"Occupant means you live there as a legal resident. It does not include strangers and "persons that have no habitation rights of the residence they are in"."
Actually, he could have protected himself with, "B*TCH! Get out of my house!" If she isn't on the lease, then she is staying as a guest. If the permission for a guest to stay is rescinded and she stays, she is now a trespasser. Trespassers cannot give consent to a search.
If by "don't want to compromise the investigation" they mean "don't want to let the crooks know what we know", they have already failed. Any action to remove material now is simply playing to politics.
Personally, I think the value of publishing the data is higher than not tipping your cards to crooks. They know what they left behind.
Yes, the key is needed to encrypt, but the encrypted PIN block is already encrypted by the card embosser on behalf of the bank. If the merchant passes along the encrypted PIN block as sensitive authentication data to the processor for authorization, the merchant has no need to decrypt.
This, unfortunately, makes the encrypted PIN block more of a password than encrypted data. Cloning cards is still quite possible.
Snowden has made no such claims. The claim originated from a leaked document. He provided the document to journalists. The document speaks for itself.
Is the document genuine? That is an entirely different question. I suspect that it is, though no one at the NSA will say. How do you confirm the authenticity of the document? Well, a simple initial approach may be to consider the accuracy of previous document releases. By that standard, it's genuine.
A dog sniff is not a search. The dog "signal" is now reasonable suspicion, which now allows them to search you for realsie. Of course, the dog is "signaling" to what the cop wants so he can get his search. Catch 22.
Interesting. Warrant requirements generally do not apply to evidence in "plain sight", but if you need a breathalyzer, it's not exactly plain sight, now, is it?
Best I can compare it to would be the use of an infrared camera in search of "grow lights" for basement cannabis farms. A federal judge said, no-baby-no, so I'd have to side with you on this one.
Almost right. The host header is encrypted. The target IP address is in-the-clear for obvious reasons. Your IP stack does not connect to DNS names. It connects to IP addresses. DNS resolves the DNS name, then the stack connects to the address.
Now the DNS name might be unencrypted during the SSL negotiation, but that's not the HTTP header, as your browser has to decide if it likes the SSL cert before it negotiates. Part of that check is "does the host name match the cert?". I'd look up SSL negotiation details, but I'm lazy.
Nope. This is a clear FDA overreach. They were not involved in any process designed to diagnose, treat, or prevent illness. They were involved only in protected speech. And because of the FDA, we now have prior restraint on protected speech. 23andme should have released the lawyers on the FDA.
And you missed "(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
You can copyright an implementation of a language, but you cannot copyright the language itself. This view is more completely settled in EU law, but there are US cases that have reached the same conclusion.
"If someone attempts to prove prior art that's a different factor"
Yes, and a factor that does not influence copyrightability in the slightest. Perhaps you are thinking of patents? Oracle's patent claims died in the first trial, and they are not appealing that part of the decision. All that remains is copyright. And APIs are purely functional, not creative.
Slashdot Mirror
"Occupant means you live there as a legal resident. It does not include strangers and "persons that have no habitation rights of the residence they are in"."
Citation needed.
Actually, he could have protected himself with, "B*TCH! Get out of my house!" If she isn't on the lease, then she is staying as a guest. If the permission for a guest to stay is rescinded and she stays, she is now a trespasser. Trespassers cannot give consent to a search.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Maybe if the state of California read the First Amendment, there wouldn't be a need to fine code bootcamp operators.
(Hint: Commercial speech is still speech.)
The card brands call the shots when this much sh!t hits the fan, but, yeah.
Not here. Target's pos pos is homebrew.
If by "don't want to compromise the investigation" they mean "don't want to let the crooks know what we know", they have already failed. Any action to remove material now is simply playing to politics.
Personally, I think the value of publishing the data is higher than not tipping your cards to crooks. They know what they left behind.
Proper forensics protocols state that you NEVER work with the original media, only copies.
Lightning Link: http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/lightninglink.html
$20? You're paying too much.
Please enumerate for me the rights "granted" by the Bill of Rights.
(Hint: None. The Bill of Rights hinders actions of the government, not the people.)
Yes, the key is needed to encrypt, but the encrypted PIN block is already encrypted by the card embosser on behalf of the bank. If the merchant passes along the encrypted PIN block as sensitive authentication data to the processor for authorization, the merchant has no need to decrypt.
This, unfortunately, makes the encrypted PIN block more of a password than encrypted data. Cloning cards is still quite possible.
Snowden has made no such claims. The claim originated from a leaked document. He provided the document to journalists. The document speaks for itself.
Is the document genuine? That is an entirely different question. I suspect that it is, though no one at the NSA will say. How do you confirm the authenticity of the document? Well, a simple initial approach may be to consider the accuracy of previous document releases. By that standard, it's genuine.
You mean like Arduino? Or OpenSPARC? As you wish!
Your privacy can be compromised with open hardware, just as easily as with closed.
Freedom I see, however.
But the cops, like everyone else, are free to sample public air however they want. They just can't use it as evidence against you. Still bloody rude.
And grow lights put off infrared. Judge said no.
Know.YOUR.rights.
A dog sniff is not a search. The dog "signal" is now reasonable suspicion, which now allows them to search you for realsie. Of course, the dog is "signaling" to what the cop wants so he can get his search. Catch 22.
Interesting. Warrant requirements generally do not apply to evidence in "plain sight", but if you need a breathalyzer, it's not exactly plain sight, now, is it?
Best I can compare it to would be the use of an infrared camera in search of "grow lights" for basement cannabis farms. A federal judge said, no-baby-no, so I'd have to side with you on this one.
Ah, no. Good cops cover for bad cops, and that makes them bad cops. No such thing as a good cop.
Almost right. The host header is encrypted. The target IP address is in-the-clear for obvious reasons. Your IP stack does not connect to DNS names. It connects to IP addresses. DNS resolves the DNS name, then the stack connects to the address.
Now the DNS name might be unencrypted during the SSL negotiation, but that's not the HTTP header, as your browser has to decide if it likes the SSL cert before it negotiates. Part of that check is "does the host name match the cert?". I'd look up SSL negotiation details, but I'm lazy.
Nope. This is a clear FDA overreach. They were not involved in any process designed to diagnose, treat, or prevent illness. They were involved only in protected speech. And because of the FDA, we now have prior restraint on protected speech. 23andme should have released the lawyers on the FDA.
And you missed "(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
You can copyright an implementation of a language, but you cannot copyright the language itself. This view is more completely settled in EU law, but there are US cases that have reached the same conclusion.
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~aho/cs6998/lectures/11-10-11_Zimmeck_ProtectPL.pdf
http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2013/01/sas-v-wpl-programming-languages-not.html
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2013/january/computer-programming-languages-should-not-be-viewed-as-copyrightable-says-high-court-judge/
"... claiming that assorted parts of Linux violate MS copyrights."
PLEASE stop confusing patents and copyrights. Microsoft has NEVER accused Linux of violating copyrights. (Perhaps you were thinking of SCO? ;)
Side note, I miss PJ...
"If someone attempts to prove prior art that's a different factor"
Yes, and a factor that does not influence copyrightability in the slightest. Perhaps you are thinking of patents? Oracle's patent claims died in the first trial, and they are not appealing that part of the decision. All that remains is copyright. And APIs are purely functional, not creative.