DF wrote:
They need an overt act. Mere chat won't be enough.
True, to a point. What constitutes an act appears to be going through a dramatic redefinition in cybercrime and allegedly terrorist-related actions. An overt act is not the same for everyone; authorities commit acts (crimes) that the rest of us cannot. And according to the IRS investigation manual it is fair game: to encourage such blurred-line-crossing actions, even taking part in them to vet the promoter; to lie and deceive to get the actions underway; to lie in court to conceal how it was done and who promoted the actions. In the light that another reported has been subpoenaed for notes it worth pondering if, as in the case of Bell and CJ, journalists played a role in promoting line-crossing behavior, not by doing the job they are known to do, but by redefinition of the blurred line between reporting and provoking. Neither Bell nor CJ would have been sent to prison without the complicity of the media, witting or unwitting, and in my opinion, witting moreso. Same goes for this list, which is for me, a member of the media, and no doubt a member of other conclaves yet to be revealed in court and to be sure the hypermedia -- that is the media in which there is a very blurred line (maybe none at all) between the authorities and the traditional media. Look, this swipe is not about Declan and the guy at Bell's trial. That is far too simple. What it is about is not taking for granted avowals of innocence of trusted third parties no matter what cloak they wear, for those TTP cloaks are now clearly being used to entrap gullible actors. And any of the TTPs who say this is paranoid have got a problem of credibility derived primarily from the overly-concerted effort to protect their own privilege even as they shop their subjects as mere news, not quite getting the full story right due to a blinding reliance on voices (grammar, syntax, coherency, narrative) of authority which sound just like the authorities -- ducks quacking like ducks. To not blindly tar everyone with this, I concede that those who have overtly proven they are trustworthy and continue to do so overtly, that is in public under fire, deserve a chance on trust on short-terms. Talk about deserving trust from any previleged position is just authoritarian talk. And citing how many of your fellows have been thrown in jail or suffered for their role aint worth shit unless you are one of them. Then your talk aint all quack.