Defense makes at least two conflicting claims on the point of access to evidence. They claim that they are entitled to access evidence during an investigation in which there has been no charge laid, which access they claim to have been denied. In a common law jurisdiction, defense has no such entitlement unless there is substantial intent to prosecute, which conflicts with their claim that.se has no intent to prosecute. In a non-common-law jurisdiction, perhaps like.se, they have no standing on which to complain about not having access to evidence during an investigation, in which case the argument is irrelevant to defense's due process argument. Defense's claims internally contradict with either line of argument.
Unless you're just being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic, in which case, IHBT.
The ruling makes no mention of any statements or events in the US; only political statements on the part of.se officials that do not amount to anything barring extradition. JA's own expert witness testified that extradition to the US or execution by the US "wouldn't happen". The judge also points out that the same Article 6 provisions on which the defense rely to not extradite to.se would also apply should anyone else ask for JA.
On investigation versus charges, the judge details how, under common-sense and legal interpretations of UK law, the four alleged offenses in the extradition order that.se is investigation would also be violations of UK law if they were to be proven in court. The judge points out that the.se prosecutor has expressed clear intent to prosecute, but that.se's procedures require investigation before prosecution. The defense's complaint that prosecutors did not hand over all evidence _FROM AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION_ is conflicted (or self-defeating) because the defense uncommonly gets access to substantial evidence before charges are laid under common law systems (the standards they want imposed).
Some "security" blogger apparently wrote the summary, according to the link./scarequotes since the blog looks like something a l33t hax0r would write to pretend to be more than a skript kiddie; and even has a '90s-era visitor counter//WHBT. WHL.
It's more subtle. WL claims that such documents should belong to the public, but seeks to prevent D-B, now a member of the public, from publishing them.
The issue at hand is just another instance of links but at a different layer in the stack. If Google wants to participate in an open internet in which relationships among public URIs and public contents of resources have meaning, they should expect uninvited others to build value on those relationships.
When I search for device drivers, Google returns pages of SEO/registry optimization landing page spam in front of any useful results. Bing usually returns multiple relevant links on the first page.
When I search for local notables, Google floats links to many copies of the same information to the top, prioritizing the loudest outdated consensus. Bing consolidates that to bring new and minority reports to the surface.
If anything, Google has become the venue for cheap knockoffs where quantity substitutes for quality.
From the testimony: "They [logs] may be the only way to learn, for example, that a certain Internet address was used by a particular human being to engage in or facilitate a criminal offense."
It's 2011. I want to believe we've moved on from the misconception that IP addresses attach to warm bodies.
My friends extend many freedom-thanks for all the new references! The strategic infrastructure suggestions will have to wait for things to calm down a bit.
Some friends in Cairo would like to bypass some of the online censorship measures. I've quickly suggested some things (below) to consider overnight. What have I missed?
To encrypt users' passwords before receiving them, you could run (parts of) your cryptographic algorithms on the client, as TLS, SecurID and umpteen other implementations do. That would render the credentials differently vulnerable to interception via MITM than sending them as clear text.
No professional would sell you such a point solution though, because attaching it to a system that implements the security model you imply would be detrimental to one's reputation if discovered. To my knowledge, as confirmed by TFA, Facebook implements more robust security for authentication than "encrypt[ing] the users' passwords".
...I just want to point out that the scaled up industrial process must work as well. Getting a full sized reactor running is as important as solving a problem in the lab.
Please get out of the trap of thinking of power as necessarily a multi-billion-dollar centralized utility. For many of the world's current and potential electricity users, a closet-sized user-serviceable generation plant with 3-4 kWh output (whether by solar, hydrogen, fission, or fusion) would be "full sized" for their needs, and also a step up in sustainability and reliability. To be fair, even the regulators, finance, and insurance people fall into this trap as industrial giants like Babcock & Wilcox and Toshiba keep getting railroaded on their advanced micro fission reactors.
It only seems like a new game because we've grown accustomed to the non-critical, non-investigative journalism that's handed to us on the nightly news. The news should be surprising to most people since we're mostly not experts in Middle-East relations, but astute readers of Foreign Policy, The Economist, AJ, or even La Presse should find very little new except for the details of individual human speech and interactions (the same can be said of any close transcript of almost any meeting or discussion).
However, that's not to say that leaked details aren't valuable to somebody. If we were smart about this, we'd ask under what circumstances it's acceptable for professionals in general (who are also accountable to the public) to provide contrasting or conflicting private and public accounts of their professional activities as experts.
The dollar cost on the invoice may be the same, but search and qualification costs increase with the diversity of possible and actual candidates. The dollar cost on the invoice may be the same, but the value delivered for the monetary cost varies with a great many factors. We dislike nepotism by default in public spending for this reason. The dollar cost on the invoice and value delivered may be the same, but one programmer is more likely to be killed by a freight truck than all four consultants on the account from the corporation. The dollar cost on the invoice may be the same, but the influence of networked knowledge, inter-domain expertise, and backend supplier relationships varies with a great many factors.
And so on for the hundreds of other non-monetary-cost factors that should go into such a decision.
The hoster doesn't need to impose basic file format trickery on its users to plausibly deny knowledge of hosting content without permission. There's no reasonable expectation that they are able to screen the sheer volume of new content arriving daily, nor the encrypted stuff which passwords are trivially found. As the YouTube adventure has shown, even advanced file format trickery may be circumvented if the copyright holder is sufficiently enthused about having that capability.
Again, what was the legal or social problem was your solution intended to address? It seems to me that it just imposes a minor inconvenience without providing any party with any new benefits over the status quo.
One or more of the following would have to be true: a) You upload such files, but do not disclose that the two parts contain a copyrighted work. No one would notice or care, and your action would not be worth the cost of a lawsuit. b) You upload such files, and you do disclose that the two parts contain a copyrighted work. We're back to.RAR parts unless you can demonstrate that you came upon two random chunks of data, that when combined via your algoritm, yields a format correct work that, by chance alone, happens to be indistinguishable from a representation of a copyrighted work.
In either case, the algorithmic result of the combination of a particular set of random numbers with a copyrighted work would still be a protected derivative work of the original.
What's the problem that your solution is intended to address?
Storing a set of data in different physical or logical formats doesn't change the abstraction of the data that is subject to copyright since representations are all derivatives of some protected fixed form. The copyright holders no more care about the (almost certainly unique) patterns of magnetic fields on your hard disk that represent a work than you do about the patterns that represent your spreadsheet.
Whether Rapidshare has to demonstrate the untruth of the other party's statements, or the other party has to demonstrate the truth of their statements, will depend on jurisdiction. I expect to see interesting new (to the public) information from both sides (RS logs, the other party's data sources, etc.) should this go to discovery.
Are the media industry groups smart enough to troll RS into a lawsuit like this?
The Windows Media Codec pack is irrelevant on its own, but (intentionally or not) points out that content to some may be noise to others. In particular, content, like Genuine Prairie Narwhal can generate human and bot attention and activity for otherwise banal or valueless terms in various databases.
Slashdot Mirror
Defense makes at least two conflicting claims on the point of access to evidence. They claim that they are entitled to access evidence during an investigation in which there has been no charge laid, which access they claim to have been denied. In a common law jurisdiction, defense has no such entitlement unless there is substantial intent to prosecute, which conflicts with their claim that .se has no intent to prosecute. In a non-common-law jurisdiction, perhaps like .se, they have no standing on which to complain about not having access to evidence during an investigation, in which case the argument is irrelevant to defense's due process argument. Defense's claims internally contradict with either line of argument.
Unless you're just being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic, in which case, IHBT.
RTFR, or at least pages 23 to the end.
The ruling makes no mention of any statements or events in the US; only political statements on the part of .se officials that do not amount to anything barring extradition. JA's own expert witness testified that extradition to the US or execution by the US "wouldn't happen". The judge also points out that the same Article 6 provisions on which the defense rely to not extradite to .se would also apply should anyone else ask for JA.
On investigation versus charges, the judge details how, under common-sense and legal interpretations of UK law, the four alleged offenses in the extradition order that .se is investigation would also be violations of UK law if they were to be proven in court. The judge points out that the .se prosecutor has expressed clear intent to prosecute, but that .se's procedures require investigation before prosecution. The defense's complaint that prosecutors did not hand over all evidence _FROM AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION_ is conflicted (or self-defeating) because the defense uncommonly gets access to substantial evidence before charges are laid under common law systems (the standards they want imposed).
Shoddy defense effort all around.
Some "security" blogger apparently wrote the summary, according to the link. /scarequotes since the blog looks like something a l33t hax0r would write to pretend to be more than a skript kiddie; and even has a '90s-era visitor counter //WHBT. WHL.
Does that, or the Google offering, work on searches from google.(cctld)?
but since Google doesn't seem to care, all I can do is keep refspoof handy.
Good luck with that unless you're browsing from an IP address allocation belonging or SWIPed to Google.
Not news: Academics unclear on the concept of route flap dampening propose theoretical attack on infrastructure with which they have no experience.
It's more subtle. WL claims that such documents should belong to the public, but seeks to prevent D-B, now a member of the public, from publishing them.
Then would you say that you are nonplussed about this feature?
They're just giving the haters a good run.
The issue at hand is just another instance of links but at a different layer in the stack. If Google wants to participate in an open internet in which relationships among public URIs and public contents of resources have meaning, they should expect uninvited others to build value on those relationships.
Genuine articles is why I use Bing.
When I search for device drivers, Google returns pages of SEO/registry optimization landing page spam in front of any useful results. Bing usually returns multiple relevant links on the first page.
When I search for local notables, Google floats links to many copies of the same information to the top, prioritizing the loudest outdated consensus. Bing consolidates that to bring new and minority reports to the surface.
If anything, Google has become the venue for cheap knockoffs where quantity substitutes for quality.
Absolutely not; for similar reasons to why advocating political murder of JA and circumvention of due process are frowned upon.
From the testimony:
"They [logs] may be the only way to learn, for example, that a certain Internet address was used by a particular human being to engage in or facilitate a criminal offense."
It's 2011. I want to believe we've moved on from the misconception that IP addresses attach to warm bodies.
Things would be far scarier if the government did want to pay for it. Consider a government-provided storage cloud in which all logs must be stored.
My friends extend many freedom-thanks for all the new references! The strategic infrastructure suggestions will have to wait for things to calm down a bit.
Some friends in Cairo would like to bypass some of the online censorship measures. I've quickly suggested some things (below) to consider overnight. What have I missed?
Anonymous connection:
No:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/help-eff-research-web-browser-tracking
But:
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere/
Also:
http://www.hotspotshield.com/
And services like:
http://filesharefreak.com/2008/10/18/total-anonymity-a-list-of-vpn-service-providers/
but verify on the ground.
Only if they understand the tradeoffs:
http://www.privoxy.org/
https://techstdout.boum.org/TorDns/
Avoid random lists of anonymous proxies or DNS servers.
To secure the computer:
Use a popular boot disk that leaves nothing behind, e.g.:
http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop/get-ubuntu/download
Remove metadata:
http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyId=144E54ED-D43E-42CA-BC7B-5446D34E5360&displaylang=en
and similar for other files they may deal with.
Delete/wipe files securely.
Many uses:
http://mailinator.com/
http://www.hushmail.com/
Consider:
http://www.disconnectere.com/
and its analogues
To encrypt users' passwords before receiving them, you could run (parts of) your cryptographic algorithms on the client, as TLS, SecurID and umpteen other implementations do. That would render the credentials differently vulnerable to interception via MITM than sending them as clear text.
No professional would sell you such a point solution though, because attaching it to a system that implements the security model you imply would be detrimental to one's reputation if discovered. To my knowledge, as confirmed by TFA, Facebook implements more robust security for authentication than "encrypt[ing] the users' passwords".
...I just want to point out that the scaled up industrial process must work as well. Getting a full sized reactor running is as important as solving a problem in the lab.
Please get out of the trap of thinking of power as necessarily a multi-billion-dollar centralized utility. For many of the world's current and potential electricity users, a closet-sized user-serviceable generation plant with 3-4 kWh output (whether by solar, hydrogen, fission, or fusion) would be "full sized" for their needs, and also a step up in sustainability and reliability. To be fair, even the regulators, finance, and insurance people fall into this trap as industrial giants like Babcock & Wilcox and Toshiba keep getting railroaded on their advanced micro fission reactors.
It only seems like a new game because we've grown accustomed to the non-critical, non-investigative journalism that's handed to us on the nightly news. The news should be surprising to most people since we're mostly not experts in Middle-East relations, but astute readers of Foreign Policy, The Economist, AJ, or even La Presse should find very little new except for the details of individual human speech and interactions (the same can be said of any close transcript of almost any meeting or discussion).
However, that's not to say that leaked details aren't valuable to somebody. If we were smart about this, we'd ask under what circumstances it's acceptable for professionals in general (who are also accountable to the public) to provide contrasting or conflicting private and public accounts of their professional activities as experts.
The dollar cost on the invoice may be the same, but search and qualification costs increase with the diversity of possible and actual candidates.
The dollar cost on the invoice may be the same, but the value delivered for the monetary cost varies with a great many factors. We dislike nepotism by default in public spending for this reason.
The dollar cost on the invoice and value delivered may be the same, but one programmer is more likely to be killed by a freight truck than all four consultants on the account from the corporation.
The dollar cost on the invoice may be the same, but the influence of networked knowledge, inter-domain expertise, and backend supplier relationships varies with a great many factors.
And so on for the hundreds of other non-monetary-cost factors that should go into such a decision.
The hoster doesn't need to impose basic file format trickery on its users to plausibly deny knowledge of hosting content without permission. There's no reasonable expectation that they are able to screen the sheer volume of new content arriving daily, nor the encrypted stuff which passwords are trivially found. As the YouTube adventure has shown, even advanced file format trickery may be circumvented if the copyright holder is sufficiently enthused about having that capability.
Again, what was the legal or social problem was your solution intended to address? It seems to me that it just imposes a minor inconvenience without providing any party with any new benefits over the status quo.
One or more of the following would have to be true: .RAR parts unless you can demonstrate that you came upon two random chunks of data, that when combined via your algoritm, yields a format correct work that, by chance alone, happens to be indistinguishable from a representation of a copyrighted work.
a) You upload such files, but do not disclose that the two parts contain a copyrighted work. No one would notice or care, and your action would not be worth the cost of a lawsuit.
b) You upload such files, and you do disclose that the two parts contain a copyrighted work. We're back to
In either case, the algorithmic result of the combination of a particular set of random numbers with a copyrighted work would still be a protected derivative work of the original.
What's the problem that your solution is intended to address?
Storing a set of data in different physical or logical formats doesn't change the abstraction of the data that is subject to copyright since representations are all derivatives of some protected fixed form. The copyright holders no more care about the (almost certainly unique) patterns of magnetic fields on your hard disk that represent a work than you do about the patterns that represent your spreadsheet.
Whether Rapidshare has to demonstrate the untruth of the other party's statements, or the other party has to demonstrate the truth of their statements, will depend on jurisdiction. I expect to see interesting new (to the public) information from both sides (RS logs, the other party's data sources, etc.) should this go to discovery.
Are the media industry groups smart enough to troll RS into a lawsuit like this?
https://m.facebook.com/
Bonus: No javascript, flash, ads, or stupid app requests.
The Windows Media Codec pack is irrelevant on its own, but (intentionally or not) points out that content to some may be noise to others. In particular, content, like Genuine Prairie Narwhal can generate human and bot attention and activity for otherwise banal or valueless terms in various databases.
It's conceptually similar to the game.