How long before you have to buy gamesharks on the black market??
Probably not long, now that the bastards at Nintendo and Sega have the DMCA hammer. Before the DMCA, the NOA scumbags sued Galoob over the Game Genie and had their head handed to them in court. If the Game Genie were introduced today, Nintendo would invoke the DMCA's magical powers of purchased legislation and prevail.
1. In the U.S., sex with minors under the age of consent is statuatory rape.
2. The defendant allegedly solicited sex from an underage girl.
3. It is reasonable to assume that his intent was to f*ck said minor.
Therefore, his punishment would be just.
That said, it is unfortunate that our justice system uses anal rape as a deterrent to non-violent criminals, such as drug offenders and petty theives. But for this guy? Break out Leroy's big one.
From deltabravo, which advises people involved in custody battles on this area of law (emphasis mine):
10.
Calls to answering machines are fair game in every State in the country. The courts have taken the position that when you leave a message on an answering machine, you know it is being recorded, period. If your ex leaves a nasty or threatening message on your answering machine, you may use it in court without any restrictions. (Whether or not the court will listen to it is another story.)
I concur that the two-party rules shouldn't apply to instant messages and such, and you make a good argument. I was just trying to guess at possible interpretations a PA judge might make.
The answering machine "beep" doesn't beep every few minutes when recording a conversation. It is just a signal to the caller to start talking, and not all answering machines/voicemail systems use a beep. It has nothing whatsoever to do with wiretap law.
The beep notification is for live conversations, and there is no expectation of privacy against another party for an answering machine message you leave any more than they can't turn over a threatening letter you might send to the police.
An interesting turn would be if the court ruled that the girl logging (if that is in fact what was turned over) was a violoation of the other users privacy right as he did not consent to her logging the conversation.
That's what I suspect might be the case--that she technically violated the wiretap law. The happiest outcome for me would be that it is allowed into evidence, the guy goes to pound-me-in-the-ass prison for propositioning an underage girl, then the girl gets a slap on the wrist (or isn't even prosecuted) for logging the converstation.
Even better would be for the courts to consider that an AIM or similar session does not constitute a "telephone call" for the purposes of the PA legislation. (I doubt the words "internet conversation" appear in the actual PA one-party law--I bet that's an interpretation on the journalist's part.)
Yep--thanks, I just noticed that on rereading (see reply to parent). I'm not a big scholar of the Clinton case, but was Tripp's recording actually suppressed? Or was it still admitted and Linda Tripp separately prosecuted (in Maryland, I think)?
- the messages were intercepted after the fact. So there was no wiretap
but
- PA is a "two-party" state. To me, that means that the girl (or parent/guardian) would be theoretically subject to separate prosecution (a la Linda Tripp) for giving up the messages (if they are indeed considered to be the same as recording a phone converstaion, which I find doubtful) but they should still be admissible in this case.
The article doesn't make clear whether the instant messages that are being used at trial were made available by the girl (or her parent/guardian). The Slashdot headline seems to want to lead us to think that the police were sniffing the defendant's wire.
If that's not the case, then no "wiretap" has taken place--a party to the conversation turned over the logs to the police, and they are admissible at trial.
There is an entity not playing well on the Internet, called the Peoples Republic of China. Its nationalized ISPs have, for years, blown off requests from administrators in the civilized network world to stop the spam. They are now being cut off. This should, in theory, motivate them to fix their spam problem. If it doesn't, oh well. This is no different than past actions against U.S. ISPs, such as the UDP against RoadRunner, and myriad ISPs being added to the RBL.
We have only our.cn spam to lose.
I personally handle spam from the.cn domain with a note to the postmaster/abuse address for the domain congratulating him on his new spiritual journey in the Falun Gong. My.cn spam has decreased markedly since I started doing that.
Unless, of course, the law is unconstitutional. Since the Mickey Mouse Protection Act effectively extends copyright well past what the framers said, "a limited time," a non-corrupt Supreme Court would strike it down on constitutional grounds.
Key to this success was the assistance of Cisco, who built a giant firewall tailored to the state's needs, Yahoo (who helpfully censors search results and monitors online chats), and other Western companies.
The corporate officers at Cisco and Yahoo responsible for this abomination should be charged with crimes against humanity, brought to the Hague, and sentenced to death.
In the unlikely event that freedom wins the war for the Internet, perhaps there will be a Nuremburg trial for the people who, while enjoying the benefits of Western democracy, sell the Zyklon-B used to choke freedom from the Internet in oppressed nations.
Re:Good for some, nightmare for others
on
Peek-a-Boo(ty)
·
· Score: 1
What you describe could be construed as a security issue. "Hostile environment" for sexual harassment purposes remains purely a personnel issue, something smart admins stay the hell away from.
And remember, I said that users having an encrypted channel is a valid security concern.
Re:Could this be my saviour?
on
Peek-a-Boo(ty)
·
· Score: 1
Technical answer: no. The data is still transferred to your machine.
Practical answer: Transfer! There are colleges and universities out there that don't do this kind of crap. Find on and attend it.
Re:Good for some, nightmare for others
on
Peek-a-Boo(ty)
·
· Score: 1
After your obvious years of wisened wisdom and clever insult development, you don't appear to comprehend the difference between security and personnel issues. Perhaps you could benefit from a study hall.
Re:Good for some, nightmare for others
on
Peek-a-Boo(ty)
·
· Score: 2, Informative
That makes it a personnel issue, not a security issue.
Re:Good for some, nightmare for others
on
Peek-a-Boo(ty)
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
On the other side, as a Security Manager in a bank who's sometimes asked to go find out if person XYZ has been accessing nakedhairyeyebrowedcheerleaders.com
What exactly does that have to do with security? Doesn't a "security manager" have anything better to do? If anything, be concerned because it's an encrypted channel for information to move in an out, not that someone might <gasp> be doing some personal surfing on the job</gasp>.
If these sorts of applications make it harder for security "managers" to play Network nazi (small 'n'--Godwin's law does no apply here), that that is an added benefit, so far as I see.
There's a higher bar to anonymous remailers that keeps the morons out. And "they" can still find out who someone is by subpoenaing each remailer operator on the route.
And I doubt many of those "anonymous" proxy servers don't keep logs.
<ultra-paranoid>And how are you so sure those volunteers aren't really the people who want to spy on you the most? At least if anyone had been bagged using ZKS Freedom, that would have put them out of business (pre 9/11).</ultra-paranoid>
The definition of censorship does not require that a government entity be doing the censoring. Perhaps you're confusing the parent's statement that Wal-Mart censors (true) with the (mistaken) corrolary that the First Amendment guarantee of free speech applies. (Of course, it doesn't, since, as you said, Wal-Mart is not part of the government (directly), and therefore is not subject to the First Amendment.)
I apologize to you on behalf of minimum wage workers that cook your food, clean the beds in your hotel rooms, and make your lattes for not being able to afford to shop at botique shops and Nordstroms. We humbly apologize for the introduction of Wal-Mart and the like into your midst and promise to work harder to keep our poverty out of your sight.
Like I said to the other guy who was swinging his free speech bravado here, I'll be expecting to see the IP of your Freedom server posted.
Fact is, the exit server is the one where the rubber hits the road--the one where from which the threating emails are being sent, the one trying the stack smashing on web pages, the one trying to telnet to dockmaster.nsa.mil.
Fact is, I'd admire anyone taking the risks associated with that--but only someone either wealthy enough to afford a bevy of lawyers to assert his rights or with a serious wish to see the prison system from the inside would run one of these and make it available to all comers.
Slashdot Mirror
See my other posts for what I think should happen to the perp.
Probably not long, now that the bastards at Nintendo and Sega have the DMCA hammer. Before the DMCA, the NOA scumbags sued Galoob over the Game Genie and had their head handed to them in court. If the Game Genie were introduced today, Nintendo would invoke the DMCA's magical powers of purchased legislation and prevail.
Then it's not an answering machine taking messages, it's a surreptitious recorder. Judges aren't stupid, they just use common sense.
2. The defendant allegedly solicited sex from an underage girl.
3. It is reasonable to assume that his intent was to f*ck said minor.
Therefore, his punishment would be just.
That said, it is unfortunate that our justice system uses anal rape as a deterrent to non-violent criminals, such as drug offenders and petty theives. But for this guy? Break out Leroy's big one.
I concur that the two-party rules shouldn't apply to instant messages and such, and you make a good argument. I was just trying to guess at possible interpretations a PA judge might make.
The beep notification is for live conversations, and there is no expectation of privacy against another party for an answering machine message you leave any more than they can't turn over a threatening letter you might send to the police.
That's what I suspect might be the case--that she technically violated the wiretap law. The happiest outcome for me would be that it is allowed into evidence, the guy goes to pound-me-in-the-ass prison for propositioning an underage girl, then the girl gets a slap on the wrist (or isn't even prosecuted) for logging the converstation.
Even better would be for the courts to consider that an AIM or similar session does not constitute a "telephone call" for the purposes of the PA legislation. (I doubt the words "internet conversation" appear in the actual PA one-party law--I bet that's an interpretation on the journalist's part.)
Yep--thanks, I just noticed that on rereading (see reply to parent). I'm not a big scholar of the Clinton case, but was Tripp's recording actually suppressed? Or was it still admitted and Linda Tripp separately prosecuted (in Maryland, I think)?
- the messages were intercepted after the fact. So there was no wiretap
but
- PA is a "two-party" state. To me, that means that the girl (or parent/guardian) would be theoretically subject to separate prosecution (a la Linda Tripp) for giving up the messages (if they are indeed considered to be the same as recording a phone converstaion, which I find doubtful) but they should still be admissible in this case.
If that's not the case, then no "wiretap" has taken place--a party to the conversation turned over the logs to the police, and they are admissible at trial.
We have only our .cn spam to lose.
I personally handle spam from the .cn domain with a note to the postmaster/abuse address for the domain congratulating him on his new spiritual journey in the Falun Gong. My .cn spam has decreased markedly since I started doing that.
Unless, of course, the law is unconstitutional. Since the Mickey Mouse Protection Act effectively extends copyright well past what the framers said, "a limited time," a non-corrupt Supreme Court would strike it down on constitutional grounds.
The corporate officers at Cisco and Yahoo responsible for this abomination should be charged with crimes against humanity, brought to the Hague, and sentenced to death.
In the unlikely event that freedom wins the war for the Internet, perhaps there will be a Nuremburg trial for the people who, while enjoying the benefits of Western democracy, sell the Zyklon-B used to choke freedom from the Internet in oppressed nations.
And remember, I said that users having an encrypted channel is a valid security concern.
Practical answer: Transfer! There are colleges and universities out there that don't do this kind of crap. Find on and attend it.
After your obvious years of wisened wisdom and clever insult development, you don't appear to comprehend the difference between security and personnel issues. Perhaps you could benefit from a study hall.
That makes it a personnel issue, not a security issue.
What exactly does that have to do with security? Doesn't a "security manager" have anything better to do? If anything, be concerned because it's an encrypted channel for information to move in an out, not that someone might <gasp> be doing some personal surfing on the job</gasp>.
If these sorts of applications make it harder for security "managers" to play Network nazi (small 'n'--Godwin's law does no apply here), that that is an added benefit, so far as I see.
And I doubt many of those "anonymous" proxy servers don't keep logs.
<ultra-paranoid>And how are you so sure those volunteers aren't really the people who want to spy on you the most? At least if anyone had been bagged using ZKS Freedom, that would have put them out of business (pre 9/11).</ultra-paranoid>
The definition of censorship does not require that a government entity be doing the censoring. Perhaps you're confusing the parent's statement that Wal-Mart censors (true) with the (mistaken) corrolary that the First Amendment guarantee of free speech applies. (Of course, it doesn't, since, as you said, Wal-Mart is not part of the government (directly), and therefore is not subject to the First Amendment.)
I apologize to you on behalf of minimum wage workers that cook your food, clean the beds in your hotel rooms, and make your lattes for not being able to afford to shop at botique shops and Nordstroms. We humbly apologize for the introduction of Wal-Mart and the like into your midst and promise to work harder to keep our poverty out of your sight.
Best of luck finding Win2K drivers for all the Wal-Mart grade hardware in that HP box.
HP used to make great stuff. Then they squandered their good name on consumer grade crap. The Compaq buyout is just the chickens coming home to roost.
Fact is, the exit server is the one where the rubber hits the road--the one where from which the threating emails are being sent, the one trying the stack smashing on web pages, the one trying to telnet to dockmaster.nsa.mil.
Fact is, I'd admire anyone taking the risks associated with that--but only someone either wealthy enough to afford a bevy of lawyers to assert his rights or with a serious wish to see the prison system from the inside would run one of these and make it available to all comers.