Or there are some people who really want to get their hands on more money, which also qualifies as a pretty simple explanation. We don't really know either way, and that's why we have a court system.
While Facebook certainly has been in the press an awful lot lately given growing concerns over privacy issues, this is an accusation, not a conviction. From the article:
The latest unwelcome gift: accusations of securities fraud from former Harvard schoolmates who say he and other Facebook executives tricked them into a supposed $65 million settlement that was actually worth far less.
He may or may not be guilty of anything, so let's try to keep a cool head in the meantime.
The ability to control external noise in real-world operating environments, at least to the degree necessary to mitigate this issue, would seem to represent a rather nasty challenge. This may be a severely constraining factor on the potential for practical usefulness of quantum cryptography, at least for the time being.
You can probably buy a crypto accelerator card to solve any perceived issues with dm-crypt speed, but unless you're doing a ridiculous amount of I/O I don't think you're going to notice a difference.
Trying to compare your situation to countless others where people were convicted of things like receiving stolen property, money laundering, and other assorted offenses is ridiculous.
I do believe every word you're saying, but you cannot be in your right mind to believe the majority of people involved in the kind of operations described in this story are innocent. Then again, this is what we have the courts for. While the justice system is far from perfect, it's certainly the best option tried thus far.
These people aren't shopkeepers. They're being paid for virtually nothing aside from serving as a pass-through conduit for money. Please reference my other post for a more detailed reply on the matter.
As the story says, the people responsible for this activity can be viewed as either "not too bright" or "it seems like they knew something wasn't right." My money (no pun intended) is on most of them being a member of Club I'll Pretend I Didn't Know This Was Wrong. There's bound to be some crossover between the two groups, but always remember: criminal stupidity is largely defined by actions, not the capacity to know right from wrong (yeah, there are some cases where someone can't be held criminally liable due to mental deficit, but it's far from the norm). Ignorance is an entirely different topic, and not something I believe most of these can claim if they got past kindergarten.
It's definitely a fair question. I'm a fan of things being reexamined from time to time regardless of how well-accepted they've become. I tend to lean on the "conservative" side (although I suppose that's subject to whatever definition of conservative folks want to apply), but I do like to see all parties asking questions.
Why it is so difficult for you to comprehend the difference between "didn't apply to" and "is limited in its application to" is completely beyond me.
Given this, your attempted strawman fails terribly. Nice try, though. The chain between your original flawed statement and its subsequent correction remains intact.
The first amendment starts, "Congress shall make no law..."
Who the speaker is is irrelevant.
(emphasis mine)
Regardless of everything else you said (which largely just repeats my point), your initial statement was provably false, as the age of the speaker is clearly relevant as evidenced by mountains of relevant case law. The outcome is, to put it succinctly, that minors routinely find their constitutional rights abridged.
As far as your initial statement, you clearly didn't know what you were talking about, so don't try to paint me as a dick for pointing it out. Perhaps you've enlightened yourself since Monday May 10, @11:17AM.
I suppose it's a good thing you don't have a law degree, as you'd be an awful attorney. Minors do not universally enjoy the same expression of constitutional rights as adults (as an example, the principle of in loco parentis regarding school environments). The Supreme Court has held that certain minor rights may be abridged under certain circumstances, as explained in references like this one, along with countless others.
You are advised to educate yourself before continuing to post on this topic.
The more cores the better for me. I run a couple of home servers, which each run several VMs under KVM. Sure, this isn't general use, but I don't care about that. For all my "general use" tasks, the MacBook works just fine.
You do not understand how these things work. It doesn't have to be a criminal matter for a judge to order you to hand over the encryption keys; this can occur as part of a civil suit. However, any decent attorney (considering the subject matter dealing with medical data) is probably going to convince a judge that there is probable cause that more serious laws have been broken, provided you pissed off the employer enough. I guess you could gamble that your attorney is better, but having fun paying your legal bills.
As for attempting to be clever and only provide the key to a dummy partition, others have tried this approach and paid for it. Contrary to popular belief, all computer forensics people are not stupid. I suppose you could gamble on getting a dumbass who somehow misses it, though. Again, have fun paying your legal bills.
At the end of the day, there are so many ways you could get screwed in this, it's better just not to play at all.
Out of sheer curiosity, what school are you attending? Behavior like that would result in a pretty amusing, and probably very public, outcome at a school like GA Tech.
And when Microsoft Windows was declared a monopoly, you were perfectly free to go buy a Macintosh. By your description, you weren't locked in to Windows.
Since you made that comment in this story, as an attempt to refute my statement regarding lock in, it was clearly attempt to draw a direct comparison between the Microsoft monopoly case and Apple's actions with the App Store. It failed miserably, as illustrated by another poster's reply.
Sure it's your hardware. Go ahead and do anything you want with it, including jailbreaking it. Just keep in mind that once you've done that, Apple no longer has any obligation to support that hardware. If you don't like this, please refrain from using that particular hardware. Your perception of your personal rights vs. Apple's rights is severely skewed. They are under no obligation to help you install unsupported or unapproved software on their hardware.
What lock in? You're perfectly free to go buy an Android handset if you don't like Apple's App Store policies. This has nothing whatsoever to do with lock in.
What are you talking about? As of April 8, 2010 there were over 185,000 apps in the App Store (source: Wikipedia App Store entry). I'd say that's a heck of a lot of publishers; even Opera has their browser in the App Store these days. I cannot fathom how people can fail to understand that it's Apple's store, and they are completely within their rights when it comes to deciding what will or won't be accepted. If you don't like it, stop using your iPhone/iPad/iWhatever, use something else, and get on with your life.
Slashdot Mirror
Or there are some people who really want to get their hands on more money, which also qualifies as a pretty simple explanation. We don't really know either way, and that's why we have a court system.
At least in the court of public opinion, I think you've got an accurate statement there :).
The latest unwelcome gift: accusations of securities fraud from former Harvard schoolmates who say he and other Facebook executives tricked them into a supposed $65 million settlement that was actually worth far less.
He may or may not be guilty of anything, so let's try to keep a cool head in the meantime.
It's okay. Hopefully they'll still have plenty of information from tapping phone calls that were already placed.
The ability to control external noise in real-world operating environments, at least to the degree necessary to mitigate this issue, would seem to represent a rather nasty challenge. This may be a severely constraining factor on the potential for practical usefulness of quantum cryptography, at least for the time being.
That sounds like a pretty bright idea!
They're engineers in the Naval sense, ala Starfleet.
You can probably buy a crypto accelerator card to solve any perceived issues with dm-crypt speed, but unless you're doing a ridiculous amount of I/O I don't think you're going to notice a difference.
Why wouldn't you just do your encryption at the block device level using dm-crypt? Then it doesn't matter what filesystem you're using.
Trying to compare your situation to countless others where people were convicted of things like receiving stolen property, money laundering, and other assorted offenses is ridiculous.
I do believe every word you're saying, but you cannot be in your right mind to believe the majority of people involved in the kind of operations described in this story are innocent. Then again, this is what we have the courts for. While the justice system is far from perfect, it's certainly the best option tried thus far.
These people aren't shopkeepers. They're being paid for virtually nothing aside from serving as a pass-through conduit for money. Please reference my other post for a more detailed reply on the matter.
As the story says, the people responsible for this activity can be viewed as either "not too bright" or "it seems like they knew something wasn't right." My money (no pun intended) is on most of them being a member of Club I'll Pretend I Didn't Know This Was Wrong. There's bound to be some crossover between the two groups, but always remember: criminal stupidity is largely defined by actions, not the capacity to know right from wrong (yeah, there are some cases where someone can't be held criminally liable due to mental deficit, but it's far from the norm). Ignorance is an entirely different topic, and not something I believe most of these can claim if they got past kindergarten.
People are prosecuted for receiving stolen goods all the time. How is this much different?
It's definitely a fair question. I'm a fan of things being reexamined from time to time regardless of how well-accepted they've become. I tend to lean on the "conservative" side (although I suppose that's subject to whatever definition of conservative folks want to apply), but I do like to see all parties asking questions.
Why it is so difficult for you to comprehend the difference between "didn't apply to" and "is limited in its application to" is completely beyond me.
Given this, your attempted strawman fails terribly. Nice try, though. The chain between your original flawed statement and its subsequent correction remains intact.
I offer you this in closing: Advancing in Debate: Skills & Concepts
The first amendment starts, "Congress shall make no law..."
Who the speaker is is irrelevant.
(emphasis mine)
Regardless of everything else you said (which largely just repeats my point), your initial statement was provably false, as the age of the speaker is clearly relevant as evidenced by mountains of relevant case law. The outcome is, to put it succinctly, that minors routinely find their constitutional rights abridged.
As far as your initial statement, you clearly didn't know what you were talking about, so don't try to paint me as a dick for pointing it out. Perhaps you've enlightened yourself since Monday May 10, @11:17AM.
I suppose it's a good thing you don't have a law degree, as you'd be an awful attorney. Minors do not universally enjoy the same expression of constitutional rights as adults (as an example, the principle of in loco parentis regarding school environments). The Supreme Court has held that certain minor rights may be abridged under certain circumstances, as explained in references like this one, along with countless others.
You are advised to educate yourself before continuing to post on this topic.
The more cores the better for me. I run a couple of home servers, which each run several VMs under KVM. Sure, this isn't general use, but I don't care about that. For all my "general use" tasks, the MacBook works just fine.
You do not understand how these things work. It doesn't have to be a criminal matter for a judge to order you to hand over the encryption keys; this can occur as part of a civil suit. However, any decent attorney (considering the subject matter dealing with medical data) is probably going to convince a judge that there is probable cause that more serious laws have been broken, provided you pissed off the employer enough. I guess you could gamble that your attorney is better, but having fun paying your legal bills.
As for attempting to be clever and only provide the key to a dummy partition, others have tried this approach and paid for it. Contrary to popular belief, all computer forensics people are not stupid. I suppose you could gamble on getting a dumbass who somehow misses it, though. Again, have fun paying your legal bills.
At the end of the day, there are so many ways you could get screwed in this, it's better just not to play at all.
It's called a court order. Good luck.
Out of sheer curiosity, what school are you attending? Behavior like that would result in a pretty amusing, and probably very public, outcome at a school like GA Tech.
And when Microsoft Windows was declared a monopoly, you were perfectly free to go buy a Macintosh. By your description, you weren't locked in to Windows.
Since you made that comment in this story, as an attempt to refute my statement regarding lock in, it was clearly attempt to draw a direct comparison between the Microsoft monopoly case and Apple's actions with the App Store. It failed miserably, as illustrated by another poster's reply.
Sure it's your hardware. Go ahead and do anything you want with it, including jailbreaking it. Just keep in mind that once you've done that, Apple no longer has any obligation to support that hardware. If you don't like this, please refrain from using that particular hardware. Your perception of your personal rights vs. Apple's rights is severely skewed. They are under no obligation to help you install unsupported or unapproved software on their hardware.
What lock in? You're perfectly free to go buy an Android handset if you don't like Apple's App Store policies. This has nothing whatsoever to do with lock in.
What are you talking about? As of April 8, 2010 there were over 185,000 apps in the App Store (source: Wikipedia App Store entry). I'd say that's a heck of a lot of publishers; even Opera has their browser in the App Store these days. I cannot fathom how people can fail to understand that it's Apple's store, and they are completely within their rights when it comes to deciding what will or won't be accepted. If you don't like it, stop using your iPhone/iPad/iWhatever, use something else, and get on with your life.