stealing critical info from the company you're working for and selling it to the highest bidder (or in this case, spammer) sure is
I'm not sure how. But it should be noted that this is a federal case, and the most likely candidate for such a law would be state law (though I'm not convinced this guy broke any criminal law).
Show me the criminal trade secret law which was broken. This is a civil issue, not a criminal issue (and definitely not a federal criminal issue). If AOL wants to sue him for misusing their trade secrets, fine, but you can't put someone in jail for spreading information (at least not in this case).
AFAICT, Virginia doesn't protect trade secrets under criminal law.
It also is a violation of the Computer fraud and tresspass act.
Presumably, as an employee, he already had access to the information. I doubt this falls under any of the Computer fraud or tresspass acts.
I think it would be covered under the I-CAN-SPAM act these people stated that they didn't want spam -- as part of their AOL agreement, and it was sold to be used for spam.
Charge him with what he actually did, and let him plead guilty to that.
What did he actually do? Disclose a trade secret? This page doesn't list Virginia as a state which has a law against that. Besides, this is federal court, and trade secret law is generally a state issue. I don't see what federal law this guy broke, and I'm not even sure he broke a criminal law under the laws of Virginia (which is where AOL is located, I believe).
He didn't dismiss the suit, he refused to accept a guilty plea. In order for a judge to accept a guilty plea he must believe that there is a factual basis for the claim.
Recently in New Jersey the judiciary started cracking down on this for traffic offenses. In the past, if you were speeding and were willing to plea guilty to an offense which didn't carry any insurance points (such as maintenance of headlights or failure to wear a seatbelt), the prosecutor would usually accept your plea. But then the judges started rejecting the guilty pleas because they did not fit the facts of the case. The New Jersey legislators then instituted a new law - "driving in an unsafe manner", and mandated that it could not carry any points.
Well, it says he himself received enough spam at his AOL address to cancel his account, and presumably some of it was due to the defendants actions, but I don't see that as enough of a basis for a recusal, especially if neither the prosecution nor the defense asks for one.
Here's one of his sites [babes.bomis.com]. You decide whether or not to call it "pornography".
That's a little disingenuous.
I think you've read more into it than I intended. I simply provided the link so that you could decide for yourself whether or not to call Bomis pornography. Considering that the "Bomis Premium Pic of the Day" is a topless woman pushing her boobs together, I'd say yes, it is (not that there's anything wrong with that).
They provide the infrastructure for similar-themed sites to find each other and provide links that help with mutual traffic generation.
This was more than just links. Take a look at http://premium.bomis.com/. " This is your chance to see top-notch models bare it all for the incredible price of only $2.95! Yes, Bomis Premium offers a 3 day trial for only $2.95.
Don't miss out on any of the great things Bomis Premium has to offer. We are adding more new galleries every day, including pictures that you won't be able to find anywhere else." Are you saying those galleries aren't being run by Bomis?
One of the many subject categories is fan sites for nude models (and, I'm sure, the "fan" sites are largely dominated by pay porn operators).
So premium.bomis.com is a fan site? It doesn't seem that way, not at all.
I could give you a link in google or yahoo that would do the same thing. Is Yahoo a pornographer?
I dunno, Yahoo isn't directly engaged in selling pornography. Bomis, it appears, is.
That bastard Sollog gets a slashdot article for creating Wikipediasucks.com, but I don't get one for creating slashdotsucks.com? I guess I gotta start making fun of Taco's daughter or something.
Verizon Airfone is not satellite based for calls within North America. Verizon has been assigned special frequencies for use in ATG (air to ground) communication. "When a call is placed, information is sent from the phone handset to a receiver in the plane's belly and then down to one of the 135 ground radio base stations located strategically throughout North America." In other words, they already have "special equipment to receive the signal inside of the airplane and then connect to the phone network directly." http://www22.verizon.com/airfone/af_faqs.html
Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency doesn't have its own ban on in-flight cell-phone use, though it has supported the FCC's rule and individual airline policies that regulate whether a traveler can make calls once a plane lands and before it reaches the gate.
While the FCC prohibits in-flight cell phone use because of concerns that communication by callers in airplanes will interfere with calls between on-ground users, the FAA is focused on whether cell phone use will interfere with a plane's navigation system, Brown said. An independent organization is reviewing that issue for the agency, she said.
Commercial aircraft would probably have to install special equipment to receive the signal inside of the airplane and then connect to the phone network directly.
I doubt many would do this, since most of them already have installed special equipment to receive the signal inside of the airplane and connect to the handheld phones located in the seat in front of you. If you pay $10/month you can even get calls for just $0.10/minute, so the ridiculous rates are probably nothing more than price gouging.
Secondly, I'm surprised that the FAA and/or FCC is still concerned about the planes. I can't remember the last time I went on a flight and didn't hear a phone accidentally ring in flight.
The FCC isn't concerned about the planes, they're concerned about the airwaves. Old cell phone technologies would have the cell phones talking to hundreds of cells at once, confusing the whole system and tying up frequencies all over the city below. Now perhaps new technologies have fixed this, and that's why the FCC is reconsidering.
Having programmed using both, IE is a lot easier to custom program into an app than Mozilla. Hell, I can write a program with an IE plugin in about 10 lines of VB.
Yeah, I realized after I wrote that that there is always going to be a big enough chance of a random collision, as the hash is always going to be smaller than the actual file.
I think the reason this is news is because the Bush administration is still trying to pretend that this is not proven science...
I think we should take a look at exactly what is proven science...
"In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities." Of course Earth's climate is being affected by human activities. No one, including the Bush administration, denies that.
"Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point." But even if you say that everyone in those selected papers believes that climate change is due to man, it still doesn't get to the heart of the matter: what is the effect of global warming, is there anything we can do to stop it? And of course, the most important, and non-scientific, but political question, is it worth it?
Note that these studies only say that global warming was caused by man. They don't say there's anything we can do about it, and they certainly don't say that there's anything we should do about it.
Unless you can produce a copy of the doppleganger, your out of luck in court because you cant prove that i've created an alternative.
In civil court you don't have to prove something in order to win a case.
Now, this sounds mathematically improbable that I could come up with two contracts that make sense and have the same md5sum, but none the less possible.
It may or may not be possible. The set of contracts which make sense is finite, as a 500 gig contract doesn't make sense.
As the length of the file is sent in addition to the MD5, in the vast majority of cases it's going to be impossible to find a file which gives you the same length and MD5. I guess as the size of media files increases this gets more and more likely, but if it ever starts affecting more than 0.0000000001% of files you can just increase the length of the hash.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on the state. For instance, in California, using trade secrets without authorization is defined as "grand theft".
stealing critical info from the company you're working for and selling it to the highest bidder (or in this case, spammer) sure is
I'm not sure how. But it should be noted that this is a federal case, and the most likely candidate for such a law would be state law (though I'm not convinced this guy broke any criminal law).
Show me the criminal trade secret law which was broken. This is a civil issue, not a criminal issue (and definitely not a federal criminal issue). If AOL wants to sue him for misusing their trade secrets, fine, but you can't put someone in jail for spreading information (at least not in this case).
No, that is theft of company trade secrets.
AFAICT, Virginia doesn't protect trade secrets under criminal law.
It also is a violation of the Computer fraud and tresspass act.
Presumably, as an employee, he already had access to the information. I doubt this falls under any of the Computer fraud or tresspass acts.
I think it would be covered under the I-CAN-SPAM act these people stated that they didn't want spam -- as part of their AOL agreement, and it was sold to be used for spam.
Well, according to the judge it probably isn't.
Charge him with what he actually did, and let him plead guilty to that.
What did he actually do? Disclose a trade secret? This page doesn't list Virginia as a state which has a law against that. Besides, this is federal court, and trade secret law is generally a state issue. I don't see what federal law this guy broke, and I'm not even sure he broke a criminal law under the laws of Virginia (which is where AOL is located, I believe).
Recently in New Jersey the judiciary started cracking down on this for traffic offenses. In the past, if you were speeding and were willing to plea guilty to an offense which didn't carry any insurance points (such as maintenance of headlights or failure to wear a seatbelt), the prosecutor would usually accept your plea. But then the judges started rejecting the guilty pleas because they did not fit the facts of the case. The New Jersey legislators then instituted a new law - "driving in an unsafe manner", and mandated that it could not carry any points.
Well, it says he himself received enough spam at his AOL address to cancel his account, and presumably some of it was due to the defendants actions, but I don't see that as enough of a basis for a recusal, especially if neither the prosecution nor the defense asks for one.
Why?
Here's one of his sites [babes.bomis.com]. You decide whether or not to call it "pornography".
That's a little disingenuous.
I think you've read more into it than I intended. I simply provided the link so that you could decide for yourself whether or not to call Bomis pornography. Considering that the "Bomis Premium Pic of the Day" is a topless woman pushing her boobs together, I'd say yes, it is (not that there's anything wrong with that).
They provide the infrastructure for similar-themed sites to find each other and provide links that help with mutual traffic generation.
This was more than just links. Take a look at http://premium.bomis.com/. " This is your chance to see top-notch models bare it all for the incredible price of only $2.95! Yes, Bomis Premium offers a 3 day trial for only $2.95. Don't miss out on any of the great things Bomis Premium has to offer. We are adding more new galleries every day, including pictures that you won't be able to find anywhere else." Are you saying those galleries aren't being run by Bomis?
One of the many subject categories is fan sites for nude models (and, I'm sure, the "fan" sites are largely dominated by pay porn operators).
So premium.bomis.com is a fan site? It doesn't seem that way, not at all.
I could give you a link in google or yahoo that would do the same thing. Is Yahoo a pornographer?
I dunno, Yahoo isn't directly engaged in selling pornography. Bomis, it appears, is.
That bastard Sollog gets a slashdot article for creating Wikipediasucks.com, but I don't get one for creating slashdotsucks.com? I guess I gotta start making fun of Taco's daughter or something.
sollog claims that wales is a pornographer.
Here's one of his sites. You decide whether or not to call it "pornography".
Verizon Airfone is not satellite based for calls within North America. Verizon has been assigned special frequencies for use in ATG (air to ground) communication. "When a call is placed, information is sent from the phone handset to a receiver in the plane's belly and then down to one of the 135 ground radio base stations located strategically throughout North America." In other words, they already have "special equipment to receive the signal inside of the airplane and then connect to the phone network directly." http://www22.verizon.com/airfone/af_faqs.html
Commercial aircraft would probably have to install special equipment to receive the signal inside of the airplane and then connect to the phone network directly.
I doubt many would do this, since most of them already have installed special equipment to receive the signal inside of the airplane and connect to the handheld phones located in the seat in front of you. If you pay $10/month you can even get calls for just $0.10/minute, so the ridiculous rates are probably nothing more than price gouging.
Secondly, I'm surprised that the FAA and/or FCC is still concerned about the planes. I can't remember the last time I went on a flight and didn't hear a phone accidentally ring in flight.
The FCC isn't concerned about the planes, they're concerned about the airwaves. Old cell phone technologies would have the cell phones talking to hundreds of cells at once, confusing the whole system and tying up frequencies all over the city below. Now perhaps new technologies have fixed this, and that's why the FCC is reconsidering.
The biggest difference is when you're the person next to them!
Having programmed using both, IE is a lot easier to custom program into an app than Mozilla. Hell, I can write a program with an IE plugin in about 10 lines of VB.
"Consensus of scientific opinion" is not "proven science".
True, but I was trying to give the article the benefit of every doubt and show that it still wasn't saying anything.
Yeah, I realized after I wrote that that there is always going to be a big enough chance of a random collision, as the hash is always going to be smaller than the actual file.
Studies (with all aircraft grounded for 3 days) after September 11 2001, showed noticeable climate differences during those days.
In terms of global warming? Air pollution levels, maybe, but global warming takes more than 3 days.
(b) relatively small changes can have a relatively big impact on the climate relatively quickly
Grounding all aircraft is hardly a small change.
Here is one news article about this, there are lots more out there just waiting to be searched for.
That article says tempatures rose when the aircraft weren't flying.
I think the reason this is news is because the Bush administration is still trying to pretend that this is not proven science...
I think we should take a look at exactly what is proven science...
"In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities." Of course Earth's climate is being affected by human activities. No one, including the Bush administration, denies that.
"Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point." But even if you say that everyone in those selected papers believes that climate change is due to man, it still doesn't get to the heart of the matter: what is the effect of global warming, is there anything we can do to stop it? And of course, the most important, and non-scientific, but political question, is it worth it?
Note that these studies only say that global warming was caused by man. They don't say there's anything we can do about it, and they certainly don't say that there's anything we should do about it.
Unless you can produce a copy of the doppleganger, your out of luck in court because you cant prove that i've created an alternative.
In civil court you don't have to prove something in order to win a case.
Now, this sounds mathematically improbable that I could come up with two contracts that make sense and have the same md5sum, but none the less possible.
It may or may not be possible. The set of contracts which make sense is finite, as a 500 gig contract doesn't make sense.
As the length of the file is sent in addition to the MD5, in the vast majority of cases it's going to be impossible to find a file which gives you the same length and MD5. I guess as the size of media files increases this gets more and more likely, but if it ever starts affecting more than 0.0000000001% of files you can just increase the length of the hash.
Since when does academic performance have anything to do with learning?