I think I'd rather IBM's Watson, I think it's shown a lot of promise in natural language parsing and I think it would do a better job than anything The Washington Post can come up with.
Depends on jurisdiction though, there are some western jurisdictions where lack of a published policy and access control mechanisms can imply open access which is enough to argue in court.
The headline is disingenuous, the servers belonged to the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) and whilst they are funded by the government, they are independent due to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act of 1983. ABC's Corporate Structure and the Charter of Independence and Accountability.
Frankly, if you spent as much time on the quality of content (Summaries, selection of stories etc. as opposed to crap ones) then you have on the wrapper it comes in you might not seem so desperate by coming up with video and other practically useless features. All of these other features are there to support the content, if you don't have quality content then it's all going to waste.
What you actually want is encryption software with plausible deniability features like TrueCrypt or BestCrypt. I really don't understand why more people don't know about these technologies.
The number of people here trying to justify the actions regarding the Taliban corpses is truly disgusting, there's a difference between collateral damage and wilful contempt and this act goes against the values of Honour that is so often espoused.
Although the FCPC algorithm for processing AOA data was generally very effective, it could not manage a scenario where there were multiple spikes in AOA from one ADIRU that were 1.2 seconds apart. The occurrence was the only known example where this design limitation led to a pitch-down command in over 28 million flight hours on A330/A340 aircraft, and the aircraft manufacturer subsequently redesigned the AOA algorithm to prevent the same type of accident from occurring again.
If that's the case, Unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data requires states "A person who-causes any unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data held in a computer; and... knows that the access or modification is unauthorised; and... intends to cause the access or modification- is guilty of an offence"
Doesn't causation indicate that the whistleblower is the one who committed an offence against this section? Not the paper?
Under Crimes Act 1958, Section 247B ("Unauthorised access, modification or impairment with intent to commit serious offence") one can claim they did not know access was unauthorised because no policy was stated as mentioned by the Australian Institute of Criminology amongst a variety of things. Also, it requires intent to commit another serious offence. The Crimes Act 1958 Section 247G ("Unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data") states that 'restricted data' is "...data held in a computer to which access is restricted by an access control system associated with a function of the computer." so if there is no access control governing access to the data then it's not restricted data thus no offence has been made against the section.
Assuming parent is correct regarding there being no access control, the investigation is a fishing expedition, which has happened before to the Australian media and they've always seized far more then was required. If they aren't using encryption and data compartmentalisation by now. then they aren't really serious about keeping their sources confidential.
Why bother to use Ask Slashdot in the first place? The chance of getting your submission picked is practically next to nothing, which is a good thing in other ways, I don't want to be spammed with questions on my feed. Ask Slashdot question quality isn't that great anyway, too much of the time the question is regarding something legal (Thus any answer not from a lawyer is irrelevant), has bad assumptions, is flamebait, is too vague/generic/incomplete or any power/technical user/consumer should already know or know how to find out themselves.
One of the most common methods LE use to bypass full disk encryption is social engineering a user/administrator to run malware on the system while it's running. Full Disk Encryption doesn't make your system magically invulnerable to malware.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I'd rather IBM's Watson, I think it's shown a lot of promise in natural language parsing and I think it would do a better job than anything The Washington Post can come up with.
Don't forget Halliburton
Is someone giving us a less than subtle hint?
http://www.scalify.com/dist-validation.html
Depends on jurisdiction though, there are some western jurisdictions where lack of a published policy and access control mechanisms can imply open access which is enough to argue in court.
One of the few mini-ITX platforms with Tegra3
Keep in mind Federal Court Justice Annabelle Bennett was referring to why this wasn't in mediation, that's it.
False premise gets hits.
The headline is disingenuous, the servers belonged to the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) and whilst they are funded by the government, they are independent due to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act of 1983. ABC's Corporate Structure and the Charter of Independence and Accountability.
Frankly, if you spent as much time on the quality of content (Summaries, selection of stories etc. as opposed to crap ones) then you have on the wrapper it comes in you might not seem so desperate by coming up with video and other practically useless features. All of these other features are there to support the content, if you don't have quality content then it's all going to waste.
What you actually want is encryption software with plausible deniability features like TrueCrypt or BestCrypt. I really don't understand why more people don't know about these technologies.
The number of people here trying to justify the actions regarding the Taliban corpses is truly disgusting, there's a difference between collateral damage and wilful contempt and this act goes against the values of Honour that is so often espoused.
Although the FCPC algorithm for processing AOA data was generally very effective, it could not manage a scenario where there were multiple spikes in AOA from one ADIRU that were 1.2 seconds apart. The occurrence was the only known example where this design limitation led to a pitch-down command in over 28 million flight hours on A330/A340 aircraft, and the aircraft manufacturer subsequently redesigned the AOA algorithm to prevent the same type of accident from occurring again.
ADIRU = Air Data Inertial Reference Unit
Didn't we just have a story about how metrics suck?
If that's the case, Unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data requires states "A person who-causes any unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data held in a computer; and... knows that the access or modification is unauthorised; and... intends to cause the access or modification- is guilty of an offence"
Doesn't causation indicate that the whistleblower is the one who committed an offence against this section? Not the paper?
First link should be http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s247b.html
Under Crimes Act 1958, Section 247B ("Unauthorised access, modification or impairment with intent to commit serious offence") one can claim they did not know access was unauthorised because no policy was stated as mentioned by the Australian Institute of Criminology amongst a variety of things. Also, it requires intent to commit another serious offence.
The Crimes Act 1958 Section 247G ("Unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data") states that 'restricted data' is "...data held in a computer to which access is restricted by an access control system associated with a function of the computer." so if there is no access control governing access to the data then it's not restricted data thus no offence has been made against the section.
Assuming parent is correct regarding there being no access control, the investigation is a fishing expedition, which has happened before to the Australian media and they've always seized far more then was required. If they aren't using encryption and data compartmentalisation by now. then they aren't really serious about keeping their sources confidential.
This Ask Slashdot is a good illustration of what I said later on in this comment
Why bother to use Ask Slashdot in the first place? The chance of getting your submission picked is practically next to nothing, which is a good thing in other ways, I don't want to be spammed with questions on my feed. Ask Slashdot question quality isn't that great anyway, too much of the time the question is regarding something legal (Thus any answer not from a lawyer is irrelevant), has bad assumptions, is flamebait, is too vague/generic/incomplete or any power/technical user/consumer should already know or know how to find out themselves.
Uplink Developer CD and it's non-FOSS license with instructions on how to compile using MS Visual C++ 6.0 so what's different about this 'new' release?
PS/2 keyboards are especially vulnerable to passive interception attacks. Proof of concept of electromagnetic emanations interception and intercepting via ground leakage or laser microphones.
One of the most common methods LE use to bypass full disk encryption is social engineering a user/administrator to run malware on the system while it's running. Full Disk Encryption doesn't make your system magically invulnerable to malware.
no technological solution exists.
That's simply not true. An implementation of the idea
dd's a poor solution; if it hits a bad block on the drive, the default is the fail
Which is why alternatives like dd_rescue and ddrescue exist.
Some of us enjoy the G-pressing-RSI-inducing ritual each page visit though :)