I meant the same thing he did — even if it is not immediately obvious to some. The two meanings are two sides of the same coin.
The government's power to regulate in the "good" sense of the word (that statists like the AC above have in mind) inevitably means the abuses I am talking about.
As a wise man said long ago: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.".
When renovating our rental properties, we paid for an Ethernet-jack in every room. The runs were terminating in a single closet allowing tenants to hook up to the DSL- or cable "modem" of their choice. Don't know, how much the feature helped us raise in rent, but pretty sure, it helped some.
The "coordinating with raw internet providers" part, however, is made difficult — even for buildings large enough — by the regulatory burden imposed by the local governments, who use their (unjust) power to grant permits to extort perks like free service for themselves or their pet causes.
It should be open to competition — along with electricity and sewers. Unfortunately, too many still believe the "natural monopoly" myth, that the governments love to perpetuate...
GPS would not have helped in either case - both planes were where they were supposed to be.
Well, if you want to be truly serious, none of the other incidents are/were like those poor Koreans. Soviet government knew the plane was civilian, but they shot it down anyway.
In most other cases discussed, the air-defense personnel either didn't expect a plane to be there, or mistook it for a legitimate target.
there are rumors in some intelligence circles that this flight was actually shot down by the Russians and Ukraine took the rap because they could play the "Duh! We so stupid! Not know what we doing! Soldiers were drunk!" card in exchange for some sort of special favor from Russia.
Not a few Ukrainian officers and soldiers staged in Crimea defected to Russia, when the aggressor openly invaded the peninsula in February 2014.
Some of them, no doubt, have taken Putin's shilling even earlier...
his online payment processor Stripe has decided that his companies, all of them, qualify as forbidden "weapons and munitions; gunpowder and other explosives" services.
This is yet another manifestation of the tactics employed by Obama's Justice Department. Unable to outlaw a particular activity (such as ammunition sales, or escort services — or even cigar-sales) itself, they lean on banks and payment-processors threatening them with audits if they don't stop serving the "undesirable" merchants and services-providers. The name is "Operation Chokepoint" and it has been in the news for a while. About time it made it to Slashdot too.
This — "the most technologically-advanced Administration in history" — is what all the cool kids (not a few/.-ers among them) voted for in 2008 and 2012...
Note, the DoJ is not even alleging any illegality — only "high likelihood" thereof. Nor are they threatening actual prosecution — only an audit. Unfortunately, the audits themselves — even if you end up fully clean at the end — are sufficiently painful and expensive, that banks choose to drop the few clients to avoid the experience.
It is particularly evil, because it is not the result of a prosecution, that is used to cow the victims to comply with the government's whim, but the very process itself. Results, you see, require the Executive to argue its point in front of the skeptical Judiciary. The process, however, can be made very painful without any repercussions — DoJ don't need to prove anything to cause a person or a company as much pain as they please.
Thanks. "CIPAV", huh? The Wikipedia page claims, FBI has thought legal approval to use the tool. I wonder, if they've covered their asses in this case — would've been good for the rest of us to see it appealed and the Supreme Court to decide.
Although, the tools was not used to obtain any evidence — only to deanonymize, so, maybe, there is no purchase in appealing for the convict...
leads scientists to be far too cautious, far too easily disrupted by the doubt-mongering of denialists
Can't we just shoot these doubt-mongering denialists and move on to the great new world of next Tuesday? What is it, that keeps the rest of us so cautious in dealing with these contemptible human beings? They are traitors to humanity and should be executed — instead of being allowed to affect the good scientists' work, while secretly scheming to escape to a private Elysium of their own, when the Earth is no longer habitable.
We — historians of science, politicians, music professors, and actors alike — know better!
The simplest way to test if what they did was wrong and illegal is what the reaction would have been if a private citizen had done the same thing to the FBI.
And then when someone cites chapter and verse of the law you reply with a wikipedia link saying it isn't correct.
The citation requested must not only refer to actual law, but the referenced law must be applicable. Fraud is not — in my opinion.
The definition in that chapter is clear: "For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services." They were expecting the honest service of the specific newspaper.
No, I don't see, how the "victim" was deprived of anything, tangible or not. He could still go to the real seattletimes.com, nothing was taken away from him, nor was tricked into performing services. The law you are offering protects merchants (purveyors of tangible goods) and service providers (intangibles) against, essentially, non-payments.
Under your reading, most April 1st jokes would be "wire fraud"...
Finally, the law is limited to interstate communications, which probably did not occur. But that — had it been my only rebuttal — would've been weaseling out on my part.
Their malware is covered under [...]
What malware? They sent him a link, which he clicked, thus revealing his IP-address...
15 USC 1114 seems to have that covered quite thoroughly
False. Go back to law school. The 15 USC 1114 starts with "... use in commerce...". The FBI did not engage in any commerce...
Defamation is pretty strong
There is no law named "defamation" — you know, what "citation" means, you've offered quite a few already (even though none apply). Why did you change to a generic legal term again?
In the United States, mail and wire fraud is any fraudulent scheme to intentionally deprive another of property or honest services via mail or wire communication. It has been a federal crime in the United States since 1872.
1) Identify theft.
2) Slander of Title.
3) Copyright Infringement.
4) Trademark Infringement.
5) Defamation of Character.
These may be legal terms, but not actual laws. Please, try again — cite an actual law (Federal or Washington State's). If you can, mention the paragraph/verse you think was violated. Thank you.
face worse penalties for breaking the law than the general public
Though I agree with you in general, we are yet to find an actual law, that the FBI have broken dealing with this case... All of the accusers so far have been unable to offer a citation.
There are a number of problems with our law enforcement, but that's not the topic here.
"except under oath"? Don't tell that to Mark Furhman, who perjured himself in the O.J. Simpson trial, and was fined $200
I would not tell him that, alright. What's your point? That punishment for perjury could range from nothing to a small fine to impeachement? Nothing new here — my point was, such lying is illegal — not what the punishment for it is (or should be).
There is no such law. I asked for a citation — please, be exact.
Or more practically, try trademark dilution by tarnishment
Ok, that's better. But have you read that law? It states — right at the beginning — that it is only applicable to commercial misuses of trademarks:
Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact [....]
But that's my reading — IANAL... Seattle Times has plenty of lawyers — the law entitles them to damages. If they don't attempt to sue, then their legal department must have found, the law does not apply, contrary to what (some of) Slashdot thinks.
The Internet's been abuzz the past 48 hours about reports the FBI distributed malware via a fake Seattle Times news website.
From TFA:
When the suspect clicked on the link, FBI software revealed his location and IP address to agents working the case.
If there is a slashdotter, who — from reading the above "description" — does not realize, that there was no "malware" installed on the doofus' computer and the suspect's IP was obtained simply from the FBI's web-server log, ought to close his account (and change his name)...
Trust between which parties? The fake was sent to only one person — the suspect, who then became a convict. The suspect knows very well now, that it was a fake — so he continues to trust the actual Seattle Times as much as he did before.
Also, we all know, that it is perfectly legal for police to lie — except, of course, under oath. So, which trust are you talking about?
Slashdot Mirror
I meant the same thing he did — even if it is not immediately obvious to some. The two meanings are two sides of the same coin.
The government's power to regulate in the "good" sense of the word (that statists like the AC above have in mind) inevitably means the abuses I am talking about.
As a wise man said long ago: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.".
When renovating our rental properties, we paid for an Ethernet-jack in every room. The runs were terminating in a single closet allowing tenants to hook up to the DSL- or cable "modem" of their choice. Don't know, how much the feature helped us raise in rent, but pretty sure, it helped some.
The "coordinating with raw internet providers" part, however, is made difficult — even for buildings large enough — by the regulatory burden imposed by the local governments, who use their (unjust) power to grant permits to extort perks like free service for themselves or their pet causes.
Why, just the other day we were discussing a wonderfully feel-good plan to give residents of New York City public housing "free" broadband service. An incumbent like Comcast might be able to absorb the costs (spreading them among the rest of us, rather). But a smaller would-be competitor might not...
And NYC will not be the first to do such a thing — Los Angeles is already working on it.
It is regulated by local governments — like those "utilities" — and that's why it sucks like them too.
It should be open to competition — along with electricity and sewers. Unfortunately, too many still believe the "natural monopoly" myth, that the governments love to perpetuate...
To paraphrase Joseph Heller: "Just because you are paranoid, does not mean, Putin is not after you..."
Well, if you want to be truly serious, none of the other incidents are/were like those poor Koreans. Soviet government knew the plane was civilian, but they shot it down anyway.
In most other cases discussed, the air-defense personnel either didn't expect a plane to be there, or mistook it for a legitimate target.
A possible exception is the crash of the Poland government's plane in 2010. Russia certainly had a motive for causing it — not that anybody ever proved anything, of course.
I had this signature before the sentiment went mainstream. But welcome to the club...
Not a few Ukrainian officers and soldiers staged in Crimea defected to Russia, when the aggressor openly invaded the peninsula in February 2014.
Some of them, no doubt, have taken Putin's shilling even earlier...
Or the shooting down of airliners by Americans...
That was in 1988 — before Reagan-intensified initiative was completed and GPS came into common usage.
Or the Ukrainians - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Interestingly enough, the Ukrainians responsible for that disaster are currently Russians — the missile came from Crimea...
If only GPS were enough to stop the shootings-down of airliners by Russians...
This is yet another manifestation of the tactics employed by Obama's Justice Department. Unable to outlaw a particular activity (such as ammunition sales, or escort services — or even cigar-sales) itself, they lean on banks and payment-processors threatening them with audits if they don't stop serving the "undesirable" merchants and services-providers. The name is "Operation Chokepoint" and it has been in the news for a while. About time it made it to Slashdot too.
This — "the most technologically-advanced Administration in history" — is what all the cool kids (not a few /.-ers among them) voted for in 2008 and 2012...
Note, the DoJ is not even alleging any illegality — only "high likelihood" thereof. Nor are they threatening actual prosecution — only an audit. Unfortunately, the audits themselves — even if you end up fully clean at the end — are sufficiently painful and expensive, that banks choose to drop the few clients to avoid the experience.
It is particularly evil, because it is not the result of a prosecution, that is used to cow the victims to comply with the government's whim, but the very process itself. Results, you see, require the Executive to argue its point in front of the skeptical Judiciary. The process, however, can be made very painful without any repercussions — DoJ don't need to prove anything to cause a person or a company as much pain as they please.
Although half the crew died, I, for one, am astounded, that the other half survived in a crash, that "completely destroyed" the ship...
No, what we ascribe to terrorists are perfectly overt violence...
A single suspect being fooled into clicking on a bogus link by the FBI does not affect my taking things at face value.
Thanks. "CIPAV", huh? The Wikipedia page claims, FBI has thought legal approval to use the tool. I wonder, if they've covered their asses in this case — would've been good for the rest of us to see it appealed and the Supreme Court to decide.
Although, the tools was not used to obtain any evidence — only to deanonymize, so, maybe, there is no purchase in appealing for the convict...
Can't we just shoot these doubt-mongering denialists and move on to the great new world of next Tuesday? What is it, that keeps the rest of us so cautious in dealing with these contemptible human beings? They are traitors to humanity and should be executed — instead of being allowed to affect the good scientists' work, while secretly scheming to escape to a private Elysium of their own, when the Earth is no longer habitable.
We — historians of science, politicians, music professors, and actors alike — know better!
Lying to the FBI (or any other federal agents) is illegal. The other way is not.
They don't alright. And they haven't. Not in this case, anyway.
The citation requested must not only refer to actual law, but the referenced law must be applicable. Fraud is not — in my opinion.
No, I don't see, how the "victim" was deprived of anything, tangible or not. He could still go to the real seattletimes.com, nothing was taken away from him, nor was tricked into performing services. The law you are offering protects merchants (purveyors of tangible goods) and service providers (intangibles) against, essentially, non-payments.
Under your reading, most April 1st jokes would be "wire fraud"...
Finally, the law is limited to interstate communications, which probably did not occur. But that — had it been my only rebuttal — would've been weaseling out on my part.
What malware? They sent him a link, which he clicked, thus revealing his IP-address...
False. Go back to law school. The 15 USC 1114 starts with "... use in commerce ...". The FBI did not engage in any commerce...
There is no law named "defamation" — you know, what "citation" means, you've offered quite a few already (even though none apply). Why did you change to a generic legal term again?
No fraud took place. Hoax, perhaps, but not fraud...
Keep trying...
The definition of "wire fraud" reads:
Does not apply to sting operations...
Why wouldn't you post a link to this additional information?
These may be legal terms, but not actual laws. Please, try again — cite an actual law (Federal or Washington State's). If you can, mention the paragraph/verse you think was violated. Thank you.
Though I agree with you in general, we are yet to find an actual law, that the FBI have broken dealing with this case... All of the accusers so far have been unable to offer a citation.
There are a number of problems with our law enforcement, but that's not the topic here.
I would not tell him that, alright. What's your point? That punishment for perjury could range from nothing to a small fine to impeachement? Nothing new here — my point was, such lying is illegal — not what the punishment for it is (or should be).
There is no such law. I asked for a citation — please, be exact.
Ok, that's better. But have you read that law? It states — right at the beginning — that it is only applicable to commercial misuses of trademarks:
But that's my reading — IANAL... Seattle Times has plenty of lawyers — the law entitles them to damages. If they don't attempt to sue, then their legal department must have found, the law does not apply, contrary to what (some of) Slashdot thinks.
From TFA:
If there is a slashdotter, who — from reading the above "description" — does not realize, that there was no "malware" installed on the doofus' computer and the suspect's IP was obtained simply from the FBI's web-server log, ought to close his account (and change his name)...
Please, cite the violated law. Thank you.
Trust between which parties? The fake was sent to only one person — the suspect, who then became a convict. The suspect knows very well now, that it was a fake — so he continues to trust the actual Seattle Times as much as he did before.
Also, we all know, that it is perfectly legal for police to lie — except, of course, under oath. So, which trust are you talking about?