1) This thread is about a criminal case not civl. 2) In general civil contempt generally results in a default judgement after a bit of screwing around. You are expected to be actively cooperating with the court. 3) In the case of a court trying to enforce a judgement. All the below happened. a) There was an original act which was a tort. b) There was a trial on that tort and a judgement rendered. c) You failed to meet your requirements to satisfy the judgement. d) Another trial started. e) You are now seen as failing to cooperate.
Yeah by (e) you can be in serious trouble. But you had to do a lot of work to get that stage. And yes, civil contempt orders can be appealed.
Also I was just thinking doesn't this also amount to a "guilty until proven innocent" situation where forgetting passwords is at issue? And if so, is it even possible to prove your innocence? (this is often very difficult, which is why "innocent until proven guilty" is commonly adopted)
Sure it is. She could give an explanation of how she commonly uses passwords. For example if she uses Firefox password manager, access to that. She could turn information thought to be on the laptop. She could give the public key and a large block of text known to be contiguous on the drive (like a movie) and offer to pay a service to derive the private key.
Or she can admit she has done a great job making herself look guilty, just plead guilty to the original fraud charge and do her time.
(long history of now obeying the court and defying orders).
Mr. Chadwick I've had enough, hand over $2.5m I don't have $2.5m I lost it. How did you lose it? Where was it. Show us your records. I don't have to reveal details. OK go to jail, let me know when you are ready to cooperate. 15 years pass...
I don't know about assault but a judge can order you to do things that would otherwise be a tort. For example they can order someone under an NDA to speak.
As far as the 4th amendment. If the woman agreed that the disk contained incriminating information then she can't be asked for the password. But right now she's indicating it doesn't.
In real life you get appeals, and there is substantial oversight on contempt issues. It is not just a judge thinking you are lying but rather evidence must be present strong enough that a judge believes you definitely would be convicted were that the charge.
First off this case is American. Law may be totally different in England. But being involved in the can you decrypt these puzzles would be a defense. If you can show you are unable to comply you don't have to.
They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt. If a reasonable person doesn't create honeypots, which is likely... Further, if it just a honeypot then the honeypot was created for the purpose of obstruction and impeding. So you would have to essentially plead to those crimes.
What constitutes compliance is determined by the judge. He can rule if the plain file is clear then you can use it give them another file with the actual answer.
I don't think you are following the thread of argument here.
1) I was arguing for the current system. 2) RanceJustice was arguing for a free use, that was a bit unclear. 3) The Republicans want to remove some of the discretion from the FCC.
When people talk about "private ownership" they mean leasing from the government. No one is suggesting outright permanent ownership because regulation is still needed to get the systems to work together. ___
In terms of your idea of having people provide towers... while others provide service packages. All the carriers offer wholesale service that are resold: Boost, Cricket, Virgin, Metro, US Cellular, TracPhone, GoPhone, StraightTalk.... all exist because of these wholesale services. Moreover essentially the carriers do price things out where their infrastructure group sells blocks of minutes... to their retail groups. By and large what you are asking for is the current system.
As an aside on IPV4. There really isn't that much "class A" space being wasted by private entities. It is a few month's expansion at this point. Most of the waste was absorbed long ago. The issue now is not waste, it is just that we either need to do:
The virtual environment works well for developers. If Android apps become something that people want to use on their desktop then the virtual machine solution doesn't work.
Apple is confronting this now with a wealth of iOS applications that are very popular and that people would like to run on their macs.
I'd be curious what that looked like a decade ago. There usually is a lot of money in niches of a legacy platform. I'm not sure you are, excusing the pun, comparing apples to apples.
Using current technology we do not know how to pack signals any more closely than they are packed. I agree we might find a technological solution if we can pack analog signals more closely together using a different structure but right now we don't know how. We are at limits of information theory. Smart people with lots of money have thought about it and that is the conclusion they have come to. 100 years from now we might have a different situation.
As far as having the money go to the public. Auctioning stuff off and having the money go to the government is likely the best way. While I'm not happy with our government perfectly either, the public treasury is the closest thing we have to a pot of money for the public welfare. And the people who spend it are elected after all.
Why can't the US, what makes the US this special case that has made it impossible to operate on a single band.
A few big issues.
1) The US has much lower population density than most other countries that invest in carriers. The US also has more terrain blockages like mountains and deserts. 2) The US never agreed to a single standard GSM or CDMA
. Why is this an issue only in the US, and why do we have to a) give it away or b) sell it?
Needing to give it away or sell it, isn't only an issue in the US. As to why only those two, I explained in the original.
the ten Centuries of zero net scientific and cultural progress
There were not 10 centuries of zero net scientific or cultural progress. There is no question the world was vastly more advanced in 1400 than in 400. You can't really blame the Catholic church for Roman decline prior to about 311. During the 4th and 5th century they helped hold the empire together. They also helped kill pagan culture and deserve condemnation for that.
During the 6-10th centuries when western culture could easily have died being attacked from 3 sides the church fought with the west and preserved what could be saved. After that, we entered a period of rapid cultural growth and development. It was during the period of time that science was being persecuted and the inquisition was active that European culture was developing rapidly. I think it is possible the church held back the progress, but you can easily make the opposite case.
Witch hunts were mainly Protestant not Catholic. And the church didn't do anything to Ptolemy.
In other words, it's better to live under the rule of a ruthless dictator than it is to be "liberated" by the US.
No ask Puerto Rico, Panama, Japan, Germany, France, Morocco. It quite often is better to be liberated by the United States. In Iraq the US failed, the people simple refused to cooperate in building a post liberation society.
We would have been happy to have left them alone. The Iraqis were in non compliance with their terms of surrender. If they didn't want to get invaded they needed to comply with their surrender agreements.
a few pieces from those museums could buy years' worth of output from any given oil well. they were that important.
Iraq with functioning oil fields could have been producing several million barrels of oil and another 1/2 million cubic meters of natural gas per day. The most expensive art pieces ever are worth about $30m and Iraq didn't have anything close to that valuable.
A year's production of the Iraqi oil fields could likely buy all the art in every museum on the planet multiple times over.
If the police had indicated they supported the new US governing authority and planned to fully cooperate with the US general who controlled their provence, you think that would have happened?
In Iran. The US was tangential involved moving from an anti-British position to a pro coup position. Lets keep things in perspective. Since 1979 the Iranian government has been incredibly hostile and aggressive towards the United States. For example in the latest "Green Revolution" uprising blaming the Americans and accusing them of fermenting a coup. Barack Obama came into office, having taken a lot of heat in the primary for a willingness to meet with Iran and improve relations.
His peace initiative was firmly rebuked by the Iranians. If there is a war in the end I think Ali Khamenei, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are the two people most responsible.
Slashdot Mirror
This case is about mortgage fraud, not terrorism. Different rules.
1) This thread is about a criminal case not civl.
2) In general civil contempt generally results in a default judgement after a bit of screwing around. You are expected to be actively cooperating with the court.
3) In the case of a court trying to enforce a judgement. All the below happened.
a) There was an original act which was a tort.
b) There was a trial on that tort and a judgement rendered.
c) You failed to meet your requirements to satisfy the judgement.
d) Another trial started.
e) You are now seen as failing to cooperate.
Yeah by (e) you can be in serious trouble. But you had to do a lot of work to get that stage. And yes, civil contempt orders can be appealed.
If I know your public key and have the data, I can check the encrypted version to see if it matches. This is incidentally how HTTPS works.
Courts order you to turn over records. They don't order methods except as a last restort, when you indicate that you are unable to comply.
Sure it is. She could give an explanation of how she commonly uses passwords. For example if she uses Firefox password manager, access to that. She could turn information thought to be on the laptop. She could give the public key and a large block of text known to be contiguous on the drive (like a movie) and offer to pay a service to derive the private key.
Or she can admit she has done a great job making herself look guilty, just plead guilty to the original fraud charge and do her time.
Great reply! Nice to see a sane response which is taking the context into consideration.
In real life that's now what happened at all.
It was more like:
(long history of now obeying the court and defying orders).
Mr. Chadwick I've had enough, hand over $2.5m
I don't have $2.5m I lost it.
How did you lose it? Where was it. Show us your records.
I don't have to reveal details.
OK go to jail, let me know when you are ready to cooperate.
15 years pass...
I don't know about assault but a judge can order you to do things that would otherwise be a tort. For example they can order someone under an NDA to speak.
As far as the 4th amendment. If the woman agreed that the disk contained incriminating information then she can't be asked for the password. But right now she's indicating it doesn't.
In real life you get appeals, and there is substantial oversight on contempt issues. It is not just a judge thinking you are lying but rather evidence must be present strong enough that a judge believes you definitely would be convicted were that the charge.
First off this case is American. Law may be totally different in England. But being involved in the can you decrypt these puzzles would be a defense. If you can show you are unable to comply you don't have to.
They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt. If a reasonable person doesn't create honeypots, which is likely... Further, if it just a honeypot then the honeypot was created for the purpose of obstruction and impeding. So you would have to essentially plead to those crimes.
What constitutes compliance is determined by the judge. He can rule if the plain file is clear then you can use it give them another file with the actual answer.
And how did you on a regular basis use a passkey you don't know? It has to be stored somewhere to be useful.
Spauldo --
I don't think you are following the thread of argument here.
1) I was arguing for the current system.
2) RanceJustice was arguing for a free use, that was a bit unclear.
3) The Republicans want to remove some of the discretion from the FCC.
When people talk about "private ownership" they mean leasing from the government. No one is suggesting outright permanent ownership because regulation is still needed to get the systems to work together.
___
In terms of your idea of having people provide towers... while others provide service packages. All the carriers offer wholesale service that are resold: Boost, Cricket, Virgin, Metro, US Cellular, TracPhone, GoPhone, StraightTalk.... all exist because of these wholesale services. Moreover essentially the carriers do price things out where their infrastructure group sells blocks of minutes... to their retail groups. By and large what you are asking for is the current system.
As an aside on IPV4. There really isn't that much "class A" space being wasted by private entities. It is a few month's expansion at this point. Most of the waste was absorbed long ago. The issue now is not waste, it is just that we either need to do:
a) Carrier based NAT
b) IPV6
The virtual environment works well for developers. If Android apps become something that people want to use on their desktop then the virtual machine solution doesn't work.
Apple is confronting this now with a wealth of iOS applications that are very popular and that people would like to run on their macs.
Not Bush, Clinton. By 1998 US policy was regime change.
I'd be curious what that looked like a decade ago. There usually is a lot of money in niches of a legacy platform. I'm not sure you are, excusing the pun, comparing apples to apples.
Using current technology we do not know how to pack signals any more closely than they are packed. I agree we might find a technological solution if we can pack analog signals more closely together using a different structure but right now we don't know how. We are at limits of information theory. Smart people with lots of money have thought about it and that is the conclusion they have come to. 100 years from now we might have a different situation.
As far as having the money go to the public. Auctioning stuff off and having the money go to the government is likely the best way. While I'm not happy with our government perfectly either, the public treasury is the closest thing we have to a pot of money for the public welfare. And the people who spend it are elected after all.
In terms of a citation the FCC did a substantial study and says we are 275 mhz short by 2014 ( http://download.broadband.gov/plan/fcc-staff-technical-paper-mobile-broadband-benefits-of-additional-spectrum.pdf ).
A few big issues.
1) The US has much lower population density than most other countries that invest in carriers. The US also has more terrain blockages like mountains and deserts.
2) The US never agreed to a single standard GSM or CDMA
Needing to give it away or sell it, isn't only an issue in the US. As to why only those two, I explained in the original.
There were not 10 centuries of zero net scientific or cultural progress. There is no question the world was vastly more advanced in 1400 than in 400. You can't really blame the Catholic church for Roman decline prior to about 311. During the 4th and 5th century they helped hold the empire together. They also helped kill pagan culture and deserve condemnation for that.
During the 6-10th centuries when western culture could easily have died being attacked from 3 sides the church fought with the west and preserved what could be saved. After that, we entered a period of rapid cultural growth and development. It was during the period of time that science was being persecuted and the inquisition was active that European culture was developing rapidly. I think it is possible the church held back the progress, but you can easily make the opposite case.
Witch hunts were mainly Protestant not Catholic. And the church didn't do anything to Ptolemy.
No ask Puerto Rico, Panama, Japan, Germany, France, Morocco. It quite often is better to be liberated by the United States. In Iraq the US failed, the people simple refused to cooperate in building a post liberation society.
We would have been happy to have left them alone. The Iraqis were in non compliance with their terms of surrender. If they didn't want to get invaded they needed to comply with their surrender agreements.
Iraq with functioning oil fields could have been producing several million barrels of oil and another 1/2 million cubic meters of natural gas per day. The most expensive art pieces ever are worth about $30m and Iraq didn't have anything close to that valuable.
A year's production of the Iraqi oil fields could likely buy all the art in every museum on the planet multiple times over.
If the police had indicated they supported the new US governing authority and planned to fully cooperate with the US general who controlled their provence, you think that would have happened?
In Iran. The US was tangential involved moving from an anti-British position to a pro coup position. Lets keep things in perspective. Since 1979 the Iranian government has been incredibly hostile and aggressive towards the United States. For example in the latest "Green Revolution" uprising blaming the Americans and accusing them of fermenting a coup. Barack Obama came into office, having taken a lot of heat in the primary for a willingness to meet with Iran and improve relations.
His peace initiative was firmly rebuked by the Iranians. If there is a war in the end I think Ali Khamenei, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are the two people most responsible.