Of course not.... it's Snapchat. Trophy categories are random and might disappear at a whim, so no evidence is left of them.
Anyways, they have trophies for the other filters, so users could reasonably expect there would be a Trophy on the speed filter, Or they're just going to see how fast they can go, so they can find out if they will win a trophy.......
Correct. Also the 18-year-old teenager probably has few resources to pay the millions it's going to cost for the victim's lifelong care....
The teenager should arguably be imprisoned for a very long time, AND Snapchat kind of facilitated this by deliberately encouraging cell phone use in a motor vehicle.
Well-intentioned though it may be; Snapchat the company is responsible for other consequences of their actions, if they promulgate risky behavior, and make their app increase danger to the public.
It's time for people to start taking responsibility for their own actions.
In no way do I suggest people not take responsibility for their actions.
Snapchat should take responsibility for their actions and pay for his medical bills, and possibly chip in a percentage of his car replacement cost, or provide in cash, if he cannot drive again after that.
The guy who was doing Snapchat at 100 MPH should have his driver's license suspended.
He should go to jail for a year, for reckless endangerment of the public.
He should be required to pay a fine, and do 1000 hours of community service.
Is it frivolous, however? By assigning a "Trophy" for traveling a certain speed, they are creating an addicting experience, and could be argued to be using gamification to encourage/promote risky behavior.
So one person posted something, that a founder found distasteful, and they decided to shutter their site (essentially) ?
That sounds like a totally disproportionate response to me.
I guess it's a good reason, that if you want a site like Slashdot to be successful, you should have a couple shareholders and not just have a single dictator able to decide such things, without other people having a veto......
In some ways, it was better than Slashdot and had features that Slashdot still doesn't have.
Yeah, but for some reason a few years back the activity level seemed to have suddenly dropped to nearly zero as far as new articles were concerned (Not counting the Diaries section).
I think it was a great website that suddenly stopped producing content, for some reason?
I guess I had forgotten they existed years ago...... I'm not sure exactly at what point I stopped visiting K5 and come back to Slashdot, but I guess the writing has been on the wall for K5 for a long time
It's just a real shame to see such a disappointing final outcome of permanent death, rather than a rennaissance.....
Make them work it in their head by issuing word coins in fixed denominations, and they get 25 extra points by making exact change. At other times, the reward coins will be issued with a "Pick Stack #1, Stack #2, or Stack #3" option
And the 3 stacks will be different numbers of coins in different denominations.
Who says they are legal? It's a probable violation of the FTC act. I think they're playing the game that the specific practice/scam is relatively new with this medium (Partly, because they need to see how the law applies to this new scam, possibly against false contentions by vendors that they are all legal), and vendors hoping to make off with a quick illicit buck, and be half across the world with a few hundred million$$, because the government sometimes moves slowly to enforce the law on these types of issues.
Note it took a couple years for Amazon to be ordered to refund unintended app purchases by children.....
How are we going to teach children of today what an 8.3 filename is? It seems like DOS must still exist in schools at some point.
I recommend making kids to learn to use DOS 5.x and Windows 3.1 in Year 1, by providing this as their personal computing device, then in Year 2 switch them over to Linux, and in Year 3 they have access to both Windows 7 and Linux, in Year 4 they will learn how to disassemble and assemble computer from components.
At end of Year 4 give a test where the kid will demonstrate faculty in both operating systems, and in the knowledge of electronics components and ability to build a computer from components.
And give the kids limited/no use of Tablets, iPods, or other mobile computing devices, until they complete these trials.
I would gamify this by setting point values on certain accomplishments.
When the kid accomplishes a major milestone or earns an offered achievement in learning technical details of computers, then a certain number of reward points will be granted to them.
These reward points can be redeemed for certain prizes, at certain times.
Or, actually, most of the time.... E.g. redeem 100 reward points for an hour of iPad gameplay at a certain time.
Except, certain days, and certain times will have a lower RP cost than others.
4 to 5 PM Mon-Fri might have a normal cost of 100 RP, but 7PM to 8PM costs 200RP.
Also, under certain conditions a temporary "Disappointment tax" on earned RP or spent RP or both may apply for a few weeks.
Any major misconduct or major failure (Such as failing to get an A or B in Math) applies a monetary penalty to the child's RP, and can result in a negative balance, which might be settled by selling off or revoking previously-received tangible prizes.
Historically, when a vacancy came up during the last year in Office, such opening have often been deliberately left open, and filling the position is usually done with the next president; so this doesn't speak negatively of congress at all ---- There is a disagreement on which people are suitable for the position, therefore, there is no nominee which can be successful: if anyone that reflects badly on the president failing to pick a satisfactory candidate; this is not an issue for congress to address.
This is not a dereliction of duty: it is a deliberate choice by Senate to reject or delay the exiting president's preference.
Note, however; this may mean that Hilary makes the nomination of Obama to the supreme court during a recess appointment, after she wins the election....
Being held in contempt doesn't mean that you're guilty of anything
Yes it does mean you're guilty of something. It's a conviction with an expeditious trial in front of a judge with no jury.
Contempt of court is a criminal conviction.
Although it is prerogative of the court that the judge can declare people in contempt,
and pass sentence; this is due to a tradition of trying contempt charge from the bench by the judge whose court has been violated or
disrespected, and a jury is not involved.
It can still be appealed.
An appeal of criminal contempt starts in the superior court; an appeal of civil contempt starts in the court of appeals.
I'm amazed at how blatantly they're ignoring history.
They didn't have lobbyists back then. Now MS have learned from other big companies and have bought and paid for politicians, and these investments pretty much guarantee there shouldn't be a repeat of what happened in 2001.
You can call it a configuration issue if you want to, but the change in the configuration was made by a Microsoft patch
Yep. Microsoft is in Violation of the contract regarding Windows Update.
Critical updates are security fixes that are not for the purpose of introducing new features,
incompatibilities, or other breaking changes.
That sounds very constructed. Do you have any evidence something like that is happening here?
I don't know what's happening in the case of the article.
Possibly this former PD seargent decided he would like to challenge the order legally in court on
5th amendment grounds; Possibly he knew the password and admitted that fact, Or couldn't testify under
oath that he was no longer able to recall the password.
And for some reason the court decided since he wanted to challenge/appeal the order, he would still be penalized
for violating the order, for the time until his appeal can be considered.
I would suspect that because the former PD
seargent admitted that hard drive belonged to him, or worse, even admitted to being capable of unlocking it
but refusing to comply, Possibly b/c he was only being ordered to hand over information and not being
charged with a crime.
That possibly the guy might have delayed retaining a lawyer, Or did not refuse
to have any discussion of the order or the hard drive with police until after consulting with said legal
counsel: to ensure said lawyer would be present for any discussions.
Just because "Forgetting" the password is an out does NOT mean the guy in the article was able to make the claim
that he forgot it, without perjuring himself.
You missed the point..... you don't have to prove that you have forgotten it.
You just need to testify that you are not able to recall a password for any hard drive or system
of that description.
You would also avoid explicitly asserting that it's your hard drive in the first place and/or you ever had a password for it.
If the prosecution believes you can recall it, then to pursue criminal charges for contempt of court, the
burden of proof is upon the prosecution: They must be able to prove you had and have access to that specific
particular piece of hardware, that you still remember or are in control of the password at that very moment
(You have an Agent working on your behalf who is withholding a physical copy of the password at your
direction), or you're otherwise capable of providing it.
Also, even if the offender is ruled in contempt, at any point in the future they could later claim they are no longer capable
of providing the password, and challenge the contempt order.
This is the TV station's fault for not deploying their computers correctly. This issue has been known for months and months now and a fix has been around for quite a while.
Not an initial deployment issue.
A surprising unwanted behavior introduced in a patch, that the administrator would not have noticed, unless they were reading many online articles about it.
If anybody's fault it's Microsoft's for not having provided the option Years ago, so they could opt-out of Nag Screens and Auto OS upgrades at the time of initial deployment, not AFTER deployment, with a new Opt-Out being required for Novel unwanted behavior.
However, I would just say it's an understandable accident that anybody could make.
It's nobody's "Fault" other than Microsoft management/marketing deciding to introduce the Novel behavior with a NEW Opt-Out option, instead of one that could have been selected Along with the option to turn on Automatic Updates.... back in 2012, 2013, or 2014.
I'm sorry, I have this thing called a life. I'm not going to play games like trying to bump-up against an edit/revert counter with a bunch of people that don't have lives
Then it starts to seem like you were not very sincere about contributing the article in the first place, if you're unwilling to engage with other people community and/or the other editors, and confront them, resolve conflicting goals, or decide which differences are important to argue over. The encyclopedia anyone can edit, Does Not necessarily mean there is no way in which edits get reviewed, no stylistic standard, no tacit "ownership" by the original authors of a text, and No process whatsoever to follow for you to make improvements that survive.
"Having a Life" or "Having no Life" is an Ad Hominem, and does not credit or discredit one's contribution on WP over anyone else's.
If you're sincere about contributing to a Wiki, then you should be prepared to engage with the other editors, in the event your view on an article conflicts with theirs.
Insincere contributors abandoning their half-baked edit or trivial/non-improving contribution is part of the way that Vandalism and other Noise also gets drowned out in the latest version of most articles.
Which happens to be impossible to prove due to fundamental restrictions of how reality works. Hence the government just assumes they are capable
The government is not allowed to assume that you are guilty. It does not matter how inconvenient this requirement becomes due to how reality works.
The law requires the government to show you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise the legal principles at the basis of our rule of law say that you must be presumed innocent, in that case you should be released.
If the suspect has forgotten the password, and reports to have forgotten or never knew the password and has no access to the password,
then I do not believe there is any legal basis for holding them in contempt beyond that point.
Only way they could is they have definitive proof that someone has access to the password, and it's being withheld under the control of the suspect.
Divide your crypto key into 3 pieces. You own the third; Two other trusted third parties have the other half.
Every time you open the encrypted vault, you enter a key, and send your password to one of the trusted third parties who.submits their half of the key.
Your trusted third parties have an agreement that you contact them every N days, otherwise, they will automatically perform a secure destruction of their half of the key Upon inactivity, or upon your request, they will destroy the key, and forward your request to the other TTP.
Your communications with trusted third parties are conducted over a secure channel, each of you has a Public-Private keypair stored on tamper-resistant SmartCards.
Your trusted third parties' half of the key is stored on a tamper-resistant blackbox, and they don't have access to the key itself: only an encrypted message which Your smartcard is required to decrypt.
You might choose to use anonymous third-parties. Requests to open your vault are published to Bitcoin public blockchain.
The response contains an encrypted secret key, and the decryption key is held by you only in RAM per decryption.
If there is no request to open the vault for N days, then the keys are automatically destroyed by the 3rd parties, and you pick N.
For some data, N might be 5 days.
IANAL and all that, but can't they hold someone in contempt indefinitely?
It is only legal to hold them in contempt if they ARE capable of complying with the order.
At such time as the person is physically or mentally incapable of complying with the order, for example, they don't have the
information required, or it is not possible for them to perform as requested, they cannot be held in contempt.
The person that spends the most time making edits is the Editor. And there are a lot of self-important busy-bodies that will revert casual edits because they can.
Just revert the reversion, unless they made a valid point. Due to the 3RR rule, you can revert 3 times, unless another author agrees with them, Also, your edit will wind up remaining in place, because the other user is also not allowed to revert more than 3 times, and if they do, you can request intervention.
I think most investigations stay secret. The police are not required to disclose the details of specific investigations, unless someone winds up in court charged with a crime.
Why would you expect them to disclose the secret with no net benefit to the public in doing so, After the gov't Paid for this vulnerability, and the value derived from this payment will be completely destroyed if Apple learns the details of it?
How they behave with this security vulnerability today is how they will behave with the next one tomorrow.
Requirement should be to prosecute someone in court, they have to disseminate all technical details to the public of how they gained access to the phone --- no black boxing, closed, secret, or proprietary technologies or programs allowed.
No full disclosure of the design specs and source code of any exploit software or exploit devices, then no evidence from hacked phone can be used in court.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course not.... it's Snapchat. Trophy categories are random and might disappear at a whim, so no evidence is left of them.
Anyways, they have trophies for the other filters, so users could reasonably expect there would be a Trophy on the speed filter, Or they're just going to see how fast they can go, so they can find out if they will win a trophy.......
Correct. Also the 18-year-old teenager probably has few resources to pay the millions it's going to cost for the victim's lifelong care....
The teenager should arguably be imprisoned for a very long time, AND Snapchat kind of facilitated this by deliberately encouraging cell phone use in a motor vehicle.
Well-intentioned though it may be; Snapchat the company is responsible for other consequences of their actions, if they promulgate risky behavior, and make their app increase danger to the public.
It's time for people to start taking responsibility for their own actions.
In no way do I suggest people not take responsibility for their actions. Snapchat should take responsibility for their actions and pay for his medical bills, and possibly chip in a percentage of his car replacement cost, or provide in cash, if he cannot drive again after that.
The guy who was doing Snapchat at 100 MPH should have his driver's license suspended. He should go to jail for a year, for reckless endangerment of the public.
He should be required to pay a fine, and do 1000 hours of community service.
Is it frivolous, however? By assigning a "Trophy" for traveling a certain speed, they are creating an addicting experience, and could be argued to be using gamification to encourage/promote risky behavior.
So one person posted something, that a founder found distasteful, and they decided to shutter their site (essentially) ?
That sounds like a totally disproportionate response to me.
I guess it's a good reason, that if you want a site like Slashdot to be successful, you should have a couple shareholders and not just have a single dictator able to decide such things, without other people having a veto......
In some ways, it was better than Slashdot and had features that Slashdot still doesn't have.
Yeah, but for some reason a few years back the activity level seemed to have suddenly dropped to nearly zero as far as new articles were concerned (Not counting the Diaries section).
I think it was a great website that suddenly stopped producing content, for some reason?
I guess I had forgotten they existed years ago...... I'm not sure exactly at what point I stopped visiting K5 and come back to Slashdot, but I guess the writing has been on the wall for K5 for a long time
It's just a real shame to see such a disappointing final outcome of permanent death, rather than a rennaissance.....
Make them work it in their head by issuing word coins in fixed denominations, and they get 25 extra points by making exact change. At other times, the reward coins will be issued with a "Pick Stack #1, Stack #2, or Stack #3" option
And the 3 stacks will be different numbers of coins in different denominations.
Who says they are legal? It's a probable violation of the FTC act. I think they're playing the game that the specific practice/scam is relatively new with this medium (Partly, because they need to see how the law applies to this new scam, possibly against false contentions by vendors that they are all legal), and vendors hoping to make off with a quick illicit buck, and be half across the world with a few hundred million$$, because the government sometimes moves slowly to enforce the law on these types of issues.
Note it took a couple years for Amazon to be ordered to refund unintended app purchases by children.....
How are we going to teach children of today what an 8.3 filename is? It seems like DOS must still exist in schools at some point.
I recommend making kids to learn to use DOS 5.x and Windows 3.1 in Year 1, by providing this as their personal computing device, then in Year 2 switch them over to Linux, and in Year 3 they have access to both Windows 7 and Linux, in Year 4 they will learn how to disassemble and assemble computer from components.
At end of Year 4 give a test where the kid will demonstrate faculty in both operating systems, and in the knowledge of electronics components and ability to build a computer from components.
And give the kids limited/no use of Tablets, iPods, or other mobile computing devices, until they complete these trials.
I would gamify this by setting point values on certain accomplishments.
When the kid accomplishes a major milestone or earns an offered achievement in learning technical details of computers, then a certain number of reward points will be granted to them.
These reward points can be redeemed for certain prizes, at certain times.
Or, actually, most of the time.... E.g. redeem 100 reward points for an hour of iPad gameplay at a certain time.
Except, certain days, and certain times will have a lower RP cost than others.
4 to 5 PM Mon-Fri might have a normal cost of 100 RP, but 7PM to 8PM costs 200RP.
Also, under certain conditions a temporary "Disappointment tax" on earned RP or spent RP or both may apply for a few weeks.
Any major misconduct or major failure (Such as failing to get an A or B in Math) applies a monetary penalty to the child's RP, and can result in a negative balance, which might be settled by selling off or revoking previously-received tangible prizes.
Historically, when a vacancy came up during the last year in Office, such opening have often been deliberately left open, and filling the position is usually done with the next president; so this doesn't speak negatively of congress at all ---- There is a disagreement on which people are suitable for the position, therefore, there is no nominee which can be successful: if anyone that reflects badly on the president failing to pick a satisfactory candidate; this is not an issue for congress to address.
This is not a dereliction of duty: it is a deliberate choice by Senate to reject or delay the exiting president's preference.
Note, however; this may mean that Hilary makes the nomination of Obama to the supreme court during a recess appointment, after she wins the election....
Being held in contempt doesn't mean that you're guilty of anything
Yes it does mean you're guilty of something. It's a conviction with an expeditious trial in front of a judge with no jury. Contempt of court is a criminal conviction. Although it is prerogative of the court that the judge can declare people in contempt, and pass sentence; this is due to a tradition of trying contempt charge from the bench by the judge whose court has been violated or disrespected, and a jury is not involved.
It can still be appealed. An appeal of criminal contempt starts in the superior court; an appeal of civil contempt starts in the court of appeals.
I'm amazed at how blatantly they're ignoring history.
They didn't have lobbyists back then. Now MS have learned from other big companies and have bought and paid for politicians, and these investments pretty much guarantee there shouldn't be a repeat of what happened in 2001.
You can call it a configuration issue if you want to, but the change in the configuration was made by a Microsoft patch
Yep. Microsoft is in Violation of the contract regarding Windows Update. Critical updates are security fixes that are not for the purpose of introducing new features, incompatibilities, or other breaking changes.
Addition of a nag screen is a breaking change.
That sounds very constructed. Do you have any evidence something like that is happening here?
I don't know what's happening in the case of the article. Possibly this former PD seargent decided he would like to challenge the order legally in court on 5th amendment grounds; Possibly he knew the password and admitted that fact, Or couldn't testify under oath that he was no longer able to recall the password.
And for some reason the court decided since he wanted to challenge/appeal the order, he would still be penalized for violating the order, for the time until his appeal can be considered.
I would suspect that because the former PD seargent admitted that hard drive belonged to him, or worse, even admitted to being capable of unlocking it but refusing to comply, Possibly b/c he was only being ordered to hand over information and not being charged with a crime.
That possibly the guy might have delayed retaining a lawyer, Or did not refuse to have any discussion of the order or the hard drive with police until after consulting with said legal counsel: to ensure said lawyer would be present for any discussions.
Just because "Forgetting" the password is an out does NOT mean the guy in the article was able to make the claim that he forgot it, without perjuring himself.
Now prove, that you forgot your password.
You missed the point..... you don't have to prove that you have forgotten it.
You just need to testify that you are not able to recall a password for any hard drive or system of that description.
You would also avoid explicitly asserting that it's your hard drive in the first place and/or you ever had a password for it.
If the prosecution believes you can recall it, then to pursue criminal charges for contempt of court, the burden of proof is upon the prosecution: They must be able to prove you had and have access to that specific particular piece of hardware, that you still remember or are in control of the password at that very moment (You have an Agent working on your behalf who is withholding a physical copy of the password at your direction), or you're otherwise capable of providing it.
Also, even if the offender is ruled in contempt, at any point in the future they could later claim they are no longer capable of providing the password, and challenge the contempt order.
This is the TV station's fault for not deploying their computers correctly. This issue has been known for months and months now and a fix has been around for quite a while.
Not an initial deployment issue.
A surprising unwanted behavior introduced in a patch, that the administrator would not have noticed, unless they were reading many online articles about it.
If anybody's fault it's Microsoft's for not having provided the option Years ago, so they could opt-out of Nag Screens and Auto OS upgrades at the time of initial deployment, not AFTER deployment, with a new Opt-Out being required for Novel unwanted behavior.
However, I would just say it's an understandable accident that anybody could make. It's nobody's "Fault" other than Microsoft management/marketing deciding to introduce the Novel behavior with a NEW Opt-Out option, instead of one that could have been selected Along with the option to turn on Automatic Updates.... back in 2012, 2013, or 2014.
I'm sorry, I have this thing called a life. I'm not going to play games like trying to bump-up against an edit/revert counter with a bunch of people that don't have lives
Then it starts to seem like you were not very sincere about contributing the article in the first place, if you're unwilling to engage with other people community and/or the other editors, and confront them, resolve conflicting goals, or decide which differences are important to argue over. The encyclopedia anyone can edit, Does Not necessarily mean there is no way in which edits get reviewed, no stylistic standard, no tacit "ownership" by the original authors of a text, and No process whatsoever to follow for you to make improvements that survive.
"Having a Life" or "Having no Life" is an Ad Hominem, and does not credit or discredit one's contribution on WP over anyone else's.
If you're sincere about contributing to a Wiki, then you should be prepared to engage with the other editors, in the event your view on an article conflicts with theirs.
Insincere contributors abandoning their half-baked edit or trivial/non-improving contribution is part of the way that Vandalism and other Noise also gets drowned out in the latest version of most articles.
Which happens to be impossible to prove due to fundamental restrictions of how reality works. Hence the government just assumes they are capable
The government is not allowed to assume that you are guilty. It does not matter how inconvenient this requirement becomes due to how reality works.
The law requires the government to show you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise the legal principles at the basis of our rule of law say that you must be presumed innocent, in that case you should be released.
If the suspect has forgotten the password, and reports to have forgotten or never knew the password and has no access to the password, then I do not believe there is any legal basis for holding them in contempt beyond that point.
Only way they could is they have definitive proof that someone has access to the password, and it's being withheld under the control of the suspect.
Divide your crypto key into 3 pieces. You own the third; Two other trusted third parties have the other half.
Every time you open the encrypted vault, you enter a key, and send your password to one of the trusted third parties who.submits their half of the key.
Your trusted third parties have an agreement that you contact them every N days, otherwise, they will automatically perform a secure destruction of their half of the key Upon inactivity, or upon your request, they will destroy the key, and forward your request to the other TTP.
Your communications with trusted third parties are conducted over a secure channel, each of you has a Public-Private keypair stored on tamper-resistant SmartCards.
Your trusted third parties' half of the key is stored on a tamper-resistant blackbox, and they don't have access to the key itself: only an encrypted message which Your smartcard is required to decrypt.
You might choose to use anonymous third-parties. Requests to open your vault are published to Bitcoin public blockchain. The response contains an encrypted secret key, and the decryption key is held by you only in RAM per decryption.
If there is no request to open the vault for N days, then the keys are automatically destroyed by the 3rd parties, and you pick N. For some data, N might be 5 days.
IANAL and all that, but can't they hold someone in contempt indefinitely?
It is only legal to hold them in contempt if they ARE capable of complying with the order.
At such time as the person is physically or mentally incapable of complying with the order, for example, they don't have the information required, or it is not possible for them to perform as requested, they cannot be held in contempt.
The person that spends the most time making edits is the Editor. And there are a lot of self-important busy-bodies that will revert casual edits because they can.
Just revert the reversion, unless they made a valid point. Due to the 3RR rule, you can revert 3 times, unless another author agrees with them, Also, your edit will wind up remaining in place, because the other user is also not allowed to revert more than 3 times, and if they do, you can request intervention.
I think most investigations stay secret. The police are not required to disclose the details of specific investigations, unless someone winds up in court charged with a crime.
Why would you expect them to disclose the secret with no net benefit to the public in doing so, After the gov't Paid for this vulnerability, and the value derived from this payment will be completely destroyed if Apple learns the details of it?
This may seem surprising, since there is no policing authority on Wikipedia
Yes there is.... Haven't you ever heard of "New Page Patrol" ? There are such things as Oversighters (History Suppression); The WP Foundation has Police power through Oversighter, and Control of stewards who assign Administrative permissions to some users, who then act as police, Selective Deletion (Destroying/Hiding historical information about past actions), Banned Users, Requests for Discussion, Votes for Deletion, Speedy Page Deletion (eg BLP), and Banned Content
no established top-down means of control. The community is self-governing, relying primarily on social pressure to enforce the established core norms
There are top-down means of control in regards to certain actions (Oversighting).
How they behave with this security vulnerability today is how they will behave with the next one tomorrow.
Requirement should be to prosecute someone in court, they have to disseminate all technical details to the public of how they gained access to the phone --- no black boxing, closed, secret, or proprietary technologies or programs allowed.
No full disclosure of the design specs and source code of any exploit software or exploit devices, then no evidence from hacked phone can be used in court.