Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
DDOS Ethics
40hz:
^ I his case, I'm afraid the current set of charges are just the opening act in a much larger tragic opera he's about to play a role in.
I wish him luck with that. He'll need it. Especially if his "real" crime was nothing more than pissing off the wrong people. Because that's a "crime" you don't get to walk away from without first getting seriously hurt.
The law is often lenient when dealing with real criminal offenses. However, it is seldom more arbitrary and brutal than when it's dealing with what it sees as an insult, or a challenge to it's authority.
Renegade:
The law is often lenient when dealing with real criminal offenses. However, it is seldom more arbitrary and brutal than when it's dealing with what it sees as an insult, or a challenge to it's authority.
-40hz (December 13, 2010, 07:11 AM)
--- End quote ---
+1. And it's very sad... But you know... Some animals are more equal than others...
40hz:
And humans are still primates after all. And as such, they behave accordingly.
wraith808:
These aren't drunken ramblings, they are talks between colleagues in order to spread opinions and snap analyses, and weren't spread publicly.-Stoic Joker (December 12, 2010, 12:58 PM)
--- End quote ---
It's an analogy, not a direct reference. The point being if you don't want to risk being quoted on something, don't say it.
In the interest of full disclosure all internal correspondence are to be stored for a period of time just in case they need to be reviewed by a committee of unknown people. So, tossing derogatory comments about foreign dignitaries around (which was "the rub" according to the main stream news reports) in that atmosphere is really pretty dumb ... As there is no actual expectation-of-privacy.
[/quote]
I understand the incorrect analogy (;)), it's just that it's incorrect. In one case, there is no expectation of privacy. In the other case, there is, at least amongst your colleagues, considering the brand of classified. So you can make frank comments to your colleagues. Whether they should be is a whole different conversation, and one you have before outing someone's comments that were made under that seal. It would be like me telling you that I would hold what you say in confidence, then decide after you tell me in confidence that I think that everyone should hear it. And many of these communiques included information from third parties that were sources in the diplomatic community. I'm pretty sure that those sources are not very confident in our ability to keep communications private at this point... and for what concrete benefit was this done? Was there anything that came out of this that was an undeniable benefit to the people that this is supposedly serving?
40hz:
Once again, the drawing talents of the marvelous Mr. Fish helps put it all in perspective:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version