The US would have no interest in a UK kid hacking Aston-Martin's database. Even if the kid hacked Ford's corporate database the US would have no interest, because there is no federal law against hacking corporate computers (only government computers and computers used for interstate financial transactions). It would, in fact, be completely up to Ford to find the hacker and prosecute (sue) him.
Even in the case of a murder the FBI is not going to investigate it (unless asked to help by the local police), as it is not a federal problem. It is not a federal problem because there are no federal laws against murder, murder laws are written and enforced by the states. As it is not a federal problem, the federal government has no interest in the case.
So the question is: does the UK have a law against hacking computers in other countries? I don't know for sure, but I am guessing the answer is no. Why should they? How does protecting computers in other countries benefit the UK in any way?
Are you really that dumb? Criminal law represents society, not individuals. When you murder someone you have committed a crime against the state (ie the people). Juries have good reason to convict murderers, because they have committed a crime against them (even though they are not the victims). Someone in the UK who hacks a US website has committed no crime against anyone in the UK. UK society has no interest (meaning stake in) in the case at all.
That makes no sense at all. First of all, if the CIA's website (for example) gets hacked, the FBI is going to investigate it, not Scotland Yard or whoever investigates such things for the UK. All of the procedures followed, etc are going to be US procedures, not UK procedures. All the rules of evidence are going to be US rules.
Secondly, and more importantly, the crime was committed against the US, not the UK. Why should the UK be burdened with prosecuting the case and paying for incarceration, etc for a crime that was not committed against them? Why would a UK jury convict someone of a crime not committed against them?
"An offense shall be an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both States by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty."
Well, that is basically what happens now. The US asks the UK to extradite someone for a crime committed in the US. The UK can say 'no'. In fact, they do this when a case could result in the death penalty, if the US does not give assurances that the death penalty will not be used.
Saying that the act must be 'illegal' in the country where the person is is unreasonable. For instance, the US has a federal law that says unauthorized use of a US government computer is a crime. The US does not have a law that says unauthorized use of a UK government computer is a crime, nor should they - that is the UK's responsibility. However, both the US and UK recognize that unauthorized use is a problem, and thus may agree to extradition. There is no other way for it to work.
What do you mean? The website for Levi Strauss and Company claims they have a 150 year history, and says the founder was Levi Strauss. It also has this little warning for people researching the company:
But be careful: there are a lot of myths about our company and our jeans in cyberspace, and you shouldn’t rely on the Internet for historical research.
What you are describing is differences in intent, not motive. Differences in motive would be 'I killed my beloved wife of 60 years because she was suffering terribly from cancer' and 'I killed that stranger for the lulz'.
Sprint will probably grow? What are you basing that on? Over the last 3 years they have lost more than 4 million customers. In addition, last year they lost more than 3 billion dollars.
So the carriers are "rolling out bigger pipes", and somehow that means you should not have to pay more? Please explain that logic. The bigger pipes are for your (not the carriers) benefit. If you are requiring bigger pipes, you should be expected to pay for it.
So if your safety deposit box was plundered, you think the robbers shouldn't be found and prosecuted just because the bank to YOU it was safe? That is just stupid. Of course the bank may have some liability to you, but that certainly does not let the robber off the hook.
There are two separate issues: did the hackers make unauthorized use of a computer, and was the computer adequately protected. These are independent. There are laws against unauthorized use of computers, and they do not specify some 'degree of difficulty' before they are effective, nor should they. Unauthorized use is unauthorized use, period. There may or may not be laws regarding protection of data. However, even if there are, violation of THAT law would be a separate crime, and in no way would excuse someone who violated the unauthorized use law.
And your analogy is much worse than the house analogy. The hackers actually did damage - they released account info, DDOS'd servers etc. To complete your analogy, the bomb must actually be detonated. If that were the case, I doubt anyone would be defending the person who did it as some kind of hero for pointing out a security weakness.
Yep, I agree. Just today I was reading about a murder trial where someone shot someone in the chest and killed them, and I thought 'That is stupid. They shouldn't prosecute the shooter, they should prosecute the maker of the t-shirt the victim was wearing. The shooter is actually a hero for pointing out how defective these t-shirts are'. I mean, you can't catch ALL the murderers, so instead you should put all the responsibility and blame on the victims, right?
It may well be that there should be some laws about minimum security measures that must be used. However, even in the presence of such laws the hackers should still be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
You are drawing arbitrary lines and saying everything before them was good, and everything after was bad.
Did you make your own paper and writing implements to write that letter? If so, did you use only tools and raw materials that you yourself made or collected?
That early internet sure sounds great. I guess people built their own computers (using components and tools that they themselves made), and connected them using wires made from the copper each end user mined for himself, right?
Most leaked documents don't need verification, because no-one is denying their authenticity as they don't point to anything illegal. You might wish that your enemy didn't know some information, but there is no point in denying that the information is true. In this case however, they are supposedly 'leaking' information which shows illegal activity, so you can bet there will be denials. This exercise is nothing more than a witch hunt.
That is exactly what they are doing. They have already made the baseless accusation that the government is corrupt, and now they are going to 'find' some information to prove it. And what are you going to 'peer review'? There is only ONE source of data, and it can't be authenticated.
So you support warrantless searches and invasions of privacy? Or does that only apply if you are looking for 'truth' and/or the target is someone you don't agree with?
Yeah, a bunch of unauthenticated data dumped to the internet by unknown persons is really valuable stuff. Or are we just supposed to take their word for it? Or maybe, if the (unauthenticated) data indicates someone you don't like did something improper, then it simply MUST be true?
Except for the whole thing about being under the control of the owner, collecting data on existing (non-electric) vehicles, performing a simulation of those driving habits in an alternative fuel vehicle, and presenting the resulting potential savings to the user, and also sending to the manufacturer, yeah it is exactly the same thing.
Did you actually read the patent? If not, write down what the 'obvious' answer is to this problem "A method and system for determining comparative performance of an alternative fuel vehicle, such as an electric or hybrid vehicle, based on actual use of an existing gasoline or diesel fuel vehicle." Then read the patent, and compare each and every claim and method with your list, and see if they are EXACTLY the same.
Obvious does not mean that having read the patent it is obvious that it will work. Obvious means that "anyone" skilled in the art would come up with exactly the same solution. The criteria is NOT that one single person could have come up with the exact same implementation idea, it is that ANYONE WOULD come up the exact same implementation, because it is the ONLY solution.
I hope you are not an engineer, because if you are you should know that a big part of engineering is using resources as efficiently as possible to get the required task done.
Customizing requires a build-to-order model, as opposed to a build-to-plan model. The difference between those makes a very large difference on how you can run your business. If you have a build-to-plan model you can run your factories at a more or less consistent pace. If you find you have created too much inventory you can offer buying incentives to reduce your inventory (while supplies last!), or you can halt or slow production for a fixed period of time. If you have a build-to-order model you must wait until you have an actual customer order to complete the build. This creates huge peaks and valleys in demand on your factories and workforce. Furthermore, any built-up inventory (partially built assemblies) are taking up space at the factory, and you don't have a way to move them quickly (if you offer incentives you wind up increasing the demand on your factory and workforce at the same time you are reducing your income). In addition, not having the product available at the dealer removes any impulse buying opportunity.
Options are still available, but they are generally grouped into 'trim packages', which can be built to plan.
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore, Article 3 states:
Extradition shall not be refused based on the nationality of the person sought.
The AC is just making stuff up.
The US would have no interest in a UK kid hacking Aston-Martin's database. Even if the kid hacked Ford's corporate database the US would have no interest, because there is no federal law against hacking corporate computers (only government computers and computers used for interstate financial transactions). It would, in fact, be completely up to Ford to find the hacker and prosecute (sue) him.
Even in the case of a murder the FBI is not going to investigate it (unless asked to help by the local police), as it is not a federal problem. It is not a federal problem because there are no federal laws against murder, murder laws are written and enforced by the states. As it is not a federal problem, the federal government has no interest in the case.
So the question is: does the UK have a law against hacking computers in other countries? I don't know for sure, but I am guessing the answer is no. Why should they? How does protecting computers in other countries benefit the UK in any way?
Things like actual laws and jurisdictions matter.
Are you really that dumb? Criminal law represents society, not individuals. When you murder someone you have committed a crime against the state (ie the people). Juries have good reason to convict murderers, because they have committed a crime against them (even though they are not the victims). Someone in the UK who hacks a US website has committed no crime against anyone in the UK. UK society has no interest (meaning stake in) in the case at all.
Complete bullshit. First of all, the treaty says no such thing. More importantly, 10 seconds of Googling found the following case
That makes no sense at all. First of all, if the CIA's website (for example) gets hacked, the FBI is going to investigate it, not Scotland Yard or whoever investigates such things for the UK. All of the procedures followed, etc are going to be US procedures, not UK procedures. All the rules of evidence are going to be US rules.
Secondly, and more importantly, the crime was committed against the US, not the UK. Why should the UK be burdened with prosecuting the case and paying for incarceration, etc for a crime that was not committed against them? Why would a UK jury convict someone of a crime not committed against them?
Here is the extradition treaty. Which are the one-sided parts, or the part that allows what you claimed happened?
And just to clarify, the first thing in the extradition treaty is:
"An offense shall be an extraditable offense if the conduct on which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both States by deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe penalty."
Well, that is basically what happens now. The US asks the UK to extradite someone for a crime committed in the US. The UK can say 'no'. In fact, they do this when a case could result in the death penalty, if the US does not give assurances that the death penalty will not be used.
Saying that the act must be 'illegal' in the country where the person is is unreasonable. For instance, the US has a federal law that says unauthorized use of a US government computer is a crime. The US does not have a law that says unauthorized use of a UK government computer is a crime, nor should they - that is the UK's responsibility. However, both the US and UK recognize that unauthorized use is a problem, and thus may agree to extradition. There is no other way for it to work.
What do you mean? The website for Levi Strauss and Company claims they have a 150 year history, and says the founder was Levi Strauss. It also has this little warning for people researching the company:
But be careful: there are a lot of myths about our company and our jeans in cyberspace, and you shouldn’t rely on the Internet for historical research.
What you are describing is differences in intent, not motive. Differences in motive would be 'I killed my beloved wife of 60 years because she was suffering terribly from cancer' and 'I killed that stranger for the lulz'.
Correct. POTS used to be 'message rate' (pay per minute) based. People absolutely hated it.
Sprint will probably grow? What are you basing that on? Over the last 3 years they have lost more than 4 million customers. In addition, last year they lost more than 3 billion dollars.
So the carriers are "rolling out bigger pipes", and somehow that means you should not have to pay more? Please explain that logic. The bigger pipes are for your (not the carriers) benefit. If you are requiring bigger pipes, you should be expected to pay for it.
So if your safety deposit box was plundered, you think the robbers shouldn't be found and prosecuted just because the bank to YOU it was safe? That is just stupid. Of course the bank may have some liability to you, but that certainly does not let the robber off the hook.
There are two separate issues: did the hackers make unauthorized use of a computer, and was the computer adequately protected. These are independent. There are laws against unauthorized use of computers, and they do not specify some 'degree of difficulty' before they are effective, nor should they. Unauthorized use is unauthorized use, period. There may or may not be laws regarding protection of data. However, even if there are, violation of THAT law would be a separate crime, and in no way would excuse someone who violated the unauthorized use law.
And your analogy is much worse than the house analogy. The hackers actually did damage - they released account info, DDOS'd servers etc. To complete your analogy, the bomb must actually be detonated. If that were the case, I doubt anyone would be defending the person who did it as some kind of hero for pointing out a security weakness.
Yep, I agree. Just today I was reading about a murder trial where someone shot someone in the chest and killed them, and I thought 'That is stupid. They shouldn't prosecute the shooter, they should prosecute the maker of the t-shirt the victim was wearing. The shooter is actually a hero for pointing out how defective these t-shirts are'. I mean, you can't catch ALL the murderers, so instead you should put all the responsibility and blame on the victims, right?
It may well be that there should be some laws about minimum security measures that must be used. However, even in the presence of such laws the hackers should still be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
You are drawing arbitrary lines and saying everything before them was good, and everything after was bad.
Did you make your own paper and writing implements to write that letter? If so, did you use only tools and raw materials that you yourself made or collected?
That early internet sure sounds great. I guess people built their own computers (using components and tools that they themselves made), and connected them using wires made from the copper each end user mined for himself, right?
Most leaked documents don't need verification, because no-one is denying their authenticity as they don't point to anything illegal. You might wish that your enemy didn't know some information, but there is no point in denying that the information is true. In this case however, they are supposedly 'leaking' information which shows illegal activity, so you can bet there will be denials. This exercise is nothing more than a witch hunt.
That is exactly what they are doing. They have already made the baseless accusation that the government is corrupt, and now they are going to 'find' some information to prove it. And what are you going to 'peer review'? There is only ONE source of data, and it can't be authenticated.
So you support warrantless searches and invasions of privacy? Or does that only apply if you are looking for 'truth' and/or the target is someone you don't agree with?
Yeah, a bunch of unauthenticated data dumped to the internet by unknown persons is really valuable stuff. Or are we just supposed to take their word for it? Or maybe, if the (unauthenticated) data indicates someone you don't like did something improper, then it simply MUST be true?
Except for the whole thing about being under the control of the owner, collecting data on existing (non-electric) vehicles, performing a simulation of those driving habits in an alternative fuel vehicle, and presenting the resulting potential savings to the user, and also sending to the manufacturer, yeah it is exactly the same thing.
Did you actually read the patent? If not, write down what the 'obvious' answer is to this problem "A method and system for determining comparative performance of an alternative fuel vehicle, such as an electric or hybrid vehicle, based on actual use of an existing gasoline or diesel fuel vehicle." Then read the patent, and compare each and every claim and method with your list, and see if they are EXACTLY the same.
Obvious does not mean that having read the patent it is obvious that it will work. Obvious means that "anyone" skilled in the art would come up with exactly the same solution. The criteria is NOT that one single person could have come up with the exact same implementation idea, it is that ANYONE WOULD come up the exact same implementation, because it is the ONLY solution.
I hope you are not an engineer, because if you are you should know that a big part of engineering is using resources as efficiently as possible to get the required task done.
Customizing requires a build-to-order model, as opposed to a build-to-plan model. The difference between those makes a very large difference on how you can run your business. If you have a build-to-plan model you can run your factories at a more or less consistent pace. If you find you have created too much inventory you can offer buying incentives to reduce your inventory (while supplies last!), or you can halt or slow production for a fixed period of time. If you have a build-to-order model you must wait until you have an actual customer order to complete the build. This creates huge peaks and valleys in demand on your factories and workforce. Furthermore, any built-up inventory (partially built assemblies) are taking up space at the factory, and you don't have a way to move them quickly (if you offer incentives you wind up increasing the demand on your factory and workforce at the same time you are reducing your income). In addition, not having the product available at the dealer removes any impulse buying opportunity.
Options are still available, but they are generally grouped into 'trim packages', which can be built to plan.