I think this was also the plane that kills pilots when they eject and can't fire its main cannon. Or am I confusing it with another trillion-dollar boondoggle?
The Stessmen v. American Black Hawk decision was from the Supreme Court of Iowa, so it has, um, limited applicability in California. But you're right that video recording public events is pretty much fair game.
In California, it is fair game to record a conversation held in public -- the state's wiretapping law only covers "confidential communication[s]", which specifically excludes conversations in public gatherings, proceedings of the government that are open to the public, and "any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded".
And since you asked, Illinois's Supreme Court decided that the state's wiretapping law was unconstitutional because it banned recording even overt conversations. Many courts have held that wiretapping laws do not protect police from being recorded while they are performing their duties -- including at least one in California.
They also can't use any evidence that was uncovered because of these recordings. Fruit of the poisonous tree, and all. I have no idea what that does to the rest of their case.
The court's ruling here has almost nothing to do with whether the courthouse entry was a public place. That has never been the sole factor when courts decide whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.
The targets here didn't need to pull down a Cone of Silence to have a private conversation; walking away from others and speaking quietly shows their desire for privacy, and the fact that the FBI switched from an informant to technological measures shows that the measures were effective.
The app performs a security function, and there are lots of good technical ways to defeat such primitive MITM attacks. Making the user pay attention to hyperlink text from a source that is almost always good is a recipe for failure. A security app is not inherently suspect like emails from Prince Iwanna Scamya or dodgy websites are inherently suspect.
Misfeatures like that are (arguably) serious design flaws. Correct operation requires the user to pay attention to something that works properly almost all the time, but when it doesn't work, it drives the user underneath a truck at 80 miles per hour.
Technically, they could have charged Hilary Clinton under the Espionage Act. Prosecutors have convicted others for less than what she did. Go back and closely read what Comey said -- he all but said the reason they didn't recommend charges was because they didn't have enough evidence to win a conviction from a partisan jury.
Prosecutors don't prosecute solely on the basis of "technically chargeable", dumass, so the fact that she hasn't prosecuted doesn't mean her actions were not "technically chargeable".
Should we congratulate you on learning how to lie by citing irrelevant numbers, or just remind you that Mark Twain enumerated the three kinds of lies long before you were born?
For example, despite your claim that "many more Americans died during those attacks than in Benghazi", PolitiFact (or at least the distilled version you linked to -- which doesn't identify its sources in any useful way) doesn't say that more than 4 Americans died in all those attacks. It says only that three Americans died in those attacks. A useful comparison would exclude attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we were engaged in military activity at the time.
Why do you think she has stopped at "technically chargeable", or even "enough to convict a normal person"? It only takes one hold-out to hang a jury, and she has excellent odds of finding at least one person on any jury who will refuse to convict her unless there is crystal-clear video evidence of her emailing marked-classified information to Vladimir Putin.
Pres. Obama also said that there was "not a smidgen of evidence" that his IRS intentionally targeted conservative groups before and during the 2012 campaign season. Then people found evidence the IRS did just that.
Often, when people say there is no evidence of something, they're talking about what they think others can show, rather than what the truth is.
In other news, ten times as many people die each year from brain-eating amoeba as have died from Tesla's "autopilot" feature. Is it too soon to talk about common-sense amoeba control laws in this country?
"Nope" to you. Including those entities as "obligated entities" has the effect I described. 4AMLD requires that obligated entities not keep anonymous accounts, and if any anonymous account exists (from before the time it came into effect, or covered the account in question), that they do Customer Due Diligence before the account can be used.
Next time, do more than 30 seconds of research before spouting off your mouth. Governments make these regulations a nearly impenetrable maze on purpose.
Bought bitcoins? Sold them? In exchange for what? Drugs? Guns or bombs? Pirated movies? This isn't looking very good for Bob the Bitcoin Launderer.
The police found out that wallet X is Bob's (because he exchanged bitcoins for something useful), and that Bob was illegally hiding ownership of that wallet. Bob is probably going to end up with the burden of proving that each transaction from wallet X was with a third party, rather than Bob trying to launder bitcoins to other wallets he controls -- after all, the government knows Bob was trying to hide his bitcoins. Otherwise the law might say he must forfeit a monetary equivalent to those bitcoins, even if he claims to not own them any longer. On top of that, Bob will need to pay a transaction fee whenever he shuffles bitcoins between wallets.
You overlooked the "self-declaration" forms for people using virtual currencies. That translates to making it illegal to use Bitcoin (etc.) without telling the government about your wallet(s) -- probably upon pain of hefty fines. You might not get caught if you only keep funds in Bitcoin form, but if you ever try to redeem it for goods or services in Europe, be prepared to fess up.
They're used. They're also bad at predicting the past, and even worse at predicting the future, which is why you don't hear much about how they solved a lot of problems and made lives better.
I got the email from Verizon, but it sure looks like my current ("discontinued") router supports IPv6. It has options for stateless vs stateful address assignment, address ranges, gateways, etc.
No reasonable person wants to carry a dozen wallets to conduct commerce, even if they're of the cryptocurrency variety. There are huge network effects for having a de facto standard (crypto)currency in an area.
Was MegaUpload itself responsible for the $400M damages, or did it just knowingly profit from the infringement? Was this defendant largely responsible for MegaUpload's share of the damages, or did he just aid and abet the principals of the scheme? As I see it, he is at least two layers removed from the full damages that he "acknowledged" as part of his plea agreement.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this was also the plane that kills pilots when they eject and can't fire its main cannon. Or am I confusing it with another trillion-dollar boondoggle?
The Stessmen v. American Black Hawk decision was from the Supreme Court of Iowa, so it has, um, limited applicability in California. But you're right that video recording public events is pretty much fair game.
In California, it is fair game to record a conversation held in public -- the state's wiretapping law only covers "confidential communication[s]", which specifically excludes conversations in public gatherings, proceedings of the government that are open to the public, and "any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded".
And since you asked, Illinois's Supreme Court decided that the state's wiretapping law was unconstitutional because it banned recording even overt conversations. Many courts have held that wiretapping laws do not protect police from being recorded while they are performing their duties -- including at least one in California.
They also can't use any evidence that was uncovered because of these recordings. Fruit of the poisonous tree, and all. I have no idea what that does to the rest of their case.
The court's ruling here has almost nothing to do with whether the courthouse entry was a public place. That has never been the sole factor when courts decide whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.
The targets here didn't need to pull down a Cone of Silence to have a private conversation; walking away from others and speaking quietly shows their desire for privacy, and the fact that the FBI switched from an informant to technological measures shows that the measures were effective.
The app performs a security function, and there are lots of good technical ways to defeat such primitive MITM attacks. Making the user pay attention to hyperlink text from a source that is almost always good is a recipe for failure. A security app is not inherently suspect like emails from Prince Iwanna Scamya or dodgy websites are inherently suspect.
Misfeatures like that are (arguably) serious design flaws. Correct operation requires the user to pay attention to something that works properly almost all the time, but when it doesn't work, it drives the user underneath a truck at 80 miles per hour.
Something like that, anyway.
Technically, they could have charged Hilary Clinton under the Espionage Act. Prosecutors have convicted others for less than what she did. Go back and closely read what Comey said -- he all but said the reason they didn't recommend charges was because they didn't have enough evidence to win a conviction from a partisan jury.
Prosecutors don't prosecute solely on the basis of "technically chargeable", dumass, so the fact that she hasn't prosecuted doesn't mean her actions were not "technically chargeable".
Should we congratulate you on learning how to lie by citing irrelevant numbers, or just remind you that Mark Twain enumerated the three kinds of lies long before you were born?
For example, despite your claim that "many more Americans died during those attacks than in Benghazi", PolitiFact (or at least the distilled version you linked to -- which doesn't identify its sources in any useful way) doesn't say that more than 4 Americans died in all those attacks. It says only that three Americans died in those attacks. A useful comparison would exclude attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we were engaged in military activity at the time.
Why do you think she has stopped at "technically chargeable", or even "enough to convict a normal person"? It only takes one hold-out to hang a jury, and she has excellent odds of finding at least one person on any jury who will refuse to convict her unless there is crystal-clear video evidence of her emailing marked-classified information to Vladimir Putin.
Pres. Obama also said that there was "not a smidgen of evidence" that his IRS intentionally targeted conservative groups before and during the 2012 campaign season. Then people found evidence the IRS did just that.
Often, when people say there is no evidence of something, they're talking about what they think others can show, rather than what the truth is.
In other news, ten times as many people die each year from brain-eating amoeba as have died from Tesla's "autopilot" feature. Is it too soon to talk about common-sense amoeba control laws in this country?
So you're going to evade the anti-money-laundering laws by having a third party in some other country launder money for you.
Do you know how *else* I know you didn't read the relevant parts of these EU Directives?
I know, right? The precautionary principle clearly says you should never do anything new until you've done it enough to make sure there is no risk.
"Nope" to you. Including those entities as "obligated entities" has the effect I described. 4AMLD requires that obligated entities not keep anonymous accounts, and if any anonymous account exists (from before the time it came into effect, or covered the account in question), that they do Customer Due Diligence before the account can be used.
Next time, do more than 30 seconds of research before spouting off your mouth. Governments make these regulations a nearly impenetrable maze on purpose.
Why do you think the law won't require you to declare each wallet when you first create, fund, or acquire it?
Bought bitcoins? Sold them? In exchange for what? Drugs? Guns or bombs? Pirated movies? This isn't looking very good for Bob the Bitcoin Launderer.
The police found out that wallet X is Bob's (because he exchanged bitcoins for something useful), and that Bob was illegally hiding ownership of that wallet. Bob is probably going to end up with the burden of proving that each transaction from wallet X was with a third party, rather than Bob trying to launder bitcoins to other wallets he controls -- after all, the government knows Bob was trying to hide his bitcoins. Otherwise the law might say he must forfeit a monetary equivalent to those bitcoins, even if he claims to not own them any longer. On top of that, Bob will need to pay a transaction fee whenever he shuffles bitcoins between wallets.
You overlooked the "self-declaration" forms for people using virtual currencies. That translates to making it illegal to use Bitcoin (etc.) without telling the government about your wallet(s) -- probably upon pain of hefty fines. You might not get caught if you only keep funds in Bitcoin form, but if you ever try to redeem it for goods or services in Europe, be prepared to fess up.
In that authentication paradigm, biometrics is usually called "something you are", while an authentication token/device/badge is "something you have".
They're used. They're also bad at predicting the past, and even worse at predicting the future, which is why you don't hear much about how they solved a lot of problems and made lives better.
I got the email from Verizon, but it sure looks like my current ("discontinued") router supports IPv6. It has options for stateless vs stateful address assignment, address ranges, gateways, etc.
So what supermajority was required for the UK to join the EC back in the 70s?
No reasonable person wants to carry a dozen wallets to conduct commerce, even if they're of the cryptocurrency variety. There are huge network effects for having a de facto standard (crypto)currency in an area.
And (pick your favorite US minority) are American citizens, too, so Congress speaks for them?
Was MegaUpload itself responsible for the $400M damages, or did it just knowingly profit from the infringement? Was this defendant largely responsible for MegaUpload's share of the damages, or did he just aid and abet the principals of the scheme? As I see it, he is at least two layers removed from the full damages that he "acknowledged" as part of his plea agreement.