Buddy of mine retired last May. Within a week or so, "See mans" came out with a voluntary retirement program. If he'd stayed 30 more days, he could've been eligible for 3 months pay for retiring just the same. It's hard to know these things ahead of time.
But as someone else pointed out below, this isn't actually a "honey pot": it's more like a prostitution sting of an only sort-of willing participant. For example, say John goes down to the red-light district - in itself not a crime - and mills about checking out the honeys. One comes up and starts sweet-talking him, but he doesn't go for the bait. She keeps pushing it, maybe talking very suggestively, and he still doesn't bite. Finally, she flashes some skin, John pops a boner, John relents and says, "Why not?" Then she reveals that she's a cop and busts him.
It doesn't sound like the John was asking the going rates, in some of these cases, or offering cash in advance. For all we know, these "criminals" would've just stuck to their fantasies and nothing more if they hadn't been seduced.
So... we lock up -all- witless patsies? If you count typical Republicans - a bunch of hostile, witless patsies if ever I saw any - that's gonna be a lot of people in jail.
Because we can't trust programmers to be smart enough to avoid these conditions...?
My pocket knife can be used in a completely safe manner. It can also be used in a completely unsafe manner. How it's used it up to me. Because it can be used dangerously doesn't mean that we shouldn't have pocket knives.
The Model 100 came out about the time I turned 18 and got an inheritance from my grand-father's estate. It was about five thousand bucks. Money was really tight and my new wife and I went round after round "discussing" whether it was more important that I get one of these devices or pay for something more "realistic" like things for the baby soon to arrive. I got one, but it wasn't pleasant. I still remember driving home from RS - had my wife drive so I could play with it - and being utterly enthralled with my new purchase.
Yes, the money probably could've been spent more prudently, but that computer helped launch my career in technology which has been, for the most part, very rewarding - my wife's not complaining about money, at least. After nearly 30 years, my wife doesn't argue so much about what I buy, my son has grown up and is doing just fine on his own, and my Model 100 is on the shelf right behind me. Still works, just like the day I got it.
No, the proposition was that the FBI simply could not avoid taking the entire machine with them. That's baloney. And they didn't need to provide any further warning for the raid, either. It's simple: Walk in unannounced, seize the machine, dupe the drive, put the new one in, take the original, machine is back in business. This is not exceptionally onerous for the FBI. We in the real world do it all the time. They just don't care about the people they raid, or collateral damage. I'm gonna say that's because there's practically no accountability. What is a sys-admin to do when the FBI shows up and takes the entire machine? Exactly: stand there and watch, and hope they don't shoot you, taze you, or arrest you for resisting arrest.
And it's nothing to do with taking the computer that rubs some of us the wrong way: it's the total authoritarian attitude and behavior from the FBI. S'pose anyone could call up and ask for that machine back, or any further information about the investigation? Good luck with that. America fought against that shit when it came from King George. Why should we tolerate it any better when it's internal? It's still wrong.
I would argue that anonymous == private. If you don't know who's saying it, it doesn't really matter what's being said or who hears it: my ability to communicate with whomever is safe. To a point, of course. Giving up obvious tactical information, for example - "The Harlequin will attend the meeting at 10:00, dammit, on time!" - kind of defeats the purpose, if you're the Harlequin trying to evade capture. And, yes, I know he showed up early in that instance.
In the Pitt case, one person is broadcasting to all and sundry and he's not hiding anything in the message. And his message is clearly unlawful and unsupportable. However, it doesn't have to be that way. It could be a message that's understood only by two people - "The monkeys are restless and my dog has fleas." - even if it is in the clear.
I don't think I need to argue that private communication is an absolute must. Consider how well the American revolution, for example, would have progressed if every citizen was prohibited from communicating privately.
As little as I appreciate the FBI, you can't fault their approach. Always ask for more than you need: you might not get it - but then again, you just might.
Well, duh. Anyone using them must be a terrorist. People who don't hate America don't hide their communications. It makes it hard for the authorities to keep track of what everyone is doing. There's no good reason to want that, unless you hate America!/geezIhopenoonetakesthisseriously...
Ya know, there was something funny about all those planes flying into buildings and what-not on 9/11. Kind of makes you wonder how all of that could've happened right under the noses of our ever-vigilant authorities. Unless it was an inside job... Nah - couldn't be...
Well, hell, in that case, let's nuke NYC, LA, DC, Detroit, etc. There's gotta be more than a few criminals in those towns. Sucks for the collateral damage, but, you know, gotta weed out those bad guys. They probably hate America, too, so all the more reason.
Who needs legislation when the Pres has Executive Orders and legal council that will parse those orders 10 ways cubed to justify, if not make it look like the very definition of the "American Ideal" when, in fact, he's shitting on the Constitution? Remember "water boarding"? Was there any legislation for that? How about "extraordinary rendition"? "Free speech zones"?
If you don't totally support our efforts to make China and North Korea look like bastions of freedom in comparison, then you must be a terrorist! There is no in between, citizen! Why do you hate America?
"Wasn't available in this case." Oh, I'm sure it was available. The FBI is just carrying on its proud tradition of not giving a fuck. It's more "bad ass" that way. In fact, I can see agents rehearsing in the mirror: "That's right, mofo, I'm takin' it. Whatcha gonna do about it... Punk?"
Man, you would not believe the rush you get from going all commando on racks of servers. "Blink those lights funny at me, beeyotch, and I'll bust a cap right between your USB ports!"
It's not unreasonable for the board to have to convene to discuss issues before the board because the board doesn't decide -every- issue that goes on within the district: the superintendent on down takes care of a lot of day-to-day things. Our board typically met every two weeks because it took about that long to develop enough material to discuss at our regular meetings. Even then, a lot of things were routine matters: approval for expenditures, etc. Some months, especially in the summer, we'd meet only once. Once in a while, if we had a pressing matter to discuss, we'd call a special session. They were to handle single issues that needed immediate attention. And, yes, the district secretary would call the local paper to announce it.
I agree that every means available - if it doesn't appreciably add to the tax-payers' burden - should be used to get the word out and inform members of the community: board meeting attendance was always pretty low, except when there were emotional "hot spot" issues - like cutting a sports program - up for discussion.
However, what's to force those same four or more board members who are already violating Sunshine laws to use the "official" email or forum tool, FB page, what-have-you? Bush and the RNC were, in fact, wrong for using private email to conduct state business, evading laws related to retaining records in the process. Didn't stop them.
The article in question - the lawsuit in Virginia - actually would not be in violation of Sunshine laws in NY. I would regularly email the board president with questions. However, if the number of people on the email list ever reached a quorum, then the matter had to be discussed in public.
Elected officials are going to do skeezy things. The whole point of rounding up board members and making the discussions open to the public was to minimize that and increase accountability. I don't see technology making a dent in changing the behavior of some officials, or improving transparency in the process. Instead, it's easier to ignore people - and thereby silence them - when they're not in the room.
- Most of the things discussed by the board, typically, were high-level things, like selecting architects for new buildings, or the budget, approving curricula, etc. Smaller things like designing posters wasn't a task for the board.
- The cost of these meetings is less than $100; probably closer to $50. Board members are volunteers. The secretary gets a small stipend. Security and staff are there, anyway, so there's no extra cost. There's a small cart with soda and cookies, sometimes. It's not a lavish event. "Advertising" usually means a blurb in the local paper. The budget for board meetings for the entire year might have been $5,000, when I served a few years ago.
- You're missing my earlier point: I didn't know about some of the things that had already been discussed and decided among other board members because they didn't want me to know. Putting it on the agenda was something akin to "after the fact." Four or more of them had, in violation of Sunshine laws, decided what the board was going to do and then "discussed it publicly," which was simply a farce followed by a quick rubber-stamp vote. This is kind of the point behind the lawsuit in the article: boards are supposed to be open to the public. They're often not. In fact, they're often not open to duly elected board members.
I'm not opposed to technology making things more accessible. I am opposed to people with agendas subverting the system for their own selfish ends.
Does this mean that any time three members want to get together to discuss things as trivial as the design of a poster it must be a public meeting?
Yes. In fact, if you and a few of the other board members happen to meet up at the local bar after a public session, and discuss what happened in the meeting or any work related to the entity to which you were elected, you could be in violation of your state's rules. The reason is so that these discussions and decisions are made in public view, considering that it's the public's money usually involved.
New board members are - at my district - given an introductory packet that warns against violating the Sunshine laws like this. However, board members still violate the rules: the other members of the school board on which I sat did it all the time. I'd walk in to a meeting, unaware that things were discussed and decided before I even had a chance to hear the proposal.
Slashdot Mirror
Buddy of mine retired last May. Within a week or so, "See mans" came out with a voluntary retirement program. If he'd stayed 30 more days, he could've been eligible for 3 months pay for retiring just the same. It's hard to know these things ahead of time.
Sorry for your dad, bud...
Hi, I'm slashdot - have we met?
Idiots spewing BS without reading the article, let alone the summary, is a time-honored tradition.
But as someone else pointed out below, this isn't actually a "honey pot": it's more like a prostitution sting of an only sort-of willing participant. For example, say John goes down to the red-light district - in itself not a crime - and mills about checking out the honeys. One comes up and starts sweet-talking him, but he doesn't go for the bait. She keeps pushing it, maybe talking very suggestively, and he still doesn't bite. Finally, she flashes some skin, John pops a boner, John relents and says, "Why not?" Then she reveals that she's a cop and busts him.
It doesn't sound like the John was asking the going rates, in some of these cases, or offering cash in advance. For all we know, these "criminals" would've just stuck to their fantasies and nothing more if they hadn't been seduced.
So... we lock up -all- witless patsies? If you count typical Republicans - a bunch of hostile, witless patsies if ever I saw any - that's gonna be a lot of people in jail.
Really wish I had mod points today. +5 ironic.
Citation, please.
Because we can't trust programmers to be smart enough to avoid these conditions...?
My pocket knife can be used in a completely safe manner. It can also be used in a completely unsafe manner. How it's used it up to me. Because it can be used dangerously doesn't mean that we shouldn't have pocket knives.
Nah, dude, I paid list. The rest I used to have Van Halen play at my birthday bash. It was awesome! /Iwish
The Model 100 came out about the time I turned 18 and got an inheritance from my grand-father's estate. It was about five thousand bucks. Money was really tight and my new wife and I went round after round "discussing" whether it was more important that I get one of these devices or pay for something more "realistic" like things for the baby soon to arrive. I got one, but it wasn't pleasant. I still remember driving home from RS - had my wife drive so I could play with it - and being utterly enthralled with my new purchase.
Yes, the money probably could've been spent more prudently, but that computer helped launch my career in technology which has been, for the most part, very rewarding - my wife's not complaining about money, at least. After nearly 30 years, my wife doesn't argue so much about what I buy, my son has grown up and is doing just fine on his own, and my Model 100 is on the shelf right behind me. Still works, just like the day I got it.
No, the proposition was that the FBI simply could not avoid taking the entire machine with them. That's baloney. And they didn't need to provide any further warning for the raid, either. It's simple: Walk in unannounced, seize the machine, dupe the drive, put the new one in, take the original, machine is back in business. This is not exceptionally onerous for the FBI. We in the real world do it all the time. They just don't care about the people they raid, or collateral damage. I'm gonna say that's because there's practically no accountability. What is a sys-admin to do when the FBI shows up and takes the entire machine? Exactly: stand there and watch, and hope they don't shoot you, taze you, or arrest you for resisting arrest.
And it's nothing to do with taking the computer that rubs some of us the wrong way: it's the total authoritarian attitude and behavior from the FBI. S'pose anyone could call up and ask for that machine back, or any further information about the investigation? Good luck with that. America fought against that shit when it came from King George. Why should we tolerate it any better when it's internal? It's still wrong.
I would argue that anonymous == private. If you don't know who's saying it, it doesn't really matter what's being said or who hears it: my ability to communicate with whomever is safe. To a point, of course. Giving up obvious tactical information, for example - "The Harlequin will attend the meeting at 10:00, dammit, on time!" - kind of defeats the purpose, if you're the Harlequin trying to evade capture. And, yes, I know he showed up early in that instance.
In the Pitt case, one person is broadcasting to all and sundry and he's not hiding anything in the message. And his message is clearly unlawful and unsupportable. However, it doesn't have to be that way. It could be a message that's understood only by two people - "The monkeys are restless and my dog has fleas." - even if it is in the clear.
I don't think I need to argue that private communication is an absolute must. Consider how well the American revolution, for example, would have progressed if every citizen was prohibited from communicating privately.
As little as I appreciate the FBI, you can't fault their approach. Always ask for more than you need: you might not get it - but then again, you just might.
Well, duh. Anyone using them must be a terrorist. People who don't hate America don't hide their communications. It makes it hard for the authorities to keep track of what everyone is doing. There's no good reason to want that, unless you hate America! /geezIhopenoonetakesthisseriously...
Ya know, there was something funny about all those planes flying into buildings and what-not on 9/11. Kind of makes you wonder how all of that could've happened right under the noses of our ever-vigilant authorities. Unless it was an inside job... Nah - couldn't be...
Well, hell, in that case, let's nuke NYC, LA, DC, Detroit, etc. There's gotta be more than a few criminals in those towns. Sucks for the collateral damage, but, you know, gotta weed out those bad guys. They probably hate America, too, so all the more reason.
Who needs legislation when the Pres has Executive Orders and legal council that will parse those orders 10 ways cubed to justify, if not make it look like the very definition of the "American Ideal" when, in fact, he's shitting on the Constitution? Remember "water boarding"? Was there any legislation for that? How about "extraordinary rendition"? "Free speech zones"?
If you don't totally support our efforts to make China and North Korea look like bastions of freedom in comparison, then you must be a terrorist! There is no in between, citizen! Why do you hate America?
/snark
"Wasn't available in this case." Oh, I'm sure it was available. The FBI is just carrying on its proud tradition of not giving a fuck. It's more "bad ass" that way. In fact, I can see agents rehearsing in the mirror: "That's right, mofo, I'm takin' it. Whatcha gonna do about it... Punk?"
Man, you would not believe the rush you get from going all commando on racks of servers. "Blink those lights funny at me, beeyotch, and I'll bust a cap right between your USB ports!"
Or some PHB thought it would be a good idea and, at the very least, he could say he tried it. "Leave no stone unturned," you know.
In short: keep your hands off-a-my yoke until you WTFU!
It's not unreasonable for the board to have to convene to discuss issues before the board because the board doesn't decide -every- issue that goes on within the district: the superintendent on down takes care of a lot of day-to-day things. Our board typically met every two weeks because it took about that long to develop enough material to discuss at our regular meetings. Even then, a lot of things were routine matters: approval for expenditures, etc. Some months, especially in the summer, we'd meet only once. Once in a while, if we had a pressing matter to discuss, we'd call a special session. They were to handle single issues that needed immediate attention. And, yes, the district secretary would call the local paper to announce it.
I agree that every means available - if it doesn't appreciably add to the tax-payers' burden - should be used to get the word out and inform members of the community: board meeting attendance was always pretty low, except when there were emotional "hot spot" issues - like cutting a sports program - up for discussion.
However, what's to force those same four or more board members who are already violating Sunshine laws to use the "official" email or forum tool, FB page, what-have-you? Bush and the RNC were, in fact, wrong for using private email to conduct state business, evading laws related to retaining records in the process. Didn't stop them.
The article in question - the lawsuit in Virginia - actually would not be in violation of Sunshine laws in NY. I would regularly email the board president with questions. However, if the number of people on the email list ever reached a quorum, then the matter had to be discussed in public.
Elected officials are going to do skeezy things. The whole point of rounding up board members and making the discussions open to the public was to minimize that and increase accountability. I don't see technology making a dent in changing the behavior of some officials, or improving transparency in the process. Instead, it's easier to ignore people - and thereby silence them - when they're not in the room.
A few points:
- Most of the things discussed by the board, typically, were high-level things, like selecting architects for new buildings, or the budget, approving curricula, etc. Smaller things like designing posters wasn't a task for the board.
- The cost of these meetings is less than $100; probably closer to $50. Board members are volunteers. The secretary gets a small stipend. Security and staff are there, anyway, so there's no extra cost. There's a small cart with soda and cookies, sometimes. It's not a lavish event. "Advertising" usually means a blurb in the local paper. The budget for board meetings for the entire year might have been $5,000, when I served a few years ago.
- You're missing my earlier point: I didn't know about some of the things that had already been discussed and decided among other board members because they didn't want me to know. Putting it on the agenda was something akin to "after the fact." Four or more of them had, in violation of Sunshine laws, decided what the board was going to do and then "discussed it publicly," which was simply a farce followed by a quick rubber-stamp vote. This is kind of the point behind the lawsuit in the article: boards are supposed to be open to the public. They're often not. In fact, they're often not open to duly elected board members.
I'm not opposed to technology making things more accessible. I am opposed to people with agendas subverting the system for their own selfish ends.
Yes. In fact, if you and a few of the other board members happen to meet up at the local bar after a public session, and discuss what happened in the meeting or any work related to the entity to which you were elected, you could be in violation of your state's rules. The reason is so that these discussions and decisions are made in public view, considering that it's the public's money usually involved.
New board members are - at my district - given an introductory packet that warns against violating the Sunshine laws like this. However, board members still violate the rules: the other members of the school board on which I sat did it all the time. I'd walk in to a meeting, unaware that things were discussed and decided before I even had a chance to hear the proposal.
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.