I argue there cannot be enough evidence to discount that a person cannot recall the password. It's just too common an occurrence and there are simply too many factors that contribute to forgetting going on.
As for the examples you mention: i) Did the adviser have a professional duty to get that information right? Would getting it wrong constitute professional ma[practice? Is there an email or other document that suggests they had the correct information? Did they give other clients the correct information? Did it happen more than once?
But in general, if that's all the evidence you have, one client given wrong information once, it'll never see the inside of a courtroom.
ii. Was the car obviously beyond the means of the driver? Did the driver offer anything like a plausible explanation? Even with that, it likely wouldn't be prosecuted. OTOH, if multiple people heard them talking about it being stolen, they might actually prosecute it.
iii) If he kept two books, they'll likely prosecute. If not, it's doubtful.
More realistically, for i they won't even look in to it unless the client is wealthy. In ii they'll 'find' a baggie. In 3, they might use that as probable cause to search his files.
Note now that i would have to involve incriminating communications or a pattern of behavior. ii would likely not happen unles the cops are crooked, and 3 would involve physical evidence.
With each accusation, the NSA has 'admitted' to a small bit and denied the rest. Each denial has been proven to be a lie. They have proven now that nothing they say can ever be trusted. They have lied under oath. They have lied to Congress, and they have lied to the People. Repeatedly.
Since we can never trust anything they say, why should we continue to employ them? The entire organization is rotten to the core. The only possible cure is to disband them and start over. A mere re-org would just be moving the deck chairs.
What we need is a revision that turns incorrect automated takedown notices into a contempt charge. That is exactly what it is., a failure to show the care and seriousness due to the DMCA process.
Alas, no. Your suggestions would determine that he knew it before he was arrested, none suggest his on-going memory of the password.
It's harder because the other questions only have to look at state of mind for a particular moment in the past before police activity could have influenced it.
This is closer to Heisenberg. The act of questioning can cause the accused to forget. That is exactly why this is a screwed up law.
Have you truly never heard someone say "If you hadn't asked, I could have told you?"
You've never known anyone who can type their password by muscle memory but cannot consciously call it out other than by watching themselves type it?
There are a great many factors that can confound memory and all must be ruled out to eliminate reasonable doubt. Furthermore because memory can be malleable and tricky, even evidence that he later recalled the password isn't evidence that he could recall it when asked. It's actually common for an answer to pop into mind once all pressure to remember has passed.
OTOH, there's really only one reason to arrange to meet someone in an out of the way place and take a gun, gloves, and a body bag with you. The prosecution and the judge don't have to determine what the defendant is thinking NOW.
If the static voltage is high enough, you don't need to complete a circuit to ground to have a significant current flow. Capacitive effects are more than adequate to give you quite a shock.
How, exactly, do you snapshot and test the production VM before the maintenance window and guarantee you won't affect (and by "affect", I mean anything that changes behavior in any way that is not expected by the users) any services running on that VM?
Clone it. upgrade the clone and make sure it works. If so, wipe the clone, snapshot the production VM and upgrade it. If it fails, roll back. Make sure your infrastructure is set up so the clone CAN be properly tested. Yes, sometimes you will have to do that rollback, but with an adequate test setup, frequently you won't.
Overstated, not wrong. There's nothing you can buy for the home that won't cost several times more money than the equipment being protected.
You can buy arresters that will protect against near misses, but if a bolt of lightning hits the outdoor antenna, the TV and arrester will become smoking chunks of plastic and metal.
The spectrum they are allocated comes with a mandate to provide a public benefit. They have been allowed some slack on encrypted sub-channels as long as their primary broadcast still meets the public service mandate. If they encrypt that too, they'll be forced to give their allocation back and cease transmitting.
So why did they then pursue it rather than backing off to a safe distance? From the report, it is clear that the drone's operators were attempting to move away to a safe distance when they were pursued.
That is done by looking at how the state of mind drove objective action.
In the case of the murder, we can infer state of mind based on how the murder was accomplished. If the accused shot, stabbed, strangled, then dismembered the victim, we may conclude that death was the intention. Dropped the weapon at the scene, tripped 3 times running away, then threw up in the ally, we can guess it wasn't intended. Took the weapon, the bag the body was placed in, cleaning products that were used to clean up evidence to the scene, then lured the victim, we can infer premeditation.
So now we ask what objective actions at the time he was asked for the password would suggest that he still remembers it?
Quite honestly, courts have in general not paid as much attention to determining state of mind as they should.
We can look at many things to loosely assign a probability to it, but none of those probabilities are likely to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
When it comes down to looking at who is lying in the absense of further evidence, it is known as "he said, she said". Except in extreme cases where one person claims that Elvis and the Grays were all there too, it rarely rises to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt.
At most, honest testimony now could say "I think he probably remembers it". Yes, he probably does, but the standard of proof isn't 'probably'.
The thing is, by the time you get to the point of a password being demanded, you have necessarily been put through an ordeal that may have you not thinking clearly. Likely your daily routine where you might have remembered the password is thoroughly disrupted (set and setting is important to memory).
They do know who the boss is and who his boss is. They know who signs their paychecks. They may not tell, but they know.
With internal CS, there is at least a chance that it is supposed to be more than an impenetrable barrier between the customer and someone with authority.
I know the standard of proof. I also know that where human memory is concerned, short of technology we do not yet have, there can not be proof beyond reasonable doubt that he remembers the password now.
Remember when they found out how incredibly unreliable eye witnesses are? Even the mention of a beard will alter every memory in the room, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
I argue there cannot be enough evidence to discount that a person cannot recall the password. It's just too common an occurrence and there are simply too many factors that contribute to forgetting going on.
As for the examples you mention: i) Did the adviser have a professional duty to get that information right? Would getting it wrong constitute professional ma[practice? Is there an email or other document that suggests they had the correct information? Did they give other clients the correct information? Did it happen more than once?
But in general, if that's all the evidence you have, one client given wrong information once, it'll never see the inside of a courtroom.
ii. Was the car obviously beyond the means of the driver? Did the driver offer anything like a plausible explanation? Even with that, it likely wouldn't be prosecuted. OTOH, if multiple people heard them talking about it being stolen, they might actually prosecute it.
iii) If he kept two books, they'll likely prosecute. If not, it's doubtful.
More realistically, for i they won't even look in to it unless the client is wealthy. In ii they'll 'find' a baggie. In 3, they might use that as probable cause to search his files.
Note now that i would have to involve incriminating communications or a pattern of behavior. ii would likely not happen unles the cops are crooked, and 3 would involve physical evidence.
The standard is beyond reasonable doubt, not probably. How would you feel about going to jail based on 'probably'?
With each accusation, the NSA has 'admitted' to a small bit and denied the rest. Each denial has been proven to be a lie. They have proven now that nothing they say can ever be trusted. They have lied under oath. They have lied to Congress, and they have lied to the People. Repeatedly.
Since we can never trust anything they say, why should we continue to employ them? The entire organization is rotten to the core. The only possible cure is to disband them and start over. A mere re-org would just be moving the deck chairs.
Such an act is a really big deal. Do you advocate that it be taken in haste?
Perhaps the U.S. should also declare the iPhone to be a security threat.
What we need is a revision that turns incorrect automated takedown notices into a contempt charge. That is exactly what it is., a failure to show the care and seriousness due to the DMCA process.
If a bolt of lightning hits it, that cable will vaporize. And in fact, many of them are not at all that well grounded.
Alas, no. Your suggestions would determine that he knew it before he was arrested, none suggest his on-going memory of the password.
It's harder because the other questions only have to look at state of mind for a particular moment in the past before police activity could have influenced it.
This is closer to Heisenberg. The act of questioning can cause the accused to forget. That is exactly why this is a screwed up law.
Have you truly never heard someone say "If you hadn't asked, I could have told you?"
You've never known anyone who can type their password by muscle memory but cannot consciously call it out other than by watching themselves type it?
There are a great many factors that can confound memory and all must be ruled out to eliminate reasonable doubt. Furthermore because memory can be malleable and tricky, even evidence that he later recalled the password isn't evidence that he could recall it when asked. It's actually common for an answer to pop into mind once all pressure to remember has passed.
OTOH, there's really only one reason to arrange to meet someone in an out of the way place and take a gun, gloves, and a body bag with you. The prosecution and the judge don't have to determine what the defendant is thinking NOW.
Why yes, I did eat pork and beans, asparagus and eggs for breakfast, why do you ask?
So instead of killing one planeload of people, kill the ten planeloads waiting at the checkpoint? Bad trade.
If the static voltage is high enough, you don't need to complete a circuit to ground to have a significant current flow. Capacitive effects are more than adequate to give you quite a shock.
The same effect happens with plain old aspirin with less risk to your liver.
Sure, but there's no good reason not to minimize it.
How, exactly, do you snapshot and test the production VM before the maintenance window and guarantee you won't affect (and by "affect", I mean anything that changes behavior in any way that is not expected by the users) any services running on that VM?
Clone it. upgrade the clone and make sure it works. If so, wipe the clone, snapshot the production VM and upgrade it. If it fails, roll back. Make sure your infrastructure is set up so the clone CAN be properly tested. Yes, sometimes you will have to do that rollback, but with an adequate test setup, frequently you won't.
That shouldn't be true, but probably would be.
Overstated, not wrong. There's nothing you can buy for the home that won't cost several times more money than the equipment being protected.
You can buy arresters that will protect against near misses, but if a bolt of lightning hits the outdoor antenna, the TV and arrester will become smoking chunks of plastic and metal.
In addition, the generally crappy value engineered quality of consumer goods will add a lot of noise.
The spectrum they are allocated comes with a mandate to provide a public benefit. They have been allowed some slack on encrypted sub-channels as long as their primary broadcast still meets the public service mandate. If they encrypt that too, they'll be forced to give their allocation back and cease transmitting.
So why did they then pursue it rather than backing off to a safe distance? From the report, it is clear that the drone's operators were attempting to move away to a safe distance when they were pursued.
That is done by looking at how the state of mind drove objective action.
In the case of the murder, we can infer state of mind based on how the murder was accomplished. If the accused shot, stabbed, strangled, then dismembered the victim, we may conclude that death was the intention. Dropped the weapon at the scene, tripped 3 times running away, then threw up in the ally, we can guess it wasn't intended. Took the weapon, the bag the body was placed in, cleaning products that were used to clean up evidence to the scene, then lured the victim, we can infer premeditation.
So now we ask what objective actions at the time he was asked for the password would suggest that he still remembers it?
Quite honestly, courts have in general not paid as much attention to determining state of mind as they should.
We can look at many things to loosely assign a probability to it, but none of those probabilities are likely to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
When it comes down to looking at who is lying in the absense of further evidence, it is known as "he said, she said". Except in extreme cases where one person claims that Elvis and the Grays were all there too, it rarely rises to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt.
At most, honest testimony now could say "I think he probably remembers it". Yes, he probably does, but the standard of proof isn't 'probably'.
The thing is, by the time you get to the point of a password being demanded, you have necessarily been put through an ordeal that may have you not thinking clearly. Likely your daily routine where you might have remembered the password is thoroughly disrupted (set and setting is important to memory).
It seems you didn't RTFA, hate drones, and have a strange neurological condition affecting your knee. Three strikes, you're out!
They do know who the boss is and who his boss is. They know who signs their paychecks. They may not tell, but they know.
With internal CS, there is at least a chance that it is supposed to be more than an impenetrable barrier between the customer and someone with authority.
I know the standard of proof. I also know that where human memory is concerned, short of technology we do not yet have, there can not be proof beyond reasonable doubt that he remembers the password now.
Remember when they found out how incredibly unreliable eye witnesses are? Even the mention of a beard will alter every memory in the room, for example.
Sadly agreed.