They claim it offsets the high risks, but then they walk away with millions when it all goes wrong.
Don't underestimate the risk of having to walk away with a $5M golden parachute and look for another job while your peers are making $10M-$20M at the same time.
Maybe the law should state that you get absolutely nothing if the company tanks. Then we'll know that high salaries are given for performance.
The Whitehouse create a way to get more public input, and the acts on it, but no, no one is ever happy.
We will see, of course, but the response record is pretty spotty so far. And the reviewing authority stating that "he is not sure what authority he has" does not inspire much confidence.
Not many petitions get as much as a thoughtful response ("Build a Deathstar" was one of the best written, that says something). I believe the "acted on" petitions are in single digits - and not any of the controversial ones.
FCC will be investigating the viability and possible harm of the ban on cell-phone unlocking.
Possible harm to customers or to the mobile providers?
There is very little to investigate -- if I don't explicitly seek out an "unlocked" phone, even the phone that isn't subsidized may be locked by the providers. Why isn't that strictly illegal already?
Because it is an extradition hearing. They do not have to show the evidence because they do not have to establish that he is guilty.
Basically, it's like a discussion about setting the date for the trial.
I suppose I am wondering what the threshold for extradition is then. It is more than "nothing", but less than "guilty". So is it like "possibly guilty"?
If it is like "setting the date for the trial", why don't they just extradite him without any court involvement?
It delays everything, allows Kimble to continue living in his comfortable mansion, and the longer everything lasts the higher the chance that something in the procecution goes wrong.
I know you strongly dislike the guy for being a scumbag, but two wrongs do not make a right. If U.S. screwed up the procedures (of which there is a strong possibility), they deserve to lose because that may encourage them to follow the rules next time.
nor are [they] intended to limit employees of governmental agencies or other entities, public or private, who, in the course and scope of their employment and supported by articulable suspicion, attempt to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of a person during an investigation, surveillance, or monitoring of conduct to obtain evidence of suspected illegal activity.
"arÂticÂuÂlaÂble, adj. That can be articulated"
"Definition of articulable: capable of being articulated"
Aren't you glad these are people writing laws? So as long as the suspicion can be voiced or sign-languaged (or maybe winked with Morse code?), it's good to go.
If that line doesn't send chills up the spine of every person who believes in due process...
By that excellent logic, they should be able to bar DotCom from having any lawyers. Surely, the defense lawyers are "bogging down the process" too? Also, an impartial judge "bogs down the process" by listening to the case.
In our future, courts will become more efficient if this argument is accepted (can they appeal?). Optimal and speedy process is the one where accused is declared guilty right after the charges are read.
In fact, the issue decided by the court was much more limited: it held that Kim only has limited access to evidence during the future extradition hearing. While this does make it more likely that he will be extradited, the issue has NOT been decided yet.
It's pretty frigging close, really. Access to accuser's evidence seems pretty important. "Tell me, Mr. DotCom... What good is a court... if you are unable to defend yourself?"
Maybe next ruling will be that neither DotCom or his lawyers are allowed to attend the proceedings! Surely, his lawyers (defending him) are "bogging down the proceedings" too. Things would go faster if it was just the U.S. alone presenting their side to the judge.
Except, you know, the proof that you paid people for uploading them.
The proof is so strong in this one that it doesn't even need to be shown? Is the U.S. argument that proof is so "obvious" that no one needs to see it
The appeals court ruled that extensive disclosure would bog down the process and that a summary of the U.S. case would suffice.
I am not familiar with New Zeland laws, but in U.S., that's not a valid argument. "Bogging down the process" means nothing compared to showing evidence to the accused. Right to confront your accuser and all that.
Why would anybody bother spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars on fancy PC's just to play games that play better and look just as good on a $200 console?
Mouse + Keyboard controls?
Sometimes a console controller just isn't convenient (or one is too old to get used to it)
Personally, I would reserve judgement until I know what his severance package is. If he left without one, then I might be concerned. If he was given a few million in cash/stock before he left, then there is hardly any reason to worry, is there?
It's not that CEOs don't get fired, it's that they often make more money by being fired then they do by working.
What our fine Judge Alito said is it is ok to trespass, just don't get caught. Ok, it is a bit more complicated than that.
I swear -- the only time those SCOTUS judges understand anything is when IT APPLIES TO THEM. During the "is it illegal to attach a GPS to your car without a warrant", they basically killed it after they were told that a supreme court judge could also be subject to a GPS device being attached to their car (without a warrant)
I guess they don't think FISA would ever approve a warrant against them in secret...
I guess if you found yourself in Gitmo you could prove you were harmed.
Even if you find yourself in Gitmo (which proves harm), would you also have to prove that you were illegally spied on by a secret court?
Are FISA proceedings are made public after you are arrested? Or is all evidence you could possible have would by definition be illegal (and perhaps completely inadmissible, even if you have it).
If enough juries take cases involving illegal wiretaps and nullify the holy living shit out of FISA, it'll be such a spotty legal landscape (nullification is restricted to the jurisdiction the jury ruled in) that the TLA's won't be able to use it without heavy liability.
What are you smoking, exactly?? Who the hell modded you up?
Jury nullification carries absolutely no weight in any other case, no matter how closely related. There is no precedent set. There is no way for a defense lawyer to argue it. All it does is help set the current defendant free, nothing more. (Yes, IANAL, but I am still fairly certain about this)
Nor does FISA court have a jury, being a secret court and all. It is more of a judge panel.
Also, I hear that if you mention that you are familiar with the term "jury nullification", you will likely be removed from the jury before you get to put your ideas to a test.
Attack from a different direction. They'll probably shoot that down too, but play the game. Attack, attack, attack until something works.
While this is a good idea, remember the exciting time we live in. The current administration is blocking challenges to FOIA the drone-related legal memos, because officially, they can neither admit nor deny that the drone program exists (secrecy didn't stop Obama from bragging about the program's success though). And the courts side with the government instead of laughing at them!
Soon, all FOIA/court challenges will be answered by "We can neither admit nor deny that we are the Government. Admitting that we are, in fact, the Government you name in your FOIA request would threaten national security."
In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penisses, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship.
In a perfect world, pervasive rape in jail will not be subject of gleeful jokes (it'd be funny if it weren't a common issue). I would like to see spammers go to jail too, but not like this.
Even better, maybe we can fine spammers for "whatever the made + X%" and ban them from using computers for a while. This way they can work off their debt to society with some manual labor - outside of jail would be fine too.
The last time I saw someone "helpfully" checking doors in my neighborhood I called the cops. There is never a good reason to test the security of a stranger's house, or even a friend's house, unless they want you to do so.
I am not saying that I would encourage such behavior. But once a problem is found, I'd prefer to be notified about it (and I want the companies in question to be notified about it). There has to be a mechanism to allow this.
Getting back to the network... You only have the word of someone unscrupulous that they didn't commit further unscrupulous activities.
If they are not requesting anything in exchange then they are not benefiting from notifying you about the breach. You, however, DO benefit from being notified of a security breach.
I also assume you do not take their word for it and perhaps verify that they haven't done anything untoward on your system.
Hi, I broke into your house and ran may fingers through your dainty underthings and fondled your tooth brush.
Don't you think you should buy a better lock and maybe an alarm system?
While creepy (particularly the toothbrush fondling part:), it is still preferable to waiting for an even less scrupulous person to break into your house
I see it more as "Hi, I was passing by the street and pushing on everyone's door (for fun, it is what I do). Your door had opened when I pushed it -- you may want to fix your lock".
This may be a tad creepy, but these people are not the problem. The ones who would quietly use this information are the problem.
Most books and movies are the same. Look at half the scifi books on amazon. Humans fighting aliens for some reason
Is that really all you see in SciFi books?
These are not documentaries to teach you facts -- so a second book that has humans fighting aliens is not a repeat. It's about the delivery -- good plot and/or mystery, interesting character development, etc.
The aliens are sometimes (in good books, anyway) there just to provide a little more freedom in story-telling
And he still broke into other people's networks without permission. But I suppose that's OK here since the private info that he released was of interest to Slashdotters and was "accurate"?
It may be ok to a degree for the cases where he broke in and then notified the company of a breach (without doing any damage or requesting a payment) Companies should be required by law not to pursue anyone who notified them of security holes in good faith. Instead they choose to harass such people, scaring them off and making MY data less secure.
I completely pwn my phones for exactly that reason. I considered the crapware Sprint put on my original Evo border-line criminal.
Pray tell, have you ever needed warranty services on your phone?
I am not opposed to having to root my phone per se, but if I lose my warranty as a result, then provider behavior is criminal. Imagine if uninstalling one of the crappy adware services provided by PC manufacturer caused you to lose PC warranty.
Slashdot Mirror
They claim it offsets the high risks, but then they walk away with millions when it all goes wrong.
Don't underestimate the risk of having to walk away with a $5M golden parachute and look for another job while your peers are making $10M-$20M at the same time.
Maybe the law should state that you get absolutely nothing if the company tanks. Then we'll know that high salaries are given for performance.
The Whitehouse create a way to get more public input, and the acts on it, but no, no one is ever happy.
We will see, of course, but the response record is pretty spotty so far. And the reviewing authority stating that "he is not sure what authority he has" does not inspire much confidence.
Not many petitions get as much as a thoughtful response ("Build a Deathstar" was one of the best written, that says something). I believe the "acted on" petitions are in single digits - and not any of the controversial ones.
FCC will be investigating the viability and possible harm of the ban on cell-phone unlocking.
Possible harm to customers or to the mobile providers?
There is very little to investigate -- if I don't explicitly seek out an "unlocked" phone, even the phone that isn't subsidized may be locked by the providers. Why isn't that strictly illegal already?
Because it is an extradition hearing. They do not have to show the evidence because they do not have to establish that he is guilty.
Basically, it's like a discussion about setting the date for the trial.
I suppose I am wondering what the threshold for extradition is then. It is more than "nothing", but less than "guilty". So is it like "possibly guilty"?
If it is like "setting the date for the trial", why don't they just extradite him without any court involvement?
It delays everything, allows Kimble to continue living in his comfortable mansion, and the longer everything lasts the higher the chance that something in the procecution goes wrong.
I know you strongly dislike the guy for being a scumbag, but two wrongs do not make a right. If U.S. screwed up the procedures (of which there is a strong possibility), they deserve to lose because that may encourage them to follow the rules next time.
Perhaps, but not according to the article. It has a quote and I did not alter anything, except to highlight articulable.
nor are [they] intended to limit employees of governmental agencies or other entities, public or private, who, in the course and scope of their employment and supported by articulable suspicion, attempt to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of a person during an investigation, surveillance, or monitoring of conduct to obtain evidence of suspected illegal activity.
"arÂticÂuÂlaÂble, adj. That can be articulated"
"Definition of articulable: capable of being articulated"
Aren't you glad these are people writing laws? So as long as the suspicion can be voiced or sign-languaged (or maybe winked with Morse code?), it's good to go.
If that line doesn't send chills up the spine of every person who believes in due process...
By that excellent logic, they should be able to bar DotCom from having any lawyers. Surely, the defense lawyers are "bogging down the process" too? Also, an impartial judge "bogs down the process" by listening to the case.
In our future, courts will become more efficient if this argument is accepted (can they appeal?). Optimal and speedy process is the one where accused is declared guilty right after the charges are read.
In fact, the issue decided by the court was much more limited: it held that Kim only has limited access to evidence during the future extradition hearing. While this does make it more likely that he will be extradited, the issue has NOT been decided yet.
It's pretty frigging close, really. Access to accuser's evidence seems pretty important. "Tell me, Mr. DotCom... What good is a court... if you are unable to defend yourself?"
Maybe next ruling will be that neither DotCom or his lawyers are allowed to attend the proceedings! Surely, his lawyers (defending him) are "bogging down the proceedings" too. Things would go faster if it was just the U.S. alone presenting their side to the judge.
Except, you know, the proof that you paid people for uploading them.
The proof is so strong in this one that it doesn't even need to be shown? Is the U.S. argument that proof is so "obvious" that no one needs to see it
The appeals court ruled that extensive disclosure would bog down the process and that a summary of the U.S. case would suffice.
I am not familiar with New Zeland laws, but in U.S., that's not a valid argument. "Bogging down the process" means nothing compared to showing evidence to the accused. Right to confront your accuser and all that.
If I want to see realistic graphics I would play meatspace aka THE REAL LIFE. Not even Crysis 100 can beat those graphics.
Yeah, I prefer to look at the alien Ceph in real life too. They are far more realistic-looking than the in-game ones.
Why would anybody bother spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars on fancy PC's just to play games that play better and look just as good on a $200 console?
Mouse + Keyboard controls?
Sometimes a console controller just isn't convenient (or one is too old to get used to it)
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
For those who are concerned about me
Personally, I would reserve judgement until I know what his severance package is. If he left without one, then I might be concerned. If he was given a few million in cash/stock before he left, then there is hardly any reason to worry, is there?
It's not that CEOs don't get fired, it's that they often make more money by being fired then they do by working.
Guess who gets to determine what qualifies as "speedy?" Hint: It ain't the accused.
I know, it's just so much fun to redefine words!
"Speedy" is "any amount of time"
"Due process" is "any process that may or may not involve courts or laws"
"Imminent threat" is "any unconfirmed threat with no known timeline"
I still think Manning deserves what he got. He had no rights to commit this treason.
Alleged treason, yes?
Even so, did he have a right to a speedy trial in less than 3 years (and a right to not be in abusive solitary confinement for those 3 years)?
What our fine Judge Alito said is it is ok to trespass, just don't get caught. Ok, it is a bit more complicated than that.
I swear -- the only time those SCOTUS judges understand anything is when IT APPLIES TO THEM. During the "is it illegal to attach a GPS to your car without a warrant", they basically killed it after they were told that a supreme court judge could also be subject to a GPS device being attached to their car (without a warrant)
I guess they don't think FISA would ever approve a warrant against them in secret...
I guess if you found yourself in Gitmo you could prove you were harmed.
Even if you find yourself in Gitmo (which proves harm), would you also have to prove that you were illegally spied on by a secret court?
Are FISA proceedings are made public after you are arrested? Or is all evidence you could possible have would by definition be illegal (and perhaps completely inadmissible, even if you have it).
If enough juries take cases involving illegal wiretaps and nullify the holy living shit out of FISA, it'll be such a spotty legal landscape (nullification is restricted to the jurisdiction the jury ruled in) that the TLA's won't be able to use it without heavy liability.
What are you smoking, exactly?? Who the hell modded you up?
Jury nullification carries absolutely no weight in any other case, no matter how closely related. There is no precedent set. There is no way for a defense lawyer to argue it. All it does is help set the current defendant free, nothing more. (Yes, IANAL, but I am still fairly certain about this)
Nor does FISA court have a jury, being a secret court and all. It is more of a judge panel.
Also, I hear that if you mention that you are familiar with the term "jury nullification", you will likely be removed from the jury before you get to put your ideas to a test.
Attack from a different direction. They'll probably shoot that down too, but play the game. Attack, attack, attack until something works.
While this is a good idea, remember the exciting time we live in. The current administration is blocking challenges to FOIA the drone-related legal memos, because officially, they can neither admit nor deny that the drone program exists (secrecy didn't stop Obama from bragging about the program's success though). And the courts side with the government instead of laughing at them!
Soon, all FOIA/court challenges will be answered by "We can neither admit nor deny that we are the Government. Admitting that we are, in fact, the Government you name in your FOIA request would threaten national security."
In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penisses, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship.
In a perfect world, pervasive rape in jail will not be subject of gleeful jokes (it'd be funny if it weren't a common issue). I would like to see spammers go to jail too, but not like this.
Even better, maybe we can fine spammers for "whatever the made + X%" and ban them from using computers for a while. This way they can work off their debt to society with some manual labor - outside of jail would be fine too.
The last time I saw someone "helpfully" checking doors in my neighborhood I called the cops. There is never a good reason to test the security of a stranger's house, or even a friend's house, unless they want you to do so.
I am not saying that I would encourage such behavior. But once a problem is found, I'd prefer to be notified about it (and I want the companies in question to be notified about it). There has to be a mechanism to allow this.
Getting back to the network... You only have the word of someone unscrupulous that they didn't commit further unscrupulous activities.
If they are not requesting anything in exchange then they are not benefiting from notifying you about the breach. You, however, DO benefit from being notified of a security breach.
I also assume you do not take their word for it and perhaps verify that they haven't done anything untoward on your system.
Hi, I broke into your house and ran may fingers through your dainty underthings and fondled your tooth brush.
Don't you think you should buy a better lock and maybe an alarm system?
While creepy (particularly the toothbrush fondling part :), it is still preferable to waiting for an even less scrupulous person to break into your house
I see it more as "Hi, I was passing by the street and pushing on everyone's door (for fun, it is what I do). Your door had opened when I pushed it -- you may want to fix your lock".
This may be a tad creepy, but these people are not the problem. The ones who would quietly use this information are the problem.
Most books and movies are the same. Look at half the scifi books on amazon. Humans fighting aliens for some reason
Is that really all you see in SciFi books?
These are not documentaries to teach you facts -- so a second book that has humans fighting aliens is not a repeat. It's about the delivery -- good plot and/or mystery, interesting character development, etc.
The aliens are sometimes (in good books, anyway) there just to provide a little more freedom in story-telling
And he still broke into other people's networks without permission. But I suppose that's OK here since the private info that he released was of interest to Slashdotters and was "accurate"?
It may be ok to a degree for the cases where he broke in and then notified the company of a breach (without doing any damage or requesting a payment)
Companies should be required by law not to pursue anyone who notified them of security holes in good faith. Instead they choose to harass such people, scaring them off and making MY data less secure.
I completely pwn my phones for exactly that reason. I considered the crapware Sprint put on my original Evo border-line criminal.
Pray tell, have you ever needed warranty services on your phone?
I am not opposed to having to root my phone per se, but if I lose my warranty as a result, then provider behavior is criminal. Imagine if uninstalling one of the crappy adware services provided by PC manufacturer caused you to lose PC warranty.