The US has surveilled political factions that they've considered potentially subversive or corrupt machine politics - right and left wing - for ages. RICO prosecutions against politically motivated corruption are long overdue, and should definitely land on both parties because the grift seems to be the order of the day. But that doesn't happen without actual investigation of the political machine - and incidental local low level conspirators are mostly patsies for the people calling the shots. I applaud the protestors for wanting to change things, but shake my head at the naivete of thinking that being a martyr for the Instagram cameras is the way to do it.
I have no idea where Americans get the idea that this isn't standard operating procedure at this point.
Literally the US has zero civil rights when it comes to privacy. There are so many loopholes and gotchas thanks to fear mongered panic laws that the government will never give up.
Every decade or so the government invents a new(or just reuses an old one) enemy, lately it's them brown islams, and Americans will happily give up another right.
Nikki Krishnamurthy - the center of this scandal - came there from Washington Mutual, one of the most famous implosions from the 2008 Big Crash along with Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers. How she's employable at all is beyond me.
> It seems like many drugs are banned in various societies today, so I don't quite follow you.
OP thinks no "advanced civilization" has ever allowed drugs. Drugs bans enforced by state power only became a thing near the end of the 19th century. That means no advanced civilization existed before then - not the Romans, nor Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, Indians, or Chinese - and countless others. Sounds incorrect to me.
The abstract would seem to suggest methamphetamine is one correlation; you might also reasonably suggest toxoplasmosis and I have heard a naturopath suggest that it can be treated nutritionally(!) I'm certain there's other valid explanations
Bret Devereaux's writing is often cited here for his writing about warfare, logistics, and the like. But he occasionally writes also about his own profession and the difficulties in getting there, c.f. https://acoup.blog/2021/10/01/collections-so-you-want-to-go-...
He also laments the difficulty in getting a full professorship (an opportunity recently denied to him) and finds universities increasingly focused on "paycheck degrees" such as STEM, which seems to rankle him. But it seems a likely outcome from the demographic and economic changes laid out in this article. I wish him all the best, I enjoy his writings, but I confess that my tech career seems more stable even with recent layoffs shaking the market.
Is the point to get money or stop this from happening again?
If it’s the latter, I wonder if it would be more effective to bring this incident (and the apparent ineffectiveness of Princeton’s IRB) to the attention of the NIH. I would think the prospect of putting all that grant money in jeopardy would cause people in high places to take notice.
I think the plaintiffs would be people who spent money reacting to the emails, and I suspect Princeton may be quick to take care of those expenses to avoid further action.
I personally didn’t incur any monetary costs, just a lot of unnecessary stress.
They bought it for data gathering and market/competitor research. I was with Amazon at the time. Was great for keeping track of what products were drawing most traction on eBay (Longaberger baskets and Beanie babies, says my vague memory)
