somebody's confusing a civil action with a criminal one. Intent is only a consideration if you're in a criminal situation. Did you intend to yell state secrets in a crowded restaurant? No? Then you're entitled to plead not guilty and the jury might believe you had no intent to blab. In a civil proceeding the mere fact that you blabbed would be enough for a finding against you, whether you intended to or not is immaterial and frankly the court would not be interested.
financial records sent through the post are generally placed in envelopes which have an obfuscating pattern of ink on the inside face of the envelope. This is, legally speaking, encryption. To circumvent that encryption means to open the envelope - which is a Federal offence in the US and a Crown offence in the UK. Whatever it's called in your locality may vary, but it goes beyond civil offence.
my last tethered router had a WPA key (and a WEP key) both in Hex, written on the back of the unit.
Given that it was highly unlikely that I would use wifi in my own home, considering that when I'm home my laptops etc are plugged in, it made sense that they would also employ one of the several ethernet cables dotted around the place as well. Hence, the wifi was turned off.
I think that's demonstrative enough of intent.
Footnote: If I were to use the wifi functionality of any router I use at home, the first thing I would do is change that key.
PATRIOT is probable cause for Government agents to put a bullet in behind your ear these days, don't think for one minute they're above using the same or similar excuse to eavesdrop on your communications.
any computer that comes equipped with wifi and the necessary software to connect to a wifi network!
Here it is on my computer as it came from the factory:
1. one copy of Windows 7 Home Premium 2. One wifi adapter 3. One copy of the Wireless Zero Configuration software libraries and the necessary libraries for actually making the wifi work 4. one browser.
expectation of privacy on a broadcast as opposed to a unicast...
important difference here: an open wifi network broadcasts its existence to all and sundry. Are you saying that detecting and identifying an open wifi network (before any payload data is even exchanged) is illegal? If not, then by extension of the fact that the door is open to transmit payload by the same carrier (open, unencrypted and with no lock), intercepting that payload is as legal as tuning in a transistor radio to a broadcast station. End of.
A cellphone broadcasts an open connect signal to the nearest two towers. This signal is interceptible and can be triangulated by anyone with the correct equipment. Nothing illegal about that, in fact carriers use this information for everything from location tracking (down to two or three feet) to relaying towers (say if you're moving at speed).
The big difference between a unicast and a broadcast is that a unicast uses some sort of security device to squelch out unwanted signal, also to isolate itself from other signals that the receiver hears it and nothing else, and nobody else hears it. Think of it as a five lever deadlock. It won't stop a determined burglar (wiretapper) but it'll stop honest people (Joe Schmo with a $100 scanner he uses to listen to civilian air traffic) from trying. The point is that if the intent is there (a lock) to stop unwanted eavesdropping, then circumventing that lock is breaking and entering (hence illegal). The only burden on the accuser is to show that the intent (lock) is there to prevent eavesdropping. If it isn't there, he has no case against anyone whose body or equipment that BROADCAST signal passes through.
What's weird about that whole analogy is this: it's not illegal to own a scanner in the UK, but it is illegal to operate one. The reason being, that modern scanners can not only discover WFM (Wide FM, ie broadcast) and NFM (Narrowcast FM, or personal/mobile radio) transmissions, they can also be programmed with CTCSS and DCS codes which act as squelch keys so they can be used to intercept (relative to broadcast) secure transmissions.
Since wifi equipment can be programmed with DCS to separate channels, does this mean that owning wifi equipment is legal but operating it is not?
Biometrics rely on parts of the anatomy that don't change (very much if at all) such as fingerprints, facial features, body proportions, palm prints, retina patterns... so pretty much any part of an adults body can theoretically be used for authentication.
Reminds me of a skit in Family Guy (I forget the episode) where the guys were breaking into a safe in Carter Pewterschmidt's mansion...
Quagmire: "I got this one, guys." Computer: "Penile recognition confirmed." Peter Griffin: "Oh, nice one Quagmire, how did you know that'd fit?" Quagmire: "It didn't. I just shoved it in there and broke it."
I'm waiting for the new season of Ellen (unless they do it on Ally McBeal first) where the titular character is required to unlock a vault with a clit print.
My Windows 7 laptop has face recognition login capability which it's had since I bought it. Not that I've used it, I find it faster to type in a passphrase before the thing even gets as far as a login screen.
nope. The soil on which an international airport sits, hence any aircraft sitting on the tarmac, is under the full legal jurisdiction of the country to which that soil is attached.
Threatening someone with jail* for withholding a passkey which only exists in the mind of one individual is coercion. Established case Law. Evidence (including confessions whether taped or written) obtained through coercion is inadmissible hence any conviction so obtained through coercively obtained evidence is unsafe. Also established case Law. Following that, no person may be tried twice for the same crime, unless and only if there is "new, compelling reliable and substantial evidence" that was previously unavailable and the Court of Appeal decide that the evidence is sufficient to warrant a new trial (Criminal justice Act 2005). Such evidence if it is of a digital nature on an encrypted hard drive or other storage device will only ever come to light if the passkey is surrendered or in the equally unlikely event that the Universe doesn't die a heat death before the police manage to crack it.
*The maximum penalty for contempt in England is two years, except in cases under the Terrorism Act which carries a maximum penalty of five years. I should familiarise you with the prohibition on consecutive sentences contained in section 265 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the residual application of section 116 and 117 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, which means that the court cannot impose a two year sentence on someone for refusing to disclose information then do it again in two years when the first sentence is up, rinsing and repeating. This would also fall afoul of the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment which is International Law.
I could be wrong but I think that was one of the design briefs of Hubble - not necessarily to install corrective optics, but to replace failed instruments or simply switch out science packages.
No one is bound to answer any question if the answer thereto would, in the opinion of the judge, have a tendency to expose (him) to any criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture which the judge regards as reasonably likely to be preferred.
- Established precedent over 1100 years of Common Law, from the Code of Alfred 870 to the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.
In Saunders v UK (ECHR), according to which "the right not to incriminate oneself does not extend to the use in criminal proceedings of material which may be obtained from the accused through compulsory powers but which have an existence independent of the will of the suspect, such as, inter alia, documents acquired pursuant to a warrant, breath, blood and urine samples and bodily tissue for the purpose of DNA testing". This would only extend to a passphrase which exists outside the mind of the defendant. It would be on the prosecutor to prove that such a document exists to obtain an order against which refusal would result in a finding of contempt. Therefore, no court can force disclosure of a passphrase which exists only in the grey matter of one individual.
- Also established precedent (NG08C10148, in camera and compartmentalised).
For those who are about to fire the thought-ending cliché, "What, do you have something to hide?" Why, yes I do. The nature of that material is nobody's business but mine, and if you think it's of an illegal nature, it's on you to prove it beyond supposition and paranoid delusion - "beyond reasonable doubt" as is required in a criminal process. But do NOT expect me to help you or feed your fantasy.
Slashdot Mirror
not if it's open.
somebody's confusing a civil action with a criminal one. Intent is only a consideration if you're in a criminal situation. Did you intend to yell state secrets in a crowded restaurant? No? Then you're entitled to plead not guilty and the jury might believe you had no intent to blab. In a civil proceeding the mere fact that you blabbed would be enough for a finding against you, whether you intended to or not is immaterial and frankly the court would not be interested.
intent is the cornerstone of criminal law. Bare facts are the purview of the civil legal system.
financial records sent through the post are generally placed in envelopes which have an obfuscating pattern of ink on the inside face of the envelope. This is, legally speaking, encryption. To circumvent that encryption means to open the envelope - which is a Federal offence in the US and a Crown offence in the UK. Whatever it's called in your locality may vary, but it goes beyond civil offence.
my last tethered router had a WPA key (and a WEP key) both in Hex, written on the back of the unit.
Given that it was highly unlikely that I would use wifi in my own home, considering that when I'm home my laptops etc are plugged in, it made sense that they would also employ one of the several ethernet cables dotted around the place as well. Hence, the wifi was turned off.
I think that's demonstrative enough of intent.
Footnote: If I were to use the wifi functionality of any router I use at home, the first thing I would do is change that key.
my AV has a network packet analyser.
NEXT!
Mine did.
~Windows 7 with WZC: check
~Browser: check.
All you need.
PATRIOT is probable cause for Government agents to put a bullet in behind your ear these days, don't think for one minute they're above using the same or similar excuse to eavesdrop on your communications.
oh, to have mod points left and to not have already commented in this thread...
any computer that comes equipped with wifi and the necessary software to connect to a wifi network!
Here it is on my computer as it came from the factory:
1. one copy of Windows 7 Home Premium
2. One wifi adapter
3. One copy of the Wireless Zero Configuration software libraries and the necessary libraries for actually making the wifi work
4. one browser.
NEXT!
expectation of privacy on a broadcast as opposed to a unicast...
important difference here: an open wifi network broadcasts its existence to all and sundry. Are you saying that detecting and identifying an open wifi network (before any payload data is even exchanged) is illegal? If not, then by extension of the fact that the door is open to transmit payload by the same carrier (open, unencrypted and with no lock), intercepting that payload is as legal as tuning in a transistor radio to a broadcast station. End of.
A cellphone broadcasts an open connect signal to the nearest two towers. This signal is interceptible and can be triangulated by anyone with the correct equipment. Nothing illegal about that, in fact carriers use this information for everything from location tracking (down to two or three feet) to relaying towers (say if you're moving at speed).
The big difference between a unicast and a broadcast is that a unicast uses some sort of security device to squelch out unwanted signal, also to isolate itself from other signals that the receiver hears it and nothing else, and nobody else hears it. Think of it as a five lever deadlock. It won't stop a determined burglar (wiretapper) but it'll stop honest people (Joe Schmo with a $100 scanner he uses to listen to civilian air traffic) from trying. The point is that if the intent is there (a lock) to stop unwanted eavesdropping, then circumventing that lock is breaking and entering (hence illegal). The only burden on the accuser is to show that the intent (lock) is there to prevent eavesdropping. If it isn't there, he has no case against anyone whose body or equipment that BROADCAST signal passes through.
What's weird about that whole analogy is this: it's not illegal to own a scanner in the UK, but it is illegal to operate one. The reason being, that modern scanners can not only discover WFM (Wide FM, ie broadcast) and NFM (Narrowcast FM, or personal/mobile radio) transmissions, they can also be programmed with CTCSS and DCS codes which act as squelch keys so they can be used to intercept (relative to broadcast) secure transmissions.
Since wifi equipment can be programmed with DCS to separate channels, does this mean that owning wifi equipment is legal but operating it is not?
I've gone cross eyed.
decent facial recognition relies on bone structure rather than skin texture.
Ergo, face fur shouldn't affect it.
Biometrics rely on parts of the anatomy that don't change (very much if at all) such as fingerprints, facial features, body proportions, palm prints, retina patterns... so pretty much any part of an adults body can theoretically be used for authentication.
Reminds me of a skit in Family Guy (I forget the episode) where the guys were breaking into a safe in Carter Pewterschmidt's mansion...
Quagmire: "I got this one, guys."
Computer: "Penile recognition confirmed."
Peter Griffin: "Oh, nice one Quagmire, how did you know that'd fit?"
Quagmire: "It didn't. I just shoved it in there and broke it."
I'm waiting for the new season of Ellen (unless they do it on Ally McBeal first) where the titular character is required to unlock a vault with a clit print.
My Windows 7 laptop has face recognition login capability which it's had since I bought it. Not that I've used it, I find it faster to type in a passphrase before the thing even gets as far as a login screen.
thanky chappy!
anyone got an alternative link?
nope. The soil on which an international airport sits, hence any aircraft sitting on the tarmac, is under the full legal jurisdiction of the country to which that soil is attached.
a bullet would render any drive unrecoverable, encrypted or not... your point?
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.
Ker-ching!
...and with that phrase uttered, you are then required to prove that you've forgotten it.
Fucked up, but there it is.
(actually it's fairly easy - claim torture. Game over).
Threatening someone with jail* for withholding a passkey which only exists in the mind of one individual is coercion. Established case Law.
Evidence (including confessions whether taped or written) obtained through coercion is inadmissible hence any conviction so obtained through coercively obtained evidence is unsafe. Also established case Law.
Following that, no person may be tried twice for the same crime, unless and only if there is "new, compelling reliable and substantial evidence" that was previously unavailable and the Court of Appeal decide that the evidence is sufficient to warrant a new trial (Criminal justice Act 2005). Such evidence if it is of a digital nature on an encrypted hard drive or other storage device will only ever come to light if the passkey is surrendered or in the equally unlikely event that the Universe doesn't die a heat death before the police manage to crack it.
*The maximum penalty for contempt in England is two years, except in cases under the Terrorism Act which carries a maximum penalty of five years. I should familiarise you with the prohibition on consecutive sentences contained in section 265 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the residual application of section 116 and 117 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, which means that the court cannot impose a two year sentence on someone for refusing to disclose information then do it again in two years when the first sentence is up, rinsing and repeating. This would also fall afoul of the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment which is International Law.
I could be wrong but I think that was one of the design briefs of Hubble - not necessarily to install corrective optics, but to replace failed instruments or simply switch out science packages.
No one is bound to answer any question if the answer thereto would, in the opinion of the judge, have a tendency to expose (him) to any criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture which the judge regards as reasonably likely to be preferred.
- Established precedent over 1100 years of Common Law, from the Code of Alfred 870 to the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.
In Saunders v UK (ECHR), according to which "the right not to incriminate oneself does not extend to the use in criminal proceedings of material which may be obtained from the accused through compulsory powers but which have an existence independent of the will of the suspect, such as, inter alia, documents acquired pursuant to a warrant, breath, blood and urine samples and bodily tissue for the purpose of DNA testing".
This would only extend to a passphrase which exists outside the mind of the defendant. It would be on the prosecutor to prove that such a document exists to obtain an order against which refusal would result in a finding of contempt. Therefore, no court can force disclosure of a passphrase which exists only in the grey matter of one individual.
- Also established precedent (NG08C10148, in camera and compartmentalised).
For those who are about to fire the thought-ending cliché, "What, do you have something to hide?" Why, yes I do. The nature of that material is nobody's business but mine, and if you think it's of an illegal nature, it's on you to prove it beyond supposition and paranoid delusion - "beyond reasonable doubt" as is required in a criminal process. But do NOT expect me to help you or feed your fantasy.
you offering?
...because I love giving police the finger when they demand to see what's on my laptop.
As far as they're concerned, it's just random garbage. And that is all they will ever see.