They are going to argue that its not 'fruit of poison' as long as they reasonably could found it thru normal means.
See, the problem with that is it ignores how they actually got it.
When you have information you're not supposed to have, and you can look back and then put together a bullshit argument about how you could have gotten it, it has nothing at all to do with reality.
It is the fruit of the poison tree, because it was obtained without probable cause, and because the origins of it are being hidden from the accused.
It's perjury, plain and simple. And if law enforcement is being encouraged to commit perjury, that pretty much means the justice system is completely fucked.
It's taking information you can't justify having, and then effectively framing someone you believe is guilty but couldn't prove to a standard the courts would reject by re-building your evidence retroactively to suit your story.
If the cops are doing that, they should be imprisoned, or shot on sight.
Parallel construction is effectively perjury at a huge scale.
What it's doing is giving them access to information they either aren't supposed to have, or are unwilling to admit to having. And then they come up with a carefully crafted lie about how they might have found this information from another source.
This bit of creative writing has the effect of denying you the ability to see the evidence against you, and know where it comes from.
It allows them to operate with impunity, while essentially denying you a fair trial... because the bullshit story they make up about how they heard from a guy who heard it form a guy is exactly that: bullshit.
It's government agencies who are bypassing decades of court decisions about proper procedures and rules of evidence, and using secret laws and bold-faced lies to be able to trump up whatever charges they have, with information obtained through questionable means, and the lying to suppress the real source of the information to cheat the system and deny you the ability to know how they really got it.
This is as bad as any Soviet era secret police ever was, precisely because it bypasses all legal safeguards, and totally ignores the law as it pertains to knowing the evidence against you and how it is obtained.
Any police agency doing this is, in my opinion, committing a crime. There's no other way to see this other than these organizations lying to courts, and providing local police with a fucking manual to also lie to the courts.
By way of example, the team found that a single criminal-operated reshipping service can earn a yearly revenue of over 7.3 million US dollars, most of which is profit.
Wow, that sounds even better than the other MLMs, tell me more!!
You joke, but what really happens is the US carriers have decided "we'll call it whatever we like for marketing purposes". Which means someone comes along, defines a standard, and then US carriers co-opt the name and say "yup, we have that", when in reality they don't have that.
This has nothing to do with metric, and everything to do with US corporations saying "Yeah, we totally have 4G", except it's not really 4G, it's some marketing term which has nothing to do with 4G.
So, you know, stop letting your companies take the name of a specific bit of technology and say they're using it when they aren't. Then you won't have the problem of the US glaringly not running the technology they claim.
But, apparently, part of corporate free speech is mis-representing your service to your customers.
Well, you say that... but you should check which treaties your government may have signed which imposed an even more evil version on you.
The last bunch of trade treaties the US has been involved in have basically added a LOT of scope creep to a LOT of countries when it comes to copyright and digital rights.
Which means your not giving a shit might be trumped by the fact that your government was cajoled into making you subject to something similar or even more restrictive.
Surprise, bad laws favoring industry is a large export of the US these days -- they're in the business of entrenching the profits of multinationals into law these days.
I wouldn't assume you aren't covered by that law, or a local equivalent. In fact, I'd assume you are.
Well, I've only ever seen them on TV... don't take my summary to be a rigorous history of the use of police call boxes in the UK, just a summary of the article which described it in context of trademark.
The Met got told they don't have trademark. BBC is trying to say they now have the trademark because nobody uses that image for pretty much anything else.
Which then makes the prospect of an actual historical piece running afoul of trademark by saying you can't depict real things any more... and that would be very odd indeed. I mean, if you had a piece set in the 50's, wouldn't you expect to see some form of these around?
It basically says any at a digital lock, no matter how incompetently and pathetically written, is considered legally sacrosanct.
It entrenches in law that, if they intended to keep you out, even if they were stupid morons who wrote something which could never work, then that digital lock is to be treated as a real physical barrier.
It was written to allow them to define and police piracy. And nobody gave a damn about the fact that is was entirely to the benefit of the corporations who wrote the law and gave themselves so many loopholes as to be an utterly useless piece of legislation.
But, yes, most of us know just how bad the DMCA actually is.
Well, since it's a practical test of real-world things and implemented in MILLIONS of vehicles and was discovered by people doing real-world verification... AND they've admitted to it... it's a little late for that.
But make no mistake, the DMCA was written in such a way as to stack the deck for corporations and is an entirely one-sided bit of law which only represents corporate interests.
The summary is confusing, the second from last article is easier:
In the 50's, there used to be police call boxes. Also in the 50's, the TARDIS was a police call box. The police have since stopped using those boxes.
At one point the Met tried to assert trademark on the police call boxes. They got told that since other police departments used them, it wasn't a trademark of the Met, but more of a general thing.
Now, the BBC is saying that the police public call box is now inextricably linked to the TARDIS and wish to have it declared as their trademark.
And, since nobody else has been using the police call box for anything except as the TARDIS -- depending on who you ask, it is now an image uniquely associated with Dr. Who, and could therefore be a valid trademark.
Go with the cynical view: the goal is to make the weaker US standards appear compliant with/equal to the stronger EU standards so the US makers could sell to Europe under a negotiated treaty.
Short version, "we're already risking American lives by having less safety, so why not risk EU lives and pretend the safety standards are the same".
This way instead of building one set to Euro-spec, and one to US-spec, you get the US-spec certified as "close enough". In the process you undermine the Euro-spec.
It's using a treaty to make an end-run around regulations, which is what most of these damned treaties seem to be doing lately.
"The Fair Work Commission didn't find that unfriending someone on Facebook constitutes workplace bullying," Josh Bornstein, a lawyer at the firm Maurice Blackburn, told ABC News.
"What the Fair Work Commission did find is that a pattern of unreasonable behaviour, hostile behaviour, belittling behaviour over about a two-year period, which featured a range of different behaviours including berating, excluding and so on, constituted a workplace bullying."
First off, nobody said anything to the contrary.
Second, this is precisely WHY Facebook is annoying... who do you want as your "friends"? If it's your actual friends, why are you including your co-workers? The reverse is also true.
If a co-worker said "hey, we should be friends on Facebook", my response is probably going to be along the lines of "or not".
But suddenly it seems to have become a social obligation to friend everybody. Which is ridiculous.
I don't want a single account for my "friends" and my "work acquaintances"... I wouldn't want those people in the same damned room. I wouldn't invite both sets to the same event. Why the hell would I want them in common on Facebook?
So... when people spend all that time programming, is the assumption these programs sit like museum pieces in their pristine glory to be admired?
Or do you acknowledge that at some point people will actually use the programs?
Because, you know, not planning on how people actually used all this glorious programming would pretty much scream "totally pointless endeavor".
You don't have to like VR, but it the sum total of your argument is "computers are for programming not using"... well, welcome to your pointless existence. Please keep your existential malaise to yourself.
Well, if a company is a legal entity with free speech and the ability to buy politicians... then when a company does something bad, they need to be punished. If I commit a crime nobody gives a damn about destroying me financially or incarcerating me.
If you send the message companies are free to do all sorts of illegal things and will have no consequences of any substance, then the companies will just do anything, and the knowledge that people don't wish to harm the company will keep them safe.
You can't coddle them and validate that they can do shit like this without any significant penalty. Otherwise as soon as they can say that they stand to gain more money than they would pay in penalties, they'll all just do it.
You can't just say "well, gee there evil corporations, try to be less evil next time". Because then what you have is every corporation will take that as license to do anything they want to without penalty.
So, from the people who paid a premium for these cars, or now have lower resale value, or the simple fact that a lot more pollution was generated than claimed... this crap needs some punishments of significance.
If your "middle ground" is pathetic and useless penalties, that's not a damned middle ground. It should hurt like hell, and leave a lasting institutional memory that you can never do shit like that, and it should make everyone else watching know damned well there are consequences.
Anything less isn't a "middle ground", it's letting corporations get away with anything under the guise of how it could harm the company and its employees. They didn't give a shit about the law or their customers, so why exactly do we owe them a duty of hardly doing anything in response?
Rather than sparking more discussion, government-proposed technical approaches would almost certainly be perceived as proposals to introduce 'backdoors' or vulnerabilities in technology products and services and increase tensions rather [than] build cooperation
Well, gee, I don't know how we'd get the idea that proposals to introduce 'backdoors' might actually be proposals to introduce 'backdoors'. You can't investigate how to introduce 'backdoor's and not expect people to perceive this is what you're doing.
It's a backdoor. A weakness. And it sure as hell will get attacked to exploit. You can't put in the skeleton-keys to the kingdom and not expect everybody to attack that. That includes people that government keeps telling us are trying (and succeeding) to break into our stuff.
And then everything is vulnerable.
Of course now that they've publicly acknowledged they want to, they'll just move on to either doing it anyway in public, or just doing it so it's not public. This is the trial balloon saying "we're going to be doing this no matter what".
But, I fear all governments will keep this shit up. Even the ones who claim to want smaller, leaner government are on board with this stuff.
But the No Sparrow Shall Fall scenario really doesn't sound plausible.
Fifteen years ago I'd fervently agree. Ten years ago I would mostly agree. Five years ago I'd be less sure.
Now? I suddenly find myself in a world in which things which had been dismissed as paranoia are suddenly real.
From your own link:
The thesis that he presents in 'If This Goes On--' is not only interesting; it approaches fact a bit too intimately for comfort
We already have governments who use secret laws to demand information from corporations. We have corporations who have such pervasive visibility as to be alarming. We have governments doing spying which bypasses a lot of legal protections and on a scale nobody would have believed even a few years ago. Hell, we have cameras and other devices in our homes to allow us to control it from an app on our phones
Honestly, my scale for what is plausible and what is far fetched and hyperbole is finding itself a whole lot less certain these days.
You start combining technology we know exists, with things we know government are doing, and throw in a couple of news stories about what's being built... and even a sane person starts reaching for the tinfoil.
Because it's kind of an un-missable fact that there is a massive amount of information collected about us every day from a lot of sources, and pretty much every government and corporation want some of that.
And then my ability to say "oh, that's way too far fetched" is pretty much gone.
Absolutely the software world has lost its mind. The software isn't the point any more; all this other crap is.
I've lost track of how many apps I've now uninstalled because they do NOTHING you can't access with a browser. But the apps want to embed themselves so they can access your data.
Slashdot Mirror
See, the problem with that is it ignores how they actually got it.
When you have information you're not supposed to have, and you can look back and then put together a bullshit argument about how you could have gotten it, it has nothing at all to do with reality.
It is the fruit of the poison tree, because it was obtained without probable cause, and because the origins of it are being hidden from the accused.
It's perjury, plain and simple. And if law enforcement is being encouraged to commit perjury, that pretty much means the justice system is completely fucked.
It's taking information you can't justify having, and then effectively framing someone you believe is guilty but couldn't prove to a standard the courts would reject by re-building your evidence retroactively to suit your story.
If the cops are doing that, they should be imprisoned, or shot on sight.
Parallel construction is effectively perjury at a huge scale.
What it's doing is giving them access to information they either aren't supposed to have, or are unwilling to admit to having. And then they come up with a carefully crafted lie about how they might have found this information from another source.
This bit of creative writing has the effect of denying you the ability to see the evidence against you, and know where it comes from.
It allows them to operate with impunity, while essentially denying you a fair trial ... because the bullshit story they make up about how they heard from a guy who heard it form a guy is exactly that: bullshit.
It's government agencies who are bypassing decades of court decisions about proper procedures and rules of evidence, and using secret laws and bold-faced lies to be able to trump up whatever charges they have, with information obtained through questionable means, and the lying to suppress the real source of the information to cheat the system and deny you the ability to know how they really got it.
This is as bad as any Soviet era secret police ever was, precisely because it bypasses all legal safeguards, and totally ignores the law as it pertains to knowing the evidence against you and how it is obtained.
Any police agency doing this is, in my opinion, committing a crime. There's no other way to see this other than these organizations lying to courts, and providing local police with a fucking manual to also lie to the courts.
Give us your fucking papers, comrade.
Wow, that sounds even better than the other MLMs, tell me more!!
You joke, but what really happens is the US carriers have decided "we'll call it whatever we like for marketing purposes". Which means someone comes along, defines a standard, and then US carriers co-opt the name and say "yup, we have that", when in reality they don't have that.
This has nothing to do with metric, and everything to do with US corporations saying "Yeah, we totally have 4G", except it's not really 4G, it's some marketing term which has nothing to do with 4G.
So, you know, stop letting your companies take the name of a specific bit of technology and say they're using it when they aren't. Then you won't have the problem of the US glaringly not running the technology they claim.
But, apparently, part of corporate free speech is mis-representing your service to your customers.
Well, you say that ... but you should check which treaties your government may have signed which imposed an even more evil version on you.
The last bunch of trade treaties the US has been involved in have basically added a LOT of scope creep to a LOT of countries when it comes to copyright and digital rights.
Which means your not giving a shit might be trumped by the fact that your government was cajoled into making you subject to something similar or even more restrictive.
Surprise, bad laws favoring industry is a large export of the US these days -- they're in the business of entrenching the profits of multinationals into law these days.
I wouldn't assume you aren't covered by that law, or a local equivalent. In fact, I'd assume you are.
Well, I've only ever seen them on TV ... don't take my summary to be a rigorous history of the use of police call boxes in the UK, just a summary of the article which described it in context of trademark.
The Met got told they don't have trademark. BBC is trying to say they now have the trademark because nobody uses that image for pretty much anything else.
Which then makes the prospect of an actual historical piece running afoul of trademark by saying you can't depict real things any more ... and that would be very odd indeed. I mean, if you had a piece set in the 50's, wouldn't you expect to see some form of these around?
More than that.
It basically says any at a digital lock, no matter how incompetently and pathetically written, is considered legally sacrosanct.
It entrenches in law that, if they intended to keep you out, even if they were stupid morons who wrote something which could never work, then that digital lock is to be treated as a real physical barrier.
It was written to allow them to define and police piracy. And nobody gave a damn about the fact that is was entirely to the benefit of the corporations who wrote the law and gave themselves so many loopholes as to be an utterly useless piece of legislation.
But, yes, most of us know just how bad the DMCA actually is.
Well, since it's a practical test of real-world things and implemented in MILLIONS of vehicles and was discovered by people doing real-world verification ... AND they've admitted to it ... it's a little late for that.
But make no mistake, the DMCA was written in such a way as to stack the deck for corporations and is an entirely one-sided bit of law which only represents corporate interests.
The summary is confusing, the second from last article is easier:
In the 50's, there used to be police call boxes. Also in the 50's, the TARDIS was a police call box. The police have since stopped using those boxes.
At one point the Met tried to assert trademark on the police call boxes. They got told that since other police departments used them, it wasn't a trademark of the Met, but more of a general thing.
Now, the BBC is saying that the police public call box is now inextricably linked to the TARDIS and wish to have it declared as their trademark.
And, since nobody else has been using the police call box for anything except as the TARDIS -- depending on who you ask, it is now an image uniquely associated with Dr. Who, and could therefore be a valid trademark.
Go with the cynical view: the goal is to make the weaker US standards appear compliant with/equal to the stronger EU standards so the US makers could sell to Europe under a negotiated treaty.
Short version, "we're already risking American lives by having less safety, so why not risk EU lives and pretend the safety standards are the same".
This way instead of building one set to Euro-spec, and one to US-spec, you get the US-spec certified as "close enough". In the process you undermine the Euro-spec.
It's using a treaty to make an end-run around regulations, which is what most of these damned treaties seem to be doing lately.
Hey, the US car makers bought de-regulation fair and square, and politicians keep telling us de-regulation leads to better products.
Why do you hate freedom?
If car makers had to adhere to real regulations that would be like communism.
The market will resolve this, right? People will choose the safer cars?
Oh, that's right .. they don't want us to know which are the safer cars. Why have a free market when you can simply suppress the information?
I was OK with refusing to go out with me, but the restraining order was the last straw.
First off, nobody said anything to the contrary.
Second, this is precisely WHY Facebook is annoying ... who do you want as your "friends"? If it's your actual friends, why are you including your co-workers? The reverse is also true.
If a co-worker said "hey, we should be friends on Facebook", my response is probably going to be along the lines of "or not".
But suddenly it seems to have become a social obligation to friend everybody. Which is ridiculous.
I don't want a single account for my "friends" and my "work acquaintances" ... I wouldn't want those people in the same damned room. I wouldn't invite both sets to the same event. Why the hell would I want them in common on Facebook?
I'm sorry, but have you seen TV before? Or movies? Or video games? Or the entire internet? Or books for that matter? Or plays?
Humans have been giving themselves diversions from pressing reality for thousands of years.
My guess if it had to look like a real cockroach, the purpose is first and foremost spying.
If it's truly just the "go into debris and look for people", there is no need whatsoever to look like a cockroach.
That design constraint pretty much screams covert spying.
I was unaware that was a verb.
I may have to German some beers tonight.
So ... when people spend all that time programming, is the assumption these programs sit like museum pieces in their pristine glory to be admired?
Or do you acknowledge that at some point people will actually use the programs?
Because, you know, not planning on how people actually used all this glorious programming would pretty much scream "totally pointless endeavor".
You don't have to like VR, but it the sum total of your argument is "computers are for programming not using" ... well, welcome to your pointless existence. Please keep your existential malaise to yourself.
Well, if a company is a legal entity with free speech and the ability to buy politicians ... then when a company does something bad, they need to be punished. If I commit a crime nobody gives a damn about destroying me financially or incarcerating me.
If you send the message companies are free to do all sorts of illegal things and will have no consequences of any substance, then the companies will just do anything, and the knowledge that people don't wish to harm the company will keep them safe.
You can't coddle them and validate that they can do shit like this without any significant penalty. Otherwise as soon as they can say that they stand to gain more money than they would pay in penalties, they'll all just do it.
You can't just say "well, gee there evil corporations, try to be less evil next time". Because then what you have is every corporation will take that as license to do anything they want to without penalty.
So, from the people who paid a premium for these cars, or now have lower resale value, or the simple fact that a lot more pollution was generated than claimed ... this crap needs some punishments of significance.
If your "middle ground" is pathetic and useless penalties, that's not a damned middle ground. It should hurt like hell, and leave a lasting institutional memory that you can never do shit like that, and it should make everyone else watching know damned well there are consequences.
Anything less isn't a "middle ground", it's letting corporations get away with anything under the guise of how it could harm the company and its employees. They didn't give a shit about the law or their customers, so why exactly do we owe them a duty of hardly doing anything in response?
Are you suggesting we allow corporations to exhibit epic levels of malfeasance and NOT have any punishment?
Yeah, that sounds brilliant ... lay it out plainly to every would-be shady-asshole that the penalty for fraud on a global scale is acceptable.
And then stand back and watch every damned corporation realize they can pretty much do anything and get away with it.
Good luck with that.
Are they seriously thinking about a scheme in which your device is like needing to have virtual memory? And your device has to "page out" parts of it?
So basically they're morons who think everybody has unlimited data and they can keep re-downloading the same shit all the time?
What a stupid damned feature.
Well, gee, I don't know how we'd get the idea that proposals to introduce 'backdoors' might actually be proposals to introduce 'backdoors'. You can't investigate how to introduce 'backdoor's and not expect people to perceive this is what you're doing.
It's a backdoor. A weakness. And it sure as hell will get attacked to exploit. You can't put in the skeleton-keys to the kingdom and not expect everybody to attack that. That includes people that government keeps telling us are trying (and succeeding) to break into our stuff.
And then everything is vulnerable.
Of course now that they've publicly acknowledged they want to, they'll just move on to either doing it anyway in public, or just doing it so it's not public. This is the trial balloon saying "we're going to be doing this no matter what".
But, I fear all governments will keep this shit up. Even the ones who claim to want smaller, leaner government are on board with this stuff.
So, everybody is getting screwed by the carriers then?
Fifteen years ago I'd fervently agree. Ten years ago I would mostly agree. Five years ago I'd be less sure.
Now? I suddenly find myself in a world in which things which had been dismissed as paranoia are suddenly real.
From your own link:
We already have governments who use secret laws to demand information from corporations. We have corporations who have such pervasive visibility as to be alarming. We have governments doing spying which bypasses a lot of legal protections and on a scale nobody would have believed even a few years ago. Hell, we have cameras and other devices in our homes to allow us to control it from an app on our phones
Honestly, my scale for what is plausible and what is far fetched and hyperbole is finding itself a whole lot less certain these days.
You start combining technology we know exists, with things we know government are doing, and throw in a couple of news stories about what's being built ... and even a sane person starts reaching for the tinfoil.
Because it's kind of an un-missable fact that there is a massive amount of information collected about us every day from a lot of sources, and pretty much every government and corporation want some of that.
And then my ability to say "oh, that's way too far fetched" is pretty much gone.
LOL ... Freudian slip, or innocent typo?
These days, I'd say users are feeling pretty used.
Monetization. Ad revenue. Analytics. Corporate branding. Vendor lock-in. Cloud services. Walled gardens. Subscriptions.
Absolutely the software world has lost its mind. The software isn't the point any more; all this other crap is.
I've lost track of how many apps I've now uninstalled because they do NOTHING you can't access with a browser. But the apps want to embed themselves so they can access your data.