Having done some considerable work with, e.g., Analyst's Notebook (http://www.i2inc.com/products/analysts_notebook/), metadata can be an incredibly powerful tool. When you can work with the information in a flexible manner and see the patterns emerge... Lots of things become clear, or at least point to powerful inferences.
Oh, man, that brings me back... We had a UnixWare system (Novell) with a bunch (64?) of RS232 serial ports via some Digi hardware (that never had Linux support, alas). We had a lab full of VT220 terminals we'd rescued from a dumpster, that people would use to login to the local UnixWare system, mostly to telnet out across a Rolm "dataphone" 19.2Kbps connection (managed by a couple of 386sx-16 machines with floppy drives and scripted KA9Q NOS installs) to the campus DEC microVAX running Ultrix and handling, via 'Pine', campus email.
The system as described wasn't the most reliable thing in the world, especially not initially (i.e., before I took over as admin;), and "Connection closed by remote host" messages weren't uncommon.
Every once in a while someone would use 'write' or 'wall' to send a message, complete with a couple of CTRL-G characters to cause bells to go off on the VT220s, to a user or all users with something like "Connection closed by your mother."
We were easily entertained in those days.
I miss `talk` and `ytalk`. And setting up Legend of the Red Dragon (L.O.R.D.) under DOSEMU to be accessible to people telnetting in.
There is no tier system. The submitter hasn't figured out that outside of academia, nobody really cares where you went to school only what you can actually do.
Tell that to the law firms / companies with attorney positions they're seeking to fill only with "top-tier academic credentialed" individuals...
they took the Leopard update, opened it up, modified files in it, and re-released it for themselves. I think they're considering that a copyright infringement.
Hmm, you mean, creating a derivative work? Wonder where anyone would get the idea that that's copyright infringement... Oh, yeah, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html17 USC 106!:)
It's also somewhat of a silly statistic, given that the supreme court rarely hears cases that it doesn't expect to overturn - if the general consensus is agreement, why would they hear the appeal unless it's important enough to "reinforce" the original court's decision?
There isn't anything controversial in the fact that they responded to the takedown notice. If they don't, they can lose their common carrier status and become liable for all content on their servers, which they surely do not want. If they fail to put the project back up given appropriate counter notice, that's controversial.
Sigh. Google doesn't have "common carrier" status ("common carrier" is a legal term of art with a specific meaning). What they'd lose, if they didn't act "expeditiously" to remove content complained about in a 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3) notice, is the DMCA's "safe harbor" protection.
Also, if they didn't put the content back up after a legally sufficient counter-notice, they'd lose a different aspect of their DMCA safe harbor; it's not "controversial," it's common sense.
Interestingly, back around 2001 or so had a friend who spent a few months in a California state prison who once sent me a handwritten letter marked up in XML and once in binary (literally, all ones and zeros; no, I didn't bother translating it). While XML is human-readable (more or less), I was amazed that they let the binary one go out.
Since s/he was only in for a few months, they were probably a relatively low-level offender (level 1 or 2), and not subject to nearly as much scrutiny as Reiser will be (he'll be a Close Custody inmate, almost certainly Level 4, based on his conviction crime and sentence (indeterminate-life at least, possibly LWOP).
But it might be a few years before he even gets a *radio*. Start with "your own roll of toilet paper in your cell".
Once he gets out of reception (2-4 months, depending on a variety of factors), he can buy a radio through commissary, or if he has support on the outside, they can send one as part of a quarterly package (i.e., through http://www.californiaqp.com/ etc).
Can he work on free software from jail? He won't commercially gain from the crime and he can contribute for the good of society as a whole (in fact, provide a benefit that the world can use).
California inmates are not permitted access to any networks, including (especially) the Internet. Personal electronics in the cells can only be those which have no memory function (i.e., plain-vanilla type writers, etc). There's no real prohibition against writing code in prison (though sending it out to the public might be problematic, as correspondence cannot be in 'code' -- would be an interesting, and probably futile, attempt to convince the COs that C/C++/whatever is a legitimate "language" for the purposes of personal correspondence), but he wouldn't be able to compile it. The computers the inmates do have (infrequent, highly controlled) access to are for training programs or for use in clerk-type positions only and are locked down (and running Windows, insert jokes about how effectively a Windows box can be locked down here).
(I have a few pro bono post-conviction-relief clients in CDCR custody, and I'm a mentor in a program that visits prisons to work one-on-one with soon-to-be-parolees.)
While IANAL, I have read that "tempting" someone to do something counts as entrapment.
No.
For the defense of entrapment is not simply that the particular act was committed at the instance of government officials. That is often the case where the proper action of these officials leads to the revelation of criminal enterprises. The predisposition and criminal design of the defendant are relevant. SORRELLS v. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932)
An example, off the top of my head - if I'm an undercover cop and I walk up to you on a shady street corner and ask if you're holding, and you sell me drugs, and I arrest you, if the evidence is sufficient to establish that you're a drug dealer independent of my initiating a drug sale transaction (e.g., you have other individually packaged quantities of drugs, I have corroborating witness testimony that has you dealing drugs, etc -- yes, this is character evidence, but an entrapment defense puts character in play and I can present it), guess what, even if you wouldn't have sold me drugs but for my request, it's not entrapment.
Oh, and no, asking "are you a cop," and my answer in the negative, doesn't constitute entrapment.
Ok, I'm not one to throw around the term willy nilly, but this seems like it fits the very definition of entrapment.
Not if you actually know the, you know, definition of entrapment. From the (approved on appeal) jury instructions from a recent case on the matter (note the logical and logic; all of the below elements must be met for an entrapment defense to work):
[A] defendant may not be convicted of a crime if it was the government who gave the defendant the idea to commit the crime, if it was the government who also persuaded him to commit the crime, and if he was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government officials or agent first spoke with him.
U.S. v. BRAND, 467 F.3d 179, 205 (2nd Cir. 2006)
Also, the crime(s) at issue here -- not related to the link-baiting that provided probable cause for the search warrant. Any entrapment defense would not be available against crime(s) discovered during the execution of said warrants.
Not without convincing SCOTUS of that; see, e.g., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (finding a First Amendment right to anonymous speech).
I'm not sure what you're talking about; I fly all the time (usually 253FD out of KSMO, sometimes 8074L if 253FD isn't available) and never have to interact with TSA at all.
Oh. You meant "pretend to be cattle by flying commercially." That's a different thing altogether.
I used to develop & sell software for PalmOS.
The IDE was $500, plus $150/year to upgrade.
I also develop(ed) for PalmOS, and never paid a dime for an SDK. Palm made the header files freely available, and linked on their site to PilRC and prc-tools, both of which were GNU-licensed (IIRC). Yeah, you could go the CodeWarrior route, but IMO Palm went out of their way to also make sure people knew about, and could effectively use, the free (software/beer) alternatives as well. Which might have something to do with the 50,000+ (or whatever the number is these days) Palm apps out there.
The number one reason I'm still using a Treo instead of an iPhone is my huge collection of oft-used home-grown and third party custom software. (I've been on a Palm since a 1999 IIIe, including a IIIc, Vx, and several Clies.)
Can I send 40 different versions of cease and desist letters to the US Copyright office and then sue any law firm that uses one that looks a bit too similar to one of mine?
Look up "independent creation" in copyright law...
But the horse is out of the barn insofar as existing code goes, if it's been distributed to anyone. Probably (I don't have the GPL in front of me, but I've worked with it a lot; IIRC the grant of rights is for the duration of copyright and is non-revocable). There's no tool he can use to rescind the rights so granted, and anyone who has a copy of the source from before this change of heart can continue to distribute under the terms of the GPL, as can anyone who gets a copy from one of those distributors.
As the owner of the copyright in the code, he doesn't need the GPL to make derivative works, etc., so anything he works on moving forward he can license how he chooses.
From my understanding, Admitting your password is akin to self-incrimination, and you are protected from that. Therefore, one should never have to forcibly admit their passwords.
I don't think you're right; the 5th has been held to only apply to testimonial evidence. E.g., you can't refuse to give blood or fingerprints, even if they're incriminating, because they're not straight testimony. That said, I don't know of an instance in U.S. law where a criminal defendant was compelled to produce encryption keys. To the contrary, in the Pellicano case, the government had to resort to attempting brute-force attacks; http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/business/13hollywood.html?pagewanted=print. This one's definitely not established law.
Slashdot Mirror
Having done some considerable work with, e.g., Analyst's Notebook (http://www.i2inc.com/products/analysts_notebook/), metadata can be an incredibly powerful tool. When you can work with the information in a flexible manner and see the patterns emerge ... Lots of things become clear, or at least point to powerful inferences.
Oh, man, that brings me back... We had a UnixWare system (Novell) with a bunch (64?) of RS232 serial ports via some Digi hardware (that never had Linux support, alas). We had a lab full of VT220 terminals we'd rescued from a dumpster, that people would use to login to the local UnixWare system, mostly to telnet out across a Rolm "dataphone" 19.2Kbps connection (managed by a couple of 386sx-16 machines with floppy drives and scripted KA9Q NOS installs) to the campus DEC microVAX running Ultrix and handling, via 'Pine', campus email.
The system as described wasn't the most reliable thing in the world, especially not initially (i.e., before I took over as admin ;), and "Connection closed by remote host" messages weren't uncommon.
Every once in a while someone would use 'write' or 'wall' to send a message, complete with a couple of CTRL-G characters to cause bells to go off on the VT220s, to a user or all users with something like "Connection closed by your mother."
We were easily entertained in those days.
I miss `talk` and `ytalk`. And setting up Legend of the Red Dragon (L.O.R.D.) under DOSEMU to be accessible to people telnetting in.
10base2 ran at 10 Mbps, not 2Mbps. The '2' was the original spec'd maximum cable run (10base2, 200 meters, 10base5, 500 meters).
Aw, shit...
Tell that to the law firms / companies with attorney positions they're seeking to fill only with "top-tier academic credentialed" individuals...
Hmm, you mean, creating a derivative work? Wonder where anyone would get the idea that that's copyright infringement... Oh, yeah, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html17 USC 106! :)
To resolve a circuit split?
Here's what happens when you go Intel... :) http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0CE2DF1739F931A25756C0A9649C8B63
...is online here: http://www.packetlaw.com/documents/public/MPAA_vs_ValenceMedia_final_judgment.pdf
Sigh. Google doesn't have "common carrier" status ("common carrier" is a legal term of art with a specific meaning). What they'd lose, if they didn't act "expeditiously" to remove content complained about in a 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3) notice, is the DMCA's "safe harbor" protection.
Also, if they didn't put the content back up after a legally sufficient counter-notice, they'd lose a different aspect of their DMCA safe harbor; it's not "controversial," it's common sense.
Since s/he was only in for a few months, they were probably a relatively low-level offender (level 1 or 2), and not subject to nearly as much scrutiny as Reiser will be (he'll be a Close Custody inmate, almost certainly Level 4, based on his conviction crime and sentence (indeterminate-life at least, possibly LWOP).
Once he gets out of reception (2-4 months, depending on a variety of factors), he can buy a radio through commissary, or if he has support on the outside, they can send one as part of a quarterly package (i.e., through http://www.californiaqp.com/ etc).
California inmates are not permitted access to any networks, including (especially) the Internet. Personal electronics in the cells can only be those which have no memory function (i.e., plain-vanilla type writers, etc). There's no real prohibition against writing code in prison (though sending it out to the public might be problematic, as correspondence cannot be in 'code' -- would be an interesting, and probably futile, attempt to convince the COs that C/C++/whatever is a legitimate "language" for the purposes of personal correspondence), but he wouldn't be able to compile it. The computers the inmates do have (infrequent, highly controlled) access to are for training programs or for use in clerk-type positions only and are locked down (and running Windows, insert jokes about how effectively a Windows box can be locked down here).
(I have a few pro bono post-conviction-relief clients in CDCR custody, and I'm a mentor in a program that visits prisons to work one-on-one with soon-to-be-parolees.)
The biggest question currently facing /. readers -- how will this play out against the NCC-1701 under construction teaser trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/)?
No.
An example, off the top of my head - if I'm an undercover cop and I walk up to you on a shady street corner and ask if you're holding, and you sell me drugs, and I arrest you, if the evidence is sufficient to establish that you're a drug dealer independent of my initiating a drug sale transaction (e.g., you have other individually packaged quantities of drugs, I have corroborating witness testimony that has you dealing drugs, etc -- yes, this is character evidence, but an entrapment defense puts character in play and I can present it), guess what, even if you wouldn't have sold me drugs but for my request, it's not entrapment.
Oh, and no, asking "are you a cop," and my answer in the negative, doesn't constitute entrapment.
Not if you actually know the, you know, definition of entrapment. From the (approved on appeal) jury instructions from a recent case on the matter (note the logical and logic; all of the below elements must be met for an entrapment defense to work):
U.S. v. BRAND, 467 F.3d 179, 205 (2nd Cir. 2006)Also, the crime(s) at issue here -- not related to the link-baiting that provided probable cause for the search warrant. Any entrapment defense would not be available against crime(s) discovered during the execution of said warrants.
Because someday, in the near (or far) future, the birthdate of Smokey may be of critical interest. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902 ;)
I'm not sure what you're talking about; I fly all the time (usually 253FD out of KSMO, sometimes 8074L if 253FD isn't available) and never have to interact with TSA at all.
Oh. You meant "pretend to be cattle by flying commercially." That's a different thing altogether.
I also develop(ed) for PalmOS, and never paid a dime for an SDK. Palm made the header files freely available, and linked on their site to PilRC and prc-tools, both of which were GNU-licensed (IIRC). Yeah, you could go the CodeWarrior route, but IMO Palm went out of their way to also make sure people knew about, and could effectively use, the free (software/beer) alternatives as well. Which might have something to do with the 50,000+ (or whatever the number is these days) Palm apps out there.
The number one reason I'm still using a Treo instead of an iPhone is my huge collection of oft-used home-grown and third party custom software. (I've been on a Palm since a 1999 IIIe, including a IIIc, Vx, and several Clies.)
Which joke-reference to make, Serpentor, or Kaaaaahn...
Or at least, not "the" seminal work on copyright; that would have to be Nimmer on Copyright (http://bookstore.lexis.com/bookstore/product/10441.html; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melville_Nimmer (work carried on by his son, David) ...), cited routinely by courts, including the Supreme Court.
Look up "independent creation" in copyright law...
But the horse is out of the barn insofar as existing code goes, if it's been distributed to anyone. Probably (I don't have the GPL in front of me, but I've worked with it a lot; IIRC the grant of rights is for the duration of copyright and is non-revocable). There's no tool he can use to rescind the rights so granted, and anyone who has a copy of the source from before this change of heart can continue to distribute under the terms of the GPL, as can anyone who gets a copy from one of those distributors.
As the owner of the copyright in the code, he doesn't need the GPL to make derivative works, etc., so anything he works on moving forward he can license how he chooses.
From my understanding, Admitting your password is akin to self-incrimination, and you are protected from that. Therefore, one should never have to forcibly admit their passwords.
I don't think you're right; the 5th has been held to only apply to testimonial evidence. E.g., you can't refuse to give blood or fingerprints, even if they're incriminating, because they're not straight testimony. That said, I don't know of an instance in U.S. law where a criminal defendant was compelled to produce encryption keys. To the contrary, in the Pellicano case, the government had to resort to attempting brute-force attacks; http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/business/13hollywood.html?pagewanted=print. This one's definitely not established law.