The Patriot Act - Good or Bad ?

About: FBI Papers Indicate Intelligence Violations

I trust neither governments nor newspapers & their electronic equivalents including blogs to tell the truth. Slashdot had a bunch of sarcastic comments on this item this morning.

My views are simple. Lawyers who use the Freedom of Information Act have no sensibility for the harm in publishing classified information. They collaborate with the media mostly to do hit pieces against the current administration. The Media has their own rules which allow them to publish classified information & think themselves heroes for doing so.  Notice how much trouble they go thru to protect "unnamed sources" all in the name of the first ammendment & sometimes in the name of lies.  Consider untimately how much better it would be if there were no unnamed sources. Yeah, yeah - people might clam up who knew some juicy rumors. I wonder if all those grand jury leaks might dry up (they are unlawful anyway)! I am disgusted with most of it all

Tags

  1. patriot act
  2. security
  3. publishing secrets
  4. newspapers break laws
  5. first amendment

Comments


Seth says
How do you implement "no unnamed sources" ? Seems to me that anything done to implement "no unnamed sources" would have negative consequences far greater thant the alleged evils you purport to eradicate.

Seth says
source: Mark's views above
Lawyers who use the Freedom of Information Act (FIA) have no sensibility for the harm in publishing classified information.
  1. For one thing i doubt that FIA covers classified information.
  2. Government should conduct its business in the light of day under the scrutiny of those being governed. 
Your views suck

Mark de LA says
seth 2005-10-26 06:15:41 1708
How do you implement "no unnamed sources" ?
Start prosecuting journalists for violations of the law, like those governing military classified secrets and release of grand jury testimony. - that's a good start. The government can also fire those who disclose the same.

Mark de LA says
seth 2005-10-26 06:34:55 1708
Your views suck
as well do yours!

Seth says
Mark 2005-10-26 07:02:30 1708
seth 2005-10-26 06:34:55 1708
Your views suck
as well do yours!
i take it that we are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.  hmmm ... ... does that mean that political dialogue between us will be useless ??

Mark de LA says
source:
does that mean that political dialogue between us will be useless ??
Depends if you have an open mind. I took your as probably not. The point is that we may agree in some area and not in other areas - try again.  .  I am very much an agitator against anonymous sources as being an abuse which leads to lies, rumor mongering, laziness, and a bunch of other sins.  Anybody that speaks up ought to be willing to authenticate himself as the source of something instead of hiding behind anonymity.

Seth says
Mark 2005-10-26 11:22:39 1708
source:
does that mean that political dialogue between us will be useless ??
Depends if you have an open mind. I took your as probably not.
... actually i do have an open mind .  i believe opposite views should have dialogue with the purpose of reconciling their views.  I do not buy into the usual social paradigm not to discuss politics because it leads to fighting.  But the participants should be smart enought to grok when they are in a useless semantic loop ... and then be smart enough to get out of it .

Seth says
Mark 2005-10-26 11:22:39 1708
The point is that we may agree in some area and not in other areas - try again.  .  
ok, let's try again .
source:
I am very much an agitator against anonymous sources as being an abuse which leads to lies, rumor mongering, laziness, and a bunch of other sins.  Anybody that speaks up ought to be willing to authenticate himself as the source of something instead of hiding behind
If what an anonymous source says is true within some group, but saying it may cause actual harm to the author, then having the ability to be anonymous is a feature and not a .

I say let a group decide what is true to it based more on the merits of information rather than on the reputation of the source. 



Mark de LA says
Ignoring for the moment your bug-a-boo about truth being relative to the group, I say that most anonymous sources are cowards & manipulators. There are laws about whistle-blowers that should cause them to sue if retaliated against. If it is a mateer of physical injury, then courage & getting some kind of protection is the answer. If you can't summon the courage to do that - then, I say your information probably isn't worth it anyway.

Mark de LA says
& then there are libel & slander laws - maybe they should be strengthened. Right now the political class is so immersed in that they have actually loosened the laws to allow anyone running for office to lie with impunity!

Seth says
Mark 2005-10-26 11:45:06 1708
Ignoring for the moment your bug-a-boo about truth being relative to the group, I say that most anonymous sources are cowards & manipulators. There are laws about whistle-blowers that should cause them to sue if retaliated against. If it is a mateer of physical injury, then courage & getting some kind of protection is the answer. If you can't summon the courage to do that - then, I say your information probably isn't worth it anyway.
i think if you were "there" in that predicament as a source of vital information where the dangers were real, you would change your tune very rapidly.  it is too easy to sit in a ivory tower apart from the realities of a battle and moralize about combatants actions. 

Seth says
incidentally, you misrepresented the title of the article .  i fixed it .

Mark de LA says
seth 2005-10-26 12:15:37 1708
incidentally, you misrepresented the title of the article .  i fixed it .
Well since I am able to give it a title of my own I quoted substantially from the following paragraph:
source:
FBI officials disagreed, saying that none of the cases have involved major violations and most amount to administrative errors
When I read the article I agree with this sentence more than the NyTimes slant on the item. Anyway on your changing of the title.  If you don't like my title write your own item. A good many articles in the New York Times have only a thin relationship between the headlines and the content.  That's another of my bug-a-boos about the media. All you will do by changing a title without agreement is stimulate a war of title changes.


Mark de LA says
This item is continued in Anonymous Sources - Good or Bad since it has forked from the Patriot Act touchstone & has grown too long.

Mark de LA says
If you didn't allow for title changes, then why did you write it in the software. Why not just accept what is in the Article.  Let the wars begin.

Mark de LA says
As a matter of fact, If I find an article that is miss-headlined I am likely NOT to accept their title and make up my own. Headline writers (separate sometimes from the people who write them) often write headlines to slant the news or hype a position. I believed that to be the case in this one.

Seth says
Mark 2005-10-26 12:22:44 1708
seth 2005-10-26 12:15:37 1708
incidentally, you misrepresented the title of the article .  i fixed it .
Well since I am able to give it a title of my own I quoted substantially from the following paragraph:
source:
FBI officials disagreed, saying that none of the cases have involved major violations and most amount to administrative errors
When I read the article I agree with this sentence more than the NyTimes slant on the item. Anyway on your changing of the title.  If you don't like my title write your own item. A good many articles in the New York Times have only a thin relationship between the headlines and the content.  That's another of my bug-a-boos about the media. All you will do by changing a title without agreement is stimulate a war of title changes.

The title of your item is not what is in question and that i did not change.  The author (in this case the NY times) wrote an artical and as far as i can see they chose a very descriptive title that told what the article was about.  In fact i was having extreme problems understanding your postering based upon assuming that the title you represented was the actual title of the article.  As i am a member of this group i have the right and the ability to change misrepresentations when i see them.  Do you not see that your title was misrepresenting something out in the world ?

Calling a pig a "cat" is a lie, just as much as saying that there are WMD in a country when there are none.  I simply fixed your "lie".  I think that the world is a better place because that lie is fixed


Seth says
Mark 2005-10-26 12:49:59 1708
If you didn't allow for title changes, then why did you write it in the software. Why not just accept what is in the Article.  Let the wars begin.
we don't need no stinking war here .   The box to edit the about url's title is primarialy there for the cases where the foreign web page has not provided it, or when web page misrepresents their own contents.  

Mark de LA says


Mark de LA says


Seth says
Mark 2005-10-26 12:52:23 1708
As a matter of fact, If I find an article that is miss-headlined I am likely NOT to accept their title and make up my own. Headline writers (separate sometimes from the people who write them) often write headlines to slant the news or hype a position. I believed that to be the case in this one.
well i respectifully disagree.  i think they chose a very descriptive title and based upon knowing that title, the contents of their page was as expected.  

Mark de LA says
Well, politics is about opinions & everybody knows that opinions are like assholes - everybody has one!



Mark de LA says
Hmmm.,..... somebody forgot to heed the 


See Also

  1. Thought [title (23165)] with 12 viewings related by tag "security".
  2. Thought A Crisis is a Wonderful Thing to Exploit ! with 3 viewings related by tag "security".
  3. Thought My secured encrypted email with 2 viewings related by tag "security".
  4. Thought On the publishing of classified information with 1 viewings related by tag "first amendment".
  5. Thought Defend or Assert My Position Using Your Rules with 1 viewings related by tag "first amendment".
  6. Thought They trashed the wiki again with 0 viewings related by tag "security".
  7. Thought about: the web platform: browser technologies with 0 viewings related by tag "security".
  8. Thought FYI with 0 viewings related by tag "first amendment".
  9. Thought The Anatomy of a Panic 9/11 with 0 viewings related by tag "security".
  10. Thought Manifesto: Freedom of The Internet with 0 viewings related by tag "security".
  11. Thought The First Amendment with 0 viewings related by tag "first amendment".
  12. Thought Free Speech? with 0 viewings related by tag "first amendment".
  13. Thought about: dashlane.com - never forget another password with 0 viewings related by tag "security".
  14. Thought about: Global Conference on CyberSpace 2015 - livestream channel 1 with 0 viewings related by tag "security".
  15. Thought Denise Flys to Los Angeles with 0 viewings related by tag "security".
  16. Thought Bush says oversight rules are not binding with 0 viewings related by tag "patriot act".
  17. Thought about: Development at tagtalking with 0 viewings related by tag "security".
  18. Thought The dynamics of an Internet Cafe with 0 viewings related by tag "security".
  19. Thought Use a human test with 0 viewings related by tag "security".
  20. Thought Reliability, Security & Speed with 0 viewings related by tag "security".
  21. Thought Google on Web Security with 0 viewings related by tag "security".
  22. Thought Bush's proclamation ... with 0 viewings related by tag "first amendment".
  23. Thought Extraudarnary secruity for administrators with 0 viewings related by tag "security".
  24. Thought Free Speech vs Free Shouting with 0 viewings related by tag "first amendment".
  25. Thought I often wonder about Congress .... with 0 viewings related by tag "security".
  26. Thought Indentity with 0 viewings related by tag "security".
  27. Thought human test with 0 viewings related by tag "security".