...before posting. The frenzy's already started. People - there's a long story here. Do not rely on this summary to tell you the details. Don't litter the thread with inane "he broke the law and should pay" comments. Your fellow non-readers in-spirit have done so on a minimum of twenty prior threads on this issue.

Please, please learn the backstory before commenting. Think of the children. Plus, some readers are getting on in years (35+). They can't handle the spiking blood pressure.

In the end, the reason he reversed himself was national security. He gave a response along the lines of "It wasn't the bill I would have wanted, but it needed to be passed, so..." The controversy at the heart of it was the class-action lawsuit immunity for telcos that participated in Bush's illegal wiretapping. Obama stated that he would support no bill that included such a provision. It is this stance that he reversed.

The "pro-bill" side argued, btw, that the revised bill MUST be passed, otherwise the terrorists win. However, they would refuse to support the bill if the immunity provisions were omitted. Basically, national security == telco immunity from prosecution.

That reversal is the reason I dislike Obama.
I'm glad people still remember that!

I don't like the misleading/painfully naive thing, but otherwise you're on point. Both the insurance and justice systems DO operate this way. I was attempting to criticize IBM's software from the standpoint of what we claim to be the ideals. In the real world, obviously, the justice system will absolutely fucking love this crap.

Your counterexample is not valid. With respect to insurance payouts, people are essentially fungible, in the sense that it doesn't matter (to the insurance company) whether they pay person A or person B for an operation whose statistical likelihood is 50%. Whereas with respect to punishment, sentencing, and treating a person like a criminal, people are very much NOT fungible.

Ok, fair point :)

Still, the original sentiment reflects an important element missing from this "predictive" program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Slim

Cheating, lying, stealing, breaking the law...you know, same way white people do it.

Excellent post!

For those that didn't get it - references specific to American human rights violators were used metaphorically, being examples I am most familiar with. As this particular judge's attitude is something that shows up frequently in those who dispense so-called justice all around the world, feel free to substitute whichever local corporate and political dirtbags you feel appropriate. Also - since the actions of the people I listed affected the global community as a whole, perhaps the question of jurisdiction should be re-examined. In principle, the Hague has global jurisdiction anyway.

Flame on, fellows.

Hi Judge Robertson,

Do you have trouble comprehending the word "anonymous"? Or is it that you do not understand the implications of anonymity on freedom? Or are you just an authoritarian dumbass?

What "actions" have these posters done? Expressed an opinion? Given the racial nature of the story, I imagine those comments were quite disgusting and racist. I do not support them. But similarly, the notion that every instance of anonymous speech must be ferreted out, and the 'perpetrators' held to 'account' is just wrong.

But as long as we are 'holding people to account', let's go all the way. Grab the CEOs of MPAA and RIAA and talk to them about the erosion of the public domain. Talk to Cheney about torture and the warcrimes tribunal. Let's get Albright, Kissinger, Bzhezinsky and talk about imperialism. And don't forget the fine folks from Arthur Anderson and Enron. The list goes on. Why don't you get THOSE people and hold THEM to account, you self-righteous prig!

Let me try:

You're an adult. Take responsibility. You are responsible for everything you run on your computer. Period. You shouldn't run it if you don't understand every single line of code on it. If someone supplied you with bad software sue them, but you really should know the basics of software engineering before you run a program.

hmm....how does that work?

Or we can try that with medicine: ...You shouldn't get any treatment unless you understand it. If that requires graduate biochemistry, so be it. (There is no "somewhat" understand. It's like being a 'little bit' pregnant).

But let's go back to the mortgage agreement: there's more to them than what's in the contract. There are all kinds of laws affecting execution of mortgages. Industry practices. Laws on Federal/State/Local level affecting how those loans may be serviced/sold/enforced. But hey! Don't sign it if you don't understand all that!

Or how about this: You shouldn't post asinine comments unless you've thought through to the real world implications.

Posting non-anonymously because I don't care how I get moderated.

Yes, I'm so glad all those wealth-holders are paying their taxes!

A big shout-out from IBM to all our hill-climbing friends.

As do I. And many belong in jail for the way they did not. Not all. But many.

Ok, now you're officially a troll.