Actually, it's more of the old "destroying evidence of a crime" scenario. And, since this involves insider trading, it should be covered under Sarbaes Oxley, which basically makes it a crime to delete evidence once you're engaged in legal proceedings.
When you're being investigated for fraud destroying the evidence isn't a matter of protecting your privacy. It's a matter of evading the law. Completely different things.
This guy could find himself in some pretty serious hot water.
While it's not relevant in this case since the investigation was public knowledge (via the WSJ article), if you destroy "evidence" without knowledge of any investigation, it's not evading the law, it's disposing of your property as you see fit.
That said, it seems to me that destruction of financial records should be regulated so that any destruction is logged with sufficient detail that any inappropriate destruction can be tracked.
Long before social networking sites were a twinkle in their creators' eyes, good sense dictated that nothing should go into an email that you wouldn't want to see on the front page of your local newspaper.
As far as I can tell, that goes triple for social networking sites.
[snip] Facebook / markmonitor.com decide for some reason that it infringes on their trademark based on this page: http://www.customerservicescoreboard.com/Facebook Which leads to the following big waste of time/resources simply to tell their legal team to leave them alone: 1) they receive the complaint 2) they contact their registrar http://www.namesilo.com/ to find out what problems if any they have with their domain 3) NameSilo recommends some trademark attorney and 4) the attorney files a response (http://www.customerservicescoreboard.com/images/CustomerServiceScoreboard_Facebook_Response.pdf) which more or less tells Facebook to please leave them alone and that their trademark infringement case is baseless.
Facebook ended up dropping the threat. But this goes to show you how ridiculous the situation has become. Sites like Facebook employ services like Markmonitor.com to basically send out thousands of trademark and/or dmca threats.
One of the quirks of American trademark law is that if a trademark holder does not aggressively "defend" its trademark it risks losing said trademark.
But before you decry this as just another vulgar americanism, remember that this is not just a really dumb aspect to trademark law -- It's a jobs program for lawyers.
N.B.: IANAL
It's not infeasible for a creature with a lifespan of say, ten thousand years, to think about traveling to the nearest star 20ly away at 0.10C. Just a hurdle.
Why travel so slowly?
Assuming an appropriate power source (hydrogen fusion, perhaps?) a round trip to a star 20ly distant could be accomplished in a human lifetime.
With a constant acceleration @9.8 m/s2 a starship could approach C in less than a year.
This means that the star could be reached in less than 25 years. Use 3-5 years to explore and then return.
That's a long trip to be sure, but certainly doable within the human lifespan.
I wonder what happens if we continue to expand our knowledge about exoplanets at the current rate but we don't discover life on another planet by the year 2100. [Snip].
Since it's likely that we're living in a simulation (http://www.simulation-argument.com/), computing resource constraints may be limiting the ability of the simulators to provide extra solar intelligence.
It would be a shame if we never discover life on other planets because someone didn't budget enough for SAN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storage_area_network) storage expansion.
I suppose it would be something of a coup for the Mossad to have Akamai executives in their pocket. They could do lots of naughty stuff pretty transparently if they gained control of Akamai's CDN. Perhaps it wasn't such a dumb idea to expect the Israelis to go for it.
I guess the big question is: how far would Doxer have been willing to go? I'm guessing a lot farther if the Mossad assassinated his ex-wife.
If I had an ex-wife, I imagine it might be nice to fantasize about having her murdered by a foreign intelligence agency. Any divorced men want to chime in on this?
I agree about what he offered, the problem is, dancing with the devil is dangerous. As soon as he'd turned over 'relatively innocent items', they'd immediately be able to pressure him into giving them things they'd really be interested in. Pressure him into doing things he wasn't initially prepared to do, et cetera.
Yeah, I'm sure that pressure might get him to give up other important information available to him. Like the Akamai corporate cafeteria menu (every week!) or maybe all that highly classified information that Akamai hosts...yeah.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's more of the old "destroying evidence of a crime" scenario. And, since this involves insider trading, it should be covered under Sarbaes Oxley, which basically makes it a crime to delete evidence once you're engaged in legal proceedings.
When you're being investigated for fraud destroying the evidence isn't a matter of protecting your privacy. It's a matter of evading the law. Completely different things.
This guy could find himself in some pretty serious hot water.
While it's not relevant in this case since the investigation was public knowledge (via the WSJ article), if you destroy "evidence" without knowledge of any investigation, it's not evading the law, it's disposing of your property as you see fit.
That said, it seems to me that destruction of financial records should be regulated so that any destruction is logged with sufficient detail that any inappropriate destruction can be tracked.
n.b. IANAL
Long before social networking sites were a twinkle in their creators' eyes, good sense dictated that nothing should go into an email that you wouldn't want to see on the front page of your local newspaper. As far as I can tell, that goes triple for social networking sites.
[snip] Facebook / markmonitor.com decide for some reason that it infringes on their trademark based on this page: http://www.customerservicescoreboard.com/Facebook Which leads to the following big waste of time/resources simply to tell their legal team to leave them alone: 1) they receive the complaint 2) they contact their registrar http://www.namesilo.com/ to find out what problems if any they have with their domain 3) NameSilo recommends some trademark attorney and 4) the attorney files a response (http://www.customerservicescoreboard.com/images/CustomerServiceScoreboard_Facebook_Response.pdf) which more or less tells Facebook to please leave them alone and that their trademark infringement case is baseless. Facebook ended up dropping the threat. But this goes to show you how ridiculous the situation has become. Sites like Facebook employ services like Markmonitor.com to basically send out thousands of trademark and/or dmca threats.
One of the quirks of American trademark law is that if a trademark holder does not aggressively "defend" its trademark it risks losing said trademark. But before you decry this as just another vulgar americanism, remember that this is not just a really dumb aspect to trademark law -- It's a jobs program for lawyers. N.B.: IANAL
It's not infeasible for a creature with a lifespan of say, ten thousand years, to think about traveling to the nearest star 20ly away at 0.10C . Just a hurdle.
Why travel so slowly? Assuming an appropriate power source (hydrogen fusion, perhaps?) a round trip to a star 20ly distant could be accomplished in a human lifetime. With a constant acceleration @9.8 m/s2 a starship could approach C in less than a year. This means that the star could be reached in less than 25 years. Use 3-5 years to explore and then return. That's a long trip to be sure, but certainly doable within the human lifespan.
I wonder what happens if we continue to expand our knowledge about exoplanets at the current rate but we don't discover life on another planet by the year 2100. [Snip].
Since it's likely that we're living in a simulation (http://www.simulation-argument.com/), computing resource constraints may be limiting the ability of the simulators to provide extra solar intelligence. It would be a shame if we never discover life on other planets because someone didn't budget enough for SAN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storage_area_network) storage expansion.
I suppose it would be something of a coup for the Mossad to have Akamai executives in their pocket. They could do lots of naughty stuff pretty transparently if they gained control of Akamai's CDN. Perhaps it wasn't such a dumb idea to expect the Israelis to go for it. I guess the big question is: how far would Doxer have been willing to go? I'm guessing a lot farther if the Mossad assassinated his ex-wife. If I had an ex-wife, I imagine it might be nice to fantasize about having her murdered by a foreign intelligence agency. Any divorced men want to chime in on this?
I agree about what he offered, the problem is, dancing with the devil is dangerous. As soon as he'd turned over 'relatively innocent items', they'd immediately be able to pressure him into giving them things they'd really be interested in. Pressure him into doing things he wasn't initially prepared to do, et cetera.
Yeah, I'm sure that pressure might get him to give up other important information available to him. Like the Akamai corporate cafeteria menu (every week!) or maybe all that highly classified information that Akamai hosts...yeah.