Yesterday I suggested that Windows from a Torrent probably wasn't as secure as Linux and got toasted! Download Linux ISOs directly from the distributors web sites and verify the hashes.
The fact that you think this means you have no idea about the struggles in urban communities or the efforts people make to stop it. In almost every white community, parents drive their kids to school in gas guzzling SUVs because they don't think walking is safe (it is). In urban communities kids often have to walk. The parents and neighbors stand out in the cold to form "safe corridors" to try and prevent violence. They are putting themselves in legitimate danger. I've already commented why I think the general premise of this argument is wrong. But even if it were true, it really shows complete lack of understanding about urban communities which are overwhelmingly black so the two are mostly interchangeable (but not always)
Unarmed black people are more likely to get shot by police than unarmed people of other races. And racism is experienced in all kind of ways. Here's a good article. I was actually looking to cite some of the more famous experiments when I found it. http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/... Reducing black on black violence and reducing institutionalized racism are both noble goals. The Black Lives Matter folks have focused on the latter probably because they feel that they have better odds. The idea that somebody has to try to solve *every* problem in order to be entitled to trying to solve *one* problem is ridiculous.
Even computer programmers don't care about computer programmers. They go contributing their efforts for free to open source projects when they could be volunteering in a soup kitchen feeding those put out of work by H1-B workers. That's really just another formulation of what you are saying. This might not even seem terrible at first if you think of one group. But the unemployed programmers may or may not be the ones contributing to open source. So it's entirely possible that you've just pitted one subgroup against another only to condemn the larger group.
By your logic we could condemn all people who work on any problem other than the one you deem most important.
I see your point. But in this case, the parallel construction isn't an issue, it's the underlying violation of rights. I'm not aware of this ever even being alleged in a parallel construction case. The known cases involve one are of law enforcement, acting legally, tipping off another area of law enforcement that also acts legally. The first set of legally obtained evidence is never used but people want the second set to be thrown out since it's not possible to challenge the first (unused) set.
If the FBI decides to follow me around with a Stingray (maybe they are and that explains why my 4G data is so slow) violating my rights, letting a hardened criminal go in some other related case doesn't in any way make me whole. What would make me whole is for them to stop the practice and pay damages.
You're suggestion about not throwing out the evidence but the police get in some kind of trouble is actually what happens in some places and seems to work. But it doesn't provide enough protection. Throwing out all of the fruit of the poison tree is actually a good policy.
A parallel construction case where the first set of evidence is obtained illegally and the second through legal means creates a pretty interesting situation (and one very apt for debate here). There probably isn't a perfect answer.
But that's much different than a parallel construction case where the first set is obtained legally (but either in a way that's not admissible or in which LE chooses not to use it for tactical reasons) and the second set is also obtained legally. In my stolen car / cocaine example, the evidence was obtained legally (assuming that bumping into the tool shed was truly accidental) and would *probably* be admissible (I'm not a lawyer. A defense attorney worth their salt would argue that it wasn't an accident and try to get it thrown owt) but LE may not want to take the chance on bringing that case. Everything is legal so far, though. Disallowing parallel construction would basically say that those officers have to lock the knowledge in their head, never divulge it, and not participate in any future investigations.
In the dead body example, there is probably a challenge to throw out a confession due to the defendant's low IQ *even if* the Miranda rights were read. "My client didn't understand that he had the right to remain silent." This isn't bad police work. Just a legitimate defense. But the fact that they couldn't understand their Miranda rights shouldn't lead to exclusion of physical evidence found on the body.
In most of the examples you provide, there is evidence of illegal police activity which might change the outcome. But parallel construction does not imply illegal activity and LE shouldn't have the burden of proof that parallel construction wasn't used. Defendants should have the burden of proof that it was used. It's almost impossible to prove a negative.
Parallel construction as we know it represents a situation where the police believe that no rights were violated, there is no evidence that rights are violated and yet the defense wants to create a burden of proving a negative.
It doesn't matter if it's predictable or not as long as it varies from run to run. The most common exploit that ASLR prevents is a stack-smashing buffer-overrun. You send in some data that you manage to get written to the stack. But you can't know a priori what the values will be when sending your data unless you already have some other knowledge of the system. So it's unlikely that you can exploit the buffer overflow. Without ASLR it's easy to know the addresses of system functions and to craft some data that will exploit a stack-smashing vulnerability. If the algorithm were absolutely terrible (always put function X at address YYYY on odd days) there may be some way to try to exploit. But even a week random generator is good enough in this case. The reason that a weak random generator doesn't work for cryptography is that I can analyze the message "offline" and try as many iterations as I want. When attacking a running system with a stack smashing attack, it's either going to crash or be exploited on each attempt so I won't get very many tries.
Except that the first group isn't violating anybody's rights. The first set of evidence is essentially discarded. Then a new set of evidence is gathered. Remember, none of the first set of evidence is ever used in a court as evidence for a conviction. It's possible that the first set of evidence was gained in a way that violates somebody's rights. But even then it has to be obtained in a way that violates somebody's rights, it doesn't change the situation much.
Imagine that you get arrested for running an illegal gambling ring. (Again whether that should be illegal is another question). The evidence that showed that you are guilty gets thrown out. That doesn't imply that you can never be prosecuted for running an illegal gambling ring in the future.
That reminds me of a not-so funny scene in a movie where somebody is arrested and convicted for stealing a car. He goes out the next day and steals the same car and argues that you can't be tried for the same crime twice!
What parallel construction does is use inadmissible information to find the admissible information. Imagine that I get arrested for murder, confess, and lead prosecutors to the body. It turns out that nobody read my rights. So now I argue that the confession should be thrown out. Sure, no problem. The fact that I lead them to the body should be thrown out. Okay there too. But what you are saying is that maybe the cops would never have found the body without my help. Therefore, the fact that my blood and semen is all over the body is also inadmissible. That's quite ridiculous.
What if a tip comes in but something goes wrong with process and it's never received. You get caught doing the crime. Should the case then be thrown out even though you're caught red handed.
People seem to misunderstand parallel construction as in the following scenario. Police violate my rights by entering my house without a warrant and finding a brick of cocaine. Then they claim that I left it outside on the porch and that's how they found it. In that case, there would be a huge issue. Here it's more the case that they search my garage looking for stolen cars. They accidentally bump into my tool shed and see cocaine in there. They know that the evidence isn't admissible since they can't reasonably look in the tool shed for a stolen car.
They decide to drive around my block a bit more often. They notice that I have a stream of visitors. One of them has a vehicle with no tags. They decide to stop the vehicle for the traffic violation. They ask the driver why they were visiting me. The driver says it was to by cocaine. Your argument is that they can't use the evidence because, after all, they *probably* wouldn't have asked if they didn't already know I had cocaine in the garage.
They can't use the presence of the cocaine in my garage during the search warrant to convict me. But they *can* use future gathered evidence. What you are saying is that once some evidence is gathered incorrectly, I should be free to continue to engage in the same crime ad infinitum and never be prosecuted. I don't think that's something that we want.
I'd love to see a specific example here. The process seems to be that an agency tasked with gathering intelligence about overseas foreign nationals finds out about some garden variety crimes as part of their normal activities. They'd like for local law enforcement to be able to act on the information but run into two problems. They may not want to detail information about their surveillance technologies and they don't want to risk a surveillance target knowing that they are being actively monitored. So they have to either ignore the upcoming crime or compromise their own activities and maybe their agents in the field.
Instead they alert the state police that 50kg of cocaine is going to be exchanged at a particular rest stop on I80 at 5:45pm Thursday. They know this because the local Taliban official is expecting to get paid by 6pm and then he can pay his arms supplier. It's in everybody's interest that the deal not go through.
So the police increase patrols at that rest stop. Sure enough they see two cars pull into the rest stop and park in a remote area. First a briefcase is passed from one party to another and then some bricks are moved from one trunk to another. In the process of transloading one of bags breaks open and cocaine spills all over the ground. The police move in and make the arrest.
None of the evidence is illegally gathered. The parallel construction part is that the police didn't just happen to be at the right place at the right time. They were there due to a tip.
A defense attorney may ask if the police were there due to a tip or if it was just random good luck. In that case, the police may be forced to lie which is, admittedly, problematic. But the real solution is not to allow this type of question to be asked. The office can't tell the truth as it would compromise field agents working in national security. He can't lie because it's illegal. If he answers "I'm not at liberty to say" it's a dead giveaway that a tip was received.
The question shouldn't be allowed. What difference does it make? The officer observed a crime in broad daylight.
The reason that this question is allowed at all is that in *minor* cases it may be that a particular officer "has it in" for somebody and is looking for evidence of some very minor crime. The officers situation and motivation may be at issue and there may be harassment involved. Some lady turns you down for a date and you "just happen" to walk by the next day and smell marijuana and arrest her son. Yeah, toss out the conviction. The same situation happens and it turns out that the son is a hitman, the tables are kind of turned.
There is an argument that the seriousness of the crime shouldn't weigh in these decisions but that ignores the fact that selective enforcement of minor crime can be used as a tool of oppression. Major crimes aren't subject to this problem because they aren't ubiquitous.
Of course the best solution would be to decriminalize a lot of minor crimes. Opposing parallel construction is probably motivated by this goal. Increase standards of evidence in ways that make it almost impossible to prosecute minor crime but this is a circuitous solution.
The reason that we do things a certain way is to ensure protection of people's rights. Things like standards of evidence exist in order to minimize the risk of an innocent person being found guilty. But it's not clear that eliminating parallel construction would serve any of the purposes that underpin our justice system. The process seems to be that DEA or police receive what is little more than an anonymous tip and then they investigate and find evidence of a crime.
Imagine the local busybody who calls the police at every sign of suspicious behavior. We may not like that person. But there are often several of these in any jurisdiction. They even have reputations. The dispatchers know that if person X calls in a tip, it's probably just that they are upset that some kid accidentally stepped on their lawn but if person Y calls something in, it's worth investigating.
Whenever the police receive an anonymous tip, it's entirely possible that the person making the call obtained their information in an illegal way. It's not necessary to vet the anonymous source in order to act on the information.
What the opponents of parallel construction seem to be arguing is that anything that results from anonymous tips is fruit of the poison tree and should be inadmissible until proven otherwise.
The reason that we don't allow warrantless search and seizure isn't to protect those engaging in illegal activity, it's to protect the rights of the innocent. The fact that some crime goes unpunished is an unfortunate side effect.
I don't think the issue is quite so simple here. Certainly all lives matter and only the most egregious racists would argue otherwise. The reason that we have a black lives matter movement right now is because of a perception (real or imagined, but I certainly see the validity) that black lives aren't being given the same value in our society as other lives. The hope is to draw attention to that disparity.
At the risk of getting modded into oblivion, we could remove guns tomorrow and life would hum on. So removing them is an easy thing to do to improve safety. I'd like to get rid of those 11,208 homocides. We could also, of course, get rid of cars. But that's no so easy to do as we tend to be very dependent on them. It's very rare that a car gets stolen and you don't know. OTOH it seems to happen all the time that firearms are stolen and the owners don't notice until they get used in a crime. The *practical* implications of removing guns is much less than cars. The philosophical situation is of course much different.
Rear view cameras are specifically about kids who are *too small* for you to see when looking out the rear window. If there is a kid behind you they don't have to get out of the way, you have to yield. But you can't yield if you don't know that they are there. That's why the camera is important.
The problem with a label like "No GMO" is that it isn't just a statement of fact that there aren't any GMOs in the product. You don't voluntarily put labels on a product with negative information. Putting "No GMO" on some products is the equivalent of putting "GMO" on all of the GMO products since the lack of a "No GMO" label implies a GMO product. The "No GMO" label implies that it's somehow better than the GMO counterpart. This would be a false claim unless you can show it to be true. Therefore, the label is problematic. Imagine I sold tomatoes that said "Made without manure fertilizer." Well there would be no difference in the produced tomato if I used manure or if I used an artificial fertilizer. But that label would imply that my tomatoes are better. And to make that kind of claim you have to prove it. You can't bring a GMO crop to market without approval. But once you get that approval, makers of non-GMO competitors can't imply that your product is worse. That doesn't mean that they can't compete. Produce is often branded and people like certain brands. The "Tasti-Lee" tomatoes are very popular. And they don't make any claims. Their product just looks and tastes better to many people.
Uh this is no more secure than if you paid for a retail copy and also verified the SHA1 or purchased an MSDN subscription. Vendor-installed OS may come already compromised or with malware installed. If you want to save money, you could achieve the same thing installing Linux and the steps to download are a lot simpler. I realize it's fun to get modded up for encouraging pirating Windows but it's not really a behavior that should be supported. The alternative to paid Windows is free Linux not pirated Windows.
Except that it seems that every time we think we've closed the last window, it turns out there is one more. So there are algorithms out there that, mathematically are unbreakable unless we can suddenly reverse some trap door functions. But there's no good reason to believe that we've closed the last of the windows to use your terminology. We might have gotten there with current implementations or we may get there soon. But if you're relying on today's encryption technologies to keep your data safe from sophisticated actors, you may also find that you're in for a big surprise.
The OTP encryption algorithm is, of course, unbreakable. However, you have a huge key distribution problem. Also some OTPs generated during WWII were breakable because the algorithm to generate them wasn't quite random. (Humans created the OTPs by drawing letters from a bucket but tended to not like pads that didn't have distributions of letters similar to English words)
No, the OP isn't saying that at all. Public key encryption is computationally expensive so SSL implementation use asymmetric encryption in order to securely establish a session key. After that, faster, symmetric encryption is used. Unless you've been living under a rock, it has been discovered recently that the algorithms used to generate those symmetric keys were not well implemented and, therefore, the keys could be guessed. (Those also rely on a prime number which was cut and pasted which is what the OP is referring to here). It doesn't matter how secure the key exchange is if the key itself can be guessed!
https://www.digicert.com/ssl-c...
I wish I had mod points. Most people wouldn't know where to look for a contract killer and, unless the first person they ask happens to be one, there is a string of evidence starting at the first inquiry. If somebody from my community asked if I knew a hit man, I'd have to politely decline any knowledge. I would probably assume that they were just venting some anger and ignore it. But if a week later, some bizarre murder happened in town, I would probably remember pretty quick. So would the other dozens of people they'd have to ask before they found somebody, if they found somebody. Likely somebody may squeal even before the find somebody to hire.
Well the prices that I saw in that situation were about 3x the consumer drive costs. Plus as an enterprise there were hot spares laying around since these were in RAID arrays.
If they track your cell phone in the area, maybe they can ask your phone provider to mail your spouse! One thing for sure that this guarantees is that those areas won't ever see a recovery. Can't get anybody to open a business no matter how many incentives you offer!
I've seen "enterprise" disks that were just consumer disks with a fancy housing. There were some electronics for things like hot-swap and interface adapting. But no difference in terms of the storage media.
And the only circumstances under which I can see not wanting to pay that $300 is ultra-cheap consumer hardware. HDDs have a terrible failure mode (heads crash onto the platters stripping off the magnetic surface destroying data). SSDs just tell you that you have to get a new one but you can read all of your data.
If you are looking at very low-end hardware, just get a smaller disk and use cloud storage. If you're actually doing something of value with the equipment, $300 really isn't enough to even blink an eye. If not, a 0GB disk is big enough.
The comparison of price points only makes sense for large-scale applications like an entire data center where its $1 million vs $4 million.
Today, SSDs are as cheap as HDDs used to be and we paid the old prices for HDDs.
Disclaimer: I no longer live in my mother's basement so I may have the wrong mindset.
There is still the concern about write cycle limits on SSDs but they are a lot more reliable than HDDs. If you can no longer write to an SSD you simply replace it and move your data to a new disk. If an HDD fails it's usually a mechanical failure of something like the head actuator and all of the data is gone. By the time your SSD wears out, you'll be able to buy a replacement of the same size for probably a dollar. Or they will be given away at trade shows.
If your writes are really so heavy that you might wear one out in less than a few years, you're probably running some sort of large-scale data center and hopefully not asking this question on/.!
The only reason I know of for consumers to use spinning disks these days is for sub-$200 laptops and/or maintaining some obscenely large media collection. For everyday desktop / laptop use, it generally doesn't make sense.
It's trivial to get caught. The EPA estimates a number. If they see or hear you advertising a different one, they collect their money. The proof of how easy it is to get caught is the fact that there aren't any cases of it having been done hitting the news! That's not because it's rampant (I've certainly never seen it and neither have any of the commenters here and the/. crowd is astute to such things), it's because it just doesn't happen. In your equation it's way not worth the money.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure that you can use Google Voice as a mobile authenticator.
Yesterday I suggested that Windows from a Torrent probably wasn't as secure as Linux and got toasted! Download Linux ISOs directly from the distributors web sites and verify the hashes.
The fact that you think this means you have no idea about the struggles in urban communities or the efforts people make to stop it. In almost every white community, parents drive their kids to school in gas guzzling SUVs because they don't think walking is safe (it is). In urban communities kids often have to walk. The parents and neighbors stand out in the cold to form "safe corridors" to try and prevent violence. They are putting themselves in legitimate danger. I've already commented why I think the general premise of this argument is wrong. But even if it were true, it really shows complete lack of understanding about urban communities which are overwhelmingly black so the two are mostly interchangeable (but not always)
Unarmed black people are more likely to get shot by police than unarmed people of other races. And racism is experienced in all kind of ways. Here's a good article. I was actually looking to cite some of the more famous experiments when I found it. http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/... Reducing black on black violence and reducing institutionalized racism are both noble goals. The Black Lives Matter folks have focused on the latter probably because they feel that they have better odds. The idea that somebody has to try to solve *every* problem in order to be entitled to trying to solve *one* problem is ridiculous. Even computer programmers don't care about computer programmers. They go contributing their efforts for free to open source projects when they could be volunteering in a soup kitchen feeding those put out of work by H1-B workers. That's really just another formulation of what you are saying. This might not even seem terrible at first if you think of one group. But the unemployed programmers may or may not be the ones contributing to open source. So it's entirely possible that you've just pitted one subgroup against another only to condemn the larger group. By your logic we could condemn all people who work on any problem other than the one you deem most important.
I see your point. But in this case, the parallel construction isn't an issue, it's the underlying violation of rights. I'm not aware of this ever even being alleged in a parallel construction case. The known cases involve one are of law enforcement, acting legally, tipping off another area of law enforcement that also acts legally. The first set of legally obtained evidence is never used but people want the second set to be thrown out since it's not possible to challenge the first (unused) set. If the FBI decides to follow me around with a Stingray (maybe they are and that explains why my 4G data is so slow) violating my rights, letting a hardened criminal go in some other related case doesn't in any way make me whole. What would make me whole is for them to stop the practice and pay damages. You're suggestion about not throwing out the evidence but the police get in some kind of trouble is actually what happens in some places and seems to work. But it doesn't provide enough protection. Throwing out all of the fruit of the poison tree is actually a good policy. A parallel construction case where the first set of evidence is obtained illegally and the second through legal means creates a pretty interesting situation (and one very apt for debate here). There probably isn't a perfect answer. But that's much different than a parallel construction case where the first set is obtained legally (but either in a way that's not admissible or in which LE chooses not to use it for tactical reasons) and the second set is also obtained legally. In my stolen car / cocaine example, the evidence was obtained legally (assuming that bumping into the tool shed was truly accidental) and would *probably* be admissible (I'm not a lawyer. A defense attorney worth their salt would argue that it wasn't an accident and try to get it thrown owt) but LE may not want to take the chance on bringing that case. Everything is legal so far, though. Disallowing parallel construction would basically say that those officers have to lock the knowledge in their head, never divulge it, and not participate in any future investigations. In the dead body example, there is probably a challenge to throw out a confession due to the defendant's low IQ *even if* the Miranda rights were read. "My client didn't understand that he had the right to remain silent." This isn't bad police work. Just a legitimate defense. But the fact that they couldn't understand their Miranda rights shouldn't lead to exclusion of physical evidence found on the body. In most of the examples you provide, there is evidence of illegal police activity which might change the outcome. But parallel construction does not imply illegal activity and LE shouldn't have the burden of proof that parallel construction wasn't used. Defendants should have the burden of proof that it was used. It's almost impossible to prove a negative. Parallel construction as we know it represents a situation where the police believe that no rights were violated, there is no evidence that rights are violated and yet the defense wants to create a burden of proving a negative.
It doesn't matter if it's predictable or not as long as it varies from run to run. The most common exploit that ASLR prevents is a stack-smashing buffer-overrun. You send in some data that you manage to get written to the stack. But you can't know a priori what the values will be when sending your data unless you already have some other knowledge of the system. So it's unlikely that you can exploit the buffer overflow. Without ASLR it's easy to know the addresses of system functions and to craft some data that will exploit a stack-smashing vulnerability. If the algorithm were absolutely terrible (always put function X at address YYYY on odd days) there may be some way to try to exploit. But even a week random generator is good enough in this case. The reason that a weak random generator doesn't work for cryptography is that I can analyze the message "offline" and try as many iterations as I want. When attacking a running system with a stack smashing attack, it's either going to crash or be exploited on each attempt so I won't get very many tries.
Except that the first group isn't violating anybody's rights. The first set of evidence is essentially discarded. Then a new set of evidence is gathered. Remember, none of the first set of evidence is ever used in a court as evidence for a conviction. It's possible that the first set of evidence was gained in a way that violates somebody's rights. But even then it has to be obtained in a way that violates somebody's rights, it doesn't change the situation much. Imagine that you get arrested for running an illegal gambling ring. (Again whether that should be illegal is another question). The evidence that showed that you are guilty gets thrown out. That doesn't imply that you can never be prosecuted for running an illegal gambling ring in the future. That reminds me of a not-so funny scene in a movie where somebody is arrested and convicted for stealing a car. He goes out the next day and steals the same car and argues that you can't be tried for the same crime twice! What parallel construction does is use inadmissible information to find the admissible information. Imagine that I get arrested for murder, confess, and lead prosecutors to the body. It turns out that nobody read my rights. So now I argue that the confession should be thrown out. Sure, no problem. The fact that I lead them to the body should be thrown out. Okay there too. But what you are saying is that maybe the cops would never have found the body without my help. Therefore, the fact that my blood and semen is all over the body is also inadmissible. That's quite ridiculous. What if a tip comes in but something goes wrong with process and it's never received. You get caught doing the crime. Should the case then be thrown out even though you're caught red handed. People seem to misunderstand parallel construction as in the following scenario. Police violate my rights by entering my house without a warrant and finding a brick of cocaine. Then they claim that I left it outside on the porch and that's how they found it. In that case, there would be a huge issue. Here it's more the case that they search my garage looking for stolen cars. They accidentally bump into my tool shed and see cocaine in there. They know that the evidence isn't admissible since they can't reasonably look in the tool shed for a stolen car. They decide to drive around my block a bit more often. They notice that I have a stream of visitors. One of them has a vehicle with no tags. They decide to stop the vehicle for the traffic violation. They ask the driver why they were visiting me. The driver says it was to by cocaine. Your argument is that they can't use the evidence because, after all, they *probably* wouldn't have asked if they didn't already know I had cocaine in the garage. They can't use the presence of the cocaine in my garage during the search warrant to convict me. But they *can* use future gathered evidence. What you are saying is that once some evidence is gathered incorrectly, I should be free to continue to engage in the same crime ad infinitum and never be prosecuted. I don't think that's something that we want.
I'd love to see a specific example here. The process seems to be that an agency tasked with gathering intelligence about overseas foreign nationals finds out about some garden variety crimes as part of their normal activities. They'd like for local law enforcement to be able to act on the information but run into two problems. They may not want to detail information about their surveillance technologies and they don't want to risk a surveillance target knowing that they are being actively monitored. So they have to either ignore the upcoming crime or compromise their own activities and maybe their agents in the field. Instead they alert the state police that 50kg of cocaine is going to be exchanged at a particular rest stop on I80 at 5:45pm Thursday. They know this because the local Taliban official is expecting to get paid by 6pm and then he can pay his arms supplier. It's in everybody's interest that the deal not go through. So the police increase patrols at that rest stop. Sure enough they see two cars pull into the rest stop and park in a remote area. First a briefcase is passed from one party to another and then some bricks are moved from one trunk to another. In the process of transloading one of bags breaks open and cocaine spills all over the ground. The police move in and make the arrest. None of the evidence is illegally gathered. The parallel construction part is that the police didn't just happen to be at the right place at the right time. They were there due to a tip. A defense attorney may ask if the police were there due to a tip or if it was just random good luck. In that case, the police may be forced to lie which is, admittedly, problematic. But the real solution is not to allow this type of question to be asked. The office can't tell the truth as it would compromise field agents working in national security. He can't lie because it's illegal. If he answers "I'm not at liberty to say" it's a dead giveaway that a tip was received. The question shouldn't be allowed. What difference does it make? The officer observed a crime in broad daylight. The reason that this question is allowed at all is that in *minor* cases it may be that a particular officer "has it in" for somebody and is looking for evidence of some very minor crime. The officers situation and motivation may be at issue and there may be harassment involved. Some lady turns you down for a date and you "just happen" to walk by the next day and smell marijuana and arrest her son. Yeah, toss out the conviction. The same situation happens and it turns out that the son is a hitman, the tables are kind of turned. There is an argument that the seriousness of the crime shouldn't weigh in these decisions but that ignores the fact that selective enforcement of minor crime can be used as a tool of oppression. Major crimes aren't subject to this problem because they aren't ubiquitous. Of course the best solution would be to decriminalize a lot of minor crimes. Opposing parallel construction is probably motivated by this goal. Increase standards of evidence in ways that make it almost impossible to prosecute minor crime but this is a circuitous solution.
The reason that we do things a certain way is to ensure protection of people's rights. Things like standards of evidence exist in order to minimize the risk of an innocent person being found guilty. But it's not clear that eliminating parallel construction would serve any of the purposes that underpin our justice system. The process seems to be that DEA or police receive what is little more than an anonymous tip and then they investigate and find evidence of a crime. Imagine the local busybody who calls the police at every sign of suspicious behavior. We may not like that person. But there are often several of these in any jurisdiction. They even have reputations. The dispatchers know that if person X calls in a tip, it's probably just that they are upset that some kid accidentally stepped on their lawn but if person Y calls something in, it's worth investigating. Whenever the police receive an anonymous tip, it's entirely possible that the person making the call obtained their information in an illegal way. It's not necessary to vet the anonymous source in order to act on the information. What the opponents of parallel construction seem to be arguing is that anything that results from anonymous tips is fruit of the poison tree and should be inadmissible until proven otherwise. The reason that we don't allow warrantless search and seizure isn't to protect those engaging in illegal activity, it's to protect the rights of the innocent. The fact that some crime goes unpunished is an unfortunate side effect.
I don't think the issue is quite so simple here. Certainly all lives matter and only the most egregious racists would argue otherwise. The reason that we have a black lives matter movement right now is because of a perception (real or imagined, but I certainly see the validity) that black lives aren't being given the same value in our society as other lives. The hope is to draw attention to that disparity.
At the risk of getting modded into oblivion, we could remove guns tomorrow and life would hum on. So removing them is an easy thing to do to improve safety. I'd like to get rid of those 11,208 homocides. We could also, of course, get rid of cars. But that's no so easy to do as we tend to be very dependent on them. It's very rare that a car gets stolen and you don't know. OTOH it seems to happen all the time that firearms are stolen and the owners don't notice until they get used in a crime. The *practical* implications of removing guns is much less than cars. The philosophical situation is of course much different.
Rear view cameras are specifically about kids who are *too small* for you to see when looking out the rear window. If there is a kid behind you they don't have to get out of the way, you have to yield. But you can't yield if you don't know that they are there. That's why the camera is important.
So we can just synthesize that protein in a lab and add it back to the meat during the curing stage. Everybody is happy.
The problem with a label like "No GMO" is that it isn't just a statement of fact that there aren't any GMOs in the product. You don't voluntarily put labels on a product with negative information. Putting "No GMO" on some products is the equivalent of putting "GMO" on all of the GMO products since the lack of a "No GMO" label implies a GMO product. The "No GMO" label implies that it's somehow better than the GMO counterpart. This would be a false claim unless you can show it to be true. Therefore, the label is problematic. Imagine I sold tomatoes that said "Made without manure fertilizer." Well there would be no difference in the produced tomato if I used manure or if I used an artificial fertilizer. But that label would imply that my tomatoes are better. And to make that kind of claim you have to prove it. You can't bring a GMO crop to market without approval. But once you get that approval, makers of non-GMO competitors can't imply that your product is worse. That doesn't mean that they can't compete. Produce is often branded and people like certain brands. The "Tasti-Lee" tomatoes are very popular. And they don't make any claims. Their product just looks and tastes better to many people.
Uh this is no more secure than if you paid for a retail copy and also verified the SHA1 or purchased an MSDN subscription. Vendor-installed OS may come already compromised or with malware installed. If you want to save money, you could achieve the same thing installing Linux and the steps to download are a lot simpler. I realize it's fun to get modded up for encouraging pirating Windows but it's not really a behavior that should be supported. The alternative to paid Windows is free Linux not pirated Windows.
Except that it seems that every time we think we've closed the last window, it turns out there is one more. So there are algorithms out there that, mathematically are unbreakable unless we can suddenly reverse some trap door functions. But there's no good reason to believe that we've closed the last of the windows to use your terminology. We might have gotten there with current implementations or we may get there soon. But if you're relying on today's encryption technologies to keep your data safe from sophisticated actors, you may also find that you're in for a big surprise.
The OTP encryption algorithm is, of course, unbreakable. However, you have a huge key distribution problem. Also some OTPs generated during WWII were breakable because the algorithm to generate them wasn't quite random. (Humans created the OTPs by drawing letters from a bucket but tended to not like pads that didn't have distributions of letters similar to English words)
No, the OP isn't saying that at all. Public key encryption is computationally expensive so SSL implementation use asymmetric encryption in order to securely establish a session key. After that, faster, symmetric encryption is used. Unless you've been living under a rock, it has been discovered recently that the algorithms used to generate those symmetric keys were not well implemented and, therefore, the keys could be guessed. (Those also rely on a prime number which was cut and pasted which is what the OP is referring to here). It doesn't matter how secure the key exchange is if the key itself can be guessed! https://www.digicert.com/ssl-c...
I wish I had mod points. Most people wouldn't know where to look for a contract killer and, unless the first person they ask happens to be one, there is a string of evidence starting at the first inquiry. If somebody from my community asked if I knew a hit man, I'd have to politely decline any knowledge. I would probably assume that they were just venting some anger and ignore it. But if a week later, some bizarre murder happened in town, I would probably remember pretty quick. So would the other dozens of people they'd have to ask before they found somebody, if they found somebody. Likely somebody may squeal even before the find somebody to hire.
Well the prices that I saw in that situation were about 3x the consumer drive costs. Plus as an enterprise there were hot spares laying around since these were in RAID arrays.
If they track your cell phone in the area, maybe they can ask your phone provider to mail your spouse! One thing for sure that this guarantees is that those areas won't ever see a recovery. Can't get anybody to open a business no matter how many incentives you offer!
I've seen "enterprise" disks that were just consumer disks with a fancy housing. There were some electronics for things like hot-swap and interface adapting. But no difference in terms of the storage media.
And the only circumstances under which I can see not wanting to pay that $300 is ultra-cheap consumer hardware. HDDs have a terrible failure mode (heads crash onto the platters stripping off the magnetic surface destroying data). SSDs just tell you that you have to get a new one but you can read all of your data. If you are looking at very low-end hardware, just get a smaller disk and use cloud storage. If you're actually doing something of value with the equipment, $300 really isn't enough to even blink an eye. If not, a 0GB disk is big enough. The comparison of price points only makes sense for large-scale applications like an entire data center where its $1 million vs $4 million. Today, SSDs are as cheap as HDDs used to be and we paid the old prices for HDDs. Disclaimer: I no longer live in my mother's basement so I may have the wrong mindset.
There is still the concern about write cycle limits on SSDs but they are a lot more reliable than HDDs. If you can no longer write to an SSD you simply replace it and move your data to a new disk. If an HDD fails it's usually a mechanical failure of something like the head actuator and all of the data is gone. By the time your SSD wears out, you'll be able to buy a replacement of the same size for probably a dollar. Or they will be given away at trade shows. If your writes are really so heavy that you might wear one out in less than a few years, you're probably running some sort of large-scale data center and hopefully not asking this question on /.!
The only reason I know of for consumers to use spinning disks these days is for sub-$200 laptops and/or maintaining some obscenely large media collection. For everyday desktop / laptop use, it generally doesn't make sense.
It's trivial to get caught. The EPA estimates a number. If they see or hear you advertising a different one, they collect their money. The proof of how easy it is to get caught is the fact that there aren't any cases of it having been done hitting the news! That's not because it's rampant (I've certainly never seen it and neither have any of the commenters here and the /. crowd is astute to such things), it's because it just doesn't happen. In your equation it's way not worth the money.