But the law as written isn't just for police or even just public servants. It applies to anyone accessing any computer system (even those they have access to, like a forum) that requires a password and doing something outside the terms of the AUP of that system. Nothing in the way that the law is written applies to accessing confidential information, just to breaching the AUP of the system.
The fact that a police officer was charged (and convicted) under this law seems to be occupying everyone's attention, but outside of this specific case (which just provides precedent) look at the breadth of how it could apply.
But the law she was charged under (Section 440A(2) of the WA Criminal Code) wasn't restricted to public servants accessing the records of close acquaintances. She was charged for breaching the AUP of the system
The law states that anyone who violates the AUP of any restricted access computer system has committed a criminal offence. As an example, I found a forum that requires a username and password to access it. So it is a restricted access computer system. The owners have an AUP. One of the things it forbids is "rudeness, insults, profanity, bad language". So to post something containing profanity is a breach of the AUP of that restricted access computer system... an offence under Section 440A(2).
Don't get me wrong - there needs to be laws covering improper access to restricted and/or private information, but this law seems a tad broad.
So you see nothing wrong at all with someone accessing your police records, credit rating, medicare records etc who has no reason to do so?
I think it's wrong, but they weren't charged with something quite so specific. From the link:
However, at the core of both is the unauthorised use of a restricted-access computer system. And that is an offence under the Criminal Code (WA). Section 440A(2) reads: (2) For the purposes of this section a person unlawfully uses a restrictedaccess computer system —
(a) if the person uses it when he or she is not properly authorised to do so; or
(b) if the person, being authorised to use it, uses it other than in accordance with his or her authorisation.
Remember, she was charged with breaching the AUP of the system, nothing else.
So, I read that as 'if you normally have access to a restricted access system (how about a forum that requires a username and password for posting?) and use it in a way you are not authorised to do so (like flaming, because that was forbidden by the AUP of the forum) then you could be criminally prosecuted.
The way the law is written, it seems as though this can apply to any 'misuse' (as defined by the AUP) of any restricted access system, not just those systems containing police records, credit ratings, medicare records, national security info, etc.
While it's obvious IANAL, the wording seems a little broad for my liking. The kind of "broad" the DPP likes to use when looking to boost the numbers for the quarterly stats.
Rather than straight out "off the shelf" devices, wouldn't they be better served by something equivalent to a Panasonic Toughbook. Maybe that could be covered by 3rd party cases (with built-in batteries) but an iPhone is something that requires a bit of protection even for everyday use.
True but there can come a point in an individual's life when they feel they can no longer participate in something for their own reasons, even if they know 99.999% of people don't care about their "protest".
They feel better about what they are doing and why they are doing it but don't feel the need to create converts by standing on a street corner telling everyone about it. Or taking over a TV station.
But once you've bought stuff, they are where you turn to for service.
I belong to a professional forum that has specific areas for commercial equipment. People sign up with their real names. Behaviour is monitored, but posts are not moderated. Company reps (both sales and service, sometimes that's the same guy) sign up and answer questions as they can, in addition to conversations being held by users.
If people are having trouble, they like to help because (1) you want people to use the stuff they've bought and (2) a happy customer will tell people about great service and buy more stuff.
When my daughter was three (now 4 1/2), she could plan a series of events and actions with an expected outcome quite well. I also saw her practicing emotions and facial expressions. When she got the one she wanted, she would use it to gain something from a parent. Maybe not in the "evil"category, but certainly for gain.
What they lack at such an early age is empathy. I can see empathy/care/concern in her and our 6 year old sometimes, but they are still driven largely by simple (and obvious) self-interest. That's not to say adults aren't, but we get better at framing our self-interest in terms of "good for all" as we get older.
We are teaching them empathy/care/concern ("see if you friend is OK", "would she like some cake too", "ask him if he is hurt - after you donked him in the head with a stick" etc) but it doesn't seem to come naturally. It requires active teaching and us (trying) to be a good example.
Yep, the design of the SOH probably is still covered by copyright. You cannot build another one without the permission of the copyright holder. That doesn't apply to photographs though.
I know this because that's how I got my current position - my employer set up a 6-month contract, the first guy was a dumbass (I spent three weeks cleaning up his mess). The company nearly threw the guy out literally, and the headhunter asked if I'd fill out the rest of the contract term.
Did the company say the last guy ate too much? And that he spent half the day watching Fox News?
It'd look better on the iPad (if FaceTime on it ever comes to pass) but the audio would need attention. Perhaps a Bluetooth device would be the solution to that problem. Then again, maybe the rumoured iPod Touch with camera would be cheaper. Wait and see.
Normally good advice (even the big companies don't mind the YouTube watermark, it seems), but I think he wants to sell them as part of an app so YouTube is probably out.
While a baby is in the uterus, it typically swallows 400 to 500 milliliters of amniotic fluid per day, which may harbor some of the mother’s microbes, Neu speculates.
Easy enough to test - sample amniotic fluid and culture it.
I'd be surprised if any microorganisms were present, though. AF is such a great growth medium, anything in there would quickly take over.
It's the same as barely legal, where the word barely can mean anyone up to and including 35 years old as long as they are wearing pigtails and/or chewing bubblegum and/or wearing a short skirt reminiscent of a school uniform.
I disagree. I trust the scientist(s). This is a relatively simple experiment and one that is able to be replicated. Because it has been published, the method is there so people can replicate it. Although my boss suggested (ever so slightly) that published papers in medical research might leave one or two details out so anyone trying to replicate the experiment would have to contact the original researchers. That way, you keep an eye on who is following you and your research.
I've done the research thing and never was I tempted to make something out of nothing, even though it would have validated a shitload of my labour. One reason is that other people were relying on the quality of my results and if I screwed it up, I would be found out eventually and my name as a researcher would be mudd. Being good is better than being right.
Slashdot Mirror
But the law as written isn't just for police or even just public servants. It applies to anyone accessing any computer system (even those they have access to, like a forum) that requires a password and doing something outside the terms of the AUP of that system. Nothing in the way that the law is written applies to accessing confidential information, just to breaching the AUP of the system.
The fact that a police officer was charged (and convicted) under this law seems to be occupying everyone's attention, but outside of this specific case (which just provides precedent) look at the breadth of how it could apply.
But the law she was charged under (Section 440A(2) of the WA Criminal Code) wasn't restricted to public servants accessing the records of close acquaintances. She was charged for breaching the AUP of the system
The law states that anyone who violates the AUP of any restricted access computer system has committed a criminal offence. ... an offence under Section 440A(2).
As an example, I found a forum that requires a username and password to access it. So it is a restricted access computer system. The owners have an AUP. One of the things it forbids is "rudeness, insults, profanity, bad language". So to post something containing profanity is a breach of the AUP of that restricted access computer system
Don't get me wrong - there needs to be laws covering improper access to restricted and/or private information, but this law seems a tad broad.
So you see nothing wrong at all with someone accessing your police records, credit rating, medicare records etc who has no reason to do so?
I think it's wrong, but they weren't charged with something quite so specific. From the link:
Remember, she was charged with breaching the AUP of the system, nothing else.
So, I read that as 'if you normally have access to a restricted access system (how about a forum that requires a username and password for posting?) and use it in a way you are not authorised to do so (like flaming, because that was forbidden by the AUP of the forum) then you could be criminally prosecuted.
The way the law is written, it seems as though this can apply to any 'misuse' (as defined by the AUP) of any restricted access system, not just those systems containing police records, credit ratings, medicare records, national security info, etc.
While it's obvious IANAL, the wording seems a little broad for my liking. The kind of "broad" the DPP likes to use when looking to boost the numbers for the quarterly stats.
Rather than straight out "off the shelf" devices, wouldn't they be better served by something equivalent to a Panasonic Toughbook. Maybe that could be covered by 3rd party cases (with built-in batteries) but an iPhone is something that requires a bit of protection even for everyday use.
True but there can come a point in an individual's life when they feel they can no longer participate in something for their own reasons, even if they know 99.999% of people don't care about their "protest".
They feel better about what they are doing and why they are doing it but don't feel the need to create converts by standing on a street corner telling everyone about it. Or taking over a TV station.
But once you've bought stuff, they are where you turn to for service.
I belong to a professional forum that has specific areas for commercial equipment. People sign up with their real names. Behaviour is monitored, but posts are not moderated. Company reps (both sales and service, sometimes that's the same guy) sign up and answer questions as they can, in addition to conversations being held by users.
If people are having trouble, they like to help because (1) you want people to use the stuff they've bought and (2) a happy customer will tell people about great service and buy more stuff.
When my daughter was three (now 4 1/2), she could plan a series of events and actions with an expected outcome quite well. I also saw her practicing emotions and facial expressions. When she got the one she wanted, she would use it to gain something from a parent. Maybe not in the "evil"category, but certainly for gain.
What they lack at such an early age is empathy. I can see empathy/care/concern in her and our 6 year old sometimes, but they are still driven largely by simple (and obvious) self-interest. That's not to say adults aren't, but we get better at framing our self-interest in terms of "good for all" as we get older.
We are teaching them empathy/care/concern ("see if you friend is OK", "would she like some cake too", "ask him if he is hurt - after you donked him in the head with a stick" etc) but it doesn't seem to come naturally. It requires active teaching and us (trying) to be a good example.
I thought it was like a simile.
Yep, the design of the SOH probably is still covered by copyright. You cannot build another one without the permission of the copyright holder. That doesn't apply to photographs though.
I know this because that's how I got my current position - my employer set up a 6-month contract, the first guy was a dumbass (I spent three weeks cleaning up his mess). The company nearly threw the guy out literally, and the headhunter asked if I'd fill out the rest of the contract term.
Did the company say the last guy ate too much? And that he spent half the day watching Fox News?
Totally real scientific concept. After all, Syndrome used it to overpower Mr Incredible.
PDF is an Adobe creation, but is son of Postscript.
It'd look better on the iPad (if FaceTime on it ever comes to pass) but the audio would need attention. Perhaps a Bluetooth device would be the solution to that problem. Then again, maybe the rumoured iPod Touch with camera would be cheaper. Wait and see.
Adobe bought Photoshop. Besides Illustrator (which was an offshoot of PostScript) I'm not sure what Adobe has created themselves.
But wait, there's more: "there is no royalty for a title 12 minutes or less".
The biggest hassle isn't that it's "free for some" but it's knowing who the "some" is.
Normally good advice (even the big companies don't mind the YouTube watermark, it seems), but I think he wants to sell them as part of an app so YouTube is probably out.
Moo point :-)
It's OK, I got it.
While a baby is in the uterus, it typically swallows 400 to 500 milliliters of amniotic fluid per day, which may harbor some of the mother’s microbes, Neu speculates.
Easy enough to test - sample amniotic fluid and culture it.
I'd be surprised if any microorganisms were present, though. AF is such a great growth medium, anything in there would quickly take over.
I'm going to use that line. Thanks for that :-)
There you go. Shove that up ya clacker!
He said 10 +. It's all in the "+"
It's the same as barely legal, where the word barely can mean anyone up to and including 35 years old as long as they are wearing pigtails and/or chewing bubblegum and/or wearing a short skirt reminiscent of a school uniform.
Interesting use of German. What exactly do you mean, though, by "The, Monster, The!"
On the one hand we have Steve Jobs and his alleged drug past. There. Fixed that for you.
I disagree. I trust the scientist(s). This is a relatively simple experiment and one that is able to be replicated. Because it has been published, the method is there so people can replicate it. Although my boss suggested (ever so slightly) that published papers in medical research might leave one or two details out so anyone trying to replicate the experiment would have to contact the original researchers. That way, you keep an eye on who is following you and your research.
I've done the research thing and never was I tempted to make something out of nothing, even though it would have validated a shitload of my labour. One reason is that other people were relying on the quality of my results and if I screwed it up, I would be found out eventually and my name as a researcher would be mudd. Being good is better than being right.