TimeWarner and TimeWarner CABLE are two different companies. Notice how the statement you copies says nothing about being an ISP? That is because they are not.
How is this insightful? Are people really thinking that manufacturing equals 'tech mojo'? IBM has 3 research facilities in the US (California, Texas, New York) and 5 more outside the US (one each in China, Israel, India, Japan, Switzerland). Their servers are designed in the US and Germany. Manufacturing processes are all developed in the US. Actual manufacturing is done in the US, Europe, Asia, and Brazil. Their chips are designed and fabbed in the US.
Which is probably why the article doesn't mention PCBs - it mentions paper, wood etc. The current felt pens work poorly on those surfaces, particularly if you flex them.
Your post makes no sense. You talk as if a corporation is some magical sentient being, with the will and power to act independent of the people involved in it. The people involved in a corporation have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as you do. What additional rights do you think they gain, or responsibilities they lose? Of course a corporation can't be arrested and thrown in jail - it has no ability to act. How can a corporation possibly kill someone? The actions of the PEOPLE in a corporation may result in someone's being killed, and if their actions rise to the level of a crime they can and will be arrested. The thing that people value most is liberty, so if they commit a crime we remove their liberty. The thing that corporations value most is money, so if the corporation as a whole commits a crime we remove it's money.
I never said the people I was referring to were employees. The people that make up a corporation are it's shareholders, because they are the ones who control what the corporation does, either explicitly by voting for the board who directs the management what to do, or implicitly by investing money in it.
So has there been a bill introduced to repeal that law? Has there been discussion of repealing that law? No, and no. The law passed the house 414-1 (only nay vote was Ron Paul), and the senate 95-0 (two of the 5 people who did not vote were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and was signed by President Bush. That is as close to universal agreement as you are ever going to see in government. This is not going to be repealed 'because some corporation wants it'.
It is completely asinine to say that there are corporations who don't like the law. No shit. For every single law made by every government anywhere there is someone who doesn't like it, or else we wouldn't need the law.
Show me a government that can operate with no privacy, and I'll show you a government that doesn't last more than about 10 minutes, because it can have no defenses against any internal or external threats.
A corporation is nothing more than a piece of paper. That piece of paper does not have privacy. The people that make up a corporation, and their dealings with each other, deserve exactly the same privacy as people who are not part of the corporation.
Oh, 'massive corporations' - scary. Gee, I wonder what makes them so 'massive'. It surely is not the thousands or millions of people that make them up, is it?
You can stick that stupid 'for now' phrase on anything you want, because EVERYTHING is 'for now'. You're not allowed to murder people - for now. You are allowed to exist - for now.
And before you say 'well just because there is a law against it doesn't mean companies won't do it', why would a law against data mining mean companies won't do it? If you're so paranoid as to believe that people are going to discriminate against you based on genetics, in spite of laws against that, then don't give your genes to anyone, ever, because any one of them could break the relevant laws and use that information against you.
The prescription itself is not free speech, but talking about it is. There is nothing private about a prescription except for the patient's name. You are perfectly free, if you so desire, to declare to the world that Dr Smith gave you a prescription for some drug - you don't need Dr Smith's permission to do so. And this is nothing new - in the mid 70s I worked at a pharmacy, and my job was filling out a card with drug-dosage-doctor for each prescription filled and sending it to some company (IMS, I think).
Your expense reports are the private property of your company, and they can give them out or not as they see fit. Your medical records and financial statements are private information, and that privacy is protected by law.
First, the discussion was about publishing purported illegal financial transactions, not police training manuals. Second, 'peers' had nothing to do with it - it was confirmed by the agency that was hacked. Third, there is nothing worth denying in there, so why would they deny it? Fourth, they have every reason to admit that these documents are authentic - it is proof that a crime was committed, and will be used against the criminals when they are caught.
Ok, I just read the UK law, and you are correct. All I can say is: holy crap your law sucks. It looks to me like the big difference between those two laws is that the US law is designed to protect the interests of the US and it's people, and the UK law is designed to control it's people. Kind of brings into sharp focus the difference between the US and the UK, doesn't it.
Yes, you are correct that if a foreign country does not have laws against hacking someone in the US can hack them with impunity. So what? If another country doesn't care enough to protect it's interests why should the US care? And no, it is not privateering. Privateering is AUTHORIZED by the government. The US does not authorize citizens to hack into any foreign computer, it just doesn't care if someone does, but if they get caught (by the foreign government) they can be extradited. Part of that whole 'freedom' thing.
There already IS regulation, and it is called 'common carrier status'. Which means the telcos are REQUIRED to do business with everyone, whether they want that person for a customer or not.
How are you going to teach people how to say no to that kind of criminal? We have spent a couple of decades scaring people with 'you must protect your computer, if you don't protect it you are an idiot, etc'. All that 'teaching' is what directly lead to this scam. So what do you propose teaching? That your computer will never pop up a warning saying an infection was found, and click to do something about it? Many (all?) legit virus scanners do exactly that. Never purchase something just because your computer said to? What happens when your AV subscription is up and you get prompted for exactly that (with the same dire 'you could be exposed' messages that the scams use?
What makes you think that the servers that were confiscated a couple of days ago were not taken as part of this operation? On the 21st, the FBI seized a bunch of servers, and there was much howling. On the 22nd they make this announcement, which includes 'seizure of more than 40 computers and servers'.
You say something is completely clear, then get it entirely wrong. It says nothing at all about 'persons located in the US'. All it says is that jurisdiction is assumed to be domestic only, unless otherwise stated. In the case cited, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lost a case against an American company doing business in Saudi Arabia, because the law did not include a special 'foreign' statement giving the EEOC jurisdiction. The only reason the US had any interest in the case at all was because it was an American company. The language was added to the hacking law to prevent the situation where someone hacks a 'protected computer' (like one used by a US bank) that happens to be located in a foreign country, and the US can't prosecute because of that technicality. It says nothing at all about the US claiming jurisdiction over international hacking of things that are not US interests or protected by US law. That would make as much sense as the EEOC claiming jurisdiction over every company operating anywhere in the world, which clearly it does not (and can not) do.
Now you're really stretching. You have gone from "most emphatically not protecting US computers" to "the law could be twisted to mean what I say". Look, if they wanted the law to be against hacking any computer anywhere in the world, why didn't they just say so? Why have all that stuff about 'protected computers' and the explicit definition thereof if it is meaningless?
The intent of the law is to protect US interests, not to control the actions of people within it's borders. What interest does the US possibly have in preventing people within it's borders from hacking systems that are not of interest to the US?
You are completely incorrect. The plain text of the actual law (USC 18 Section 1030) states:
intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains— (A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 (n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.); (B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or (C) information from any protected computer;
It further goes on to define what is meant by "protected computer"
the term “protected computer” means a computer— (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or (B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;
The law quite clearly protects ONLY computers used by the US. Hacking into Buckingham Palace's web site is not a crime under US law.
Why is this so hard to understand? Before you can arrest, prosecute, and convict someone an actual on-the-books law must be broken. I am fairly sure that the UK has laws that say unauthorized use of UK computers is illegal, just like the US has laws that say unauthorized use of US computers is illegal. However, the UK most probably does not have any law that says unauthorized use of US computers is illegal, nor should they. What does the UK care if someone hacks US computers?
So now a person in the UK hacks a US computer. Under your plan, he would be arrested and prosecuted in the UK, by the UK. What are they going to charge him with, violating a US law? Violating the law against hacking UK computers (even though he didn't hack a UK computer)? That makes no sense at all.
And no, the procedures are certainly not the same everywhere. They may be similar, but they certainly are not 'the same'. For instance, court orders may be required for different things, etc.
Your last comment is the dumbest of all. Did you ever hear of the right to confront your accuser? It is pretty difficult to cross-examine a FedEx bag. So now I suppose you would have the FBI agents (who did the investigation in the US) travel to the UK to testify at the trial of a UK suspect who didn't actually violate any UK law.
Slashdot Mirror
TimeWarner and TimeWarner CABLE are two different companies. Notice how the statement you copies says nothing about being an ISP? That is because they are not.
It's not suspicious at all that most of the ISPs signing on for this are owned by or own media companies.
Since when does 2 out of 5 count as 'most'? Other than Comcast and Cablevision, which ones are owned by or own media companies?
Bullshit. IBM has chip fabs in New York and Vermont, and none outside the US. The chips are designed mostly in the US.
How is this insightful? Are people really thinking that manufacturing equals 'tech mojo'? IBM has 3 research facilities in the US (California, Texas, New York) and 5 more outside the US (one each in China, Israel, India, Japan, Switzerland). Their servers are designed in the US and Germany. Manufacturing processes are all developed in the US. Actual manufacturing is done in the US, Europe, Asia, and Brazil. Their chips are designed and fabbed in the US.
Which is probably why the article doesn't mention PCBs - it mentions paper, wood etc. The current felt pens work poorly on those surfaces, particularly if you flex them.
Your post makes no sense. You talk as if a corporation is some magical sentient being, with the will and power to act independent of the people involved in it. The people involved in a corporation have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as you do. What additional rights do you think they gain, or responsibilities they lose? Of course a corporation can't be arrested and thrown in jail - it has no ability to act. How can a corporation possibly kill someone? The actions of the PEOPLE in a corporation may result in someone's being killed, and if their actions rise to the level of a crime they can and will be arrested. The thing that people value most is liberty, so if they commit a crime we remove their liberty. The thing that corporations value most is money, so if the corporation as a whole commits a crime we remove it's money.
I never said the people I was referring to were employees. The people that make up a corporation are it's shareholders, because they are the ones who control what the corporation does, either explicitly by voting for the board who directs the management what to do, or implicitly by investing money in it.
So has there been a bill introduced to repeal that law? Has there been discussion of repealing that law? No, and no. The law passed the house 414-1 (only nay vote was Ron Paul), and the senate 95-0 (two of the 5 people who did not vote were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), and was signed by President Bush. That is as close to universal agreement as you are ever going to see in government. This is not going to be repealed 'because some corporation wants it'.
It is completely asinine to say that there are corporations who don't like the law. No shit. For every single law made by every government anywhere there is someone who doesn't like it, or else we wouldn't need the law.
Your 'for now' crap is just stupid.
Show me a government that can operate with no privacy, and I'll show you a government that doesn't last more than about 10 minutes, because it can have no defenses against any internal or external threats.
A corporation is nothing more than a piece of paper. That piece of paper does not have privacy. The people that make up a corporation, and their dealings with each other, deserve exactly the same privacy as people who are not part of the corporation.
Oh, 'massive corporations' - scary. Gee, I wonder what makes them so 'massive'. It surely is not the thousands or millions of people that make them up, is it?
You can stick that stupid 'for now' phrase on anything you want, because EVERYTHING is 'for now'. You're not allowed to murder people - for now. You are allowed to exist - for now.
It is already against the law to discriminate based on genetics. You claim that the FCRA is 'violated as a matter of course' - do you have any actual evidence of that?
And before you say 'well just because there is a law against it doesn't mean companies won't do it', why would a law against data mining mean companies won't do it? If you're so paranoid as to believe that people are going to discriminate against you based on genetics, in spite of laws against that, then don't give your genes to anyone, ever, because any one of them could break the relevant laws and use that information against you.
The prescription itself is not free speech, but talking about it is. There is nothing private about a prescription except for the patient's name. You are perfectly free, if you so desire, to declare to the world that Dr Smith gave you a prescription for some drug - you don't need Dr Smith's permission to do so. And this is nothing new - in the mid 70s I worked at a pharmacy, and my job was filling out a card with drug-dosage-doctor for each prescription filled and sending it to some company (IMS, I think).
Your expense reports are the private property of your company, and they can give them out or not as they see fit. Your medical records and financial statements are private information, and that privacy is protected by law.
That would be discrimination based on genetics, which is against the law.
First, the discussion was about publishing purported illegal financial transactions, not police training manuals. Second, 'peers' had nothing to do with it - it was confirmed by the agency that was hacked. Third, there is nothing worth denying in there, so why would they deny it? Fourth, they have every reason to admit that these documents are authentic - it is proof that a crime was committed, and will be used against the criminals when they are caught.
Ok, I just read the UK law, and you are correct. All I can say is: holy crap your law sucks. It looks to me like the big difference between those two laws is that the US law is designed to protect the interests of the US and it's people, and the UK law is designed to control it's people. Kind of brings into sharp focus the difference between the US and the UK, doesn't it.
Yes, you are correct that if a foreign country does not have laws against hacking someone in the US can hack them with impunity. So what? If another country doesn't care enough to protect it's interests why should the US care? And no, it is not privateering. Privateering is AUTHORIZED by the government. The US does not authorize citizens to hack into any foreign computer, it just doesn't care if someone does, but if they get caught (by the foreign government) they can be extradited. Part of that whole 'freedom' thing.
There already IS regulation, and it is called 'common carrier status'. Which means the telcos are REQUIRED to do business with everyone, whether they want that person for a customer or not.
Well, why not? At that point it's just an ad for a product.
How are you going to teach people how to say no to that kind of criminal? We have spent a couple of decades scaring people with 'you must protect your computer, if you don't protect it you are an idiot, etc'. All that 'teaching' is what directly lead to this scam. So what do you propose teaching? That your computer will never pop up a warning saying an infection was found, and click to do something about it? Many (all?) legit virus scanners do exactly that. Never purchase something just because your computer said to? What happens when your AV subscription is up and you get prompted for exactly that (with the same dire 'you could be exposed' messages that the scams use?
I think it depends on your card issuer. My credit union issued Visa came with a warning to call them before attempting to use it overseas.
What makes you think that the servers that were confiscated a couple of days ago were not taken as part of this operation? On the 21st, the FBI seized a bunch of servers, and there was much howling. On the 22nd they make this announcement, which includes 'seizure of more than 40 computers and servers'.
You say something is completely clear, then get it entirely wrong. It says nothing at all about 'persons located in the US'. All it says is that jurisdiction is assumed to be domestic only, unless otherwise stated. In the case cited, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lost a case against an American company doing business in Saudi Arabia, because the law did not include a special 'foreign' statement giving the EEOC jurisdiction. The only reason the US had any interest in the case at all was because it was an American company. The language was added to the hacking law to prevent the situation where someone hacks a 'protected computer' (like one used by a US bank) that happens to be located in a foreign country, and the US can't prosecute because of that technicality. It says nothing at all about the US claiming jurisdiction over international hacking of things that are not US interests or protected by US law. That would make as much sense as the EEOC claiming jurisdiction over every company operating anywhere in the world, which clearly it does not (and can not) do.
Now you're really stretching. You have gone from "most emphatically not protecting US computers" to "the law could be twisted to mean what I say". Look, if they wanted the law to be against hacking any computer anywhere in the world, why didn't they just say so? Why have all that stuff about 'protected computers' and the explicit definition thereof if it is meaningless?
The intent of the law is to protect US interests, not to control the actions of people within it's borders. What interest does the US possibly have in preventing people within it's borders from hacking systems that are not of interest to the US?
You are completely incorrect. The plain text of the actual law (USC 18 Section 1030) states:
intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 (n) of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
(C) information from any protected computer;
It further goes on to define what is meant by "protected computer"
the term “protected computer” means a computer—
(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
(B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;
The law quite clearly protects ONLY computers used by the US. Hacking into Buckingham Palace's web site is not a crime under US law.
They are only 'marketing stickers' in the sense that it may well be illegal to sell the devices without the stickers.
Why is this so hard to understand? Before you can arrest, prosecute, and convict someone an actual on-the-books law must be broken. I am fairly sure that the UK has laws that say unauthorized use of UK computers is illegal, just like the US has laws that say unauthorized use of US computers is illegal. However, the UK most probably does not have any law that says unauthorized use of US computers is illegal, nor should they. What does the UK care if someone hacks US computers?
So now a person in the UK hacks a US computer. Under your plan, he would be arrested and prosecuted in the UK, by the UK. What are they going to charge him with, violating a US law? Violating the law against hacking UK computers (even though he didn't hack a UK computer)? That makes no sense at all.
And no, the procedures are certainly not the same everywhere. They may be similar, but they certainly are not 'the same'. For instance, court orders may be required for different things, etc.
Your last comment is the dumbest of all. Did you ever hear of the right to confront your accuser? It is pretty difficult to cross-examine a FedEx bag. So now I suppose you would have the FBI agents (who did the investigation in the US) travel to the UK to testify at the trial of a UK suspect who didn't actually violate any UK law.