A defense lawyer has to expect the prosecution to object to everything.
"The judge sustained some, but overruled most of the objections."
So it doesn't sound like those objections had much of an impact, other than being obnoxious.
"In the following weeks, the defense would attempt to call Steven M. Bellovin, a professor at Columbia University’s computer science department, to testify on—among other things—Linux kernel versions.
The judge ruled that they had not complied with the appropriate disclosure requirements, and Bellovin was not allowed to testify."
I don't know what relevance the Linux kernel versions might have had on the case. Regardless, the defense lawyer seems to have screwed up badly.
I was shocked at how bad Ulbricht's defense was. They threw out two theories, hoping to raise reasonable doubt, and both were trounced by the government's evidence. Even if Ulbricht had really sold the site shortly after creating it and then was invited back recently to be the fall guy- he's still guilty of the conspiracies he was charged with because he came back in an admin role.
I assume he picked his own lawyer and didn't have a public defender, but they were terrible. If you know you're going to court with a dog shit defense, just plead guilty and hope for leniency. Maybe the lawyer advised that and Ulbricht refused.
No, because this doesn't do what you think it does. It's about wireless only,
Which bullshit site is telling you this? Because it's not true. This covers both mobile and fixed cable internet service. Comcast is fighting against it tooth and nail.
"Mr. Wheeler’s plan would regulate mobile and fixed broadband providers under Title II of telecommunications law, the provision that applies to common carriers. The broadband industry has been strongly opposed to using Title II, arguing it would saddle companies with outdated regulations and depress investment in upgrading their networks."
How exactly was GTAT forced to accept an impossible task by Apple? Like a thousand companies before it, GTAT management was blinded by dollars and overestimated their capabilities.
Sometimes I think they are just a bunch of publicity whores, but I haven't yet figured out what it is they get out of making announcments, doing it 1/4 assed, and quickily forgetting what they were doning and moving on to the next great headline grabber...
That's pretty much how teenagers operate in general.
Prior to that, the FBI took control of a forum mod's account. They asked "dread" in chat to look into something on the site that required him to log in as an admin. When they grabbed his laptop, a window with him logged into the site admin account was open. That's pretty damning evidence even without the journal.
Argument one will be that these devices are in no way in contradiction with the fourth amendment because nobody with RF-permiable walls can have a reasonable expectation of privacy
The Supreme Court already ruled that you DO have an expectation of privacy against wall-penetrating infra-red cameras. Prior to that, police helicopters would fly around looking for indoor pot growers.
The only other logical starting point for this era would be the beginning of the industrial revolution. But that happened slowly over several decades, so it's a lot more difficult.
The traditional "liberal" and "conservative" wings fell apart and Ginsburg joined Scalia in the majority. Scalia's decision specifically addressed future technologies like this. It's strange how he's really good on privacy issues and really bad on everything else.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. I saw an 8K video at CES. It's jaw dropping, like looking out a window. It's clearly superior to 4K.
If you had bought bitcoins a year ago, a million dollars could have made you a thousandaire.
A defense lawyer has to expect the prosecution to object to everything.
"The judge sustained some, but overruled most of the objections."
So it doesn't sound like those objections had much of an impact, other than being obnoxious.
"In the following weeks, the defense would attempt to call Steven M. Bellovin, a professor at Columbia University’s computer science department, to testify on—among other things—Linux kernel versions.
The judge ruled that they had not complied with the appropriate disclosure requirements, and Bellovin was not allowed to testify."
I don't know what relevance the Linux kernel versions might have had on the case. Regardless, the defense lawyer seems to have screwed up badly.
I was shocked at how bad Ulbricht's defense was. They threw out two theories, hoping to raise reasonable doubt, and both were trounced by the government's evidence. Even if Ulbricht had really sold the site shortly after creating it and then was invited back recently to be the fall guy- he's still guilty of the conspiracies he was charged with because he came back in an admin role.
I assume he picked his own lawyer and didn't have a public defender, but they were terrible. If you know you're going to court with a dog shit defense, just plead guilty and hope for leniency. Maybe the lawyer advised that and Ulbricht refused.
No, because this doesn't do what you think it does. It's about wireless only,
Which bullshit site is telling you this? Because it's not true. This covers both mobile and fixed cable internet service. Comcast is fighting against it tooth and nail.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2015/02/04/383520623/after-months-of-debate-fcc-poised-to-unveil-internet-rules
Wheeler is talking about applying these rules to MOBILE broadband.
That's utterly not true.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-chairman-proposes-utility-like-regulation-for-broadband-1423068563
"Mr. Wheeler’s plan would regulate mobile and fixed broadband providers under Title II of telecommunications law, the provision that applies to common carriers. The broadband industry has been strongly opposed to using Title II, arguing it would saddle companies with outdated regulations and depress investment in upgrading their networks."
Apple never bought GTAT. GTAT's old management was entirely responsible for those jobs being lost.
How exactly was GTAT forced to accept an impossible task by Apple? Like a thousand companies before it, GTAT management was blinded by dollars and overestimated their capabilities.
your informative comment will get moderated into oblivion.
(Score:5, Interesting)
Sometimes I think they are just a bunch of publicity whores, but I haven't yet figured out what it is they get out of making announcments, doing it 1/4 assed, and quickily forgetting what they were doning and moving on to the next great headline grabber...
That's pretty much how teenagers operate in general.
The point is that making an "airlock" big enough for a large package creates several major problems.
Most Amazon boxes are much larger than a tray of milk bottles.
Absolutely. My point is that all of Ulbricht's lawyer's claims and theories are completely destroyed by the evidence the FBI collected.
But then you have to just remember how awful JJ's Star Trek movies were.
Really? The first one was terrible because nothing can live up to the expectations of angry nerds.
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'
http://www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-film-as-fun-watchable,14333/
Lay off the meth, homey.
He admits to creating the site originally, but claims he sold it or gave it away before any drugs were sold. So he can't be *that* dumb.
Prior to that, the FBI took control of a forum mod's account. They asked "dread" in chat to look into something on the site that required him to log in as an admin. When they grabbed his laptop, a window with him logged into the site admin account was open. That's pretty damning evidence even without the journal.
I've been to 4chan zero times. But you have to recognize that the site has made a huge impact on internet culture.
In fact, how you will ever suspect that they scanned you so you can try to show they did?
Because they knew something that couldn't have known otherwise.
That was written by Antonin Scalia, who is usually a total douche, but occasionally gets things right.
Argument one will be that these devices are in no way in contradiction with the fourth amendment because nobody with RF-permiable walls can have a reasonable expectation of privacy
The Supreme Court already ruled that you DO have an expectation of privacy against wall-penetrating infra-red cameras. Prior to that, police helicopters would fly around looking for indoor pot growers.
The US Supreme Court did the same thing in 2001.
If you can show that the cops used one without a warrant, your case gets tossed.
The only other logical starting point for this era would be the beginning of the industrial revolution. But that happened slowly over several decades, so it's a lot more difficult.
The cops need a warrant to use these things is because of an interesting Supreme Court decision from 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
The traditional "liberal" and "conservative" wings fell apart and Ginsburg joined Scalia in the majority. Scalia's decision specifically addressed future technologies like this. It's strange how he's really good on privacy issues and really bad on everything else.