Except, the illegal wiretap probably gets the case thrown out. And with it, the search of your car. A traffic violation does not automatically give the police the right to search.
Its much easier for the police to say they got an anonymous tip. Even if that tip was texted to 911 on anonymous burner phone. (Which happened to be in the possession of a DEA agent). That would be probable cause.
and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
. It's in the sixth amendment. Parallel construction can't be legal because it denies you being informed of the cause of the accusation, a possible cause for the accusation domes not count, the Constitution says THE cause.
The CAUSE of the accusation is that you were running drugs. And that fact came to the attention of law enforcement. The 6th doesn't really say that every detail of how that fact became known to the police needs to be spelled out for you.
There are further supporting laws on the books that set the standard for evidence, but the Constitution does not.
Further Parallel Construction is mostly used to catch you AFTER you commit another crime, such as picking up a kilo from your supplier. Parallel construction is seldom (but not never) use to charge you with a prior crime. As far at the DEA is concerned its used to catch you red handed at a continuing crime. This is much easier (we got an anonymous tip), than it is to pin a three year old crime on you.
That would make it practically impossible to defend yourself against any charges brought against you by a government agency. They would have all this information that they gathered by whatever means are at their disposal, and you'd only have the evidence they presented to be used you and whatever else you are legally able to obtain (within your financial means). There is no way that scenario fits the definition of due process, the government would be practically guaranteed to win every time.
Well, not to state the obvious, but you could actually not do the crime! Don't run the drugs. And don't be doing strong arm robbery, or what ever, to get the police so desperate for a way to lock you up that they plant drugs on you. Contrary to popular opinion, its not too hard to go about your life without attracting any police attention.
I'm on Google+, as my only Google product, and it does the job and seems to work. I'm not sure why people hate it, except for the Facebook fans who think everyone must be there or be nowhere.
Its not the facebook fans that hate it.
Its the people who have seen the abuse that things like facebook have done to violate people's privacy. To date we have only Google's word that the only thing they will do with your Plus data is serve you ads.
But intelligent people realize this is a hollow promise, one that can be violated by Google themselves, or any random hacker that manages to penetrate Google's security, or any random NSA agent that wants to gen up a letter.
When one of these copycat services, provides public/private key encryption capabilities with the server side not knowing your private key, let me know. But in the meantime, I trust regular old email (encrypted where necessary) more than a central repository in the hands of a third party that can't make any money without selling something to me, or breaking their promise and selling me to someone else After all, once you agree to go public with a Plus profile, you've essentially surrendered the last vestige of your privacy.
And defense attorneys had better step up their game and put state, county, and federal officers on the stand and start asking just how it is that they just HAPPENED to stop a certain car or visited a certain street corner at a specific time of day. Then ask them point blank if it was a case of parallel construction. Ask them to turn over the names of their CIs, even if its in closed court.
Force them to Commit Perjury. Best case you get your current case dismissed, even if you never get off the radar of the local law.
(I doubt the DEA is going to use secret sources of evidence or parallel construction to ensnare Joe Sixpack trying to score some recreational drugs. The fish will have to be worth the effort and the risk for the DEA to use this tactic themselves, but a casual word to the local sheriff might be used more often than you think.)
At this point, they will get to your name in any case.
Exactly.
And worse, this is true even if you have NEVER signed up for facebook, because all of the idiots that use facebook for their address book, on their phone, so they even have your number, and names and numbers of everybody else in these fool's contact list and the ability to cross reference them all.
Given their terms of service your testing account is almost certainly fake. If you only look at it to "like" stuff that you don't even care enough about to do so publicly, its fake, (as is your "like").
I only know a few people with facebook accounts who don't have a second so-called "testing" account, plus a couple accounts they started and then abandoned.
So I'm thinking the 50% number is closer to the mark than the 10%
But you also have to consider that pedestrians may get rather bold, especially when it becomes known that driver-less cars A) slow down in their presence, and B) are programed to do everything to avoid hitting them.
City streets may become unusable for driver-less cars simply due to the number of jaywalkers.
Jaywalking is illegal, but there aren't enough cops to enforce it, and it has historically been enforced by fear of injury.
Its packetized direct from your microphone in your handset in the highest quality your connection can handle, sent by either UDP or TCP, and arrives at the other handset where it is played as analog.
Worst case, it shifts to a lower quality codec to match that in use on the other end (and it the other end is a POTS gateway, its always lower).
In the dark, you don't, but since their tent just got knocked over by snow, sitting where they were would be considered unsafe. They ski/hiked in, they had a rough idea of the lay of the land. This wasn't their first rodeo.
My POTS line works great, works in power outages, and sounds way better than any other phone service I've had the misfortune of being exposed to. Of course the FCC wants to screw it up.
You think POTS sounds good, wait till you hear VoIP.
Meh, get a UPS. That's exactly the way POTS works, banks of big batteries.
I keep my cable modem and router on the UPS. My cell phone, and my spare battery will carry me for about 3 or 4 days. If power is ever out longer than that I'll first up the generator, an charge the UPS and the phones again.
My cell phone does VoIP now, its called Internet Calling, and some carriers let you do that on cellular, others, only allow it on WiFi, but third party apps let you use VoIP regardless of the network.
If the FCC can force the carriers to allow this everywhere, it will be great. They can stop selling minutes, and just sell us data. That means world wide free long distance. Because once its on the net, they can't charge you any more for across town or across the globe.
You make it sound like its so difficult for a pedestrian to stop at the curb , an in the same breath, suggest trying to stop a 1 or 2 ton object moving at speed, with another 2 ton object right on its tail, and another behind that.
I RTFA and didn't quite find the answer to your question.
Yeah, I read it too, and as best I can figure he means Icons on the desktop. This is a choice you can easily make in KDE but one that Gnome (and its various desktop-of-the-week scenarios) tries to avoid.
Other than that, the article says very little and uses a lot of words to do so. It rehashes some history, but raises no new information. I'm left wondering if he had an actual point.
True, and from the disease perspective, a very apt example.
But instead of relying on the disease model, perhaps there is still a capability for attack more along the bullet model.
Its not inconceivable that a small bug could be found (or built) in every network chipset that just waits for that magic sequence of packets, and fries itself. You don't need to take out every PC, all you need to do is disable routers.
Is the US worry about having Chinese infrastructure components (routers and cellular equipment) less about the spying platform it might provide and perhaps more about the availability angle? If one call from home takes down all your major routers, you can kiss your backbone goodbye. Built into a low level component, this might never even reside in the router management software.
(That's not to discount the possibility of undersea cable cutting, and other physical means).
Disease model works for you if you are small, remote, and relatively powerless. Bullet to the brain works if you are large, widely distributed and stealth.
Often not mentioned is that four of hikers, including the three most beaten up, were all found at the bottom of a rocky ravine. The tent itself wasn't covered with that much snow, but even a small slide accompanied by something sounding like a rumble would have an experienced hiker slashing his way out of the tent and running. The temperature was such that dressed as they were, they probably had less than 30 minutes to get back to shelter, and if they couldn't find their tent, they were screwed,
Indeed, he's merely providing a context to which people might be familiar, if he had chosen to give real examples of policework, it would amount to the same dialogue.
Or do these same people chide those who mention Orwell, Rand, and other authors of fiction?
Well, when you look at how many times a reference to a tv show or a movie is made by posters here on Slashdot as justification or backup of their point of view or draw analogies. Just yesterday someone pointed to Bones as an example of a STEM educated woman.
It seems like every story has some posting from a juvenile living in his mom's basement referencing some TV show or movie. It happens every day in every thread.
Cameron was just playing to the audience most likely to buy his drivel.
MIT Tech Review, (of all organizations) should know that cyber weapons aren't loaded onto airplanes and dropped like bombs, nor do they make a big noise.
When you read the article they don't sound quite as clueless as the summary makes them out to be. Yet the comparison with nuclear weapons is one the article made right off the top.
They speculate that Stuxnet was an anomaly not likely to be repeated. But that is only because Stuxnet was intended to be stealth and un-traceable. It is hardly the platform you would expect for a WAR time attack.
Such weapons probably already exist, but since nobody with the cyber-weapon capability is actually at war with any other cyber target country, the weapons aren't being used. Its not like we used nuclear weapons on Iraq. Its not like the Syrian Electronic Army is much besides a bunch of script kiddies looking for weak spots.
To use Cyber weapons, (as opposed to stealth cyber sabotage) you pretty much have to be at war. No one is willing to start one just to test a weapon. You can use clean room labs for that, and you are not likely to invite the MIT Tech Review to watch.
Slashdot Mirror
Except, the illegal wiretap probably gets the case thrown out.
And with it, the search of your car.
A traffic violation does not automatically give the police the right to search.
Its much easier for the police to say they got an anonymous tip.
Even if that tip was texted to 911 on anonymous burner phone. (Which happened to be in the possession of a DEA agent).
That would be probable cause.
Sure there is
and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
. It's in the sixth amendment. Parallel construction can't be legal because it denies you being informed of the cause of the accusation, a possible cause for the accusation domes not count, the Constitution says THE cause.
The CAUSE of the accusation is that you were running drugs. And that fact came to the attention of law enforcement.
The 6th doesn't really say that every detail of how that fact became known to the police needs to be spelled out for you.
There are further supporting laws on the books that set the standard for evidence, but the Constitution does not.
Further Parallel Construction is mostly used to catch you AFTER you commit another crime, such as picking up
a kilo from your supplier. Parallel construction is seldom (but not never) use to charge you with a prior crime.
As far at the DEA is concerned its used to catch you red handed at a continuing crime. This is much easier
(we got an anonymous tip), than it is to pin a three year old crime on you.
That would make it practically impossible to defend yourself against any charges brought against you by a government agency. They would have all this information that they gathered by whatever means are at their disposal, and you'd only have the evidence they presented to be used you and whatever else you are legally able to obtain (within your financial means). There is no way that scenario fits the definition of due process, the government would be practically guaranteed to win every time.
Well, not to state the obvious, but you could actually not do the crime!
Don't run the drugs.
And don't be doing strong arm robbery, or what ever, to get the police so desperate for a way to lock you up that they plant drugs on you. Contrary to popular opinion, its not too hard to go about your life without attracting any police attention.
I'm on Google+, as my only Google product, and it does the job and seems to work. I'm not sure why people hate it, except for the Facebook fans who think everyone must be there or be nowhere.
Its not the facebook fans that hate it.
Its the people who have seen the abuse that things like facebook have done to violate people's privacy.
To date we have only Google's word that the only thing they will do with your Plus data is serve you ads.
But intelligent people realize this is a hollow promise, one that can be violated by Google themselves, or any random
hacker that manages to penetrate Google's security, or any random NSA agent that wants to gen up a letter.
When one of these copycat services, provides public/private key encryption capabilities with the server side
not knowing your private key, let me know. But in the meantime, I trust regular old email (encrypted where necessary)
more than a central repository in the hands of a third party that can't make any money without selling something
to me, or breaking their promise and selling me to someone else After all, once you agree to go
public with a Plus profile, you've essentially surrendered the last vestige of your privacy.
And defense attorneys had better step up their game and put state, county, and federal officers on the stand and start asking just how it is that they just HAPPENED to stop a certain car or visited a certain street corner at a specific time of day. Then ask them point blank if it was a case of parallel construction. Ask them to turn over the names of their CIs, even if its in closed court.
Force them to Commit Perjury. Best case you get your current case dismissed, even if you never get off the radar of the local law.
(I doubt the DEA is going to use secret sources of evidence or parallel construction to ensnare Joe Sixpack trying to score some recreational drugs. The fish will have to be worth the effort and the risk for the DEA to use this tactic themselves, but a casual word to the local sheriff might be used more often than you think.)
At this point, they will get to your name in any case.
Exactly.
And worse, this is true even if you have NEVER signed up for facebook, because all of the idiots that use facebook for their address book, on their phone, so they even have your number, and names and numbers of everybody else in these fool's contact list and the ability to cross reference them all.
What's a fake account?
Given their terms of service your testing account is almost certainly fake. If you only look at it to "like" stuff that you don't even care enough about to do so publicly, its fake, (as is your "like").
I only know a few people with facebook accounts who don't have a second so-called "testing" account, plus a couple accounts they started and then abandoned.
So I'm thinking the 50% number is closer to the mark than the 10%
precious, taxpayer-funded taxpayer money from job creators is being "wasted"!
Radio research for the Deaf is pretty much the poster child of wasted money. Sort of like braille highway signs for blind drivers.
Nearly all deaf people carry smartphones. The ones that don't, certainly don't carry radios, or any other device capable of receiving radio texts.
There are scads of Apps in the Google market for the deaf. Most free. Deaf people can negotiate plans with zero minutes from almost all the carriers.
NPR is looking at every problem as if it were a nail, because the only tool they have is a hammer.
So, yeah. Pretty much a waste of money.
But you also have to consider that pedestrians may get rather bold, especially when it becomes known that driver-less cars A) slow down in their presence, and B) are programed to do everything to avoid hitting them.
City streets may become unusable for driver-less cars simply due to the number of jaywalkers.
Jaywalking is illegal, but there aren't enough cops to enforce it, and it has historically been enforced by fear of injury.
Huh?
Its packetized direct from your microphone in your handset in the highest quality your connection can handle, sent by either UDP or TCP, and arrives at the other handset where it is played as analog.
Worst case, it shifts to a lower quality codec to match that in use on the other end (and it the other end is a POTS gateway, its always lower).
We are talking about a driverless car. Reformat your argument with that in mind, and it might make some sense.
And, you know, its entirely possible to brake AND honk. (I know, right? who would ever think out of the box!).
In the dark, you don't, but since their tent just got knocked over by snow, sitting where they were
would be considered unsafe. They ski/hiked in, they had a rough idea of the lay of the land.
This wasn't their first rodeo.
My POTS line works great, works in power outages, and sounds way better than any other phone service I've had the misfortune of being exposed to. Of course the FCC wants to screw it up.
You think POTS sounds good, wait till you hear VoIP.
Meh, get a UPS.
That's exactly the way POTS works, banks of big batteries.
I keep my cable modem and router on the UPS. My cell phone, and my spare battery will carry me for about 3 or 4 days. If power is ever out longer than that I'll first up the generator, an charge the UPS and the phones again.
My cell phone does VoIP now, its called Internet Calling, and some carriers let you do that on cellular, others, only allow it on WiFi, but third party apps let you use VoIP regardless of the network.
If the FCC can force the carriers to allow this everywhere, it will be great. They can stop selling minutes, and just sell us data. That means world wide free long distance. Because once its on the net, they can't charge you any more for across town or across the globe.
You make it sound like its so difficult for a pedestrian to stop at the curb , an in the same breath, suggest trying to stop a 1 or 2 ton object moving at speed, with another 2 ton object right on its tail, and another behind that.
All this to avoid a little toot on the horn?
I RTFA and didn't quite find the answer to your question.
Yeah, I read it too, and as best I can figure he means Icons on the desktop. This is a choice you can easily make in KDE but one that Gnome (and its various desktop-of-the-week scenarios) tries to avoid.
Other than that, the article says very little and uses a lot of words to do so. It rehashes some history, but raises no new information.
I'm left wondering if he had an actual point.
True, and from the disease perspective, a very apt example.
But instead of relying on the disease model, perhaps there is still a capability for attack more along the bullet model.
Its not inconceivable that a small bug could be found (or built) in every network chipset that just waits for that magic sequence of packets, and fries itself. You don't need to take out every PC, all you need to do is disable routers.
Is the US worry about having Chinese infrastructure components (routers and cellular equipment) less about the spying platform it might provide and perhaps more about the availability angle? If one call from home takes down all your major routers, you can kiss your backbone goodbye. Built into a low level component, this might never even reside in the router management software.
(That's not to discount the possibility of undersea cable cutting, and other physical means).
Disease model works for you if you are small, remote, and relatively powerless. Bullet to the brain works if you are large, widely distributed and stealth.
Often not mentioned is that four of hikers, including the three most beaten up, were all found at the bottom of a rocky ravine. The tent itself wasn't covered with that much snow, but even a small slide accompanied by something sounding like a rumble would have an experienced hiker slashing his way out of the tent and running.
The temperature was such that dressed as they were, they probably had less than 30 minutes to get back to shelter, and if they couldn't find their tent, they were screwed,
Because movies have ALL the answers.
There is already plenty of speculation on the Wiki Page, first link.
No need to wait for more.
If you hear it, You just run.
Cross hill.
Maybe there is no real avalanche, but at night, are you going to wait around to see?
Indeed, he's merely providing a context to which people might be familiar, if he had chosen to give real examples of policework, it would amount to the same dialogue.
Or do these same people chide those who mention Orwell, Rand, and other authors of fiction?
Well, when you look at how many times a reference to a tv show or a movie is made by posters here on Slashdot as justification or backup of their point of view or draw analogies. Just yesterday someone pointed to Bones as an example of a STEM educated woman.
It seems like every story has some posting from a juvenile living in his mom's basement referencing some TV show or movie. It happens every day in every thread.
Cameron was just playing to the audience most likely to buy his drivel.
MIT Tech Review, (of all organizations) should know that cyber weapons aren't loaded onto airplanes and dropped like bombs, nor do they make a big noise.
When you read the article they don't sound quite as clueless as the summary makes them out to be. Yet the comparison with nuclear weapons is one the article made right off the top.
They speculate that Stuxnet was an anomaly not likely to be repeated. But that is only because Stuxnet was intended to be stealth and un-traceable. It is hardly the platform you would expect for a WAR time attack.
Such weapons probably already exist, but since nobody with the cyber-weapon capability is actually at war with any other cyber target country, the weapons aren't being used. Its not like we used nuclear weapons on Iraq. Its not like the Syrian Electronic Army is much besides a bunch of script kiddies looking for weak spots.
To use Cyber weapons, (as opposed to stealth cyber sabotage) you pretty much have to be at war. No one is willing to start one just to test a weapon. You can use clean room labs for that, and you are not likely to invite the MIT Tech Review to watch.
type www.slashdot.org.
I never have this problem, and I use three different browsers on my android devices.
Not to mention it appears they are still using voodoo like having to degauss drives instead of simply wiping them.
That's not half of it. There is also this bit:
A computer monitor that might have some top-secret images left on it?
Seriously? How does stupidity of this level actually make it to the real world?>