Fraud is taking by deceptive, dishonest means. Therefore intent to deceive, intent to be dishonest, comes into play.
OK, point taken, it may have been fraudulent intent that the prosecution meant when they announced the case was being dropped for lack of intent. My concern about making out fraud was more basic, where is the deception intended or otherwise, but I don't know, what constitutes fraud in Canada may differ from what constitutes fraud in my jurisdiction.
The individual used the public interface to the web site in a manner which the public interface was intended by the originators of that interface to be used.
No, obviously not by the authors of that particular interface, (in contradistinction to the general protocol perhaps). The designers of that interface evidently though it sufficient to give each applicant a specific URL which they were to use to access only the information they were entitled to see. It almost goes without saying that they failed even to consider the likelihood of anyone doing what the accused did.... astounding as that might seem to us.
Altering a URL by editing the address line was anticipated by the protocol and is supported by practically every available client implementation of applications that support the protocol. It isn't "hacking" (whatever that is) to use an application in the manner in which it was intended to be used.
The question is not "was it hacking." The question is: a) did the accused "obtain" a "computer service" and b) in doing so did the accused lack a specific right to obtain that service and c) was it obtained by means of fraud. How do you the motivations you impute to web client designers address those questions?
The government's action in publishing the FOIA information in this way was tantamount to...
Not the worst analogy, up to the next point.
... The government would never be able to claim "unauthorized access" if someone subsequently leafed through the pages to read all of the FOIA responses.
Why not? If authorisation were required to access the information on any page and you were authorised to look at page 665, your looking at page 666 would be, almost by defintion, unauthorised. You would have "no colour of right" to look at the next page. Whether merely turning the page (or editing a URL) would constitute fraud, OTOH, is doubtful.
.. some years ago I was in Germany and was introduced to a German drinking superstition. If, when toasting, you look at your glass rather than looking the person with whom you're toasting in the eye, it means you will have "5 years of bad sex." To which I replied, "5 years of bad sex is better than 5 years of no sex at all."
There is no difference...
The original statement that the data "mistakenly posted to a publicly available system" is a clear misrepresentation of the facts. I was deliberately posted, the "mistake," if any, was that that publicly available system was adequately secured (insofar as security is a relevant consideration here). I feel confident you do not lack the ability to distinguish between the two situations (but if you do, some career advice... forget law!).
I just disagree that there is any basis (legal or technical) to say this data was "secured".
Again, I'm not sure anyone said it was secured, it was certainly not adequately secured. As I wrote in another post, a deliberate attempt to circumvent a security feature may go to the issue of "fraudlently" obtaining. Apart from that it is difficult to see what relavance the concept of "security" has to this offence. Thus the moment you claim the system was completely unsecured, the notion of "security" must vanish from our analysis. Security is no real issue in this case.
They may as well have posted the data on a billboard and then tried to arrest anyone who read it.
No, anyone can read everything posted on a billboard, indeed it would take effort to avert one's eyes and read only the notice(s) specifically addressed to you. Not anyone poked beyond the specific URL they were given to look at other people's information, it was the accused took the effort to do so. Maybe you like to fashion an analogy out of a stack of manilla folders? I'd prefer simply to work with the facts of the case: it's like he was given a url, realised that by making trivial changes to it he could view other people's information and did so... a lot like;)
The law should never treat security by obscurity as "security."
You can see the law spelled out above. Where does it say anything about "security?"
Punishing somebody because somebody else was stupid is beyond wrong.
This isn't about what happens in anyone's personal opinon to be "beyond wrong." It's about whether the accused comitted an offence under 342.1 of the Criminal Code. Evidently the prosecutors decided they could not prove he did.
Please spare us the corny, faulty analogies and stick to the facts of the case and the relevant law.
There was neither fraud nor lack of right
I disagree with the latter, I see no right or authorisation to access other people's private information. I do, however, tend agree with the former: trivially changing a URL to look at nearby page should not suffice to make out fraud. In any case, if either of these elements is not satisfied their case is gone.
That's why prosecutors dropped the case, as
STOP! Stop right there! That is indeed why the prosecutors dropped the case, they couldn't make out the elements of the offence. End of story, no "as" nothing. Bang, he's free!
How bad does the security have to be, before you can legally assume they meant to grant full access?
If you have to use a URL other than that which given to you, either spelled out, or as an href, I doubt you will successfully be able to claim constructive authorisation to view the document behind that new URL, (where authorisation would usually be required). If you got desparate it might be worth a shot, but as the first line of defence I'd still challenge the idea that changing a URL is sufficient to constitute fraud. Remember they need to show a) that the accused "obrained" a "computer service" (which includes triggering a data retrieval mechanism) AND b) that he had no right to do so AND c) that he did so fraudulently. Defeat the weakest link in the chain and you've got your guy off.
If you store your money in a hollow pumpkin on your doorstep, can visitors assume it's free money?
So long as the visitors don't act on it, they are free to assume what they like.;)
But no, obviously they cannot legally take that money.
As sufficiently bad sex is ndistinguishable from no sex?
That is a distinction without a difference.
You can see no difference between mistakenly posting to a deliberately non-secured service and purposely posting to a service with inffective security? You also missed the "insofar as this is relevant"...
it's pretty clear in this case that any claim that this was "secured" data utterly absurd
Who claimed that the data in this case was "secured," and why (with reference to the law I posted above) would that be material?
I don't know how "security" is actually defined under the relevant law
As you can see the word 'security' does not appear in the clauses I quoted, (nor, fyi, anywhere else in the operative clauses of this provision). Consequently any defintion of 'security' would be of no legal effect. Unsurprisingly 'security' does not appear in among the defintiions in the provision.
The crime here is committed in "obtain[ing], directly or indirectly, any "computer service" (or in causing a function of that system to be intercepted), where this computer service (which term includes "retrieval of data") is obtained without any right of acess AND fraudulently. Now circumvention of a security system might go the the fraudulent nature of the act, but "security" per se, is does not appear to be a necessary concept here.
The question is simply, a) has the accused triggered the data retrieval mechanism b) was he or was he not authorised to do and c) was there fraud involved in how he did it. On the facts of the case, I feel that intent (which presumably would be the intent to trigger data retrieval) is established and no legal reason for dropping the charges, rather it would the difficultly or arguing point c). But again, I'm ignorant of the relevant case law if any such exists.
I think the point is - intent is meaningless if you don't actually break the law.
Contrary to OP's post, was not "mistakenly posted to a publicly available system (in the sense OP intends it)," it was instead, insofar as this is relevant, posted to a server with atrociously ineffective "security." Links would be given to individuals to access information to which they alone had been granted the legal right to access. No such right had been bestowed on the accused who circumvented the "security," (as trivial as this was to do), and in doing so breached the privacy of victims who, notwithstanding the negligence of the public authority, had through no act of their own been so exposed.
The provision under which he was charged was s342.1 of the Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) which begins:
Unauthorized use of computer
342.1 (1) Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, fraudulently and without colour of right,
(a) obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service;
(b) by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or indirectly, any function of a computer system;
(c)... ... computer service includes data processing and the storage or retrieval of computer data; (service d’ordinateur) ...
For the purposes of the provision "computer service includes data processing and the storage or retrieval of computer data; (service d’ordinateur),"
The question is not whether he accessed the information indirectly (hacked|cracked), or directly, the question is whether in breaching the privacy of individuals he acted "without colour of right" and "fraudulently." It is the requirement to demonstrate that his behaviour crossed the threshold of fraud, I would image, that poses the largest hurdle to a conviction in this case, but then I am not a Canadian lawyer.
Nonetheless, there is at least a prima facie case that he did break the law, and thus intent is, contra OP, becomes a material consideration.
what if you do have criminal intent when you read the public road signs?
Much of traffic law is governed, the common law world over, and for obvious reasons, by what we call strict liability offences, which is to say offences for which the state is relieved of its ordinary burden to establish intent in criminal cases. These are the exception to the rule that a crime, (in contradistinction to a tort etc.) consists of the combination of the actus reus and the mens rea. Strict liability is necessary evil (from the PoV of the democratic rights-based state) and ought to be both a rare exception as also restricted to crimes where it is both a) impracticable to establish intent (eg. particular traffic offences) and where the punishment available to the state are relatively minor (eg. fines as opposed to custodial sentences).
In any case, there is nothing in s342.1 (1) which explicitly obviates the need to demonstrate intent. So this is not relevant here.
Now I would have thought the requisite intent was simply to "obtain a computer service" (i.e. access the data), which his script amply evidences. And remember intent does not require knowledge that an act is criminal. But perhaps there is clear authority to that point and the police are acting on that precedent. Otherwise it should not, in a case where intent (but for some point of law) seems clear, be for the police, but rather for the courts to determine both whether the requisite act and intent are present.
That's a highly contested question. Here is my answer:
Fascism was an anti-socialist movement and then what has been called an "extra-ordinary form of the capitalist state" which flourished primarily in interbellum Europe where, as in the prototypical cases of Italy and Germany, there was the wide-spread perception of a real threat of imminent socialist revolution. It is characterised as the movement by copying then extant (extra-parliamentary) socialist forms of organisation (party structure, paramilitary, forms of propaganda etc.) and in government by something not too dissimilar from a Soviet-style dictatorship. Indeed, clearly in the case of Italy (where it originally emerged as a pro-war break-away from the PSI), and arguably Germany (where the pre-Hitler NSDAP espoused some socialistic economic ideas), it had originally emerged from socialism. This relationship can no longer be maintained for fascist organisations such as the Spanish Falangists or the Romanian Legion of the Archangel of St Micheal (Iron Guard), which especially arose from religious groundings.
Superficially it differs from socialism in its adherence to vehement nationalistic and often racist principles,* as opposed to the internationalism of socialism. However, it is radically to be distinguished from socialism is in it's approach to economics where historically it provided the bulwark of protection of the private ownership of industry as opposed to socialist "nationalisation" of the "means of production." Hitler famously protected the large German industrial concerns (realising perhaps on what side his bread was buttered) which remained probably the only institution of German civil society not to be subjected to Gleichschaltung, (as opposed the family, education, the army, the churches etc.). [*While any account of Nazism specifically which failed to account for the genocidal anti-semitism could not be maintained, it remains the anti-socialism which binds 'fascisms' together and accounts for their political success.]
Inasmuch as fascist movements began as nominally anti-capitalist almost all abandoned this position over the course of their maturation.
This was in part due to the fact that the ranks of fascist movements were swelled by precisely those who felt most threatened by the inroads being made by socialism (as in the case of the upper strata of the rural population in Italy) and that their votes (esp. in the case of Germany) came largely at the expense of the smaller bürgerliche (business oriented) parties. Thus the two other main founders (beside Mussolini) of Italian fascism, the syndicalist Alceste De Ambris and the futurist Filippo Marinetti quit once they had realised how far to the right the nascent membership had taken their movement, notwithstanding that it was Marinetti who had instigated the violence against the PSI and invented such methods as tying rural socialist officials to telegraph poles and forcing them to drink castor oil, which so attracted said members. Certainly these movements came to be understood at the time as being of the right, and as a matter of practical politics where often in alliance or near alliance with the traditional conservative parties in their respective nations (for which see the troubled relationship between the NSDAP and the DNVP.
If 'fascism' can be used outside the limited historical context (and that is itself disputable) it cannot, I would submit, be accurately used in a situation where there is no realistic threat of socialist takeover, (or at least the perception of such a threat), Thus its contemporary use is by extension or by analogy. Certainly to describe modern politicians, however pro big industry and/or anti-socialist they may be, who can be voted out of office, as "fascists," is to misunderstand the 'extra-ordinary form of the capitalist state' (to use the Marxists' own termino
I was just considering that the other day: party A and party B discussing party C on social media--party C NEVER having been on any form of social media.
It extends beyond simply "discussing." Take for instance name-tagging of friends in photos shared on FB (or on Apple Photos etc), which amounts to submitting a (usually) non-consenting third party's face into a facial recognition database.
The new surveillance state is distinguished from those hitherto existing, by the enthusiastic participation of hoi polloi in their own* surveillance [*as individuals and as a people]. Not only do we willingly carry tracking devices on our persons, we employ them to photograph, film, otherwise record and then publish on "social" media, snapshots and impressions of unwilling bystanders all neatly geo-located and time stamped. We amuse ourselves with shared videos of "public" altercations, without fearing for our own privacy --indeed, ensnared by too simple a division of public/private we are locked out from conceiveing of varying levels of privacy in the world outside our room, without even enjoying it in there.
In an age where everyone always carries a tracking and recording device, everyone is granted the opportunity, at any time, to be an informant.
The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation.
Except where, as here, res ipsa loquitur applies: The regional instability is an obvious after effect of Western intervention, specifically the removal of Saddam Hussein and the Bathists from power in Iraq and the dismantling of the repressive apparatus of the Iraqi state. It failed to eventuate under Hussein's oppressive and murderous regime, which had managed to keep longstanding ethnic and religious conflicts and forces at bay for decades (which is, of course, why it had previously been US foreign policy to support it notwithstanding the nastiness of the regime). Once the damn was blown the waters poured forth, which waters then wetted the Arab spring. I'd need to show, how none of the water would've leaked out, were it not for the damn being blown, do I hear you say?
That being said, iggymanz' original reply to you is a canonical example of the tu quoque fallacy, for which, under my prospective dictatorial regime of social media censorship;), it and all subsequent replies (including even this) should have been cast into oblivion.
In Australia, a "liberal" is a right wing conservative.
And to the point... the traditional meaning of 'liberal' in Australia arises out of the dispute between free traders (liberals) and protectionists in the early years of federation. It was an irony of fate that the later 'Liberal Party,' when it was formed in 1945 out of the ruins of the conservative United Australia Party, went into coalition with the protectionist Country Party (subsequently renamed to National Party) who were instrumental in erecting serious tariff barriers which were left (which might also be viewed as ironic) to the social democrats (Australian Labor (sic) Party) to begin taking down.
Also the Liberal Party is understood as having a (only slightly right of centre) 'liberal' wing as well as a fully fledged "right wing conservative" wing, though one might be excused from noticing it, so much do the 'liberals' in the party cower before the 'conservatives'.
Finally, just to confuse ourselves, we sometimes use 'liberal' almost as American use it, called "small-l liberal" as opposed to "large-L Liberal" (ie. member of the main conservative party).
I think that this community and academics at large could probably come up with a decent working moderation system.
As a start you'd prepare moderators via a graduate entry university course (MMod) covering procedural fairness, free speech issues, logical fallacies as well as filling in some factual basics in the humanities and/or sciences (to pad out the blind spot left by the original degree). The practising MMod would be required to undertake continuing education and be subject to periodic work review. Of course moderators would refrain from voting or in any other way becoming involved in party politics. After we have capable and bias-free moderators we could start getting serious designing systems...;)
Until then we may just have to survive the fact that publishing unpopular opinions invites social censure.
Targetting [sic] liberals doesn't even pay for itself, as they tend to cross reference and notify each other that a story is fake, and you only get a few hits.
As much as 'liberals' (as our American cousins employ the word) like to believe this, the (necessarily) recent work suggests otherwise: (Stewart et al).
MORE Russian misinformation accounts... simply a ploy to destabilize Facebook?
Possible, but since cognitive dissonance renders that redundant, Occam's Razor demands we presumptively treat them as genuine (useful) idiots.
And let's remember it is not exclusively those on the right, as seems to be the insinuation, who have been re-posting Russian troll 'news.' More than that, using this to score cheap political points only exacerbates the mischief Putin has been visiting on our various democracies. To fight this disruption we need instead to reach out and at least listen to and maybe even show a modicum of respect to our fellow citizens with whose political opinions we happen to disagree (as always within limits). It's the wedge that's being driven between us we must reject.
Anyway, I'm off to check which Russian troll stories I've re-posted... should be humbling.
Human life is human life. At least be consistent about it.
Well since viable human ova and sperm are human and alive, consistency demands that we ban any form of contraception and require that every fertile woman make her best attempt to fertilise the ovuum every month. Additionally male masturbation resulting in ejaculation must be criminalised. Oh wait... there's already a Bill for that one on the table!
You create an energy backed cryptocurrency. This cryptocurrency is issued by energy corporations and is basically backed by kWh
A few decades ago, when I was reading that kind of stuff, I came to the conclusion that Marx, Ricardo and Adam Smith were wrong in regard the the Labour Theory of Value and that the Physiocrats, whom Marx mercilessly castigated, were in fact correct. It is not labour on the factory floor that creates 'value,' it's the fact that the amount of labour required to generate a certain amount of food is less than the labour that can be powered by that food. Which is to say the 'value' apparently generated by labour is in fact an energy input from the sun. When you look through this lens, 'standard of living' is practically a measure of energy consumed.
It occurred to me too, that if money were backed by energy (which makes sense if it is the true value), energy efficiency would be built into the market and the great emerging (at that time) environmental question would somewhat be addressed. Though not as thoroughly thought through (enough th*gh* words?) or as far reaching as you have it.
While I'm not really sure anymore that money requires backing by any commodity (the MMTers have messed with me;), I'm finding your particular implementation of energy-currency interesting. However, I'm not entirely clear why (indeed how) this would need to be a crypto-currency in particular. Isn't the idea of the block-chain not only to create trust but also an implementation of the marginalist notion of 'value' (or mere 'price') as a function of rarity?
If most people better educated than me in a given field told me that something was most likely correct, I would assume it to be accurate unless/until there was verifiable evidence strong enough to invalidate it.
Well yes. However slashrio is somewhat wide of the mark, if he believes that my post above was arguing in favour of an expert consensus view of science (however arguable that position might be).
If we do *not* get the results predicted by the study above, would that invalidate the theory of global warming?
Does this single study comprise the entirety of modern climatological theory as it pertains to observed warming?
If not, what testable predictions does the global warming theory make, whose failure *would* invalidate the theory?
More generally, You seem to be working from a naive Falsificationist view of science. Your question is like asking "what testable prediction does astrophysics make whose failure should make us revert to a pre-scientific belief (eg. that stars are cracks in the firmament through which we can glimpse the cosmic fire?)." We cannot abandon theory simply because some testable hypothesis was 'falsified.' Theory is not to be invalidated but supplanted.
Specifically, if temperatures global temperatures would just stop rising decade upon decade, and instead began to fall decade upon decade, and if this fall were not readily to be explained by current theory, that should open the door to the acceptance of a more productive alternative theory once that theory became available.
Slashdot Mirror
Fraud is taking by deceptive, dishonest means. Therefore intent to deceive, intent to be dishonest, comes into play.
OK, point taken, it may have been fraudulent intent that the prosecution meant when they announced the case was being dropped for lack of intent. My concern about making out fraud was more basic, where is the deception intended or otherwise, but I don't know, what constitutes fraud in Canada may differ from what constitutes fraud in my jurisdiction.
The individual used the public interface to the web site in a manner which the public interface was intended by the originators of that interface to be used.
No, obviously not by the authors of that particular interface, (in contradistinction to the general protocol perhaps). The designers of that interface evidently though it sufficient to give each applicant a specific URL which they were to use to access only the information they were entitled to see. It almost goes without saying that they failed even to consider the likelihood of anyone doing what the accused did .... astounding as that might seem to us.
Altering a URL by editing the address line was anticipated by the protocol and is supported by practically every available client implementation of applications that support the protocol. It isn't "hacking" (whatever that is) to use an application in the manner in which it was intended to be used.
The question is not "was it hacking." The question is: a) did the accused "obtain" a "computer service" and b) in doing so did the accused lack a specific right to obtain that service and c) was it obtained by means of fraud. How do you the motivations you impute to web client designers address those questions?
The government's action in publishing the FOIA information in this way was tantamount to ...
Not the worst analogy, up to the next point.
Why not? If authorisation were required to access the information on any page and you were authorised to look at page 665, your looking at page 666 would be, almost by defintion, unauthorised. You would have "no colour of right" to look at the next page. Whether merely turning the page (or editing a URL) would constitute fraud, OTOH, is doubtful.
You'll have to speak from your own experience...
There is no difference ...
The original statement that the data "mistakenly posted to a publicly available system" is a clear misrepresentation of the facts. I was deliberately posted, the "mistake," if any, was that that publicly available system was adequately secured (insofar as security is a relevant consideration here). I feel confident you do not lack the ability to distinguish between the two situations (but if you do, some career advice ... forget law!).
I just disagree that there is any basis (legal or technical) to say this data was "secured".
Again, I'm not sure anyone said it was secured, it was certainly not adequately secured. As I wrote in another post, a deliberate attempt to circumvent a security feature may go to the issue of "fraudlently" obtaining. Apart from that it is difficult to see what relavance the concept of "security" has to this offence. Thus the moment you claim the system was completely unsecured, the notion of "security" must vanish from our analysis. Security is no real issue in this case.
They may as well have posted the data on a billboard and then tried to arrest anyone who read it.
No, anyone can read everything posted on a billboard, indeed it would take effort to avert one's eyes and read only the notice(s) specifically addressed to you. Not anyone poked beyond the specific URL they were given to look at other people's information, it was the accused took the effort to do so. Maybe you like to fashion an analogy out of a stack of manilla folders? I'd prefer simply to work with the facts of the case: it's like he was given a url, realised that by making trivial changes to it he could view other people's information and did so ... a lot like ;)
The law should never treat security by obscurity as "security."
You can see the law spelled out above. Where does it say anything about "security?"
Punishing somebody because somebody else was stupid is beyond wrong.
This isn't about what happens in anyone's personal opinon to be "beyond wrong." It's about whether the accused comitted an offence under 342.1 of the Criminal Code. Evidently the prosecutors decided they could not prove he did.
The kid did the equivalent of ...
Please spare us the corny, faulty analogies and stick to the facts of the case and the relevant law.
There was neither fraud nor lack of right
I disagree with the latter, I see no right or authorisation to access other people's private information. I do, however, tend agree with the former: trivially changing a URL to look at nearby page should not suffice to make out fraud. In any case, if either of these elements is not satisfied their case is gone.
That's why prosecutors dropped the case, as
STOP! Stop right there! That is indeed why the prosecutors dropped the case, they couldn't make out the elements of the offence. End of story, no "as" nothing. Bang, he's free!
How bad does the security have to be, before you can legally assume they meant to grant full access?
If you have to use a URL other than that which given to you, either spelled out, or as an href, I doubt you will successfully be able to claim constructive authorisation to view the document behind that new URL, (where authorisation would usually be required). If you got desparate it might be worth a shot, but as the first line of defence I'd still challenge the idea that changing a URL is sufficient to constitute fraud. Remember they need to show a) that the accused "obrained" a "computer service" (which includes triggering a data retrieval mechanism) AND b) that he had no right to do so AND c) that he did so fraudulently. Defeat the weakest link in the chain and you've got your guy off.
If you store your money in a hollow pumpkin on your doorstep, can visitors assume it's free money?
So long as the visitors don't act on it, they are free to assume what they like. ;)
But no, obviously they cannot legally take that money.
As sufficiently bad sex is ndistinguishable from no sex?
That is a distinction without a difference.
You can see no difference between mistakenly posting to a deliberately non-secured service and purposely posting to a service with inffective security? You also missed the "insofar as this is relevant" ...
it's pretty clear in this case that any claim that this was "secured" data utterly absurd
Who claimed that the data in this case was "secured," and why (with reference to the law I posted above) would that be material?
I don't know how "security" is actually defined under the relevant law
As you can see the word 'security' does not appear in the clauses I quoted, (nor, fyi, anywhere else in the operative clauses of this provision). Consequently any defintion of 'security' would be of no legal effect. Unsurprisingly 'security' does not appear in among the defintiions in the provision.
The crime here is committed in "obtain[ing], directly or indirectly, any "computer service" (or in causing a function of that system to be intercepted), where this computer service (which term includes "retrieval of data") is obtained without any right of acess AND fraudulently. Now circumvention of a security system might go the the fraudulent nature of the act, but "security" per se, is does not appear to be a necessary concept here.
The question is simply, a) has the accused triggered the data retrieval mechanism b) was he or was he not authorised to do and c) was there fraud involved in how he did it. On the facts of the case, I feel that intent (which presumably would be the intent to trigger data retrieval) is established and no legal reason for dropping the charges, rather it would the difficultly or arguing point c). But again, I'm ignorant of the relevant case law if any such exists.
I think the point is - intent is meaningless if you don't actually break the law.
Contrary to OP's post, was not "mistakenly posted to a publicly available system (in the sense OP intends it)," it was instead, insofar as this is relevant, posted to a server with atrociously ineffective "security." Links would be given to individuals to access information to which they alone had been granted the legal right to access. No such right had been bestowed on the accused who circumvented the "security," (as trivial as this was to do), and in doing so breached the privacy of victims who, notwithstanding the negligence of the public authority, had through no act of their own been so exposed.
The provision under which he was charged was s342.1 of the Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) which begins:
Unauthorized use of computer
...
... computer service includes data processing and the storage or retrieval of computer data; (service d’ordinateur)
...
342.1 (1) Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years, or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who, fraudulently and without colour of right,
(a) obtains, directly or indirectly, any computer service;
(b) by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, intercepts or causes to be intercepted, directly or indirectly, any function of a computer system;
(c)
For the purposes of the provision " computer service includes data processing and the storage or retrieval of computer data; (service d’ordinateur),"
The question is not whether he accessed the information indirectly (hacked|cracked), or directly, the question is whether in breaching the privacy of individuals he acted "without colour of right" and "fraudulently." It is the requirement to demonstrate that his behaviour crossed the threshold of fraud, I would image, that poses the largest hurdle to a conviction in this case, but then I am not a Canadian lawyer.
Nonetheless, there is at least a prima facie case that he did break the law, and thus intent is, contra OP, becomes a material consideration.
what if you do have criminal intent when you read the public road signs?
Much of traffic law is governed, the common law world over, and for obvious reasons, by what we call strict liability offences, which is to say offences for which the state is relieved of its ordinary burden to establish intent in criminal cases. These are the exception to the rule that a crime, (in contradistinction to a tort etc.) consists of the combination of the actus reus and the mens rea. Strict liability is necessary evil (from the PoV of the democratic rights-based state) and ought to be both a rare exception as also restricted to crimes where it is both a) impracticable to establish intent (eg. particular traffic offences) and where the punishment available to the state are relatively minor (eg. fines as opposed to custodial sentences).
In any case, there is nothing in s342.1 (1) which explicitly obviates the need to demonstrate intent. So this is not relevant here.
Now I would have thought the requisite intent was simply to "obtain a computer service" (i.e. access the data), which his script amply evidences. And remember intent does not require knowledge that an act is criminal. But perhaps there is clear authority to that point and the police are acting on that precedent. Otherwise it should not, in a case where intent (but for some point of law) seems clear, be for the police, but rather for the courts to determine both whether the requisite act and intent are present.
What is fascism?
That's a highly contested question. Here is my answer:
Fascism was an anti-socialist movement and then what has been called an "extra-ordinary form of the capitalist state" which flourished primarily in interbellum Europe where, as in the prototypical cases of Italy and Germany, there was the wide-spread perception of a real threat of imminent socialist revolution. It is characterised as the movement by copying then extant (extra-parliamentary) socialist forms of organisation (party structure, paramilitary, forms of propaganda etc.) and in government by something not too dissimilar from a Soviet-style dictatorship. Indeed, clearly in the case of Italy (where it originally emerged as a pro-war break-away from the PSI), and arguably Germany (where the pre-Hitler NSDAP espoused some socialistic economic ideas), it had originally emerged from socialism. This relationship can no longer be maintained for fascist organisations such as the Spanish Falangists or the Romanian Legion of the Archangel of St Micheal (Iron Guard), which especially arose from religious groundings.
Superficially it differs from socialism in its adherence to vehement nationalistic and often racist principles,* as opposed to the internationalism of socialism. However, it is radically to be distinguished from socialism is in it's approach to economics where historically it provided the bulwark of protection of the private ownership of industry as opposed to socialist "nationalisation" of the "means of production." Hitler famously protected the large German industrial concerns (realising perhaps on what side his bread was buttered) which remained probably the only institution of German civil society not to be subjected to Gleichschaltung, (as opposed the family, education, the army, the churches etc.). [*While any account of Nazism specifically which failed to account for the genocidal anti-semitism could not be maintained, it remains the anti-socialism which binds 'fascisms' together and accounts for their political success.]
Inasmuch as fascist movements began as nominally anti-capitalist almost all abandoned this position over the course of their maturation. This was in part due to the fact that the ranks of fascist movements were swelled by precisely those who felt most threatened by the inroads being made by socialism (as in the case of the upper strata of the rural population in Italy) and that their votes (esp. in the case of Germany) came largely at the expense of the smaller bürgerliche (business oriented) parties. Thus the two other main founders (beside Mussolini) of Italian fascism, the syndicalist Alceste De Ambris and the futurist Filippo Marinetti quit once they had realised how far to the right the nascent membership had taken their movement, notwithstanding that it was Marinetti who had instigated the violence against the PSI and invented such methods as tying rural socialist officials to telegraph poles and forcing them to drink castor oil, which so attracted said members. Certainly these movements came to be understood at the time as being of the right, and as a matter of practical politics where often in alliance or near alliance with the traditional conservative parties in their respective nations (for which see the troubled relationship between the NSDAP and the DNVP.
If 'fascism' can be used outside the limited historical context (and that is itself disputable) it cannot, I would submit, be accurately used in a situation where there is no realistic threat of socialist takeover, (or at least the perception of such a threat), Thus its contemporary use is by extension or by analogy. Certainly to describe modern politicians, however pro big industry and/or anti-socialist they may be, who can be voted out of office, as "fascists," is to misunderstand the 'extra-ordinary form of the capitalist state' (to use the Marxists' own termino
I was just considering that the other day: party A and party B discussing party C on social media--party C NEVER having been on any form of social media.
It extends beyond simply "discussing." Take for instance name-tagging of friends in photos shared on FB (or on Apple Photos etc), which amounts to submitting a (usually) non-consenting third party's face into a facial recognition database.
The new surveillance state is distinguished from those hitherto existing, by the enthusiastic participation of hoi polloi in their own* surveillance [*as individuals and as a people]. Not only do we willingly carry tracking devices on our persons, we employ them to photograph, film, otherwise record and then publish on "social" media, snapshots and impressions of unwilling bystanders all neatly geo-located and time stamped. We amuse ourselves with shared videos of "public" altercations, without fearing for our own privacy --indeed, ensnared by too simple a division of public/private we are locked out from conceiveing of varying levels of privacy in the world outside our room, without even enjoying it in there.
In an age where everyone always carries a tracking and recording device, everyone is granted the opportunity, at any time, to be an informant.
Well that's embarrassing. :)
The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation.
Except where, as here, res ipsa loquitur applies: The regional instability is an obvious after effect of Western intervention, specifically the removal of Saddam Hussein and the Bathists from power in Iraq and the dismantling of the repressive apparatus of the Iraqi state. It failed to eventuate under Hussein's oppressive and murderous regime, which had managed to keep longstanding ethnic and religious conflicts and forces at bay for decades (which is, of course, why it had previously been US foreign policy to support it notwithstanding the nastiness of the regime). Once the damn was blown the waters poured forth, which waters then wetted the Arab spring. I'd need to show, how none of the water would've leaked out, were it not for the damn being blown, do I hear you say?
That being said, iggymanz' original reply to you is a canonical example of the tu quoque fallacy, for which, under my prospective dictatorial regime of social media censorship ;), it and all subsequent replies (including even this) should have been cast into oblivion.
In Australia, a "liberal" is a right wing conservative.
And to the point ... the traditional meaning of 'liberal' in Australia arises out of the dispute between free traders (liberals) and protectionists in the early years of federation. It was an irony of fate that the later 'Liberal Party,' when it was formed in 1945 out of the ruins of the conservative United Australia Party, went into coalition with the protectionist Country Party (subsequently renamed to National Party) who were instrumental in erecting serious tariff barriers which were left (which might also be viewed as ironic) to the social democrats (Australian Labor (sic) Party) to begin taking down.
Also the Liberal Party is understood as having a (only slightly right of centre) 'liberal' wing as well as a fully fledged "right wing conservative" wing, though one might be excused from noticing it, so much do the 'liberals' in the party cower before the 'conservatives'.
Finally, just to confuse ourselves, we sometimes use 'liberal' almost as American use it, called "small-l liberal" as opposed to "large-L Liberal" (ie. member of the main conservative party).
I think that this community and academics at large could probably come up with a decent working moderation system.
As a start you'd prepare moderators via a graduate entry university course (MMod) covering procedural fairness, free speech issues, logical fallacies as well as filling in some factual basics in the humanities and/or sciences (to pad out the blind spot left by the original degree). The practising MMod would be required to undertake continuing education and be subject to periodic work review. Of course moderators would refrain from voting or in any other way becoming involved in party politics. After we have capable and bias-free moderators we could start getting serious designing systems ... ;)
Until then we may just have to survive the fact that publishing unpopular opinions invites social censure.
Targetting [sic] liberals doesn't even pay for itself, as they tend to cross reference and notify each other that a story is fake, and you only get a few hits.
As much as 'liberals' (as our American cousins employ the word) like to believe this, the (necessarily) recent work suggests otherwise: (Stewart et al).
MORE Russian misinformation accounts ... simply a ploy to destabilize Facebook?
Possible, but since cognitive dissonance renders that redundant, Occam's Razor demands we presumptively treat them as genuine (useful) idiots.
And let's remember it is not exclusively those on the right, as seems to be the insinuation, who have been re-posting Russian troll 'news.' More than that, using this to score cheap political points only exacerbates the mischief Putin has been visiting on our various democracies. To fight this disruption we need instead to reach out and at least listen to and maybe even show a modicum of respect to our fellow citizens with whose political opinions we happen to disagree (as always within limits). It's the wedge that's being driven between us we must reject.
Anyway, I'm off to check which Russian troll stories I've re-posted ... should be humbling.
Human life is human life. At least be consistent about it.
Well since viable human ova and sperm are human and alive, consistency demands that we ban any form of contraception and require that every fertile woman make her best attempt to fertilise the ovuum every month. Additionally male masturbation resulting in ejaculation must be criminalised. Oh wait ... there's already a Bill for that one on the table!
Down 28 percent in one day. .... Hope all you speculators have iron nerves!
Obviously not.
You create an energy backed cryptocurrency. This cryptocurrency is issued by energy corporations and is basically backed by kWh
A few decades ago, when I was reading that kind of stuff, I came to the conclusion that Marx, Ricardo and Adam Smith were wrong in regard the the Labour Theory of Value and that the Physiocrats, whom Marx mercilessly castigated, were in fact correct. It is not labour on the factory floor that creates 'value,' it's the fact that the amount of labour required to generate a certain amount of food is less than the labour that can be powered by that food. Which is to say the 'value' apparently generated by labour is in fact an energy input from the sun. When you look through this lens, 'standard of living' is practically a measure of energy consumed.
It occurred to me too, that if money were backed by energy (which makes sense if it is the true value), energy efficiency would be built into the market and the great emerging (at that time) environmental question would somewhat be addressed. Though not as thoroughly thought through (enough th*gh* words?) or as far reaching as you have it.
While I'm not really sure anymore that money requires backing by any commodity (the MMTers have messed with me ;), I'm finding your particular implementation of energy-currency interesting. However, I'm not entirely clear why (indeed how) this would need to be a crypto-currency in particular. Isn't the idea of the block-chain not only to create trust but also an implementation of the marginalist notion of 'value' (or mere 'price') as a function of rarity?
Why assume something logical when we can blame it on a government conspiracy plot?
Exactly! Logic was invented by circumcising Reptilians to keep us confused about disreality. The only answer is to misinterpret the evidence.
1,073,741,824 is divisible by 2 32 times
Isn't it 30 times (i.e. 2^30)? What am I missing?
If most people better educated than me in a given field told me that something was most likely correct, I would assume it to be accurate unless/until there was verifiable evidence strong enough to invalidate it.
Well yes. However slashrio is somewhat wide of the mark, if he believes that my post above was arguing in favour of an expert consensus view of science (however arguable that position might be).
Obviously you are replying to the wrong comment. Strangely, I still can't anyone above who made the statement you quote??
If we do *not* get the results predicted by the study above, would that invalidate the theory of global warming?
Does this single study comprise the entirety of modern climatological theory as it pertains to observed warming?
If not, what testable predictions does the global warming theory make, whose failure *would* invalidate the theory?
More generally, You seem to be working from a naive Falsificationist view of science. Your question is like asking "what testable prediction does astrophysics make whose failure should make us revert to a pre-scientific belief (eg. that stars are cracks in the firmament through which we can glimpse the cosmic fire?)." We cannot abandon theory simply because some testable hypothesis was 'falsified.' Theory is not to be invalidated but supplanted.
Specifically, if temperatures global temperatures would just stop rising decade upon decade, and instead began to fall decade upon decade, and if this fall were not readily to be explained by current theory, that should open the door to the acceptance of a more productive alternative theory once that theory became available.