What do you do? You provide all the information you have and be as co-operative as possible. Why? The laws on that are worded so that co-operation is the better of the two options so that you're *forced* to co-operate or go to jail.
I agree that you should be polite and co-operate with the letter of the law, but it's also important to reveal as little information as possible. Even innocuous information can be twisted against you. A prosecutor won't think "Well, this guy was so co-operative and revealed potentially incriminating information he didn't have to, so he's probably innocent." The prosecutor'll think "This information the suspect gave me might convince the jury to convict him." It's a prosecutor's job to prosecute if there's chance of a guilty verdict, and he/she won't mention to the jury you were such a nice guy and revealed something you didn't need to.
I type in the password to my computer at work every day, but after two weeks' vacation, I tend to forget it. Sometimes I forget it despite having used it the day before, for no apparent reason. Sometimes I even remember it again after an hour, still, for no apparent reason. To a court, that could easily seem like I was lying about forgetting it.
A simple password program can contain strong encryption. It's not reasonable to demand that everyone should remember all their encryption passwords or be prepared to face two years' jail time.
Maybe the people who are inspired by that message in the Quran and become Jihadists are so few, most Hindus never meet one (even if those few Jihadists have a large impact on the world).
Abu Dhabi is a city, not a country, but assuming you were attempting to refer to the United Arab Emirates, yes, there is a Google UAE, and Google would respond to any court order from the UAE.
But it is a state. The United Arab Emirates, as its name suggests, is a federation of seven states.
Note that the UAE is a fairly progressive country, and not the backwater Islamic police state that only exists in your mind.
Only relatively speaking. Only 10% to 15% of the population of UAE are citizens; all the others have diminished legal rights. Labourers are brought to the UAE on slave contracts, often defrauded and treated as indentured servants. Racial discrimination is legal and open. The conservative government tries to combat prostitution, but it's still very widespread and organised, importing "labourers" from Ethiopia and Eastern Europe by the thousands.
During the medieval ages and later, the monasteries acted as research centres and repositories of knowledge. Mendel, the father of genetics, conducted his research from a monastery.
Contrary to popular belief, many priests and church officials during the late 19th century didn't have a strict interpretation of the Bible and accepted Darwin's theory of evolution. It wasn't until the early 20th century that the resistance against evolution grew strong among American churches, and they invented "creation science", aka "creationism". Creationism is about politics, not faith.
Instead of blaming the stupidity of the police or government officials, I think we should question the very premise of gathering intelligence using data mining.
The man allegedly sent a text message in French which translates roughly as:
Salem, I will be in New York on January 25h, we will explode ACN, if you have contacts refer them to me.
Now, it may sound reasonable to investigate something that could be a simple mistake or slang term, but also could be something sinister, just to be on the safe side. But consider for a moment how many millions of text messages are sent across the globe every day, and if even a tenth of a percent of them contain slang terms, jokes or language errors that make them sound suspicious, the police will have thousands of false positives (or more) to investigate every day. If there are terrorists who are dumb enough to send text messages about "exploding" a building, they'll be drowned out by the thousands of ordinary people who are stupid enough to send text messages that make them sound like terrorists.
We should ask ourselves if it's reasonable to devote the police's limited resources to investigating all those false positives, or if it's better used on traditional investigative work, such as infiltrating terrorist organisations.
Security expert Bruce Schneier has an excellent article on this problem.
Thanks for this. While it doesn't really justify what happened to him, I can definitely see why saying this would be deemed suspicious:
"Salem, I will be in New York on January 25, ACN is going to explode, if you have contacts refer them to me"
The problem is that with all SMS traffic going back and forth over the globe every day, tens of thousands must end up sounding suspicious taken out of context. If it's ground to investigate someone, the police will have a HUGE number of false positives to investigate. I'm questioning whether this type of surveillance is of any use AT ALL for stopping terrorism.
Sweden has punitive damages for some IP (Imaginary Property) crimes. The copyright law was changed to include punitive damages after pressure from the USA. This was one of the things revealed in the Cablegate papers.
When I read statements like yours I'm often left wondering, why do you think the American security services will single you out of the other 64 million travelers to the United States per year? And do you truly believe that nobody is arrested due to misunderstanding or mistake in your or other countries?
Not many of those 64 million travellers are arrested, but quite a few of them have to go through scanners, have their laptops searched, happen to have the same name as someone on a no-fly list, etc.
And, yes, right now this problem is worse in the USA than in the rest of the Western world. The UK is probably worse with regards to cameras in public places and databases with private information, but going after what the newspapers reveal, the USA seems to lead in flimsy arrests, intrusive searches, and freezing financial assets without legal recourse.
If you want your country to be a paragon of liberty again, you need to work hard.
Then let's not blame individuals, and instead ask ourselves, "Is there any point in gathering intelligence by automatic mass surveillance, when the number of false positives is so huge they drown out the true positives?"
The guy is a citizen of Hungary. He did the illegal intrusion and attempted blackmail while in Hungary. He was arrested when he arrived in the US for a 'job interview'. Hungary's economy is more fucked up than the US economy, and they did it all on their own.
Now see what you did. How are we supposed to have a good argument, when you drag facts into it?
Not necessary, since the signature doesn't mean anything from a legal perspective. The EU parliament and the individual member states need to ratify the ACTA agreement before it takes effect.
Mr. Rosen says the regulations will create a dramatic clash between the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy, arguing that under the proposal, websites like Facebook will be obliged to not only to delete on request material that users upload, such as photos, but any shared copies of photos – and potentially even material uploaded by third parties that another user objects to.
Funny, when private persons want to prevent others from sharing their media, they call it "preventing free expression". I never heard the mainstream media call it that when corporations want to prevent others from sharing their media.
Is the right to keep your own media to yourself less important if you do it for privacy, than if you you do it for profit?
Slashdot Mirror
What do you do? You provide all the information you have and be as co-operative as possible. Why? The laws on that are worded so that co-operation is the better of the two options so that you're *forced* to co-operate or go to jail.
I agree that you should be polite and co-operate with the letter of the law, but it's also important to reveal as little information as possible. Even innocuous information can be twisted against you. A prosecutor won't think "Well, this guy was so co-operative and revealed potentially incriminating information he didn't have to, so he's probably innocent." The prosecutor'll think "This information the suspect gave me might convince the jury to convict him." It's a prosecutor's job to prosecute if there's chance of a guilty verdict, and he/she won't mention to the jury you were such a nice guy and revealed something you didn't need to.
I type in the password to my computer at work every day, but after two weeks' vacation, I tend to forget it. Sometimes I forget it despite having used it the day before, for no apparent reason. Sometimes I even remember it again after an hour, still, for no apparent reason. To a court, that could easily seem like I was lying about forgetting it.
A simple password program can contain strong encryption. It's not reasonable to demand that everyone should remember all their encryption passwords or be prepared to face two years' jail time.
Maybe the people who are inspired by that message in the Quran and become Jihadists are so few, most Hindus never meet one (even if those few Jihadists have a large impact on the world).
Good grief...
If the password described in the plain text file is too complicated to remember, then they won't believe you used that as the password, will they?
Ah, but you forget that people CAN hold contradictory ideas :)
And for the human rights issues:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uae
Abu Dhabi is a city, not a country, but assuming you were attempting to refer to the United Arab Emirates, yes, there is a Google UAE, and Google would respond to any court order from the UAE.
But it is a state. The United Arab Emirates, as its name suggests, is a federation of seven states.
Note that the UAE is a fairly progressive country, and not the backwater Islamic police state that only exists in your mind.
Only relatively speaking. Only 10% to 15% of the population of UAE are citizens; all the others have diminished legal rights. Labourers are brought to the UAE on slave contracts, often defrauded and treated as indentured servants. Racial discrimination is legal and open. The conservative government tries to combat prostitution, but it's still very widespread and organised, importing "labourers" from Ethiopia and Eastern Europe by the thousands.
And he responded to a post which simply stated that Muslims generally were as laid-back as hindus. No mention of suicide bombers there.
A world without "religion" maybe, but a world without a spiritual element, God if you like, would be a sad world indeed.
That will never happen. If people don't have religion, they find another way to be spiritual. Look at how Russians worshipped the corpse of Lenin.
During the medieval ages and later, the monasteries acted as research centres and repositories of knowledge. Mendel, the father of genetics, conducted his research from a monastery.
Contrary to popular belief, many priests and church officials during the late 19th century didn't have a strict interpretation of the Bible and accepted Darwin's theory of evolution. It wasn't until the early 20th century that the resistance against evolution grew strong among American churches, and they invented "creation science", aka "creationism". Creationism is about politics, not faith.
You can worship the idea of not believing in any religion.
Instead of blaming the stupidity of the police or government officials, I think we should question the very premise of gathering intelligence using data mining.
The man allegedly sent a text message in French which translates roughly as:
Salem, I will be in New York on January 25h, we will explode ACN, if you have contacts refer them to me.
Now, it may sound reasonable to investigate something that could be a simple mistake or slang term, but also could be something sinister, just to be on the safe side. But consider for a moment how many millions of text messages are sent across the globe every day, and if even a tenth of a percent of them contain slang terms, jokes or language errors that make them sound suspicious, the police will have thousands of false positives (or more) to investigate every day. If there are terrorists who are dumb enough to send text messages about "exploding" a building, they'll be drowned out by the thousands of ordinary people who are stupid enough to send text messages that make them sound like terrorists.
We should ask ourselves if it's reasonable to devote the police's limited resources to investigating all those false positives, or if it's better used on traditional investigative work, such as infiltrating terrorist organisations.
Security expert Bruce Schneier has an excellent article on this problem.
Thanks for this. While it doesn't really justify what happened to him, I can definitely see why saying this would be deemed suspicious:
"Salem, I will be in New York on January 25, ACN is going to explode, if you have contacts refer them to me"
The problem is that with all SMS traffic going back and forth over the globe every day, tens of thousands must end up sounding suspicious taken out of context. If it's ground to investigate someone, the police will have a HUGE number of false positives to investigate. I'm questioning whether this type of surveillance is of any use AT ALL for stopping terrorism.
This is a site with users from all over the world. America is the center of all evil. Get with the program.
Fixed that for you.
Sweden has punitive damages for some IP (Imaginary Property) crimes. The copyright law was changed to include punitive damages after pressure from the USA. This was one of the things revealed in the Cablegate papers.
Who do you think alerted the Canadian police?
When I read statements like yours I'm often left wondering, why do you think the American security services will single you out of the other 64 million travelers to the United States per year? And do you truly believe that nobody is arrested due to misunderstanding or mistake in your or other countries?
Not many of those 64 million travellers are arrested, but quite a few of them have to go through scanners, have their laptops searched, happen to have the same name as someone on a no-fly list, etc.
And, yes, right now this problem is worse in the USA than in the rest of the Western world. The UK is probably worse with regards to cameras in public places and databases with private information, but going after what the newspapers reveal, the USA seems to lead in flimsy arrests, intrusive searches, and freezing financial assets without legal recourse.
If you want your country to be a paragon of liberty again, you need to work hard.
Then let's not blame individuals, and instead ask ourselves, "Is there any point in gathering intelligence by automatic mass surveillance, when the number of false positives is so huge they drown out the true positives?"
Or perhaps the smart terrorists do not sign up for suicide missions.
The guy is a citizen of Hungary. He did the illegal intrusion and attempted blackmail while in Hungary. He was arrested when he arrived in the US for a 'job interview'. Hungary's economy is more fucked up than the US economy, and they did it all on their own.
Now see what you did. How are we supposed to have a good argument, when you drag facts into it?
From TFS:
people are more likely to give in to their addiction to use social or other types of media
It may be simply because they're less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol, so there's less reason to resist.
Not necessary, since the signature doesn't mean anything from a legal perspective. The EU parliament and the individual member states need to ratify the ACTA agreement before it takes effect.
From TFA:
Mr. Rosen says the regulations will create a dramatic clash between the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy, arguing that under the proposal, websites like Facebook will be obliged to not only to delete on request material that users upload, such as photos, but any shared copies of photos – and potentially even material uploaded by third parties that another user objects to.
Funny, when private persons want to prevent others from sharing their media, they call it "preventing free expression". I never heard the mainstream media call it that when corporations want to prevent others from sharing their media.
Is the right to keep your own media to yourself less important if you do it for privacy, than if you you do it for profit?