I doubt they would go through that just to catch a petty thief. By the way I see nothing wrong with concealing sources if the evidence presented in court is legally obtained.
You are close but the intent issue is not in the act but in what the act was intended to do. It was not the fact that he used a utility to intentionally change his address but that he changed his Mac address with the intent of getting around his being kicked off the network. For example I could draw a dollar bill and use it to buy something as long as I am clear that it is a drawing and not a real bill. I do not "intend" to pass the bill as real money. This is why Boggs has never been convicted of counterfeiting even though he has paid for things using his drawings.
First what-ifs are useless because they didn't happen. Second it is not a profit issue. It is about stealing time that could be used for real research. Supercomputer time is a scarce resource and he misused it.
Most laws, except negligence statuettes, have an intent clause. In Schwartz's case it would have been easy to show that his intent was to circumvent being kicked off the network. Randomizing during search can easily be shown as an intent to remain anonymous.
You missed one huge point. His face was matched against an arrest record. Finger prints were taken during the booking and so was his photo. It is exactly like fingerprints in this case.
Because far too many have already surrendered to the idea that “public” space means the government can watch you,
There was nothing to surrender. The government could always watch you in a public place.
An image with a likeness and couple of witnesses who agree it looks like him is far more tangible to a jury
I guess you don't understand the rules around a photo lineup. A photo lineup done wrong can get thrown out of court along will all evidence subsequently found.
When combined with data mining, the government will have the perfect capability to track and essentially know all peoples movements, anywhere, anytime.
Wow, somebody being arrested for an actual crime that the suspect actually committed is a "police state"? In a public place it is best to assume someone is always recording so don't commit a crime.
Imagine this scenario: I don't know if this person did it, but if the facial recognition software says it's true, it must be him. "Yes, officer, that's the guy."
I was responding to the OP who was implying that the officer would only show the witness one photo and stating that the facial recognition picked him.
Any remotely competent lawyer would get that kind of identification thrown out of court. Any lineup, even a photo lineup, without multiple options is inadmissible in court.
An alternate question might be "Would you prefer fast affordable internet or preventing weekly terrorist attacks in the US and against US citizens abroad?"
Canada currently uses the CF-18 Hornet.The problem being that Canadian CF-18's are land based and generally located with US land based squadrons. The US F-18 Hornets are generally ship based. Since they use different aircraft the Canadian squadrons can not use US squadron parts. By going yet again with the US naval aircraft instead of the US land aircraft they will be in the same position. That will be even worse when the Super Hornet is replaced by the F-35 as parts for the Super Hornet will not even be in the US supply chain. By the way, the F-18a/b/c/d Hornet is a very different aircraft than the F-18e/f/g Super Hornet. Few parts are interchangeable.
One of the main reasons many countries are choosing the F-35 is commonality of parts. Say you run out of a part in a combat theater. If everyone uses the same aircraft you can borrow from other squadrons from other nations. Otherwise the aircraft needing the part is grounded and useless.
But Canada hos no problem with US nuclear armed ships and aircraft being in Canada.
While it has no more permanently stationed nuclear weapons as of 1984, Canada continues to cooperate with the United States and its nuclear weapons program. Canada allows testing of nuclear weapon delivery systems; nuclear weapon carrying vessels are permitted to visit Canadian ports; and aircraft carrying nuclear warheads are permitted to fly in Canadian airspace with the permission of the Canadian government. There is, however, popular objection to this federal policy. Over 60% of Canadians live in cities or areas designated “Nuclear Weapons Free”, reflecting a contemporary disinclination towards nuclear weapons in Canada. Canada also continues to remain under the NATO 'nuclear umbrella'; even after disarming itself in 1984, Canada has maintained support for nuclear armed nations as doing otherwise would be counter to Canadian NATO commitments.
A made up claim that monopolies deserve anything isn't a claim either.
You need to understand the difference between an opinion (Government should not take over private companies) and facts ( we pay $100,000,000 in "fair compensation" to the monopolies). Anyone can have an opinion and it need not be based on facts. Facts need to be verifiable or they have no validity. It is not valid to make up a number and present it as a fact.
You claimed the the ISPs added no value to the last mile because what ever they added has no costs and are using right of ways for free. Why can't you do exactly the same thing for no investment? If they can then why can't you?
Perhaps because they are claiming the last mile as common carrier but not the entire network? The costs of instaltion is right of ways is much less than the cost of the right of ways but is far from zero.
Just trying see how you public fibre was actually funded and how much it actually cost. Since it is being paid for by a sales tax your internet is being subsidized by people who purchase things in your city but don't use Utopia.
If the companies are currently getting the use of public right of ways ( tunnels, poles, and land) for free why can't you use the same rules and get it for free too? Somehow your argument just does not add up.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt they would go through that just to catch a petty thief. By the way I see nothing wrong with concealing sources if the evidence presented in court is legally obtained.
You are close but the intent issue is not in the act but in what the act was intended to do. It was not the fact that he used a utility to intentionally change his address but that he changed his Mac address with the intent of getting around his being kicked off the network. For example I could draw a dollar bill and use it to buy something as long as I am clear that it is a drawing and not a real bill. I do not "intend" to pass the bill as real money. This is why Boggs has never been convicted of counterfeiting even though he has paid for things using his drawings.
First what-ifs are useless because they didn't happen.
Second it is not a profit issue. It is about stealing time that could be used for real research. Supercomputer time is a scarce resource and he misused it.
When it connects it uses the real MAC address so MAC filtering will work.
Most laws, except negligence statuettes, have an intent clause. In Schwartz's case it would have been easy to show that his intent was to circumvent being kicked off the network. Randomizing during search can easily be shown as an intent to remain anonymous.
You missed one huge point. His face was matched against an arrest record. Finger prints were taken during the booking and so was his photo. It is exactly like fingerprints in this case.
Because far too many have already surrendered to the idea that “public” space means the government can watch you,
There was nothing to surrender. The government could always watch you in a public place.
An image with a likeness and couple of witnesses who agree it looks like him is far more tangible to a jury
I guess you don't understand the rules around a photo lineup. A photo lineup done wrong can get thrown out of court along will all evidence subsequently found.
When combined with data mining, the government will have the perfect capability to track and essentially know all peoples movements, anywhere, anytime.
Sorry but "Person of Interest" is not reality and won't be for quite some time.
Wow, somebody being arrested for an actual crime that the suspect actually committed is a "police state"? In a public place it is best to assume someone is always recording so don't commit a crime.
Imagine this scenario: I don't know if this person did it, but if the facial recognition software says it's true, it must be him. "Yes, officer, that's the guy."
I was responding to the OP who was implying that the officer would only show the witness one photo and stating that the facial recognition picked him.
Yet another baseless conspiracy theory from the tinfoil brigade.
Any remotely competent lawyer would get that kind of identification thrown out of court. Any lineup, even a photo lineup, without multiple options is inadmissible in court.
Chicago Robber Identified By Facial Recognition Sentenced To 22 Years
Caught would imply that he was walking down the street and facial recognition directed authorities to him. That did not happen.
An alternate question might be "Would you prefer fast affordable internet or preventing weekly terrorist attacks in the US and against US citizens abroad?"
Canada currently uses the CF-18 Hornet.The problem being that Canadian CF-18's are land based and generally located with US land based squadrons. The US F-18 Hornets are generally ship based. Since they use different aircraft the Canadian squadrons can not use US squadron parts. By going yet again with the US naval aircraft instead of the US land aircraft they will be in the same position. That will be even worse when the Super Hornet is replaced by the F-35 as parts for the Super Hornet will not even be in the US supply chain. By the way, the F-18a/b/c/d Hornet is a very different aircraft than the F-18e/f/g Super Hornet. Few parts are interchangeable.
One of the main reasons many countries are choosing the F-35 is commonality of parts. Say you run out of a part in a combat theater. If everyone uses the same aircraft you can borrow from other squadrons from other nations. Otherwise the aircraft needing the part is grounded and useless.
But Canada hos no problem with US nuclear armed ships and aircraft being in Canada.
While it has no more permanently stationed nuclear weapons as of 1984, Canada continues to cooperate with the United States and its nuclear weapons program. Canada allows testing of nuclear weapon delivery systems; nuclear weapon carrying vessels are permitted to visit Canadian ports; and aircraft carrying nuclear warheads are permitted to fly in Canadian airspace with the permission of the Canadian government. There is, however, popular objection to this federal policy. Over 60% of Canadians live in cities or areas designated “Nuclear Weapons Free”, reflecting a contemporary disinclination towards nuclear weapons in Canada. Canada also continues to remain under the NATO 'nuclear umbrella'; even after disarming itself in 1984, Canada has maintained support for nuclear armed nations as doing otherwise would be counter to Canadian NATO commitments.
You mean the Superhornets that will be replaced by the F-35 leaving Canada yet again unable to us the US supply chain?
Learn how to debate correctly then we will talk.
You need to state opinions as opinions and not facts. Just because I do not agree with you does not mean I am shilling.
So in effect your city has a monopoly on the last mile as no private company can compete with a subsidized provider.
A made up claim that monopolies deserve anything isn't a claim either.
You need to understand the difference between an opinion (Government should not take over private companies) and facts ( we pay $100,000,000 in "fair compensation" to the monopolies). Anyone can have an opinion and it need not be based on facts. Facts need to be verifiable or they have no validity. It is not valid to make up a number and present it as a fact.
You claimed the the ISPs added no value to the last mile because what ever they added has no costs and are using right of ways for free. Why can't you do exactly the same thing for no investment? If they can then why can't you?
Perhaps because they are claiming the last mile as common carrier but not the entire network? The costs of instaltion is right of ways is much less than the cost of the right of ways but is far from zero.
Just trying see how you public fibre was actually funded and how much it actually cost. Since it is being paid for by a sales tax your internet is being subsidized by people who purchase things in your city but don't use Utopia.
It is the only internet I could find out about in Moscow. Do you have any proof that the last mile in Moscow is owned by the state?
What countries have government owned last miles?
If the companies are currently getting the use of public right of ways ( tunnels, poles, and land) for free why can't you use the same rules and get it for free too? Somehow your argument just does not add up.
Or you can just go around pulling number out of you mind that have no basis in reality. A made up number is not a statistic.