The prices and the speeds could be better, but IMHO the real problem is the incredibly small monthly caps that we have up north.
A monthly cap of 50GB is just proof that the companies are trying to use their ISP side to protect their media broadcasting side. Bell Internet is protecting Bell ExpressVu, the CRTC should not be blind to the conflict of interest in all this.
The monthly cap should start around 100GB even for the slowest speeds and go up from there. My 2Mbps connection has a 35GB monthly cap with fees of around $5 per extra GB, which is insane when you consider the cost to Bell.
I had a 300 GB soft cap when I first signed up with TekSavvy cable-modem based internet, for $35 / m. They reworked their plans and now, for $35 / m it's unlimited.
Shop around, there are better deals out there.
Even with Wind Mobile I have 5 GB / m before throttling kicks in (tethered), included in a $40 / m plan giving unlimited North America wide talk & text, unlimited global SMS, call management (vmail, call display, etc.), no contracts, *and* truly subsidized phone (HTC Amaze 4G for $99 if I keep my $40 / m plan for 3 years after which the phone is mine), *and* network unlock codes after 3 months as a customer.
Um, sorry, didn't mean to go on so long, but I am pretty damned happy with those 2 service providers. And no, I'm not affiliated in any way.
The real danger is that some jackass judge from the northeastern states or more likely in LalaLand California, who believes that it is appropriate and necessary to consider FOREIGN laws and precedence when deliberating American laws and precedence, will open the litigation floodgates here in the U.S.
Why not, USA considers American laws valid in FOREIGN lands.
i.e. McKinnon (UK), Kadr (Canada / Afghanistan), Kim Dotcom (NZ), etc. ad nauseam.
Although it appears that it's seen on the official web site's title as Spic 'n Span, but that's missing an apostrophe. The product appears to say Spic and Span.
Like how people abbreviate "until" to "till" instead of "'til" - missing the apostrophe and adding a letter L, making it a different word (till as in cash till, or verb: to till the land, etc.)
A spick was a spike or nail, a span was a very fresh wood chip, and thus the phrase meant clean and neat and all in place, as in being nailed down. The "span" in the idiom also is part of "brand span new," now more commonly rendered "brand spanking new."
I agree, I was going to say the same thing. It was written by a 16 year old, had to of been...
Through reading the "Firehose" (link titled "recent" at top left of page, where submissions are shown before being approved for the front page), I can say that the submitter, theodp, seems to make every post as inciteful (not insightful) as possible.
In general, they allow an individual to use force in self defense when they believe that they are faced with an unlawful threat. The keyword there is unlawful. Following someone may be intimidating but it is not unlawful. Similarly, the moment that TM ditched GZ he was no longer faced with any threat.
Fair enough, though if TM ditched GM, only to have GM reappear, within striking distance (i.e. a few paces), then one could argue there was a threat. If I were being followed, managed to lose my follower, only to have them reappear, I'd be questioning my safety.
And, since GM was told by 911 to not pursue (am I remembering that correctly?), while it might not be unlawful, it would certainly be inadvisable since representatives of the authorities instructed him thus.
At least I could imagine all that being a worthwhile argument in court.
Not sure we'll ever get the truth though; I read that witness statements changed over time, rendering them useless. They contradicted their own previous statements, etc.
Just a mess all around.
No, you're not remembering that correctly, though I suspect the media reports were designed to make you think that was the case.
That's not direction. The 911 operator isn't telling Zimmerman ANYTHING with that statement. To wit: I don't need YOU to breathe. If you don't breathe, you'll die. MY needs are irrelevant. The 911 operator might just as well have said, "I dress my hamster in polka-dot Fruit of the Loom underwear."
Wow, that's an amazingly bad analogy. BadAnalogyGuy would be disappointed.
Anway, you didn't address the point that one could argue that TM felt threatened by being followed, even though he'd shaken his pursuer at one time.
Though I suspect your response was designed to ignore that pertinent bit.
In general, they allow an individual to use force in self defense when they believe that they are faced with an unlawful threat. The keyword there is unlawful. Following someone may be intimidating but it is not unlawful. Similarly, the moment that TM ditched GZ he was no longer faced with any threat.
Fair enough, though if TM ditched GM, only to have GM reappear, within striking distance (i.e. a few paces), then one could argue there was a threat. If I were being followed, managed to lose my follower, only to have them reappear, I'd be questioning my safety.
And, since GM was told by 911 to not pursue (am I remembering that correctly?), while it might not be unlawful, it would certainly be inadvisable since representatives of the authorities instructed him thus.
At least I could imagine all that being a worthwhile argument in court.
Not sure we'll ever get the truth though; I read that witness statements changed over time, rendering them useless. They contradicted their own previous statements, etc.
The defense has argued that Trayvon was the aggressor and are going to see if his school records and online life back that up. The internet is not some parallel dimension with no relationship to our real lives. If Trayvon was into "Thug Life", MMA, etc... or was suspended for getting into fist fights at school (he was suspended at least 3 times) then this is relevant to the case at hand as it makes the notion that he attacked Zimmerman more believable.
But if Zimmerman were following Martin around, perhaps making Martin feel threatened, and Martin attacked Zimmerman, isn't Martin the one "Standing his ground"? Albeit without a gun?
Here's why I think it's so blatantly obvious you're wrong about evidence being excluded (unless the Crown simply says, "Here's what we have - straight from Anonymous"):
From a story in today's Globe & Mail about a CS teacher that copied an email attachment from an email between students (i.e. he wasn't involved with producing the picture):
The student depicted in the photographs had sent them to another student by e-mail and Mr. Cole – whose responsibilities included patrolling students’ e-mails and files – had allegedly gained access to it and copied them into his own computer.
The school’s principal seized the computer, searched it more extensively and then provided it to police. Police investigators then searched the laptop and discs without a warrant.
The judge at Mr. Cole’s trial excluded the evidence as having been obtained from an unauthorized search. Partly because the school had informed employees that they could use their computers for private use, the judge concluded that Mr. Cole had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the police ought therefore to have obtained a warrant before their search.
Followed by this:
The court majority said that privacy rights in a workplace computer are important but can be overridden by the importance of the evidence.
“The evidence is highly reliable and probative physical evidence,” Mr. Justice Morris Fish wrote for the court in a 6-1 judgment. “The exclusion of the material would have a marked negative impact on the truth-seeking function of the criminal trial process.”
It ordered a new trial for Mr. Cole.
I reiterate the statement, "The exclusion of the material would have a marked negative impact on the truth-seeking function of the criminal trial process".
There-in lies a critical aspect of Canadian jurisprudence: absolutes can, when followed with unwavering enthusiasm, lead to an impairment of the pursuit of justice.
Also note that the Court found that the police should have had a warrant, but didn't. However, the Justices found that the police could've obtained one easily had they asked (they searched the computer at request of the owner of the computer), so it wasn't a big deal, although one Justice dissented.
It's a very interesting read about the flexibility of the system when trying to achieve a just resolution.
I could give two shits about 'finalise' v 'finalize', potato/potahto or other musket v. rifle instances.
I agree 100%, except for "I could give two shits". It makes no sense! It ought to be "I couldn't give..."
How is that, exactly?
Myself, I'm happy to give at least two shits toward the most meaningless concepts -- it is not as if I, myself, have any remaining use for the shit.
I think it come from refusing the effort involved in the simplest task, taking a shit (or 2). Hence usually, "I don't give a shit" or "I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire and I had a six pack in me ready to burst out."
I've seen absolutely zero indication her parents were prudes nor that they didn't do everything they could to support her.
She said she was alone and had no one helping her.
She said she "had nobody" and "needed someone" - she very likely meant a friend, as opposed to a parent. Even the most supportive parents aren't a substitute for a friend.
She called for help to random strangers on the Internet.
She seems to have told her story on the internet as a warning for others.
Clearly, her parents were not helping her. They probably weren't even aware of her problems. The reason the girl didn't tell them is probably that she believed they wouldn't understand or be of any help, which is a sign of bad parent-child relationship.
Clueless parents not able to connect with their children and help them in times or need are to blame.
Clearly the only one clueless is you.
While awaiting her father to pick her up from school, she was beaten up by a group of girls, and dumped in a muddy puddle. Her father found her laying in a ditch. Her parents and others received pictures from her web cam mistake. She moved schools 3 times, moved house twice I believe. She'd also OD'd too and spent time in the hospital, so they knew that.
Her parents were aware of something going on. What else should they have done? Left the city? The province? Maybe, but they have Facebook in $other_city, $other_prov too - the perpetrator would've just followed her.
Her mother said she'd been doing quite a bit better recently, up until *just* before her death, so they seemed quite involved.
Every time something bad and/or embarrassing happened to you at that age, did you run to your parents? Wouldn't that have resulted in even more tormenting at school, "loufoque is a mommies boy", etc.?
The website's logs of Facebook, abc.com, xyz.com doesn't show signs of tampering but they do not validate them on a regular basis so no we cannot verify them either. Further more, we found the defendant's computer was loaded with nasties also. and being a windows machine, we are in the same boat.
Judge: You can forget using the evidence then.
Jury: what makes you think he did what again?
It just doesn't work like that.
a) it is not (IMHO) a reasonable doubt raised when claiming Facebook, Hotmail, etc. were all hacked to implicate a then-unknown guy who admits he knew the kid (let's see how many messages she sent him to his real accounts), and has a history of sexual offences against minors. If company xyz has their data is backed up to tape or across multiple data centres, it's going to be very hard to argue it was tampered with. Several of the jury members would probably use social media themselves, possibly the judge too, so they might trust it to some point already.
b) evidence that was obtained illegitimately cannot be used, but if that same info can be obtained through other channels, especially ones that police would be expected to follow, then it's in.
I just cannot see how this would work against prosecution unless he's destroyed evidence on his own computer. But while there might have been some, there's bound to be plenty more elsewhere.
Neither a judge nor jury is going to buy everything the defense throws at them. Malware on her computer will have nothing to do with anything.
I'm pretty sure that most of the evidence could be tossed out before it even gets presented. and if other evidence is gained from poisoned evidence, there is a good chance it will be bared too (unless Canada doesn't do the poisoned fruit thing).
We do have the "poisoned fruit" concept, though not called that to my (limited) knowledge.
I seem to recall a case where dubiously obtained evidence was admitted due to the heinous nature of the crime (remember no other details).
I do remember a BC case where a guy was caught with kilos of marijuana in his trunk. His defense was that he supplies a "compassion club" and may have even had a license to grow (forget that part). Judge said. "not guilty," and "give him back his pot". (!)
Regardless, outing him may allow him to destroy evidence that he has control over (assuming Anonymous didn't tip the police days before going public), however just because his name was publicized doesn't mean that there won't be many other avenues available to obtain evidence enough for a conviction. That should apply to USA too.
Sorry for a double-reply, just meant to point out that the concept isn't uniquely American...
Police: Let's have a look at her computer and see where she had accounts.
Police: Hey Facebook et al: give us the logs of everyone that contacted her, especially user123 and userXYZ that we saw requested her to do [$naughty_thing].
Facebook et al: Okay, here you go.
Police: Hi Crown Prosecutor (i.e. DA): here's IP addresses, user info for users a, b, & c. We think b & c look suspicious but only c is in Canada, and inside your jurisdiction. Warrant please?
Crown: Okay, here you go.
Police: Serve warrant, gather further evidence (likely a fair bit that would be of interest to the FBI too!), back to Crown: here's the evidence.
Crown: looks at evidence, draws up charges, goes to trial.
Defense: Innocent! Anonymous inserted my client's IP into the logs of Facebook, abc.com, xyz.com, and all those other sites where a user with the user name [$my_clients_firstname]1234 logged in from an IP given to him by ISP [$some_ISP]. Anonymous, um, sat outside his house and created these accounts through Wifi hacking, over the course of years. Um, yeah!
I mean, what were they thinking stuffing her up with such prudery that she came to believe her life was over once she'd bared her breasts and it became public?
What. The. Fuck?
Her parents? I have heard nothing about them giving her grief when some asshole sent them, the kid's friends, and apparently teachers photos of the kid's boobs. They seemed to have been nothing but supportive.
It was getting beaten up, blackmailed, bullied, and harassed across something like 3 schools and 2 homes and 2 or 3 years that seemed to have driven her over the brink.
I've seen absolutely zero indication her parents were prudes nor that they didn't do everything they could to support her.
And you say it's their fault for not being able to instill a sense of calm rationality on a lonely, depressed, desperate young teen when calm rationality is exactly what kids that age are known for not possessing?
If I were her dad, I'd have sat her down and told her, "Blow it all off. It don't matter, and they're all just jealous, or pervs. You be proud of yourself. Besides (lifts his shirt), look at me. I've got a chest and even nipples. Big deal. Now go play with your friends and don't worry about it. Stand tall girl. You've nothing to be ashamed of."
You think showing her your boobs would make things better?
Oh, and she didn't have any friends, so "go play with your friends" is just going to rub that fact in.
I wish I could tell this to every kid entering puberty. Just stick it out, and when you get used to those hormones raging through you, you'll be able to handle it and will probably even enjoy it. It's just a phase we all go through. Hang in there. It won't be long now.
Oh, and the next time you see that jerk, kick him right in his piss-pump, just so he'll never forget how stupid he was letting you get away.
She never met "that jerk" - he set up fake Facebook profiles, friended her peers while posing as a soon-to-be new student at their school, then turned them against her. And he sent them all pics of her flashing the web cam.
And he's (if Anonymous is to be believed) ~30 years old, so he didn't "let her get away".
I have never seen a +5 that was so far off the mark.
Yes, the guy who talked her into exposing herself is a creep (and possibly a pedophile)
But does she really have anyone to blame but herself? Seriously, some random guy on the Internet asks her to show her tits and she does it? Really??
Additionally, "cuber-bullying" is just the next wave of technophobic, attention-grabbing idiocy by the media. People get bullied every day in school and we just expect that. But this is happening on THE INTERNET, OH NO!!.
By any measure, "cyber-bullying" is a whole lot easier to shrug off because... well, y'know that little X in the top, right-hand corner of your chat window? Click it.
She switched schools after the "cyber-bullying", was tracked down, had her boobs pic sent to friends, parents, etc.
She moved & changed schools, and it happened again.
This was not going to be solved by closing a desktop window. Nor was it confined to the Internet.
And, now listen to this you asshole, she was 13 years old when she flashed her boobs. You're going to hold her responsible when she's years away from a driver's license, never mind adulthood? That's the same mindset the sicko had that blackmailed her for further sexual imagery, "hey, she deserved it, she consented", etc.
How about the situation where the crime would have been ignored and forgotten if they hadn't done what they did?
How about the situation where a prosecution cannot be successful now. A clear line of defense is- all your evidence was planted by a group of hackers upset because I made an indecent comment about them or the recently deceased. We already know they "hacked" into things to get the information and make their declarations. I'm betting that most all evidence against him outside of a confession could be tossed aside as not reliable now. No one from anonymous would be likely to come out and admit it was them and ensure the evidence is legit.
Unlikely. He can argue that Anonymous inserted his IP address into Facebook's log files, for example, but neither a judge nor a jury is likely to believe it. And Facebook (again as an example) would have someone highly qualified to testify against the possibility.
Also, police can find other ways to tie him to it (if it's him): log files, tips, etc. They likely can easily get around the fact that Anonymous outed him.
If Anonymous has material evidence that points to the guilt of a particular individual, they should turn that evidence over to the responsible law enforcement agency, not go public and taint both the investigation and public opinion.
“We generally don’t like to deal with police first hand but were compelled to put our skills to good use protecting kids,” it read. “Ironically we have some good people in Vancouver who brought this to our admin’s attention. It’s a very sad story that affects all of us.”
It sounds like they did send it to police ("were compelled to").
Also, while neither of us is judge or jury, there is this:
The man identified by Anonymous appeared Monday at Surrey provincial court house, where he faces charges of sexual assault and sexual interference with a minor in a case unrelated to Todd.
He told CTV News he knew the 15-year-old, but insisted he was her friend. He said he helped identify a man in New York who was harassing her, and claims he passed that information to the RCMP.
The man identified by Anonymous appeared Monday at Surrey provincial court house, where he faces charges of sexual assault and sexual interference with a minor in a case unrelated to Todd.
...
He told CTV News he knew the 15-year-old, but insisted he was her friend. He said he helped identify a man in New York who was harassing her, and claims he passed that information to the RCMP.
Emphasis added.
Sounds like a fairly good bet they've got the right guy, but we'll have to wait & see - hopefully it goes to trial.
I'd like someone to explain to me why my pet theory is "not even wrong".
The theory goes something like this: as something falls below the Event Horizon, the gravity slows time down until it stops, meaning the thing never reaches the centre, so the singularity is never actually reached. Hence black holes have varying sizes & masses and aren't simply a point with an EH around it.
After all, if the singularity were true, wouldn't all black holes be merely a singularity with an EH?
I often put a "Happy Birthday _____" comment in code I was writing, along with @author and @date.
In your case, I'd put a little one line dedication in HTML comments which won't impact the project's efficiency but will put the dedication onto all users' computers (where a PHP comment wouldn't get loaded in the browser, for example).
Also a note in the About page would be fine. I'd do both.
Slashdot Mirror
The prices and the speeds could be better, but IMHO the real problem is the incredibly small monthly caps that we have up north.
A monthly cap of 50GB is just proof that the companies are trying to use their ISP side to protect their media broadcasting side. Bell Internet is protecting Bell ExpressVu, the CRTC should not be blind to the conflict of interest in all this.
The monthly cap should start around 100GB even for the slowest speeds and go up from there. My 2Mbps connection has a 35GB monthly cap with fees of around $5 per extra GB, which is insane when you consider the cost to Bell.
I had a 300 GB soft cap when I first signed up with TekSavvy cable-modem based internet, for $35 / m. They reworked their plans and now, for $35 / m it's unlimited.
Shop around, there are better deals out there.
Even with Wind Mobile I have 5 GB / m before throttling kicks in (tethered), included in a $40 / m plan giving unlimited North America wide talk & text, unlimited global SMS, call management (vmail, call display, etc.), no contracts, *and* truly subsidized phone (HTC Amaze 4G for $99 if I keep my $40 / m plan for 3 years after which the phone is mine), *and* network unlock codes after 3 months as a customer.
Um, sorry, didn't mean to go on so long, but I am pretty damned happy with those 2 service providers. And no, I'm not affiliated in any way.
Seriously, check around for better ISP...
No fuckhead, this is not a police state. Having worked wtih US LE, the US is not a police state
Of course you'd say that then.
I'd like to block submissions by this submitter -- anyone know how?
Thanks.
The real danger is that some jackass judge from the northeastern states or more likely in LalaLand California, who believes that it is appropriate and necessary to consider FOREIGN laws and precedence when deliberating American laws and precedence, will open the litigation floodgates here in the U.S.
Why not, USA considers American laws valid in FOREIGN lands.
i.e. McKinnon (UK), Kadr (Canada / Afghanistan), Kim Dotcom (NZ), etc. ad nauseam.
I've heard of Spic in Span though. Is that where you're thinking of?
No, Spic and Span is what I meant.
Although it appears that it's seen on the official web site's title as Spic 'n Span, but that's missing an apostrophe. The product appears to say Spic and Span.
Like how people abbreviate "until" to "till" instead of "'til" - missing the apostrophe and adding a letter L, making it a different word (till as in cash till, or verb: to till the land, etc.)
Or, better example, Rock 'n Roll.
Interesting tidbit from World Wide Words, via Wikipedia:
Where the hell is Span?
A province in the country of Spic, duh. Never heard of Spic & Span?
I agree, I was going to say the same thing. It was written by a 16 year old, had to of been...
Through reading the "Firehose" (link titled "recent" at top left of page, where submissions are shown before being approved for the front page), I can say that the submitter, theodp, seems to make every post as inciteful (not insightful) as possible.
PS, "had to of^H^H have been".
No. SYG laws are easily misunderstood.
In general, they allow an individual to use force in self defense when they believe that they are faced with an unlawful threat. The keyword there is unlawful. Following someone may be intimidating but it is not unlawful. Similarly, the moment that TM ditched GZ he was no longer faced with any threat.
Fair enough, though if TM ditched GM, only to have GM reappear, within striking distance (i.e. a few paces), then one could argue there was a threat. If I were being followed, managed to lose my follower, only to have them reappear, I'd be questioning my safety.
And, since GM was told by 911 to not pursue (am I remembering that correctly?), while it might not be unlawful, it would certainly be inadvisable since representatives of the authorities instructed him thus.
At least I could imagine all that being a worthwhile argument in court.
Not sure we'll ever get the truth though; I read that witness statements changed over time, rendering them useless. They contradicted their own previous statements, etc.
Just a mess all around.
No, you're not remembering that correctly, though I suspect the media reports were designed to make you think that was the case.
The 911 operator did not tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin. The 911 operator said, "We don't need you to do that."
That's not direction. The 911 operator isn't telling Zimmerman ANYTHING with that statement. To wit: I don't need YOU to breathe. If you don't breathe, you'll die. MY needs are irrelevant. The 911 operator might just as well have said, "I dress my hamster in polka-dot Fruit of the Loom underwear."
Wow, that's an amazingly bad analogy. BadAnalogyGuy would be disappointed.
Anway, you didn't address the point that one could argue that TM felt threatened by being followed, even though he'd shaken his pursuer at one time.
Though I suspect your response was designed to ignore that pertinent bit.
No. SYG laws are easily misunderstood.
In general, they allow an individual to use force in self defense when they believe that they are faced with an unlawful threat. The keyword there is unlawful. Following someone may be intimidating but it is not unlawful. Similarly, the moment that TM ditched GZ he was no longer faced with any threat.
Fair enough, though if TM ditched GM, only to have GM reappear, within striking distance (i.e. a few paces), then one could argue there was a threat. If I were being followed, managed to lose my follower, only to have them reappear, I'd be questioning my safety.
And, since GM was told by 911 to not pursue (am I remembering that correctly?), while it might not be unlawful, it would certainly be inadvisable since representatives of the authorities instructed him thus.
At least I could imagine all that being a worthwhile argument in court.
Not sure we'll ever get the truth though; I read that witness statements changed over time, rendering them useless. They contradicted their own previous statements, etc.
Just a mess all around.
The defense has argued that Trayvon was the aggressor and are going to see if his school records and online life back that up. The internet is not some parallel dimension with no relationship to our real lives. If Trayvon was into "Thug Life", MMA, etc... or was suspended for getting into fist fights at school (he was suspended at least 3 times) then this is relevant to the case at hand as it makes the notion that he attacked Zimmerman more believable.
But if Zimmerman were following Martin around, perhaps making Martin feel threatened, and Martin attacked Zimmerman, isn't Martin the one "Standing his ground"? Albeit without a gun?
Here's why I think it's so blatantly obvious you're wrong about evidence being excluded (unless the Crown simply says, "Here's what we have - straight from Anonymous"):
From a story in today's Globe & Mail about a CS teacher that copied an email attachment from an email between students (i.e. he wasn't involved with producing the picture):
Followed by this:
I reiterate the statement, "The exclusion of the material would have a marked negative impact on the truth-seeking function of the criminal trial process".
There-in lies a critical aspect of Canadian jurisprudence: absolutes can, when followed with unwavering enthusiasm, lead to an impairment of the pursuit of justice.
Also note that the Court found that the police should have had a warrant, but didn't. However, the Justices found that the police could've obtained one easily had they asked (they searched the computer at request of the owner of the computer), so it wasn't a big deal, although one Justice dissented.
It's a very interesting read about the flexibility of the system when trying to achieve a just resolution.
I could give two shits about 'finalise' v 'finalize', potato/potahto or other musket v. rifle instances.
I agree 100%, except for "I could give two shits". It makes no sense! It ought to be "I couldn't give..."
How is that, exactly?
Myself, I'm happy to give at least two shits toward the most meaningless concepts -- it is not as if I, myself, have any remaining use for the shit.
I think it come from refusing the effort involved in the simplest task, taking a shit (or 2). Hence usually, "I don't give a shit" or "I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire and I had a six pack in me ready to burst out."
I could give two shits about 'finalise' v 'finalize', potato/potahto or other musket v. rifle instances.
I agree 100%, except for "I could give two shits". It makes no sense! It ought to be "I couldn't give..."
Okay, done with my daily pissing-into-the-wind ritual.
Cheers
She said she was alone and had no one helping her.
She said she "had nobody" and "needed someone" - she very likely meant a friend, as opposed to a parent. Even the most supportive parents aren't a substitute for a friend.
She called for help to random strangers on the Internet.
She seems to have told her story on the internet as a warning for others.
Clearly, her parents were not helping her. They probably weren't even aware of her problems. The reason the girl didn't tell them is probably that she believed they wouldn't understand or be of any help, which is a sign of bad parent-child relationship.
Clueless parents not able to connect with their children and help them in times or need are to blame.
Clearly the only one clueless is you.
While awaiting her father to pick her up from school, she was beaten up by a group of girls, and dumped in a muddy puddle. Her father found her laying in a ditch. Her parents and others received pictures from her web cam mistake. She moved schools 3 times, moved house twice I believe. She'd also OD'd too and spent time in the hospital, so they knew that.
Her parents were aware of something going on. What else should they have done? Left the city? The province? Maybe, but they have Facebook in $other_city, $other_prov too - the perpetrator would've just followed her.
Her mother said she'd been doing quite a bit better recently, up until *just* before her death, so they seemed quite involved.
Every time something bad and/or embarrassing happened to you at that age, did you run to your parents? Wouldn't that have resulted in even more tormenting at school, "loufoque is a mommies boy", etc.?
The website's logs of Facebook, abc.com, xyz.com doesn't show signs of tampering but they do not validate them on a regular basis so no we cannot verify them either. Further more, we found the defendant's computer was loaded with nasties also. and being a windows machine, we are in the same boat.
Judge: You can forget using the evidence then.
Jury: what makes you think he did what again?
It just doesn't work like that.
a) it is not (IMHO) a reasonable doubt raised when claiming Facebook, Hotmail, etc. were all hacked to implicate a then-unknown guy who admits he knew the kid (let's see how many messages she sent him to his real accounts), and has a history of sexual offences against minors. If company xyz has their data is backed up to tape or across multiple data centres, it's going to be very hard to argue it was tampered with. Several of the jury members would probably use social media themselves, possibly the judge too, so they might trust it to some point already.
b) evidence that was obtained illegitimately cannot be used, but if that same info can be obtained through other channels, especially ones that police would be expected to follow, then it's in.
I just cannot see how this would work against prosecution unless he's destroyed evidence on his own computer. But while there might have been some, there's bound to be plenty more elsewhere.
Neither a judge nor jury is going to buy everything the defense throws at them. Malware on her computer will have nothing to do with anything.
I'm pretty sure that most of the evidence could be tossed out before it even gets presented. and if other evidence is gained from poisoned evidence, there is a good chance it will be bared too (unless Canada doesn't do the poisoned fruit thing).
We do have the "poisoned fruit" concept, though not called that to my (limited) knowledge.
I seem to recall a case where dubiously obtained evidence was admitted due to the heinous nature of the crime (remember no other details).
I do remember a BC case where a guy was caught with kilos of marijuana in his trunk. His defense was that he supplies a "compassion club" and may have even had a license to grow (forget that part). Judge said.
"not guilty," and "give him back his pot". (!)
Regardless, outing him may allow him to destroy evidence that he has control over (assuming Anonymous didn't tip the police days before going public), however just because his name was publicized doesn't mean that there won't be many other avenues available to obtain evidence enough for a conviction. That should apply to USA too.
Sorry for a double-reply, just meant to point out that the concept isn't uniquely American...
Just over a year ago, my daughter was murdered.
Condolences!
Perhaps piggy back on another story, in hope that someone will be able to render some assistance?
If that's what it takes, then yes.
I wish I had more to offer.
Part of the story can be found here - Remember Rose French
I have that open in another tab and shall read it at a later time.
Best of luck.
Police: Let's have a look at her computer and see where she had accounts.
Police: Hey Facebook et al: give us the logs of everyone that contacted her, especially user123 and userXYZ that we saw requested her to do [$naughty_thing].
Facebook et al: Okay, here you go.
Police: Hi Crown Prosecutor (i.e. DA): here's IP addresses, user info for users a, b, & c. We think b & c look suspicious but only c is in Canada, and inside your jurisdiction. Warrant please?
Crown: Okay, here you go.
Police: Serve warrant, gather further evidence (likely a fair bit that would be of interest to the FBI too!), back to Crown: here's the evidence.
Crown: looks at evidence, draws up charges, goes to trial.
Defense: Innocent! Anonymous inserted my client's IP into the logs of Facebook, abc.com, xyz.com, and all those other sites where a user with the user name [$my_clients_firstname]1234 logged in from an IP given to him by ISP [$some_ISP]. Anonymous, um, sat outside his house and created these accounts through Wifi hacking, over the course of years. Um, yeah!
Judge / jury: "Guilty, unanimous"
Easy to get around Anonymous' leaks.
Whose fault was it?
Her parents.
I mean, what were they thinking stuffing her up with such prudery that she came to believe her life was over once she'd bared her breasts and it became public?
What. The. Fuck?
Her parents? I have heard nothing about them giving her grief when some asshole sent them, the kid's friends, and apparently teachers photos of the kid's boobs. They seemed to have been nothing but supportive.
It was getting beaten up, blackmailed, bullied, and harassed across something like 3 schools and 2 homes and 2 or 3 years that seemed to have driven her over the brink.
I've seen absolutely zero indication her parents were prudes nor that they didn't do everything they could to support her.
And you say it's their fault for not being able to instill a sense of calm rationality on a lonely, depressed, desperate young teen when calm rationality is exactly what kids that age are known for not possessing?
If I were her dad, I'd have sat her down and told her, "Blow it all off. It don't matter, and they're all just jealous, or pervs. You be proud of yourself. Besides (lifts his shirt), look at me. I've got a chest and even nipples. Big deal. Now go play with your friends and don't worry about it. Stand tall girl. You've nothing to be ashamed of."
You think showing her your boobs would make things better?
Oh, and she didn't have any friends, so "go play with your friends" is just going to rub that fact in.
I wish I could tell this to every kid entering puberty. Just stick it out, and when you get used to those hormones raging through you, you'll be able to handle it and will probably even enjoy it. It's just a phase we all go through. Hang in there. It won't be long now.
Oh, and the next time you see that jerk, kick him right in his piss-pump, just so he'll never forget how stupid he was letting you get away.
She never met "that jerk" - he set up fake Facebook profiles, friended her peers while posing as a soon-to-be new student at their school, then turned them against her. And he sent them all pics of her flashing the web cam.
And he's (if Anonymous is to be believed) ~30 years old, so he didn't "let her get away".
I have never seen a +5 that was so far off the mark.
Yes, what happened is tragic.
Yes, the guy who talked her into exposing herself is a creep (and possibly a pedophile)
But does she really have anyone to blame but herself? Seriously, some random guy on the Internet asks her to show her tits and she does it? Really??
Additionally, "cuber-bullying" is just the next wave of technophobic, attention-grabbing idiocy by the media. People get bullied every day in school and we just expect that. But this is happening on THE INTERNET, OH NO!! .
By any measure, "cyber-bullying" is a whole lot easier to shrug off because ... well, y'know that little X in the top, right-hand corner of your chat window? Click it.
She switched schools after the "cyber-bullying", was tracked down, had her boobs pic sent to friends, parents, etc.
She moved & changed schools, and it happened again.
This was not going to be solved by closing a desktop window. Nor was it confined to the Internet.
And, now listen to this you asshole, she was 13 years old when she flashed her boobs. You're going to hold her responsible when she's years away from a driver's license, never mind adulthood? That's the same mindset the sicko had that blackmailed her for further sexual imagery, "hey, she deserved it, she consented", etc.
How about the situation where a prosecution cannot be successful now. A clear line of defense is- all your evidence was planted by a group of hackers upset because I made an indecent comment about them or the recently deceased. We already know they "hacked" into things to get the information and make their declarations. I'm betting that most all evidence against him outside of a confession could be tossed aside as not reliable now. No one from anonymous would be likely to come out and admit it was them and ensure the evidence is legit.
Unlikely. He can argue that Anonymous inserted his IP address into Facebook's log files, for example, but neither a judge nor a jury is likely to believe it. And Facebook (again as an example) would have someone highly qualified to testify against the possibility.
Also, police can find other ways to tie him to it (if it's him): log files, tips, etc. They likely can easily get around the fact that Anonymous outed him.
If Anonymous has material evidence that points to the guilt of a particular individual, they should turn that evidence over to the responsible law enforcement agency, not go public and taint both the investigation and public opinion.
From CTV's website:
It sounds like they did send it to police ("were compelled to").
Also, while neither of us is judge or jury, there is this:
From CTV's website:
Emphasis added.
Sounds like a fairly good bet they've got the right guy, but we'll have to wait & see - hopefully it goes to trial.
I'd like someone to explain to me why my pet theory is "not even wrong".
The theory goes something like this: as something falls below the Event Horizon, the gravity slows time down until it stops, meaning the thing never reaches the centre, so the singularity is never actually reached. Hence black holes have varying sizes & masses and aren't simply a point with an EH around it.
After all, if the singularity were true, wouldn't all black holes be merely a singularity with an EH?
Can you briefly explain how wrong I am & why?
Thanks!
I often put a "Happy Birthday _____" comment in code I was writing, along with @author and @date.
In your case, I'd put a little one line dedication in HTML comments which won't impact the project's efficiency but will put the dedication onto all users' computers (where a PHP comment wouldn't get loaded in the browser, for example).
Also a note in the About page would be fine. I'd do both.
Oh, and condolences.