if they're so great how come hundreds of African kids are dying of preventable diseases EVERY SINGLE DAY, at much the same rate as they were before BillG stuck his oar in!?
if you have a photo of a crime being committed the LAST THING YOU DO is comply with an UNLAWFUL ORDER to delete it! You would be arrested for destroying evidence!
no, cops work on the premise that if they don't do what their bosses tell them to do they're out on their ear. I've known cops quit rather than do as they are told being breaking the Law even though their bosses have tried to tell them that what they're telling them to do is actually "legal". Only in their eyes.
What's non-trivial is forging a message UID* and matching it to a known existing message UID* on the server and making sure the message is identical. Because *that* *will* still exist on the server (you think "deleting" a message from the server scrubs it from existence??)
*It's called a *U*ID for a reason - the string is *unique*, never to be used again once issued. If that UID doesn't appear on the database attached to a message then it wasn't issued.
um...yes, actually I have. Those were just a few out of my bookmarks. OK, some of them were subcontractors to Government departments, but there are more than an insignificant number of breaches there that were quietly swept under the carpet that were entirely down to Government agents being either totally stupid or deliberately making sure that that data got out. Who knows how many breaches of remarkable severity go unreported?
In answer to your first question: Data Protection Act 1998. In answer to your second question: the same Act, under the heading "Offences by Bodies Corporate", which includes actionable negligence.
What exactly does Zuckerberg's cultural heritage have to do with the blindingly obvious fact that this individual has tried (and failed) to defraud him out of ten Billion Dollars!?
Where is the header information in these so-called emails?
Without that information (which is verifiable once you have it), I could write any crap and say it's an email from the Pope and you would absolutely have to treat it with the same evidential weight as you would this.
I have produced documentary evidence in the form of court transcripts and various other documents to the CPS who have quietly dropped investigations purely on the basis of who I was accusing. Said individuals presided over Family Proceedings tribunals at various levels from Family & Youth Centres to County level to the RCJ. I have also bought private criminal prosecutions against same said individuals, the results of which included backroom threats and open misfeasance in public office. Now where do I go with that, pray tell? Because the CPS sure as hell won't touch it.
oh, they have that in the US as well? Here it's covered by section 71 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, where blanket immunity is given for any public agency which turns evidence in *any* *other* *proceeding*.
This is yet another fine example of Government security doing its usual - leaking like a sieve, in clear violation of Statutory data security requirements. I'll make a prediction right here: some anonymous H1B or lowly DEC will catch it and be fired, notwithstanding the fact that the buck should stop not there, but at the feet of the DCM or the Executive who will continue to collect seven digit salaries.
It was so nice of you to chip away until only the parts you needed to make your point remained. Now, please put what you quoted back into context and try again.
There's a fundamental difference between "wanting" to know something and "needing" to know something. You do not "need" to know someone else's credit card details. You may very well "need" to know that your GOVERNMENT is committing WAR CRIMES IN YOUR NAME.
...I could post this as AC and legitimately claim to be a "member" of the Anonymous collective with no further proof required. Such is the nature of Anonymous. It isn't an organised group, like say, oh, Scientology, where membership is proven with funny handshakes and laminated cards. You get what I mean there. Anonymous is Legion. It's an organic entity brought about by the chaotic actions of many which seems to be working toward a common goal, and someone had the bright idea of calling that organised chaos "Anonymous" because it seemed to them to be an organised, centralised movement (which it is not). Like the World Wide Web, it's continuously growing, evolving and learning. The idea of Anonymous is self-perpetuating. Such is the nature of ideas, and once an idea is born it will do one of two things: it will propagate or it will die. This one is doing the former because whatever you think, it is liberating information that people need to know from those who control it - or think they can control it.
Long may Anonymous the idea thrive, because like it or not, if you have something to hide from the people you serve as a public servant in whatever capacity (from police officer to President), it will be exposed.
I would call it a PFCP: Partial Filtered Content Provider.
Any service provider who sells you a package which includes INTERNET and filters it without your knowledge or consent is committing FRAUD, since you don't know what filters are in place or what they're filtering, you are not getting what you paid for by any stretch of the most deranged imagination.
I quote from a comment I made on the Authors Guild -v- Hathitrust (11 CV 5361 (HB)) decision a couple weeks ago:
ABKO Music Inc. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 944 F.2d 971, 980 (2d Cir. 1991) (“[T]he Copyright Act does not permit copyright holders to choose third parties to bring suits on their behalf.”
BT, Sky, Virgin Media, O2, EE and TalkTalk have just driven the final nail in Trust's casket. I've just called O2 and told them where to put their SIM contract.
Slashdot Mirror
if they're so great how come hundreds of African kids are dying of preventable diseases EVERY SINGLE DAY, at much the same rate as they were before BillG stuck his oar in!?
Photography 101: if you have just taken a photo of a crime being committed you do not comply with an unlawful order. YOU DO NOT DESTROY EVIDENCE!
if you have a photo of a crime being committed the LAST THING YOU DO is comply with an UNLAWFUL ORDER to delete it! You would be arrested for destroying evidence!
no, cops work on the premise that if they don't do what their bosses tell them to do they're out on their ear. I've known cops quit rather than do as they are told being breaking the Law even though their bosses have tried to tell them that what they're telling them to do is actually "legal". Only in their eyes.
Let's see:
assault
battery
unlawful restraint
unlawful imprisonment
kidnap
criminal damage
unlawful search
unlawful seizure
That's enough to put the mall managers (by accessory), the rentacops and the actual cops, all away for LIFE.
you be absolutely spot on, but I've also represented others.
What's non-trivial is forging a message UID* and matching it to a known existing message UID* on the server and making sure the message is identical. Because *that* *will* still exist on the server (you think "deleting" a message from the server scrubs it from existence??)
*It's called a *U*ID for a reason - the string is *unique*, never to be used again once issued. If that UID doesn't appear on the database attached to a message then it wasn't issued.
um...yes, actually I have. Those were just a few out of my bookmarks. OK, some of them were subcontractors to Government departments, but there are more than an insignificant number of breaches there that were quietly swept under the carpet that were entirely down to Government agents being either totally stupid or deliberately making sure that that data got out. Who knows how many breaches of remarkable severity go unreported?
wonder where that leaves me, then? Half my family are Roman Catholic, half are Jewish. I subscribe to neither.
In answer to your first question: Data Protection Act 1998. In answer to your second question: the same Act, under the heading "Offences by Bodies Corporate", which includes actionable negligence.
What exactly does Zuckerberg's cultural heritage have to do with the blindingly obvious fact that this individual has tried (and failed) to defraud him out of ten Billion Dollars!?
Where is the header information in these so-called emails?
Without that information (which is verifiable once you have it), I could write any crap and say it's an email from the Pope and you would absolutely have to treat it with the same evidential weight as you would this.
I have produced documentary evidence in the form of court transcripts and various other documents to the CPS who have quietly dropped investigations purely on the basis of who I was accusing. Said individuals presided over Family Proceedings tribunals at various levels from Family & Youth Centres to County level to the RCJ. I have also bought private criminal prosecutions against same said individuals, the results of which included backroom threats and open misfeasance in public office. Now where do I go with that, pray tell? Because the CPS sure as hell won't touch it.
addendum: what I don't get is this: they broke the Law, why should they get to hide behind it?
oh, they have that in the US as well? Here it's covered by section 71 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, where blanket immunity is given for any public agency which turns evidence in *any* *other* *proceeding*.
This is yet another fine example of Government security doing its usual - leaking like a sieve, in clear violation of Statutory data security requirements. I'll make a prediction right here: some anonymous H1B or lowly DEC will catch it and be fired, notwithstanding the fact that the buck should stop not there, but at the feet of the DCM or the Executive who will continue to collect seven digit salaries.
You've never sat in an English court, have you? I have, and can tell you from personal experience that English judges are FAR from incorruptible.
It was so nice of you to chip away until only the parts you needed to make your point remained. Now, please put what you quoted back into context and try again.
There's a fundamental difference between "wanting" to know something and "needing" to know something. You do not "need" to know someone else's credit card details. You may very well "need" to know that your GOVERNMENT is committing WAR CRIMES IN YOUR NAME.
...I could post this as AC and legitimately claim to be a "member" of the Anonymous collective with no further proof required. Such is the nature of Anonymous. It isn't an organised group, like say, oh, Scientology, where membership is proven with funny handshakes and laminated cards. You get what I mean there. Anonymous is Legion. It's an organic entity brought about by the chaotic actions of many which seems to be working toward a common goal, and someone had the bright idea of calling that organised chaos "Anonymous" because it seemed to them to be an organised, centralised movement (which it is not). Like the World Wide Web, it's continuously growing, evolving and learning. The idea of Anonymous is self-perpetuating. Such is the nature of ideas, and once an idea is born it will do one of two things: it will propagate or it will die. This one is doing the former because whatever you think, it is liberating information that people need to know from those who control it - or think they can control it.
Long may Anonymous the idea thrive, because like it or not, if you have something to hide from the people you serve as a public servant in whatever capacity (from police officer to President), it will be exposed.
...of election officials to fix the vote.
I would call it a PFCP: Partial Filtered Content Provider.
Any service provider who sells you a package which includes INTERNET and filters it without your knowledge or consent is committing FRAUD, since you don't know what filters are in place or what they're filtering, you are not getting what you paid for by any stretch of the most deranged imagination.
..."It's completely random, you're not being singled out..."
YAH, RIGHT!
I will stick to ground-based travel. Until they decide to put portable microwave ovens in front of the boarding gates for my CYCLE!
Actually I didn't. Recent precedent proves it.
I quote from a comment I made on the Authors Guild -v- Hathitrust (11 CV 5361 (HB)) decision a couple weeks ago:
ABKO Music Inc. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 944 F.2d 971, 980 (2d Cir. 1991) (“[T]he Copyright Act does not permit copyright holders to choose third parties to bring suits on their behalf.”
BT, Sky, Virgin Media, O2, EE and TalkTalk have just driven the final nail in Trust's casket. I've just called O2 and told them where to put their SIM contract.
Fuck off, you do not hold any copyrights yourselves, therefore you are NOT LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO COMPLAIN.
Yours Sincerely,
Everybody.