My mother was terribly afraid of those statistics and urged me to stay in a small town where there were fewer people. I don't think she understood that percent means "per hundred".
On the other hand, I pretty much knew all the madmen in Chatham by sight (;-)) less so in Tranna.
In most of the world, if a court says to, for example, "seal" someone's juvenile records, it doesn't expect newspapers to erase them from their archives, but merely to not cite (old form of "link to") them in current publications. Changing to that would be a huge change in settled law, and would cause angry litigation over censorship.
in the original Spanish case, Mario Costeja González specifically asked for the old, obsolete articles to be added to the site's ROBOTS.TXT file, which is the modern equivalent.
As I submitted to the Canadian privacy commission, this is what sites in Canada should do, is within the powers of the commissioner to order, and has no special cost to innocent third parties such as Google.
I've noticed that the technologies change quite slowly, but the buzzwords are redefined annually (;-))
For example, Communicating Sequential Processes were first described in a 1978 paper by Tony Hoare, but only widely adopted by Golang folks in the 200Xs.
Just FYI, in the EU the cost of payment processing is a fraction of a percent. A former employer would have loved to use their EU processor for US debts. Alas, no dice!
That's narrowly a US decision, and US criminal law is per-state: always seek advice from a lawyer licensed for the state in question.
In Canada, the law is country-wide, and in the case cited, one might well choose to call the police and charge the business with attempting to obtain goods or services upon a false and fraudulent pretence, that they can refuse to accept legal tender. At the very least, you could cause apoplexy (;-)) What the courts will eventually decide is not guaranteed, but I suspect there is at least one case (the essentials of life being purchased by a minor) where the vendor will never get to refuse service.
Canada and the US used to have an agreement about currency exchange: I had to use Canadian money in Ohio once, as there was no nearby bank, and it was quite happily accepted at a discount.
I'd suggest that diseconomies of scale bite everyone. I had the doubtful pleasure of dealing with large merchant banks and computer software providers in a previous life, and they were actually more dysfunctional than my city government. Scary stuff!
Signatures allow me to say "I didn't sign this", not "I did". It's to protect us from banks. Chip and pin has been broken since 2010. For example, see https://www.lightbluetouchpape...
Banks in the UK successfully scammed the courts for years with chip-and-pin, claiming that it was poor user security that allowed all frauds.
It ran on at least CTSS, the Incompatible Timesharing System and Multics. Someone has one for Linux: it says "want cookie!" until you type 'cookie", then disappears.
Two upgrades ago it was fine, but with the last two, out of luck. A colleague with the same phone has the same problem: I think they back-ported a bug (:-))
Ontario was trying one, but Mr Ford II canceled it before we had collected any real data. It was being run for the province by a former candidate for head of the Federal Conservative party, Hugh Siegel. who was very interested in the numbers.
--dave
[Full disclosure: I campaigned for Hugh in the leadership campaign]
Not entirely: if it's done by a bailiff instead of a party, it's not refusable. Think of it as a civil version of a "no knock" search warrant, as it exist for the same purpose, to prevent the destruction of evidence.
Even if you have lawyers working pro-bono, the other side can drag it out until you run out of money. By, for example, getting a court order saying you have to close down your business.
If you read the cited article as well as CanLII, you can see how it was spun. This is a real problem in "access to justice", in that a company with both a good lawyer and a good PR advisor can make a case to the motions judge that successfully paints github as a criminal conspirator (:-))
It's been a problem for quite some time: in the 'States, there is a TV series based on the adventures of Dr Phil in his early career as a "jury consultant", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hire a group of really smart lawyers
- to convince a lower court to grant an "Anton Piller" order to allow one party to a suit to search the premises and seize evidence from the other party without prior warning.
- to go over a credible judgement by the lower court and make it sound like something a superior court will see as bad. That requires a lot of legal research, and also a very good PR plan to chose the arguments that will appeal to a superior court.
- to find a way to levy "costs against" before the case is even heard, effectively keeping the defendant from being able to afford high-priced help, and
To do so before the case is actually heard.
The legal team here is quite magical. I suspect they're also rather expensive.
--dave
See Bell Canada v. Lackman, 2018 FCA 42 (CanLII), , as retrieved on 2018-10-27
You don't arrest because of a facial recognition match. Facial recognition is merely partly replacing and partly augmenting the human based facial recognition process.
Mostly augmenting, at the risk of adding a larger margin of error than one would expect. In the case I mentioned, it was people being directed to extra screening by humans, who were appalled at the number of false positives. They had expected a quite small number of dangerous characters, and got a stream of innocent bystanders. The last straw was reputedly a person who really did look rather like one of the dangerous folks, but was the wrong sex and age group.
And yes, they really didn't understand what they were doing (;-))
If you have a 1% chance of a false positive or negative per comparison, and you try to compare 50 people to one another, you end up making (50 * 49) comparisons, for an overall error rate of 50 * 49 * 0.01 = 25%
The German Federal Security service reportedly identified someone grandma as a member of the Bader-Meinhof gang ("the red army factor") and dropped my employer's facial recognition system like a hot potato.
Therefore, buy only if you don't care about arresting innocent people, and, conversely, letting guilty ones walk free.
Slashdot Mirror
My mother was terribly afraid of those statistics and urged me to stay in a small town where there were fewer people. I don't think she understood that percent means "per hundred".
On the other hand, I pretty much knew all the madmen in Chatham by sight (;-)) less so in Tranna.
In most of the world, if a court says to, for example, "seal" someone's juvenile records, it doesn't expect newspapers to erase them from their archives, but merely to not cite (old form of "link to") them in current publications. Changing to that would be a huge change in settled law, and would cause angry litigation over censorship.
in the original Spanish case, Mario Costeja González specifically asked for the old, obsolete articles to be added to the site's ROBOTS.TXT file, which is the modern equivalent.
As I submitted to the Canadian privacy commission, this is what sites in Canada should do, is within the powers of the commissioner to order, and has no special cost to innocent third parties such as Google.
Canadian legal sites like CanLII (the Canadian Legal Information Institute) already do this. See https://leaflessca.wordpress.c...
--dave
I've noticed that the technologies change quite slowly, but the buzzwords are redefined annually (;-))
For example, Communicating Sequential Processes were first described in a 1978 paper by Tony Hoare, but only widely adopted by Golang folks in the 200Xs.
Just FYI, in the EU the cost of payment processing is a fraction of a percent. A former employer would have loved to use their EU processor for US debts. Alas, no dice!
That's narrowly a US decision, and US criminal law is per-state: always seek advice from a lawyer licensed for the state in question. In Canada, the law is country-wide, and in the case cited, one might well choose to call the police and charge the business with attempting to obtain goods or services upon a false and fraudulent pretence, that they can refuse to accept legal tender. At the very least, you could cause apoplexy (;-)) What the courts will eventually decide is not guaranteed, but I suspect there is at least one case (the essentials of life being purchased by a minor) where the vendor will never get to refuse service. Canada and the US used to have an agreement about currency exchange: I had to use Canadian money in Ohio once, as there was no nearby bank, and it was quite happily accepted at a discount.
I'd suggest that diseconomies of scale bite everyone. I had the doubtful pleasure of dealing with large merchant banks and computer software providers in a previous life, and they were actually more dysfunctional than my city government. Scary stuff!
Signatures allow me to say "I didn't sign this", not "I did". It's to protect us from banks. Chip and pin has been broken since 2010. For example, see https://www.lightbluetouchpape... Banks in the UK successfully scammed the courts for years with chip-and-pin, claiming that it was poor user security that allowed all frauds.
It ran on at least CTSS, the Incompatible Timesharing System and Multics. Someone has one for Linux: it says "want cookie!" until you type 'cookie", then disappears.
Two upgrades ago it was fine, but with the last two, out of luck. A colleague with the same phone has the same problem: I think they back-ported a bug (:-))
Ontario was trying one, but Mr Ford II canceled it before we had collected any real data. It was being run for the province by a former candidate for head of the Federal Conservative party, Hugh Siegel. who was very interested in the numbers.
--dave
[Full disclosure: I campaigned for Hugh in the leadership campaign]
I agree, but I suspect the various library authors won't (;-))
Containers are a good mitigation, but see https://research.swtch.com/ver... from Russ Cox for an overview of the underlying (really evil!) problem. My own views? https://leaflessca.wordpress.c... (and others)
He didn't think he was doing anything questionable: he was running a download and discussion site out of his home.
They convinced a motions judge, not a sitting government.
It's not the law, it's whether the parties are prepared to obey the law, or find a way around it by force or fraud. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/l...
Not entirely: if it's done by a bailiff instead of a party, it's not refusable. Think of it as a civil version of a "no knock" search warrant, as it exist for the same purpose, to prevent the destruction of evidence.
It's Bell here too. They're repeating a successful tactic, right down to the Anton Piller order.
Even if you have lawyers working pro-bono, the other side can drag it out until you run out of money. By, for example, getting a court order saying you have to close down your business.
Evil is as evil does
If you read the cited article as well as CanLII, you can see how it was spun. This is a real problem in "access to justice", in that a company with both a good lawyer and a good PR advisor can make a case to the motions judge that successfully paints github as a criminal conspirator (:-))
It's been a problem for quite some time: in the 'States, there is a TV series based on the adventures of Dr Phil in his early career as a "jury consultant", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hire a group of really smart lawyers
- to convince a lower court to grant an "Anton Piller" order to allow one party to a suit to search the premises and seize evidence from the other party without prior warning.
- to go over a credible judgement by the lower court and make it sound like something a superior court will see as bad. That requires a lot of legal research, and also a very good PR plan to chose the arguments that will appeal to a superior court.
- to find a way to levy "costs against" before the case is even heard, effectively keeping the defendant from being able to afford high-priced help, and
To do so before the case is actually heard.
The legal team here is quite magical. I suspect they're also rather expensive.
--dave
See Bell Canada v. Lackman, 2018 FCA 42 (CanLII), , as retrieved on 2018-10-27
Sort of like an easter card I got from a friend, "Heard your God died, hope he's feeling better soon".
https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2018/10/05/making-sense-of-the-supermicro-motherboard-attack/
"Perhaps the animation is an artist’s concept only, but this is just the right place to compromise the BMC.
That's the Security Group at the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, and they take no prisoners (;-))
Most countries do not have exit controls. Those that do aren't a good place to love.
You don't arrest because of a facial recognition match. Facial recognition is merely partly replacing and partly augmenting the human based facial recognition process.
Mostly augmenting, at the risk of adding a larger margin of error than one would expect. In the case I mentioned, it was people being directed to extra screening by humans, who were appalled at the number of false positives. They had expected a quite small number of dangerous characters, and got a stream of innocent bystanders. The last straw was reputedly a person who really did look rather like one of the dangerous folks, but was the wrong sex and age group.
And yes, they really didn't understand what they were doing (;-))
If you have a 1% chance of a false positive or negative per comparison, and you try to compare 50 people to one another, you end up making (50 * 49) comparisons, for an overall error rate of 50 * 49 * 0.01 = 25%
The German Federal Security service reportedly identified someone grandma as a member of the Bader-Meinhof gang ("the red army factor") and dropped my employer's facial recognition system like a hot potato.
Therefore, buy only if you don't care about arresting innocent people, and, conversely, letting guilty ones walk free.