Like anywhere else in the world, you'd still need permission from the owner of the system to do that for it to be completely legal.
There is a difference between water-tight consent and exploiting the interpretation of the law, hence the qualifier I used. As someone who is part of the Australian Information Security Association (AISA) he agreed to "...maintain the confidential nature of all sensitive and proprietary documentation and information that I encounter." it seems apparent he disregarded this during his demonstration, at the very least this is an violation of a Code of Ethics he agreed to.
I know of no reputable IT Security professional organisation in the world which doesn't state or recommend seeking explicit consent before undertaking security testing on someone else's system.
I think the problem lies in the standard-operating-procedure of obtaining and logging digital evidence. It has to be done using a strict legal framework which unfortunately involves low level digital forensic analysis. It would seem SOP regarding digital evidence needs to be more robust and flexible, you shouldn't need to have to image the entire device to ensure the integrity of that one bit of evidence especially when it was just notes taken down on the device.
Having read this transcript it appears the iPad was not used to do the act, Grubb should have never answered Queensland Polices' questions without having legal representation.
EC: Ok. We're governed by the police powers and responsibilities act. And we have a power to seize property that we believe may contain evidence of a commission of an offence. Ok?
BG: OK. Now I work and my iPad is my working device. I'm a journalist. I have rights to keep my sources close. What legislative, what legislation are you prepared to take my iPad away from me under and do I have to give you the password?
EC: OK. The legislation is the police powers and responsibilities act. And if you wish we can tell you the exact section or sub-section but we have a power generally under the police powers and responsibilities act to seize evidence that we believe, we reasonably believe contains evidence of a commission of an offence. And we reasonably believe that on your iPad is recorded evidence of a commission of an offence and therefore we are going to seize your iPad to examine forensically.
According to Grubb he only has notes on his iPad and a copy of the picture, frankly I don't see how they need to seize his entire device just to obtain his notes, the device may have been used to collect evidence of the offence but seizing the entire device is overkill.
EC: I haven't had a chance to tell you this [to JS] but his law firm which is Johnson Winter and Slattery has asked that we don't conduct an examination until 24 hours at a minimum because they want to fully consider the matter before...
...
EC: I understand we don't have to wait for their permission or anything like that but I thought given the consideration and how helpful everyone had been in relation to this matter that we can wait at least 24 hours before... as per their request
Hopefully someone will see that the seizure of the whole device is overkill within the 24 hours given before the forensic analysis has occurred, that's probably why the law firm asked for a delay in order to demonstrate this.
The expert, Christian Heinrich.... {showed} how he had been able to gain access to the Facebook photos of the wife of a rival security expert, without a username or password.
Sounds like a breach of the Queensland's Criminal Code Act 1899 Section 408E parts 1 and 2 to me.
but he went through it personally with me straight afterwards.
Probably using Grubb's iPad I would imagine, hence the seizure.
When I questioned under what legislation they had the right to seize my iPad, Coultis told me I was under arrest in relation to receiving unlawfully obtained property.
I'm assuming under Queensland's Criminal Code Act 1899 Section 433.
Assuming Grubb let Christian Heinrich use his iPad for the act he's most likely in trouble, even if it was intellectual property. I'm not fully aware of the precedence regarding the definition of 'property' for the purposes of Section 433 and whether intellectual property is also covered under that definition so will be interesting to see what happens.
The only thing why US is good for it now is because of investors. But with the tens of russian billionaires and thousands of russian millionaires out there, it would probably be easy to get money from there too. After all, major Russian investor company owns big share of Facebook and other US based companies too..
Disregard Chinese mom and pop investors at your own risk.
Slashdot Mirror
I did not mean it as a means for license compliance but rather to check if modifications have been made.
It is not clear if they modified calibre because the binary builds are only part of calibre not the entire program as it is officially distributed.
Why not just decompile the binary? It's written in C# .NET and things like .NET Reflector are fairly good at it.
Source, the game engine, has been around since 2004. I don't think they envisaged this outcome when they named it.
FedEx has the same issues when they were trialling them in 2005.
Encrypted VoIP Meets Traffic Analysis
Like anywhere else in the world, you'd still need permission from the owner of the system to do that for it to be completely legal.
There is a difference between water-tight consent and exploiting the interpretation of the law, hence the qualifier I used. As someone who is part of the Australian Information Security Association (AISA) he agreed to "...maintain the confidential nature of all sensitive and proprietary documentation and information that I encounter." it seems apparent he disregarded this during his demonstration, at the very least this is an violation of a Code of Ethics he agreed to. I know of no reputable IT Security professional organisation in the world which doesn't state or recommend seeking explicit consent before undertaking security testing on someone else's system.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2164480&cid=36163920
I think the problem lies in the standard-operating-procedure of obtaining and logging digital evidence. It has to be done using a strict legal framework which unfortunately involves low level digital forensic analysis. It would seem SOP regarding digital evidence needs to be more robust and flexible, you shouldn't need to have to image the entire device to ensure the integrity of that one bit of evidence especially when it was just notes taken down on the device.
EC: Ok. We're governed by the police powers and responsibilities act. And we have a power to seize property that we believe may contain evidence of a commission of an offence. Ok?
BG: OK. Now I work and my iPad is my working device. I'm a journalist. I have rights to keep my sources close. What legislative, what legislation are you prepared to take my iPad away from me under and do I have to give you the password?
EC: OK. The legislation is the police powers and responsibilities act. And if you wish we can tell you the exact section or sub-section but we have a power generally under the police powers and responsibilities act to seize evidence that we believe, we reasonably believe contains evidence of a commission of an offence. And we reasonably believe that on your iPad is recorded evidence of a commission of an offence and therefore we are going to seize your iPad to examine forensically.
According to Grubb he only has notes on his iPad and a copy of the picture, frankly I don't see how they need to seize his entire device just to obtain his notes, the device may have been used to collect evidence of the offence but seizing the entire device is overkill.
EC: I haven't had a chance to tell you this [to JS] but his law firm which is Johnson Winter and Slattery has asked that we don't conduct an examination until 24 hours at a minimum because they want to fully consider the matter before...
...
EC: I understand we don't have to wait for their permission or anything like that but I thought given the consideration and how helpful everyone had been in relation to this matter that we can wait at least 24 hours before... as per their request
Hopefully someone will see that the seizure of the whole device is overkill within the 24 hours given before the forensic analysis has occurred, that's probably why the law firm asked for a delay in order to demonstrate this.
Like anywhere else in the world, you'd still need permission from the owner of the system to do that for it to be completely legal.
The expert, Christian Heinrich.... {showed} how he had been able to gain access to the Facebook photos of the wife of a rival security expert, without a username or password.
Sounds like a breach of the Queensland's Criminal Code Act 1899 Section 408E parts 1 and 2 to me.
but he went through it personally with me straight afterwards.
Probably using Grubb's iPad I would imagine, hence the seizure.
When I questioned under what legislation they had the right to seize my iPad, Coultis told me I was under arrest in relation to receiving unlawfully obtained property.
I'm assuming under Queensland's Criminal Code Act 1899 Section 433.
Assuming Grubb let Christian Heinrich use his iPad for the act he's most likely in trouble, even if it was intellectual property. I'm not fully aware of the precedence regarding the definition of 'property' for the purposes of Section 433 and whether intellectual property is also covered under that definition so will be interesting to see what happens.
I had to correct the same mistake a while ago myself, my write up from back then
ESET Windows, Mac OSX and Linux support for both desktops and servers.
Another one to add to the list
I think that was the presumption.
The only thing why US is good for it now is because of investors. But with the tens of russian billionaires and thousands of russian millionaires out there, it would probably be easy to get money from there too. After all, major Russian investor company owns big share of Facebook and other US based companies too..
Disregard Chinese mom and pop investors at your own risk.
Or if you're subject to Discovery or a subpoena.
Apparently the website is having issues.
Not a new concept, mShell for Symbian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worm_(marketing)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2004#The_leaders_debate_and_the_worm_turns_in_Latham.27s_favour
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-09-12/world/australia.election_1_worm-political-debates-mark-latham?_s=PM:WORLD
The worm is not recent and I vaguely recall seeing it further back than 2004 as well.
My favourite problem was not being able to use variables for the LIMIT clause Bug #11918. Took 5 years to remedy.
Problem is, I do, and it rarely get's published which makes this shit even more annoying.
...and Sony are claiming that it will be “as powerful” as a PlayStation 3.
Sorry, but in no universe is the Cortex-A9 'as powerful' as a PlayStation 3's CBE.
Too many networking manufacturer's still only have their gear accessibly only by telnet. Duh.
Certainly feels better but I think some of these page elements have too much padding, feels like wasted space.