In the contrived scenario presented in TFA, a person is not going to be found guilty if they immediately call law enforcement, something they can do if they're streaming it in the situation suggested. The law counts a video depiction as one work, not as thousands of sequential works.
Non-LEO security personnel run into this on a more regular basis than they should, but you don't see them going to prison in droves. It is a subject of active discussion as to what one should do upon finding CP on a system under investigation. Call law enforcement? If so, does one call federal, state, or local? Call an attorney? If so, a personal attorney or corporate attorney? In any of the cases, as long as it's immediate and the finder does not go looking for more, prosecution is highly unlikely and conviction even less likely.
Injecting a bit of law might help the discussion. Even CP has defenses. The following is from 18 USC 2252, Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors.
(c) Affirmative Defense.— It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (4) of subsection (a) that the defendant— --(1) possessed less than three matters containing any visual depiction proscribed by that paragraph; and --(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any visual depiction or copy thereof— ----(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or ----(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.
Paragraph 4 deals with possession in federal jurisdictions or possession obtained by way of mail or computer. All of 2252 requires the accused to knowingly possess such materials.
There is still the issue of distribution if you're live-streaming it, but this is a (very tiny) risk in any live stream that happens in public. Anyone who sees it (the original witness and any stream viewers) is required to report it to law enforcement. Someone who, as TFA suggests, turns and runs while deleting the images then is guilty of destruction of evidence, may be guilty of failing to report a crime, and may be charged as an accessory after the fact since the witness saw the crime and covered up the evidence which in some cases results in some extremely harsh penalties akin to what the attacker gets.
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in South Dakota v. Dole (1987) that Congress could withhold funding from states that did not comply with reasonable requirements in the law. Thus, federal law cannot directly mandate a speed limit (or a drinking age, as was the issue in the case), but it is within Congress's spending authority to set reasonable restraints on actions to pressure states into action as long as it does not reach the level of coercion. (The dissenting justices were Sandra Day O'Connor--generally conservative--and William Brennan--staunchly liberal--in one of those odd groupings that happens at the Supreme Court from time to time.)
I've always wondered if you could get that thrown out on the basis of document falsification. Of course, that opens up a more serious charge because you're essentially admitting that you drove faster, but from a technical point, it seems viable.
These conspiracy persons have more problems than just lack of faith in scientific research. They have emotional/anger management issues.
There may be something to this. A relative who suffered a head injury a few years back and has since undergone some significant emotional changes has become much more likely to latch on to conspiracies. From belief in the end of the Mayan calendar to being sure that a recent explosion at a refinery in Venezuela was triggered by the CIA (this was deduced from watching a couple of 60-second CNN reports on it), everything is just a cover story for the true workings of the universe. The explanation for knowing all of this is a long-expired secret-level clearance that was required to work on production programs for the military. It gets very frustrating to listen to this when visiting because responding to the ideas usually means starting an argument ending in an angry dismissal of my views.
It may not change much. If Amazon is opening more warehouses in California, it can offset the negative perception from taxes by making it easier to get free or at least fast shipping. In the former case, it cuts Amazon's shipping costs so they can offer up more things for free. In the latter case, people are very happy to get things next- or second-day when they paid for longer delivery times. This was originally a major reason for me to start buying from NewEgg as a lot of the Southern California area gets items the next day from the warehouse in Industry, near Los Angeles.
They traded the formula for transparent aluminum for Plexiglas. It's less dense than aluminum, allowed the crew some capacity to actually monitor the whales directly (the Klingon vessel's internal sensors may have been limited or too unfamiliar), and most importantly allowed movie watchers to see the whales.
Having run into memory problems repeatedly for years, Firefox 15 is shockingly better at memory management. They completely change the model they used to help clean up after add-ons that don't clean up after themselves and very few of them have had to be fixed to work with it. Memory usage for me has been cut by more than half.
Mozilla also went out of its way to make the updater service run with as few rights as possible with code that revokes rights that it does not need. There were about three dozen permissions explicitly dropped when it was first developed around FF12. That number may have changed slightly but it's still a long list.
I've found that to be a mixed bag. There are some people who aren't cut out for engineering because of the fine details, but a grasp of the larger picture and an understanding of what the technical people do can be of great assistance in lending some reality to the business world.
They canceled one day of it, the day of the heaviest winds and rains, because they didn't want people standing outside in those conditions waiting to get inside. They were considering moving it when there was a possibility for a direct hit on Tampa. The speakers for the first day were simply moved to other days.
My experience is that those who went back later in life for an MBA actually understand how to use the education. The problem is, they're going back because they have to get the degree to be competitive. It's become a gatekeeper degree: no MBA, no interview. It has value, but not in the way that it's so commonly being used.
The Spanish-American War was between Spain and the US, oddly enough. The treaty was signed nearly a year after Cuba gained independence. Cubans had been seeking independence from Spain for decades prior to that war, and the US wanted four bases but got two. If Cuba really was in that much danger from the US, why would it agree to only half of what the US wanted?
The 1903 treaty was willingly signed. It also fell far short of the four bases the US sought, but the US settled for two, Guantanamo Bay and Bahia Honda, the latter returned to Cuba in exchange for more land at Guantanamo.
The treaty was replaced by another in 1934 that affirmed the conditions of the prior treaty and required that both parties agree to the US leaving Guantanamo. Technically, should a friendlier government come to rely on the US base and would the US want to leave, Cuba could force it to maintain the base.
I heard on the radio this morning that pretty much every cycling agency/league/whatever is keeping silent or simply withholding judgment pending the release of USADA's information. Usually, when one agency issues a decision like this, the others all pile on. But according to one report, USADA is the least-liked agency in the world in part because its practices are widely seen as unfair.
I think I remember reading that when the coelocanth was formally rediscovered, some of the local fishermen seemed surprised. They had occasionally dredged them up in their nets, but always tossed them overboard because they tasted so bad. This site suggests that its oily flesh also acts as a powerful laxative.
Every layer is a chance to stop, slow, or at least detect an attack. Throwing out any layer of security simply on the basis that it can be bypassed is a bad idea. On that basis, we shouldn't make use of user accounts, firewalls, IDS/IPS, AV, digital signatures, SEH, DEP, ASLR, or pretty much anything else because everything can be bypassed.
I'll agree with you on most points, but we would still be in Iraq to a small degree if Iraq hadn't refused to agree to a new Status of Forces agreement that would extend immunity from Iraq prosecution. Baghdad wouldn't budge, and so the complete withdrawal happened, save for some Marines at the embassy.
I'm not taking sides on this, just pointing out that things could have been different had the Obama administration had its way.
This is silly reasoning. "Since I don't have a good reason to use it, nobody else should either."
That would be silly reasoning--if I had said it.
LordLimecat and I are on the same page here. It's not a huge issue for the overwhelming majority of people that certain changes can't be made to the HOSTS file. It is a method to help ensure the average user that common sites (and especially MS update sites) cannot be hijacked via this method. I recognize the need for HOSTS files in certain circumstances. But the number of people with those needs diminishes daily.
Considering that the number of systems hit by malware making use of HOST file modifications is far larger than the list of systems using it to block access to sites, the balance of evidence is in favor of what Microsoft is doing. I know some people who have extensive files, but that group is very small. LordLimecat was right: it's a feature from a bygone era that is used more often for harm than for good. Even adding a switch to the functionality (which might well be there in the form of a registry entry) doesn't help because that switch will get flipped by malware.
Sometimes features once useful outlive that usefulness.
That's in Europe, where employees have many more rights over communication within their employer's networks. In the US, the enterprise owns every bit that runs over the network provided, as someone else stated, that the employee has been warned. It's what the warning banners are all about.
I expect that your explanation is what would stand. I had a look at Google's TOS. It explicitly states that someone using Google from a business means that the business accepts the terms, so in that sense, the person is connecting as the business.
It's legitimate. The decryption happens while it's still on our network, and we have complete control over every packet that goes through. Part of the agreement signed by the employees every year is that nothing that goes over the network is private. We have the right to decrypt and inspect anything that goes through. Were it a legal problem, it would have already been tried long ago, presuming that it hasn't been tried already.
If/When it's implemented, there will be exceptions for financial or certain medical sites. But going to Gmail or a forum would see the traffic decrypted, check, and re-encrypted on-box.
I second this. You either allow it or you don't. Trying to filter Facebook at an intermediate level is nearly impossible in the best circumstances.
A far bigger challenge is the expanding use of SSL by default. It solves a lot of problems for the individuals but it makes life more difficult for the enterprise admin who is supposed to filter these things. I flagged this recently at work as we enforce SafeSearch on search engines but with Google and others going SSL by default, it's possible to search for and display things that normally wouldn't come up. We're now having to look into decryption which brings its own issues pertaining to certificate management.
Slashdot Mirror
In the contrived scenario presented in TFA, a person is not going to be found guilty if they immediately call law enforcement, something they can do if they're streaming it in the situation suggested. The law counts a video depiction as one work, not as thousands of sequential works.
Non-LEO security personnel run into this on a more regular basis than they should, but you don't see them going to prison in droves. It is a subject of active discussion as to what one should do upon finding CP on a system under investigation. Call law enforcement? If so, does one call federal, state, or local? Call an attorney? If so, a personal attorney or corporate attorney? In any of the cases, as long as it's immediate and the finder does not go looking for more, prosecution is highly unlikely and conviction even less likely.
Injecting a bit of law might help the discussion. Even CP has defenses. The following is from 18 USC 2252, Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors.
Paragraph 4 deals with possession in federal jurisdictions or possession obtained by way of mail or computer. All of 2252 requires the accused to knowingly possess such materials.
There is still the issue of distribution if you're live-streaming it, but this is a (very tiny) risk in any live stream that happens in public. Anyone who sees it (the original witness and any stream viewers) is required to report it to law enforcement. Someone who, as TFA suggests, turns and runs while deleting the images then is guilty of destruction of evidence, may be guilty of failing to report a crime, and may be charged as an accessory after the fact since the witness saw the crime and covered up the evidence which in some cases results in some extremely harsh penalties akin to what the attacker gets.
SerpentMage has been living in Germany. Trucks are limited to 80km/h (about 50MPH) on the Autobahn.
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in South Dakota v. Dole (1987) that Congress could withhold funding from states that did not comply with reasonable requirements in the law. Thus, federal law cannot directly mandate a speed limit (or a drinking age, as was the issue in the case), but it is within Congress's spending authority to set reasonable restraints on actions to pressure states into action as long as it does not reach the level of coercion. (The dissenting justices were Sandra Day O'Connor--generally conservative--and William Brennan--staunchly liberal--in one of those odd groupings that happens at the Supreme Court from time to time.)
I've always wondered if you could get that thrown out on the basis of document falsification. Of course, that opens up a more serious charge because you're essentially admitting that you drove faster, but from a technical point, it seems viable.
There may be something to this. A relative who suffered a head injury a few years back and has since undergone some significant emotional changes has become much more likely to latch on to conspiracies. From belief in the end of the Mayan calendar to being sure that a recent explosion at a refinery in Venezuela was triggered by the CIA (this was deduced from watching a couple of 60-second CNN reports on it), everything is just a cover story for the true workings of the universe. The explanation for knowing all of this is a long-expired secret-level clearance that was required to work on production programs for the military. It gets very frustrating to listen to this when visiting because responding to the ideas usually means starting an argument ending in an angry dismissal of my views.
It may not change much. If Amazon is opening more warehouses in California, it can offset the negative perception from taxes by making it easier to get free or at least fast shipping. In the former case, it cuts Amazon's shipping costs so they can offer up more things for free. In the latter case, people are very happy to get things next- or second-day when they paid for longer delivery times. This was originally a major reason for me to start buying from NewEgg as a lot of the Southern California area gets items the next day from the warehouse in Industry, near Los Angeles.
They traded the formula for transparent aluminum for Plexiglas. It's less dense than aluminum, allowed the crew some capacity to actually monitor the whales directly (the Klingon vessel's internal sensors may have been limited or too unfamiliar), and most importantly allowed movie watchers to see the whales.
Having run into memory problems repeatedly for years, Firefox 15 is shockingly better at memory management. They completely change the model they used to help clean up after add-ons that don't clean up after themselves and very few of them have had to be fixed to work with it. Memory usage for me has been cut by more than half.
Mozilla also went out of its way to make the updater service run with as few rights as possible with code that revokes rights that it does not need. There were about three dozen permissions explicitly dropped when it was first developed around FF12. That number may have changed slightly but it's still a long list.
I've found that to be a mixed bag. There are some people who aren't cut out for engineering because of the fine details, but a grasp of the larger picture and an understanding of what the technical people do can be of great assistance in lending some reality to the business world.
They canceled one day of it, the day of the heaviest winds and rains, because they didn't want people standing outside in those conditions waiting to get inside. They were considering moving it when there was a possibility for a direct hit on Tampa. The speakers for the first day were simply moved to other days.
You've apparently never worked with Packard-Bell PCs.
My experience is that those who went back later in life for an MBA actually understand how to use the education. The problem is, they're going back because they have to get the degree to be competitive. It's become a gatekeeper degree: no MBA, no interview. It has value, but not in the way that it's so commonly being used.
The Spanish-American War was between Spain and the US, oddly enough. The treaty was signed nearly a year after Cuba gained independence. Cubans had been seeking independence from Spain for decades prior to that war, and the US wanted four bases but got two. If Cuba really was in that much danger from the US, why would it agree to only half of what the US wanted?
The 1903 treaty was willingly signed. It also fell far short of the four bases the US sought, but the US settled for two, Guantanamo Bay and Bahia Honda, the latter returned to Cuba in exchange for more land at Guantanamo.
The treaty was replaced by another in 1934 that affirmed the conditions of the prior treaty and required that both parties agree to the US leaving Guantanamo. Technically, should a friendlier government come to rely on the US base and would the US want to leave, Cuba could force it to maintain the base.
I heard on the radio this morning that pretty much every cycling agency/league/whatever is keeping silent or simply withholding judgment pending the release of USADA's information. Usually, when one agency issues a decision like this, the others all pile on. But according to one report, USADA is the least-liked agency in the world in part because its practices are widely seen as unfair.
I think I remember reading that when the coelocanth was formally rediscovered, some of the local fishermen seemed surprised. They had occasionally dredged them up in their nets, but always tossed them overboard because they tasted so bad. This site suggests that its oily flesh also acts as a powerful laxative.
Probably best to leave them in the water.
Every layer is a chance to stop, slow, or at least detect an attack. Throwing out any layer of security simply on the basis that it can be bypassed is a bad idea. On that basis, we shouldn't make use of user accounts, firewalls, IDS/IPS, AV, digital signatures, SEH, DEP, ASLR, or pretty much anything else because everything can be bypassed.
I'll agree with you on most points, but we would still be in Iraq to a small degree if Iraq hadn't refused to agree to a new Status of Forces agreement that would extend immunity from Iraq prosecution. Baghdad wouldn't budge, and so the complete withdrawal happened, save for some Marines at the embassy.
I'm not taking sides on this, just pointing out that things could have been different had the Obama administration had its way.
That would be silly reasoning--if I had said it.
LordLimecat and I are on the same page here. It's not a huge issue for the overwhelming majority of people that certain changes can't be made to the HOSTS file. It is a method to help ensure the average user that common sites (and especially MS update sites) cannot be hijacked via this method. I recognize the need for HOSTS files in certain circumstances. But the number of people with those needs diminishes daily.
Considering that the number of systems hit by malware making use of HOST file modifications is far larger than the list of systems using it to block access to sites, the balance of evidence is in favor of what Microsoft is doing. I know some people who have extensive files, but that group is very small. LordLimecat was right: it's a feature from a bygone era that is used more often for harm than for good. Even adding a switch to the functionality (which might well be there in the form of a registry entry) doesn't help because that switch will get flipped by malware.
Sometimes features once useful outlive that usefulness.
That's in Europe, where employees have many more rights over communication within their employer's networks. In the US, the enterprise owns every bit that runs over the network provided, as someone else stated, that the employee has been warned. It's what the warning banners are all about.
I expect that your explanation is what would stand. I had a look at Google's TOS. It explicitly states that someone using Google from a business means that the business accepts the terms, so in that sense, the person is connecting as the business.
It's legitimate. The decryption happens while it's still on our network, and we have complete control over every packet that goes through. Part of the agreement signed by the employees every year is that nothing that goes over the network is private. We have the right to decrypt and inspect anything that goes through. Were it a legal problem, it would have already been tried long ago, presuming that it hasn't been tried already.
If/When it's implemented, there will be exceptions for financial or certain medical sites. But going to Gmail or a forum would see the traffic decrypted, check, and re-encrypted on-box.
I second this. You either allow it or you don't. Trying to filter Facebook at an intermediate level is nearly impossible in the best circumstances.
A far bigger challenge is the expanding use of SSL by default. It solves a lot of problems for the individuals but it makes life more difficult for the enterprise admin who is supposed to filter these things. I flagged this recently at work as we enforce SafeSearch on search engines but with Google and others going SSL by default, it's possible to search for and display things that normally wouldn't come up. We're now having to look into decryption which brings its own issues pertaining to certificate management.