There is absolutely no reason that SHOULD show up in there data stream. What they are looking for is a correlation between driving habits and claims they must pay. If someone is driving like that and it does not cause claims (ie the person is not involved in accidents) why should they care? In spite of what you seem to think, the person driving slowly in the left lane is not causing accidents - the dopes who can't safely deal with a slow driver in the left lane are causing accidents.
Saying slow drivers cause accidents is like saying the weather causes accidents, or stopped traffic causes accidents, or any number of other things people blame for causing an accident when in reality the thing that caused the accident is their crappy driving.
Actually, what the courts have been explicit about is the concept of reasonable expectation of privacy. Both of those bold words are important. If you have papers kept in a desk drawer in your house, then it is reasonable to expect those papers to be private. 4th amendment applies and a warrant is needed to get those papers. If, on the other hand, you keep those same papers in a desk drawer in your office, then you may not have a reasonable expectation that they are private because others (ie your employer) have legal access to that drawer. If the employer had legal access to the drawer and saw your papers, the police or court could ask him about those papers, and no warrent would be needed for that. In that case, the 4th amendment may not apply.
If you want something to be treated as private, then it is entirely up to you to make it private. If you do something incredibly stupid like make the data available on the internet to anyone who asks, there is no way you can claim that the data is private. YOU are the one who exposed it. You may WISH it was private, but it isn't, and nobody is required to obey your wishes.
No, they are not. Don't be stupid. Weev was convicted of identity fraud - he was lying about who he was to get access to data he was not authorized to access. The police are not engaged in identity fraud - they are allowed to use different identities.
You seem confused on the differences between access and authorization. The question in the AT&T case was about authorization. Was the guy authorized to access the things he did? Clearly he could access the data, but was he authorized to do so? If you have my bank credentials you have access to my account, but you do not have authorization to do anything with the account. Yes, you have the ability to do things, but that is nowhere near the same as being authorized.
In cases like that the courts will use a 'reasonable person' test. Would a 'reasonable person' think that AT&T intended that data to be publically available, or did the guy have good reason to know that he was not authorized to access that data (regardless of his ability to access the data)? If there was a link off of att.com, a reasonable person would probably agree that the data was intended to be public and the guy was authorized. If he had to guess at URL strings and such a reasonable person could well conclude that he had no reason to beleive he was authorized.
In this case, there is no question of authorization, only a question of access. The police do not need authorization to access data that has been exposed, intentionally or not.
A flashing check engine light means a persistent misfire has been detected. That is serious because it means raw fuel is being dumped into the exhaust system, which will destroy the catalytic converter and/or cause a fire. If your check engine light is flashing, stop.
Yes, they could do that. But guess what - most of those kids have parents who work. So you make the starting time of school later - are their parents still at home to get them off to school, or did they already leave for work? Oh, you say, let the parents go to work later too. But what if the timing of their jobs is dependant on other things, like the opening hours of a business. What do you do then, just open the business an hour later? This would have an enormous ripple effect. So why not just make it easy on everyone, and move the clocks?
Conviction??? It is a CIVIL case. This is not a criminal case where the prosecution has all the burden and the defense has all the rights. This is a civil case where the parties are equals. The plaintiff has just as much right to the evidence he needs to win as the defense has to privacy. It is up to the court to strike the correct balance, and 'the defendant is assumed innocent' is not in the picture in a civil case.
Nothing was searched, nothing was seized. The thing we are discussing is, in fact, a court order. Said court order describes the oaths and affirmations that were given which lead the court to issue the order. Where, exactly, is the supposed violation of the 4th amendment?
As you said, he may be in some trouble (although I don't think there are serious criminal charges) IF forensics finds traces of the source code, AND the plaintiff is able to convince the jury that the forensics is real and true. But tell me, is it likely that 'most people' would know how to remove the source code and NOT leave a trace of it? Is it likely that someone who describes himself as a 'hacker' would know how to do that?
As for your destruction of documents example: if it is suspected that a specific document contains some evidence then that document will be ordered to be preserved. In that case, the document mysteriously disappearing or appearing altered would be a red flag. If the allegation is that there exists a document that proves the defendants case, then all documents may be seized/copied with no notice because it would be impossible to detect the disappearance of a document that is otherwise not known to exist.
The harm can only be fixed by money IF the defendant has the money to fix it. Remember that in this case the clients of the plaintiff are the ones who did not want the code released. If the code is released it is likely that the clients would not buy it. That means the damages are not loss of a single sale or some such nonsense, but the loss of ALL money from the product. If the defendant can't cover that, then harm has been done that can not be repaired.
The guy is being sued by his former employer, who claims he took their code and plans to offer it as open source (copyright infringement). The plaintiff contends that there is crucial evidence on the defendants computer. The court ordered (as is usual in such cases) that an image be made of the defendants computer in order to preserve any evidence that is there. The computer is to be returned to the defendant as soon as the image is made, in the same condition as before the computer was taken. Nobody can look at the image until further court orders allow it.
So where does 'being a hacker' enter the picture? The plaintiff asked the court for a temporary restraining order without notification to the defendant. The courts rules state that a temporary restraining order can only be granted if there are specific facts that show irreperable harm will occur before the opposing party can present his position in court. In this case, the plaintiff is claiming that the defendant will have the ability to destroy the evidence before the plaintiff can present their case. The court used the 'we are hackers' statement as evidence that the defendant probably had the means and knowledge to destroy the evidence. Thus, the restraining order was granted.
It is not a criminal case. No 4th amendment rights were violated.
Maritime treaties to protect shipping have existed for a long time. They are the reason there is such a thing as 'international waters.' Basically, if you fly the flag of some country in what is defined as international waters you are under the protection of that country. An attack on you would be seen as a crime or act of war against the flagged country. Of course, if you fly a flag you are also subject to the laws of that country.
If you fly unflagged you have no legal protection. There is no-one you can run to and complain that your ship was boarded. Your only choice in that case is to try to protect yourself with force, which basically pits you against whatever navy happens to want to board your ship. Good luck.
International waters are not some magical place where no law applies. You are still under the jurisdiction of whatever country's flag you are flying. And if you have a ship with rocketry on it you better be flying somebodies flag, or you will be boarded and seized by someone who assumes you are up to no good.
As for the international group, that is also covered in the treaty. In that case, responsibity belongs to the international organization and the states to which its members belong.
How the hell can you read that and come away with the conclusion that looking at information your device broadcasts is a violation? They're not 'gaining access' to anything, so that automatically rules out all three offenses. Worse yet, you come up with the brilliant conclusion that it is a FELONY. Is your BT a 'computer or database maintained by a goverment agency?' Is there any indication that this supposed 'access' is done with the intent to commit another crime?
By your brilliant logic, every DHCP, ARP, etc broadcast would be 'unauthorized access' if something responded to them.
Oddly enough, nobody made a claim that vehicle counts never matter. What I said (I thought rather clearly) was that IF the purpose is to adjust traffic signals based on the speed of traffic THEN vehicle counts do not matter.
Obviously things like axle counters and induction loops have been around for decades. Yet for all those decades we (as drivers) still have precious little information to use on traffic conditions. Most traffic lights still seem to be either pure timers or change based on the fact that someone is waiting. If things like using BT ids can help fix that situation, I say do it. The 'best' solution is not the one that can theoretically provide the most information, it is the one that can practically provide the most useful information. That is engineering.
They aren't 'port scanning' anything. They don't know your 'personal property' even exists. They are simply standing on a corner yelling 'anybody want to identify themselves'. If you don't want to identify yourself, don't answer. If you don't want your personal property to identiffy itself, instruct it not to answer.
Why is not knowing vehicle counts a 'substantial disadvantage'? If the purpose of the information (as it says in TFA) is to adjust traffic signals based on the speed of the traffic, then the volume doesn't matter.
Axle counters can tell you the volume of traffic, but don't really tell you the speed of the traffic (does a count of zero axles in 30 seconds mean no traffic, or traffic at a dead stop?) Volume of traffic is important for long-range planning (ie increase number of lanes, etc). Speed reporting is much more useful for adjusting things like traffic light timing in real time. If you know traffic is moving at 40MPH and there is are 2 traffic lights x distance apart you can time the lights so the traffic does not have to stop. Of course, eventually you must stop the traffic (or there would be no point in having the lights). Now, when traffic restarts, it will of course be moving slower, so the lights should have a different timing.
Except you can't honestly do that. You, like t-bone-t are just hiding the costs (by saying it already pays it's rent) in order to make drinks look insanely profitable. If you are going to combine expenses (which is what you did), then you must also combine profits (which you did not do). It is the BUSINESS which operates at a particular profit margin, not an item.
You STILL can't grasp this simple concept: there are no profits until all expenses are paid. OK, you admit that just selling tea would not be profitable. Let's go to the opposite extreme. Our hypothetical business costs $10K/month to operate. We have sold $9,900 dollars worth of stuff (no tea at all). So here comes a customer who will save us all! He is going to buy a cup of tea for $2. Quick, how much of that $2 is profit? The answer, of course, if $0, because there are NO profits because expenses have not been met.
OK, let's get to what you will undoubtedly claim. Your business is successful, and all expenses have been met. You have $10K in expenses, and $10K in revenue. Now someone pays $2 a cup of tea and you claim that is pure profit. Except, of course, it isn't. Why, because to claim that the tea was pure profit you would have to say that there was no profit potential at all in anyhting else you sold. The proper way to calculate the profit is to say you had $10,002 revenue and $10,000 expense, or 0.02% profit. Your $2 cup of tea now yielded a whopping profit of $0.0004. Insanely profitable indeed. OK, let's say you managed to meet expenses with everything else, and sold 1000 cups of tea (without increasing expenses, of course). Now the tea must REALLY be insanely profitable, right? Now you have $12000 revenue on $10000 expense, or 20% profit. So your tea profit is now $0.40/cup. That seems quite a distance from 'pure profit', doesn't it?
vDo you even know what profit is? Your use of '2000%' profit indicates you do not. Profit is revenue minus expenses. By definition, profit can never exceed 100%, as 100% represents income (of any amount) with no expenses.
If something is profitable (and you claim tea is very profitable) then by definition it can stand on it's own (it is bringing in more money than it costs to bring in the money). The fact that you claim both that tea is very profitable AND can't stand on it's own means one thing - you are ignoring the costs when doing your 'profit' calculation, but including the costs when you say it can't stand on it's own.
You are the one who made the statement that the retailer is 'misrepresenting the cost' of tea by selling it for $2. They are not misrepresenting the cost, the cost is real, you just want to pretend the cost isn't there. The cost of selling tea includes far more than the ingredients of the tea itself, you just refuse to see it.
As to your 'license to print money' statement: yes, it is like a license to print money in such small amounts that you can't even pay for the printer. Hardly a 'profitable' enterprise.
OK, by your logic a store that sells nothing but tea should be hugely profitable, right? OK, lets see if that is correct.
Let;s say you run a small store selling nothing but that hugely profitable tea. You only pay minimum wage ($8.50 in NY), only ever have 1 employee working at a time, are open 12 hours a day, and pay $2000/month in rent (not at all unreasonable for retail space). So, your wages are $8.50x12x30 = $3060/month, plus your $2K rent, is $5060 in expenses each month (ignoring little details such as utilities, taxes, bookkeeping, etc). Now, let's say you are charging the 'outrageous' amount of $2.00 for a tea. You need to sell, on average, (5060/2)/30 = 84 teas a day, or one every 8.5 minutes of every day, to break even. And that is ignoring the costs of ingredients and all of the other expenses that go with running a business. And again, that is JUST to break even. But you claim you can make 2000% 'insane' profit. Well, to get to your 2000% insane profit, you would need to be selling 20x as much tea, 1680 teas every day, or a tea every 25 seconds of every day. With ONE employee. That doesn't leave much time for that employee to stock shelves or anything, does it? Better hire another employee to help out. Uh-oh, your expenses just went up to $8120/month. To make your 'insane' 2000% profit you now need to sell 2706 teas every day.
What you are doing is what is generally derided as 'hollywood accounting' - moving costs and profits around to make certain areas of the business look profitable or not.
It only gave an answer because you asked an extremely common question that it was programmed to answer. Restate the question as 'Based on today's forecast, should I wear a Polo shirt or a sweater' and see what the 'answer' is. That is the type of question Watson is aiming for.
Slashdot Mirror
There is absolutely no reason that SHOULD show up in there data stream. What they are looking for is a correlation between driving habits and claims they must pay. If someone is driving like that and it does not cause claims (ie the person is not involved in accidents) why should they care? In spite of what you seem to think, the person driving slowly in the left lane is not causing accidents - the dopes who can't safely deal with a slow driver in the left lane are causing accidents.
Saying slow drivers cause accidents is like saying the weather causes accidents, or stopped traffic causes accidents, or any number of other things people blame for causing an accident when in reality the thing that caused the accident is their crappy driving.
Actually, what the courts have been explicit about is the concept of reasonable expectation of privacy. Both of those bold words are important. If you have papers kept in a desk drawer in your house, then it is reasonable to expect those papers to be private. 4th amendment applies and a warrant is needed to get those papers. If, on the other hand, you keep those same papers in a desk drawer in your office, then you may not have a reasonable expectation that they are private because others (ie your employer) have legal access to that drawer. If the employer had legal access to the drawer and saw your papers, the police or court could ask him about those papers, and no warrent would be needed for that. In that case, the 4th amendment may not apply.
If you want something to be treated as private, then it is entirely up to you to make it private. If you do something incredibly stupid like make the data available on the internet to anyone who asks, there is no way you can claim that the data is private. YOU are the one who exposed it. You may WISH it was private, but it isn't, and nobody is required to obey your wishes.
Show us the exact case(s) where someone has been convicted solely on the basis of IP address and no other evidence at all.
No, they are not. Don't be stupid. Weev was convicted of identity fraud - he was lying about who he was to get access to data he was not authorized to access. The police are not engaged in identity fraud - they are allowed to use different identities.
You seem confused on the differences between access and authorization. The question in the AT&T case was about authorization. Was the guy authorized to access the things he did? Clearly he could access the data, but was he authorized to do so? If you have my bank credentials you have access to my account, but you do not have authorization to do anything with the account. Yes, you have the ability to do things, but that is nowhere near the same as being authorized.
In cases like that the courts will use a 'reasonable person' test. Would a 'reasonable person' think that AT&T intended that data to be publically available, or did the guy have good reason to know that he was not authorized to access that data (regardless of his ability to access the data)? If there was a link off of att.com, a reasonable person would probably agree that the data was intended to be public and the guy was authorized. If he had to guess at URL strings and such a reasonable person could well conclude that he had no reason to beleive he was authorized.
In this case, there is no question of authorization, only a question of access. The police do not need authorization to access data that has been exposed, intentionally or not.
A flashing check engine light means a persistent misfire has been detected. That is serious because it means raw fuel is being dumped into the exhaust system, which will destroy the catalytic converter and/or cause a fire. If your check engine light is flashing, stop.
Yes, they could do that. But guess what - most of those kids have parents who work. So you make the starting time of school later - are their parents still at home to get them off to school, or did they already leave for work? Oh, you say, let the parents go to work later too. But what if the timing of their jobs is dependant on other things, like the opening hours of a business. What do you do then, just open the business an hour later? This would have an enormous ripple effect. So why not just make it easy on everyone, and move the clocks?
Conviction??? It is a CIVIL case. This is not a criminal case where the prosecution has all the burden and the defense has all the rights. This is a civil case where the parties are equals. The plaintiff has just as much right to the evidence he needs to win as the defense has to privacy. It is up to the court to strike the correct balance, and 'the defendant is assumed innocent' is not in the picture in a civil case.
Nothing was searched, nothing was seized. The thing we are discussing is, in fact, a court order. Said court order describes the oaths and affirmations that were given which lead the court to issue the order. Where, exactly, is the supposed violation of the 4th amendment?
As you said, he may be in some trouble (although I don't think there are serious criminal charges) IF forensics finds traces of the source code, AND the plaintiff is able to convince the jury that the forensics is real and true. But tell me, is it likely that 'most people' would know how to remove the source code and NOT leave a trace of it? Is it likely that someone who describes himself as a 'hacker' would know how to do that?
As for your destruction of documents example: if it is suspected that a specific document contains some evidence then that document will be ordered to be preserved. In that case, the document mysteriously disappearing or appearing altered would be a red flag. If the allegation is that there exists a document that proves the defendants case, then all documents may be seized/copied with no notice because it would be impossible to detect the disappearance of a document that is otherwise not known to exist.
The harm can only be fixed by money IF the defendant has the money to fix it. Remember that in this case the clients of the plaintiff are the ones who did not want the code released. If the code is released it is likely that the clients would not buy it. That means the damages are not loss of a single sale or some such nonsense, but the loss of ALL money from the product. If the defendant can't cover that, then harm has been done that can not be repaired.
Bullshit. Read the damn article.
The guy is being sued by his former employer, who claims he took their code and plans to offer it as open source (copyright infringement). The plaintiff contends that there is crucial evidence on the defendants computer. The court ordered (as is usual in such cases) that an image be made of the defendants computer in order to preserve any evidence that is there. The computer is to be returned to the defendant as soon as the image is made, in the same condition as before the computer was taken. Nobody can look at the image until further court orders allow it.
So where does 'being a hacker' enter the picture? The plaintiff asked the court for a temporary restraining order without notification to the defendant. The courts rules state that a temporary restraining order can only be granted if there are specific facts that show irreperable harm will occur before the opposing party can present his position in court. In this case, the plaintiff is claiming that the defendant will have the ability to destroy the evidence before the plaintiff can present their case. The court used the 'we are hackers' statement as evidence that the defendant probably had the means and knowledge to destroy the evidence. Thus, the restraining order was granted.
It is not a criminal case. No 4th amendment rights were violated.
I am pretty sure he means missing the messages is a good thing. Which I (and apparently you) agree with.
Maritime treaties to protect shipping have existed for a long time. They are the reason there is such a thing as 'international waters.' Basically, if you fly the flag of some country in what is defined as international waters you are under the protection of that country. An attack on you would be seen as a crime or act of war against the flagged country. Of course, if you fly a flag you are also subject to the laws of that country.
If you fly unflagged you have no legal protection. There is no-one you can run to and complain that your ship was boarded. Your only choice in that case is to try to protect yourself with force, which basically pits you against whatever navy happens to want to board your ship. Good luck.
International waters are not some magical place where no law applies. You are still under the jurisdiction of whatever country's flag you are flying. And if you have a ship with rocketry on it you better be flying somebodies flag, or you will be boarded and seized by someone who assumes you are up to no good.
As for the international group, that is also covered in the treaty. In that case, responsibity belongs to the international organization and the states to which its members belong.
How the hell can you read that and come away with the conclusion that looking at information your device broadcasts is a violation? They're not 'gaining access' to anything, so that automatically rules out all three offenses. Worse yet, you come up with the brilliant conclusion that it is a FELONY. Is your BT a 'computer or database maintained by a goverment agency?' Is there any indication that this supposed 'access' is done with the intent to commit another crime?
By your brilliant logic, every DHCP, ARP, etc broadcast would be 'unauthorized access' if something responded to them.
Oddly enough, nobody made a claim that vehicle counts never matter. What I said (I thought rather clearly) was that IF the purpose is to adjust traffic signals based on the speed of traffic THEN vehicle counts do not matter.
Obviously things like axle counters and induction loops have been around for decades. Yet for all those decades we (as drivers) still have precious little information to use on traffic conditions. Most traffic lights still seem to be either pure timers or change based on the fact that someone is waiting. If things like using BT ids can help fix that situation, I say do it. The 'best' solution is not the one that can theoretically provide the most information, it is the one that can practically provide the most useful information. That is engineering.
They aren't 'port scanning' anything. They don't know your 'personal property' even exists. They are simply standing on a corner yelling 'anybody want to identify themselves'. If you don't want to identify yourself, don't answer. If you don't want your personal property to identiffy itself, instruct it not to answer.
Why is not knowing vehicle counts a 'substantial disadvantage'? If the purpose of the information (as it says in TFA) is to adjust traffic signals based on the speed of the traffic, then the volume doesn't matter.
Axle counters can tell you the volume of traffic, but don't really tell you the speed of the traffic (does a count of zero axles in 30 seconds mean no traffic, or traffic at a dead stop?) Volume of traffic is important for long-range planning (ie increase number of lanes, etc). Speed reporting is much more useful for adjusting things like traffic light timing in real time. If you know traffic is moving at 40MPH and there is are 2 traffic lights x distance apart you can time the lights so the traffic does not have to stop. Of course, eventually you must stop the traffic (or there would be no point in having the lights). Now, when traffic restarts, it will of course be moving slower, so the lights should have a different timing.
Except you can't honestly do that. You, like t-bone-t are just hiding the costs (by saying it already pays it's rent) in order to make drinks look insanely profitable. If you are going to combine expenses (which is what you did), then you must also combine profits (which you did not do). It is the BUSINESS which operates at a particular profit margin, not an item.
You STILL can't grasp this simple concept: there are no profits until all expenses are paid. OK, you admit that just selling tea would not be profitable. Let's go to the opposite extreme. Our hypothetical business costs $10K/month to operate. We have sold $9,900 dollars worth of stuff (no tea at all). So here comes a customer who will save us all! He is going to buy a cup of tea for $2. Quick, how much of that $2 is profit? The answer, of course, if $0, because there are NO profits because expenses have not been met.
OK, let's get to what you will undoubtedly claim. Your business is successful, and all expenses have been met. You have $10K in expenses, and $10K in revenue. Now someone pays $2 a cup of tea and you claim that is pure profit. Except, of course, it isn't. Why, because to claim that the tea was pure profit you would have to say that there was no profit potential at all in anyhting else you sold. The proper way to calculate the profit is to say you had $10,002 revenue and $10,000 expense, or 0.02% profit. Your $2 cup of tea now yielded a whopping profit of $0.0004. Insanely profitable indeed. OK, let's say you managed to meet expenses with everything else, and sold 1000 cups of tea (without increasing expenses, of course). Now the tea must REALLY be insanely profitable, right? Now you have $12000 revenue on $10000 expense, or 20% profit. So your tea profit is now $0.40/cup. That seems quite a distance from 'pure profit', doesn't it?
vDo you even know what profit is? Your use of '2000%' profit indicates you do not. Profit is revenue minus expenses. By definition, profit can never exceed 100%, as 100% represents income (of any amount) with no expenses.
If something is profitable (and you claim tea is very profitable) then by definition it can stand on it's own (it is bringing in more money than it costs to bring in the money). The fact that you claim both that tea is very profitable AND can't stand on it's own means one thing - you are ignoring the costs when doing your 'profit' calculation, but including the costs when you say it can't stand on it's own.
You are the one who made the statement that the retailer is 'misrepresenting the cost' of tea by selling it for $2. They are not misrepresenting the cost, the cost is real, you just want to pretend the cost isn't there. The cost of selling tea includes far more than the ingredients of the tea itself, you just refuse to see it.
As to your 'license to print money' statement: yes, it is like a license to print money in such small amounts that you can't even pay for the printer. Hardly a 'profitable' enterprise.
OK, by your logic a store that sells nothing but tea should be hugely profitable, right? OK, lets see if that is correct.
Let;s say you run a small store selling nothing but that hugely profitable tea. You only pay minimum wage ($8.50 in NY), only ever have 1 employee working at a time, are open 12 hours a day, and pay $2000/month in rent (not at all unreasonable for retail space). So, your wages are $8.50x12x30 = $3060/month, plus your $2K rent, is $5060 in expenses each month (ignoring little details such as utilities, taxes, bookkeeping, etc). Now, let's say you are charging the 'outrageous' amount of $2.00 for a tea. You need to sell, on average, (5060/2)/30 = 84 teas a day, or one every 8.5 minutes of every day, to break even. And that is ignoring the costs of ingredients and all of the other expenses that go with running a business. And again, that is JUST to break even. But you claim you can make 2000% 'insane' profit. Well, to get to your 2000% insane profit, you would need to be selling 20x as much tea, 1680 teas every day, or a tea every 25 seconds of every day. With ONE employee. That doesn't leave much time for that employee to stock shelves or anything, does it? Better hire another employee to help out. Uh-oh, your expenses just went up to $8120/month. To make your 'insane' 2000% profit you now need to sell 2706 teas every day.
What you are doing is what is generally derided as 'hollywood accounting' - moving costs and profits around to make certain areas of the business look profitable or not.
It only gave an answer because you asked an extremely common question that it was programmed to answer. Restate the question as 'Based on today's forecast, should I wear a Polo shirt or a sweater' and see what the 'answer' is. That is the type of question Watson is aiming for.