I know. Well, this would presumably make them more expensive or something. I actually have a fair number of clocks in my house now that are battery-backed. Really clever design just doesn't come up as much in consumer products.:-(
I think you're having difficulty separating groups of people. There are scientists, doctors, and the media. Of those, only the media said we would all die of bird flu. I don't recall much being said by nonmedical scientists, and I certainly don't recall any "consensus" (though I doubt you're familiar with what scientific consensus even is), but if you asked just about any expert what the real risk and potential transmission vectors are for a particular case, they would tell you.
If you're not displaying the clock, you can maintain a clock for a long time on a capacitor charge, and a very long time on a battery charge. For something like a microwave that's always displaying the time, you could probably use a battery or rechargeable battery. The battery degrading would probably be the limiting factor there.
You're probably correct -- I let my legal terminology slip.
I don't know the letter of the law on "knowingly" in possession, but you are right -- proving that a given person with CP on their machine willingly and knowingly engaged in obtaining it is a big deal to investigators on these cases. The "malware defense" is fairly common as a variant of the "someone else did it" defense -- and in at least one case, it's turned out to be true.
Let me be more specific. Most child pornography laws have such clauses. (Note that each state has its own laws, in addition to the federal law.) Actually, all of the state CP laws I've read have such clauses.
I made no claim that the same is true of drugs, but if you show up at a police station with illicit material to turn in, it's a reasonable expectation that you will be held until they can check out your story. (In your story, the woman made the mistake of actually purchasing the pot -- she's now taken an illegal action, knowing what she was doing and knowing it was illegal.) Calling the police with discovered child pornography to turn in is fairly common practice, unfortunately. While it may quickly become a headache, it is very rare that you're even arrested.
It's written in to many state child pornography laws, and you don't get a medal or charges. This happens all the time -- workers at Best Buy, the individual in the "hashing counts as searching" case, IT guys. They do come and take the machine, though, which can make life rough for the IT guys if they run across it on the wrong machine.
Regardless of what he thought would happen to the kids, he really had no option. Once he ran across the CP, he had to notify the police, or would be risking criminal charges -- and he'd be a lot less likely to have the case dropped than those kids will be.
Only the police require warrants. If citizens search property, the legal concerns are different. Since the child was at school, seizure of the phone was undoubtedly permitted by school regulation. I'm not sure about search -- some schools, the staff claims a right to search anything brought on to the premises. That may come up as an issue. The issue of potential tampering might come up, except that they have both ends of the transfer (sender and receiver) to verify.
It's sort of an interesting case because it's fairly rare that this sort of situation is actually prosecuted. (Most of the investigators I know think that actually prosecuting such a case is unreasonable and a waste of resources.) However, the school staff, presumably searching the phone for some reason other than searching for pornography, has no choice but to turn it in to the police once they run across the material. Otherwise, they would potentially be subject to criminal charges.
Honestly, they'd be best off scaring the kids into being a bit more reasonable with their electronic devices and then dropping the case. It seems unlikely they'd win the case and also win the inevitable appeal.
Technically, according to US law, the person discovering the pictures on the phone can be charged with possession of child pornography (they legally took possession of the phone) as simple possession is all that is required.
Actually, most such laws have clauses so that people who discover the material and turn it in to the police immediately cannot be charged with possession.
There are some differences between what you're talking about and the actual situation in the article.
This person is actually the operator of a torrent site, not a peer. He's already received fines and prison time for the sharing others have done using his site. The RIAA/MPAA asked for restitution in addition, which is based on actual damages. (The typical sky-high figures are fines and statutory damages.)
Anyway, what you're describing here is the voodoo approach -- trying to guess at something that "makes logical sense" based on analogy and an imperfect understanding of the actual problem.
Unfortunately operating systems don't behave too well when you play with disk availability like this. It's also very dangerous to use the encrypted disk only for data, since the OS and applications rarely cooperate, but rather leave many traces of your actions on the unencrypted disk.
Or preparing the password-encrypted key when the password is used to log in. It seems fairly uncommon these days to have a screen-unlock password that is not the login password.
If you're using full-disk encryption, turn off your computer when you'd not sitting at it. Hit the switch on the power strip if someone shows up at the door to seize your computer.
An unsecured machine with an mounted encrypted disk compromises the security of the encrypted disk; in this case, "unsecured" includes situations where other parties can gain physical access to the machine.
You don't need to have the JavaScript loaded through the bank's website. A user has two tabs or windows open: one to their bank, one to a popular site into which you can inject your malicious JS. The second, non-bank site can detect that you have logged in to your banking site and can display a popup prompting you for login information (which should cause you to be suspicious, but hey, this is phishing).
Injecting JavaScript into the bank's website is enormously more dangerous (but also already well-known).
When you're currently visiting one site, and open a new tab and go to a different site, those two open tabs should have no capacity to share information -- they should function as if they were separate browser sessions. (Obviously this isn't the same as if you clicked on something in a tab that causes another tab or window to open, as they may need to share knowledge. But then, the fact that those two tabs/windows are tied to the same context should be made apparent to the user.)
You don't need to hack a high-profile site to put malicious JavaScript on there. Most high-profile sites, directly or indirectly, load tons of third-party objects.
Advertising, for example, is an excellent JavaScript injection vector.
It's true. There's been quite a bit of research into it, mostly at Google. While you might not be able to pick a particular high-profile site and sneak JavaScript onto it, getting your JS onto "high-profile sites" in general is not difficult.
Well, the nature of an arms race is such that it has technological approaches.
In this case, for example, there most certainly is a technological approach. JavaScript in one loaded tab in your browser should have no shared knowledge with other tabs in your browser. Data separation needs to be enforced at a finer level. You should also know, if you have two tabs open to different sites, which one of the two a popup is associated with.
"Effects" is "possessions". I don't think it's necessarily certain that a communication conducted over a system that is, for the most part, not owned by either communicating party, is their possession.
Keep up with the conversation. The typical method of lowering line loss is using a transformer to increase the voltage and decrease the current. The transfer voltage and line resistance are the most natural variables to use, as they are constants for the system (whereas the current on the line depends on load). When comparing transfer in AC versus DC, you want to compare two systems that are otherwise the same. This means same transfer voltage and same line resistance.
DC may well generate more resistive heating than AC, but there are loss effects other than resistive heating.
What you're suggesting is reverse causation -- study links A and B, I suggest A causes B, but did I forget that perhaps B causes A? Much more common is that A and B are both caused by one or more other factors (C, etc.)
Here's a good example. People who get too little sleep are more likely to experience hallucinations. They are also more likely to drink coffee. This alone would create a statistical correlation between coffee consumption and caffeine.
Slashdot Mirror
I know. Well, this would presumably make them more expensive or something. I actually have a fair number of clocks in my house now that are battery-backed. Really clever design just doesn't come up as much in consumer products. :-(
I think you're having difficulty separating groups of people. There are scientists, doctors, and the media. Of those, only the media said we would all die of bird flu. I don't recall much being said by nonmedical scientists, and I certainly don't recall any "consensus" (though I doubt you're familiar with what scientific consensus even is), but if you asked just about any expert what the real risk and potential transmission vectors are for a particular case, they would tell you.
If you're not displaying the clock, you can maintain a clock for a long time on a capacitor charge, and a very long time on a battery charge. For something like a microwave that's always displaying the time, you could probably use a battery or rechargeable battery. The battery degrading would probably be the limiting factor there.
You're probably correct -- I let my legal terminology slip.
I don't know the letter of the law on "knowingly" in possession, but you are right -- proving that a given person with CP on their machine willingly and knowingly engaged in obtaining it is a big deal to investigators on these cases. The "malware defense" is fairly common as a variant of the "someone else did it" defense -- and in at least one case, it's turned out to be true.
Much of which you could recover with subsequent lawsuit against the public officials who tried to charge you with possessing a family photo album.
For one. Not sending naked pictures of yourself to people who are just going to send them to other kids or post them on the Internet, for another.
Let me be more specific. Most child pornography laws have such clauses. (Note that each state has its own laws, in addition to the federal law.) Actually, all of the state CP laws I've read have such clauses.
I made no claim that the same is true of drugs, but if you show up at a police station with illicit material to turn in, it's a reasonable expectation that you will be held until they can check out your story. (In your story, the woman made the mistake of actually purchasing the pot -- she's now taken an illegal action, knowing what she was doing and knowing it was illegal.) Calling the police with discovered child pornography to turn in is fairly common practice, unfortunately. While it may quickly become a headache, it is very rare that you're even arrested.
Funny, but child pornography does require prurient intent.
Given that other members of the jury undoubtedly also took pictures of their young children, you're probably safe.
It's written in to many state child pornography laws, and you don't get a medal or charges. This happens all the time -- workers at Best Buy, the individual in the "hashing counts as searching" case, IT guys. They do come and take the machine, though, which can make life rough for the IT guys if they run across it on the wrong machine.
Regardless of what he thought would happen to the kids, he really had no option. Once he ran across the CP, he had to notify the police, or would be risking criminal charges -- and he'd be a lot less likely to have the case dropped than those kids will be.
Only the police require warrants. If citizens search property, the legal concerns are different. Since the child was at school, seizure of the phone was undoubtedly permitted by school regulation. I'm not sure about search -- some schools, the staff claims a right to search anything brought on to the premises. That may come up as an issue. The issue of potential tampering might come up, except that they have both ends of the transfer (sender and receiver) to verify.
It's sort of an interesting case because it's fairly rare that this sort of situation is actually prosecuted. (Most of the investigators I know think that actually prosecuting such a case is unreasonable and a waste of resources.) However, the school staff, presumably searching the phone for some reason other than searching for pornography, has no choice but to turn it in to the police once they run across the material. Otherwise, they would potentially be subject to criminal charges.
Honestly, they'd be best off scaring the kids into being a bit more reasonable with their electronic devices and then dropping the case. It seems unlikely they'd win the case and also win the inevitable appeal.
Technically, according to US law, the person discovering the pictures on the phone can be charged with possession of child pornography (they legally took possession of the phone) as simple possession is all that is required.
Actually, most such laws have clauses so that people who discover the material and turn it in to the police immediately cannot be charged with possession.
There are some differences between what you're talking about and the actual situation in the article.
This person is actually the operator of a torrent site, not a peer. He's already received fines and prison time for the sharing others have done using his site. The RIAA/MPAA asked for restitution in addition, which is based on actual damages. (The typical sky-high figures are fines and statutory damages.)
There's no such thing as "more sufficient".
Anyway, what you're describing here is the voodoo approach -- trying to guess at something that "makes logical sense" based on analogy and an imperfect understanding of the actual problem.
Unfortunately operating systems don't behave too well when you play with disk availability like this. It's also very dangerous to use the encrypted disk only for data, since the OS and applications rarely cooperate, but rather leave many traces of your actions on the unencrypted disk.
Or preparing the password-encrypted key when the password is used to log in. It seems fairly uncommon these days to have a screen-unlock password that is not the login password.
If you're using full-disk encryption, turn off your computer when you'd not sitting at it. Hit the switch on the power strip if someone shows up at the door to seize your computer.
An unsecured machine with an mounted encrypted disk compromises the security of the encrypted disk; in this case, "unsecured" includes situations where other parties can gain physical access to the machine.
You don't need to have the JavaScript loaded through the bank's website. A user has two tabs or windows open: one to their bank, one to a popular site into which you can inject your malicious JS. The second, non-bank site can detect that you have logged in to your banking site and can display a popup prompting you for login information (which should cause you to be suspicious, but hey, this is phishing).
Injecting JavaScript into the bank's website is enormously more dangerous (but also already well-known).
When you're currently visiting one site, and open a new tab and go to a different site, those two open tabs should have no capacity to share information -- they should function as if they were separate browser sessions. (Obviously this isn't the same as if you clicked on something in a tab that causes another tab or window to open, as they may need to share knowledge. But then, the fact that those two tabs/windows are tied to the same context should be made apparent to the user.)
You don't need to hack a high-profile site to put malicious JavaScript on there. Most high-profile sites, directly or indirectly, load tons of third-party objects.
Advertising, for example, is an excellent JavaScript injection vector.
It's true. There's been quite a bit of research into it, mostly at Google. While you might not be able to pick a particular high-profile site and sneak JavaScript onto it, getting your JS onto "high-profile sites" in general is not difficult.
Well, the nature of an arms race is such that it has technological approaches.
In this case, for example, there most certainly is a technological approach. JavaScript in one loaded tab in your browser should have no shared knowledge with other tabs in your browser. Data separation needs to be enforced at a finer level. You should also know, if you have two tabs open to different sites, which one of the two a popup is associated with.
"Effects" is "possessions". I don't think it's necessarily certain that a communication conducted over a system that is, for the most part, not owned by either communicating party, is their possession.
Keep up with the conversation. The typical method of lowering line loss is using a transformer to increase the voltage and decrease the current. The transfer voltage and line resistance are the most natural variables to use, as they are constants for the system (whereas the current on the line depends on load). When comparing transfer in AC versus DC, you want to compare two systems that are otherwise the same. This means same transfer voltage and same line resistance.
DC may well generate more resistive heating than AC, but there are loss effects other than resistive heating.
What you're suggesting is reverse causation -- study links A and B, I suggest A causes B, but did I forget that perhaps B causes A? Much more common is that A and B are both caused by one or more other factors (C, etc.)
Here's a good example. People who get too little sleep are more likely to experience hallucinations. They are also more likely to drink coffee. This alone would create a statistical correlation between coffee consumption and caffeine.