I think you're the one missing the reading comprehension.
I've been an IT admin for a decade, and a software engineer for about a decade before that. I can build tunnels in my sleep. I learn a new programming language every year or so. I'm not making myself unable to do this.
Sure, I can set up a tunnel by hand, but that's inconvenient at best. One of the benefits of LogMeIn was that it handled all of the routing for me, regardless of skill level. I don't need to have an SSH server on-site, or deal with port forwarding across disparate NAT devices, or figure out how to punch holes in a firewall that I haven't worked on in a year. I don't choose to spend my time that way.
...So now I have to remember the SSH tunneling syntax (and still port numbers), and also be running an SSH server remotely, and also have go through a multi-step process to connect. No thanks.
You're missing the point. The DIY solutions you're suggesting aren't getting any easier; only the precise flavor of difficulty is changing. Sure, I can build multi-hop routes every time I need to connect somewhere, but it's not nearly as easy as using a nice packaged solution like LogMeIn was.
That strongly indicates that something is being hidden from the public. It does not corroborate (or invalidate) the elaborate conspiracy theories being hyped.
Just another case of dumb, hyper-emotional people getting upset and attention-whoring. Nothing really to see here.
Welcome to Slashdot. Please check your logic at the door, and remember that the robotic overlords have requested that you please keep your mind closed for the duration of your visit. In case of emergency, the hivemind will be available to give you further instruction.
the simple, obvious conclusion is that the warrant is required
What makes it so obvious, given that it doesn't actually say so? Do consider that no courts in 200 years have seen it as such. SCOTUS has ruled that the Constitution shows a preference for having warrants, but doesn't actually require it anywhere. Please do some research into established case law before responding. Injecting your own opinions into the law is the very problem the law exists to avoid.
On the contrary. You've confused what the myth-loving Internet has fed you with what the courts (and a few centuries of legal scholars) have actually upheld. I highly recommend you read that whole section of The Illustrated Guide To Law that I keep linking to. It's actually written by a lawyer, from a neutral perspective, and does a great job of explaining why the law is interpreted the way it is, rather than being interpreted according to the demands of a naive public.
P.S., a not-so-basic English lesson: the word "and" may be used to join two independent clauses, and it may also be used to join elements of a list. The Fourth Amendment uses the former structure, but your example uses the latter.
The Fourth Amendment declares two things. First, there are to be no unreasonable searches or seizures. Second, separated by the word "and" in the text, warrants must be specific. The Fourth Amendment was written to stop the oppression tactics the British used to disrupt businesses, where the British officers would search someone, seizing everything vital for daily life, so regardless of whether the citizen was actually ever accused of a crime, they'd be unable to continue functioning. That power was enabled by a general warrant, which the British government used to authorize a person to search anyone, anywhere, at any time.
The Fourth Amendment cuts off the general warrants by requiring particularity, and prohibits searching without prior reason by prohibiting "unreasonable searches and seizures". It does not attempt to define what is reasonable, nor does it even require that warrants be issued for searches.
Don't take away my right to have a judge involved before the cops can even attempt to violate my rights
That's why there's arrest warrants. The judge is involved beforehand.
Of course, you can be detained or arrested without a warrant, if the police officer has probable cause to believe you committed a crime. In that case, you can challenge the arrest right off the bat. Then a judge is involved, and if the judge disagrees with the police, everything they have is excluded and the police department is ripe for a wrongful arrest lawsuit. that's real due process. You get a chance to defend yourself against accusations. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. You do not get absolute freedom until judgement.
It's nice that you want 24-hour immediate access to a judge before every police action, but I want a pony. With respect, what makes you so important that your due process must be immediate, rather than speedy? If the on-call judge is busy with another call, then what? Does a burglar caught red-handed get to run away because the police have no warrant to arrest him?
That's an excellent question. No matter what answer you get, it won't be right in everybody's eyes. It's controversial.
As I understand it from my studies, "effects" was intended originally to mean physical belongings. Considering that persons, houses, and papers were already covered specifically, "effects" was a sort of "everything else". One decent example I've been told was "everything you'd take with you moving to a new home". In the 18th century, there was no general expectation of day-to-day privacy. Walls weren't soundproof, gossip was the primary entertainment, and world news was remote and unimportant compared to the neighbors' sins.
It's important to understand that the real coverage for information was supposed to come from the protection of "papers". Finance records, communication, and bills of sale all relied on paper. It was so easy to steal someone's horse and flee to the next town that someone's papers were effectively a record of their entire life and wealth. If one's papers were to be taken for legal examination, their livelihood would be extremely vulnerable, even if the person weren't actually arrested.
Let's not forget that our founding fathers were really rebels turned paranoid by the oppression of life in a British colony.
The British would, under the guise of "searching", ransack the home or business of anyone who offended the local rulers (governors, commanders, and so forth). The physical belongings of the victim would be seized, and the all-important papers affirming ownership would be taken for examination. Consider a farmer losing his tools and livestock right before a planting... his family would be dead within the year. It's the perfect tool for an oppressive government agent, keeping up the appearances of serving society while really just eliminating political opponents.
Of course, as the US matured and our police didn't end up exterminating families on a whim (often), the extreme fear that inspired the Fourth Amendment has subsided. The original meaning of "effects" is really rather unrelated to modern life.
Instead, SCOTUS has examined what the modern equivalent would be. Today, our lives are based less around the physical goods we own, but more what information we know. "Effects" is now held to include current information, while "papers" is more applicable to permanent records. Just as one may have given away belongings in the 1700s, one can now give away information easily. On the other hand, if someone wants to keep belongings or information, it is reasonable that they must make a basic effort to protect them. Belongings shouldn't be left abandoned far from someone's own home, and private information shouldn't be revealed publicly to still be considered private.
This is where the NSA gets its wiggle-room from. The information they're gathering is spread through publicly-accessible networks, so it's public, so they're not doing any Fourth-Amendment-Applicable searching. Of course, this "public" information isn't really available en masse to anybody else, but since that's just a matter of price, it still counts as public, right? SCOTUS hasn't decided yet, so that question is still up in the air.
Time constraints, for one. Judges sleep, while the contacts can schedule crimes any time they want.
Lost opportunity, for two. Criminals can easily just disperse and hide if a scheduled check-in is missed.
It's unnecessary, for three. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but if there's a "reason to believe [whatever]", it's reasonable by definition. That reason may be debated in court later, of course, such as if the "drugs" turn out to be something else, but working with the facts known at the time, the search would be allowed.
Never. Per the last few hundred years of legal precedent, the companies are the victims. It's in the same category as leaving a house unlocked. Legally, the person at fault is the one who decided to abuse the flaw and access information they aren't supposed to.
There is a case for negligence, but that requires that the negligent party be unreasonably incompetent, and at the moment, most companies with these kind of security problems are performing on par with most of America - the non-techies who don't understand security.
As the US government operates outside of my interpretation of its constitutional limits, it can only be considered by me to be a criminal organization.
For the fifth amendment to apply, there must be a risk of incriminating oneself. That depends on the specifics of the case:
Chalk said the USB contained material linking the defendant to an alleged fraud. He added that it was only when investigators told Hussain he was being investigated for fraud that he gave up the password. Investigations into the alleged fraud are ongoing.
If this were an American case, the defendant could be charged with obstructing the investigation into someone else's fraud, but the evidence linking him to it would easily be inadmissible. It's been held in federal court that defendants can be compelled to provide unencrypted drive contents to investigators if the police already know the partial contents of the device. While he could probably invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid handing over the password, a blanket grant of immunity for anything further found on the device may be enough* for a court to determine that "self-incrimination" is no longer a risk.
* There are conflicting rulings on this recently, implying that there's a threshold for how much immunity is enough to mitigate the risk.
He knew the password, the police had probable cause, and he intentionally impeded an investigation. I can't speak to British legal procedure, but in America that'd almost certainly be enough to be charged with obstruction of justice.
I never said they can't work. I said they don't fit the business need, for having a particular skill set at a particular amount of experience.
You mention 39,000 tech workers, half of whom are on the wrong side of the hardware/software divide, and only a third of those remaining have any experience with the primary requisite skill, and only ten percent of those have the desired secondary skills. Out of the 650 qualified unemployed candidates, half are overqualified and risk bringing in undesired habits or leaving for greener pastures quickly. A third of those remaining have had long enough careers to understand the project without risking office political problems. Half of those 108 candidates that would be a good fit won't be willing to relocate, and half again won't accept the offer.
If all 39,000 unemployed or underemployed tech workers applied to one position, only about 25 of them would make the cut. Of course, not everyone applies to every job. It's no wonder employers complain of a shortage. Being able to hire foreigners greatly increases the available labor pool.
Go ahead, though. Blame whatever politicians you want. Doing so won't change the fact that hiring is a complicated matter, however.
Slashdot Mirror
At some point, you wrote that script, no? And you had to configure each remote site as well, no?
As for HTTPS, no, I didn't write my own browser from scratch. I use the prepackaged tool that serves my needs. I don't suffer from NIH syndrome
I think you're the one missing the reading comprehension.
I've been an IT admin for a decade, and a software engineer for about a decade before that. I can build tunnels in my sleep. I learn a new programming language every year or so. I'm not making myself unable to do this.
Sure, I can set up a tunnel by hand, but that's inconvenient at best. One of the benefits of LogMeIn was that it handled all of the routing for me, regardless of skill level. I don't need to have an SSH server on-site, or deal with port forwarding across disparate NAT devices, or figure out how to punch holes in a firewall that I haven't worked on in a year. I don't choose to spend my time that way.
Is it a nicely packaged solution? No!
Then as the AC said, you are clearly not LogMein's target audience. Your whole ranting thread is irrelevant.
...So now I have to remember the SSH tunneling syntax (and still port numbers), and also be running an SSH server remotely, and also have go through a multi-step process to connect. No thanks.
You're missing the point. The DIY solutions you're suggesting aren't getting any easier; only the precise flavor of difficulty is changing. Sure, I can build multi-hop routes every time I need to connect somewhere, but it's not nearly as easy as using a nice packaged solution like LogMeIn was.
Right, because I'm certainly going to set up port forwarding on my grandmother's machine, and my multiple non-server machines in my own home...
Now, let's see... 3390 was the bedroom machine, right? or was that the kid's room?
That strongly indicates that something is being hidden from the public. It does not corroborate (or invalidate) the elaborate conspiracy theories being hyped.
The media companies have been lying for their own profit for far longer and far more frequently than the NSA.
I'm not particularly inclined to trust anybody affirming or denying anything outright. None of it can be independently verified.
Just another case of dumb, hyper-emotional people getting upset and attention-whoring. Nothing really to see here.
Welcome to Slashdot. Please check your logic at the door, and remember that the robotic overlords have requested that you please keep your mind closed for the duration of your visit. In case of emergency, the hivemind will be available to give you further instruction.
If we're to believe news reports...
There's your first mistake.
the simple, obvious conclusion is that the warrant is required
What makes it so obvious, given that it doesn't actually say so? Do consider that no courts in 200 years have seen it as such. SCOTUS has ruled that the Constitution shows a preference for having warrants, but doesn't actually require it anywhere. Please do some research into established case law before responding. Injecting your own opinions into the law is the very problem the law exists to avoid.
On the contrary. You've confused what the myth-loving Internet has fed you with what the courts (and a few centuries of legal scholars) have actually upheld. I highly recommend you read that whole section of The Illustrated Guide To Law that I keep linking to. It's actually written by a lawyer, from a neutral perspective, and does a great job of explaining why the law is interpreted the way it is, rather than being interpreted according to the demands of a naive public.
P.S., a not-so-basic English lesson: the word "and" may be used to join two independent clauses, and it may also be used to join elements of a list. The Fourth Amendment uses the former structure, but your example uses the latter.
The 4th defines what is reasonable
Nope.
The Fourth Amendment declares two things. First, there are to be no unreasonable searches or seizures. Second, separated by the word "and" in the text, warrants must be specific. The Fourth Amendment was written to stop the oppression tactics the British used to disrupt businesses, where the British officers would search someone, seizing everything vital for daily life, so regardless of whether the citizen was actually ever accused of a crime, they'd be unable to continue functioning. That power was enabled by a general warrant, which the British government used to authorize a person to search anyone, anywhere, at any time.
The Fourth Amendment cuts off the general warrants by requiring particularity, and prohibits searching without prior reason by prohibiting "unreasonable searches and seizures". It does not attempt to define what is reasonable, nor does it even require that warrants be issued for searches.
Don't take away my right to have a judge involved before the cops can even attempt to violate my rights
That's why there's arrest warrants. The judge is involved beforehand.
Of course, you can be detained or arrested without a warrant, if the police officer has probable cause to believe you committed a crime. In that case, you can challenge the arrest right off the bat. Then a judge is involved, and if the judge disagrees with the police, everything they have is excluded and the police department is ripe for a wrongful arrest lawsuit. that's real due process. You get a chance to defend yourself against accusations. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. You do not get absolute freedom until judgement.
It's nice that you want 24-hour immediate access to a judge before every police action, but I want a pony. With respect, what makes you so important that your due process must be immediate, rather than speedy? If the on-call judge is busy with another call, then what? Does a burglar caught red-handed get to run away because the police have no warrant to arrest him?
Try again.
Let me explain to you what a warrant is, it's a check against unreasonable searches.
A search incident to a lawful arrest is not "unreasonable".
That's an excellent question. No matter what answer you get, it won't be right in everybody's eyes. It's controversial.
As I understand it from my studies, "effects" was intended originally to mean physical belongings. Considering that persons, houses, and papers were already covered specifically, "effects" was a sort of "everything else". One decent example I've been told was "everything you'd take with you moving to a new home". In the 18th century, there was no general expectation of day-to-day privacy. Walls weren't soundproof, gossip was the primary entertainment, and world news was remote and unimportant compared to the neighbors' sins.
It's important to understand that the real coverage for information was supposed to come from the protection of "papers". Finance records, communication, and bills of sale all relied on paper. It was so easy to steal someone's horse and flee to the next town that someone's papers were effectively a record of their entire life and wealth. If one's papers were to be taken for legal examination, their livelihood would be extremely vulnerable, even if the person weren't actually arrested.
Let's not forget that our founding fathers were really rebels turned paranoid by the oppression of life in a British colony.
The British would, under the guise of "searching", ransack the home or business of anyone who offended the local rulers (governors, commanders, and so forth). The physical belongings of the victim would be seized, and the all-important papers affirming ownership would be taken for examination. Consider a farmer losing his tools and livestock right before a planting... his family would be dead within the year. It's the perfect tool for an oppressive government agent, keeping up the appearances of serving society while really just eliminating political opponents.
Of course, as the US matured and our police didn't end up exterminating families on a whim (often), the extreme fear that inspired the Fourth Amendment has subsided. The original meaning of "effects" is really rather unrelated to modern life.
Instead, SCOTUS has examined what the modern equivalent would be. Today, our lives are based less around the physical goods we own, but more what information we know. "Effects" is now held to include current information, while "papers" is more applicable to permanent records. Just as one may have given away belongings in the 1700s, one can now give away information easily. On the other hand, if someone wants to keep belongings or information, it is reasonable that they must make a basic effort to protect them. Belongings shouldn't be left abandoned far from someone's own home, and private information shouldn't be revealed publicly to still be considered private.
This is where the NSA gets its wiggle-room from. The information they're gathering is spread through publicly-accessible networks, so it's public, so they're not doing any Fourth-Amendment-Applicable searching. Of course, this "public" information isn't really available en masse to anybody else, but since that's just a matter of price, it still counts as public, right? SCOTUS hasn't decided yet, so that question is still up in the air.
Time constraints, for one. Judges sleep, while the contacts can schedule crimes any time they want.
Lost opportunity, for two. Criminals can easily just disperse and hide if a scheduled check-in is missed.
It's unnecessary, for three. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, but if there's a "reason to believe [whatever]", it's reasonable by definition. That reason may be debated in court later, of course, such as if the "drugs" turn out to be something else, but working with the facts known at the time, the search would be allowed.
Is that supposed to be some kind of joke?
Yes, Slashdot's editing is a joke.
Never. Per the last few hundred years of legal precedent, the companies are the victims. It's in the same category as leaving a house unlocked. Legally, the person at fault is the one who decided to abuse the flaw and access information they aren't supposed to.
There is a case for negligence, but that requires that the negligent party be unreasonably incompetent, and at the moment, most companies with these kind of security problems are performing on par with most of America - the non-techies who don't understand security.
As the US government operates outside of my interpretation of its constitutional limits, it can only be considered by me to be a criminal organization.
FTFY.
For the fifth amendment to apply, there must be a risk of incriminating oneself. That depends on the specifics of the case:
Chalk said the USB contained material linking the defendant to an alleged fraud. He added that it was only when investigators told Hussain he was being investigated for fraud that he gave up the password. Investigations into the alleged fraud are ongoing.
If this were an American case, the defendant could be charged with obstructing the investigation into someone else's fraud, but the evidence linking him to it would easily be inadmissible. It's been held in federal court that defendants can be compelled to provide unencrypted drive contents to investigators if the police already know the partial contents of the device. While he could probably invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid handing over the password, a blanket grant of immunity for anything further found on the device may be enough* for a court to determine that "self-incrimination" is no longer a risk.
* There are conflicting rulings on this recently, implying that there's a threshold for how much immunity is enough to mitigate the risk.
In not so many flamebait words, yeah.
He knew the password, the police had probable cause, and he intentionally impeded an investigation. I can't speak to British legal procedure, but in America that'd almost certainly be enough to be charged with obstruction of justice.
Wilber already had an encounter with Blender. That's how he became a gimp.
If Project C needs $10 from the General Fund, but the General Fund only has $5 in it (with B's income being earmarked), Project A won't be cut.
Earmarking is a way to set proportional expense rates without being dependent on the periodic budget.
My point is that it's not as simple as saying "make X jobs for X candidates". Employees are not interchangeable.
I never said they can't work. I said they don't fit the business need, for having a particular skill set at a particular amount of experience.
You mention 39,000 tech workers, half of whom are on the wrong side of the hardware/software divide, and only a third of those remaining have any experience with the primary requisite skill, and only ten percent of those have the desired secondary skills. Out of the 650 qualified unemployed candidates, half are overqualified and risk bringing in undesired habits or leaving for greener pastures quickly. A third of those remaining have had long enough careers to understand the project without risking office political problems. Half of those 108 candidates that would be a good fit won't be willing to relocate, and half again won't accept the offer.
If all 39,000 unemployed or underemployed tech workers applied to one position, only about 25 of them would make the cut. Of course, not everyone applies to every job. It's no wonder employers complain of a shortage. Being able to hire foreigners greatly increases the available labor pool.
Go ahead, though. Blame whatever politicians you want. Doing so won't change the fact that hiring is a complicated matter, however.