Google has enough resources to match IP address to a physical address.
That's unlikely. The federal government and the RIAA both have to subpoena records from ISPs to map an IP address to a real address. I doubt Google can manage it unless you hand them that information.
Most maps users, set their "default location" in google maps to their real home address. Also when you use, "My location" feature in maps, Google gets you location, and gets to associate with your gmail address.
Most maps users don't bother setting their default location. The "my location" feature relies on IP geolocation or the location information your browser has access to. Unless you're using it from a smartphone or tablet, that means all its' got is IP geolocation. They don't need Maps for that at all, since they already know what IP address you log into Gmail from. But IP geolocation has no precision; for associating per-household data with Gmail accounts, it's completely worthless.
In order for a spec to be useful, you need to be able to actually build the specified system. The reason they don't encompass things that they can't currently build in the specs is that they want the specs to be useful.
They can't. That's why they formulate the experiment with an appropriately-chosen hypothesis and a control.
The question is whether the linear-to-zero dose model is accurate. It's the most conservative reasonable model and it has some experimental basis, but low-rate radiation isn't well-tested. In this model, at the low end of dosing, only the total dose, not the rate at which it's delivered, matters. (That is, you're in the "causes cancer" realm of radiation and not "radiation poisoning".)
So, you take two populations. Expose one to a dose over a long period of time, expose the other to a dose over a short period of time. If the difference in detectable radiation-caused damage is statistically significant, you have reason to suspect that the linear dose model is inaccurate.
When you're designing an experiment, you don't want to be working with a single population with results near your detection limit, because everything near the detection limit looks the same. (Hey, we found nothing!) Hence the carefully-chosen control or comparison group.
It's entirely true in New York. Federally, it's illegal to access with intent. However, access isn't strictly the same as view. (On a computer, access is basically the same as view if it's your computer.)
Prior to this, you are considered to possess all data that is stored on storage media that you control. That is, you "possess" every file on your hard drive.
You could claim that you "possess" remembered images, but considering you can't prove what people remember, it has no legal value.
Information certainly is tangible in that it has physical manifestations. Your bits on disk have a physical manifestation that enables the information they represent to be "possessed".
This ruling more or less says that data stored on your hard drive as the result of an automatic behavior of your computer does not qualify as possessed; it must be put on disk as the result of a willful act to possess the data.
It depends. I don't hear a lot of individuals reporting that they accidentally downloaded CP. However, IT guys that catch it on company computers (or in traffic logs, etc.) are generally very well-protected if they simply report it. Since often then only end up in that position when they're investigating problems that can turn into legal problems, trying to scrub the evidence and pretend it never existed is not really a smart choice.
Finding cached images requires a search of the hard disk, which requires seizure of the computer hardware, which requires probable cause in order to get a search and seizure warrant. So if you have probable cause, you can find data that gives you probable cause?
The real danger from browser cache files, in my mind, is when they're old enough that the no longer have strong Web history attached to them. Maybe even they're off in the unallocated space in the disk (that is, the cached files have been "deleted), so it's not even clear that they're browser cache files. Now you have some CP images that are on your computer and it's not clear to the investigator *why* they're there. That's more dangerous (to you) then if there's information that makes it clear that they are there as a result of an accident (or some other non-willful mechanism). Some judges and prosecutors won't accept unallocated-space CP (since there's no evidence of intent), but some will.
It's a technically sound ruling. Viewing images of course causes them to be stored on your hard drive (via the browser cache), and this ruling says that that mechanism does not qualify as "procurement". This is kind of like ruling that loading a program stored on your hard drive into memory does not constitute "copying" for the purposes of copyright, even though, yes, it is technically copying.
Police don't generally investigate software piracy, since it's civil instead of criminal. Something larger-scale, the FBI might get involved, but then their search warrant is going to need to be broad enough to cover "anything illicit we might happen to find on this computer"; otherwise the CP they run across is of little value. A lot of computer search warrants these days aren't drawn up that broadly any more.
There's not really a zero-tolerance policy, though. It may appear so from the law, but there are a lot of other factors. Few prosecutors (and forensic analysts, for that matter) are willing to waste their time on something that is clearly accidental. (It's even rarer that accidental downloads even get caught, because the few sting operations that are out there are built to appeal to habitual downloaders. Most incidences of CP possession are reported by a third party or are a suspect who is being picked up on another, related charge.) The innocent usually fight it in court with the obvious "accidental" defense. It's not cheap for the prosecutor to fight it in court when it can create bad press and is likely to either result in either an acquittal or a ruling exactly like this.
Right -- it requires either possession or intent. Usually demonstrating intent boils down to something similar to what the NY judge ruled. Just having evidence of the computer having accessed it at some point in time is insufficient; you need a pattern of use sufficient to convince a jury that the suspect knew what he was after and was a "repeat customer".
Of course, in the majority of these cases, it's not really all that difficult. Most of these guys have directories on their desktop labelled "Lolita" with 20 GB of carefully organized images in it.
The fact that you're holding the receipt links the vote to you.
Almost any mechanism by which you can prove to yourself after the fact that your vote was counted correctly is unacceptable, since you can prove to someone else that you voted the way you were coerced to.
ATMs aren't error-free. They also have a lot of properties that make security easier. If a problem is detected, an ATM can be turned off without angering too many people. They can record video footage of their users to catch tampering. They can record entire transaction details locally and remotely to audit errors. Errors in ATMs are almost entirely monetary, the owner of the ATM bears almost all the risk for ATM malfunction (keeping the customer happy), and said owner is already in the business of underwriting monetary risks.
This is true anywhere there's a crowd of appreciable size. There are plenty of locations with more people standing around and more lax security than an airport screening line. If you really wanted it to be in an airport but there were no screening lines, the check-in areas in most airports would do just fine. But that's unimaginitive. If you're going the boring route of blowing up some random people on the ground, tourist destinations, subway stations, etc. are all much more populated.
The car situation is ugly and so makes for a bad comparison.
For some kinds of fines they can simply charge the person who controls the resource, but for most crimes and illegal acts they can't. Since you personally are being charged with infringement of copyright, they have to know that it's you personally that did it. Currently, having your equipment and services being used for copyright infringement without your knowledge and when your equipment and services have a reasonable legitimate use is a very hard argument to try to make in court.
Slashdot Mirror
Correlation, causation, post hoc, etc.
Feds and RIAA need to get it right 100% of the time
They don't have to, and they don't, but yes, it's much more expensive for them to be wrong.
Google has enough resources to match IP address to a physical address.
That's unlikely. The federal government and the RIAA both have to subpoena records from ISPs to map an IP address to a real address. I doubt Google can manage it unless you hand them that information.
Most maps users, set their "default location" in google maps to their real home address. Also when you use, "My location" feature in maps, Google gets you location, and gets to associate with your gmail address.
Most maps users don't bother setting their default location. The "my location" feature relies on IP geolocation or the location information your browser has access to. Unless you're using it from a smartphone or tablet, that means all its' got is IP geolocation. They don't need Maps for that at all, since they already know what IP address you log into Gmail from. But IP geolocation has no precision; for associating per-household data with Gmail accounts, it's completely worthless.
In order for a spec to be useful, you need to be able to actually build the specified system. The reason they don't encompass things that they can't currently build in the specs is that they want the specs to be useful.
They can't. That's why they formulate the experiment with an appropriately-chosen hypothesis and a control.
The question is whether the linear-to-zero dose model is accurate. It's the most conservative reasonable model and it has some experimental basis, but low-rate radiation isn't well-tested. In this model, at the low end of dosing, only the total dose, not the rate at which it's delivered, matters. (That is, you're in the "causes cancer" realm of radiation and not "radiation poisoning".)
So, you take two populations. Expose one to a dose over a long period of time, expose the other to a dose over a short period of time. If the difference in detectable radiation-caused damage is statistically significant, you have reason to suspect that the linear dose model is inaccurate.
When you're designing an experiment, you don't want to be working with a single population with results near your detection limit, because everything near the detection limit looks the same. (Hey, we found nothing!) Hence the carefully-chosen control or comparison group.
Read them. Or look at the page title.
Your premiums go up 25-40% a year? You really need to cut a better deal.
As a matter of fact, yes: http://www.tsa.gov/research/reading/xray_screening_technology_safety_reports_jan_2012.shtm
It's entirely true in New York. Federally, it's illegal to access with intent. However, access isn't strictly the same as view. (On a computer, access is basically the same as view if it's your computer.)
Possessing. Technically, it's not illegal to view CP. It's just illegal to possess or transmit it, which makes viewing it a little tricky.
Prior to this, you are considered to possess all data that is stored on storage media that you control. That is, you "possess" every file on your hard drive.
You could claim that you "possess" remembered images, but considering you can't prove what people remember, it has no legal value.
Information certainly is tangible in that it has physical manifestations. Your bits on disk have a physical manifestation that enables the information they represent to be "possessed".
This ruling more or less says that data stored on your hard drive as the result of an automatic behavior of your computer does not qualify as possessed; it must be put on disk as the result of a willful act to possess the data.
It depends. I don't hear a lot of individuals reporting that they accidentally downloaded CP. However, IT guys that catch it on company computers (or in traffic logs, etc.) are generally very well-protected if they simply report it. Since often then only end up in that position when they're investigating problems that can turn into legal problems, trying to scrub the evidence and pretend it never existed is not really a smart choice.
Finding cached images requires a search of the hard disk, which requires seizure of the computer hardware, which requires probable cause in order to get a search and seizure warrant. So if you have probable cause, you can find data that gives you probable cause?
The real danger from browser cache files, in my mind, is when they're old enough that the no longer have strong Web history attached to them. Maybe even they're off in the unallocated space in the disk (that is, the cached files have been "deleted), so it's not even clear that they're browser cache files. Now you have some CP images that are on your computer and it's not clear to the investigator *why* they're there. That's more dangerous (to you) then if there's information that makes it clear that they are there as a result of an accident (or some other non-willful mechanism). Some judges and prosecutors won't accept unallocated-space CP (since there's no evidence of intent), but some will.
It's a technically sound ruling. Viewing images of course causes them to be stored on your hard drive (via the browser cache), and this ruling says that that mechanism does not qualify as "procurement". This is kind of like ruling that loading a program stored on your hard drive into memory does not constitute "copying" for the purposes of copyright, even though, yes, it is technically copying.
Police don't generally investigate software piracy, since it's civil instead of criminal. Something larger-scale, the FBI might get involved, but then their search warrant is going to need to be broad enough to cover "anything illicit we might happen to find on this computer"; otherwise the CP they run across is of little value. A lot of computer search warrants these days aren't drawn up that broadly any more.
There's not really a zero-tolerance policy, though. It may appear so from the law, but there are a lot of other factors. Few prosecutors (and forensic analysts, for that matter) are willing to waste their time on something that is clearly accidental. (It's even rarer that accidental downloads even get caught, because the few sting operations that are out there are built to appeal to habitual downloaders. Most incidences of CP possession are reported by a third party or are a suspect who is being picked up on another, related charge.) The innocent usually fight it in court with the obvious "accidental" defense. It's not cheap for the prosecutor to fight it in court when it can create bad press and is likely to either result in either an acquittal or a ruling exactly like this.
Right -- it requires either possession or intent. Usually demonstrating intent boils down to something similar to what the NY judge ruled. Just having evidence of the computer having accessed it at some point in time is insufficient; you need a pattern of use sufficient to convince a jury that the suspect knew what he was after and was a "repeat customer".
Of course, in the majority of these cases, it's not really all that difficult. Most of these guys have directories on their desktop labelled "Lolita" with 20 GB of carefully organized images in it.
With no way to link to vote to you.
The fact that you're holding the receipt links the vote to you.
Almost any mechanism by which you can prove to yourself after the fact that your vote was counted correctly is unacceptable, since you can prove to someone else that you voted the way you were coerced to.
ATMs aren't error-free. They also have a lot of properties that make security easier. If a problem is detected, an ATM can be turned off without angering too many people. They can record video footage of their users to catch tampering. They can record entire transaction details locally and remotely to audit errors. Errors in ATMs are almost entirely monetary, the owner of the ATM bears almost all the risk for ATM malfunction (keeping the customer happy), and said owner is already in the business of underwriting monetary risks.
That was naturally the first thing I thought, too, but it's not too dark to read! Just too burny.
Another possibility is to use hachoir to check the validity of each file's internal metadata.
Inside of a star, it's too hot for atoms to form molecular bonds, so there is no CO2.
This is true anywhere there's a crowd of appreciable size. There are plenty of locations with more people standing around and more lax security than an airport screening line. If you really wanted it to be in an airport but there were no screening lines, the check-in areas in most airports would do just fine. But that's unimaginitive. If you're going the boring route of blowing up some random people on the ground, tourist destinations, subway stations, etc. are all much more populated.
The car situation is ugly and so makes for a bad comparison.
For some kinds of fines they can simply charge the person who controls the resource, but for most crimes and illegal acts they can't. Since you personally are being charged with infringement of copyright, they have to know that it's you personally that did it. Currently, having your equipment and services being used for copyright infringement without your knowledge and when your equipment and services have a reasonable legitimate use is a very hard argument to try to make in court.
anyone using Google warganging software from their streetview team could still slurp up all the IPs and then brute fake it on another device.
Is this even a sentence? I get no idea of what it is you're claiming they'll do.