Ignore the man in the
White House. (We do.) Forget what every journalist is saying. When
it comes to the law, our pill is best taken with our Kool-Aid.
A press release
from EFF:
San Francisco – U.S.
government intelligence officials late last night released
some previously secret declarations submitted to the court in Jewel
v. NSA – EFF’s long-running case challenging the NSA’s
domestic surveillance program – plus a companion case, Shubert
v. Obama. The documents were released pursuant to the
court’s order.
Surprisingly, in these
documents and in the brief
filed with them, the government continues to claim
that plaintiffs cannot prove they were surveilled without state
secrets and that therefore, a court cannot rule on the legality or
constitutionality of the surveillance. For example,
despite the fact that these activities are discussed every day in
news outlets around the world and even in the president’s recent
press conference, the government states broadly that information that
may relate to Plaintiffs’ claims that the “NSA indiscriminately
intercepts the content of communications, and their claims regarding
the NSA’s bulk collection of … metadata” is still a state
secret.
… The newly
released declarations are the first time the government has
declassified a description of the origins and history of the NSA’s
illegal and unconstitutional surveillance programs. However, these
declarations – and the reissued state secrets claims – represent
only a very slight shift in the government’s tactics in this case.
… Earlier this
week, a Washington D.C. federal court judge ruled
that NSA telephone records collection was “probably
unconstitutional” in DC federal court. In July, based on documents
filed before the Snowden revelations, the judge in the Jewel v.
NSA ruled
against the government’s state secrets claims. Now we look
forward to the California federal court finally ruling on the
legality of the “upstream”
interception of internet content and the telephone records program.
For this release:
Even a brief reading
leaves me with many questions, but again it could just be poor
writing. If one file could have multiple links (a technique to avoid
duplication) a request to delete an “infringing” link should not
automatically delete the file and all legitimate links, yet that
seems to be what the FBI (MPAA?) expects. (and that's only page 3!)
Fury
over US release of Dotcom 'evidence'
Kim Dotcom's legal team
have been left furious after the United States skirted local court
suppressions to release what they say is a "cherry-picked"
summary of their case against the piracy-accused.
A detailed summary of
the evidence against the Megaupload founder was made public in the US
yesterday for the first time since the case began almost two years
ago.
The evidence is
suppressed in New Zealand by way of a ruling from Judge David Harvey
made in the early stages of the court process against Dotcom.
The Sunday Star-Times
understands Dotcom's legal team wanted it to remain secret until
trial to give their client a fair chance, as they
have not been given access to the documents the summary is based on,
and believe the US account is one-sided and could create prejudice.
However, the FBI sought
leave from a court in Virginia to release what it says is a "new"
summary of the evidence to allow alleged victims to come forward and
make claims against the estimated $80 million seized from the
company.
A US judge ruled the
documents could be "unsealed" on Friday, despite the
ongoing New Zealand suppression.
… So far, Dotcom
has had several victories against prosecutors, including rulings that
searches at his home breached the law, and that he was spied on
illegally by the Government Communications Security Bureau.
His lawyers have
repeatedly accused the US of a heavy-handed approach against him,
backed by movie moguls and politicians rather than legitimate legal
grounds.
… "The DOJ
release today is made up of ‘recycled allegations' that don't point
to criminal copyright infringement," he said. Rothken had filed
an application fighting the summary's release, but he was not heard
in court.
[The
FBI evidence summary:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/vae/victimwitness/mega_files/Mega%20Evidence.pdf
Have I mentioned this
one before? Sounds familiar..
is a free
text-to-speech plugin for Microsoft Word that creates audio files
from any document written in Word. It can speak the text of the
document and highlight as it goes, enabling visually impaired users
to read documents online. It also offers a number of programmable
keyboard shortcuts, helping many types of users (for example,
students who have trouble holding a mouse) to have an adapted, useful
device. It is also great for students with reading difficulties, who
may benefit from both reading and hearing the text they’re working
with.
I don't assign a lot of
papers in my Math classes, but I'll save this for my next Computer
Security students.
The
Impact of Digital Tools on Student Writing and How Writing is Taught
in Schools
by Sabrina
I. Pacifici on December 22, 2013
The
Impact of Digital Tools on Student Writing and How Writing is Taught
in Schools - Kristen Purcell, Director of Research, Pew Research
Center’s Internet & American Life Project; Judy Buchanan Deputy
Director, National Writing Project; Linda Friedrich Director of
Research and Evaluation, National Writing Project. july 16, 2013.
“In a survey of
Advanced Placement and National Writing Project teachers, a majority
say digital tools encourage students to be more invested in their
writing by encouraging personal expression and providing a wider
audience for their work. Most also say digital tools make teaching
writing easier, despite an increasingly ambiguous line between formal
and informal writing and students’ poor
understanding of issues such as plagiarism and fair use.” [We
have an App for that. Bob]
Humor? Dilbert's
pointy hair manager demonstrates another downside of drones.
No comments:
Post a Comment