Re:Sensors detect rise in nuclear particles on Baltic Sea
by ksaj on Saturday June 27, 2020 @04:07PM
(#23664268)
Mandates are mandates. You can only say and do what you are authorized to say and do. Overstepping other agencies' jurisdictions is a guaranteed way to garner negative attention.
Eg: In Canada people are trying to push the Prime Minister into releasing Meng back to China. But the government is strictly separate from the legal/court system to avoid the type of corruption one sees the US Dept of Justice accused of right now. So yes, he very well might be able to push the matter through loopholes or influence, but the very same people pushing him to do it would also decry corruption and call him a dictator if he did so. So he won't overstep that boundary.
Additionally, I used to provide technical expert witness services in certain types of court cases. I had to state only things that I can back up as part of my expertise. I had to use the word 'apparent' and 'presumed' a lot, even when file names were so extremely obvious. I couldn't refer to a hacker as a hacker in certain contexts - they're simply "suspects" etc. As a technical expert, I spoke to the technology and not the person or any literal content.
It's exactly the same reason you see the word "alleged" used in the news even when it is super obvious the "alleged" facts are obviously true -- Jurisdiction and authority to state specifics as fact.
Eg: In Canada people are trying to push the Prime Minister into releasing Meng back to China. But the government is strictly separate from the legal/court system to avoid the type of corruption one sees the US Dept of Justice accused of right now. So yes, he very well might be able to push the matter through loopholes or influence, but the very same people pushing him to do it would also decry corruption and call him a dictator if he did so. So he won't overstep that boundary.
Additionally, I used to provide technical expert witness services in certain types of court cases. I had to state only things that I can back up as part of my expertise. I had to use the word 'apparent' and 'presumed' a lot, even when file names were so extremely obvious. I couldn't refer to a hacker as a hacker in certain contexts - they're simply "suspects" etc. As a technical expert, I spoke to the technology and not the person or any literal content.
It's exactly the same reason you see the word "alleged" used in the news even when it is super obvious the "alleged" facts are obviously true -- Jurisdiction and authority to state specifics as fact.