I'm sitting behind glass feeding questions to the cops. The scared suspect is literally pissing himself. After they clean that up, they get back to the questions. He doesn't have a lawyer, so we can ask him all the questions that we like. And, believe me, his answers will be used against him.
We then ask him a few open-ended questions whether or not he has any more information about the time, place, and people in question.
By the time the interrogation is over (and it takes a while), I've locked the little weasel in so well that he has no wiggle-room at all with his story.
I then apply the same treatment to all of the other people implicated by my defendant. (And all those inconsistent statements!!! I get a lot of obstruction of justice prosecutions out of them!!).
Once I have all the evidence that I need, I charge up my little weasel. He's number one on my witness list (since the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply). Since I now know exactly what his story is, I can lead him around by the nose in front of the jury. He'd better not deviate from what he said before because . . . (you got it), he'll get charged with making a false statement or perjury! He's petrified in front of the jury, so I can take real good advantage of that, too!
After riddling his statements with all my evidence, I rest my case.
. . . . That scenario happens about once a year. I scare the living crap out of defendants. They don't want to sit helplessly on the stand while I dissect them like a frog on paraffin.
I get WAY, WAY better plea bargains now!!! I'm getting such monster sentences that the legislature has reduced the punishment for a lot of crimes.
They don't call it the SIMPLE, CRUEL, EXPEDIENT for nothing!
The point is a little more subtle. The judge is considering whether or not to order the person to give up his key. The judge is only making that decision because he has concluded that providing the key would not be incriminating. BUT--if the key itself were contraband, then producing that key would most definitely be incriminating--and would most definitely implicate the fifth amendment.
I think that such an argument could be a fundamental winner before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
Taking Hammond's crime, his criminal history, his messed-up psychology, and the altruistic component of his motivation all into account. . . this looks like a fair resolution to me.
I hope Hammond learns his lesson THIS time. I feel sorry for him, he's really smart and really a moron at the same time. He could to a lot working within the law.
Feds could've ripped his guts out. Maybe THIS federal prosecutor thinks a little more about justice and a little bit less about winning.
The government can't take property (including intellectual property) pursuant to the TAKINGS clause of the US Constitution without paying just compensation.
The government can take property (including intellectual property) pursuant to the POLICE POWER clause of the US Constitution without paying just compensation.
If the public need for an antivirus is strong enough, I say pass police power legislation relating to the public health that frees up the scientific field of research.
If pharmaceutical companies are going to behave like pigs at the trough, then screw them.
Robotic manufacture is going to go crazy in the next decade and it's going to change everything.
Software is needed to make that shit work. If software patents can make (profitable) roadblocks to 3d implementation, then robotic manufacture is going to go someplace besides the USA.
This is so obvious that even the Supreme Court is going to see it. (Congress might need some 'lobbying' to understand it, though.)
Only a complete fucking moron would move legal data with torrents.
A lawyer is obligated to preserve his clients' confidences. When you store your information on somebody elses server or servers you are giving up custody and control over some of those confidences. In that situation you are entirely dependent upon the strength of your encryption.
That encryption might be good today or tomorrow, but how good will it be five years from now or ten years from now when quantum computing or the next best thing becomes available for codebreakers.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sitting behind glass feeding questions to the cops. The scared suspect is literally pissing himself. After they clean that up, they get back to the questions. He doesn't have a lawyer, so we can ask him all the questions that we like. And, believe me, his answers will be used against him.
We then ask him a few open-ended questions whether or not he has any more information about the time, place, and people in question.
By the time the interrogation is over (and it takes a while), I've locked the little weasel in so well that he has no wiggle-room at all with his story.
I then apply the same treatment to all of the other people implicated by my defendant. (And all those inconsistent statements!!! I get a lot of obstruction of justice prosecutions out of them!!).
Once I have all the evidence that I need, I charge up my little weasel. He's number one on my witness list (since the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply). Since I now know exactly what his story is, I can lead him around by the nose in front of the jury. He'd better not deviate from what he said before because . . . (you got it), he'll get charged with making a false statement or perjury! He's petrified in front of the jury, so I can take real good advantage of that, too!
After riddling his statements with all my evidence, I rest my case.
. . . . That scenario happens about once a year. I scare the living crap out of defendants. They don't want to sit helplessly on the stand while I dissect them like a frog on paraffin.
I get WAY, WAY better plea bargains now!!! I'm getting such monster sentences that the legislature has reduced the punishment for a lot of crimes.
They don't call it the SIMPLE, CRUEL, EXPEDIENT for nothing!
Sincerely,
Fifth Amendment Free Prosecutor
If a thing called a human being asserted ownership of a patent for a virus, and used that patent in any way to block research for a cure, then . . ..
The javascript suggestion is very good. The Kids could use javascript to make expressive and/or functional websites for themselves.
No. It can't be applied to "anything."
The point is a little more subtle. The judge is considering whether or not to order the person to give up his key. The judge is only making that decision because he has concluded that providing the key would not be incriminating. BUT--if the key itself were contraband, then producing that key would most definitely be incriminating--and would most definitely implicate the fifth amendment.
I think that such an argument could be a fundamental winner before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
You make a very interesting point.
But he might be able to say: "Without stating whether or not I ever knew the encryption code, I do not know the encryption code at this time."
The Court can't make him say whether or not he ever knew the encryption code.
Another interesting idea: What if the encryption code was an obscene GIF?
If a privacy bill makes it harder to catch corrupt legislators, then you can be pretty sure it is going to pass.
Big fucking deal. You burglarize a marijuana grow house, and you get prosecuted for burglary. Everybody who is not a criminal is happy.
It's a 'two-fer.'
Hammond stole from some extremely vile scumbags. They lose their reputation. Hammond goes to jail.
It's a "two-fer."
Two for the price of one.
Serial trials are EXTREMELY infrequent. If the crimes are linked, they'll be tried together.
Taking Hammond's crime, his criminal history, his messed-up psychology, and the altruistic component of his motivation all into account. . . this looks like a fair resolution to me.
I hope Hammond learns his lesson THIS time. I feel sorry for him, he's really smart and really a moron at the same time. He could to a lot working within the law.
Feds could've ripped his guts out. Maybe THIS federal prosecutor thinks a little more about justice and a little bit less about winning.
"We're" not screwed. Looking at "us" from above, the herd could use some thinning . . ..
I didn't know that. You're saying that my copyright could be revoked by statute immediately?
The government can't take property (including intellectual property) pursuant to the TAKINGS clause of the US Constitution without paying just compensation.
The government can take property (including intellectual property) pursuant to the POLICE POWER clause of the US Constitution without paying just compensation.
If the public need for an antivirus is strong enough, I say pass police power legislation relating to the public health that frees up the scientific field of research.
If pharmaceutical companies are going to behave like pigs at the trough, then screw them.
A novel is written on a computer.
The novel exists only on the computer.
The novel is representable as math, for sure.
And the novel must logically be "on the computer."
Is the novel math?
Everything on a computer is NOT math. Everything on a computer is representable as math.
Fixed that for you.
It will make proving 0.10 and 0.08 drunk driving cases a LOT easier.
Sure looks like extortion to me. It looks like enough to take to a jury, even.
Your logic is pretty lame. You're arguing that you can't regulate criminals because they are criminals.
Robotic manufacture is going to go crazy in the next decade and it's going to change everything.
Software is needed to make that shit work. If software patents can make (profitable) roadblocks to 3d implementation, then robotic manufacture is going to go someplace besides the USA.
This is so obvious that even the Supreme Court is going to see it. (Congress might need some 'lobbying' to understand it, though.)
Maybe I'm just pissed off at myself because I was stupid enough to do business with the assholes at Adobe.
Yeah. It's all my fault because Adobe treats its customers badly.
I get it. Yes. I'll vote Republican next year. Thanks for setting me straight and invalidating my feelings.
I've spent a lot of money, and a lot of time learning Adobe products--and this is how that corporation treats me.
I've got to run the numbers, but I think that I am done with Adobe. Microsoft is Jesus compared to them.
I ride my bike. The more car drivers' heads are up, the safer I am. The heck with jerks trying to tout their products at the expense of public safety.
There is a mountain of money to be made in the plans. That's the future. It's just a matter of time.
Only a complete fucking moron would move legal data with torrents.
A lawyer is obligated to preserve his clients' confidences. When you store your information on somebody elses server or servers you are giving up custody and control over some of those confidences. In that situation you are entirely dependent upon the strength of your encryption.
That encryption might be good today or tomorrow, but how good will it be five years from now or ten years from now when quantum computing or the next best thing becomes available for codebreakers.
Don't risk a lawsuit from a pissed client!
Free speech is just an absolute bitch, isn't it? We all approach it in different ways.