They intentionally destroyed data while an investigation was underway. If it was a Republican that got caught doing it, you'd probably go nuts about it. As it is, it's disgraceful for Slashdot to post this in the late afternoon on a Friday when people are going to be less likely to see it.
Slashdot didn't pick the timing of when Fox News released it. Although it is kind of interesting that it was released on a day to minimize its political impact.
No it is an authority which is specifically given to various arms of law enforcement. The level of the crime to be authorised changes who must sign off on it. Authorization of violent crimes are not allowed by field agents and serious offenses must first be approved by federal prosecutors.
The obvious example is allowing a street corner drug dealer to keep dealing in order to catch their supplier.
For example, field agents signed off on 21,823 of the 22,823 crimes, which were for pizza delivery drivers to break traffic laws in DC in order to get pizza to the FBI building faster. Fortunately the traffic in DC is so messed up already that nobody noticed.
The pizza drivers would call before delivery and give the code phrase "I inform you that this pizza is awesome," thereby becoming FBI informants who could be authorized to break the law.
He seems 'ok'. Except for my one issue. TPP. I will not vote for anyone who considers that a good idea.
Leaving the Gary Johnson question aside, voting for anyone on the basis of one idea is a mistake. Real life is messy and complicated and many more ideas than one are at stake in an election. The fact that people make the mistake of voting on the basis of one idea is exactly what has let wedge-issue-driven politics become dominant, and that in turn means that whoever is in power can do almost whatever they want on *every* other issue in government, no matter how absurd or foolish or childish, because people will vote based on the one issue.
I think the thing that really surprises me is that all my professors told me it was hard to get published, when failing to make sure your data was correctly entered into whatever spreadsheet program you used to for number crunching (and creating graphs) was one of the dead basics of working there. Yet 1 in 5 papers has notable failures here? And nobody noticed before publishing them? What kinds of major errands have gotten in, then, if basic spot checks are getting failed?
It is hard-ish, at least in a number of fields, unless you are either a big name or doing something of popular interest at the moment.
Ultimately, though, this kind of error comes down to laziness more than vetting for quality--because a very minor editing mistake should not affect paper publication, but should be caught before publication. All it takes to spot the error is a careful reading of the paper by one of the professor, the grad student, a reviewer, an assistant editor, or an editor. And while hopefully they will add automated checks after this, the fact that that read is not taking place is discouraging. Scientists in particular should be reading every image or graph in their paper closely and asking "what exactly does this mean." The level of precision that goes into editing legal academic articles is insane (italicizing something wrong is a stoning offense), but you don't have to get to nearly that level of detail before at least three different people would spot an error like this.
I'm curious how somebody is scamming you by offering you links to pirated movies. I mean what, do these movies come in a.exe file or something? If so then call it malware.
They are not scamming you; they (and you) are scamming the non-consenting host by using it for something other than the educational material you are allowed to use it for. It's like if you call an Uber and then send your pet goat in the car without you while the driver is looking the other way.
The problem is that "fair" is a really, really bad word for making policy decisions at almost any level. It is far too nebulous and almost always results in comparing apples to oranges.
Is it fair to have the same standards for getting into college, or should you get a handicap for the "unfair" advantages of your parents' educational level, your family's income, your identification with a dominant religion or race, etc...?
It is fair to spend a hundred thousand dollars less on public medical staff serving critical needs every day so you can help small businesses move into a revitalize a community?
Is it fair to force uber drivers out of work because you have a technology that is cheaper and safer, even if some of them lose their homes and lives because of it? How many have to lose their homes before it's unfair?
Is it fair to force people not to use that technology because you want to keep those drivers employed?
Is it fair to outlaw pumping your own gas?
Is it fair for a union to prohibit you from screwing a pencil sharpener to your own desk? To your employer's desk? What if you bring your own desk to your office?
Most real decisions in life involve allocating resources unequally when people have different points of view about how they should be allocated and different sets of other resources to trade for them (whether physical or intangible). The grade-school concept of "fairness" does not provide answers to almost any decision or policy question. There is always a second-level argument about what makes something "fair," and humans are VERY good at rationalizing the opinion that supports their point of view. Arguments can almost always be structured to make "fair" whatever outcome you claim is the fair one. It's just a simple way of rationalizing our opinions about how things ought to be done.
It is entirely conceivable that if the Stingrays and police were deployed in white neighborhoods and businesses, that most of the crime would be suddenly discovered there.
Good point--one point highlighted by The New Jim Crow, IIRC, which discussed studies on how white people used marijuana more than black people but got arrested for it far less.
Ironically, Section 333 (unlawful interference) was created to *enable* calls to the police and emergency services, and keep fly-by-night radio stations from interfering with police radios and shipboard communications for rescue. IIRC the Titanic suffered needless delays in rescue in part because of unregulated radio station broadcasts, although I don't recall offhand if that was part of the ammunition for 333 in particular or the Communications Act more generally.
The Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown is on the brief. Good people on the public policy side. This complaint is a good step in what may wind up being a long process. Worst case, even if nothing else were to come of it (and hopefully something will), this is still very useful and may save some lives--for one thing, it will probably cause Stingray manufacturers to work harder to make sure 911 service isn't interrupted.
The next thing they want is the ability to torture in extra-ordinary circumstances. Then it turns out that someone stealing a car is an extra-ordinary circumstance.
The right to not self-incriminate should be absolute.
At least in the states, it's been true for a long time (Boyd v. United States, maybe?) that the right against self-incrimination does not extend to your documents. Police can search your house and use your diary or papers against you. Logically, under existing precedent, it is not at all obvious that the right against self-incrimination can or should protect you from a search of your laptop or other electronics.
The much more readily justifiable argument is that you should be allowed to keep your phone locked until you are ordered to unlock it by a judge. Freedom from government intrusion is important, as is privacy, but ultimately some middle ground that protects personal liberties while still allowing police to investigate serious crime is a much more tenable position.
The problem arises when people who don't understand encryption start arguing that the middle ground requires technically impossible or infeasible deliberate weakening of electronic security that will magically only let the government have the key. Which is great, if the government has accountability for how they use it (which their testimony to Congress shows they do not), or until the government of another country pays some guy a million bucks (or otherwise social engineers him) to get them a copy of the key (which will happen within six months of when they create the key). So they shouldn't do that and it's dumb.
But when it's "We think you're a criminal. We have enough evidence that there is probable cause to think you're a criminal. Records on your phone are evidence [just like records in your house would be]. Please enter your password," it's hard to come up with a convincing reason why they shouldn't be able to look at the documents. Unless your password is "I-embezzled-that-money."
That's bullshit. Pure fucking bullshit. In the Unites States legal system, the accused is not supposed to have to prove their innocence. The burden of proof is supposed to be with the prosecution or the plaintiff, whichever is appropriate. There is supposed to be a presumption of innocence. Civil forfeiture is a blatant violation of this.
Sure, in the idealized version you heard about from parents and teachers as a kid. IRL, "innocent until proven guilty" is barely a thing. You have fewer rights after you are proven guilty, but nobody is *really* assuming you're innocent after you get arrested but before your trial ends. Not the cops, not the jury, not the prosecutor, not your attorney, NOBODY. Nobody is assuming you are innocent.
That doesn't mean a jury can't look at the evidence and decide you're innocent. They can. Occasionally they do. And the government has to put together a case (if you insist on it), and if the holes in it are big enough you have a shot that the jury says "maybe you're innocent after all, and that's reasonable doubt."
But everybody, everywhere, always assumes that you're guilty. 95%+ of American Criminal Law is plea bargaining, and if "innocent until proven guilty" were really a thing, then we would have a revolution before allowing a system like plea bargaining to dominate our justice system. Because plea bargains are basically coercing defendants (Whether innocent or guilty) into pleading guilty with no possibility of trial or appeal, in exchange for not being locked up for years or decades. It's not a punishment for having committed the crime--as a practical matter, it's a punishment for insisting on a trial.
1. Be nice to them. Occasionally this gets you better service. 2. Know what your agreement says. Insist on following it. 3. Plan to switch vendors. At least be ready to. If a problem repeats itself or a second one arises, pull the trigger. 4. Publicity. Parent is right; a lot of places will have issues on their public wall or twitter feed get elevated support. Many of these places will only pretend to elevate support in public and then will ignore you, but sometimes they actually follow through. 5. Call a lawyer. Even just a quick letter from a lawyer often makes a difference.
To avoid getting sued, they should use subjective words instead, like "Comcast Internet is the most synergetic!"
Although couched in jest, this is actually one major thing that has happened as a result of requirements for truth in advertising. A hundred years ago advertisements in your local paper might give you details and information about the product. But information content has gone way down in response, because you can't be sued over a claim you don't make. So now our ads have much less information and much more meaningless double-talk and content-less appeals to emotion.
Truth in advertising is important, but to the extent that we've moved closer to it, it has come at a cost.
A whistleblower is a person who publicizes information his employer or another entity with which he is affiliated does not want published, out of a desire to accomplish meaningful institutional reform.
Employees who hack you on behalf of their rival company or rival nation are not whistleblowers. They are thugs who think it will be useful if they knock you down and take your briefcase.
All true. But that is also all solved by having one remote, packaged separately from the half dozen devices in your living room, which you can use to control all of them. Currently we waste resources (albeit a small amount) by having many middle class living rooms with multiple remotes.
This is most likely a question of protectionism (giving contracts to your own data centers) with a privacy smokscreen. It has a coincidental privacy benefit.
Government shutting down social media accounts represents a prior restraint on subsequent speech. From one view, it's like cutting off your ability to write letters to a newspaper because you wrote one and then somebody posted a letter urging you do do something illegal. In terms of precedent, similar acts could prevent her from livestreaming in order to ensure police behavior remains professional while she is arrested.
On the other hand, the person or people urging her not to comply with police is clearly engaging in behavior not protected by the First Amendment, i.e. inciting imminent lawless action likely to occur, and police absolutely have to have the ability to terminate that kind of outside input. Keeping it Constitutional might require having very clear standards for under what conditions they do it, allowing (deferential but meaningful) judicial review after-the-fact, and perhaps only terminating *incoming* messages when that is a practical option...
This would be an interesting case to argue on either side.
Why should each TV come with its own remote these days? The default should be that people use an app on their phone, with an option to buy your own universal remote. Instead we're wasting resources with the sale of every piece of living room electronics and middle-class houses get cluttered with remotes to different devices. It's inefficient.
Of course, only a portion of the market would acknowledge that, so you would need a good marketing strategy and probably a phase-out period.
Actors are on the way out because of course as computers increase in capability so virtual acting bots become possible and they live forever
I was with you until you took a left turn into sheer fantasy. The most compelling stories are about humans (or analogies), after all, so I have a hard time believing we'll be discarding the human element entirely from story-driven entertainment. After all, even though we can play back musical recordings with perfect fidelity, music-lovers still flock to live entertainment.
Yes, they flock to live entertainment--but the dominant form of the industry is no longer live entertainment. Seventy years ago we were still eight years before the first national color broadcast. In seventy years AI may be able to create movies custom tailored and optimized to intrigue the individual watching.
It's almost always more expensive and damaging than any settlement or plea bargain you might reach.
Taking a case all the way to trial is very rare today; most settle in advance of trial.
For the few cases that do go to trial, they go to trial for different reasons. It often means either that someone has an irrational desire to spend the next two years of their life proving someone else is wrong, or it means that at least one side has evaluated the case incorrectly and is therefore unwilling to settle for a dollar amount the other side considers reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
At least he's blatant about it.
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/type...
They intentionally destroyed data while an investigation was underway. If it was a Republican that got caught doing it, you'd probably go nuts about it. As it is, it's disgraceful for Slashdot to post this in the late afternoon on a Friday when people are going to be less likely to see it.
Slashdot didn't pick the timing of when Fox News released it. Although it is kind of interesting that it was released on a day to minimize its political impact.
AT&T alone is in the 4-15M range per year: https://www.opensecrets.org/or...
Telecom has a big lobby.
/. readers who are lawyers cops, & prosecutors reading this, please jump in and correct my erroneous assumptions now...
How about ones who read the article?
You must be new here.
No it is an authority which is specifically given to various arms of law enforcement. The level of the crime to be authorised changes who must sign off on it. Authorization of violent crimes are not allowed by field agents and serious offenses must first be approved by federal prosecutors.
The obvious example is allowing a street corner drug dealer to keep dealing in order to catch their supplier.
For example, field agents signed off on 21,823 of the 22,823 crimes, which were for pizza delivery drivers to break traffic laws in DC in order to get pizza to the FBI building faster. Fortunately the traffic in DC is so messed up already that nobody noticed.
The pizza drivers would call before delivery and give the code phrase "I inform you that this pizza is awesome," thereby becoming FBI informants who could be authorized to break the law.
He seems 'ok'. Except for my one issue. TPP. I will not vote for anyone who considers that a good idea.
Leaving the Gary Johnson question aside, voting for anyone on the basis of one idea is a mistake. Real life is messy and complicated and many more ideas than one are at stake in an election. The fact that people make the mistake of voting on the basis of one idea is exactly what has let wedge-issue-driven politics become dominant, and that in turn means that whoever is in power can do almost whatever they want on *every* other issue in government, no matter how absurd or foolish or childish, because people will vote based on the one issue.
I think the thing that really surprises me is that all my professors told me it was hard to get published, when failing to make sure your data was correctly entered into whatever spreadsheet program you used to for number crunching (and creating graphs) was one of the dead basics of working there. Yet 1 in 5 papers has notable failures here? And nobody noticed before publishing them? What kinds of major errands have gotten in, then, if basic spot checks are getting failed?
It is hard-ish, at least in a number of fields, unless you are either a big name or doing something of popular interest at the moment.
Ultimately, though, this kind of error comes down to laziness more than vetting for quality--because a very minor editing mistake should not affect paper publication, but should be caught before publication. All it takes to spot the error is a careful reading of the paper by one of the professor, the grad student, a reviewer, an assistant editor, or an editor. And while hopefully they will add automated checks after this, the fact that that read is not taking place is discouraging. Scientists in particular should be reading every image or graph in their paper closely and asking "what exactly does this mean." The level of precision that goes into editing legal academic articles is insane (italicizing something wrong is a stoning offense), but you don't have to get to nearly that level of detail before at least three different people would spot an error like this.
> The whole fee will go away at the end of 2026.
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
I'm curious how somebody is scamming you by offering you links to pirated movies. I mean what, do these movies come in a .exe file or something? If so then call it malware.
They are not scamming you; they (and you) are scamming the non-consenting host by using it for something other than the educational material you are allowed to use it for. It's like if you call an Uber and then send your pet goat in the car without you while the driver is looking the other way.
The problem is that "fair" is a really, really bad word for making policy decisions at almost any level. It is far too nebulous and almost always results in comparing apples to oranges.
Is it fair to have the same standards for getting into college, or should you get a handicap for the "unfair" advantages of your parents' educational level, your family's income, your identification with a dominant religion or race, etc...?
It is fair to spend a hundred thousand dollars less on public medical staff serving critical needs every day so you can help small businesses move into a revitalize a community?
Is it fair to force uber drivers out of work because you have a technology that is cheaper and safer, even if some of them lose their homes and lives because of it? How many have to lose their homes before it's unfair?
Is it fair to force people not to use that technology because you want to keep those drivers employed?
Is it fair to outlaw pumping your own gas?
Is it fair for a union to prohibit you from screwing a pencil sharpener to your own desk? To your employer's desk? What if you bring your own desk to your office?
Most real decisions in life involve allocating resources unequally when people have different points of view about how they should be allocated and different sets of other resources to trade for them (whether physical or intangible). The grade-school concept of "fairness" does not provide answers to almost any decision or policy question. There is always a second-level argument about what makes something "fair," and humans are VERY good at rationalizing the opinion that supports their point of view. Arguments can almost always be structured to make "fair" whatever outcome you claim is the fair one. It's just a simple way of rationalizing our opinions about how things ought to be done.
It is entirely conceivable that if the Stingrays and police were deployed in white neighborhoods and businesses, that most of the crime would be suddenly discovered there.
Good point--one point highlighted by The New Jim Crow, IIRC, which discussed studies on how white people used marijuana more than black people but got arrested for it far less.
Ironically, Section 333 (unlawful interference) was created to *enable* calls to the police and emergency services, and keep fly-by-night radio stations from interfering with police radios and shipboard communications for rescue. IIRC the Titanic suffered needless delays in rescue in part because of unregulated radio station broadcasts, although I don't recall offhand if that was part of the ammunition for 333 in particular or the Communications Act more generally.
The Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown is on the brief. Good people on the public policy side. This complaint is a good step in what may wind up being a long process. Worst case, even if nothing else were to come of it (and hopefully something will), this is still very useful and may save some lives--for one thing, it will probably cause Stingray manufacturers to work harder to make sure 911 service isn't interrupted.
The next thing they want is the ability to torture in extra-ordinary circumstances. Then it turns out that someone stealing a car is an extra-ordinary circumstance.
The right to not self-incriminate should be absolute.
At least in the states, it's been true for a long time (Boyd v. United States, maybe?) that the right against self-incrimination does not extend to your documents. Police can search your house and use your diary or papers against you. Logically, under existing precedent, it is not at all obvious that the right against self-incrimination can or should protect you from a search of your laptop or other electronics.
The much more readily justifiable argument is that you should be allowed to keep your phone locked until you are ordered to unlock it by a judge. Freedom from government intrusion is important, as is privacy, but ultimately some middle ground that protects personal liberties while still allowing police to investigate serious crime is a much more tenable position.
The problem arises when people who don't understand encryption start arguing that the middle ground requires technically impossible or infeasible deliberate weakening of electronic security that will magically only let the government have the key. Which is great, if the government has accountability for how they use it (which their testimony to Congress shows they do not), or until the government of another country pays some guy a million bucks (or otherwise social engineers him) to get them a copy of the key (which will happen within six months of when they create the key). So they shouldn't do that and it's dumb.
But when it's "We think you're a criminal. We have enough evidence that there is probable cause to think you're a criminal. Records on your phone are evidence [just like records in your house would be]. Please enter your password," it's hard to come up with a convincing reason why they shouldn't be able to look at the documents. Unless your password is "I-embezzled-that-money."
That's bullshit. Pure fucking bullshit. In the Unites States legal system, the accused is not supposed to have to prove their innocence. The burden of proof is supposed to be with the prosecution or the plaintiff, whichever is appropriate. There is supposed to be a presumption of innocence. Civil forfeiture is a blatant violation of this.
Sure, in the idealized version you heard about from parents and teachers as a kid. IRL, "innocent until proven guilty" is barely a thing. You have fewer rights after you are proven guilty, but nobody is *really* assuming you're innocent after you get arrested but before your trial ends. Not the cops, not the jury, not the prosecutor, not your attorney, NOBODY. Nobody is assuming you are innocent.
That doesn't mean a jury can't look at the evidence and decide you're innocent. They can. Occasionally they do. And the government has to put together a case (if you insist on it), and if the holes in it are big enough you have a shot that the jury says "maybe you're innocent after all, and that's reasonable doubt."
But everybody, everywhere, always assumes that you're guilty. 95%+ of American Criminal Law is plea bargaining, and if "innocent until proven guilty" were really a thing, then we would have a revolution before allowing a system like plea bargaining to dominate our justice system. Because plea bargains are basically coercing defendants (Whether innocent or guilty) into pleading guilty with no possibility of trial or appeal, in exchange for not being locked up for years or decades. It's not a punishment for having committed the crime--as a practical matter, it's a punishment for insisting on a trial.
1. Be nice to them. Occasionally this gets you better service.
2. Know what your agreement says. Insist on following it.
3. Plan to switch vendors. At least be ready to. If a problem repeats itself or a second one arises, pull the trigger.
4. Publicity. Parent is right; a lot of places will have issues on their public wall or twitter feed get elevated support. Many of these places will only pretend to elevate support in public and then will ignore you, but sometimes they actually follow through.
5. Call a lawyer. Even just a quick letter from a lawyer often makes a difference.
To avoid getting sued, they should use subjective words instead, like "Comcast Internet is the most synergetic!"
Although couched in jest, this is actually one major thing that has happened as a result of requirements for truth in advertising. A hundred years ago advertisements in your local paper might give you details and information about the product. But information content has gone way down in response, because you can't be sued over a claim you don't make. So now our ads have much less information and much more meaningless double-talk and content-less appeals to emotion.
Truth in advertising is important, but to the extent that we've moved closer to it, it has come at a cost.
You can really imagine the conversation that led to this research question.
"So you're too lazy to come up with a research topic?"
"Yes."
"That's not very smart."
"... I beg to differ."
A whistleblower is a person who publicizes information his employer or another entity with which he is affiliated does not want published, out of a desire to accomplish meaningful institutional reform.
Employees who hack you on behalf of their rival company or rival nation are not whistleblowers. They are thugs who think it will be useful if they knock you down and take your briefcase.
Yet, that's not always true. My admittedly anecdotal evidence -- me not being dead now.
You could try a longitudinal study.
All true. But that is also all solved by having one remote, packaged separately from the half dozen devices in your living room, which you can use to control all of them. Currently we waste resources (albeit a small amount) by having many middle class living rooms with multiple remotes.
This is most likely a question of protectionism (giving contracts to your own data centers) with a privacy smokscreen. It has a coincidental privacy benefit.
Government shutting down social media accounts represents a prior restraint on subsequent speech. From one view, it's like cutting off your ability to write letters to a newspaper because you wrote one and then somebody posted a letter urging you do do something illegal. In terms of precedent, similar acts could prevent her from livestreaming in order to ensure police behavior remains professional while she is arrested.
On the other hand, the person or people urging her not to comply with police is clearly engaging in behavior not protected by the First Amendment, i.e. inciting imminent lawless action likely to occur, and police absolutely have to have the ability to terminate that kind of outside input. Keeping it Constitutional might require having very clear standards for under what conditions they do it, allowing (deferential but meaningful) judicial review after-the-fact, and perhaps only terminating *incoming* messages when that is a practical option...
This would be an interesting case to argue on either side.
Why should each TV come with its own remote these days? The default should be that people use an app on their phone, with an option to buy your own universal remote. Instead we're wasting resources with the sale of every piece of living room electronics and middle-class houses get cluttered with remotes to different devices. It's inefficient.
Of course, only a portion of the market would acknowledge that, so you would need a good marketing strategy and probably a phase-out period.
Actors are on the way out because of course as computers increase in capability so virtual acting bots become possible and they live forever
I was with you until you took a left turn into sheer fantasy. The most compelling stories are about humans (or analogies), after all, so I have a hard time believing we'll be discarding the human element entirely from story-driven entertainment. After all, even though we can play back musical recordings with perfect fidelity, music-lovers still flock to live entertainment.
Also, paragraphs > giantwallsofindecipherabletext.
Yes, they flock to live entertainment--but the dominant form of the industry is no longer live entertainment. Seventy years ago we were still eight years before the first national color broadcast. In seventy years AI may be able to create movies custom tailored and optimized to intrigue the individual watching.
It's almost always more expensive and damaging than any settlement or plea bargain you might reach.
Taking a case all the way to trial is very rare today; most settle in advance of trial.
For the few cases that do go to trial, they go to trial for different reasons. It often means either that someone has an irrational desire to spend the next two years of their life proving someone else is wrong, or it means that at least one side has evaluated the case incorrectly and is therefore unwilling to settle for a dollar amount the other side considers reasonable.
This kind of accusation is usually BS to frame politically dangerous people.
Um. No. Seriously and respectfully ask some of your female friends what kind of misconduct they've experienced in the workplace. You may be amazed.