Says the devout BoingBoing apologist.
Oh, I guess you took that to mean you were an apologist?
Also, stop changing the subject. I disagree with your analysis, and I do think you are are sewing FUD. As well as being insulting with a very thin skin yourself.
And to save Falcor the hassle, I am unfollowing this conversation and will not be responding to you in future. Problem solved?
[mod edit: removed insults]
I directly responded to the points you yourself raised. I’m not sure how this is changing the subject, although I’ll note that aside from the rather un-substantive " I disagree with your analysis,” nothing in your post was in any way on-topic.
Sorry if you think that pointing out that you were wrong to suggest that a judge ordered the release of the information is “sewing [sic] FUD.”[quote=“Skeptic, post:59, topic:33551”]
Pretty obvious. The documents weren’t a federal secret. They’d been in the storage of an ordinary local police department - not in a secure facility for classified information. That is, until it became clear that the public would get to see them.
[/quote]
That’s a decent point. I shouldn’t have said they were state secrets (which likely would be classified), but instead said they were relevant to national security. Either way, however, there is an interest in keeping them secret, and the need for secrecy always comes to the fore when the public asks to see something. It’s possible that the Marshals seizure of these documents was entirely inappropriate, and the coming court hearings will determine this.
Its also possible that the equivalent documents at the federal level are protected secrets. Should the secrecy of these documents and procedures be lost just because a local police department engages in similar activity and was willing to release the information?
The one in the foreground looks like his is a velcro label – probably actually from one of those undisclosed agencies.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
