That's a bit like telling a career criminal that he should better not do a petty crime. Like telling a murderer that it's not ok to steal a car to drive to his victim.
'cause all the money they had went into the product and nothing was left for the PR department?
15. How often do we get to hear about it? I read about it on $otherpage $time ago.
Think about it, next time you wonder how on earth someone could come up with a law that is so far away from reality that it hurts. These people are the same the make laws concerning computers, the internet and everything connected to it. Most of the time taken verbatim from sources that have a rather intense interest in certain laws (aka "lobbying groups"), without even having the slightest idea what their laws will entail.
And this is why the whole crap is in the sorry state it is in today, with laws that are not executable, laws that make no sense, laws you cannot heed and laws that benefit a minority at the expense of everyone else.
And it's only half as dangerous as long as it's just domestic. It gets downright scary, though, when international laws get negotiated. Because one thing is certain: Whatever country can field the ones that can spell TCP/IP without too many accidents will be the one-eyed king amongst the blind.
Even though I'd fear that he'll just be the one eyed dummy that's being remote controlled by some corporate lawyer who DOES have an idea what he's doing.
If I told some bull like that to my boss, I'd be fired. And rightfully so.
Why should someone being paid by your money get away with it?
It should be classified information that the NSA employs a "Dear Selma" column? Yeah, knowing that now will certainly give the terrorists an edge...
Fine. But at the very least I think the public has a right to KNOW it. It's your money at work there, and if you pay for it I think you should at least be interested in its spending.
Whether or not that expense is justified is not something I should decide, I agree. It's something the taxpayers of the United States should decide.
They're paid for by your taxes. I'd say you have a right to see whether they're doing their job or whether your money is being squandered on frivolous crap like an "advice column".
But if you don't care, hey, it ain't my money!
Because it sucks.
(Actually, the answer to both questions)
Even if he had been distributing, why the gag? There is simply no good reason for the gag order.
The moment they get someone who CAN actually tell a hyperlink from hypertension in the jury the prosecution is screwed. Why do you think reporting about it could possibly change that?
Oh that's simply not true. You can still have arms and there haven't been any soldiers stationed in your home, where there?
How could you say it is obsolete! Without that document, the government could easily put soldiers in your home, do you want that? Do you? Isn't that enough to be a bit more lenient with a few of the others that don't matter so much?
Because they never had to fight for their freedom.
Humans are kinda odd. They are quite willing to give away what they take for granted to get something they think is valuable, not considering that for the promise of the latter they could easily lose the former. For reference, see Native Americans, their land and glass marbles. Or current Americans, their freedom and security. Same raw deal.
How could anything he says possibly impede prosecution, incite others to repeat his crime or aid others in either committing it or cover their tracks? That would be pretty much the ONLY good reasons I could possibly see for a gag order.