Usually they offer a somewhat reasonable severance package that you only get if you agree to transfer the knowledge. That's about the only carrot they have, of course, but for many people it works.
There is, however, a big difference between transferring information and knowledge. Information is "this is how you do X;" knowledge is 15 years of experience doing the job and knowing the pitfalls and how to negotiate them to keep things working. You can meet all the requirements of a severance package by transferring information without worrying about the knowledge. Besides, if Josephine is also losing her job does the newbie need to know to go to her if something bad happens, so she can get help from Bob, who is also now gone?
I tried to argue this, but the site is so clearly full of douchbags and jerkoffs that I don't even care.
Guy does not think he is a communist (hint: "democratic socialist" is not the same thing) Neither is "socialist") Random website he knows fuck all about uses his name and image without endorsement or permission, and... TRADEMARK BULLYING.
Fuck, no.
The douchebag is strong here: and that's not with the Bernie campaign.
Either way its not a story.
While I agree this is a non story, Bernie Sanders is a public figure and a legitimate target for satire as a politician; even if it is not representative of his real political philosophy making fun of politicians for real or supposed views is a time honored tradition. Even a db is allowed to do that and plenty on all sides of the aisle do s regularly. Personally, depending on the source of the photographs a copyright violation might have occured but if Bernie dosn't own the copyright he has no claim.
NASA discovered the hard way after the ISS / Stephen Colbert fiasco that the way to do this is make up a dozen or so of your own, reasonable suggestions, and allow public voting on just those.
At least NASA had a sense of humor and sent the Combined Operational Load-Bearing External Resistance Treadmill to the ISS.
Whatever they name the ship it will suffer the same fate as the Thunderbolt II. What's that? Oh the Warthog...
In reality, we should be constantly aware that 50% of our users are literally below average (by definition, not because we think they're "morons".)
By definition, 50% of coders are below average as well.
50% of coders are below average compared to other coders. That has no relevance either way if the average for coders is above or below the average for users.
True, but in my experience coder's average is at about the same level as the general population.
A wiretap warrant involves government access to a public/regulated utility. A software warrant involves government access to a private residence. The former is a matter of "hi, we're the government, we have a warrant to tap line XYZ"; the latter is a matter of "let's sneak this into a citizen's private effects, on their private property, with only us in the know".
They are allowed to "sneak this into a citizen's private effects, on their private property, with only us in the know" as long as they have a warrant. They can, for example, attach a GPS device to a vehicle to track it with a proper warrant. Whether they should be allowed to do that is a reasonable question, but so far SCOTUS has said it is OK.
And by "doesn't have root", I mean it can't create whatever false forensic trail you want within said citizen's private effects. If you insert your tap/backdoor/soldier in the middle, it can pretend to be one or the other or even both,
The issue here is a key logger, not a backdoor that allows root access to the system. I agree there needs to be a strong chain of custody to ensure someone hasn't added or modified the data collected, just as with any other evidence.
but (1) if Ada and Bob are using proper encryption it can't fool both and might not fool either, and (2) encryption or no encryption, if a third party - e.g. a technical expert for the defence - audits Ada's and Bob's machines they'll figure out something fishy is going on. If you've got root on either person's machine, however, you can plant incriminating evidence that can be a lot harder or even impossible to show as fake no matter how good the defence's technical experts are, especially if you're a state actor with a state's resources to get the job done.
That's why it is important to have a good chain of custody to prevent evidence tampering. To the root vs key logger issue, I think it is important that the methodology used to gather evidence be brought out in court so the judge / jury can decide on the facts presented. For example, if I were on a jury I'd be much more likely to accept that key logger collected data with a proper chain of custody is supports the prosecution than if a machine was actually rooted. If it was rooted, I'd be much more open to a defense argument that evidence could be fabricated or placed there by others with access than the accused, thus raising reasonable doubt as to guilt.
However, as cryptography becomes stronger and widely used law enforcement needs to change their approach to gathering evidence and what methods they can and should use needs to be part of the public debate over privacy.
"More to the point, where you attach a tap has nothing to do with quartering soldiers in time of peace or war."
I do realise the Third isn't applicable for a number of technical legal reasons (and despite them all I'd argue it should be, but good luck with that, self) but please consider as a rhetorical exercise:/what/ is a soldier, and/why/ is it unconstitutional to quarter a soldier in any house?
Yea, I figured as much and I'm sure many law review articles could be written over what exactly constitutes a soldier. You could argue the a key logger uses resources and thus imparts a cost to the homeowner and is a state actor and thus a soldier, or you could make a strict constructionist argument the framers intended it to mean a living person who serves in the armed forces and thus a key logger is not a soldier. Further, since ether government has defined intrusion into computer systems by foreign governments potentially as acts of war have they accepted the concept that a program is a "soldier" I ask rhetorically?
I'm all for a disruption of the current ISP landscape. But this seems to be another pie in the sky Google idea at the moment.
Above everything else, I'd like to know what spectrum they plan on using. The less desirable 2GHz+ bands are all but full, never mind the stuff below that. Even if you want to do fixed point wireless (which doesn't have a great history) I'm not sure where they could get the spectrum they need to launch a service that would compete with the likes of AT&T and Verizon.
I have this vision of an army of Google driverless cars roaming aimlessly through streets as mobile signal extenders; all with a stuffed animal version of the Android thing in the driver's seat. As they roam around various ads appear on the sides of the car, all targeted at the demographics of the neighborhood they are in.We can all hail our new Google ISP overlord...
US election law isn't really equipped to deal with an entity with FB size and reach
NY Times and other national newspapers had a similar reach within the US only a short while ago... And their electoral endorsements mattered — and were actively sought-out by the politicians. Maybe, not so much any more, but there was never anything illegal or even unethical about it. You have an opinion — you voice it. If you happen to have a bigger megaphone, good for you...
Is that unlawful coordination?
Why can the media endorse a candidate, but not other corporations?
Excellant points. I agree corporations can endorse a candidate, just like newspaper can endorse a candidate. Th question is where is the line between endorsing and contributing to a campaign? It's also illegal, IIRC, to tell employees to act on behalf of a candidate or reimburse them for contributions. Would that apply to acting against a candidate rates than endorsing one? I don't know, and Federal election law is very complicated so a corporation wading into an election rates than setting up a PAC to do the same thing is, IMHO, something they nee dot be very careful to avoid running afoul of the law. It's simply easier to create a PAC and buy access on FB than do it as FB.
US election law isn't really equiped ti deal with an entitity with FB size and reach working fir or against a candidate. They would be the ultimate super PAC but how do you deal with someone from another campaign posting on a page dedicated to stopping a candidate? Is that unlawful coordination? What reporting requirements relative to donations would FB have to make? Is money or work from overseas a foruegn contribution and what miat be disclosed in such cases?
While we're doing Google comparisons... how about letting developers respond to a confused, erroneous or otherwise misinformed review.
That's always a problem I have with reviews - there is no way to validate their validity so I place very little stock in them unless there are a number of similar comments, pro or con, over a period of time greater than 6 months. While letting developers respond might help, most ones I have read on other sites that allow that tend to be "Sorry it didn't meet your needs..." A developer could add a review comment section on their web sit where they could provide thoughtful answers to legitimate issues. I always visit the develop's website before I buy to get a better feel for the product and how the developer addresses issues.
A bigger problem I see with app stores is it's real hard to find stuff easily. Sure you can search, but that turns up a bunch of stuff to weed through to see if any meets your needs. The only thing worse is Kickstarter, where you almost have to stumble on something by accident; they don't even present stuff on the home page you might be interested in based on previous purchases or recent searches. Staff picks are nice but at least serve up the latest items in areas i actually might find of interest.
"They had a warrant to install the software so it no different than a wiretap other than the point of collection."
The difference is that a wiretap on the line between Ada and Bob doesn't have root.
Actually both have the same root access as it allows a third party to capture all communications sent by the device, in one case a phone and another a keyboard. The technology used to collect the information is not important, what is is the information collected.
Or to use a Third Amendment analogy, it's the difference between sending a uniformed soldier up the telegraph pole to listen to someone's morse, and quartering an invisible soldier in that someone's house (where the soldier can easily forge the owner's morse).
An interesting, but flawed analogy. First of all, someone tapping a telegraph line can forge the sender's morse and possibly with practice even their fist. More to the point, where you attach a tap has nothing to do with quartering soldiers in time of peace or war. You could tap a phone at the source as well or simply bug a room to the same effect without raising a 3rd amendment concern.
Yes, but even if they have a warrant, they still need to maintain proper chain of evidence. That's really the issue I'm talking about. If the FBI can't see what the hacker did to the phone, how do they know, without a shadow of a doubt, that what they found in the phone was actually there and not planted by the hacker?
Since they would act on the information in a good faith belief it was accurate, if they found other evidence as a result of an investigation I would doubt the courts would toss out a case. I would agree they can't just grab the person and charge them base don a connection or text on the phone; but using it to start an investigation would not seem to be an issue even if they cannot establish with 100% certainty the information was not planted. The standard is reasonable doubt, not shadow, and is really only applicable in a court case not the investigation, and the phone's evidence would likely not be what the case hinges on. If it was, then yes, they would probably need to convince a jury that it was not planted.
My example uses _YOUR_ logic! According to your statement, the FBI can break into your computer (crime), install illegal software (another crime), and log all of your activities (outside of the scope of the warrant, so another crime), and they can do so because they had a warrant.
I agree the logic is silly, and that is the point of showing the extremes of _your logic_.
Pretty cool how you claim that it's not illegal after change the wording to specify "on computers I own", where in the case and point being discussed the FBI did this on computers they DID NOT own. Oh, and go ahead and install keyloggers on computers you own that other people can access. If you don't believe your wife can not have you prosecuted.. you are hilariously ignorant. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in most you will be guilty of violating Federal wiretapping laws.
Thye had a warrant to install and collect the information, just like a wiretap. I'm nit sure where you get it was illegal because they didn't own the computer but that is what wiretaps warrants are for - to listen in to a suspect's conversation. Whether or not the FBI owned the computer is irrelevant, as is your rant that key loggers are illegal. As for violating Federal Wiretap logs, Federal courts have ruled it was not a violation. See: http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/di... As for state laws, those vary but Federal law does not vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction it is a Federal law, not local. As for installing on your computer and using it to record keystrokes, those state cases were lawsuits not prosecution as you stated. In one case that was prosecuted key logger software was installed on somebody else's computer by his roommates; which is clearly different than installing it on your own; or under a court issued warrant. In short, you know not what of what you speak.
The only moral equivalency is in the receipt of a warrant, not the action the warrant supports. If i take what you said to it's extreme, as long as an agent got a warrant to kill someone it's fine. They had a warrant.
Your extreme example is silly. Warrants are issued by courts to allow police to gather evidence, and bringing a ridiculous straw man doesn't change that.
I find it very improbable that you are both completely ignorant and spouting lies unintentionally. Here is a test for you. Do what you just claimed is not illegal on a public computer. Make sure you wave to the camera and show them your ID. Let us know how it feels to plea bargain down to 2-5 years in Prison, if you can get it down that far. Just yesterday a reporter got 24 months for giving a username and password to someone.
Maybe you wish to clarify your statement and change your claim to be "not illegal for the Government to do since they write the rules and can change the rules at will.". Which is the ethical part I previously said is a problem.
Merely being illegal in one set of circumstances doesn't mean it's per se illegal. I can install all the key loggers I want on computers I own, and us the data how I see fit; allow though ethically I should let someone who is using the computer know I am doing it I may not have to do so legally. Either way, developing, owning an during a key logger is perfectly legal. I may not be able to install one on someone else's computer without their permission, but the act of installing it with their permission is perfectly legal.
You are using bad examples and arguments to try to make an ethical case.
Had the FBI actually not broken numerous laws I may agree with you. The FBI installing illegal software without the person's knowledge is a bit different from wiretapping.
They had a warrant to install the software so it no different than a wiretap other than the point of collection.
First, the only way for the FBI to have this illegal software would be to create the software which is a criminal act. Alternatively, and more likely, they could have conspired with criminals to acquire the software. (It should be obvious that "criminals" could be agencies within Government(s).)
Data and keystroke logging software is not illegal, nor is creating such software. Software to report the results of such activity is not illegal either.
Simply put, your assertions of illegal and criminal activity is incorrect.
That can't be true. If they found data that led them to a conspirator, they would want to arrest that person. They would need to have evidence to present in that person's trial that they participated in this terrorist event. I can't imagine that their plan is that if the defendant's attorney asks them how they got this data, they'll just say "some un-named third party pulled this data out of their own hardware and assured us their hardware had copied it from this mobile phone."
Your honor, the phone data merely indicated possible suspects. We conducted an investigation, based on that and other information in addition to ongoing investigations, determined the defendant was conspiring to commit terrorist acts.
The phone data would merely be one piece of evidence used and probably only point to possible additional suspects. In essence, it's no differenttahn a tip that comes in anonymously.
Except that is not applicable here. The FBI had a warrant to recover information from the phone, so how they did it is irrelevant to weather or not the evidence was obtained legally. In addition, even if a court decided there wasn't probable cause for the FBI to search the phone, since ether FBI did the search in good faith believing the search was legal then the good faith exception would apply.
Yea, I really want to give out my cell phone number so you can further gather information to ket you and your selected partners send me 'valuable information I might be interested in" via SMS and voice calls. IIRC Google Boice can get SMS or get a cheap VOIP or Tracfone as a burner.
Something really hard for some developers to understand is that our peer groups are usually not representative of our user base. We're used to hanging around with really bright people, people who apply logic to questions and use evidence to arrive at conclusions. When we forget that not everyone in the world is like that, we assume that everyone who touches our applications is smart, quick, logical, and willing to read instructions.
True, but they also need to realize that there are really bright people, people who apply logic to questions and use evidence to arrive at conclusion who don't have any interest in coding and or find it boring.
In reality, we should be constantly aware that 50% of our users are literally below average (by definition, not because we think they're "morons".)
By definition, 50% of coders are below average as well.
That means a lot of attention needs to be paid to User Experience. A few years ago we went through our application and made sure that every screen was at a 5th grade reading level. We made sure our users could be trained on the basic functions, features, and processes in less than half an hour. Error messages have to be focused on correcting the problem, not accusing the users of being "morons" and making a mistake, and not leaving them fearing punishment. And if a person runs into a feature that's difficult, frequently gives them error messages, or that takes them a long time to figure out, it's not their fault that the UI didn't help them. It's the UI that needs work.
Very true. Far too often the actual user experience gets overlooked in the drive to create beautiful code. In the end, no matter how beautiful the code is it's still trash if it doesn't meet the user's needs.
Instead of reaching out and asking if these people would want to become a sanctioned event, or a simple, could you please work with us to not violate our IP, they chose to instead swing the FUCK YOU hammer.
Lawyers are garbage.
Yup, that would have been good all around. Let them license the terms so Disney doesn't have copyright issues; the event holders could even put in a nod to Disney thanking them for being decent enough to work out a good solution. However, they instead decided to bring out the Death Star...
For me, the classic example how to do it right in such a situation is how Stevens Aviation settled with Southwest over the "Plane Smart" slogan. Stevens Aviation CEO Herwald challenged Southwest CEO Kelleher to an arm wrestling contest over the name. "Malice in Dallas" raised money for charity and provided a PR boost for Southwest and Stevens Aviation. A good writeup is at
It's one thing if Bezos is ok with the company failing for a strategic product/service that was his decision. I wonder if he's as forgiving when the failure rests on someone else within the company.
I would guess it depends how you fail. Trying something new to see if it has potential and failing is very different from nit being able to do the job. 3M used (still does?) to let employees spend some percentage of time and money on ideas that interested them; the theory was if only a small percentage were successful it still was a good bet and a failure in one area could turn out to be wildly successful in another. Post it notes came from a failed attempt to make a super strong adhesive and Scotch Brite reflective tape form a failed attempt to make reflective material for use on roads. The inventor of Scotch Brite rose to be the CEO of 3m. By encouraging people to experiment and try things without worrying about failing spurred creativity and innovation. It sounds like that is Bezo's goal.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually they offer a somewhat reasonable severance package that you only get if you agree to transfer the knowledge. That's about the only carrot they have, of course, but for many people it works.
There is, however, a big difference between transferring information and knowledge. Information is "this is how you do X;" knowledge is 15 years of experience doing the job and knowing the pitfalls and how to negotiate them to keep things working. You can meet all the requirements of a severance package by transferring information without worrying about the knowledge. Besides, if Josephine is also losing her job does the newbie need to know to go to her if something bad happens, so she can get help from Bob, who is also now gone?
Except that nobody claimed copyright at all. This was a trademark letter. A completely different law with literally NOTHING in common.
I agree, which is why I said there may be grounds for a copyright claim, if a claim was to be made, not a trademark claim.
I tried to argue this, but the site is so clearly full of douchbags and jerkoffs that I don't even care.
Guy does not think he is a communist (hint: "democratic socialist" is not the same thing) Neither is "socialist") Random website he knows fuck all about uses his name and image without endorsement or permission, and... TRADEMARK BULLYING.
Fuck, no.
The douchebag is strong here: and that's not with the Bernie campaign.
Either way its not a story.
While I agree this is a non story, Bernie Sanders is a public figure and a legitimate target for satire as a politician; even if it is not representative of his real political philosophy making fun of politicians for real or supposed views is a time honored tradition. Even a db is allowed to do that and plenty on all sides of the aisle do s regularly. Personally, depending on the source of the photographs a copyright violation might have occured but if Bernie dosn't own the copyright he has no claim.
NASA discovered the hard way after the ISS / Stephen Colbert fiasco that the way to do this is make up a dozen or so of your own, reasonable suggestions, and allow public voting on just those.
At least NASA had a sense of humor and sent the Combined Operational Load-Bearing External Resistance Treadmill to the ISS.
Whatever they name the ship it will suffer the same fate as the Thunderbolt II. What's that? Oh the Warthog...
In reality, we should be constantly aware that 50% of our users are literally below average (by definition, not because we think they're "morons".)
By definition, 50% of coders are below average as well.
50% of coders are below average compared to other coders. That has no relevance either way if the average for coders is above or below the average for users.
True, but in my experience coder's average is at about the same level as the general population.
A wiretap warrant involves government access to a public/regulated utility. A software warrant involves government access to a private residence. The former is a matter of "hi, we're the government, we have a warrant to tap line XYZ"; the latter is a matter of "let's sneak this into a citizen's private effects, on their private property, with only us in the know".
They are allowed to "sneak this into a citizen's private effects, on their private property, with only us in the know" as long as they have a warrant. They can, for example, attach a GPS device to a vehicle to track it with a proper warrant. Whether they should be allowed to do that is a reasonable question, but so far SCOTUS has said it is OK.
And by "doesn't have root", I mean it can't create whatever false forensic trail you want within said citizen's private effects. If you insert your tap/backdoor/soldier in the middle, it can pretend to be one or the other or even both,
The issue here is a key logger, not a backdoor that allows root access to the system. I agree there needs to be a strong chain of custody to ensure someone hasn't added or modified the data collected, just as with any other evidence.
but (1) if Ada and Bob are using proper encryption it can't fool both and might not fool either, and (2) encryption or no encryption, if a third party - e.g. a technical expert for the defence - audits Ada's and Bob's machines they'll figure out something fishy is going on. If you've got root on either person's machine, however, you can plant incriminating evidence that can be a lot harder or even impossible to show as fake no matter how good the defence's technical experts are, especially if you're a state actor with a state's resources to get the job done.
That's why it is important to have a good chain of custody to prevent evidence tampering. To the root vs key logger issue, I think it is important that the methodology used to gather evidence be brought out in court so the judge / jury can decide on the facts presented. For example, if I were on a jury I'd be much more likely to accept that key logger collected data with a proper chain of custody is supports the prosecution than if a machine was actually rooted. If it was rooted, I'd be much more open to a defense argument that evidence could be fabricated or placed there by others with access than the accused, thus raising reasonable doubt as to guilt.
However, as cryptography becomes stronger and widely used law enforcement needs to change their approach to gathering evidence and what methods they can and should use needs to be part of the public debate over privacy.
"More to the point, where you attach a tap has nothing to do with quartering soldiers in time of peace or war."
I do realise the Third isn't applicable for a number of technical legal reasons (and despite them all I'd argue it should be, but good luck with that, self) but please consider as a rhetorical exercise: /what/ is a soldier, and /why/ is it unconstitutional to quarter a soldier in any house?
Yea, I figured as much and I'm sure many law review articles could be written over what exactly constitutes a soldier. You could argue the a key logger uses resources and thus imparts a cost to the homeowner and is a state actor and thus a soldier, or you could make a strict constructionist argument the framers intended it to mean a living person who serves in the armed forces and thus a key logger is not a soldier. Further, since ether government has defined intrusion into computer systems by foreign governments potentially as acts of war have they accepted the concept that a program is a "soldier" I ask rhetorically?
I'm all for a disruption of the current ISP landscape. But this seems to be another pie in the sky Google idea at the moment.
Above everything else, I'd like to know what spectrum they plan on using. The less desirable 2GHz+ bands are all but full, never mind the stuff below that. Even if you want to do fixed point wireless (which doesn't have a great history) I'm not sure where they could get the spectrum they need to launch a service that would compete with the likes of AT&T and Verizon.
I have this vision of an army of Google driverless cars roaming aimlessly through streets as mobile signal extenders; all with a stuffed animal version of the Android thing in the driver's seat. As they roam around various ads appear on the sides of the car, all targeted at the demographics of the neighborhood they are in.We can all hail our new Google ISP overlord...
NY Times and other national newspapers had a similar reach within the US only a short while ago... And their electoral endorsements mattered — and were actively sought-out by the politicians. Maybe, not so much any more, but there was never anything illegal or even unethical about it. You have an opinion — you voice it. If you happen to have a bigger megaphone, good for you...
Why can the media endorse a candidate, but not other corporations?
Excellant points. I agree corporations can endorse a candidate, just like newspaper can endorse a candidate. Th question is where is the line between endorsing and contributing to a campaign? It's also illegal, IIRC, to tell employees to act on behalf of a candidate or reimburse them for contributions. Would that apply to acting against a candidate rates than endorsing one? I don't know, and Federal election law is very complicated so a corporation wading into an election rates than setting up a PAC to do the same thing is, IMHO, something they nee dot be very careful to avoid running afoul of the law. It's simply easier to create a PAC and buy access on FB than do it as FB.
US election law isn't really equiped ti deal with an entitity with FB size and reach working fir or against a candidate. They would be the ultimate super PAC but how do you deal with someone from another campaign posting on a page dedicated to stopping a candidate? Is that unlawful coordination? What reporting requirements relative to donations would FB have to make? Is money or work from overseas a foruegn contribution and what miat be disclosed in such cases?
While we're doing Google comparisons ... how about letting developers respond to a confused, erroneous or otherwise misinformed review.
That's always a problem I have with reviews - there is no way to validate their validity so I place very little stock in them unless there are a number of similar comments, pro or con, over a period of time greater than 6 months. While letting developers respond might help, most ones I have read on other sites that allow that tend to be "Sorry it didn't meet your needs..." A developer could add a review comment section on their web sit where they could provide thoughtful answers to legitimate issues. I always visit the develop's website before I buy to get a better feel for the product and how the developer addresses issues.
A bigger problem I see with app stores is it's real hard to find stuff easily. Sure you can search, but that turns up a bunch of stuff to weed through to see if any meets your needs. The only thing worse is Kickstarter, where you almost have to stumble on something by accident; they don't even present stuff on the home page you might be interested in based on previous purchases or recent searches. Staff picks are nice but at least serve up the latest items in areas i actually might find of interest.
"They had a warrant to install the software so it no different than a wiretap other than the point of collection."
The difference is that a wiretap on the line between Ada and Bob doesn't have root.
Actually both have the same root access as it allows a third party to capture all communications sent by the device, in one case a phone and another a keyboard. The technology used to collect the information is not important, what is is the information collected.
Or to use a Third Amendment analogy, it's the difference between sending a uniformed soldier up the telegraph pole to listen to someone's morse, and quartering an invisible soldier in that someone's house (where the soldier can easily forge the owner's morse).
An interesting, but flawed analogy. First of all, someone tapping a telegraph line can forge the sender's morse and possibly with practice even their fist. More to the point, where you attach a tap has nothing to do with quartering soldiers in time of peace or war. You could tap a phone at the source as well or simply bug a room to the same effect without raising a 3rd amendment concern.
One screen is the no cellphone room and another for those that want tobise theoir cell or are not bothered by those that do.
You clearly have no clue so further discussion is a waste of time. HAND
Yes, but even if they have a warrant, they still need to maintain proper chain of evidence. That's really the issue I'm talking about. If the FBI can't see what the hacker did to the phone, how do they know, without a shadow of a doubt, that what they found in the phone was actually there and not planted by the hacker?
Since they would act on the information in a good faith belief it was accurate, if they found other evidence as a result of an investigation I would doubt the courts would toss out a case. I would agree they can't just grab the person and charge them base don a connection or text on the phone; but using it to start an investigation would not seem to be an issue even if they cannot establish with 100% certainty the information was not planted. The standard is reasonable doubt, not shadow, and is really only applicable in a court case not the investigation, and the phone's evidence would likely not be what the case hinges on. If it was, then yes, they would probably need to convince a jury that it was not planted.
My example uses _YOUR_ logic! According to your statement, the FBI can break into your computer (crime), install illegal software (another crime), and log all of your activities (outside of the scope of the warrant, so another crime), and they can do so because they had a warrant.
I agree the logic is silly, and that is the point of showing the extremes of _your logic_.
Pretty cool how you claim that it's not illegal after change the wording to specify "on computers I own", where in the case and point being discussed the FBI did this on computers they DID NOT own. Oh, and go ahead and install keyloggers on computers you own that other people can access. If you don't believe your wife can not have you prosecuted.. you are hilariously ignorant. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in most you will be guilty of violating Federal wiretapping laws.
Thye had a warrant to install and collect the information, just like a wiretap. I'm nit sure where you get it was illegal because they didn't own the computer but that is what wiretaps warrants are for - to listen in to a suspect's conversation. Whether or not the FBI owned the computer is irrelevant, as is your rant that key loggers are illegal. As for violating Federal Wiretap logs, Federal courts have ruled it was not a violation. See: http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/di... As for state laws, those vary but Federal law does not vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction it is a Federal law, not local. As for installing on your computer and using it to record keystrokes, those state cases were lawsuits not prosecution as you stated. In one case that was prosecuted key logger software was installed on somebody else's computer by his roommates; which is clearly different than installing it on your own; or under a court issued warrant. In short, you know not what of what you speak.
The only moral equivalency is in the receipt of a warrant, not the action the warrant supports. If i take what you said to it's extreme, as long as an agent got a warrant to kill someone it's fine. They had a warrant.
Your extreme example is silly. Warrants are issued by courts to allow police to gather evidence, and bringing a ridiculous straw man doesn't change that.
I find it very improbable that you are both completely ignorant and spouting lies unintentionally. Here is a test for you. Do what you just claimed is not illegal on a public computer. Make sure you wave to the camera and show them your ID. Let us know how it feels to plea bargain down to 2-5 years in Prison, if you can get it down that far. Just yesterday a reporter got 24 months for giving a username and password to someone.
Maybe you wish to clarify your statement and change your claim to be "not illegal for the Government to do since they write the rules and can change the rules at will.". Which is the ethical part I previously said is a problem.
Merely being illegal in one set of circumstances doesn't mean it's per se illegal. I can install all the key loggers I want on computers I own, and us the data how I see fit; allow though ethically I should let someone who is using the computer know I am doing it I may not have to do so legally. Either way, developing, owning an during a key logger is perfectly legal. I may not be able to install one on someone else's computer without their permission, but the act of installing it with their permission is perfectly legal.
You are using bad examples and arguments to try to make an ethical case.
What has the weather got to do with it?
Because when the DOJ decides to to charge you their motto for bringing charges is "When it rains, it pours..."
Alternatively, I hate auto correct...
Had the FBI actually not broken numerous laws I may agree with you. The FBI installing illegal software without the person's knowledge is a bit different from wiretapping.
They had a warrant to install the software so it no different than a wiretap other than the point of collection.
First, the only way for the FBI to have this illegal software would be to create the software which is a criminal act. Alternatively, and more likely, they could have conspired with criminals to acquire the software. (It should be obvious that "criminals" could be agencies within Government(s).)
Data and keystroke logging software is not illegal, nor is creating such software. Software to report the results of such activity is not illegal either.
Simply put, your assertions of illegal and criminal activity is incorrect.
That can't be true. If they found data that led them to a conspirator, they would want to arrest that person. They would need to have evidence to present in that person's trial that they participated in this terrorist event. I can't imagine that their plan is that if the defendant's attorney asks them how they got this data, they'll just say "some un-named third party pulled this data out of their own hardware and assured us their hardware had copied it from this mobile phone."
Your honor, the phone data merely indicated possible suspects. We conducted an investigation, based on that and other information in addition to ongoing investigations, determined the defendant was conspiring to commit terrorist acts.
The phone data would merely be one piece of evidence used and probably only point to possible additional suspects. In essence, it's no differenttahn a tip that comes in anonymously.
Yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Except that is not applicable here. The FBI had a warrant to recover information from the phone, so how they did it is irrelevant to weather or not the evidence was obtained legally. In addition, even if a court decided there wasn't probable cause for the FBI to search the phone, since ether FBI did the search in good faith believing the search was legal then the good faith exception would apply.
I sure hope none of that is news to anyone, because it's what "classified" has meant for at least the last 70 years and probably a lot longer.
Anyone who thinks that "classified" means something like super duper secret is either uninformed or an idiot.
Exactly. In some cases, the first law of thermodynamics was considered classified and NOFORN.
Yea, I really want to give out my cell phone number so you can further gather information to ket you and your selected partners send me 'valuable information I might be interested in" via SMS and voice calls. IIRC Google Boice can get SMS or get a cheap VOIP or Tracfone as a burner.
Something really hard for some developers to understand is that our peer groups are usually not representative of our user base. We're used to hanging around with really bright people, people who apply logic to questions and use evidence to arrive at conclusions. When we forget that not everyone in the world is like that, we assume that everyone who touches our applications is smart, quick, logical, and willing to read instructions.
True, but they also need to realize that there are really bright people, people who apply logic to questions and use evidence to arrive at conclusion who don't have any interest in coding and or find it boring.
In reality, we should be constantly aware that 50% of our users are literally below average (by definition, not because we think they're "morons".)
By definition, 50% of coders are below average as well.
That means a lot of attention needs to be paid to User Experience. A few years ago we went through our application and made sure that every screen was at a 5th grade reading level. We made sure our users could be trained on the basic functions, features, and processes in less than half an hour. Error messages have to be focused on correcting the problem, not accusing the users of being "morons" and making a mistake, and not leaving them fearing punishment. And if a person runs into a feature that's difficult, frequently gives them error messages, or that takes them a long time to figure out, it's not their fault that the UI didn't help them. It's the UI that needs work.
Very true. Far too often the actual user experience gets overlooked in the drive to create beautiful code. In the end, no matter how beautiful the code is it's still trash if it doesn't meet the user's needs.
Instead of reaching out and asking if these people would want to become a sanctioned event, or a simple, could you please work with us to not violate our IP, they chose to instead swing the FUCK YOU hammer.
Lawyers are garbage.
Yup, that would have been good all around. Let them license the terms so Disney doesn't have copyright issues; the event holders could even put in a nod to Disney thanking them for being decent enough to work out a good solution. However, they instead decided to bring out the Death Star...
For me, the classic example how to do it right in such a situation is how Stevens Aviation settled with Southwest over the "Plane Smart" slogan. Stevens Aviation CEO Herwald challenged Southwest CEO Kelleher to an arm wrestling contest over the name. "Malice in Dallas" raised money for charity and provided a PR boost for Southwest and Stevens Aviation. A good writeup is at
http://gizmodo.com/how-an-arm-...
It's one thing if Bezos is ok with the company failing for a strategic product/service that was his decision. I wonder if he's as forgiving when the failure rests on someone else within the company.
I would guess it depends how you fail. Trying something new to see if it has potential and failing is very different from nit being able to do the job. 3M used (still does?) to let employees spend some percentage of time and money on ideas that interested them; the theory was if only a small percentage were successful it still was a good bet and a failure in one area could turn out to be wildly successful in another. Post it notes came from a failed attempt to make a super strong adhesive and Scotch Brite reflective tape form a failed attempt to make reflective material for use on roads. The inventor of Scotch Brite rose to be the CEO of 3m. By encouraging people to experiment and try things without worrying about failing spurred creativity and innovation. It sounds like that is Bezo's goal.