That whole situation sucked and should never have happened. Though the result was he was released on bail, charges were eventually dropped, and after a jury trial Elcomsoft was found not guilty as well. Checks and balances... executive branch overreached and abused their power, judicial smacked them down.
Compared to recent events in Russia where a couple of musicians were arrested, held without bail for over 6 months, convicted in a kangaroo court, and sentenced to 2 years in prison for singing an "offensive" song in a church.
Yeah, totalitarian. Clearly the US government is totalitarian. Or maybe you should go look up that definition before you use it again.
Show up and get entered into the database for extra scrutiny plus having all those dissidents in one group makes doing intelligence on them much easier.
What you have described is exactly the Chinese government model. Except for the hiring part - the US clearly does that at Def Con, but instead of threatening to jail people they threaten to pay them 6 figures.
Someone should tell Obama that in American we don't bar people based on race or nationality alone.
No, but there's nothing wrong with barring people based on political or military affiliation. China is not the US. They carefully control who they allow to leave China for the US, and so the Chinese citizens attending Def Con are doing so with the implicit permissions of the Chinese government.
They could make the same case for any conference on any topic.
Yeah, next time there is a hacker conference like Def Con based on complete freedom of expression and anarchy in China let us know. I won't hold my breath. And if China starts banning all US citizens from attending conferences, said conferences will no longer be held in China. But they won't, because the majority of China's economy currently revolves around placating American investors.
You can trash the US all you want, but there are a limited number of countries in the world that would even allow a conference like Def Con or Black Hat.
Wow, you must have had some screwed up relationships. What, you have never had a relationship end in a way that you didn't despise the mental image of your ex? Even relationships that don't work out can be positive life experiences, with many memories that don't have to be shameful, or whatever you think they are (even the "private" ones).
And seriously, if you think looking at porn and masturbation indicate "mental disorders", you just might be the one with the disorder (not the clear majority of the population that has done it).
the images should be the property of those in them.
Except that's completely not the way photographic copyright law works - even in Germany, AFAIK.
And why is a camera "a toy"? Cameras a a tool, and pretty much no one argues that the photos can be art.
What if the subject posed for a nude painting (from a good enough artist that it was accurate/near photo-realistic)? Would she have a right to have it destroyed because she changed her mind?
They did not enter into a contract, verbal or otherwise, that they give up the rights to their likeness.
A contract is SO not required, and totally irrelevant to the discussion. The court ruled it only applied to nude photos, not clothed, so it has nothing to do with right to likeness, etc.
Basically it was a bizarre ruling (hence all of the press about it) - just the court trying to "do the right thing." Which is noble, but probably not legal. Then again, it's Germany, who know how it will turn out. No way the same thing would ever happen in the US, as there was implicit consent to the pictures and freedom of expression concerns wouldn't allow someone to just "retract" their consent to a work of art from a legal sense...
Everyone must make in China. Otherwise they would go out of business.
Actually, with Apple's ridiculous profit margins they'd do just fine. They may only be able to put away $30B a year into the bank instead of $40B a year, but that's pretty damn far from going out of business. I'm not stating an opinion here, just a fact. It's the same debate that has gone on in several other threads on this article... should it be a company's *only* goal to maximize monetary gain, or is there room for social/environmental/economic gain as well?
Oh, and I hate to break it to you, but Steve Jobs died almost 3 years ago. He hasn't made anything or payed anyone for a long time now...
Calling someone you don't know a "hypocritical asshat" out of nowhere is most definitely trolling.
There are a lot better ways to make a point than resulting to ad hominem for no reason whatsoever. And in fact, in a half-intelligent discussion, it only hurts your argument.
So, you may believe that it's not the job of the corporation to give a shit about social or environmental issues, ok. But these same corporations *are* the ones saying that the government should stay out of their affairs, stop passing environmental and social regulations and leave it up to them and the "free market" to self-regulate.
You can't have it both ways. Conservatives either need to admit it's the government's job to reign in amoral behavior of the corporate quest for profit, or believe that corporations have the responsibility and motivation to protect the public resources, employees, economic system, etc that they use to make said profits.
That also shows you how bad Communism is. In former East Germany, Communism took a land full of Germans, and made a poor country out of it.
If I wasn't involved in this thread already I'd mod this up. I have a few German friends/former co-workers who could vouch for that. One of whom was East German and literally on the wall during its fall. He said they were actively discussing if they would ever shoot fellow citizens if ordered, and never reached a consensus (though most wanted the changes). Maybe not surprisingly he got his US citizenship a couple years ago and wants nothing to do with that time again...
The only thing that really makes sense in this post is the first 5 letters of your username. Wish I would have stopped there. The rest is borderline schizophrenic ranting, you may want to get help...
Same difference, since most of upper management's income is based on stock grants. When they say "so and so CEO made $25M last year" that's not a $25M salary, it's a $1M salary and $24M in stock.
Upper management ARE major shareholders - and that's not by accident, of course. Capitalism may not be fair, but it's not stupid.
No, one less letter to a newspaper is not going to change their publishing ability.
There are plenty of stupid letters they can still post, since there are no shortage of inane comments people have about topics they don't understand. As you have proven just now...
But she could devastate the local economy and thousands of families to increase the already profitable company's margin even more for the rich shareholders.
But hey, there is a silver lining - at least she only fucking over 16,000 HP employees and not 1M+ California employees as governor...
I should add: case in point. Many other mammals roll around in dirt daily, eat or at least put in their mouth any crap they find on the ground, and on average get sick no more often than humans (probably less).
Antibiotics are great when used with PURPOSE. But modern "cleanliness" is a cosmetic affectation. Not saying I don't bathe with soap almost every day, as well (and yes, at least washing your hands more often when in contact with other virus-carrying humans is not a bad idea) but to claim without real proof that bathing with antibacterial soaps daily is definitely helping your health is as unscientific as it gets...
You bathe for health. You don't bathe for an optimum natural balance; you do it so you get nasty pathogens off your body, and don't get infected wounds.
Apparently some health comes at the expense of some other health, like how antibiotics destroy gut bacteria but save you from death by sepsis.
You say this, but you have no proof whatsoever it's true. Why would there be any more reason to "get nasty pathogens off your body" daily than to "get nasty pathogens out of your gut" daily by taking antibiotics every day? (I dare you to take daily antibiotics long term. It will fuck up your GI system really good...) If you get a wound, clean it. But otherwise, it's a silly assertion that your skin should be inherently "antibiotic".
In fact, there is a lot of evidence that "good" bacteria prevents "bad" bacteria. So it's entirely possible that certain bacteria on the skin could act as a natural and non-invasive antibiotic.
And as for Fiat - you're doomed as well, because clearly you were stupid enough to buy Chrysler after they already failed miserably in a disastrous merger a few years earlier.
The study didn't say don't bathe, just don't use soaps and shampoos.
Not saying I'd ever follow this, but it does make some sense. You don't take daily antibiotics to clean out your GI system, why should we think daily cleansers were anything the human body was adapted to, either?
And of course, contemporary perception of beauty is another thing, entirely. 250 years ago people solved it with overpowering perfumes, makeup and wigs. If you went back there today you'd probably consider everyone totally disgusting.
And you really think it is obvious that securities fraud is way worse than actively and maliciously sabotaging a business? Fraud is bad, but what is this guy your HS friend or something? Give me a break.
Yes, 100% absolutely, I think a pump and dump scheme that defrauded hundreds of millions of dollars from many thousands of middle class families (often destroying their life savings) is worse than someone who destroyed a million dollars in servers/data. Anyone who doesn't is a bit defective, IMO. And I'm not saying the latter should be forgiven, based on what he did I think some amount of prison time is warranted. But seriously - "and none of those names help at all"? This is not an obscure name, it was an Oscar nominated movie that to the majority of the US population (and probably hundreds of millions in other countries) is now common knowledge.
One reason nobody would think of that guy you didn't name the first time when you just said "Wall Street scammers," people assume you're talking about people who committed bigger crimes
Right now if you said "Wall Street Scammers" Jordan Belfort (or at least "oh the Wolf of Wall Street" is probably the FIRST guy many people think of.
The securities fraud alone should have resulted in 10x the prison sentence he got, and that doesn't even count all of the drug running, prostitution, money laundering, etc that he wasn't even tried for. Oh, and yes, it was a Hollywood movie, but it was based on Belfort's autobiography, and he has said almost all of it is true. As well as "active and malicious".
so we're really going to be sticking with using the legal system for this.
And my other example wasn't obscure, either. TY Warner founded "Beanie Babies", is a billionaire who intentionally defrauded the US govt of $40M, and despite the recommendation of "the legal system" the judge threw out the guidelines and gave him ZERO jail time because he thought "he was a good guy". While we all know who stole $1M from the US govt by stealing it via hacking (or burglary, whatever) would get 10-20 years.
Seriously, if you haven't heard of either of these cases you must have been living in a cave over the last year. Not my problem if you are not up on the biggest current events on this topic, but it doesn't make your arguments very convincing...
Of course, you don't really need to get that far in this case because it was total apples and oranges anyways between un-named "Wall Street scammers" who aren't even facing charges, and a person convicted of felonies.
Unnamed? How about Jordan Belfort? Go watch Wolf of Wall Street and then claim he didn't face charges. He got 4 years for everything he did (could have received decades based on everything they had on him), and was out in 22 months. He still owes a ton of reparation which he has reneged on and the government has been too big of pussies to put him back in prison. Now he's selling books (including his autobiography) and doing motivational speaking for $$$.
Another one? TY Warner. Apparently he hid over $100M of income in illegal offshore tax shelters, which basically means he stole about $40M from the US government. The sentencing recommendation was 46 to 57 months, but the judge gave him probation because he gave some money to charities (so, clearly if you have money you can buy your way out of jail!)
There are dozens of other examples. But anyway, the point is they are really neither sentenced based on the harm they have done OR the crimes they are convicted of, they are apparently sentenced based on some judge's subjective value of "whether they deserve it". And not surprisingly, those with money and influence don't seem to "deserve" the same punishments even when their damages AND crime sentencing guidelines are higher...
He's going to a Federal minimum security prison. And he'll probably be paroled after 2 years. I guess there are some advantages to committing white collar corporate/data crimes. Still, he'll probably be in there with brokers and ponzi scheme operators who stole 100x what damage he caused but got the same sentence, and may even still have some of it squirreled away when they get out...
Yeah, a year in prison to someone who has no clue what he's getting into is more than enough to "teach a lesson". What does another 2-3 years add to rehabilitate him?
More importantly he SHOULD be liable for the damage he caused. Responsibility is not being arbitrarily jailed for any crime, it's having to pay restitution for damages. Of course I suppose it's hard to pay restitution when you are such a moron you destroy your career by taking out your anger on your (ex)-employer...
Four years for causing a million dollars worth of damage isn't that harsh a sentence.
I might agree with you if Wall Street scammers didn't get less for causing HUNDREDS of millions in losses to their customers. And not from a one-time "flip out", but years of knowingly and systematically screwing over everyone who trusted them...
Slashdot Mirror
That whole situation sucked and should never have happened. Though the result was he was released on bail, charges were eventually dropped, and after a jury trial Elcomsoft was found not guilty as well. Checks and balances... executive branch overreached and abused their power, judicial smacked them down.
Compared to recent events in Russia where a couple of musicians were arrested, held without bail for over 6 months, convicted in a kangaroo court, and sentenced to 2 years in prison for singing an "offensive" song in a church.
Yeah, totalitarian. Clearly the US government is totalitarian. Or maybe you should go look up that definition before you use it again.
Show up and get entered into the database for extra scrutiny plus having all those dissidents in one group makes doing intelligence on them much easier.
What you have described is exactly the Chinese government model. Except for the hiring part - the US clearly does that at Def Con, but instead of threatening to jail people they threaten to pay them 6 figures.
Someone should tell Obama that in American we don't bar people based on race or nationality alone.
No, but there's nothing wrong with barring people based on political or military affiliation. China is not the US. They carefully control who they allow to leave China for the US, and so the Chinese citizens attending Def Con are doing so with the implicit permissions of the Chinese government.
They could make the same case for any conference on any topic.
Yeah, next time there is a hacker conference like Def Con based on complete freedom of expression and anarchy in China let us know. I won't hold my breath. And if China starts banning all US citizens from attending conferences, said conferences will no longer be held in China. But they won't, because the majority of China's economy currently revolves around placating American investors.
You can trash the US all you want, but there are a limited number of countries in the world that would even allow a conference like Def Con or Black Hat.
Wow, you must have had some screwed up relationships. What, you have never had a relationship end in a way that you didn't despise the mental image of your ex? Even relationships that don't work out can be positive life experiences, with many memories that don't have to be shameful, or whatever you think they are (even the "private" ones).
And seriously, if you think looking at porn and masturbation indicate "mental disorders", you just might be the one with the disorder (not the clear majority of the population that has done it).
the images should be the property of those in them.
Except that's completely not the way photographic copyright law works - even in Germany, AFAIK.
And why is a camera "a toy"? Cameras a a tool, and pretty much no one argues that the photos can be art.
What if the subject posed for a nude painting (from a good enough artist that it was accurate/near photo-realistic)? Would she have a right to have it destroyed because she changed her mind?
They did not enter into a contract, verbal or otherwise, that they give up the rights to their likeness.
A contract is SO not required, and totally irrelevant to the discussion. The court ruled it only applied to nude photos, not clothed, so it has nothing to do with right to likeness, etc.
Basically it was a bizarre ruling (hence all of the press about it) - just the court trying to "do the right thing." Which is noble, but probably not legal. Then again, it's Germany, who know how it will turn out. No way the same thing would ever happen in the US, as there was implicit consent to the pictures and freedom of expression concerns wouldn't allow someone to just "retract" their consent to a work of art from a legal sense...
Everyone must make in China. Otherwise they would go out of business.
Actually, with Apple's ridiculous profit margins they'd do just fine. They may only be able to put away $30B a year into the bank instead of $40B a year, but that's pretty damn far from going out of business. I'm not stating an opinion here, just a fact. It's the same debate that has gone on in several other threads on this article... should it be a company's *only* goal to maximize monetary gain, or is there room for social/environmental/economic gain as well?
Oh, and I hate to break it to you, but Steve Jobs died almost 3 years ago. He hasn't made anything or payed anyone for a long time now...
PLEASE! Capitalism is the economic engine that pays for Democracy!
In the past, maybe. But today it's the economic engine that buys Democracy.
Calling someone you don't know a "hypocritical asshat" out of nowhere is most definitely trolling.
There are a lot better ways to make a point than resulting to ad hominem for no reason whatsoever. And in fact, in a half-intelligent discussion, it only hurts your argument.
So, you may believe that it's not the job of the corporation to give a shit about social or environmental issues, ok. But these same corporations *are* the ones saying that the government should stay out of their affairs, stop passing environmental and social regulations and leave it up to them and the "free market" to self-regulate.
You can't have it both ways. Conservatives either need to admit it's the government's job to reign in amoral behavior of the corporate quest for profit, or believe that corporations have the responsibility and motivation to protect the public resources, employees, economic system, etc that they use to make said profits.
That also shows you how bad Communism is. In former East Germany, Communism took a land full of Germans, and made a poor country out of it.
If I wasn't involved in this thread already I'd mod this up. I have a few German friends/former co-workers who could vouch for that. One of whom was East German and literally on the wall during its fall. He said they were actively discussing if they would ever shoot fellow citizens if ordered, and never reached a consensus (though most wanted the changes). Maybe not surprisingly he got his US citizenship a couple years ago and wants nothing to do with that time again...
The only thing that really makes sense in this post is the first 5 letters of your username. Wish I would have stopped there. The rest is borderline schizophrenic ranting, you may want to get help...
Same difference, since most of upper management's income is based on stock grants. When they say "so and so CEO made $25M last year" that's not a $25M salary, it's a $1M salary and $24M in stock.
Upper management ARE major shareholders - and that's not by accident, of course. Capitalism may not be fair, but it's not stupid.
No, one less letter to a newspaper is not going to change their publishing ability.
There are plenty of stupid letters they can still post, since there are no shortage of inane comments people have about topics they don't understand. As you have proven just now...
She might save HP, actually.
But she could devastate the local economy and thousands of families to increase the already profitable company's margin even more for the rich shareholders.
But hey, there is a silver lining - at least she only fucking over 16,000 HP employees and not 1M+ California employees as governor...
Yes, and Daimler basically did the same thing and failed. And now Fiat is already whining as if they didn't expect trouble. Your point?
I should add: case in point. Many other mammals roll around in dirt daily, eat or at least put in their mouth any crap they find on the ground, and on average get sick no more often than humans (probably less).
Antibiotics are great when used with PURPOSE. But modern "cleanliness" is a cosmetic affectation. Not saying I don't bathe with soap almost every day, as well (and yes, at least washing your hands more often when in contact with other virus-carrying humans is not a bad idea) but to claim without real proof that bathing with antibacterial soaps daily is definitely helping your health is as unscientific as it gets...
You bathe for health. You don't bathe for an optimum natural balance; you do it so you get nasty pathogens off your body, and don't get infected wounds.
Apparently some health comes at the expense of some other health, like how antibiotics destroy gut bacteria but save you from death by sepsis.
You say this, but you have no proof whatsoever it's true. Why would there be any more reason to "get nasty pathogens off your body" daily than to "get nasty pathogens out of your gut" daily by taking antibiotics every day? (I dare you to take daily antibiotics long term. It will fuck up your GI system really good...) If you get a wound, clean it. But otherwise, it's a silly assertion that your skin should be inherently "antibiotic".
In fact, there is a lot of evidence that "good" bacteria prevents "bad" bacteria. So it's entirely possible that certain bacteria on the skin could act as a natural and non-invasive antibiotic.
...why Chrysler is doomed.
And as for Fiat - you're doomed as well, because clearly you were stupid enough to buy Chrysler after they already failed miserably in a disastrous merger a few years earlier.
The study didn't say don't bathe, just don't use soaps and shampoos.
Not saying I'd ever follow this, but it does make some sense. You don't take daily antibiotics to clean out your GI system, why should we think daily cleansers were anything the human body was adapted to, either?
And of course, contemporary perception of beauty is another thing, entirely. 250 years ago people solved it with overpowering perfumes, makeup and wigs. If you went back there today you'd probably consider everyone totally disgusting.
And you really think it is obvious that securities fraud is way worse than actively and maliciously sabotaging a business? Fraud is bad, but what is this guy your HS friend or something? Give me a break.
Yes, 100% absolutely, I think a pump and dump scheme that defrauded hundreds of millions of dollars from many thousands of middle class families (often destroying their life savings) is worse than someone who destroyed a million dollars in servers/data. Anyone who doesn't is a bit defective, IMO. And I'm not saying the latter should be forgiven, based on what he did I think some amount of prison time is warranted. But seriously - "and none of those names help at all"? This is not an obscure name, it was an Oscar nominated movie that to the majority of the US population (and probably hundreds of millions in other countries) is now common knowledge.
One reason nobody would think of that guy you didn't name the first time when you just said "Wall Street scammers," people assume you're talking about people who committed bigger crimes
Right now if you said "Wall Street Scammers" Jordan Belfort (or at least "oh the Wolf of Wall Street" is probably the FIRST guy many people think of.
The securities fraud alone should have resulted in 10x the prison sentence he got, and that doesn't even count all of the drug running, prostitution, money laundering, etc that he wasn't even tried for. Oh, and yes, it was a Hollywood movie, but it was based on Belfort's autobiography, and he has said almost all of it is true. As well as "active and malicious".
so we're really going to be sticking with using the legal system for this.
And my other example wasn't obscure, either. TY Warner founded "Beanie Babies", is a billionaire who intentionally defrauded the US govt of $40M, and despite the recommendation of "the legal system" the judge threw out the guidelines and gave him ZERO jail time because he thought "he was a good guy". While we all know who stole $1M from the US govt by stealing it via hacking (or burglary, whatever) would get 10-20 years.
Seriously, if you haven't heard of either of these cases you must have been living in a cave over the last year. Not my problem if you are not up on the biggest current events on this topic, but it doesn't make your arguments very convincing...
Of course, you don't really need to get that far in this case because it was total apples and oranges anyways between un-named "Wall Street scammers" who aren't even facing charges, and a person convicted of felonies.
Unnamed? How about Jordan Belfort? Go watch Wolf of Wall Street and then claim he didn't face charges. He got 4 years for everything he did (could have received decades based on everything they had on him), and was out in 22 months. He still owes a ton of reparation which he has reneged on and the government has been too big of pussies to put him back in prison. Now he's selling books (including his autobiography) and doing motivational speaking for $$$.
Another one? TY Warner. Apparently he hid over $100M of income in illegal offshore tax shelters, which basically means he stole about $40M from the US government. The sentencing recommendation was 46 to 57 months, but the judge gave him probation because he gave some money to charities (so, clearly if you have money you can buy your way out of jail!)
There are dozens of other examples. But anyway, the point is they are really neither sentenced based on the harm they have done OR the crimes they are convicted of, they are apparently sentenced based on some judge's subjective value of "whether they deserve it". And not surprisingly, those with money and influence don't seem to "deserve" the same punishments even when their damages AND crime sentencing guidelines are higher...
You watch too many movies.
He's going to a Federal minimum security prison. And he'll probably be paroled after 2 years. I guess there are some advantages to committing white collar corporate/data crimes. Still, he'll probably be in there with brokers and ponzi scheme operators who stole 100x what damage he caused but got the same sentence, and may even still have some of it squirreled away when they get out...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Except Google's market would be something like 60% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 3% 2% 1% 1% etc.
Not 60% / 40%, which is usually pretty cutthroat competition.
Yeah, a year in prison to someone who has no clue what he's getting into is more than enough to "teach a lesson". What does another 2-3 years add to rehabilitate him?
More importantly he SHOULD be liable for the damage he caused. Responsibility is not being arbitrarily jailed for any crime, it's having to pay restitution for damages. Of course I suppose it's hard to pay restitution when you are such a moron you destroy your career by taking out your anger on your (ex)-employer...
Four years for causing a million dollars worth of damage isn't that harsh a sentence.
I might agree with you if Wall Street scammers didn't get less for causing HUNDREDS of millions in losses to their customers. And not from a one-time "flip out", but years of knowingly and systematically screwing over everyone who trusted them...