It's more than just tax paperwork. There are asset declaration forms to send to Treasury Dept. Failure to file these can result in prison sentences.
Since you wouldn't be living in the US.... probably there are no assets that US law provides you any rights to control over, they fall out of the limited powers provided of the US constitution, so there are no possible lawful acts by the US government with respect to these; if you live in Belgium, for example, the home you live in is Belgium property governed by Belgium law.
Belgium law might give direction of the property to your person, since you directed what Belgium law recognizes as a transfer of one thing you are in control of for another, but the real-estate is outside of US jurisdiction, so no US law can grant or recognize you as having a right to direct the use of this property, since the land is on another country's soil.
Since no privilege or right you have under US law and no privilege or right you have under any treaty gives you the right to direct use of that property inside Belgium, it is not your asset... it is Belgium's asset that you have been afforded a right to control, a legal right valid only within their jurisdiction: so there is no sense reporting it to another country outside their jurisdiction, where your legal right to control that property would not be valid.
The same would apply to all your belongings and accounts in Belgium....
these aren't assets, since you can control them only in belgium... you don't "own" things, ultimately everything belongs to the state, except in Belgium you have a right to direct their use and disposition.
Oh yeah, and as long as you don't export anything from Belgium, there isn't a goddammed thing any other country can do about that, even to pry and try to figure out what exactly those things are, let alone attempt to gain control of some of them.
This isn't inconsistent. On the whole we do need less regulation. I would agree with that. There should be little regulation, but it should be effective regulation.
There should also be a concept of "temporary regulation".... for example: We see this widespread abuse, so for the next 5 years you all have to do X, and if you shape up, then you industry players can decide how to do it afterwards, BUT you will be fully on the hook financially, for negligence, if you do X and it causes damage to people.
There are some subjects or some elements in certain industries that need more regulation, because it's become the "industry standard" to abuse consumers, or people are unfairly being put at risk to save $$$ or safe face for some Mega Co, when Mega Co is essentially a local monopoly or nearly so.
Once you renounce citizenship, I don't think the united states will let you back in, I'm not entirely sure but I believe that is the case.
You can still get a passport from your new home country you are a citizen of and get into the US to visit.
Probably need to apply for a Visa if you want to stay more than X days, and need additional paperwork if you ever want to work there or reside for a longer period.
Well... a software license is a type of contract.
There's a principle in contract law; that if there are multiple ways which a condition can be interpreted,
then it will be interpreted for purposes at time of adjuication in the manner that most favors the parties who did
not produce the contract term / present the offer.
The same contract or license text can be interpreted in different ways for different cases.
You are mistaken in thinking they use the Linux kernel in ESXi. There is no Linux kernel anywhere in ESXi.
They have written their own operating system from scratch, and they did a complete rewrite of the kernel in the update from ESXi 3.5 to 4.0.
What they have done is copied a subset the interface API from the Linux kernel.
Much how like the Wine Project has copied API details from Win32 without permission from Microsoft.
This allows existing driver source code that already works in Linux to be compiled using the VMware driver development kit
into a binary that can be loaded as a driver in ESXi.
This means that hardware vendors can write the driver once, and then it could be built for either Linux or ESXi, so that seems beneficial for Linux users to have more drivers still being written for Linux.
This will be sad, as the native driver framework is proprietary, and it will likely no longer be possible to write your own drivers for ESXi, once vmklinux is gone, without purchasing the driver development tools at high $$$.
Also, major enterprises are running ESXi on much of their hardware, so the incentive may go away for many manufacturers to
release information or develop Linux drivers;
they can just produce their binary ESXi drivers and be done with it.
Well, having used VMware Workstation 8 and 9, I can was able to download and modify the Linux drivers provided by VMware, necessary to fix some kernel related bugs
I don't think the lawsuit is over vmware tools. VMware provides source code to most of the VMware tools components; often they are installed by building the source code.
The VMware hypervisor includes a special management Virtual Machine run by the vmkernel which uses Busybox.
They do not include the source code for Busybox.
However, there is a written offer for customers to request source code on CD for the product you purchased, valid for 3 years after you purchased the software product from VMware, by sending a request to an address given of VMware General Counsel, Attn: Open Source Files Request.
Versions of ESXi prior to 5.5 supported an architecture for drivers called vmklinux; essentially,
the VMware kernel supported a framework compatible with Linux drivers ---- you could compile Linux drivers from source code and load them into the vmklinux system. ESXi5.5 introduced a new thing called Native Drivers, but they still support the Linux kernel driver SDK. There is no Linux kernel code, other than drivers themselves, however, they have only copied the Kernel driver API interfaces.
What are you, in law enforcement? This is a story about warrantless collection of DNA in a rape case. Not everyone is a rapist.
That's true.... but if enough people are in the DNA database, then it is likely for many innocent people to wind up being accused.
If police have sampled armchair DNA from 10 million people over the years and built a database of 1 million entries.
If the confidence of a match in the DNA test is 99.99%.
Then that means the test is still wrong 0.01% of the time, so in such a large database, there could easily be 1000 bogus matches.
If police had decided to interrogate the guy; and decided there was probable cause, then I think it was in their rights to get a DNA sample, just like it was in their rights to fingerprint any suspect.
What I see as abusive is covertly securing information from people.
For DNA to be analyzed by law enforcement and attributed to a person: it should definitely be required to be secured in a more reliable manner than gathering from the environment.
Unless the environment is the actual scene of the violent crime being investigated;
gathering DNA surreptitiously and in a manner where it would likely be subject to contamination should not be allowed.
Don't Kickstart something that seems like a good idea but has never been done before. If it's really a good idea then people have either tried and failed multiple times before
Why not? Sure it's a risk. But nothing good ever came out of not taking risks.
However.... It would probably be a good idea to not offer or promise 'donation rewards' that can only be delivered if the project is successful.
I do not see how some additional open source software and PCB designs being released is not a win for the community and the people who did the project. Sure, they did not have the success they hoped, and they effectively found their design wasn't viable to meet the objectives.
But just because the project didn't work out did not mean that the outcome was useless or not worth what went into it.
For starters: No deleting any e-mail in the personal account until the go'vt can review. Hand over the credentials for the "personal" accounts and allow all messages contained or archived to be copied to the federal servers and go into the public record; contact the email service provider with a court order to hand over all backups, have a police seizure of all digital media Mrs. Hillary had access to, and charge Mrs. Hillary the cost of compliance with the order for recovery of official messages resulting from non-compliance with the law.
Why just Illinois? This is a national laboratory funded by the US government.
If there is a reduction in public services, then there should be a commesurate decrease in their funding
by at least the value to the public of those services.
Unrestricted MS group policy push means all of TLS/SSL is a complete sham.
Correct me if I am wrong.... but group policy is downloaded over CIFS via SYSVOL, and there is no encryption or digital signing of the file being downloaded, so a MITM could insert an altered group policy of the attacker's choice, including bogus certificates to be installed... of the attacker's choice.
and if the OS can do it, so can any other software that has admin rights.
What would cause you to think that?
Administrator is a user privilege level inside the operating system. Nothing says that an admin level user can necessarily do everything. You can even make an operating system that has no such thing as admin rights, if you want.
You can certainly lockdown certain capabilities so they are available to the OS but not to 3rd party software.
One thing they could require you to do would be to visit a Microsoft website and go through a process that requires the end user to answer a captcha, login to an account, and supply a copy of the certificate, to receive a validation mark, before a local trust mark can be added, then the marked certificate can be downloaded and imported, before proceeding with a GUI-driven process.
Without the computer-specific Microsoft validation mark on the certificate,
the 'Import' API calls will simply refuse to import the certificate to the trust database.
And when the cert is verified, the trust authorization validation chain's signature can be verified as well.
You want to be able to do this automatically at least in corporate environment, and manually for development tools.
We buy certs for corporate resources. It's not necessary to have an internal CA, and from a security standpoint it's probably not very safe, since the CA is more likely to be compromised than a public CA which has more carefully implemented and audited controls.
Woo, and now a company can't have its own internal CA deployed automatically.
Why not? Just make it so that upon joining to a domain a Volume licensed copy of Windows,
a domain certificate trust mark will optionally be enabled, And certificates can be installed by group policy,
but only to computers that are a member of the AD domain whose administrator digitally signed the policy, and only with Enterprise or Server edition of Windows installed on the workstation.
The browsers/OSes should harden by eliminating the ability for 3rd party software to automatically install a certificate
or CA as trusted into the system database. They should also remove any functionality that allows a 'globally' wildcarded certifacte
to be deployed to the browser
Basically, when the computer's hostname is assigned, or during user profile creation,
the trusted certificate store should be reinitialized with only stock certificates approved by the
OS maker or browser vendor.
A machine-specific keypair should be generated and used to stamp all the certificates with a local trust signature.
Any access to the machine keypair / stamp should be available only through an
interactive approval process.
Sysprep'ing an image or changing the product key should invalidate the local trust mark and
require manual re-approval of all certs not in the browser vendor's official trust list.
I'm not sure how easy it is to scan the internals of the metal.
Acoustic microscopy.
Also, since the identification info could be encoded in various formats... such as microscopic dimples in the metal, magnetic elements, digital circuit elements such as passive RFID, or
other methods
It's possible that the criminal could be unable to know whether or not there is a serial number that is still readable which the criminal themselves cannot see, since mostly just law enforcement and gun shops would have both the scanning equipment and the know-how to operate it.
Each gun already imprints a unique microscopic signature on a bullet and casing. Just submit a scan of a fired bullet and cartridge to a central database for each new firearm sold
They already tried that in Maryland, and I understand it turned out very poorly, the government itself instead of the manufacturer wound up bearing huge costs; there were error-prone and labor-intensive steps involved in taking in test-fired casings submitted by manufacturer, photographing , logging to database.
But it was also noted California DOJ survey less than 70% of the casings of the same make as the fingerprinted device yielded the correct result anywhere in the top 15 matches of the database search, for the same type of ammunition. When a different type of ammunition was used, less than a 40% success rate.
Conclusion? Capturing the natural ballistics to a database is not the way to go, if you can do better.
See... why we should require the manufacturer of every firearm to include
microstamping technology, where the serial number will be imprinted on the cartridge of every round fired.
Also, should include scannable RFID tags, one scannable by the public, another RFID tag only detectable and scannable by law enforcement.
And some concealed serial number imprints, also scannable.
I figure the manufacturer could punch out a pinhole in certain places with a punch containing
adjustable ridges and serial number indicated by the bitting of the punch with digital signature
and error recovery codes to verify the authenticity of the number, to get the message through even
in a high-noise environment, then seal the holes with a liquified metal or epoxy to prevent
criminals altering the code.
Why not? You ever been to a concert, where the public is invited into the building, but you may be prosecuted if you sneak in back behind the stage without permission to be there, Or may be prosecuted if you use a pass to get into one area, then sneak into the show next door?
It would be like an actor going into the theatre before a talent show and messing with the props or lighting behind the stage, when they're supposed to be in the dressing room getting ready.
They have a right to be in the building, but not a right to be in their competitor's roped out prep area, or the lighting room, or other places.
The area is not open to the public until the curtain is lifted, and the show starts. The people allowed in generally have a conditional permission to go to certain areas and do certain things to prepare for unveiling.
Even after the show starts, not all participants are necessarily given a pass with access to all areas.
In some cases, vendors rent exhibition space and get discounted passes, but they are restricted to remain in their area.
Our competitor launched an offering that blows everything out of the water that we offer. Let's provide a product to compete! But here's the catch: Let's make it suck! That'll show 'em.
ATT is acting like a monopoly that needs to be broken up by the courts.
The original argument was that Large corporations are not ever called into account for violating the law. I'm asking for citations that prove that.
That's not true. You are essentially changing the original argument in order to weaken it.
Noone stated large corporations are never called into account, until yourself.
What you have provided is a grand example of conjecture with zero proof that companies of a certain size just "get away with it"
The argument has more basis than mere conjecture.
The existence of some companies being called into account is proof that it is true that some companies do break the law, and it also shows, that sometimes companies do get called to account.
There is no evidence to support the contention that all (or most) companies who do break the law get called on it successfully. There is no evidence you provided to support the contention that all companies who get discovered get punished.
I'm just saying that being a huge corporation does not exempt you from being found criminally liable and the perception otherwise is nothing more than mythology born of class envy and politics.
The argument is that the larger companies have more resources available at their disposal in order to conceal their wrongdoing, therefore, the larger company is very likely to get away with much larger amounts of wrongdoing.
It's not a myth, unless you can prove it is a myth.
There are very good inherent reasons to believe this would be true.
Conjecture is not necessary. You have only to look at human nature and basic logical deduction and statistics to figure out that this is more likely to be true than what you contend.
What you are claiming is mealy a common mythology, foisted on us by the likes of "Occupy Wall street" and the politicians who use class envy as a wedge issue to get votes. It is not reality true.
It might be a mythology. That does not necessarily mean there is no truth behind it.
I point to the many recent examples where large corporations where indeed cited for breaking laws, fined for it and where individuals involved where convicted.
The analogy I would use, is the lawyers and courts found and crushed a roach that got a bit too careless and gorged themself, so was laying on the kitchen counter and got accidentally discovered.
The fact that a few roaches have been killed, does not necessarily mean that the walls and attic aren't infested with more.
There are also bound to be more careless roaches or injured roaches than others.
They don't "get away" with illegal stuff just because they have an army of lawyers at their disposal.
They don't often break the law and don't get away with it when they do. It's bad business...
How would it be bad for business?
These roaches cannot easily be detected. They are hiding in the wall.
You just think they are savvy businessmen, or perhaps not so savvy.
Probably most of them cheat a little bit, and only a few of them cheat a whole lot.
Some people can make very slight transgressions from the law over a very long period of time quite covertly and not get caught, especially if they have the resources and persuasiveness to hide their transgressions.
They might earn $1 billion legitimately and steal $50 million by neglecting to pay some taxes, for example, by exploiting the tax laws of different countries and creative accounting.
Citation, please?
Most corporations are quite concerned about not breaking the law and go out of their way to avoid even the appearance of it.
Correct. Corporations are quite concerned about the appearance of having broken the law, and they wish to avoid liability that could lower profits, but have you already forgotten about how vehicle manufacturers have been concealing hazards from NHTSA and hiding product defects, deeming the risk of lawsuit as cost of doing business? (More expensive to recall than the perceived loss from lawsuits). Companies will even construct policy manuals and other paper trail in order to show 'by the book' policies respecting the law. But do you have a cite showing most larger corporations concerned about adhering to the law, even laws that lose them big $$$, for their own sake, And not solely as a form of risk management?
Seems to me that if what you *think* is true that there are a pile of DA's out there who would be vying for a chance to seal their re-election by reeling in the "big fish" you seem to think are there
The big companies have lawyers, and they work the system thoroughly.
The "big fish" are not merely "big", but they have intelligence and many smart people working for them as well.
They also have folks surrounding them to help take the "fall" or steer the investigation towards designated scapegoats.
Attempting to go after so-called "big fish" would not seal their re-election, and it would
likely be career suicide.
They don't get where they are without having a large social network and plenty of contacts within
government to call in some kinds of favors with.
Young bright "hot shot" DA won't be such a hot shot, when there are higher execs in his chain of command
breathing down his/her neck, and DA needs to leverage the social network to advance.
Yeah, but in the US, you don't go to jail for that.
Tortious interference is a civil violation.
If I understand correctly, the Obstruction of business charge is criminal,
and can contribute to the exec's potential prison sentence.
The concept might come to the US by way of international treaty, but
for now, I think for now the officials are concentrated at getting
copyright extended from civil to criminal with felony jail terms added to the most menial of copyright violations
for file downloaders / P2P traders, as part of the upcoming "War on downloaders"
Slashdot Mirror
It's more than just tax paperwork. There are asset declaration forms to send to Treasury Dept. Failure to file these can result in prison sentences.
Since you wouldn't be living in the US.... probably there are no assets that US law provides you any rights to control over, they fall out of the limited powers provided of the US constitution, so there are no possible lawful acts by the US government with respect to these; if you live in Belgium, for example, the home you live in is Belgium property governed by Belgium law.
Belgium law might give direction of the property to your person, since you directed what Belgium law recognizes as a transfer of one thing you are in control of for another, but the real-estate is outside of US jurisdiction, so no US law can grant or recognize you as having a right to direct the use of this property, since the land is on another country's soil.
Since no privilege or right you have under US law and no privilege or right you have under any treaty gives you the right to direct use of that property inside Belgium, it is not your asset... it is Belgium's asset that you have been afforded a right to control, a legal right valid only within their jurisdiction: so there is no sense reporting it to another country outside their jurisdiction, where your legal right to control that property would not be valid.
The same would apply to all your belongings and accounts in Belgium.... these aren't assets, since you can control them only in belgium... you don't "own" things, ultimately everything belongs to the state, except in Belgium you have a right to direct their use and disposition.
Oh yeah, and as long as you don't export anything from Belgium, there isn't a goddammed thing any other country can do about that, even to pry and try to figure out what exactly those things are, let alone attempt to gain control of some of them.
This isn't inconsistent. On the whole we do need less regulation. I would agree with that. There should be little regulation, but it should be effective regulation.
There should also be a concept of "temporary regulation".... for example: We see this widespread abuse, so for the next 5 years you all have to do X, and if you shape up, then you industry players can decide how to do it afterwards, BUT you will be fully on the hook financially, for negligence, if you do X and it causes damage to people.
There are some subjects or some elements in certain industries that need more regulation, because it's become the "industry standard" to abuse consumers, or people are unfairly being put at risk to save $$$ or safe face for some Mega Co, when Mega Co is essentially a local monopoly or nearly so.
Once you renounce citizenship, I don't think the united states will let you back in, I'm not entirely sure but I believe that is the case.
You can still get a passport from your new home country you are a citizen of and get into the US to visit. Probably need to apply for a Visa if you want to stay more than X days, and need additional paperwork if you ever want to work there or reside for a longer period.
We need regulation....
Insurers aren't mandated to comply — though most do.
They should be required to pass their audit or pass an audit by a 3rd party auditor who is approved by the OIG.
Failure to comply should result in fines and bar them from writing or acquiring any more insurance policies, until they do.
Also, in the event of a breach at this juncture, there should be a financial penalty for their negligence.
Well... a software license is a type of contract. There's a principle in contract law; that if there are multiple ways which a condition can be interpreted, then it will be interpreted for purposes at time of adjuication in the manner that most favors the parties who did not produce the contract term / present the offer.
The same contract or license text can be interpreted in different ways for different cases.
You are mistaken in thinking they use the Linux kernel in ESXi. There is no Linux kernel anywhere in ESXi.
They have written their own operating system from scratch, and they did a complete rewrite of the kernel in the update from ESXi 3.5 to 4.0.
What they have done is copied a subset the interface API from the Linux kernel. Much how like the Wine Project has copied API details from Win32 without permission from Microsoft.
This allows existing driver source code that already works in Linux to be compiled using the VMware driver development kit into a binary that can be loaded as a driver in ESXi.
This means that hardware vendors can write the driver once, and then it could be built for either Linux or ESXi, so that seems beneficial for Linux users to have more drivers still being written for Linux.
This is considered a legacy framework, and VMware is already phasing this out... see details on the new native driver framework
This will be sad, as the native driver framework is proprietary, and it will likely no longer be possible to write your own drivers for ESXi, once vmklinux is gone, without purchasing the driver development tools at high $$$.
Also, major enterprises are running ESXi on much of their hardware, so the incentive may go away for many manufacturers to release information or develop Linux drivers; they can just produce their binary ESXi drivers and be done with it.
Well, having used VMware Workstation 8 and 9, I can was able to download and modify the Linux drivers provided by VMware, necessary to fix some kernel related bugs
I don't think the lawsuit is over vmware tools. VMware provides source code to most of the VMware tools components; often they are installed by building the source code.
The VMware hypervisor includes a special management Virtual Machine run by the vmkernel which uses Busybox.
They do not include the source code for Busybox. However, there is a written offer for customers to request source code on CD for the product you purchased, valid for 3 years after you purchased the software product from VMware, by sending a request to an address given of VMware General Counsel, Attn: Open Source Files Request.
Versions of ESXi prior to 5.5 supported an architecture for drivers called vmklinux; essentially, the VMware kernel supported a framework compatible with Linux drivers ---- you could compile Linux drivers from source code and load them into the vmklinux system. ESXi5.5 introduced a new thing called Native Drivers, but they still support the Linux kernel driver SDK. There is no Linux kernel code, other than drivers themselves, however, they have only copied the Kernel driver API interfaces.
What are you, in law enforcement? This is a story about warrantless collection of DNA in a rape case. Not everyone is a rapist.
That's true.... but if enough people are in the DNA database, then it is likely for many innocent people to wind up being accused.
If police have sampled armchair DNA from 10 million people over the years and built a database of 1 million entries.
If the confidence of a match in the DNA test is 99.99%.
Then that means the test is still wrong 0.01% of the time, so in such a large database, there could easily be 1000 bogus matches.
If police had decided to interrogate the guy; and decided there was probable cause, then I think it was in their rights to get a DNA sample, just like it was in their rights to fingerprint any suspect.
What I see as abusive is covertly securing information from people.
For DNA to be analyzed by law enforcement and attributed to a person: it should definitely be required to be secured in a more reliable manner than gathering from the environment.
Unless the environment is the actual scene of the violent crime being investigated; gathering DNA surreptitiously and in a manner where it would likely be subject to contamination should not be allowed.
Don't Kickstart something that seems like a good idea but has never been done before. If it's really a good idea then people have either tried and failed multiple times before
Why not? Sure it's a risk. But nothing good ever came out of not taking risks.
However.... It would probably be a good idea to not offer or promise 'donation rewards' that can only be delivered if the project is successful.
I do not see how some additional open source software and PCB designs being released is not a win for the community and the people who did the project. Sure, they did not have the success they hoped, and they effectively found their design wasn't viable to meet the objectives.
But just because the project didn't work out did not mean that the outcome was useless or not worth what went into it.
The law must be satisfied to the extent possible.
For starters: No deleting any e-mail in the personal account until the go'vt can review. Hand over the credentials for the "personal" accounts and allow all messages contained or archived to be copied to the federal servers and go into the public record; contact the email service provider with a court order to hand over all backups, have a police seizure of all digital media Mrs. Hillary had access to, and charge Mrs. Hillary the cost of compliance with the order for recovery of official messages resulting from non-compliance with the law.
Why just Illinois? This is a national laboratory funded by the US government. If there is a reduction in public services, then there should be a commesurate decrease in their funding by at least the value to the public of those services.
Unrestricted MS group policy push means all of TLS/SSL is a complete sham.
Correct me if I am wrong.... but group policy is downloaded over CIFS via SYSVOL, and there is no encryption or digital signing of the file being downloaded, so a MITM could insert an altered group policy of the attacker's choice, including bogus certificates to be installed... of the attacker's choice.
and if the OS can do it, so can any other software that has admin rights.
What would cause you to think that?
Administrator is a user privilege level inside the operating system. Nothing says that an admin level user can necessarily do everything. You can even make an operating system that has no such thing as admin rights, if you want.
You can certainly lockdown certain capabilities so they are available to the OS but not to 3rd party software.
One thing they could require you to do would be to visit a Microsoft website and go through a process that requires the end user to answer a captcha, login to an account, and supply a copy of the certificate, to receive a validation mark, before a local trust mark can be added, then the marked certificate can be downloaded and imported, before proceeding with a GUI-driven process.
Without the computer-specific Microsoft validation mark on the certificate, the 'Import' API calls will simply refuse to import the certificate to the trust database.
And when the cert is verified, the trust authorization validation chain's signature can be verified as well.
You want to be able to do this automatically at least in corporate environment, and manually for development tools.
We buy certs for corporate resources. It's not necessary to have an internal CA, and from a security standpoint it's probably not very safe, since the CA is more likely to be compromised than a public CA which has more carefully implemented and audited controls.
Woo, and now a company can't have its own internal CA deployed automatically.
Why not? Just make it so that upon joining to a domain a Volume licensed copy of Windows, a domain certificate trust mark will optionally be enabled, And certificates can be installed by group policy, but only to computers that are a member of the AD domain whose administrator digitally signed the policy, and only with Enterprise or Server edition of Windows installed on the workstation.
The browsers/OSes should harden by eliminating the ability for 3rd party software to automatically install a certificate or CA as trusted into the system database. They should also remove any functionality that allows a 'globally' wildcarded certifacte to be deployed to the browser
Basically, when the computer's hostname is assigned, or during user profile creation, the trusted certificate store should be reinitialized with only stock certificates approved by the OS maker or browser vendor.
A machine-specific keypair should be generated and used to stamp all the certificates with a local trust signature.
Any access to the machine keypair / stamp should be available only through an interactive approval process.
Sysprep'ing an image or changing the product key should invalidate the local trust mark and require manual re-approval of all certs not in the browser vendor's official trust list.
I'm not sure how easy it is to scan the internals of the metal.
Acoustic microscopy.
Also, since the identification info could be encoded in various formats... such as microscopic dimples in the metal, magnetic elements, digital circuit elements such as passive RFID, or other methods
It's possible that the criminal could be unable to know whether or not there is a serial number that is still readable which the criminal themselves cannot see, since mostly just law enforcement and gun shops would have both the scanning equipment and the know-how to operate it.
Each gun already imprints a unique microscopic signature on a bullet and casing. Just submit a scan of a fired bullet and cartridge to a central database for each new firearm sold
They already tried that in Maryland, and I understand it turned out very poorly, the government itself instead of the manufacturer wound up bearing huge costs; there were error-prone and labor-intensive steps involved in taking in test-fired casings submitted by manufacturer, photographing , logging to database.
But it was also noted California DOJ survey less than 70% of the casings of the same make as the fingerprinted device yielded the correct result anywhere in the top 15 matches of the database search, for the same type of ammunition. When a different type of ammunition was used, less than a 40% success rate.
Conclusion? Capturing the natural ballistics to a database is not the way to go, if you can do better.
See... why we should require the manufacturer of every firearm to include microstamping technology, where the serial number will be imprinted on the cartridge of every round fired.
Also, should include scannable RFID tags, one scannable by the public, another RFID tag only detectable and scannable by law enforcement.
And some concealed serial number imprints, also scannable.
I figure the manufacturer could punch out a pinhole in certain places with a punch containing adjustable ridges and serial number indicated by the bitting of the punch with digital signature and error recovery codes to verify the authenticity of the number, to get the message through even in a high-noise environment, then seal the holes with a liquified metal or epoxy to prevent criminals altering the code.
Trespassing? In a trade show? Really?
Why not? You ever been to a concert, where the public is invited into the building, but you may be prosecuted if you sneak in back behind the stage without permission to be there, Or may be prosecuted if you use a pass to get into one area, then sneak into the show next door?
It would be like an actor going into the theatre before a talent show and messing with the props or lighting behind the stage, when they're supposed to be in the dressing room getting ready.
They have a right to be in the building, but not a right to be in their competitor's roped out prep area, or the lighting room, or other places.
The area is not open to the public until the curtain is lifted, and the show starts. The people allowed in generally have a conditional permission to go to certain areas and do certain things to prepare for unveiling.
Even after the show starts, not all participants are necessarily given a pass with access to all areas. In some cases, vendors rent exhibition space and get discounted passes, but they are restricted to remain in their area.
I thought AT&T was already broken up three decades ago for monopoly abuse.
No... A different entity by the same name was broken up three decades ago, this is The New AT&T.
One of the entities that was split off went and gradually bought up companies that had been broken off and re-assembled a new ginormous monopoly.
And committing new monopoly abuses --- not vertical integration, but anticompetitive behavior, such as this latest stunt against Google.
Our competitor launched an offering that blows everything out of the water that we offer. Let's provide a product to compete! But here's the catch: Let's make it suck! That'll show 'em.
ATT is acting like a monopoly that needs to be broken up by the courts.
The original argument was that Large corporations are not ever called into account for violating the law. I'm asking for citations that prove that.
That's not true. You are essentially changing the original argument in order to weaken it. Noone stated large corporations are never called into account, until yourself.
What you have provided is a grand example of conjecture with zero proof that companies of a certain size just "get away with it"
The argument has more basis than mere conjecture. The existence of some companies being called into account is proof that it is true that some companies do break the law, and it also shows, that sometimes companies do get called to account.
There is no evidence to support the contention that all (or most) companies who do break the law get called on it successfully. There is no evidence you provided to support the contention that all companies who get discovered get punished.
I'm just saying that being a huge corporation does not exempt you from being found criminally liable and the perception otherwise is nothing more than mythology born of class envy and politics.
The argument is that the larger companies have more resources available at their disposal in order to conceal their wrongdoing, therefore, the larger company is very likely to get away with much larger amounts of wrongdoing.
It's not a myth, unless you can prove it is a myth.
There are very good inherent reasons to believe this would be true.
Conjecture is not necessary. You have only to look at human nature and basic logical deduction and statistics to figure out that this is more likely to be true than what you contend.
What you are claiming is mealy a common mythology, foisted on us by the likes of "Occupy Wall street" and the politicians who use class envy as a wedge issue to get votes. It is not reality true.
It might be a mythology. That does not necessarily mean there is no truth behind it.
I point to the many recent examples where large corporations where indeed cited for breaking laws, fined for it and where individuals involved where convicted.
The analogy I would use, is the lawyers and courts found and crushed a roach that got a bit too careless and gorged themself, so was laying on the kitchen counter and got accidentally discovered.
The fact that a few roaches have been killed, does not necessarily mean that the walls and attic aren't infested with more.
There are also bound to be more careless roaches or injured roaches than others.
They don't "get away" with illegal stuff just because they have an army of lawyers at their disposal.
They don't often break the law and don't get away with it when they do. It's bad business...
How would it be bad for business? These roaches cannot easily be detected. They are hiding in the wall. You just think they are savvy businessmen, or perhaps not so savvy. Probably most of them cheat a little bit, and only a few of them cheat a whole lot. Some people can make very slight transgressions from the law over a very long period of time quite covertly and not get caught, especially if they have the resources and persuasiveness to hide their transgressions.
They might earn $1 billion legitimately and steal $50 million by neglecting to pay some taxes, for example, by exploiting the tax laws of different countries and creative accounting.
Citation, please?
Most corporations are quite concerned about not breaking the law and go out of their way to avoid even the appearance of it.
Correct. Corporations are quite concerned about the appearance of having broken the law, and they wish to avoid liability that could lower profits, but have you already forgotten about how vehicle manufacturers have been concealing hazards from NHTSA and hiding product defects, deeming the risk of lawsuit as cost of doing business? (More expensive to recall than the perceived loss from lawsuits). Companies will even construct policy manuals and other paper trail in order to show 'by the book' policies respecting the law. But do you have a cite showing most larger corporations concerned about adhering to the law, even laws that lose them big $$$, for their own sake, And not solely as a form of risk management?
Seems to me that if what you *think* is true that there are a pile of DA's out there who would be vying for a chance to seal their re-election by reeling in the "big fish" you seem to think are there
The big companies have lawyers, and they work the system thoroughly. The "big fish" are not merely "big", but they have intelligence and many smart people working for them as well. They also have folks surrounding them to help take the "fall" or steer the investigation towards designated scapegoats.
Attempting to go after so-called "big fish" would not seal their re-election, and it would likely be career suicide.
They don't get where they are without having a large social network and plenty of contacts within government to call in some kinds of favors with.
Young bright "hot shot" DA won't be such a hot shot, when there are higher execs in his chain of command breathing down his/her neck, and DA needs to leverage the social network to advance.
Yeah, but in the US, you don't go to jail for that. Tortious interference is a civil violation.
If I understand correctly, the Obstruction of business charge is criminal, and can contribute to the exec's potential prison sentence.
The concept might come to the US by way of international treaty, but for now, I think for now the officials are concentrated at getting copyright extended from civil to criminal with felony jail terms added to the most menial of copyright violations for file downloaders / P2P traders, as part of the upcoming "War on downloaders"