I hate (US/Bush/Republicans/US Military) and I'll believe anything (Iran/Chirac/Democrats/Liberal Reporters) say they reinforces my beliefs without questioning anything. Lots of pinheads write lots of reports for other pinheads while other people do real work.
I bought my Compaq notebook six months ago and it's about to go in for the fourth time. Last time it took weeks because they sent it back signature required and they would only attempt delivery when I was not home.
You need to do a bit of research before you heard down. It's tough to get permissions to work in CR but it's pretty each to start a business and be the manager. Costa Rica is booming and there is a lot of opportunity. Since you have kids you need to look either in the Central Valley or Near Tamarindo since there are American schools there. Country Day School is probably the most popular. The tuition is steel ($7K/student) but the acceptance rate for good stateside colleges are good. They are opening a new English language school near Pilina, just south of Tamarindo, with a $3K/year tuition. After living there a few years under another residency you can apply for permanent residence. They just changed the most popular form of residency for bringing your family down, Pensionado, so you will have to prove $600/month in permanent income for each person. Here are a few good links to get started:
If you read the comments made in the Senate hearings the real complaints are about the 2nd and 3rd degree hits. They were filtering for who the individual called plus potentially who the person called called. I can see some validity to that argument.
As far as "not filtering the content for relevancy to the actual suspects". By making even the call abstract information protected/private you basically take away one of the primary methods police use to find criminals and detect conspiracies. If you never allow them to see the streets they can't see the patterns in the first place. There would b no way to filer since you have no criteria in many cases. Police do patrol to both prevent and detect crime, but also to learn "normal" patterns. I wasn't spitting out a red herring by noting the "currently committing a crime". Under your philosophy that is practically the only way you could monitor the data. You would have to know an illegal act was currently being committed and that both parties are in on it.
As far as applying technology as a solution, I can foresee eventually trying to use intelligent systems to identify potential criminals but I have seen few in action with an error rate for complex scenarios much better than humans. Even then politicians will make hay and put it out in the press like someone was hand combing the data when we know that even in this case we're talking about database queries and data analysis not listening in on everyones phone sex like certain political factions want to make people think.
What a fruitcake. Do yourself a favor. Go down to the local PD and have a sit down talk with a few cops. Sometimes you paranoia really only means you are crazy.
Yes, and the police should be forced to wear blinders or special computer controlled glasses that erase anyone from view who is not currently committing a crime.
If I was a landlord and the Police came to me and asked me about my tenants activities (coming and going, visitors, etc) because they suspected someone in the building of a crime, I should be barred from talking to them?
I believe most of the reactions I'm reading are based on misinformation spread in the pres that the data given amounts to wiretapping. Please read:
Scenario 1: A house down the block from you is known or strongly suspected to be used for drug trafficking. To gather information about the drug trade and investigate individuals the police park an undercover cruiser nearby to write down license tags of those who visit the house. Those tags are then used to identify the individuals and possibly obtain warrants and wiretaps.
With me so far?
Ok, move this scenario to the virtual world.
Scenario 2: The police need a way to identify potential criminals/terrorists. The closest thing they have to monitor traffic is the phone connection history from the phone company. This history is a huge database of call origination end termination identifiers. They analyze this data to identify folks making calls to known or suspected criminals/terrorists. When they thing they have identified a suspicious call they get a warrant and go back to the phone company to identify the caller so they can then apply for wiretaps. They don't have the "content" of the call or a recording of it, simply a record of start and end points.
Like it or not, the police need some way of tracking activity. In the physical world this is by monitoring any activity in public view. In the virtual world this translates to identifying the "path" each communication took on its way from caller to receiver..
Before you hit the flamebait button, please listen: The issue here is more widespread than you think. In this case they were stealing software, breaking the anti-piracy measures and redistributing it. What about hacking a computer in another country, stealing credit cards and selling the cards or charging them? What about training radicals to hop onto planes and commit crimes in other countries? What about private groups of citizens launching rockets across the border into neighboring countries? In what jurisdiction does the crime occur? What if the other government refuses to prosecute? Should it escalate to a national or international conflict?
The fundamental questions is, what do you do when someone from another country harms your citizens or destroys their property? Criminals used run for the state or country border to avoid prosecution. No they just play in the fuzzy areas of national sovereignty. Many of the conflicts in the world follow this pattern. In this case Australia decided to hand the criminal over the the US for prosecution. Maybe they are trying to send a message to criminals hiding behind these gray areas of sovereignty.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate (US/Bush/Republicans/US Military) and I'll believe anything (Iran/Chirac/Democrats/Liberal Reporters) say they reinforces my beliefs without questioning anything. Lots of pinheads write lots of reports for other pinheads while other people do real work.
I bought my Compaq notebook six months ago and it's about to go in for the fourth time. Last time it took weeks because they sent it back signature required and they would only attempt delivery when I was not home.
You are being lied to and used. And you deserve it for refusing to open your eyes even a little.
I could teach my kids a decent sorting algorithm for their room!
The Real Costa Rica
Association of Residents of Costa Rica
Dude, weird coincidence. I'm closing on some land near Tamarindo in the next week. I'm angling my way to move there within the next 1-2 years.
Why is the parent modded funny? Sounds like good advice to me. Though most truck drivers I know start to feel unhealthy after a few years.
If you read the comments made in the Senate hearings the real complaints are about the 2nd and 3rd degree hits. They were filtering for who the individual called plus potentially who the person called called. I can see some validity to that argument.
As far as "not filtering the content for relevancy to the actual suspects". By making even the call abstract information protected/private you basically take away one of the primary methods police use to find criminals and detect conspiracies. If you never allow them to see the streets they can't see the patterns in the first place. There would b no way to filer since you have no criteria in many cases. Police do patrol to both prevent and detect crime, but also to learn "normal" patterns. I wasn't spitting out a red herring by noting the "currently committing a crime". Under your philosophy that is practically the only way you could monitor the data. You would have to know an illegal act was currently being committed and that both parties are in on it.
As far as applying technology as a solution, I can foresee eventually trying to use intelligent systems to identify potential criminals but I have seen few in action with an error rate for complex scenarios much better than humans. Even then politicians will make hay and put it out in the press like someone was hand combing the data when we know that even in this case we're talking about database queries and data analysis not listening in on everyones phone sex like certain political factions want to make people think.
What a fruitcake. Do yourself a favor. Go down to the local PD and have a sit down talk with a few cops. Sometimes you paranoia really only means you are crazy.
The database is analogous to the street. If you tell the Police you have to look for suspicious activity on a street they aren't allowed to see...
Yes, and the police should be forced to wear blinders or special computer controlled glasses that erase anyone from view who is not currently committing a crime.
Because this is just a mud throwing contest by the politicians who will shove this all under the rug shortly after the next Presidential election?
Ok, prove harm.
You say potato...
I cringe a little whenever I visit a bank or CC site ans see .asp or .aspx at the end of the URL.
If I was a landlord and the Police came to me and asked me about my tenants activities (coming and going, visitors, etc) because they suspected someone in the building of a crime, I should be barred from talking to them?
I believe most of the reactions I'm reading are based on misinformation spread in the pres that the data given amounts to wiretapping. Please read:
Scenario 1: A house down the block from you is known or strongly suspected to be used for drug trafficking. To gather information about the drug trade and investigate individuals the police park an undercover cruiser nearby to write down license tags of those who visit the house. Those tags are then used to identify the individuals and possibly obtain warrants and wiretaps.
With me so far?
Ok, move this scenario to the virtual world.
Scenario 2: The police need a way to identify potential criminals/terrorists. The closest thing they have to monitor traffic is the phone connection history from the phone company. This history is a huge database of call origination end termination identifiers. They analyze this data to identify folks making calls to known or suspected criminals/terrorists. When they thing they have identified a suspicious call they get a warrant and go back to the phone company to identify the caller so they can then apply for wiretaps. They don't have the "content" of the call or a recording of it, simply a record of start and end points.
Like it or not, the police need some way of tracking activity. In the physical world this is by monitoring any activity in public view. In the virtual world this translates to identifying the "path" each communication took on its way from caller to receiver..
Before you make such a statement maybe you should get an idea of what information they gave.
Is a "Hooters University". All the teachers are hot chicks who dress skimpy and pass out hot wings between classes.
Nothing new here folks, remeber the same sort of thing with The Onion using the Presidential Seal?
Who would believe something that kooky? Next thing you now someone will claim a box knife is an "evil tool" to hijack a plane.
I'd rather have these folks a little paranoid because you never know when a suspicious looking item really is being used for espionage.
Who owned the software? Where were the physical computers hosting the hacked software?
What you are saying is the status quo. Like I said, this system is failing.
Before you hit the flamebait button, please listen: The issue here is more widespread than you think. In this case they were stealing software, breaking the anti-piracy measures and redistributing it. What about hacking a computer in another country, stealing credit cards and selling the cards or charging them? What about training radicals to hop onto planes and commit crimes in other countries? What about private groups of citizens launching rockets across the border into neighboring countries? In what jurisdiction does the crime occur? What if the other government refuses to prosecute? Should it escalate to a national or international conflict?
The fundamental questions is, what do you do when someone from another country harms your citizens or destroys their property? Criminals used run for the state or country border to avoid prosecution. No they just play in the fuzzy areas of national sovereignty. Many of the conflicts in the world follow this pattern. In this case Australia decided to hand the criminal over the the US for prosecution. Maybe they are trying to send a message to criminals hiding behind these gray areas of sovereignty.