RussK
-
Posts
458 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by RussK
-
-
The text of the SOPA bill H.R. 3261.IH is here
A plain language recitation of the contents of the bill and the objections to it is here:
H.R. 3261, “Stop Online Piracy Act” (“SOPA”) Explanation of Bill and Summary of Concerns
Due process and specifically procedural due process requires a fair opportunity to affect the judgment. When an attorney general or civil plaintiff present their complaint to a judge there is no one present to dispute the facts. A procedure does not become due process merely by being codified in statutory law, and present due process case law is not consistent with the procedure put forth in SOPA. This aspect is simply unconstitutional.
The In rem jurisdiction countenanced in section 102 (
(2) takes a page from the asset seizure tactics employed by the U.S. government in the drug war. Inanimate objects do not have rights and so any expectation of due process is conveniently dispensed with. Legal actions should always be between persons or legal persons (corporations or the government) or in the legalese in personam.The history leading up to this proposed law is that attempts to sue the individual downloaders in their teeming millions by movie and music industry trade groups one at a time or en masse are impractical and result in bad publicity. Foreign countries are outside of the jurisdiction of U.S. law and unmotivated to cooperate with the mercantilist schemes of RIAA and the MPAA because it does not benefit them in the slightest. As a last gasp attempt this law goes after the connection between domestic downloaders and foreign internet hosts by attempting to censor the internet domain name system (DNS). DNS is simply the database that pairs up a domain name using letters such as google.com with an internet protocol address in numbers such as 173.194.34.16. This is completely useless if the destination numerical address is known as you can test for yourself by pasting 173.194.34.16 into your browser as an address (you don't even need http://) . (lookup IP addresses for domains from within a browser at http://ip-lookup.net/domain.php). Not only is it completely and trivially bypassable, entire non-official domain name systems exist which you can access by instructing your browser or computer to use an alternate DNS server so even the trivial inconvenience of the DNS censorship can be cancelled.
The law as written permits user-provided content such as comments, forum posts and videos to justify taking down entire domains and not just the individual comment, posts or media. This means every host has to constantly self-police to keep from being shutdown, which cancels out the "safe harbor" provisions of Title II of the DMCA of 1998. Everything loosely identified as "Web 2.0" would never have existed without the 'safe harbor' provisions of the DMCA, and I am not interested in a legal experiment to see how long inertia can keep them going without that protection.
And then there is still Usenet. I won't even go into that.
I don't disagree with your analysis of Due Process provided by the 14th Amendment, but it is definitely limited in scope. Due process does in fact also deal with equal enforcement of the law and the procedures provided within that law. One must also not forget that the scope of SOPA is to deal primarily with "foreign infringing sites," which Sec. 201 highlights in its title, and such sites would most likely not fall into the jurisdiction of being covered by our Due Process laws. In fact, Sec. 201 seems to make clear that if such sites operated in the United States ("domestic internet sites), they would fall under current law and would "be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site."
As far as the technical details of shutting the sites down, it seems that you are implying that only domain names and DNS servers will be targeted, an allegation made by various anti-SOPA advocates. However, the bill points out other avenues of approach, such as sub-domains, IP, and IP allocation entities. Additionally, taking out whole domains that are full of user-generated content, because of some users' posts of pirated content, is simply not provided for in the bill, unless that site fulfills the definitions required for action--those requirements are not as specific as they can and probably should be, but it is clear that YouTube, et al, do not qualify.
The provision does bring up the topic of immunity for services that have policy of removing pirated material, and you refer to self-policing. Since when did self-policing become a negative concept? While we don't take the concept as far as the anarcho-capitalists, generally Objectivists regard self-policing as being in order when the law is absent or insufficient, or even simply consider it just responsible behavior. I find nothing draconian at all about granting immunity from liability the websites that engage in self-policing as described in the bill; it is just another example of how websites like Facebook would not be shutdown.
-
Strangely I cannot use the chat. When I click the url it tells me to "Please Login in to the Forum to use chat"
-
I must say, I am fairly disappointed in the responses by the Objectivist community regarding SOPA. For one, I'd like anyone to point out which section in the bill constitutes a violation of due process; the bill makes clear that court orders will and must be issued, particularly persuant to existing (or ammended) US Code. It seems to me that way too many people have gotten on a bandwaggon without being properly informed, or by being heavily against the bill without even taking the time to read it or parts of it. This bill takes approximately a little more than an hour to read; it's time for the advocates to get busy actually reading it.
Another thing that irks me is that there are many good ammendments to prior Code in the bill, particularly in Title II, yet the call is for the whole thing to be scrapped. For example, instead of relying on a transmission timeline of 180 days, a standard of 10 infringments, or a single infringment of heavy monitary worth, would be used.
-
Don't put words in my mouth, I never presented such a dichotomy; the original post did imply bad things out of ignorance. That being the worst end of the dichotomy that you presented, you must already know that I am in the right to be just a little weary of that sort of thing.
All I said was that I suspected him of being a troll to show him that he was way off, and being offensive. Which he was.
Although I don't know if the guy is trolling or not, I was (am) sympathetic to your conclusions. Furthermore, I'm still waiting to learn the details concerning the behavior of Objectivists, including a few who were "confused about their sexuality." There are many prevalent things and behaviors of the homosexual community that do not mix with Objectivism, and the accusation of confused sexuality is often used to table people who don't conform to stereotypical homosexual behavior.
-
People who run lists and forums have a specific purpose in doing so. Groups like OHomos and the other "Olists" are not for newbies who want to discuss basic questions about Objectivism. There are other places for that, and I think the segmentation is useful.
This is an important point. For example, I have thought about joining the OList for palio dieting, but I haven't gotten around to doing it. I am not a supporter of full palio dieting or some of the proponents' conclusions, but I do find a lot of their tips and recipes of great use. However, it would be wrong for me to join that list, it not being a general forum, and start talking or debating about palio, as it would disturb the quality they are trying to achieve. Hence, I will be joining as a lurker. I look at these rules as nothing but quality (and pest) control.
-
*** Mod's note: Split from a thread that mentioned theOHomos list. - sn ***
I looked the site over.
What might be an otherwise useful/valuable forum for gays has GOT to lay down the law and refuse access to any who relate to the Brandens and David Kelly. What irony.
The intellectual gays I've known are independent-minded people, which makes a gay Objectivist triply so, by definition.
"You are not an Objectivist if..." "The false advocates of Objectivism".
Excuse me, man, but they can make up their own minds on if they're O'ist or not, and N.Branden and D.Kelly know as much about Objectivism as anyone presently alive.
Heavy-handed BS that contradicts a core tenet of Objectivism - think for yourself.
The rules make it quite clear that it is a forum for homosexual Objectivists, not simply a resource for homosexuals. Anyone who does not have a significant grasp of the philosophy, or, isn't homosexual, can choose to be a lurker if they want to use the list as a resource. Such rules exist to preserve the quality of the list.
I also take exception with your definition of 'independent-minded' and the implication that the rules, as well as the participants, of the list are somehow anti-intellectual or less independent. If you have a problem with the phrases "You are not... if..." or "The false advocates of ... ." then I don't think what you mean by "intellectual" and "independent" mesh with the Objectivist definitions. Notice I took out references to Objectivism in those phrases, and I did it for a reason: anything can take its place (alive, writing, rights respecting) resulting in a basic intellectual, independent judgment. All that I can gather from your use of those concepts is some sort of bohemian, anti-authority 'open-mindedness'.
The rules are not a violation of core tenants; they are an example of them in practice. No one is being asked to follow blindly the conclusions of another.
-
I believe he was talking about just the "walled garden" effect, not percentage of internet users. In what way is Google like AOL?
I'm not a Google fan, and I'd like to say that I'm not a user, but I do have a bs email account with them that has maybe three items in the inbox, a google voice account that I use as a second phone number, and a calendar account that I just configured a few days to test it out; I also have been using their search on my TocuhPad because I have been too lazy to change the default selection. Really though, it would be fairly rare for one to legitimately claim that they don't use Google, even if they don't have accounts with them: google has been very successful, and they are embedded almost everywhere on the internet.
Google is AOL not in the sense of it being a "walled garden" of the same degree, as no major service today is like that, including Facebook; their walled affect is lesser in degree than AOL, but more than facebook. What constitutes "wall" here has of course changed in meaning since the days of AOL, but it still has to do with control. Today, a great deal of diversified content, and the sharing of such content, is allowed; but one of the major things that is now controlled is how content is, for lack of a better word, cross posted. Take youtube (Google) for example, do they allow cross posting from other social networks of the same media? Yes, such examples mostly show lack of development on APIs and such, but that is the only type of control I can even think about being comparable to AOL; no service really tries to block or firewall access to the outside anymore.
Facebook, however, has done quite a good job in opening itself up. Their so open that competing social networks are increasingly taking more of a slice of status updates every day. As mentioned above, specialized social sites are where it's at now--they do such a better job--and the API lets them post to Facebook. We'll have to see how open Google is to the idea of other social networks dominating the content they are hosting when they release their API.
So, add the above to user base and portal service, as well as acquisition activities, and Google makes a good challenge for the title of modern day AOL. I also must add something that just came to mind. What I said above, that "no service really tries to block or firewall access to the outside" isn't accurate. Has not Google done exactly this by censoring searches of the Chinese at the behest of the Chinese government, up until very recently?
-
The suit I'm talking about is being considered by a private entity, Texas Equusearch, who alleges they spent $112,000 looking for the "missing" child. I would assume they would also seek legal fees as well. What effect? It's hard to tell. Casey Anthony would not be the first person in her position to profit considerably from a book deal following a high profile case like this. It is only right that the private company have the opportunity to pursue civil damages based on the liability she incurred on them with her lies.
I didn't know about this prospect when I posted, but I have since caught a quick blurb about it on the radio. I wouldn't have a problem if they attempted to recoup that money; maybe they should get with some others, like volunteers who participated, so they can increase the claim. I have also, since my last posting, slightly changed my outlook regarding the idea of the state and other local government bringing claims against Anthony. A few mornings ago I was watching Mike and Mike on ESPN and they were responding to viewers' statements asking why congress was wasting money on the Roger Clemons perjury case. Their response was along the lines that, even though money would be spent on the trial, and wouldn't resolve much of what Clemons was brought to testify about, the government must maintain justice as best they can, and that means going after perjury when they think it has occurred. In that light, I think that it would be great for who ever was negatively affected by Anthony, and has a fairly strong case, to go after her with as much effort as is possible.
-
I think it's very likely she will lose the civil case, should they bring one against her for the cost of the search. They acted on (and incurred costs) directly as a result of the lies she told about her "missing" child. Civil cases merely need a "preponderance of the evidence" as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt". 51% against her and she loses.
A civil case, of some sort, may happen; but what would be the effects? As far as I know, Casey Anthony isn't very wealthy. If the state of Florida sues they'll just be spending extra tax funds on two new trials: a civil suit and a bankruptcy.
-
Why don't you think homosexuality and Objectivism mix very well, and what about these Objectivists' behavior make you think they're confused about their sexuality? After clicking on the URL you provided, and noticing the title, I lost all motivation to entertain the idea of reading past the author's name or to bring up SOLO and Lindsay Perigo.
As mentioned above, a mailing list you may be interested in is OHomos
*edit: I don't use that mailing list, so I don't know much about its content. I just know that the OLists are filled with some very knowledgeable people.
-
They haven't released an API yet. My opinion of Facebook is that it is now mostly just a social network portal, where various other social networks can post to, forming a general stream of 'status updates' from multiple sources. Social networks have become very specialized now, such as foursquare, getglue, untappd, etc... Zuckerburg knows this and that's why a lot of the stuff used on Facebook, outside of messaging and chat, is third party from API. The Facebook team, it seems, hasn't done much in terms of adding content to the service since Places, which pales in comparison to the functionality of foursquare. The latest addition, Skype integration, is simply a continuation of API type integration.
softwareNerd: I disagree. Facebook has tried to become the modern day AOL, but that title has to go to Google. Google is the most visited domain and they make their own services or acquire others, in addition to trying to compete directly with Facebook.
-
If you don't post for six months, we'll alert the authorities as to what general area you bones might be recovered from, if worse comes to worse. That is, if the animals haven't scattered them.
haha. I think I have gone without posting for six months numerous times, so I don't think that will be a good standard.
See, I think, where that guy that cut his arm off failed, is with him not bringing along a camcorder. Instead of making a docudrama, he could have made an authentic, autobiographical documentary; or, at the least, had created a viral YouTube video. -
this is likely the version most of you have seen that have seen this already if you did not have a Summit virtual ticket to watch the online stream directly.
When I first watched this video--it came across twitter--I thought some Tea Party conservative made it, due to the Sheriff Joe thing that popped up. Strong speech though. Thanks for the recording.
-
So, is it morally OK to not really value relationships, as long as I dedicate myself to pursuits that I truly enjoy and value? Am I missing something by not forcing myself to “grow” by being in relationships that prevent me from reaching my potentials in other areas of life?
If you don't see a value in something, then it shouldn't be very high in your hierarchy of values. So I don't see anything wrong with your position. I wouldn't put anything on the back burner for the sake of something of lesser value. But, really, I don't see how your relationship with your boyfriend is such a big deal; it doesn't seem, based on your brief description, to be very involved and time consuming.
However, I do think that relationships can be of value. I personally don't have very many close relationships, yet I still seek them. Maybe what the therapists or counselors are getting at is that you should be seeking value from many things, and it would be inappropriate to simply shut out social relationships, and, if you are doing this, it may be due to some sort of underlying issue that they want to help you with.
As far as your statement about wanting "the freedom to be able to hike in a secluded forest for a week without anyone knowing where [you're at]," I don't see anything wrong with this. It kind of a romantic--in an adventurous way--idea or plan. Really, one of the benefits of not being in a relationship is this sort of activity, where one can do just about whatever, whenever. I routinely go places without telling anyone, and, concerning nature, I plan on taking a solo hiking trip in the Minnesota Boundary Waters when things warm up. Some docudrama, (127 hours), isn't going to change my mind about that.
-
NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) "I believe that every moment's continuance of the injunctions against these newspapers amounts to a flagrant, indefensible, and continuing violation of the First Amendment....To find that the President has "inherent power" to halt the publication of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make "secure." No one can read the history of the adoption of the First Amendment without being convinced beyond any doubt that it was injunctions like those sought here that Madison and his collaborators intended to outlaw in this Nation for all time."
It seems to me, that the question to focus on here is this:
Is Wikileaks considered to be a legitimate publisher within the context of its operations.
There are of course many relevant sub-questions to this main one, but this seems to be the main area of contention, at least as far as the legal ramifications are concerned, i.e. what actions the government is allowed in response.
I have also posted this interesting article that I have not yet completely finished reading, that seems to be relevant to this question, in the other thread but I will post it here for ease of reference:
The U.S.'s Weak Legal Case Against WikiLeaks
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2035994,00.html
I believe the examination of this Times article would be a good starting point at which to focus on working out the answer to the bolded question in a more structured manner.
What's with the quote? On it's own, as a statement, I don't agree with it. If it's supposed to be a comment on my reply concerning first amendment protection to those releasing classified information, that "The Supreme Court has never ruled that publishing secret documents is protected by the first amendment," then the quote doesn't do anything to refute my statement. That case spoke only to a prior restraint injunction against the two news outlets; the court didn't think the government had sufficient reason. Nothing in that decision expands first amendment rights or protects the release of classified information. The government could have easily prosecuted the New York Times and Washington Post if they wanted to, under the Espionage Act; and the majority of justices involved in the case stated that fact.
-
This is equally true of Wikileaks. They have only released information after working with major news organization to screen them. Less than 1% of the 250,000 cables have been released so far.
There is a lie being spread by the government/media that they are releasing "raw" data- this is just a smear campaign.
Well, Assange, in his quest for attention, has stirred up a nice storm against him. There is no doubt that he is operating a little differently now--which is not to say that its satisfactory. However, this is not to say that they hadn't released data raw, en masse, because that was their mode of operation. You can see my post on the other thread for an example (the release of large CVS files). In fact, such mass releases are what got people talking about Wikileaks to begin with. There is no smear campaign here, that is the government and media outlets reporting the facts.
-
Both of you are being truly ignorant, especially the one calling me a liar for stating the truth and the other for calling me lazy for not fulfilling my part of due diligence on this thread. For that, I didn't even bother to read the last post, as any semblance of 'due diligence' on the behalf of you two is seriously lacking. To question the fact of mass release of raw information on the part of Wikileaks is ridiculous and disturbing. As an example, they have released CVS files near 70mb in size, with over 65,000 entries--so don't try using 2003 excel if you want to see all of them--with many entries containing information that I have outlined in this and other threads. So, I'd suggest you two go ahead an fix yourselves, apply the allegations you've launched against me and others to yourselves, and then figure out why you are "robotically repeating nonsense" to defend Assange, due to whatever sort of love affair you have with the nihilist.
As for recommendations that people of the forum visit wikileaks, I suggest that people on the forum do not visit the site. Certain universities and departments have already warned their students and employees not to visit the sites; the DoD has warned their employees as well and blocked sites from access on their different networks. The warning shouldn't be taken too lightly: it is easy to understand how the ability of someone to handle official or classified documents could be called into question if they are speaking about the contents of wikileaks in any significant matter or even if they are simply reading the information, of which they have no right of access to.
-
Good luck on the viewing. I was excited about the prospect of being able to watch the eclipse, but, unfortunately, the weather isn't going to participate: it's going to be very cloudy and snowing.
-
Let us get the facts straight.
Yes, lets do: Wikileaks, in their numerous mass releases of illegally acquired documents, have released the names of foreign local nationals working with US personnel and other information that could be damaging to an individual, foreign or not. Many major news outlets have, on their own, been routinely redacting information contained in these reports, while what is released by Wikileaks is simply the raw data, as is. So, whoever you say has refuted the fact that Assange has released such information, is, quite simply, full of shit. One can easily open up some of the data files that Assange has released and figure that out. However, I wouldn't recommend downloading or reading the documents.
-
4. Assange does not reveal anyone's names, as has been refuted already
Um, really? And who refuted this? Whoever it is, they are reporting false information.
-
Many people are uncritically accepting the government's and the media's lies without doing much research. Some facts:
WikiLeaks is a four year old organization based outside of the U.S.
Over the last four years, WikiLeaks has published many leaked documents, most of it having nothing to do with the United State government.
WikiLeaks does not obtain any information, illegally or otherwise. It only publishes information which is provided do it anonymously by third parties.
U.S. law applies within the United States. The United States is not a global dictatorship (yet.)
A group of foreign citizens doing something in a foreign country cannot be guilty of treason. Treason is something that applies to U.S. citizens living under United States law.
Major U.S. newspapers are publishing the same materials which was published by WikiLeaks without any consequences. This is because the U.S. government feels that there will be less of an outrage if it violates the rights of a group of unknowns rather than a major newspaper.
The Supreme Court has ruled that publishing secret government documents by the media is protected by the first amendment. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
There is no evidence of anyone ever being harmed by the leaks. The leaked cables are carefully selected and edited before release.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people died and are still dying because the U.S. government lied.
Wikileaks does obtain information, if they didn't obtain it, they wouldn't have anything to release; and information is selected for pursuit now--floods of random data is no longer allowed.
U.S. law applies within the the U.S., and anyone can be extradited for crimes committed against the country. With Assange explicitly targeting the United States, hopefully they attempt extradition.
Major news sources may have published information, but many have worked with the government and redacted information contained within intelligence reports, situation reports, cables, etc... They can go after news outlets once they deal with the cause of the problem, Assange.
The Supreme Court has never ruled that publishing secret documents is protected by the first amendment, and the source you give (wikipedia) doesn't make your claim or give any evidence to support it.
I don't need evidence to understand the harm that is caused by releasing the names of foreign local nationals, their activities with coalition forces, and other information; and this says nothing about the release of personal, private information about soldiers and diplomats.
-
Yost is right. Some young people today are celebrating Julian Assange as a rebel who is bravely crusading against authoritarian institutions. In the past, WikiLeaks may have uncovered corrupt government practices worthy of public scrutiny. But Yost makes clear that the most recent revelations serve no positive purpose. Assange’s blasé indifference to the safety and lives of American servicemen and the Iraqi and Afghan citizens who support them gives the lie to the claim that he is motivated by a passion for peace and freedom.
Read the rest of Yost’s article for more about why we should condemn this act as destruction for the sake of destruction and what the Obama administration should do about this dangerous violation of American security interests.
Image from Wikimedia Commons.
Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
Not a bad article. And yes, Yost is right. Besides the overall destructive nature of Wikileaks, the whole goal of releasing documents for the sake of releasing documents, without any value judgment involved, smacks of nihilism. For Assange and his nihilistic stance, it must all boil down to 'perspective,' hence the governments of the world are lumped into one category of enemy, and the "US administration" is as equal a target to "bring down" as "those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia."
-
No, that's actually exactly what news outlets who engage in investigative journalism do: they uncover government secrets and expose things that the government is trying to keep hidden from public knowledge. This does not mean a particular or given item ought to be exposed, but certainly if the government is trying to conceal criminal and immoral acts, then even yourself would have to agree that they ought to be exposed and the whistleblowers should be supported, no? I assume you would not argue that simply because something is a government secret that that in itself means that the knowledge ought to be concealed and the journalists who cover the story and publish the leaked information should be subject to legal persecution?
It should be noted that Wikileaks does issue commentary, editorials, interviews and does all the same functions that other news outlets do. My point is that the debate as to whether or not Wikileaks qualifies as a news outlet is misguided.
I guess you would have Ragnar Danneskjöld arrested for crimes against the State and theft of "government property." In any event, nothing the NYT or Wikileaks does is “promoting the theft of government property” and the nebulous guise of “government property” does not qualify something as moral protection from being taken away from the State or leaked, especially if the property itself is evidence of criminal and immoral acts being committed by the government.
But they did not collude in or participate in any illegal activity to our present knowledge.
Not engaging in a dialogue with the government about publishing leaked information is not a crime.
Then you have not heard that both the NYT and Wikileaks themselves attempted to engage in such a dialogue with the US government about any particular items they would want redacted in the leaked documents before they publish them in order to protect US soldiers and intelligence operatives and the US government did not respond, so the NYT proceeded with the redactions on their own.
All in all, nothing that has been said has yet shown that Wikileaks or Julian Assange has committed any criminal acts.
Requesting that people break the law and then facilitating the crime, well, is a crime. Releasing official government documents, that could cause harm to the government and employees is also a crime. The fact that government officials contacted Assange and told him (or his organization) that the release of the information would cause harm only goes to help the government's future case. The same goes for all of Assange's self damning statements about targeting the government, of which one was a stated goal of his for Wikileaks to have the ability to "bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality--including the US administration."
I'm not going to answer your hypothetical question about when its right to steal and disseminate government documents. However, the idea that that dumb ass Private is a whilsteblower, and Wikileaks is a news outlet, is ridiculous. The transcripts of his conversations about the documents clearly show that he's not some sort of hero 'whistleblower,' but instead an immature, lazy, disloyal, and overall lousy soldier. I'm not going to rehash comments I've said in other posts on the forum regarding this person, but I think one of his punishments should be a whole 15 months of 'cookout duty,' or whatever stupid detail they had this incompetent loser on, and then they can hang him. As for Wikileaks being a news outlet, I can only regard that as some fantasy supported by most civil libertarians, that we can go ahead and call everyone's common blog and website a news organization, so they can get the same 'protections.'
Would I have Ragnar arrested for what PFC knucklehead did? Yes, I would; and I would gladly arrest anyone who wantonly violates their obligations to properly handle classified documents--an obligation of which they voluntarily agreed to undertake--and, likewise, any agent who facilitated the crime. This is not the dystopian world presented in most of Atlas Shrugged, and proposing that some of the particulars should be accepted in reality, like Ragnar's activity, is ludicrous and criminal.
-
Why exactly is he the responsible party, but not the newspapers who he gave the information to, who then chose to make the details public *before* he posted the data on his website?
Why wasn't it "out in the open" at the point that the individuals stole it?
If those individuals had instead given their stolen data to the newspapers directly, to vet and publish, would those newspaper execs then have been "the responsible party"?
Assange has partial responsibility: him and his organization requested, promoted, and abated the mishandling and illegal dissemination of protected, official documents. What Assange has done is similar to the activities of a foreign intelligence agent, except he doesn't work for a government and all the information has been made public. Making information public doesn't make an organization a news outlet. And if the New York Times promotes the theft of government property, actively colludes and participates in illegal activity, and doesn't engage in dialog with the government about the potential harm of releasing certain information, then they should be investigated and brought up on charges too. However, I've never heard of them doing that, but I have heard of news organizations doing just the opposite.
Log in problem
in Help and Troubleshooting
Posted
The url referenced in on the webpage works fine now. I just checked my RSS bookmark for the site, and it says .net. I didn't know it had changed. Thanks.