In the EU it would fall under privacy rules. Even dead people have privacy rights, and of course their surviving family members do.
That's the issue for me here as well - when a person dies the police can't legally start confiscating their former property, so why would it be any different with personal effects?
In theory, Apple’s Face ID authentication is supposed to require eye movement to work. But Marc Rogers, researcher and head of information security at Cloudflare, told Forbes that he’s recently discovered that photos of open eyes work just fine.
A few months ago, Vietnamese researchers did the same thing. With a mask.
...but the NRA has a whole pile of money they spend buying politicians and in fact, if one wavers in their support, all that money suddenly goes to their opponent.
It seems that way, because you're basing that opinion on your pre-existing beliefs and not facts.
You have a choice here - learn that you were incorrect, accept it, and correct yourself, or double-down on the ignorance. Your call, but I know which decision I'd make.
The federal law on the matter is 18 U.S. Code  2252A. It says it's illegal to KNOWINGLY send and receive child porn. Anyone who doesn't know it's there has not committed a crime.
Now that it's been made public knowledge that the Bitcoin blockchain contains illegal child abuse images, if you continue to maintain a copy on your computer you won't be able to claim that you didn't know it contained illegal child abuse images. So yes, now that you are fully aware of the presence of illegal material in the blockchain, you cannot claim ignorance in regard to sending or receiving that material.
I get that there's a way the law is supposed to work; I hate to break this to you, but it doesn't actually work that way. The law is written to be advantageous to the prosecutor, not the persecuted.
In my community, we have great sidewalks, many crosswalks and all that needed to create a safe and walkable community. What do the pedestrians still do, you ask?
Walk out into traffic if it's more convenient.
Same here; the city even passed a new law last month to "crack down" on jaywalkers, and oddly it seems the behavior has become more frequent ever since... wtf?
To wit - I almost splattered a girl the other day, because she had her head so deep in her damned phone that she didn't even bother to look up at all before launching herself into the street against the traffic light. If I had, you can be damned sure I'd be suing her estate for the damages to my vehicle and psyche.
I'd like to see the US government try and prosecute some folks... then maybe society will finally realize that the whole "crime without intent" thing is bullshit, and we can go back to having an at least half-assed functioning due process.
Or the government will succeed and we'll all be totally fucked
I'm a Libertarian, I voted for Gary Johnson, and I would like to see Hillary go to trial over her criminal use of private email servers just as much as I'd like to see Republicans who break the law face trial.
Congratulations on defining yourself as a very obvious part of the problem, jackass.
True, they would have been better off joining the 8% of us who voted third party.
Maybe third party candidates aren't perfect, but I'm happy for anything that breaks up the corrupt duopoly that's currently running our nation into the ground.
Instead of paying for coal/oil/nuclear fuel that costs money constantly, they should put in these maaaagical devices that spit out free money for 10+ years called solar panels. You've got install cost, wiring, maintenance, monitoring, etc and the equipment wears out...
So then, not free.
Is it even cost effective without the tax incentives?
Motherboard not familiar with the concept of a "honeypot"? The best thing to do is leave these pages up, then pass the IP address of anybody watching them to the NSA, because watching them is adequate justification for a wiretap warrant.
So having an unpopular opinion makes you a 'fair target' for government scrutiny?
For the record, 50% of the nation did not vote for Trump.
48% of registered voters didn't participate in the last election; of the 52% who did, 8% voted third party. The other 44% was fairly evenly divided between D and R; so at best, any one candidate actually only received around 23% of the total overall vote, if we bother to include the disenfranchised.
The big takeaway for me in that case is the knowledge that our President is usually elected by less than a quarter of the overall voting populace.
Almost every company or business cares about making the world a bit better.
Holy shit, you're serious!
No, dude, almost every company or business cares about making profits - that's how capitalism works. If you happen to make the world "better" (totally subjective term, BTW) in the meantime, well, that's just a bonus.
TL;DR no potential investor is reading Alphabet's prospectus looking for the phrase "we didn't make any money, but the world is a better place!"
What's sad is that a subset of the population has chosen to make "discrimination" a bad word.
Discrimination is what keeps pedophiles out of schools, among other positive uses of the practice. It's why samurai swords made by one of the old Japanese masters are some of the sharpest, most consistent blades on the planet - not any old ore will do.
There's a huge difference between discriminating and being a bigoted asshole. The blurring of those lines, by people like yourself, is part of the problem.
The only time it's used is as a straw man to avoid addressing the actual argument, which is that there are wide ranging systemic issues and companies should do their bit to address that.
That's not really an argument so much as a vague generalization.
Slashdot Mirror
In the EU it would fall under privacy rules. Even dead people have privacy rights, and of course their surviving family members do.
That's the issue for me here as well - when a person dies the police can't legally start confiscating their former property, so why would it be any different with personal effects?
I'm not sure there is a 4th amendment issue here if the suspect is dead, as they would no longer have an expectation of privacy
That sounds to me like a rationale for looting the property of the deceased; I think next-of-kin would argue the point.
Just sayin'
Also wouldn't work with a 4 digit pin.
Which has the added advantage that you can't be legally compelled to give up your PIN without a warrant.
Biometrics, not so much.
Apple’s Face ID security fooled by simple face mask
From another source:
In theory, Apple’s Face ID authentication is supposed to require eye movement to work. But Marc Rogers, researcher and head of information security at Cloudflare, told Forbes that he’s recently discovered that photos of open eyes work just fine.
A few months ago, Vietnamese researchers did the same thing. With a mask.
It seems that way, because you're basing that opinion on your pre-existing beliefs and not facts.
Here's a list of the top 50 organizational donors to US political campaigns - guess who didn't make it?
Here's another list of the top 50 organizational donors to all federal contributions, not just campaigns - guess who's still not on the list?
Here's a list of the top 75 corporate sponsors of legislation - again, the NRA is nowhere to be found.
You have a choice here - learn that you were incorrect, accept it, and correct yourself, or double-down on the ignorance. Your call, but I know which decision I'd make.
Right, because there is absolutely no creativity allowed when baking.
This one isn't due to partisan ignorance, just the general kind.
Correct.
OP, on the other hand, is a shining example of the first kind.
Berlin for example has a huge child sex problem that is practically ignored.
... and a law that punishes US companies for what other people put on their US-based servers solves this how?
The federal law on the matter is 18 U.S. Code  2252A. It says it's illegal to KNOWINGLY send and receive child porn. Anyone who doesn't know it's there has not committed a crime.
Now that it's been made public knowledge that the Bitcoin blockchain contains illegal child abuse images, if you continue to maintain a copy on your computer you won't be able to claim that you didn't know it contained illegal child abuse images. So yes, now that you are fully aware of the presence of illegal material in the blockchain, you cannot claim ignorance in regard to sending or receiving that material.
I get that there's a way the law is supposed to work; I hate to break this to you, but it doesn't actually work that way. The law is written to be advantageous to the prosecutor, not the persecuted.
In my community, we have great sidewalks, many crosswalks and all that needed to create a safe and walkable community. What do the pedestrians still do, you ask?
Walk out into traffic if it's more convenient.
Same here; the city even passed a new law last month to "crack down" on jaywalkers, and oddly it seems the behavior has become more frequent ever since... wtf?
To wit - I almost splattered a girl the other day, because she had her head so deep in her damned phone that she didn't even bother to look up at all before launching herself into the street against the traffic light. If I had, you can be damned sure I'd be suing her estate for the damages to my vehicle and psyche.
Not Cleaver? I think I hit too close to home.
Narcissists do tend to have that problem.
I get it, you're one of those "with us or against us" types.
I have absolutely no desire to discuss this or any topic with such a personality type. Good day to you.
I'd like to see the US government try and prosecute some folks... then maybe society will finally realize that the whole "crime without intent" thing is bullshit, and we can go back to having an at least half-assed functioning due process.
Or the government will succeed and we'll all be totally fucked
Not even clever.
I'm a Libertarian, I voted for Gary Johnson, and I would like to see Hillary go to trial over her criminal use of private email servers just as much as I'd like to see Republicans who break the law face trial.
Congratulations on defining yourself as a very obvious part of the problem, jackass.
True, they would have been better off joining the 8% of us who voted third party.
Maybe third party candidates aren't perfect, but I'm happy for anything that breaks up the corrupt duopoly that's currently running our nation into the ground.
Instead of paying for coal/oil/nuclear fuel that costs money constantly, they should put in these maaaagical devices that spit out free money for 10+ years called solar panels. You've got install cost, wiring, maintenance, monitoring, etc and the equipment wears out...
So then, not free.
Is it even cost effective without the tax incentives?
My state put a cap on taxes; if the big-ticket item costs more than $X00,000, the purchase isn't taxed, or is taxed at a lower rate.
How did this happen? Why, the rich people in the state lobbied for it, of course! Which proves why, despite being a decent idea, it'll never work.
Motherboard not familiar with the concept of a "honeypot"? The best thing to do is leave these pages up, then pass the IP address of anybody watching them to the NSA, because watching them is adequate justification for a wiretap warrant.
So having an unpopular opinion makes you a 'fair target' for government scrutiny?
Do you feel the same way about Antifa supporters?
For the record, 50% of the nation did not vote for Trump.
48% of registered voters didn't participate in the last election; of the 52% who did, 8% voted third party. The other 44% was fairly evenly divided between D and R; so at best, any one candidate actually only received around 23% of the total overall vote, if we bother to include the disenfranchised.
The big takeaway for me in that case is the knowledge that our President is usually elected by less than a quarter of the overall voting populace.
Google [...] tried to turn a workplace into some utopian college campus where all ideas are free to be debated on company servers.
The firing of James Damore shows that's not the case. Only pre-approved ideas appear to be allowed for debate at Google.
So.. more like a Brown Shirts meeting in Berlin, circa 1928?
Almost every company or business cares about making the world a bit better.
Holy shit, you're serious!
No, dude, almost every company or business cares about making profits - that's how capitalism works. If you happen to make the world "better" (totally subjective term, BTW) in the meantime, well, that's just a bonus.
TL;DR no potential investor is reading Alphabet's prospectus looking for the phrase "we didn't make any money, but the world is a better place!"
What's sad is that a subset of the population has chosen to make "discrimination" a bad word.
Discrimination is what keeps pedophiles out of schools, among other positive uses of the practice. It's why samurai swords made by one of the old Japanese masters are some of the sharpest, most consistent blades on the planet - not any old ore will do.
There's a huge difference between discriminating and being a bigoted asshole. The blurring of those lines, by people like yourself, is part of the problem.
Assholes who generalize are usually wrong.
Pretty sure I've never applied for a job and specifically said I was a "White Male", nor filled out an application that had that distinction either.
If you've never filled out a job app that asked your gender, then separately, your race, then you've never applied for a job in the USA.
Checking the "White" box under "Race" and "Male" under "Gender" is effectively the same thing.
Pro tip for lulz, while it might be a bit drastic, I'm pretty sure anyone can change their name to anything
Almost; no profanity, no stealing celebrity names, and it all depends on if the judge decides he's OK with the name change.
The only time it's used is as a straw man to avoid addressing the actual argument, which is that there are wide ranging systemic issues and companies should do their bit to address that.
That's not really an argument so much as a vague generalization.