Not the same with checks. The parent referred to a transfer between accounts (at the same institution, not between two banks.) Checks on the other hand, should have their funds verified if they are not drawing from that particular institution. The larger the amount and the 'less local' the check, the longer those funds would probably be held.
OTOH, I've not yet heard of a cashiers check being held, (or cash for that matter, although large deposits have to be reported:) but it wouldn't surprise me if some institutions have a policy for doing so.
It depends on the backend that your financial institution is running, but 5 days is a bit much. You should consider voicing your concern with your feet and taking your savings elsewhere if possible.
I am sick of this. Evertime there is a dupe(a mistake! sometimes people make these) there is always the obligatory barrage of "DUPE" messages and never any discussion of the issue. Get over it and find something constructive to do!
It's not aboot caring aboot speed, it's aboot worring about being hit by per minute fees while online. Those that switched to broadband from dial-up didn't care before or after aboot the speed. As the summary and article say, users are taking their time interacting with the web as they don't have to rush to get on, do what they want to do, and then get off. Yes, if it's pr0n they want, they may be rushing to get off indeed.
I cannot make the large leap in association between encouraging victims to come forward and crushing constitutional rights when there is no evidence of such in this case. This is about the public perception of the victims, and your slipperly slope doesn't come close to applying here.
What makes you think that a defendant can't be pressured *right now* to admit to any variety of crimes with out knowing his/her accuser? The article makes no claim that identity of the victom will be withheld until trial. From the article:
Another U.S. attorney, Roscoe Howard of the District of Columbia, said the Constitution requires that a criminal defendant be permitted to face the accuser at trial, but he noted that many computer-crime investigations culminate with a plea agreement, where the names of victim companies can be kept secret.
The article deals with the relationship between the victim corperation and the public. The idea here is that companies can come forward with knowledge that the govt. is sensitive to their concerns about public reaction to this type of crime.
Now with all this said, if you are accused of anything and plea guilty to some crime without knowing who you are accused of victimizing, I have no sympathy for you (or your brainded lawyer... you did ask for an attorney, right?)
This steps all over your right to confront your accuser [cornell.edu]. If the company refuses to be identified in public, all the suspect has to do is claim her right to face his accuser at trial. If she is denied and convicted, she has excellent grounds to have the conviction overturned on appeal.
The article says this isn't an issue because most hacking computer-crime investigations end in a plea deal, but how willing will suspects be to plea if they know they have an out at trial?
They will be willing to plea if the evidence against them is so good that their lawyer says "You will loose at trial, and they'll throw the book at you." I find it hard to believe that a suspect in this case wouldn't know that he had the option to go to trial. Mind, that at trial the accused will face the accusing party.
RTFA, this is not remvoing the rights of the accused at trial. Rather, it's probably more like gagging the criminal after a deal has been struck while at the same time law enforcement doing their best to keep the company's name out of the public.
The analogy in the article with a teller and a bank applies here. The idea is to encourage victims to step forward so law enforcement can catch the bad guys. The point here is that either way, as a stock holder you wouldn't know that security was comprimised(at least the company isn't going to publish the info), but if ACME Co. can have some assurances that their name won't be in the headlines the next day, they may be more willing to come forward.
Ok, someone needs to prove this, otherwise I get the highly suspect that it's some government propaganda. Honestly, who pays a script kiddie to remove the pr0n and racist/anti-gay shit from their site?
Prove it? Who's going to admit to it? The companies want to stay out of the spotlight, remember?
The accused will retian thier 'right to face their accusers'. Many of these types of cases are settled such that the criminal aggrees not to name his target.
Slashdot Mirror
Just repost the content of the article. It's not like people read it anyway :)
dupe
You think that it's being done on purpose, it's done often enough.
Ever looked into credit unions?
Not the same with checks. The parent referred to a transfer between accounts (at the same institution, not between two banks.) Checks on the other hand, should have their funds verified if they are not drawing from that particular institution. The larger the amount and the 'less local' the check, the longer those funds would probably be held.
:) but it wouldn't surprise me if some institutions have a policy for doing so.
OTOH, I've not yet heard of a cashiers check being held, (or cash for that matter, although large deposits have to be reported
It depends on the backend that your financial institution is running, but 5 days is a bit much. You should consider voicing your concern with your feet and taking your savings elsewhere if possible.
I am sick of this. Evertime there is a dupe(a mistake! sometimes people make these) there is always the obligatory barrage of "DUPE" messages and never any discussion of the issue.
Get over it and find something constructive to do!
Somehow, I feel you're the exactly the type of person who *should* be kicked from a #channel.
how many quries at the root level are unnecessary. :)
Hah, this is why I read at 0.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/06/155422 7&mode=nested&tid=133
Or should I go back to bed on a Sunday morning...
You've never seen porn on TV? You need to get out mo.. Umm.. just watch Skinimax.
It's not aboot caring aboot speed, it's aboot worring about being hit by per minute fees while online. Those that switched to broadband from dial-up didn't care before or after aboot the speed. As the summary and article say, users are taking their time interacting with the web as they don't have to rush to get on, do what they want to do, and then get off. Yes, if it's pr0n they want, they may be rushing to get off indeed.
When Yoda was babbling on about fear, *this* is what he was talking about.
People please follow links before modding...
heheh nice troll though!
The test URL refrenced is here.
:)
BTW the site works with no blockage in lynx
I searched for 'google' at hotbot.com, and the first entry returned is for lycos.
I cannot make the large leap in association between encouraging victims to come forward and crushing constitutional rights when there is no evidence of such in this case. This is about the public perception of the victims, and your slipperly slope doesn't come close to applying here.
Another U.S. attorney, Roscoe Howard of the District of Columbia, said the Constitution requires that a criminal defendant be permitted to face the accuser at trial, but he noted that many computer-crime investigations culminate with a plea agreement, where the names of victim companies can be kept secret.
The article deals with the relationship between the victim corperation and the public. The idea here is that companies can come forward with knowledge that the govt. is sensitive to their concerns about public reaction to this type of crime.
Now with all this said, if you are accused of anything and plea guilty to some crime without knowing who you are accused of victimizing, I have no sympathy for you (or your brainded lawyer... you did ask for an attorney, right?)
Now, if you publicized *that* as punishment, I'd imagine that the number of hack attempts would decrease :)
The article says this isn't an issue because most hacking computer-crime investigations end in a plea deal, but how willing will suspects be to plea if they know they have an out at trial?
They will be willing to plea if the evidence against them is so good that their lawyer says "You will loose at trial, and they'll throw the book at you." I find it hard to believe that a suspect in this case wouldn't know that he had the option to go to trial. Mind, that at trial the accused will face the accusing party.
RTFA, this is not remvoing the rights of the accused at trial. Rather, it's probably more like gagging the criminal after a deal has been struck while at the same time law enforcement doing their best to keep the company's name out of the public.
The analogy in the article with a teller and a bank applies here. The idea is to encourage victims to step forward so law enforcement can catch the bad guys. The point here is that either way, as a stock holder you wouldn't know that security was comprimised(at least the company isn't going to publish the info), but if ACME Co. can have some assurances that their name won't be in the headlines the next day, they may be more willing to come forward.
Prove it? Who's going to admit to it? The companies want to stay out of the spotlight, remember?
RTFA
The accused will retian thier 'right to face their accusers'. Many of these types of cases are settled such that the criminal aggrees not to name his target.
Where was that guy that played himself to death?