I like that. Will the judge go after the computer vendors because the "home" key does not take him home? or because after hitting the "escape" key, he finds himself still trapped in a long and boring hearing? I can imagine a class action suit on the behalf of horny Japanese angry because the "insert" key doesn't result in coitus. (The word commonly used to translate "insert" has a sexual connotation in Japanese.)
It seems to me, that if even if the evidence was collected illegally, as long as there is a high degree of confidence of its authenticity (e.g., the law enforcement hasn't cooked it up to try and frame the suspect), then it should be used.
....
Not sure what to do if you're not sure who collected the illegal evidence (anonymous tipsters) though.
I can tell you what unscrupulous law enforcement officials would do with the system you describe: they would say that all illegally obtained evidence was obtained through anonymous tipsters. It may be that people getting away with crimes because of techicalities annoys you, it annoys me, too. However, the inadmissability of illegally obtained evidence is the only thing that stops unscrupulous law enforcement officials from routinely obtaining evidence illegally.
We have that option when it comes to shredders and incinerators for our paper correspondence.
We have that option with hard drives, too. For the amount of pr0n^H^H^H^Hdata you can keep on a hard drive, it's probably cheaper per unit of data to burn your hard drive than it is to burn an equivalent amount of paper-borne war3z^H^H^H^H^Hdata.
Right on! Just because we don't like something doesn't mean it should be illegal. Just because the MPAA doesn't like fair use doesn't mean fair use should be repealed. Just because the nerd community doesn't want their questionable pr0n and war3z to get them in trouble doesn't mean that the rules of evidence should be changed to keep that from happening.
Sounds to me like you went to a piss-poor college, or took only the classes intended for athletic scholarship idiots^H^H^H^H^H^Hstudents. When I was in college, if I stepped into a class like the one you describe, my next step was out the door. You really should have demanded more from your professors.
Exactly, why should they be treated any differently? As I understand things, if they can piece together the shreds of an incriminating document, they can get it admitted as evidence. If microfilms are put into the fire but pulled out in time to extract the information on them, that information can be used as evidence.
Think of a hard drive as a massive piece of paper. Destroying the paper by burning it is the most secure method of denying access to its contents. Erasing the notes made on the paper with a pink eraser is significantly less secure. Imagine a law stating that documents written in pencil that had been erased could not be admitted to evidence. That's what you're doing when you overwrite a file on your hard drive. If you have truly dangerous and incriminating information to destroy, destroy it! Don't cheap out and try to re-use the media, especially with the cost of media being so low.
For all that we may be encouraged that this judge wants to protect citizens from over-zealous law enforcement officials, we should be more discouraged at his total cluelessness. Really, this statement is proof that the judicial system currently in place is ill-equipped to deal with any issue relating to technology.
I seem to remember numerous mystery novels and tv shows in which the bad guy was caught when the notepad they made their plans on was found and the detective/hero was able to read the impressions made on the sheets below. While I may not like the idea of the FBI going over my drives with a fine-toothed comb, it seems to me that the standard isn't really any different. Saying that "delete should really delete" is like saying that any evidence which a suspect has attempted to destroy should be excluded. From a legal perspective, it's ridiculous.
From a software design perspective, having delete really delete things can be a nightmare. No matter how screamingly stupid the customer was to delete a given data item, no matter how many annoying warnings you put up that they will not be able to undo the deletion, it is frequently impossible to convince them that your program didn't "eat" their data. Being able to recover "deleted" data after such an event often means the difference between keeping the customer and losing them to someone else whose software doesn't actually delete things.
There is nothing you can do about the charges already on your bill, but I do know that you can get a special deal on international long distance. I have family in Ukraine and had been paying over $3/min for those calls. I switched to Sprint and got a special rate for calls to Ukraine of $0.34. Good luck.
I recently switched to Sprint and am still getting calls from them to switch. What with all the slamming going on out there, maybe they assume you've been slammed and are trying to get you back.
IIRC and IANAL, it's a $5000 fine for continuing to call after you have told them to remove you from their list. To be sure you can prove that you told them to remove you from the list, record the conversation in which you tell them to remove you from their list and take note of the date and time. It's a good idea to get the person on the other end of the line to say who they're with while you're recording. Then, record any additional calls, also noting date and time.
I still prefer to just mess with them. My favorite is to just pretend the earpiece on my phone is broken. They hate that!
No, I cannot cite any evidence. I do remember reading somewhere a quote from an employee of the PTO to that effect. I don't really need evidence, though, because I can plot the relationship over time of the PTO's budget to the number of patent applications filed. They are getting paid less and less to handle more and more work. There is also the fact that payscales in government work almost never keep pace with economic up-turns, so that the difference in wages between the public and private sectors is greater the longer a boom lasts. Then there is the fact that the budget for the PTO is in danger of being cut (for this, I do have a cite: http://www.ied.pios.c om/ news/indnews/Eng_Managers/IN7_12_2000.asp). So, even if you don't accept the evidence that lack of money is not the problem, you must agree that cutting funding is a step in the wrong direction, unless you think we should abolish the PTO altogether and replace it with something else.
We already have such an organization. They are called the US Patent and Trademark Office. They have gone on record numerous times as being unsure about some of these patents but unable to research prior art properly due to lack of funding. The lack of funding also has the effect of driving all but the dullest and least adventurous into the private sector; many of those who leave get jobs as IP attorneys.
The result: a class of talented IP attorneys with an unholy knowledge of the inner workings of the patent office. These attorneys are not necessarily concerned with the enforceability of the patents they secure for their clients. In fact, their interests are best served if they can get a large number of questionable patents, creating work for themselves (and their college buddies) in IP litigation.
As with a lot of things, you get what you pay for. The government is not committed to spending enough on the USPTO to ensure that they can hire quality people to do quality work. On the other side of the equation, investors *know* that the only thing valuable in a tech company is the IP, so companies generally make lots of money available for the hiring of IP lawyers and the filing of potentially dubious patents. The outcome easy to predict.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC, Linus works in a non-technical capacity at Transmeta.
You know of a free source for Ritalin?
As far as delete is concerned...
I like that. Will the judge go after the computer vendors because the "home" key does not take him home? or because after hitting the "escape" key, he finds himself still trapped in a long and boring hearing? I can imagine a class action suit on the behalf of horny Japanese angry because the "insert" key doesn't result in coitus. (The word commonly used to translate "insert" has a sexual connotation in Japanese.)
Right on! Just because we don't like something doesn't mean it should be illegal. Just because the MPAA doesn't like fair use doesn't mean fair use should be repealed. Just because the nerd community doesn't want their questionable pr0n and war3z to get them in trouble doesn't mean that the rules of evidence should be changed to keep that from happening.
Sounds to me like you went to a piss-poor college, or took only the classes intended for athletic scholarship idiots^H^H^H^H^H^Hstudents. When I was in college, if I stepped into a class like the one you describe, my next step was out the door. You really should have demanded more from your professors.
Exactly, why should they be treated any differently? As I understand things, if they can piece together the shreds of an incriminating document, they can get it admitted as evidence. If microfilms are put into the fire but pulled out in time to extract the information on them, that information can be used as evidence.
Think of a hard drive as a massive piece of paper. Destroying the paper by burning it is the most secure method of denying access to its contents. Erasing the notes made on the paper with a pink eraser is significantly less secure. Imagine a law stating that documents written in pencil that had been erased could not be admitted to evidence. That's what you're doing when you overwrite a file on your hard drive. If you have truly dangerous and incriminating information to destroy, destroy it! Don't cheap out and try to re-use the media, especially with the cost of media being so low.
For all that we may be encouraged that this judge wants to protect citizens from over-zealous law enforcement officials, we should be more discouraged at his total cluelessness. Really, this statement is proof that the judicial system currently in place is ill-equipped to deal with any issue relating to technology.
I seem to remember numerous mystery novels and tv shows in which the bad guy was caught when the notepad they made their plans on was found and the detective/hero was able to read the impressions made on the sheets below. While I may not like the idea of the FBI going over my drives with a fine-toothed comb, it seems to me that the standard isn't really any different. Saying that "delete should really delete" is like saying that any evidence which a suspect has attempted to destroy should be excluded. From a legal perspective, it's ridiculous.
From a software design perspective, having delete really delete things can be a nightmare. No matter how screamingly stupid the customer was to delete a given data item, no matter how many annoying warnings you put up that they will not be able to undo the deletion, it is frequently impossible to convince them that your program didn't "eat" their data. Being able to recover "deleted" data after such an event often means the difference between keeping the customer and losing them to someone else whose software doesn't actually delete things.
There is nothing you can do about the charges already on your bill, but I do know that you can get a special deal on international long distance. I have family in Ukraine and had been paying over $3/min for those calls. I switched to Sprint and got a special rate for calls to Ukraine of $0.34. Good luck.
I recently switched to Sprint and am still getting calls from them to switch. What with all the slamming going on out there, maybe they assume you've been slammed and are trying to get you back.
IIRC and IANAL, it's a $5000 fine for continuing to call after you have told them to remove you from their list. To be sure you can prove that you told them to remove you from the list, record the conversation in which you tell them to remove you from their list and take note of the date and time. It's a good idea to get the person on the other end of the line to say who they're with while you're recording. Then, record any additional calls, also noting date and time.
I still prefer to just mess with them. My favorite is to just pretend the earpiece on my phone is broken. They hate that!
No, I cannot cite any evidence. I do remember reading somewhere a quote from an employee of the PTO to that effect. I don't really need evidence, though, because I can plot the relationship over time of the PTO's budget to the number of patent applications filed. They are getting paid less and less to handle more and more work. There is also the fact that payscales in government work almost never keep pace with economic up-turns, so that the difference in wages between the public and private sectors is greater the longer a boom lasts. Then there is the fact that the budget for the PTO is in danger of being cut (for this, I do have a cite: http://www.ied.pios.c om/ news/indnews/Eng_Managers/IN7_12_2000.asp). So, even if you don't accept the evidence that lack of money is not the problem, you must agree that cutting funding is a step in the wrong direction, unless you think we should abolish the PTO altogether and replace it with something else.
We already have such an organization. They are called the US Patent and Trademark Office. They have gone on record numerous times as being unsure about some of these patents but unable to research prior art properly due to lack of funding. The lack of funding also has the effect of driving all but the dullest and least adventurous into the private sector; many of those who leave get jobs as IP attorneys.
The result: a class of talented IP attorneys with an unholy knowledge of the inner workings of the patent office. These attorneys are not necessarily concerned with the enforceability of the patents they secure for their clients. In fact, their interests are best served if they can get a large number of questionable patents, creating work for themselves (and their college buddies) in IP litigation.
As with a lot of things, you get what you pay for. The government is not committed to spending enough on the USPTO to ensure that they can hire quality people to do quality work. On the other side of the equation, investors *know* that the only thing valuable in a tech company is the IP, so companies generally make lots of money available for the hiring of IP lawyers and the filing of potentially dubious patents. The outcome easy to predict.