That's just sad. And yet, when the cameras are pointed at us, we're reminded that no one has an expectation of privacy in public. Perhaps there are some yet uncorrupted people in power who see the contradiction?
You didn't say what law would be broken. Because there is none. The fact that someone would be harassed and subject to abuse of police power and/or prosecutorial process for doing so is irrelevant.
Nowhere in the story was he asked for his ID by the actual police officers; he was relating that he refused to present it to the security guards, which we both understand he was under no obligation to do. My perception of the officers involved as slimebags is unchanged.
For those who might want to make their feelings known, here is the contact page" for the Seattle PD and for REI (who banned the photographer (their customer) for a year from the premises.
They're in a public space; what's visible in public is fair game. What law would someone with a picture be breaking (hint: Offending a security guard's sensitivities isn't against the law.
And even if you get rid of the car, if you don't want to get ass-raped into the assigned risk pool as someone who is currently uninsured if you decide you want one again, you'll at least need to keep a non-owner auto liability policy in force.
To a company with a policy of using it, it's defiantly a requirement to be able to tick that box.
Companies with such a requirement shouldn't enjoy a presumption of innocence in legal discovery. Better to act rightly than to sweat making sure no one can copy the evidence.
Also while printing/emailing/copying a 200 page document takes minutes, but photographing it is going to take hours!
DRM for sharing is a stupid idea and an oxymoron. There is no protecting a file's contents against someone with permissions to read it--if something's "hot" enough that the powers that be don't want me to print it and I need a copy to cover my ass, I'll take a picture of the screen with a camera if that's what it takes.
But in the real world, there's nothing stopping the hiring manager from checking the prospect out, and no way to prove s/he did. The only thing left for the hiring manager who sees something s/he didn't like that might be legally problematic is to concoct legitimate sounding reasons for denying an interview or hire. Easily done.
. . . we the powers that be don't want the public to have tools that contradict whatever propaganda we might be pushing at the moment about the size and scope or lack thereof of an epidemic; the population is easier to control when we control the information they have access to. Don't panic, Americans.
"Donate the Apple tax." Instead of paying the style premium, buy a Linux/Windows PC and donate the difference to the EFF to help keep Apple's jackbooted thugs in check.
Exactly, and it's the rare person who doesn't have so much as an MP3 they can't account for having purchased. And even though running a TOR node isn't illegal, TPTB don't like people doing it very much, so a prosecution for whatever they can find on one's machine isn't out of the question.
So while information gained by analyzing TOR traffic could be used against you in many ways, it will not in and of itself convict you of anything.
That's a good point about TOR-based evidence not being used to prosecute someone for thoughtcrime for fear of revealing sources and methods, but once "they" know who you are, they can find some non-TOR acquired basis for suspicion and use that to get a warrant for conventional lawful intercept surveillance. So really, if you're doing anything "they're" interested, TOR can be used to get you without "them" having to reveal sources and methods in open court.
Another example is the CD database (CDDB) that was locked down after accepting contributions from users. There is still an out-of-date dump of the database from a decade or so ago floating around, and a parallel project, FreeDB, that Gracenote goes out of its way to prevent anyone from actually using.
If you're going to troll, you're going to need to work harder. That wasn't even interesting. BTW, Windows doesn't play DVDs out of the box either--the codecs are part of (admittedly typically bundled) third party software. Enabling a repository overseas to get around unjust laws in intellectual "property"-friendly states is a small price to pay for not being owned lock stock and barrel by MS.
Fair enough, I forgot about the.onion sites. Wonder how many of those are actually run by law enforcement as traps. (A trojan downloaded via TOR runs just as well as one downloaded any other way. "To see this XXX video, Microsoft Media Player will need a new codec."
And that's how I sometimes feel about the law. I normally post here with much less gravitas, but I'm quite serious when I say I'm glad you're on these defendants' side and not the RIAA's.
Using free public WiFi to do "high risk downloading," unless the person so doing is savvy enough to change his/her MAC address, leaves the MAC address in the provider's logs. So when the Secret Service/FBI/MAFIAA come knocking, there's an identifier traceable to the particular machine used to conduct said download, unless the person happened to pay cash for his/her laptop while providing no personal information, and (depending on how "high risk" we're talking about here) wore clothing obscuring the face while purchasing his/her machine while using public transportation to avoid having his/her license plate recorded by the surveillance cameras in the store parking lot.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it does matter. They're didn't directly ask him to present it to them.
That's just sad. And yet, when the cameras are pointed at us, we're reminded that no one has an expectation of privacy in public. Perhaps there are some yet uncorrupted people in power who see the contradiction?
You didn't say what law would be broken. Because there is none. The fact that someone would be harassed and subject to abuse of police power and/or prosecutorial process for doing so is irrelevant.
Nowhere in the story was he asked for his ID by the actual police officers; he was relating that he refused to present it to the security guards, which we both understand he was under no obligation to do. My perception of the officers involved as slimebags is unchanged.
For those who might want to make their feelings known, here is the contact page" for the Seattle PD and for REI (who banned the photographer (their customer) for a year from the premises.
That's not a valid reason to have arrested him; it was an abuse of power. That cop should be stripped of her badge.
They're in a public space; what's visible in public is fair game. What law would someone with a picture be breaking (hint: Offending a security guard's sensitivities isn't against the law.
And even if you get rid of the car, if you don't want to get ass-raped into the assigned risk pool as someone who is currently uninsured if you decide you want one again, you'll at least need to keep a non-owner auto liability policy in force.
Companies with such a requirement shouldn't enjoy a presumption of innocence in legal discovery. Better to act rightly than to sweat making sure no one can copy the evidence.
Not necessarily--video camera + scroll wheel FTW.
DRM for sharing is a stupid idea and an oxymoron. There is no protecting a file's contents against someone with permissions to read it--if something's "hot" enough that the powers that be don't want me to print it and I need a copy to cover my ass, I'll take a picture of the screen with a camera if that's what it takes.
But insurance companies, whose whims those of us who are not independently wealthy are subject to, don't have to pay for them.
And every shareholder gets a K-1 every year? There goes the end of individual stock ownership for ordinary people.
Legislation outlawing prepaid phone cards without recorded ID in the U.S. in 5, 4, 3 . . .
But in the real world, there's nothing stopping the hiring manager from checking the prospect out, and no way to prove s/he did. The only thing left for the hiring manager who sees something s/he didn't like that might be legally problematic is to concoct legitimate sounding reasons for denying an interview or hire. Easily done.
. . . we the powers that be don't want the public to have tools that contradict whatever propaganda we might be pushing at the moment about the size and scope or lack thereof of an epidemic; the population is easier to control when we control the information they have access to. Don't panic, Americans.
"Donate the Apple tax." Instead of paying the style premium, buy a Linux/Windows PC and donate the difference to the EFF to help keep Apple's jackbooted thugs in check.
Exactly, and it's the rare person who doesn't have so much as an MP3 they can't account for having purchased. And even though running a TOR node isn't illegal, TPTB don't like people doing it very much, so a prosecution for whatever they can find on one's machine isn't out of the question.
That's a good point about TOR-based evidence not being used to prosecute someone for thoughtcrime for fear of revealing sources and methods, but once "they" know who you are, they can find some non-TOR acquired basis for suspicion and use that to get a warrant for conventional lawful intercept surveillance. So really, if you're doing anything "they're" interested, TOR can be used to get you without "them" having to reveal sources and methods in open court.
Another example is the CD database (CDDB) that was locked down after accepting contributions from users. There is still an out-of-date dump of the database from a decade or so ago floating around, and a parallel project, FreeDB, that Gracenote goes out of its way to prevent anyone from actually using.
If you're going to troll, you're going to need to work harder. That wasn't even interesting. BTW, Windows doesn't play DVDs out of the box either--the codecs are part of (admittedly typically bundled) third party software. Enabling a repository overseas to get around unjust laws in intellectual "property"-friendly states is a small price to pay for not being owned lock stock and barrel by MS.
Sure wish FiOS were available where I am. Thanks for the data point!
Fair enough, I forgot about the .onion sites. Wonder how many of those are actually run by law enforcement as traps. (A trojan downloaded via TOR runs just as well as one downloaded any other way. "To see this XXX video, Microsoft Media Player will need a new codec."
And that's how I sometimes feel about the law. I normally post here with much less gravitas, but I'm quite serious when I say I'm glad you're on these defendants' side and not the RIAA's.
Is the guy who did Linux Genuine Advantage still available?
Using free public WiFi to do "high risk downloading," unless the person so doing is savvy enough to change his/her MAC address, leaves the MAC address in the provider's logs. So when the Secret Service/FBI/MAFIAA come knocking, there's an identifier traceable to the particular machine used to conduct said download, unless the person happened to pay cash for his/her laptop while providing no personal information, and (depending on how "high risk" we're talking about here) wore clothing obscuring the face while purchasing his/her machine while using public transportation to avoid having his/her license plate recorded by the surveillance cameras in the store parking lot.