebook which dictates the terms and conditions under which your data may be disclosed to the public (or third parties) by Facebook, and their privacy policy more or less states "if we think we need to, or we screw up, or your friends don't have any discretion we or they will disclose your data." You may consider the information private. In that case, the privacy policy is pretty clear that it doesn't belong on Facebook.
Who's "setting public policy"?
The court is looking at the facts of the matter before it: The plaintiff posted some stuff on Facebook, and the defendant has requested access to that stuff, claiming that it is relevant to the case. This request might be denied if there were sufficient privacy concerns to show that the request would violate the defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy.
The court looks at the type of service (social networking, a public space where people connect with one another); the privacy policy of the site (which states that FB "cannot control the actions of other users [ . . . and . . . ] cannot ensure that information you share on FB will not become publicly available"); From this, he draws a conclusion that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy for posts made on Facebook.
Please explain why you WOULD have a *reasonable expectation* of privacy, in light of the fact that Facebook specifically tells you that anything you post could be revealed to the public? You may have a deep *desire* for privacy... you may wish very hard for it, in fact, but Facebook specifically and completely disavows any responsibility for keeping your secrets.
You: "I really want someplace online where I can store my deepest darkest secrets, and I think Facebook is the place to do it."
Facebook: "Well, anything you post here could be revealed to the public."
You: "But you have these privacy controls!"
Facebook: "Yes, but they're not guaranteed to work properly, and besides, if you share your secrets with friends, they can share them with anybody else without your permission."
You: "I don't care. I want to poke people."
Facebook: "Okay... but just so long as you're clear that everything you say or post could end up being revealed to the public."
You: "Yeah yeah, I know, everything I say is private."
Facebook: "No, that's not what we said at all. That's completely the opposite of what we said, in fact."
You: "LOL FARMVILLE!"
interesting graphic from the NYTimes related to format shifting in music by sales.
My guess is that "download album" and "download single" will end up cannibalizing the most from CD formats, not vinyl.
Why not spend the weekend studying the law - go to law school, pass the bar, become a judge, and then you can subpoena records legally... no need for all that messy and illegal hacking. :)
For anybody else who's confused by your link, it's *awful* for explaining the problem clearly to someone who's never heard the term - I couldn't make heads or tails of it.
The wikipedia entry on the subject does a much better job of explaining it clearly.
Yes, you are just arguing semantics.
An "expectation of privacy" has a context, and in this case, the context for that "expectation of privacy" is posts made on Facebook. Given FB's privacy policy, it is not reasonable to assume that your data on FB is private, because FB makes it quite clear that your data isn't really "private," though they "make efforts to keep it private," but specifically call out that it may be disclosed accidentally, or by friends, FB applications, or to properly-constructed and applicable legal requests (subpoenas, etc.)
If your bank offered "social features" that allowed you to link your accounts with a bunch of your friends' accounts, and said "We can't promise other people won't find out how much money you have"... would you bank there? I sure wouldn't, because I want my financial information to be private and secure - and so I wouldn't put my money into a bank that shared my financial info with others.
(And even with a "reasonable expectation of privacy" from a bank... that information is still subject to subpoena and other discovery methods.)
Pro tip: If you're trying to hide your diabetes from your insurance company, don't tag pictures of yourself on Facebook titled, "HERE I AM IN DIABETIC SHOCK - DON'T TELL BLUE CROSS LOL!"
See, the problem with that is that hacking into a computer system is a violation of the law. Facebook responding to a subpoena during the discovery phase of a lawsuit is not.
Facebook's privacy policy specifically states the following:
Further on, in the context of "when we might share your data:"
And still further down:
In other words: If it's a secret and needs to remain so, you don't share it with your 20 closest Facebook friends on the Internet, because you have no reasonable expectation that those people (or others who manage to get elevated access privileges) will keep your secret safe. The court's reasoning is entirely consistent with the privacy policy Facebook has laid out. As far as "if you put it online, even for only one person to see," yes, and that's always been the case. A subpoena can (and often will) result in this information being disclosed, and anybody who thinks that Facebook is magically exempt from subpoenas because "it's a social network with a privacy policy and stuff," is foolish.
Go to better bars then. Or hang out with people who don't get so drunk that they can't hold their beer without spilling it all over you.
This is a ridiculous semantic argument. The entire context of this was in response to someone saying that somebody not wearing jeans to go out on the weekends was "probably a douche." The discussion is about attracting & meeting women. Given that, it's likely that you SHOULD "value the impression you are making":
So we can agree then. Valuing the impression you're making, and wanting to make an impression that you're not just another Old-Navy-clad clone at the bar, putting on a nice pair of pants, a good shirt, and some newly-shined shoes will do that. You may not like that I've chosen to call that "looking like a successful adult," but most adults aren't wearing sloppy t-shirts, jeans, and flip-flops when they care about making a good impression - this is the clothing a college student wears to play beer pong.
You could also dress up "LIKE a clown" or "LIKE David Hasselhoff on Baywatch," but that's probably not going to make a *good* impression in the majority of social settings.
You may have noticed the keyword in my sentence: "LIKE".
Dress LIKE a successful adult male.
It's the same principle as "dressing for your next promotion." It's a way of differentiating yourself from the mass of jeans-clad ironic t-shirt wearing clones at the bar, and your pedantry aside, I think most people will agree that most people don't think "untucked t-shirt and rumpled jeans" generally projects an image that says "I am successful." That type of clothing tends to project an image that says "I am a young guy who probably still lives at home, or with 2-3 other young guys in a frat-house environment."
So, dress *like* a successful adult, who cares about not looking like an unpressed slob, and who values the impression they are making, and is willing to take a few minutes to make themselves look good.
You can argue all you want about how "dressing well" is some fatuous societal construct designed to ruin our individuality - in that case, good luck dressing exactly the same as every other 16-30 year old male in an effort to express your individuality and disregard for social conventions. Jeans are not formal wear unless you make a couple million per film, or run a company like Apple. Until then, you're an average guy, and as an average guy, cleaning up a bit and taking the time to dress nicely now and then will do a lot for your success with women.
You had me at sword. And armor.