Slashdot Mirror
Lower Merion School District Update
Mike_EE_U_of_I and jargon82 were among a number of readers who sent an update on the Lower Merion School District webcam spying case (see Related Stories for our discussions of the affair over the last couple of months). The school had originally stated that capturing laptop photos in students' homes had only happened 42 times. It turns out what they meant was that there were 42 instances when they began intensive surveillance on the suspected stolen computers. This consisted of (among other things) transmitting a picture from the laptop's webcam every 15 minutes. This may have gone on for weeks. In total, it appears that there were thousands of photos. One of the key administrators involved has been answering all questions about the program by invoking the Fifth Amendment.
Pics of the kid sleeping and "half dressed". Who knows what else they have of other kids. They are in deeeeeeep guano.
I'm sure they must've caught some of the kids masturbating.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
One of the key administrators involved has been answering all questions about the program by invoking the Fifth Amendment.
No doubt he was instructed by his lawyer to do so. At least this means that the 'Oh Shit' lightbulb has finally gone off in someones head, someone finally is realizing that this could very easily end up with jail time and a spot on the sex offenders registry.
One of the key administrators involved has been answering all questions about the program by invoking the Fifth Amendment.
Which, to be fair, is entirely his or her right. Trying to infer guilt from this (tempting though it may be) violates what most of us stand for. Tossing that statement in at the end of the summary seems to be an attempt to imply guilt, though.
(Which isn't to say that I don't think this program was stupid and criminal.)
One of the key administrators involved has been answering all questions about the program by invoking the Fifth Amendment.
Hope this asshat understands that pleading the Fifth isn't going to prevent a judge or jury from finding/ruling against him and punishing him.
"If I don't say anything I'm safe." doesn't work in the real world when you've already been caught.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
What a life you must lead, trolling around with that tiny tape measure and asking every guy on the internet to send you pictures of their junk. Hell, you could get a job with the Lower Merion School District with that type of experience.
The guy pleads the fifth. No problem. Then grant him immunity from prosecution and take that off the table. Then let the dozens of civil suits eat him alive.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
I didn't think so!!
gonna be kind of hard to find work as a school administrator when you're, you know..., legally barred from being around children....
Can you send me a picture of your junk?
I have never understood how school districts think.
On one hand they're terrified of getting sued. They have huge lists of things, even common, ordinary actions, that are not allowed to prevent even the slightest chance of getting sued.
Then, on the other hand, they take actions that random people on the street realize will cause a lawsuit. Strip searching students for searching for asprin, cancelling proms when gay students wish to attend, secretly spying on students with webcams. What the hell are they thinking?
Did these laptops have rules stating that they were never permitted to leave the school grounds?
If so, this may improve the school district's legal standing somewhat, since the students were not supposed to have the laptops in that situation.
If the students WERE permitted to take the laptops home (other articles I have read implied they were), then under what criteria were these laptops suspected stolen? Unless a student reported a laptop as lost or stolen, or a student missed some sort of required inventory check, the administrators have no legitimate reason to suspect the laptop was stolen.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
From TFA:
An attorney for the district declined to comment last night on the Robbinses' latest motion, except to say that a report due in a few weeks will spell out what the district's own investigation has found.
"To the extent there is any evidence of misuse of any images, that also will be disclosed," said the attorney, former federal prosecutor Henry E. Hockeimer Jr. "However, at this late stage of our investigation we are not aware of any such evidence."
Unless he's saying that they weren't taking pictures of students in their private homes after all, what could they possibly have done with the pictures that wouldn't be "misuse"? This guy sounds as crazy as the people running the shool.
So here's some more additional info. The family which sued failed to pay a $55 insurance policy on the laptop. Now, I'm not saying that the surveillance was justified only that the missed payments may have triggered suspicions whether the laptop had been stolen. Of course, once the school determined that the laptop wasn't stolen, all surveillance should have stopped.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
just watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Absolutely must see.
Said many times above, but the he you are referring to is a SHE.
But perhaps you didn't know the gender and are using the gender neutral form of him. Universal He
Can you send me a picture of your junk?
I don't know how but you can ask my school to send you a few...
In the US, Schools are tasked with the impossible job of trying to please parents, who are also voters, and who are also incredibly rude and stupid about what they think is right for their kids. And what happens is that if you DON'T take action, then you get sued anyway!
Drugs? Zero tolerance because some parents and all politicians have zero tolerance, even for aspirin! Someone wrote the rule that way because some crazy person pushed it.
Gays at the prom? Because there is no equal protection under the law for gays, and too many people in american society still view gay relationships as evil. Allowing gays in the right conservative school district will get you just as sued.
Computer survellience? Well for this one there simply is no excuse. Someone obviously didn't do their homework and thought it was a good idea and forgot to check where the legal line crossed. This example is not like the others because the first two are more about social values in those areas and this is clearly a breach in well established law.
And don't forget these people are voted into office, and they are of the people and by the people. They are politicians as well, and if someone wants them to do something or risk being voted out, well this is how it works when the law isn't more clearly spelled out.
Then again, sometimes parents have an attack of sanity, like the Dover, PA case where the old school board tried to implement intelligent design, and they were voted out en masse the next election and the curriculum was scrapped.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Is that it makes their bosses etc. have a lot harder time claimingthat no law was broken and that everything they did was legal.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
This photo, allegedly taken surreptitiously by the Lower Merion School District through a laptop web camera, shows Blake Robbins sleeping at home at 5 p.m. on Oct 26.
The real question is, WTF was this kid doing sleeping at 5 pm instead of doing his homework? The kid doesn't even bother to take off his normal school day clothes when sleeping, which could mean wrinkles.
It's obvious that this Web 2.0 technology has utility. When parents are too busy to keep an eye on their kids, at least we know the school district will. If these school kids have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to worry about. It's just like going to the doctor; it's for their own good. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Really? Harder than if they confessed saying "this was school policy"?
I strongly support the right to plead the 5th. But while it's certainly not an admission of guilt, it would only be done by someone who could contribute nothing, or very little, positive to their own defense (since otherwise they'd be telling their side).
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
It's not a "self-incrimination" clause, it is a clause against being a witness against yourself in a criminal case.
excerpt from the Fifth Amendment:
"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"
The difference that I'm trying to make is that there doesn't have to be a presumption of self-incrimination to invoke it, just that you don't wish to testify about something involving yourself.
And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
Okay, Macbooks... webcam spying...
Does the surveillance software have the ability to take images without turning on the webcam LED? I mean we always assume those are hardware activated and can't be bypassed, I mean only an IDIOT would leave the LEDs controlled by the driver... right?
Also, if indeed there are laptops out there with software controlled LEDs, is anyone keeping a list of the spy-happy laptops out there?
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
The image of the guy sleeping has a JPEG APP12 tag with text "Ducky" and "Adobe". which indicates to me that it was probably photoshopped (probably only to crop it, but who knows?). I think Ducky.tif is a sample image provided by Adobe.
See for yourself: "od -c *webcam*.jpg|head"
If the intent is to get a picture of somebody that is suspected to have stolen the lap top, that's completely different from just taking pictures of people who are lawfully using laptop, but having an image taken of them without their knowledge. The later is spying, the first part is just trying to get stolen property back.
Folks should be well aware of by now that when you do something that affects your employees or students, you check with a lawyer or lawyers first. Either that or like this school is learning, you will be dealing with them after the fact.
They must be quite the institution of learning to have administration that makes these decisions.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
I have never understood how school districts think.
The reason why you're confused is because you are aiming too high. Think back to your childhood. How many of the teachers that you can remember would you say were smart? Not too many, right? I can think of two or three full-on idiots, a psychopath or two - you name it. The cream of the crop usually don't wind up teaching fourth graders.
Before people blast me - not all teachers and school admins and the like are idiots.
I can think of a few genuinely brilliant and wonderful people I met throughout my school career. People who do the job because they love children, love the potential, and love steering young people towards productive lives. But you'd have to be crazy to think everyone in a public school is like that.
A friend of mine drifted back into town a few months ago and stopped by for a visit. Hadn't seen him in ten years. He is now a hands-shaking alcoholic. What's his job? Substitute teacher. Par for the course.
So to answer your question, school jobs are excellent places for whackos to hide. Follow the rules exactly, practice your random insanity, get your summers off. That's why you get this odd sort of dichotomy of paranoia over lawsuits vs. idiotic punishable behavior. Stupid people can follow rules, but also continue be stupid. That's why those rules are in place, like zero tolerance rules. No room for judgment because the judgment of the people enforcing the rules is usually critically flawed.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
If you ever hear the phrase 'sovereign individuals,' run. Run away, as fast as you can. You are in the presence of either a moronic patsy or a dangerous con artist. Do not fall for this scam. You will lose money, and perhaps go to jail yourself for attempting to follow the ludicrous and expensive instructions for becoming this imaginary thing called a 'sovereign individual.' Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Citizen_Movement
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Shouldn't school officials deal with problems by the least intrusive means possible? Once the laptop surveillance was enabled, the first few pictures would have established the laptop's location. But they continued to take 400 snapshots over the course of 2 weeks! The only rational explanation for the continued surveillance is pure voyeurism -- and I expect that is what the student's lawyer will argue in court.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
In our society, men are terrified of being accused of sexual predation, and we steer clear of it. We know where the lines are, and we know we can be accused at any time. Maybe this administrator just wasn't as aware because, after all, she's a she and nobody would ever think that she would use the camera for illicit purposes! Seriously, the reason why that stereotype is there is because, on a whole, men tend to be more interested in pornographic images. Maybe part of the problem here is that, in the female dominated world of education, no man ever saw this policy and said, "uh, ladies... you do realize what people could use these cameras for, right?"
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Well the problem is no so much that the bosses have a harder time claiming no law was broken, but that the prosecutors have a harder time proving some law was broken. Claiming the fifth might imply guilt, but the defendants (ideally) can't be prosecuted until proven guilty.
On, Off, Automatic:
http://forums.logitech.com/t5/Webcams/QuickCam-Pro-9000-LED-Control/m-p/186301
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Can you send me a picture of your junk?
Sure, right here
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Lame.
Ha ha! Made you look!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
So what? Why would they post the raw picture without any modification?
I find being offended by me offensive.
Really? ... But while it's certainly not an admission of guilt, it would only be done by someone who could contribute nothing, or very little, positive to their own defense (since otherwise they'd be telling their side).
Whoosh! Proving you did not watch the video about the 5th!
Wow, that is a whole lot of crazy in the AC's link.
I have never head the term sovereign individual used in that manner until today. I've always seen it used as a declaration that you choose to live your life by your own rules regardless of what the law says, and in conjunction with schemes like this one, that help enable that sort of lifestyle.
But most of the IT folks in the district are men, including Mike Perbix, who was heavily involved with the laptop spying program, as seen in this video he created
You listed two great phrases for your examples, but please let me add one that I think is also very important, "I do not consent to a search." Don't let Police bully you into giving up your rights, even if you are innocent! Police will essentially try to convince you that only guilty people need rights, but it's a lie. Of course, IANAL.
The school board released this statement today.
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/91045839.html
I particularly appreciated this part "While we deeply regret the mistakes and misguided actions that have led us to this situation"
The board appears to me to finally realize that this was a horrible thing to do. The board's original position (that everything was fine) shocked me.
"We were looking for terrorists." Cue the band - it just became a Federal case and the students are obviously guilty.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
...for stealing the laptop in the first place?
Can't understand what schools are doing dishing laptops out to kids. It's obvious that loads'll get nicked. Take donations of old computers, sure, but give them away or sell them cheap. But don't waste valuable resources buying new laptops for kids.
Spend that money on the science labs, or decent math teachers.
do we want to teach our children?
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Think WHY male was assumed here. This case is about pictures of young kids possibly from cameras in their bedrooms.
Read the tone and assumptions.
1) the ones in trouble are male
2) the ones being spied on are female
Doesn't this seem like it's being ASSUMED that only men are sick enough to want to see pics of teens in their bedrooms?
Yet we have complaints that assuming it's a filthy old man taking pics of little girls is male sexism...
Back when this story first broke, I was not at all convinced that school officials were spying on kids. One student had been suspended for alleged inappropriate activity captured by the camera and everyone immediately assumed it was the result of this surveillance system. The only statement the school made on the issue was that the photo had been taken by the student and left on the hard drive of the laptop when he returned it. To me, that seemed a lot more plausible, if less juicy. (After all, who wasn't excited by the thought of photos of horny high school kids in their bedrooms, and equally excited by the thought of school officials getting raked over the coals.)
I saw this story earlier today and now I'm more convinced than ever the whole thing is BS. Look carefully at the photograph (provided by the parents, I might add.) Who goes to sleep with their laptop turned on and the camera pointed right at their face, so that it's perfectly centered in the frame and just well lit enough to show it clearly? If you've ever seen real photographs taken by peeping toms with hidden cameras, they're always grainy and show subjects in unflattering lighting conditions. This picture is just to perfect to be real.
Generally speaking, when there's a lawsuit going on and one side says nothing to the press, citing that it would be imprudent to do so during proceedings, and the other site leaks all kinds of juicy stuff to the press, I tend to believe the party that shows discretion.
As for the Fifth Amendment issue, as others have noted, it's standard practice when you're suspected of a crime to always invoke the 5th and say nothing before the trial. That's perfectly normal and doesn't mean anything at all.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Taking the Fifth is bad maybe they do have some real bad on there and they want to play pass the blame?
It may suck to be some low level tech to get pined with over software that higher ups loaded and you go to jail just as your where the guy who running the app.
You know, something like "Those that can do, those that can't teach, and those that can't even teach become school administrators"
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
If you are the defendant, in a criminal trial, then the prosecution cannot force you to testify (because of the 5th). However, if you choose to testify in your own defense, then the prosecution is allowed to cross-examine you; you are considered to have waived your right by voluntarily taking the stand.
If you take the fifth amendment when the prosecutor cross-examines you, I'm not sure what happens; either a mistrial, or your entire testimony is stricken from the record (and the jury told to disregard everything you said). Or maybe contempt of court. But once you give evidence in the case, you have to be cross-examined by the prosecutor. (This is what tanked Hans Reiser's defense; he fell apart under cross-examination.)
You wrote ". Look carefully at the photograph (provided by the parents, I might add.) Who goes to sleep with their laptop turned on and the camera pointed right at their face, so that it's perfectly centered in the frame and just well lit enough to show it clearly?"
If you read this article you will discover that the judge has proposed that each student be shown the photos that were taken of them. There is no discussion that I've read of suggesting that the school ever publicly release the photos. Indeed, that makes sense, since the school never should have taken the photos in the first place.
So, the only photos you will ever see, are ones released by the kids and their parents. As far as a perfectly framed photo, it's simple. Take a randomly framed picture every fifteen minutes until you have hundreds of photos. Most of them won't be any good, but there will be a few gems in there.
Now, if you were the lawyer for the family and had all the photos taken of your client, which one would you release?
It goes deeper than those obvious examples, of course, and the major fact/issue is that trying to please one constituent or set of constituents will anger another. Try to regulate the clothing girls wear to school? It might infringe on freedom of speech or expression. Don't regulate it? A parent will complain to the newspaper that girls are dressing in that dreaded way: "inappropriately." And the list goes on...
Fibbed to a Fed, while not even under oath, and did a year behind bars.
18 USC 1001 is a hell of a law.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
the prosecutors have a harder time proving some law was broken. Claiming the fifth might imply guilt, but the defendants (ideally) can't be prosecuted until proven guilty.
Silence also means that the defendant can't refute anything that the prosecutor says.
See above.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31755996
"But the 3.6.2 update was ALREADY released WELL BEFORE the story was posted (Tuesday March 23, @02:51AM Eastern): https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2010/03/22/firefox-3-6-2-update-now-available-as-free-download/ Firefox 3.6.2 update now available as free download Version 3.6.2 was released THE DAY BEFORE this story even posted! Once again you are caught in your BOLD-FACED LIES, LOL! - by clone53421 (1310749) on Monday April 05, @01:36PM (#31736454) Journal
Clone - How stupid do you feel? FireFox turned up YET ANOTHER SECURITY BUG & right when you shot your big libellous mouth off in that quote above on 04/05/2010 above
(Thus, yet another security bug surfaced in FireFox 3.6.2 in that time frame, yet again, 2x that week it appears (LOL!)).
Clone - How stupid do you feel?
----
Mozilla Firefox DOM Node Moving Use-After-Free Vulnerability:
http://secunia.com/advisories/39175/
Release Date 2010-04-02
Last Update 2010-04-06
----
Now everyone here will see how stupid you are, repeatedly, in all of your posts... lol!
Clone - tell us, what came out the next day after you posted your crap I quoted above, Clone the CLOWN, you utter dimwit?
FireFox 3.6.3!
Why?? Because YET ANOTHER SECURITY VULNERABILITY SURFACED THAT DAY OR THE NEXT DAY in FIREFOX, YET AGAIN, lmao...
"too, Too, TOO EASY!"
Obviously clone the clown, you lost yet again, and you obviously have done nothing with your wasted life, based on such a stupid mistake on your part above CLOWN. Obviously, You're too stupid to exist CLOWN, and it's no small wonder that all you do is post on slashdot all day, as you don't have enough skills or degrees necessary to your name in computing to actually have or hold a job in the sciences of computing.
"But the 3.6.2 update was ALREADY released WELL BEFORE the story was posted (Tuesday March 23, @02:51AM Eastern): https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2010/03/22/firefox-3-6-2-update-now-available-as-free-download/ Firefox 3.6.2 update now available as free download Version 3.6.2 was released THE DAY BEFORE this story even posted! Once again you are caught in your BOLD-FACED LIES, LOL! - by clone53421 (1310749) on Monday April 05, @01:36PM (#31736454) Journal
Clone - How stupid do you feel? FireFox turned up YET ANOTHER SECURITY BUG & right when you shot your big libellous mouth off in that quote above on 04/05/2010 above, taken from here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31755996
Where Germany advised its peoples to stay away from FireFox, as they had for IE before that (but, never for Opera).
(Thus, yet another security bug surfaced in FireFox 3.6.2 in that time frame, yet again, 2x that week it appears (LOL!)).
Clone - How stupid do you feel?
----
Mozilla Firefox DOM Node Moving Use-After-Free Vulnerability:
http://secunia.com/advisories/39175/
Release Date 2010-04-02
Last Update 2010-04-06
----
Now everyone here will see how stupid you are, repeatedly, in all of your posts... lol!
Clone - tell us, what came out the next day after you posted your crap I quoted above, Clone the CLOWN, you utter dimwit?
FireFox 3.6.3!
Why?? Because YET ANOTHER SECURITY VULNERABILITY SURFACED THAT DAY OR THE NEXT DAY in FIREFOX, YET AGAIN, lmao...
"too, Too, TOO EASY!"
Obviously clone the clown, you lost yet again, and you obviously have done nothing with your wasted life, based on such a stupid mistake on your part above CLOWN. Obviously, You're too stupid to exist CLOWN, and it's no small wonder that all you do is post on slashdot all day, as you don't have enough skills or degrees necessary to your name in computing to actually have or hold a job in the sciences of computing.
"But the 3.6.2 update was ALREADY released WELL BEFORE the story was posted (Tuesday March 23, @02:51AM Eastern): https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2010/03/22/firefox-3-6-2-update-now-available-as-free-download/ Firefox 3.6.2 update now available as free download Version 3.6.2 was released THE DAY BEFORE this story even posted! Once again you are caught in your BOLD-FACED LIES, LOL! - by clone53421 (1310749) on Monday April 05, @01:36PM (#31736454) Journal
Clone - How stupid do you feel? FireFox turned up YET ANOTHER SECURITY BUG & right when you shot your big libellous mouth off in that quote above on 04/05/2010 above, taken from here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31755996
Where Germany advised its peoples to stay away from FireFox, as they had for IE before that (but, never for Opera).
(Thus, yet another security bug surfaced in FireFox 3.6.2 in that time frame, yet again, 2x that week it appears (LOL!)).
Clone - How stupid do you feel?
----
Mozilla Firefox DOM Node Moving Use-After-Free Vulnerability:
http://secunia.com/advisories/39175/
Release Date 2010-04-02
Last Update 2010-04-06
----
Now everyone here will see how stupid you are, repeatedly, in all of your posts... lol!
Clone - tell us, what came out the next day after you posted your crap I quoted above, Clone the CLOWN, you utter dimwit?
FireFox 3.6.3!
Why?? Because YET ANOTHER SECURITY VULNERABILITY SURFACED THAT DAY OR THE NEXT DAY in FIREFOX, YET AGAIN, lmao...
"too, Too, TOO EASY!"
Obviously clone the clown, you lost yet again, and you obviously have done nothing with your wasted life, based on such a stupid mistake on your part above CLOWN. Obviously, You're too stupid to exist CLOWN, and it's no small wonder that all you do is post on slashdot all day, as you don't have enough skills or degrees necessary to your name in computing to actually have or hold a job in the sciences of computing.
"But the 3.6.2 update was ALREADY released WELL BEFORE the story was posted (Tuesday March 23, @02:51AM Eastern): https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2010/03/22/firefox-3-6-2-update-now-available-as-free-download/ Firefox 3.6.2 update now available as free download Version 3.6.2 was released THE DAY BEFORE this story even posted! Once again you are caught in your BOLD-FACED LIES, LOL! - by clone53421 (1310749) on Monday April 05, @01:36PM (#31736454) Journal
FireFox turned up YET ANOTHER SECURITY BUG & right when you shot your big libellous mouth off in that quote above on 04/05/2010 above, taken from here:
----
Mozilla Firefox DOM Node Moving Use-After-Free Vulnerability:
http://secunia.com/advisories/39175/
Release Date 2010-04-02
Last Update 2010-04-06
----
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31755996
That's where you quote above is from, and, Where Germany advised its peoples to stay away from FireFox, as they had for IE before that (but, never for Opera).
(Thus, yet another security bug surfaced in FireFox 3.6.2 in that time frame, yet again, 2x that week it appears (LOL!)).
Clone - How stupid do you feel after that rant above?
Now everyone here will see how stupid you are, repeatedly, in all of your posts... lol!
Clone - tell us, what came out the next day after you posted your crap I quoted above, Clone the CLOWN, you utter dimwit?
FireFox 3.6.3!
Why?? Because YET ANOTHER SECURITY VULNERABILITY SURFACED THAT DAY OR THE NEXT DAY in FIREFOX, YET AGAIN, lmao...
"too, Too, TOO EASY!"
Obviously clone the clown, you lost yet again, and you obviously have done nothing with your wasted life, based on such a stupid mistake on your part above CLOWN. Obviously, You're too stupid to exist CLOWN, and it's no small wonder that all you do is post on slashdot all day, as you don't have enough skills or degrees necessary to your name in computing to actually have or hold a job in the sciences of computing.
The only person that hung himself was your STUPID LIBELLOUS ASS, by doing it to yourself no less. Don't try to "play smart" or lawyer online dimwit. You don't have the intelligence, schooling, or know how to do so. The above is evidence enough of that.
See subject above, and you can't even get computer security facts right:
"But the 3.6.2 update was ALREADY released WELL BEFORE the story was posted (Tuesday March 23, @02:51AM Eastern): https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2010/03/22/firefox-3-6-2-update-now-available-as-free-download/ Firefox 3.6.2 update now available as free download Version 3.6.2 was released THE DAY BEFORE this story even posted! Once again you are caught in your BOLD-FACED LIES, LOL! - by clone53421 (1310749) on Monday April 05, @01:36PM (#31736454) Journal
FireFox turned up YET ANOTHER SECURITY BUG & right when you shot your big libellous mouth off in that quote above on 04/05/2010 above, taken from here:
----
Mozilla Firefox DOM Node Moving Use-After-Free Vulnerability:
http://secunia.com/advisories/39175/
Release Date 2010-04-02
Last Update 2010-04-06
----
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31755996
That's where you quote above is from, and, Where Germany advised its peoples to stay away from FireFox, as they had for IE before that (but, never for Opera).
(Thus, yet another security bug surfaced in FireFox 3.6.2 in that time frame, yet again, 2x that week it appears (LOL!)).
Clone - How stupid do you feel after that rant above?
Now everyone here will see how stupid you are, repeatedly, in all of your posts... lol!
Clone - tell us, what came out the next day after you posted your crap I quoted above, Clone the CLOWN, you utter dimwit?
FireFox 3.6.3!
Why?? Because YET ANOTHER SECURITY VULNERABILITY SURFACED THAT DAY OR THE NEXT DAY in FIREFOX, YET AGAIN, lmao...
"too, Too, TOO EASY!"
Obviously clone the clown, you lost yet again, and you obviously have done nothing with your wasted life, based on such a stupid mistake on your part above CLOWN. Obviously, You're too stupid to exist CLOWN, and it's no small wonder that all you do is post on slashdot all day, as you don't have enough skills or degrees necessary to your name in computing to actually have or hold a job in the sciences of computing.
"But the 3.6.2 update was ALREADY released WELL BEFORE the story was posted (Tuesday March 23, @02:51AM Eastern): https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2010/03/22/firefox-3-6-2-update-now-available-as-free-download/ Firefox 3.6.2 update now available as free download Version 3.6.2 was released THE DAY BEFORE this story even posted! Once again you are caught in your BOLD-FACED LIES, LOL! - by clone53421 (1310749) on Monday April 05, @01:36PM (#31736454) Journal
FireFox turned up YET ANOTHER SECURITY BUG & right when you shot your big libellous mouth off in that quote above on 04/05/2010 above, taken from here:
----
Mozilla Firefox DOM Node Moving Use-After-Free Vulnerability:
http://secunia.com/advisories/39175/
Release Date 2010-04-02
Last Update 2010-04-06
----
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31755996
That's where you quote above is from, and, Where Germany advised its peoples to stay away from FireFox, as they had for IE before that (but, never for Opera).
(Thus, yet another security bug surfaced in FireFox 3.6.2 in that time frame, yet again, 2x that week it appears (LOL!)).
Clone - How stupid do you feel after that quoted rant of yours above that opens this posting of mine in reply?
Now everyone here will see how stupid you are, repeatedly, in all of your posts... lol!
Clone - tell us, what came out the next day after you posted your crap I quoted above, Clone the CLOWN, you utter dimwit?
FireFox 3.6.3!
Why?? Because YET ANOTHER SECURITY VULNERABILITY SURFACED THAT DAY OR THE NEXT DAY in FIREFOX, YET AGAIN, lmao...
"too, Too, TOO EASY!"
Obviously clone the clown, you lost yet again, and you obviously have done nothing with your wasted life, based on such a stupid mistake on your part above CLOWN. Obviously, You're too stupid to exist CLOWN, and it's no small wonder that all you do is post on slashdot all day, as you don't have enough skills or degrees necessary to your name in computing to actually have or hold a job in the sciences of computing.
I was driving a car once and got pulled over. The cop wanted to search our car and I declined. He asked why; I didn't answer that question, and just repeated that I declined. He asked again. He offered to tear up my (very large) ticket if he could search. I declined, because I knew he would very quickly find weed in the car and in the pockets of everyone in the car. The four people in the car all would have gone to jail that night, but instead we drove away and I paid later the ticket.
The car belonged to one of the passengers. She told me she was stunned all during the interaction, because she did not know that she had the legal right to decline a search. She said if the cop had asked her, she would have assented.
Know your rights. It's fucking important.
Yes, much harder. Recently people have taken to claiming the most horrendous things are 'legal' due to technicalities. To quote Scalia who thinks that "Torture is not punishment so it does not count as 'cruel and unusual punishment'" People claim that 'policy' makes something legal, despite the clear fact that something is policy just makes it a WORSE crime, it doesn't make it legal.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
the philly.com page is distilled irony. A image of a sleeping kid (probably the most innocent they could get hold of) and then all around it are "most popular photos" with all kinds of near naked females, and link to an article about a sexy sports anchor.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Yours is a crappy example, because you were guilty of a crime (possession and transporting, probably, across state-lines too). You just helped reinforce the already widely-held opinion, that people refusing a search do, indeed, have something to hide... I really do wish, you and your companions got arrested and prosecuted back then — law-enforcement lost a good fight that evening, despite the cop's instinct being right about your group. (As long as weed is illegal, police ought to fight it — deciding the merits of the prohibition is not up to them.)
You'd do your future audiences a great service, if you teach them the importance of knowing their rights without admitting your guilt like that... There are good reasons to refuse to cooperate with overzealous police, but your incident did not involve any.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Indeed, you are correct. My advice was for people who don't want to be hassled by the police -- which is to say, absolutely everybody, innocent and guilty alike. Just because you are guilty is no reason to help the police ruin your weekend. For the most part I agree with what you said, but I guess I think my tale is a good part of the mix for admonitions to know your rights. (And in my case, I think my story doesn't carry the same weight if the listener doesn't know why it was so important to avoid a search.) To be sure, innocent people also need to know their rights, and assert them.
Good luck.
this is why I put a cover on my kids webcam (e.g. camstop.net)
I dont know why it isnt possible to build in a webcam cover?!?
Maybe the governmet says 'no'?!!?