When it comes down to it, this ruling (and the ruling of the lower court) isn't 100% onerous, because a US citizen who is tried using evidence obtained in this manner would finally have standing to contest the government's actions.
Tried? Who said anything about a trial?. From past actions, if they thought they had reason to act against someone due to these wiretaps, the person in question would be declared an enemy combatant, kept in custody without legal access, and if even was innocent, be forced to take a plea bargain which included a stipulation not to sue for the illegal wiretaps.
If a person isn't practically affected in their ability to conduct legal day-to-day activities, then it's a reasonable conclusion (whether or not it's a correct one) that they were not damaged and therefore have no standing to sue
If a person isn't affected, they can't sue. If the person is affected, they'll be arrested/detained so they lose the right to sue. If that's not an accurate example of a catch 22, I don't know what is.
Bonus points: spot problems in the following "logic":
Law says: terrorists can be monitored at any time
Law says: that people can be monitored unless they object
Law says: people who object are suspicious and must be monitored
In a sheep world, how many of the above would be objected to? Even though, as a whole, it means that everyone gets monitored, but the sheep think it's only used against the "bad people"
Our clients have gone on to clarify, specifically, that the Office 2007 file formats are incompatible with the older MS Office versions and necessitate needless corporate updating for their thousands of internal users,
Your clients are wrong. You can download a compatibility pack and readers for Office 2007 documents for Office 2003.
The download and installation of the compatibility pack to update Office 2003 to read 2007 files looks like an update to me. Granted it's not a forced upgrade but it is indeed a forced update so the clients' of the parent's post are perfectly correct.
If they don't retain fingerprint data, just what exactly are they matching the drivers' fingerprints to?
If they don't have your print, they can't check it's you, but they can run it against ever fingerprint every taken (about 6.5m at the moment) and if you are unluckly enough to match someone who has committed a crime, you're toasted until you can prove you're not them (at which stage why not put your unique prints so this doesn't happen again, sir?
The article says it's 95% accurate, so if your prints are on file, you're very likely to be correctly matched, but if not, you'll clash with a *lot* of other people - 300,000 if the 95% is accurate. (I'd guess fingerprints themselves may be more unique than this, but accuracy depends on the measurement used, obviously)
Of course, even if that was not the case, precedent has shown that these prints will be kept. The exact same thing happened with taking DNA samples from innocent people. the police weren't allowed to retain them, but they did. When that came to light, did the samples get destroyed? Did they hell. The government changed the law retroactivitely allowing the people to keep the DNA of innocent people on file, even those who volunteered it for a good cause and were told it would be destroyed.
Isn't this what a Driver's License is for? Or do British not have licenses (or not require that drivers carry licenses)?
No, you aren't required to carry it with you, but are supposed to produce it on request within a certain number of days.
However, it is clear to me that this is aimed at forcing the adoption of biometric ID cards (or more accurately the ID database behind it), just in smaller steps.
First it will only be used for those without their licence on them. (for reasons given)
Then it will be used to verify they are the person in the licence (pictures can be faked, gotta check your biometrics, sir).
Then as a result of 1 and 2 above, they already have biometrics of most people on file, so the database is mostly complete.
Biometric ID cards introduced (usual reasons given) - "not compulsary" you know)
We have everyones's biometrics, so send them a card whether they requested it or not (we have the data, we're being nice and making it easy for them)
Then, then most people have biometric id cards, make them a legal requirement (everyone has them, and it "stops crime/bad guys")
Viola.
In short this is step one of the "Barcode Britain" process.
A parallel step is happening in 2008, where non-EU nationals in the UK will require an ID card to receive several services, but eu people won't, but the obvious question is how will someone prove they are an eu nationals? Result - forcing people to get an ID card in order so they don't need to show ID card. Only a government can think that twisted!
Since Labour came to power in 1997, they have passed over 32,000 new statutory instruments with over 114,000 pages of text (=205 copies of war and peace) with the resulting outcome of "creating" over 3,000 new crimes (which works out at about one a day).
Maybe someday we'll get a government who thinks of something other than "Something wrong? Pass a new law." but somehow I doubt it
It says the Zune marketplace content is not Plays For Sure content. It does NOT say that the Zune is not Plays For Sure compatible.
Think about it. Which question does Microsoft want people to think when they buy online music?
Is this Play for Sure compatable?
Is this Zune compatabile?
If you can get enough people to think of "X-Compatible" as the question, then X becomes the de-facto standard. With products like online music, with very little diferentation possible, mindshare is everything.
I thought trademarks were sort of industry-specific anyway
Not always. For example, someone wanted to trademark visa condoms but was refused even though condoms and credit cards are quite different markets. (visa being a pun on "permit to enter" for the condoms)
"benefits if you catch a virus ($1,500) or get your identity stolen ($5,000).
"Well, Mr. Smith, our records do show that this identity was proven to be stolen. Of course we paid out according to our warrenty. Our records show the $5,000 was paid out on X date. You didn't receive it? Well, we sent it to Y address. That's not you? Oh, it seems to have been paid to the wrong person, but unfortunately we can't do anything about that, as it appears you've been the victim of identity theft. Want to buy a warrenty to protect you against this in the future? No? Well, have a nice day.
The sooner everything is patented, the sooner the patents will run out.
Not only will every thing then be up for grabs, but it will all be neatly documented at the USPTO!
Wake me up in 20 years.
Unless, of course, in 19 years, someone patents "Analysing the USPTO database for soon-to-be expired patents for use in business."
The guy in the article was arrested because the gambling took place within an area where it's illegal -- namely, somewhere on US soil. He couldn't get arrested if the gambling only took place in Mexico or The Netherlands or Djibouti or wherever else gambling may be legal*.
If a person in the US places a bet over the internet to a server in the UK, where is the bet taking place? The US (illegal) or the UK (legal)? Does the client "go to" the server, or does the server "send it to" the client?
If the US person travelled by air to the UK to place his bet, would the UK company be charged for allowing an american to bet? If the American rang the UK office to place a bet, would that be wrong? Would it be wrong if the american placed the bet using the internet?
The internet has raised new questions for juristiction which have still been unanswered. Prior to this a person was usually in the same country as the company they were dealing with, but with the internet, you can have a person in country A using an ISP in country B, connecting to a server in country C, dealing with a company based in country D. In this case, where did the transaction take place, and whose laws should apply?
In some ways, that proposal would make it very like the linux kernel. The public face which most people see would be the stable branch, with the "unstable branch" still open to edits, and once stabilised, becomes the new stable version.
Regarding the leak date, I think January 30th is probably not a wise move (or maybe it is?) After the holiday spending spree, most people won't have money left and those who got new computers as gifts will need to upgrade their OS.
As you said, people who get computers for Christmas will be tempted/forced/suggested to upgrade their OS to the latest one, if not immediately, sooner than if they were sold vista on day one.
As a sales ploy, it's cunning, how many other companys can make you an offer of selling you one OS for the price of two?
As marketing, it's also smart, coming up to christmas there are many ads for toys/presents/holidays/etc, so peoples attention will be split, so planning a release for a slower time of year means that the coverage it receives is under less pressure from other issues.
Also, just prior to a major holiday is the last time IT would like to roll out a major upgrade, so if available pre-christmas, it mightn't get the demand till afterwards, and the last thing any company wants is apparent lack of demand for their new product. They want to release statements like "sold X in first month!", not "only sold Y in first month, but that's due to seasonal factors, honest!"
Ain't it great living in a society where money rules all....
By what other means would you have our society ruled?
Money, at least, has the virtue of flowing automatically to those who labor and innovate and create pleasure for others.
That is only true for small amount of money, for larger amounts of money, it is not labour that makes money, but money itself.
Take for example, landowners in the past. Even if a non-landowner worked hard, it was very difficult to become a landowner due to the power of landowners over their tenants.
Or, if a person/group own a sufficent amount of the businesses in a particular area, it's very difficult for a new person to challenge that, as the existing group can raise their prices to supply the new business, resulting in the existing group profiting off the work of someone else, which is why monoploys are harmeful.
Civil liberties sell great here on Slashdot, but imagine if your child or family member was hit and injured by a guy who was street racing. The prosecution needs to prove speeding or reckless driving to convict the defendant on the most serious charges. Would you say that getting data from a device in that case would be wrong? In this particular case, the argument "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" flies pretty well because the information on the device could exculpate the defendant as well.
In other words, "Oh why won't anyone think of the children?"
Logically though, how can you say someone was "street racing" without any evidence to say so, and if you already have, you don't need the black box. Also, "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is never a valid arguement - it's perfectly possible to have a situation where the child ran out, (i.e. totally the child's fault) and it would not have mattered if they were going 10pmh or 35mph, equally, the person could be going 10mph without paying attention and caused the accident. So, the speed of the car could be irrelevent, and could end up help acquitting a guilty person, or convicting an innocent one. Still have nothing to fear, eh?
So what they're saying is that even without being convicted of a crime, the state will exercise police powers to enforce punishments on its citizens?
Of course. The lastest update is that the crime of "being a terror suspect" carries with it the punishment of a month in jail, and is being increased to three months. Or, if you're "really suspicious", you can be put under house arrest indefinitely, or other restrictions under a control order
I don't care what country you're in, that's just wrong. Hopefully our mates across the sea will rise up and ensure that this proposal doesn't see the light of day. I'm sorry, but if someone's not convicted, they're sure as hell not a cybercriminal.
But you don't understand, there are only used against "bad people". Looking though the BBC debate about the 90 day issue shows that a lot of people believe that suspect=guilty when it comes to terrorism.
Evicting pensioners from their own home (subsequently thrown out by the court)
Charging an 88 yo man for being "sarcastic"
Not allowing young kids from meeting more than one friend at a time.
Banning a woman from owning a pay-as-you-go mobile phone (cell phone)
If telling people what words not to say, removing them from their own home, or arresting them for going to a public place like a park, so on are not abuses, then I dispair what actions would have to occurr before they were classed as such
But of course, they're only used against "bad people", so it's all okay.
It may be restricting your ability to use the property they are trying to sell you - but guess what? You don't have to buy it.
That point fails when they force through legal restrictions that also affect *your* property in the guise of protecting theirs. Media tax on blank CD's even though you don't use them for music? Legal restrictions on what all electronics can do just because it may be also used on their property?
Or, a foreign visitor gets a call that a close family member is seriously ill, they make a flurry of phone calls to cancel hotels, ring the airline, book taxies, and then try and get on a plane home. NSA see "foreign call, flurry of calls, trying to get on a plane in a clearly agitated state - panic, panic, red flag!" and "Oh, we're sorry you couldn't get home before your father died, national security, you know."
Slashdot Mirror
When it comes down to it, this ruling (and the ruling of the lower court) isn't 100% onerous, because a US citizen who is tried using evidence obtained in this manner would finally have standing to contest the government's actions.
Tried? Who said anything about a trial?. From past actions, if they thought they had reason to act against someone due to these wiretaps, the person in question would be declared an enemy combatant, kept in custody without legal access, and if even was innocent, be forced to take a plea bargain which included a stipulation not to sue for the illegal wiretaps.
If a person isn't practically affected in their ability to conduct legal day-to-day activities, then it's a reasonable conclusion (whether or not it's a correct one) that they were not damaged and therefore have no standing to sue
If a person isn't affected, they can't sue. If the person is affected, they'll be arrested/detained so they lose the right to sue. If that's not an accurate example of a catch 22, I don't know what is.
Bonus points: spot problems in the following "logic":
- Law says: terrorists can be monitored at any time
- Law says: that people can be monitored unless they object
- Law says: people who object are suspicious and must be monitored
In a sheep world, how many of the above would be objected to? Even though, as a whole, it means that everyone gets monitored, but the sheep think it's only used against the "bad people"Your clients are wrong. You can download a compatibility pack and readers for Office 2007 documents for Office 2003.
The download and installation of the compatibility pack to update Office 2003 to read 2007 files looks like an update to me. Granted it's not a forced upgrade but it is indeed a forced update so the clients' of the parent's post are perfectly correct.
If they don't retain fingerprint data, just what exactly are they matching the drivers' fingerprints to?
If they don't have your print, they can't check it's you, but they can run it against ever fingerprint every taken (about 6.5m at the moment) and if you are unluckly enough to match someone who has committed a crime, you're toasted until you can prove you're not them (at which stage why not put your unique prints so this doesn't happen again, sir?
The article says it's 95% accurate, so if your prints are on file, you're very likely to be correctly matched, but if not, you'll clash with a *lot* of other people - 300,000 if the 95% is accurate. (I'd guess fingerprints themselves may be more unique than this, but accuracy depends on the measurement used, obviously)
Of course, even if that was not the case, precedent has shown that these prints will be kept. The exact same thing happened with taking DNA samples from innocent people. the police weren't allowed to retain them, but they did. When that came to light, did the samples get destroyed? Did they hell. The government changed the law retroactivitely allowing the people to keep the DNA of innocent people on file, even those who volunteered it for a good cause and were told it would be destroyed.
Isn't this what a Driver's License is for? Or do British not have licenses (or not require that drivers carry licenses)?
No, you aren't required to carry it with you, but are supposed to produce it on request within a certain number of days.
However, it is clear to me that this is aimed at forcing the adoption of biometric ID cards (or more accurately the ID database behind it), just in smaller steps.
In short this is step one of the "Barcode Britain" process.
A parallel step is happening in 2008, where non-EU nationals in the UK will require an ID card to receive several services, but eu people won't, but the obvious question is how will someone prove they are an eu nationals? Result - forcing people to get an ID card in order so they don't need to show ID card. Only a government can think that twisted!
Since Labour came to power in 1997, they have passed over 32,000 new statutory instruments with over 114,000 pages of text (=205 copies of war and peace) with the resulting outcome of "creating" over 3,000 new crimes (which works out at about one a day).
Maybe someday we'll get a government who thinks of something other than "Something wrong? Pass a new law." but somehow I doubt it
It says the Zune marketplace content is not Plays For Sure content. It does NOT say that the Zune is not Plays For Sure compatible.
Think about it. Which question does Microsoft want people to think when they buy online music?
If you can get enough people to think of "X-Compatible" as the question, then X becomes the de-facto standard. With products like online music, with very little diferentation possible, mindshare is everything.
I thought trademarks were sort of industry-specific anyway
Not always. For example, someone wanted to trademark visa condoms but was refused even though condoms and credit cards are quite different markets. (visa being a pun on "permit to enter" for the condoms)
"Well, Mr. Smith, our records do show that this identity was proven to be stolen. Of course we paid out according to our warrenty. Our records show the $5,000 was paid out on X date. You didn't receive it? Well, we sent it to Y address. That's not you? Oh, it seems to have been paid to the wrong person, but unfortunately we can't do anything about that, as it appears you've been the victim of identity theft. Want to buy a warrenty to protect you against this in the future? No? Well, have a nice day.
The sooner everything is patented, the sooner the patents will run out. Not only will every thing then be up for grabs, but it will all be neatly documented at the USPTO! Wake me up in 20 years.
Unless, of course, in 19 years, someone patents "Analysing the USPTO database for soon-to-be expired patents for use in business."
The guy in the article was arrested because the gambling took place within an area where it's illegal -- namely, somewhere on US soil. He couldn't get arrested if the gambling only took place in Mexico or The Netherlands or Djibouti or wherever else gambling may be legal*.
If a person in the US places a bet over the internet to a server in the UK, where is the bet taking place? The US (illegal) or the UK (legal)? Does the client "go to" the server, or does the server "send it to" the client?
If the US person travelled by air to the UK to place his bet, would the UK company be charged for allowing an american to bet? If the American rang the UK office to place a bet, would that be wrong? Would it be wrong if the american placed the bet using the internet?
The internet has raised new questions for juristiction which have still been unanswered. Prior to this a person was usually in the same country as the company they were dealing with, but with the internet, you can have a person in country A using an ISP in country B, connecting to a server in country C, dealing with a company based in country D. In this case, where did the transaction take place, and whose laws should apply?
This to me, looks like a description of the proposal (marked as rejected) of Wikipedia:Stable versions now.
In some ways, that proposal would make it very like the linux kernel. The public face which most people see would be the stable branch, with the "unstable branch" still open to edits, and once stabilised, becomes the new stable version.
Or is working out age from DOB not allowed for legal reasons?
Regarding the leak date, I think January 30th is probably not a wise move (or maybe it is?) After the holiday spending spree, most people won't have money left and those who got new computers as gifts will need to upgrade their OS.
As you said, people who get computers for Christmas will be tempted/forced/suggested to upgrade their OS to the latest one, if not immediately, sooner than if they were sold vista on day one.
As a sales ploy, it's cunning, how many other companys can make you an offer of selling you one OS for the price of two?
As marketing, it's also smart, coming up to christmas there are many ads for toys/presents/holidays/etc, so peoples attention will be split, so planning a release for a slower time of year means that the coverage it receives is under less pressure from other issues.
Also, just prior to a major holiday is the last time IT would like to roll out a major upgrade, so if available pre-christmas, it mightn't get the demand till afterwards, and the last thing any company wants is apparent lack of demand for their new product. They want to release statements like "sold X in first month!", not "only sold Y in first month, but that's due to seasonal factors, honest!"
By what other means would you have our society ruled?
Money, at least, has the virtue of flowing automatically to those who labor and innovate and create pleasure for others.
That is only true for small amount of money, for larger amounts of money, it is not labour that makes money, but money itself.
Take for example, landowners in the past. Even if a non-landowner worked hard, it was very difficult to become a landowner due to the power of landowners over their tenants.
Or, if a person/group own a sufficent amount of the businesses in a particular area, it's very difficult for a new person to challenge that, as the existing group can raise their prices to supply the new business, resulting in the existing group profiting off the work of someone else, which is why monoploys are harmeful.
Civil liberties sell great here on Slashdot, but imagine if your child or family member was hit and injured by a guy who was street racing. The prosecution needs to prove speeding or reckless driving to convict the defendant on the most serious charges. Would you say that getting data from a device in that case would be wrong? In this particular case, the argument "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" flies pretty well because the information on the device could exculpate the defendant as well.
In other words, "Oh why won't anyone think of the children?"
Logically though, how can you say someone was "street racing" without any evidence to say so, and if you already have, you don't need the black box. Also, "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is never a valid arguement - it's perfectly possible to have a situation where the child ran out, (i.e. totally the child's fault) and it would not have mattered if they were going 10pmh or 35mph, equally, the person could be going 10mph without paying attention and caused the accident. So, the speed of the car could be irrelevent, and could end up help acquitting a guilty person, or convicting an innocent one. Still have nothing to fear, eh?
Any suggestions for signs? "Dead people can't steal music" has a good ring to it.
The sickest sense:
rIaa sue dead people"
So what they're saying is that even without being convicted of a crime, the state will exercise police powers to enforce punishments on its citizens?
Of course. The lastest update is that the crime of "being a terror suspect" carries with it the punishment of a month in jail, and is being increased to three months. Or, if you're "really suspicious", you can be put under house arrest indefinitely, or other restrictions under a control order
I don't care what country you're in, that's just wrong. Hopefully our mates across the sea will rise up and ensure that this proposal doesn't see the light of day. I'm sorry, but if someone's not convicted, they're sure as hell not a cybercriminal.
But you don't understand, there are only used against "bad people". Looking though the BBC debate about the 90 day issue shows that a lot of people believe that suspect=guilty when it comes to terrorism.
Not been abused???
Have a look at some of the aburd rulings
If telling people what words not to say, removing them from their own home, or arresting them for going to a public place like a park, so on are not abuses, then I dispair what actions would have to occurr before they were classed as such
But of course, they're only used against "bad people", so it's all okay.
No, it does fork, and merges again to improve the end product - oh my, our ancestry is open source!
That point fails when they force through legal restrictions that also affect *your* property in the guise of protecting theirs. Media tax on blank CD's even though you don't use them for music? Legal restrictions on what all electronics can do just because it may be also used on their property?
Or, a foreign visitor gets a call that a close family member is seriously ill, they make a flurry of phone calls to cancel hotels, ring the airline, book taxies, and then try and get on a plane home. NSA see "foreign call, flurry of calls, trying to get on a plane in a clearly agitated state - panic, panic, red flag!" and "Oh, we're sorry you couldn't get home before your father died, national security, you know."
Tools -> Internet options -> Advanced, and select "do not search from the address bar"
that STUPID IE just search for it
Not stupid, just doing exactly what it was told.
Tell that to the Jews barcoded in WWII.
As are the later ones from Avril Lavigne, e.g. Under my skin (which I would have bought if it wasn't DRM'd)
Sleep? Haven't you heard of coffee?