Slashdot Mirror

Statement from National District Attorney Association

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/NDAA%20Statement%20on%20Expiration%20of%20National%20Commission%20on%20Forensic%20Science.pdf

The Commission lacked adequate representation from the state and local practitioner community,
was dominated by the defense community, and failed to produce work products of significance for
the forensic science community. Very few of the recommendations from the Commission were
adopted and signed by the previous Attorney General during its existence. Those that were signed,
such as universal accreditation, had already begun to develop organically within the forensic science
community as accepted best practices, thus replicating ongoing work and wasting taxpayer dollars.

You know, every time I see this argument, I reply in the exact same way. The FBI asked for nothing of the sort, and it is a lie to say they did. The court order is available to be read online, and it actually says that the exploit was to be keyed to the ID of the specific phone, and signed by Apple's signing key. It therefore would be impossible for the FBI to modify it for another phone, and Apple would be the only ones with the ability to do that.

The court order is available here:

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/SB-Sho...

But I am unable to resolve their DNS currently, not sure what happened to their stuff.

Next you are going to claim that the FBI said they wanted to unlock numerous phones, but what does that matter? They still have to get warrants to the data on the phone, which is as far as the constitution goes on this case. The FBI also offered to pay for the work, as they pay for stuff like this all the time, so you can't bring in the slavery angle.

Also, Apple worked with FBI and local law enforcement in unlocking numerous phone previously, so they don't have any issue in doing it. For some reason Apple decided to take a stand on this one case, when they never did before. Maybe someone at Apple was implicated?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

Bull shit.

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/SB-Sho...

The order specifically states that this is to be an unlock tied to the hardware ID of the phone, and that the FBI don't want access to the unlock.

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/SB-Sho...

Is that accurate? It doesn't appear to be what I am reading in the court order.

"The SIF will be coded by Apple with a unique identifier of the phone so that the SIF would only load and execute on the SUBJECT DEVICE"

Not exactly the same as "give us a tool we can use on thousands of phones". Also, I would say that exactly defines a one off tool, as it is signed by Apple's signing key, it isn't like the FBI could take that file and change the unique identifier to any phone they like.

Considering that what the FBI wants is listed in the court order, you should be able to find it on your own without issue. I guess you think the FBI is somehow keeping their request secret?

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/SB-Sho...

I suppose you could just read the court order, but maybe that is too hard? The FBI already stated that they don't want a generic backdoor, nor do they want access to the backdoor, but I guess you know so much more than I do.

right, they just want access when they want it, with nothing hindering the process.

All of your "solutions are actual backdoors. So now if you want to say thy don't want backdoors you have to tell us why you were wrog when you first told us we were wrong. You're digging a pretty deep hole for yourself.

So, a court order, asking for Apple to modify a single phone is somehow going to make every iPhone in the world backdoored? Do you really think that?

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/SB-Sho...

There is the court order, please show me where they ask Apple to give them access to the software. Please show me where it says that they want a generic backdoor, compiled and signed with Apple's key that they can use on every phone in the world.

Instead, the court order asks for a single backdoor, which is keyed to a specific phone, and compiled and signed with Apple's code signing key. This would NOT give the FBI the ability to create a backdoor for every phone, as they don't have the private key used to sign a new firmware, so they are still out a backdoor. This will only give Apple the ability to make changes to phones which they support already. But I guess you don't care about facts in your attempt to accuse the FBI of something that they are not doing.

Considering that what the FBI wants is listed in the court order, you should be able to find it on your own without issue. I guess you think the FBI is somehow keeping their request secret?

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/SB-Sho...

I suppose you could just read the court order, but maybe that is too hard? The FBI already stated that they don't want a generic backdoor, nor do they want access to the backdoor, but I guess you know so much more than I do.

Have you read what the court order to apple says? Actually says? I have read the actual court order.

It says:

1) It will bypass or disable the auto-erase function.
2) it will enable the FBI to submit passcodes to the subject device for testing electronically via the physical device port, bluetooth, wifi, or other protocol available.
3) it will not purposefully introduce any additional delay between passcodes attempts beyond what is incurred by hardware
4) they are to provide a signed iPhone software file that can be loaded onto the device and run from RAM without modifying the iOS installation on the actual phone, the user data, or system partitions on the device's flash memory

Source: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/SB-Sho...

So yes...they are required to allow for electronic entry of the passcode. And they have to write the software in a way that hasn't been done before... without touching the flash memory on the iPhone. You can not run iOS on the phone "from RAM".

This is absolutely a new piece of software that they will likely have to start with. Much more complicated than just "removing a few lines of code".

Where does all this anti-Assange fluster come from? How could you know any more about it then anyone else that follows the media?

I've read the UK High Court opinion, which goes into significant detail about the events, including the ones that Assange confessed to having done. Specifically, from the opinion:

[Assange's lawyer] Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — at least for the purposes of today’s hearing — the validity of Assange’s accusers’ central claims. He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

His own statements have done him in.

it is equally obvious that these "rape" claims are dubious.

Again, from the high court:

Plainly this is a case which has moved from suspicion to accusation supported by proof...
In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced.

Just to emphasize that - "there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged."

You have not debunked anything. If you could actually produce decent references to a few ground facts that would be most helpful.

Done. Here's the link for you, too.

The lobster dinner is obviously absolutely relevant.

Absolutely not, unless he was farking her during the salad course. The only question is whether he had consent at the time he penetrated her. Not when he had lobster. This is the same reason why any "regret" she had later is also irrelevant, as I'm sure you'd insist.

In these consent rape cases the question is whether the woman actually gave consent or not, i.e. who is telling the truth.

In typical ones, yes. But fortunately, here, we have Assange confessing to penetrating a woman, while she was asleep, knowing that she had told him no to sex. There is absolutely no question about facts or who is telling the truth, because everyone, from the victim to Assange to his lawyer to the prosecutor agrees on what happened: she said no sex without a condom; she went to sleep; he penetrated her while she was asleep, without a condom, knowing that she wouldn't consent and that she couldn't resist. That's rape.

A woman that thinks she was violated, raped, does not normally then have a pleasant dinner with her attacker.

Your turn: [citation needed], please. Many, many studies have debunked your claim. In particular, in the vast majority of rape cases in which the victim knows the rapist (including sometimes friends, family members, trusted advisors, etc.), the reactions are all over the place.

But more importantly, this is all irrelevant. Assange confessed to raping her. Whether she acts appropriately in your eyes the next day is irrelevant, because it doesn't magically travel back in time and wake her up before he stuck his dick where he shouldn't have. Got it? She was asleep. He did not have consent and knew it. He did it anyway, and has admitted it. The end. She could bake him a farking cake the next day and it wouldn't change what he did at the time.

As far as I can determine this is enti

Should I be allowed to ... allow my child to die from an easily cured malady because I believe in faith healing?

No sane person would believe this, but yes, this is exactly how it works in most of the USA today.

Secular nation my ass.

Most states have an exception in their child abuse laws that specifically states that withholding vital medical care due to sincere religious belief is not a criminal act, even though withholding vital medical care for any other reason would be considered abuse and grounds for prosecution. 37 states, currently.

Source: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Religious%20Exemptions%20to%20Child%20Neglect%202013.pdf

Maybe these studies are wrong? You say there are statistics, show they aren't fabrications: Where's your study? Who told you those stats in the first place?

That cuts both ways. Kanin himself apparently cautioned against the generalizability of his findings, and some googling indicates to me that his study has been widely disputed. To quote one researcher, "Kanin describes no effort to systemize his own ‘evaluation’ of the police reports—for example, by listing details or facts that he used to evaluate the criteria used by the police to draw their conclusions. Nor does Kanin describe any effort to compare his evaluation of those reports to that of a second, independent research—providing a ‘reliability’ analysis. This violates a cardinal rule of science, a rule designed to ensure that observations are not simply the reflection of the bias of the observer".

Or to quote a blogger under the moniker Ampersand, "In other words, Kanin’s study consists of Kanin uncritically reporting the claims of a single police force in a small, unidentified city, without those claims having been checked or verified in any way whatsoever."

So if we're going to throw stats around, here's a report with a 2.1% rate - https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=243182

This PDF collates some statistics and ends up with somewhere around 8% - http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf

Wikipedia itself has a long table of studies and the rates they report, even including a study on the studies - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_rape_accusations - which has as one of its conclusions that it is 'impossible to "discern with any degree of certainty the actual rate of false allegations" due to the fact that many of the studies of false allegations have adopted unreliable or untested research methodologies'.

Where am I going with this? Damned if I know. The huge number of dead links to primary sources I hit was certainly annoying. But were I you, I think I'd cease using Kanin's study like it actually means anything beyond "how to provide ammunition for people who don't even know which end of the gun they're holding".

That depends on the state you did it in. Here's a list

It most certainly IS a violation of the law, in some states more than one.

Odd, the NDAA's National Prosecution Standards says it is for the prosecutor to determine (4-2.4, Factors to Consider). That a court may subsequently agree or disagree does not absolve prosecutors of their responsibilities. Or do federal prosecutors use a completely different set of standards? http://ndaa.org/pdf/NDAA%20NPS%203rd%20Ed.%20w%20Revised%20Commentary.pdf

Hypocrisy, what comes around goes around, or social inertia? Some of all three, I think. Harshly condemning society for harshly condemning a member of society who used the power invested in them by that society to harshly condemn another member of society? I would say she should be investigated fairly and justly, but by your own words, isn't whether she was actually guilty and whether there were extenuating circumstances up to a court to determine, not her prosecutors?

I think there is a groundswell of opposition to all of those things. But society is an animal with some of its nerve endings a long way from some of its muscles, if that makes sense.

From the NDAA's National Prosecution Standards, Third Edition, with Revised Commentary:

4-2.4 Factors to Consider
The prosecutor should only file those charges that are consistent with the interests of
justice. Factors that may be relevant to this decision include:
a. The nature of the offense, including whether the crime involves violence or
bodily injury;
b. The probability of conviction;
c. The characteristics of the accused that are relevant to his or her
blameworthiness or responsibility, including the accused’s criminal history;
d. Potential deterrent value of a prosecution to the offender and to society at large;
e. The value to society of incapacitating the accused in the event of a conviction;
f. The willingness of the offender to cooperate with law enforcement;
g. The defendant’s relative level of culpability in the criminal activity;
h. The status of the victim, including the victim’s age or special vulnerability;
i. Whether the accused held a position of trust at the time of the offense;
j. Excessive costs of prosecution in relation to the seriousness of the offense;
k. Recommendation of the involved law enforcement personnel;
l. The impact of the crime on the community;
m. Any other aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

The commentary that accompanies this, and the subsequent standards regarding diversion (official alternatives to criminal sentences, such as rehabilitation clinics, community services, etc) are worth reading if you're interested. http://ndaa.org/pdf/NDAA%20NPS%203rd%20Ed.%20w%20Revised%20Commentary.pdf

"It is the prosecutor's job to prosecute any crimes submitted to them."

False. From the The National Prosecution Standards published by the National District Attorneys Association: http://ndaa.org/pdf/NDAA%20NPS%203rd%20Ed.%20w%20Revised%20Commentary.pdf

"The primary responsibility of a prosecutor is to seek justice, which can only be achieved by the representation and presentation of the truth."

"The prosecutor should only file those charges that are consistent with the interests of justice."

A prosecutor _chooses_ whether to file (and dismiss) charges. That the current system is biased to reward prosecutors who choose their own self-interest over the interests of justice does not change the fact that it remains their choice.

Actually, it's because of such simplistic stereotypes about how rape victims are supposed to behave that so many sexual assaults still go unreported. Once you know that most rapes are committed by people the victim knew, you can understand why not all victims immediately go to the police. It's perfectly understandable that, if they had already had consensual intercourse before, the alleged victim would feel bad about what happened afterward if she did not agree to having sex without a condom but did not immediately report it. It's a common reaction and victims often need the help of their family or friends to fully understand what has happened to them and realize that it was rape. The fact that they "didn't seem phased" doesn't mean much, as there are many cases of rape victims dating and having subsequent intercourse with their rapist (clear-cut example: all those who were victims of marital rape).

See for references to published research: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/pub_victim_responses_sexual_assault.pdf