If by "it" you mean some sort of surveillance that's targeted, based on suspicion and granted on a case by case basis by an oversight (court, law, etc.) body that's just not a rubber stamp factory, then yes -- but I haven't really seen anyone argue against that
That seems to be exactly the case in the LavaBit matter. Cops asked for a free look, were told "get a warrant" and then did. Yet everyone seems to think that Lavabit was somehow unfairly burdened.
Never mind the NSA then, if you want to give them the benefit of "just following orders"
I'm not saying that. I'm saying, that's the job my taxdollars pay them for. I don't excuse the individual agents. I'm saying I actively desire that they do.
It's still the responsibility of the US president to not betray the trust of your allies, not lie to them. At least not if he wants to stay allied with them.
I tend to assume every government tries to hear what every other government's commander-in-chief is saying. I don't get the "trust" issue.
I get it if you're just two people hanging out, it's a violation of trust. I'm not saying it's good because the people doing the tapping are the NSA, I'm saying it's okay because Merkle is not a private citizen.
The plea of "guilty" vs "non guilty" is completely irrellevant, and take his word for whether he sped or not in a given state only for as long as the mathematics of doing so means that it was still physically plausible within the speed limits that the car is capable of.
You really seem to think there is some unified legal system. Look up jurisdictions. He'll deny speeding in any given state when charged in that state. Yes, he's lying. And? His denials are not admissible in any other court.
Look, I get what you're saying. It's logical. It's just not legal.
He was extremely successful in the 1960s, 1979s, 1980s, had a downturn in the early 1990s, then more success.
He got involved in the 70's (except what you refered to below), got a nice comission on the Jarvis center, and by 89 was close to personal and corporate bankrupcy. He took his casinos public in 95 (after you think he recovered), the stock was at 35, but then dropped to under 10 by 98 because it wasn't turning a profit. The SEC weent after him for fixing the books in early 2000's (for fixing in 99). In 04 the company went bankrupt again. And then in 05 said the economic downturn was a force majure and refused to pay loans. And in 09 went bankrupt again... this time the Donald was kicked off the board.
The most valuable thing he owns is the Trump name, earned by his father and managed by his children. Most of the buildings with his name have nothing to do with him other than a licensing fee. Most of the successful deals he's been involved in have been getting $ for comissions/naming/etc.
His very first building was a grand success. Trump purchased a run down,half-empty building for $3.7 million with his father, a moderately successful real estate guy. Trump renovated it very nicely do it had a 100% occupancy rate and then sold it for several times what he bought it for.
His dad bought the building. Donald did get the rate up from 66% to 100%, but he put a lot of cash into it. They sold it a decade later for 8% more than they paid for it.
A not-guilty plea is not subject to perjury. You would still have to prove which statements were perjurous, since it would also be a state crime, you'd have the same problem. The pleas could not be admissible as evidence without violating the 5th amendment.
I get what you are saying, but you cannot prove which state's laws he broke.
I don't have to prove what he's lying about when there aren't enough states left that he hasn't disputed for him to continue to deny that he sped in them... if he was, presumably, telling the truth when he disputed any of the other states, then further denail automatically means he was lying.
Yeah, you have to prove what he's lying about. Lying somewhere is not a ffederal crime. You shouuld look into juristiction.
Something can be known, and unprovable in a court of law. Some things are inadmssible. Some are indeterminate. This is both
This isn't asking him to incriminate himself of the charge of speeding in that state, it's asking him to dispute the charge in the first place, and he wouldn't even need to do anything at all to prove it other than say that he didn't speed there. The fact that doing so may incriminate him further in other states is a natural consequence of the way time, distance, and velocity are all related to each other mathematically, and not purely a direct result of his admission.
It doesn't incriminate him in other states at all. He pleas "not guilty" to all charges. And, what are you going to do? You know he's lying at least once, but.... that turns out not to matter.
Look, IANAL, but the law doesn't work the way you seem to think it does.
if he denies speeding in too many of them that he would not have been able to make up the difference in those remaining, then you know, beyond any shadow of a doubt that he's been lying about not speeding somewhere, and you start right back at the beginning.
True and irrelevent. He's lying. You have to prove where he's lying about.
Not that ads are inherently evil. I know some people disagree, and believe that ads are pure manipulation.... I think the way Google does ads is at least neutral on the good/evil to humanity scale.
I don't object to the ads. I object to the model they build to target ads to me specifically.
I have yet to meet a citizen that considers him a traitor
Well, he does not seem to be guilty of treason in a legal sense; he did betray a special trust invested in him (by the government in this case) and is therefore a traitor in the colloquial sense.
Snowden did commit a crime and should be punished.
That said, your comments on the media manufacturing public opinion (or at least, distorting the percentage of people who agree with specific positions) are right on.
t is an already known fact that he sped in several already. What is not known is exactly which ones
That's meaningless then. Some state or states need to charge him. It doesn't matter what he did in other states. If NY wants to charge him, then it has to assert he sped specifically in NY. And probably on what highway at what speed.
Personally, I'd suggest that he should pay a fine for speeding in all of them... and that he is perfectly free to contest each charge individually, although doing so will increase the charges in the others, since that would mean that he was driving even faster in them.
Three issues.
1) States have maximums on speeding, so the fine would likely not go higher once you hit 75 over. And some states in the midwest have no speed limit, so he could claim he made up 100% of the time there.
2) You have burden of proof backwards. The state has to prove he sped in their state, not him having to prove that he didn't. Innocent until proven guilty and all that
3) IANAL, but... you can deny speeding in a state without admitting where you did speed.
We're talking here about somebody who genuinely did break the law here. The fact that they don't know exactly where the law was really broken is a technicality that doesn't change the fact that the law was still broken
Actually, you don't know what laws he broke at all. You can calculate that he broke at least one law. But NY's speeding law is not Penn's speeding law, and speeding by 15 MPH over is a different crime from 25 MPH over. But you have to claim he broke some law or another. And you cannot state which.
if he claims to not know, then you take an average (98kph) and fine him in all of them. If he claims that he wasn't speeding in some states, then ask him in which states that he knows he was not speeding. You then determine the average speed he would need to travel in the remaining states, and fine him in the remainder of the states.
It does not work that way in the US. He could state "I did not speed in at least 1 state. I refuse to tell you which because it would imply I sped in others.. 5th amendment." IANAL, so I'd imagine it would be rephrased. But the principle that I cannot be compelled to testify against myself is strong.
And then each state has to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that it was not the state he obeyed the law within.
(That said I don't condone reckless driving on roads that aren't built for that speed.)
Except, American highways were designed for this speed. Specifically, the original design spec was 100 MPH (over highways, not on/off ramps) with cars at the time. The engineers were forward thinking enough not to want to start the biggest construction project (in the world/the us/their careers?) without making it future proof. They assumed the speed limit would be increased in the future.
With better vehicle tech (brakes, traction control) the safe highway speed absent other people would be higher than that.
Not that I advocate speeding now, but good to know in the zombie apocalypse.
Where can I move that gives out tickets for walking around with a device that constantly uploads GPS-tagged photos of everyone around you without their consent?
At least this makes an attempt to do away with the non-practicing entities that patent things only to sue.
There's a fine line needs to be placed between getting rid of trolls (good) and blocking the small business that is trying to shop around an idea they have trouble producing themselves (bad). For instance, if I were to come up with SuperTV, an expensive chunk of hardware that requires a 50 mil. upfront investment to produce at scale, but will sell like hotcakes, there is currently a go-to-market. I can patent it, and then sell or license the patent to a company. Otherwise, how do you envision that working?
Now, if you can figure out how to allow that, but disallow companies with deep collections of patents that only wait and sue, I'm interested in hearing how to achieve that distinction.
As soon as I can start my car and open my front door with the NFC chip in my phone, then I will only need ONE THING in my pocket when I leave my house. What could possibly be more convenient?
Ever been mugged? Limiting my liability to $10 in cash worked out really well for me.
Ever wanted to go for a walk in the rain, and stop along the way to buy a beer?
Ever wanted to be offline so you can have time when you're not in contact telephonically? (or tracked)
Ever had to dispute a charge?
Ever run out of a charge on your phone?
Those are only a few of the reasons that credit cards and cash are more convinent. Frankly, I don't understand any benefit to NFC It seems less secure, and more single point of failure.
They could try to take you to court over it, but the burden of proof that you had done this for profit
It's merely WMG's policies to not collect royalties for a not-for-profit performance. Technically, they could (attempt to) enforce royalties for singing to your one-year-old.
As such, there is no such burden of proof in a court of law. (Absent other contracts. For instance, WMG may have offered a royalty-free license to any not-for-profit performance instead of merely never seeking to enforce the copyright in those cases. In that case, there would be necessary thing to prove.) But legally, profit motive has not been required in the law since the mid-nineties. And since this thread is about the copyright law, not licensing, that seems more aporopos
Why is that?... I don't understand where this arbitrary distinction of "that's not a computer" comes from.
Mostly content providers who set up separate licenses for mobile/computers(meaning PCs?)/consoles/televised/disk-based/on-demand-to-cablebox and probably a few others I'm not aware of. That way, they can keep charging for the same content. But, if you have an Android Mini Computer, even though it has no Edge/3G/4G data connection, it's a mobile device. So Hulu will not stream to it.
Because it's wrong.
I get what they're trying to do. They really want to charge differently if if's on a 4in screen, a 20-30 in screen and an 35+ in. screen. That makes sense. But the mechanism is so FUBAR.
And yet, ironically, a Windows laptop will be better at passively consuming content (hulu, netflix, etc.). Since, obviously, the fact that it uses an ARM/runs Android is evidence it's a mobile device, and not a computer.
Films should at all times should add scenes which show the consequences of those serious violations.
I actually think that may be a good thing. Turns out, watching Law and Order: Fuck the Suspect with a Baton for years has more impact on police officers than the police academy. The result is that more and more of them think it's okay to violate someone's civil liberties if you are really sure that the are guilty.
There are other examples, but in general people emulate their media heroes. If their hero does illegal things for the greater good, then they will think it's okay to do those same illegal things for the same perceived greater good.
Never ask "why do you want privacy"; that's always a stupid question.
That's not what the question was. The question was "What are you worried about, because everything you post on/. is public"
That's a subtly different and legitimate question. After all, am I worried about the "lack of privacy" inherit in picketing or shouting from a soapbox? No. Those are meant to attract attention.
Now, you had a valid point that the person asking the question likely never thought of. Although there is no reason to protect the data, there is a reason to protect the source. The pseudonymous (or even anonymous) source of the post not getting tied to a real identity has a lot of value. But it is more likely to be an unconsidered aspect of this venue, and should be addressed as an oversight - not a chance to tirade about privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
That seems to be exactly the case in the LavaBit matter. Cops asked for a free look, were told "get a warrant" and then did. Yet everyone seems to think that Lavabit was somehow unfairly burdened.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying, that's the job my taxdollars pay them for. I don't excuse the individual agents. I'm saying I actively desire that they do.
I tend to assume every government tries to hear what every other government's commander-in-chief is saying. I don't get the "trust" issue.
I get it if you're just two people hanging out, it's a violation of trust. I'm not saying it's good because the people doing the tapping are the NSA, I'm saying it's okay because Merkle is not a private citizen.
That's the NSA's job. I mean, to gather information on what other countries are doing to inform US policy.
You really seem to think there is some unified legal system. Look up jurisdictions. He'll deny speeding in any given state when charged in that state. Yes, he's lying. And? His denials are not admissible in any other court.
Look, I get what you're saying. It's logical. It's just not legal.
He got involved in the 70's (except what you refered to below), got a nice comission on the Jarvis center, and by 89 was close to personal and corporate bankrupcy. He took his casinos public in 95 (after you think he recovered), the stock was at 35, but then dropped to under 10 by 98 because it wasn't turning a profit. The SEC weent after him for fixing the books in early 2000's (for fixing in 99). In 04 the company went bankrupt again. And then in 05 said the economic downturn was a force majure and refused to pay loans. And in 09 went bankrupt again... this time the Donald was kicked off the board.
The most valuable thing he owns is the Trump name, earned by his father and managed by his children. Most of the buildings with his name have nothing to do with him other than a licensing fee. Most of the successful deals he's been involved in have been getting $ for comissions/naming/etc.
His dad bought the building. Donald did get the rate up from 66% to 100%, but he put a lot of cash into it. They sold it a decade later for 8% more than they paid for it.
A not-guilty plea is not subject to perjury. You would still have to prove which statements were perjurous, since it would also be a state crime, you'd have the same problem. The pleas could not be admissible as evidence without violating the 5th amendment.
I get what you are saying, but you cannot prove which state's laws he broke.
Yeah, you have to prove what he's lying about. Lying somewhere is not a ffederal crime. You shouuld look into juristiction.
Something can be known, and unprovable in a court of law. Some things are inadmssible. Some are indeterminate. This is both
It doesn't incriminate him in other states at all. He pleas "not guilty" to all charges. And, what are you going to do? You know he's lying at least once, but.... that turns out not to matter.
Look, IANAL, but the law doesn't work the way you seem to think it does.
True and irrelevent. He's lying. You have to prove where he's lying about.
I have no idea how he gets investors. Because his casinos keep going bankrupt.
Wait, he has ever built a commercially successful casino? Which one?
I don't object to the ads. I object to the model they build to target ads to me specifically.
Well, he does not seem to be guilty of treason in a legal sense; he did betray a special trust invested in him (by the government in this case) and is therefore a traitor in the colloquial sense.
Snowden did commit a crime and should be punished.
That said, your comments on the media manufacturing public opinion (or at least, distorting the percentage of people who agree with specific positions) are right on.
That's meaningless then. Some state or states need to charge him. It doesn't matter what he did in other states. If NY wants to charge him, then it has to assert he sped specifically in NY. And probably on what highway at what speed.
Three issues.
1) States have maximums on speeding, so the fine would likely not go higher once you hit 75 over. And some states in the midwest have no speed limit, so he could claim he made up 100% of the time there.
2) You have burden of proof backwards. The state has to prove he sped in their state, not him having to prove that he didn't. Innocent until proven guilty and all that
3) IANAL, but... you can deny speeding in a state without admitting where you did speed.
Actually, you don't know what laws he broke at all. You can calculate that he broke at least one law. But NY's speeding law is not Penn's speeding law, and speeding by 15 MPH over is a different crime from 25 MPH over. But you have to claim he broke some law or another. And you cannot state which.
It does not work that way in the US. He could state "I did not speed in at least 1 state. I refuse to tell you which because it would imply I sped in others.. 5th amendment." IANAL, so I'd imagine it would be rephrased. But the principle that I cannot be compelled to testify against myself is strong.
And then each state has to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that it was not the state he obeyed the law within.
Except, American highways were designed for this speed. Specifically, the original design spec was 100 MPH (over highways, not on/off ramps) with cars at the time. The engineers were forward thinking enough not to want to start the biggest construction project (in the world/the us/their careers?) without making it future proof. They assumed the speed limit would be increased in the future.
With better vehicle tech (brakes, traction control) the safe highway speed absent other people would be higher than that.
Not that I advocate speeding now, but good to know in the zombie apocalypse.
Wait, this has something to do with driving?
Where can I move that gives out tickets for walking around with a device that constantly uploads GPS-tagged photos of everyone around you without their consent?
You mean a Pentium II? Cause Intel discontinued that numbering system before it would have hit 686.
But, I would miss the video streaming with a machine that old. To say nothing of decent compile times.
There's a fine line needs to be placed between getting rid of trolls (good) and blocking the small business that is trying to shop around an idea they have trouble producing themselves (bad). For instance, if I were to come up with SuperTV, an expensive chunk of hardware that requires a 50 mil. upfront investment to produce at scale, but will sell like hotcakes, there is currently a go-to-market. I can patent it, and then sell or license the patent to a company. Otherwise, how do you envision that working?
Now, if you can figure out how to allow that, but disallow companies with deep collections of patents that only wait and sue, I'm interested in hearing how to achieve that distinction.
Ever been mugged? Limiting my liability to $10 in cash worked out really well for me.
Ever wanted to go for a walk in the rain, and stop along the way to buy a beer?
Ever wanted to be offline so you can have time when you're not in contact telephonically? (or tracked)
Ever had to dispute a charge?
Ever run out of a charge on your phone?
Those are only a few of the reasons that credit cards and cash are more convinent. Frankly, I don't understand any benefit to NFC It seems less secure, and more single point of failure.
It's merely WMG's policies to not collect royalties for a not-for-profit performance. Technically, they could (attempt to) enforce royalties for singing to your one-year-old.
As such, there is no such burden of proof in a court of law. (Absent other contracts. For instance, WMG may have offered a royalty-free license to any not-for-profit performance instead of merely never seeking to enforce the copyright in those cases. In that case, there would be necessary thing to prove.) But legally, profit motive has not been required in the law since the mid-nineties. And since this thread is about the copyright law, not licensing, that seems more aporopos
Stack Overflow simply has better answers.
Is it really so difficult to fix this with proper sandboxing and per-app permissions? Maybe running in a virtual machine to prevent exploits?
In my head, it seems possible to design a system where I can download anything and run anything without worrying about malware.
It seems like a problem that should be solvable. But, like many problems, I recognize that it probably looks different close up.
Mostly content providers who set up separate licenses for mobile/computers(meaning PCs?)/consoles/televised/disk-based/on-demand-to-cablebox and probably a few others I'm not aware of. That way, they can keep charging for the same content. But, if you have an Android Mini Computer, even though it has no Edge/3G/4G data connection, it's a mobile device. So Hulu will not stream to it.
I get what they're trying to do. They really want to charge differently if if's on a 4in screen, a 20-30 in screen and an 35+ in. screen. That makes sense. But the mechanism is so FUBAR.
And yet, ironically, a Windows laptop will be better at passively consuming content (hulu, netflix, etc.). Since, obviously, the fact that it uses an ARM/runs Android is evidence it's a mobile device, and not a computer.
I actually think that may be a good thing. Turns out, watching Law and Order: Fuck the Suspect with a Baton for years has more impact on police officers than the police academy. The result is that more and more of them think it's okay to violate someone's civil liberties if you are really sure that the are guilty.
There are other examples, but in general people emulate their media heroes. If their hero does illegal things for the greater good, then they will think it's okay to do those same illegal things for the same perceived greater good.
Isn't she right, in this context. It seems like the lawyer used unencrypted when he should have used decrypted, and she mocked him for this.
That's not what the question was. The question was "What are you worried about, because everything you post on /. is public"
That's a subtly different and legitimate question. After all, am I worried about the "lack of privacy" inherit in picketing or shouting from a soapbox? No. Those are meant to attract attention.
Now, you had a valid point that the person asking the question likely never thought of. Although there is no reason to protect the data, there is a reason to protect the source. The pseudonymous (or even anonymous) source of the post not getting tied to a real identity has a lot of value. But it is more likely to be an unconsidered aspect of this venue, and should be addressed as an oversight - not a chance to tirade about privacy.