Many return / rebate / warranty processes require presenting the original receipt. It is these requirements that make systems like Neat Receipts suspect -- a retailer won't accept a scanned copy of the receipt. I hope this triggers a change in that thinking.
Since this was in the TOS, it wasn't abrupt -- it was a 21 day countdown. One oddity; 5.5 says "The Mining process continues until said mining is profitable." Seems like that should actually say "_while_ said mining is profitable".
How many more machines could you fit in a given space if you didn't have to handle a human gaining non-disruptive access to a particular machine? At scale people start looking at a rack as the unit-of-replacement, maybe even a row. In this scenario the entire sinkable unit becomes the unit of failure.
Those are valid points; I just dislike the prison / white house examples because someone intent on doing that would not place the number on their device. So in other words, requiring registration will make it easier to enforce against nuisance and ignorant flight but have little effect on intentionally bad flight.
Why would someone intent on dropping a drone into a prison place their # on the device? Yeah it'll help for someone who has a flyaway / failure that ends up on someones lawn, but not for someone _intent_ on doing such a thing.
One of the methods of challenging a patent (IPR) is unavailable in the case of sovereign immunity. So in that scenario you're looking at the owner from the get-go.
The issue there is that the server is sending a server cert that isn't signed by the Root CA, it is signed by GeoTrust DV SSL CA - G3 -- and that was not sent by the server. It is the servers responsibility to provide certificates that link the server cert with the root cert.
On the other hand, _if_ the lender can't demonstrate you owe them, couldn't it be that they no longer own the loan? What happens if you pay them and it turns out someone else bought the loan and now wants to be paid? I'm guessing there are scenarios where you'd end up paying twice.
You should pay your legitimate bills, but its reasonable to make sure you are paying the correct party to protect yourself.
Almost every contract will have a 'severability' clause (http://www.contractology.com/severance-clause.html) that seeks to pre-jettison any portions that that are deemed illegal / unforceable while keeping the rest of the terms.
A half-decent cloud backup will keep versions for an extended period, so you could recover to the point in time before the crypto. A live sync that clobbers history is little better than a RAID array.
I think its less for 'hit by a bus' and more to remove you from the environment long enough that any fraud/embezzlement schemes you might have fall apart.
If you don't use a VPN, *your* ISP can correlate all your traffic to your billing information (which is necessarily very detailed as they often have a physical cable to your location). If use a VPN, *their* ISP can only correlate that traffic to the VPN's billing info and not your own. Of course, the VPN provider can make this correlation but there are more options for VPN providers than ISPs in a given location.
If you are in the on-call rotation, it means your sloppiness will cause you to be up at 2am fixing it while also answering 20 emails asking for status.
Couldn't you have a thug watch for people requesting replacement ballots at the polling station? Make it known that anyone who's on the list of targeted voters will get 'roughed up' on the assumption that their selfie was fraudulent? Best they could do then is spoil their ballot but cast it anyway.
I'm assuming there were multiple accounts on this server. Depending on how the discovery request was worded, if the VIP's email address was removed or modified from the from / to headers of emails, one could reduce the set of emails that have to be handed over 'where the VIP was included in the conversation'. Or perhaps remove embarrassing email addresses that were cc'd/bcc'd on sent mail.
The danger is that another party to the chain still has a copy of the email that shows it in a different state then would be in the archive which would expose the subterfuge.
Perhaps it was that concern that resulted in deleting emails rather than modifying them, as perhaps destruction of records is far less of an issue then falsification of records.
Money laundering is obscuring where money came from. If you walk into a bank with $3M in cash, its going to be noticed. However, if you sell a ton of $Drug for $3M cash, and own a cash-heavy / inventory-light business such as a strip-club or casino, you inject the cash into that business over time with fake transactions and treat it as ordinary income. You pay taxes on it and to everyone it looks like you are operating a particularly successful business, and you have legit cash in the bank.
In this way you've obscured that the money came from an illicit deal and made it appear legitimate. Any business that can do a lot of turnover without a lot of inventory (as someone might notice if your bar is doing a ton of business but never buying inventory) is a candidate.
For larger non-cash sums you can do things with offshore fake businesses; make a 'startup' offshore, then sell it to another offshore entity and bank the cash / declare it on your taxes. The fact that it didn't really exist is hard for on-shore regulators to notice, and now you've got a bunch of legit taxes-paid cash in your wallet.
'Resources are scare' was intended to be one of the brakes on pervasive surveillance -- it was historically hard to do, and required a good reason to follow someone around. Slapping up a camera requires far fewer resources so the bar naturally drops, and probably lower than it should.
Slashdot Mirror
Many return / rebate / warranty processes require presenting the original receipt. It is these requirements that make systems like Neat Receipts suspect -- a retailer won't accept a scanned copy of the receipt. I hope this triggers a change in that thinking.
>accessible network
I think the suggestion was that the locks should be on a separate network than is accessible to anyone other than building management.
Since this was in the TOS, it wasn't abrupt -- it was a 21 day countdown. One oddity; 5.5 says "The Mining process continues until said mining is profitable." Seems like that should actually say "_while_ said mining is profitable".
How many more machines could you fit in a given space if you didn't have to handle a human gaining non-disruptive access to a particular machine? At scale people start looking at a rack as the unit-of-replacement, maybe even a row. In this scenario the entire sinkable unit becomes the unit of failure.
This isn't particularly new, Sun had Project BlackBox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... in 2008.
Also useful for summing your sales-tax paid for use in taxes.
Unharmed except having lost their investment into the LLC.
... which would be pointless if the data was held remotely and the local access keys have been wiped or disabled.
Those are valid points; I just dislike the prison / white house examples because someone intent on doing that would not place the number on their device. So in other words, requiring registration will make it easier to enforce against nuisance and ignorant flight but have little effect on intentionally bad flight.
Why would someone intent on dropping a drone into a prison place their # on the device? Yeah it'll help for someone who has a flyaway / failure that ends up on someones lawn, but not for someone _intent_ on doing such a thing.
One of the methods of challenging a patent (IPR) is unavailable in the case of sovereign immunity. So in that scenario you're looking at the owner from the get-go.
The issue there is that the server is sending a server cert that isn't signed by the Root CA, it is signed by GeoTrust DV SSL CA - G3 -- and that was not sent by the server. It is the servers responsibility to provide certificates that link the server cert with the root cert.
On the other hand, _if_ the lender can't demonstrate you owe them, couldn't it be that they no longer own the loan? What happens if you pay them and it turns out someone else bought the loan and now wants to be paid? I'm guessing there are scenarios where you'd end up paying twice.
You should pay your legitimate bills, but its reasonable to make sure you are paying the correct party to protect yourself.
Almost every contract will have a 'severability' clause (http://www.contractology.com/severance-clause.html) that seeks to pre-jettison any portions that that are deemed illegal / unforceable while keeping the rest of the terms.
Was that a default configuration of the controller?
A half-decent cloud backup will keep versions for an extended period, so you could recover to the point in time before the crypto. A live sync that clobbers history is little better than a RAID array.
I think its less for 'hit by a bus' and more to remove you from the environment long enough that any fraud/embezzlement schemes you might have fall apart.
Responding to legal requests is significantly different than treating the data as a good to be sold though.
If you don't use a VPN, *your* ISP can correlate all your traffic to your billing information (which is necessarily very detailed as they often have a physical cable to your location). If use a VPN, *their* ISP can only correlate that traffic to the VPN's billing info and not your own. Of course, the VPN provider can make this correlation but there are more options for VPN providers than ISPs in a given location.
If you are in the on-call rotation, it means your sloppiness will cause you to be up at 2am fixing it while also answering 20 emails asking for status.
Couldn't you have a thug watch for people requesting replacement ballots at the polling station? Make it known that anyone who's on the list of targeted voters will get 'roughed up' on the assumption that their selfie was fraudulent? Best they could do then is spoil their ballot but cast it anyway.
I'm assuming there were multiple accounts on this server. Depending on how the discovery request was worded, if the VIP's email address was removed or modified from the from / to headers of emails, one could reduce the set of emails that have to be handed over 'where the VIP was included in the conversation'. Or perhaps remove embarrassing email addresses that were cc'd/bcc'd on sent mail.
The danger is that another party to the chain still has a copy of the email that shows it in a different state then would be in the archive which would expose the subterfuge.
Perhaps it was that concern that resulted in deleting emails rather than modifying them, as perhaps destruction of records is far less of an issue then falsification of records.
Doesn't the election trump the security clearance process?
Compromising the account only gets them an encrypted blob -- only the client can decrypt it.
(Now, nothing says LastPass can't publish a subverted client, I've never heard how that is protected against).
Money laundering is obscuring where money came from. If you walk into a bank with $3M in cash, its going to be noticed. However, if you sell a ton of $Drug for $3M cash, and own a cash-heavy / inventory-light business such as a strip-club or casino, you inject the cash into that business over time with fake transactions and treat it as ordinary income. You pay taxes on it and to everyone it looks like you are operating a particularly successful business, and you have legit cash in the bank.
In this way you've obscured that the money came from an illicit deal and made it appear legitimate. Any business that can do a lot of turnover without a lot of inventory (as someone might notice if your bar is doing a ton of business but never buying inventory) is a candidate.
For larger non-cash sums you can do things with offshore fake businesses; make a 'startup' offshore, then sell it to another offshore entity and bank the cash / declare it on your taxes. The fact that it didn't really exist is hard for on-shore regulators to notice, and now you've got a bunch of legit taxes-paid cash in your wallet.
http://www.businessinsider.com... describes some more schemes.
'Resources are scare' was intended to be one of the brakes on pervasive surveillance -- it was historically hard to do, and required a good reason to follow someone around. Slapping up a camera requires far fewer resources so the bar naturally drops, and probably lower than it should.