I am saying adequate evidence short of a confession (such as a verbal refusal rather than a claim to not remember) cannot exist. Human memory is not subject to objective examination.
I once had a baby rattle (when I was a baby). Why is it reasonable to presume I still have it in my possession? I can't prove that I don't since you can't prove a negative.
As for 3b, he told them his best recollection of the password and it didn't unlock the drive. So there we go, where is the proff that he does correctly remember the key but chose not to tell them?
There may be indications and reasons to suspect, but the standard for jailing someone is proof. Where memory is involved, there can never be proof. At least not with today's technology.
They may have it, but I haven't seen any evidence for when he last used the password.
I also haven't seen any evidence that one of the passwords he told them wouldn't have worked but for the police damaging the drive.
The more correct likely characterization is that he remembered the password every day for some unknown length of time then after being traumatized by arrest, jail, and threat of long term incarceration as well as not having access to the computer for some time, he no longer remembers the password.
Sending someone to jail calls for PROOF of wrongdoing. Not supposition.
When they were blaming the other guys, they seemed to have no problem determining that it was dangerously close. So we can just take their word for it that the approach was close enough to call it reckless endangerment and that it is worthy of arrest.
Filing the false report is the first charge. Next up, unlawful imprisonment. Next up, reckless endangerment of everyone around them who could have been injured/killed (they themselves said it was a very dangerous situation, they don't get to say it was no big deal now). Finally, federal penalties for violating FAA rules and regulations. Perhaps the pilot should have his license suspended.
If NYPD is a police force rather than organized crime, they will see to it that all of the above happens AND release the men they arrested with deepest apologies.
Not really. Yes, it was popular enough in '64, but after a few years of people's sons coming home in boxes the popularity had waned a good bit. Even moreso when people noticed none of those boxes were going to wealthy homes.
Never do business with anyone who outsources customer service at all. The 'representative' only has the power to read from the flip chart. They absolutely do not have the authority to fix the problem and they do not know who does or how to contact them.
Have you never tried to remember something? The more you try, the more plausible seeming wrong answers you get? Then, days later you stumble upon the right answer and it's nothing like your guesses?
Most people have had that experience at least once or twice in their life.
Oh, God, what was that guy's name, John, tom, Jim, no, hrmm. Then weeks later someone else mentions his name. It was Franklin.
Alas, a good sphincter clenching life event such as, for example, being aggressively interrogated, tossed into the clink, and then threatened with years of incarceration is a good recipe for forgetting things.
People make up passwords they're sure they'll remember and then can't remember them the next day all the time.
Quick, what did you have for breakfast on May 23rd 1998?
It isn't at all difficult to fake a timestamp on a typical filesystem. There are standard system utilities that will let any user do that to any file he has write permissions for.
The problem with demanding the key and jailing him for not doing so is that they haven't (as far as I know) proven he actually remembers the key at all. Have they done anything to prove that he didn't genuinely believe the passwords he told them would decrypt the data? People do forget things all the time, even very important things. Throw in some duress and mental anguish over being jailed plus autism and it's a wonder if he gets his middle name right.
The fundamental problem with any penalty for not testifying is that it hinges on punishing someone for a crime you can never actually prove them guilty of. That might actually be good reason to punish a judge, or at least remove them from the bench. Not being punished unless proven guilty is a fundamental right that goes well beyong the Constitution or any particular foundational document.
Slashdot Mirror
I am saying adequate evidence short of a confession (such as a verbal refusal rather than a claim to not remember) cannot exist. Human memory is not subject to objective examination.
I once had a baby rattle (when I was a baby). Why is it reasonable to presume I still have it in my possession? I can't prove that I don't since you can't prove a negative.
As for 3b, he told them his best recollection of the password and it didn't unlock the drive. So there we go, where is the proff that he does correctly remember the key but chose not to tell them?
There may be indications and reasons to suspect, but the standard for jailing someone is proof. Where memory is involved, there can never be proof. At least not with today's technology.
They may have it, but I haven't seen any evidence for when he last used the password.
I also haven't seen any evidence that one of the passwords he told them wouldn't have worked but for the police damaging the drive.
The more correct likely characterization is that he remembered the password every day for some unknown length of time then after being traumatized by arrest, jail, and threat of long term incarceration as well as not having access to the computer for some time, he no longer remembers the password.
Sending someone to jail calls for PROOF of wrongdoing. Not supposition.
I would suggest they do a drug test.
How stupid do you have to be to pursue a military craft in one of those police egg beaters?
And the three people across the river who fall down as if shot are just a coincidence.
Wasn't the drone flying over a river?
Even if the pilot was the only one on board, he endangered anyone who might have been hit by fragments of the aircraft had there been a collision.
A helicopter rotor coming apart in flight can throw fragments a long way.
Vietnam is so 20th century. SWAT are the new baby burners.
New slogan: "Napalm sticks to children"
When they were blaming the other guys, they seemed to have no problem determining that it was dangerously close. So we can just take their word for it that the approach was close enough to call it reckless endangerment and that it is worthy of arrest.
Filing the false report is the first charge. Next up, unlawful imprisonment. Next up, reckless endangerment of everyone around them who could have been injured/killed (they themselves said it was a very dangerous situation, they don't get to say it was no big deal now). Finally, federal penalties for violating FAA rules and regulations. Perhaps the pilot should have his license suspended.
If NYPD is a police force rather than organized crime, they will see to it that all of the above happens AND release the men they arrested with deepest apologies.
Not really. Yes, it was popular enough in '64, but after a few years of people's sons coming home in boxes the popularity had waned a good bit. Even moreso when people noticed none of those boxes were going to wealthy homes.
Agreed. They might or might not put the bodies in prison with the heads, I'm good with it either way. :-)
Never do business with anyone who outsources customer service at all. The 'representative' only has the power to read from the flip chart. They absolutely do not have the authority to fix the problem and they do not know who does or how to contact them.
You also contradicted your own argument with your wonderful reference to laundry detergent. Is laundry detergent's primary purpose laundering money?
Just be sure when laundering your money to use cold water and avoid machine drying. Some currencies might actually shrink in the heat of the dryer.
Because it was already patented
Or at least lay off the crack! :-)
How do regurgitated one-lines make you feel?
Alas, the test that was "passed" was not actually the test Turing proposed.
So it passed the Turingish test.
The problem is that you cannot compel the impossible and you cannot prove that he remembers his password.
Have you never tried to remember something? The more you try, the more plausible seeming wrong answers you get? Then, days later you stumble upon the right answer and it's nothing like your guesses?
Most people have had that experience at least once or twice in their life.
Oh, God, what was that guy's name, John, tom, Jim, no, hrmm. Then weeks later someone else mentions his name. It was Franklin.
Alas, a good sphincter clenching life event such as, for example, being aggressively interrogated, tossed into the clink, and then threatened with years of incarceration is a good recipe for forgetting things.
People make up passwords they're sure they'll remember and then can't remember them the next day all the time.
Quick, what did you have for breakfast on May 23rd 1998?
It isn't at all difficult to fake a timestamp on a typical filesystem. There are standard system utilities that will let any user do that to any file he has write permissions for.
The problem with demanding the key and jailing him for not doing so is that they haven't (as far as I know) proven he actually remembers the key at all. Have they done anything to prove that he didn't genuinely believe the passwords he told them would decrypt the data? People do forget things all the time, even very important things. Throw in some duress and mental anguish over being jailed plus autism and it's a wonder if he gets his middle name right.
The fundamental problem with any penalty for not testifying is that it hinges on punishing someone for a crime you can never actually prove them guilty of. That might actually be good reason to punish a judge, or at least remove them from the bench. Not being punished unless proven guilty is a fundamental right that goes well beyong the Constitution or any particular foundational document.
The milkmen in question were Mathis Dairy. Pretty well known in the Atlanta metro area.
Yes, the health insurance industry is a bloody mess, BECAUSE of what I pointed out. Do you want auto insurance to go the same way?
You seem to be stuck in the corporations good, government bad loop. Sorry but corporations have just as much capacity to be bad if given free rein.
You asked for examples and got a metric assload of them.