Not really, the spy program in question takes screenshots, logs key strokes, sound recordings as well as snapshots from the webcam. It's primary goal is to track and recover lost and stolen devices in order to return them to the proper owner as well as prosecute the theft. This is hidden in what they call a detective mode in which Arron's would have activated in order to take web cam snap shots.
Blocking the web cam from view still does nothing to the bulk of the interception of electronic communications which the case is centered around with the wiretapping laws. If I remember in the story about original complaint, the plaintiff fell behind in payments and Arron's asked for it back. She declared that she no longer had the laptop in her possession and they pulled up screenshots of her logging into her email and other accounts under her name as well as web cam images showing her to be the operator of the device. So this is really about more then just web cam images like the concept of the school that became peeping toms on preteen kiddies.
I know, i shouldn't have added the ad hominen in the last sentence, But why not call a spade a spade, it's what they were doing.
Yes, they would, unless somewhere hidden in the rental agreement, they agreed to allow them to do the monitoring and that somehow constituted consent and awareness. I mean you cannot say that you aren't aware your conversation is being recorded if you signed a consent form allowing someone to record the conversations any time they felt it necessary.
However, the reason I brought up the state laws is because they can be more strict and there might be situations where no consent agreement could make it legal as the laptop might be outside the lessee's control as well as others might be present with no knowledge of the agreement. In other words, if this way to skin a cat doesn't work, just remember, there is more then one way to do it. Especially with then hidden camera bit where they turn on the web cam and take screenshots.
how naive you are. It would be sort of cute if it wasn't a sign of the deluded and misguided BS people believe when voting these jokers in office.
Remember NAFTA? Democrat administration. How about the Visa Wavier program started under a democrat controlled congress in 1986 and permanently extended by President Bill Clinton in 95 or was it 2000 just before he left office? Or how about the idea that most of the stimulus money designated for clean energy programs granted by the Obama administration that went to stimulate foreign companies operating in foreign lands?
Stop paying attention to what they say and look at what they do. There is no reason why you should be surprised here or blaming tea party supporters for something that should be obvious with a minute amount of paying attention.
This all varies from state to state. Federal law is at least one person party to the conversation needs to be aware of the recording. Some state make it clear that all parties need to be aware of the recording. Most of the laws concerning the recordings state something about the recording being done for or used in a legal actions.
Also, most states now make it illegal to record video without an obvious notice of the recording and never in places where someone expects a level of privacy. This stems from a rash of hidden web cams recording the hot neighbor. I know ohio has a law about it for this reason now. Obviousness can be signed posted in prominent places as well as the cameras being placed in visible areas.
And according to the provided court documents, the spyware company claims they do not ship the software capable of doing this by default, they offer package deals for companies to develop and customize their own deployments of the software and claim this feature is considered a "detective mode" designed to help recover lost or stolen laptops. So they do not seem to be too concerned with the laws either.
I do not think it would matter what you think she would think. In fact, she makes it clear in her statements that she would not like it.
The judge basically stated in the decision that she was bound by law not to provide the injunction as it would be over turned in the direct appeals court to her court due to several reasons. She cited precedent with these reasons too. First, they can only consider the immediate and irreparable harm of the named parties to the suit, not class parties who might be subjected. The named parties would not suffer any immediate harm since they no longer have a computer with the software on it. Another problem was that common sense conclusions cannot be injected into a case. She spends a good deal of time talking about this in which she notes several reversals when this happened in the past and gives notice that the court can only consider things brought up within the complaint.
There are more problems with providing an injunction complete with citations of previous cases to back her reasoning. If someone would initiate a suit alleging direct harm and capable of showing continued harm that doesn't skip important issues in the complaint, she could order an injunction and extend it to everyone putatively involved. But her hands are tied with the way this case have panned out to date as she cited several ways the injunction would be overturned easily if she had granted it.
Thanks you, I will let my sleep deprived half drunken self who really didn't care at the time know that next time I decide to comment on something in that state again..
Charge who? You are "assuming" that the emails are truthful representations of real events. That very fact is brought under contention by Anonymous "hacking" them and gaining access to their servers and electronic documents to suit their own purposes. Sure, they could charge anonymous, if they knew who anonymous was.
This also has everything to do with the scenario because you were the one who actually attempted to murder the person. the other idiot feeding the cops information was just there to throw doubt into the accusations against you. You bought it hook line and sinker when you concentrated on the idea that possession of the coat made someone else suspicious. why did it make him look suspicious, because he had access to all the information that incriminated you while you denied everything and had some plausible excuse to how it could have been someone else.
It's the same thing when an activist organization illegally enters your property and takes things they claim were in your possession or makes statements about possessions of yours on the property in an attempt to further their own activist causes.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm convinced they are guilty of this behavior. I'm sure you are too. But when in court, they have to keep an open mind, and they have to consider the weight of the evidence before it's introduced. The fact that someone broke into the property and then yelled, look here, look here, now look at us it's out agenda and we did it again, but you will never know who we are, puts a path to the doubt of that evidence clearly in the company's hands.
Actually, I followed that case closely and watched the arguments in the supreme court. Ohio does video tape it's supreme court sessions and plays them on one of the PBS stations for anyone to watch.
The corrupt cop was certified, he didn't bring his certificate to court. The court was very meticulous in determining this officers record on estimating speed. They considered factors like cops go through training to estimate the speed of a vehicle and this particular cop's record was something like within 5 mph over 35 of the 40 times needed to pass some part of the academy training.
So let's not make this into more then what it it. It's also not a republican thing. The most corrupt cities with the most corrupt cops in history in the US is demonstratively democrat controlled. Los Angeles, Chicogo, Denver, Cincinnati, Cleavland. And lets not forget the deputies in Zanesville ohio who were busitng people for drugs just to keep the evidence and sell themselves. And yes, Zanesville ohio, Cleavland ohio, and Cincinatti ohio are largely democrat strongholds even though they are in as you put it, "in Ohio (a Republican stronghold)". If there is any connections to republicans and this behavior, it's probably because they don't pay enough to get quality officers hired (I would suspect the same with democrats) and instead end up with these inbred john wayne syndrome asshats because it's all that is willing to work for the same amount of money as a waiter in a halfway decent restaurant. I know cops in ohio who make just over $12-14 an hour.
Lets present something similar for you to think about. Suppose you owned a gun, this gun was uses to attempt the murder of someone you know. Now suppose the police found the gun near the crime scene and someone recognized it as your gun. Now, you look pretty guilty don't you. Your probably the prime suspect. Now what if the person who recognized the gun also told the cops you hated the person who was almost killed by the gun and offered some communications as evidence. Not quite the same yet is it. Well, now we will suppose that your home was broken into why you were away on holiday and you kept the gun in a drawer that anyone could access easily. Let's also assume that there were 5 other sets of fingerprints on the gun besides yours, but all can be accounted for because they have handled the gun within your presence.
You swear it wasn't you who did it, and you swear that you didn't hate the person who was shot at with your gun. You also swear that the email claiming that you hated the person wasn't sent by you even though it came from your home computer the same day you took your vacation. All the evidence pointed to you until someone else had an opportunity to gain possession of the gun, the means to send an email from your personal computer, and manipulate the ways the evidence is seen in context with a very big crime. But once all the facts are in, it's obvious that someone set you up- or attempted to make it look that way. So how reliable is this circumstantial evidence now?
Now suppose that someone saw someone in a brown overcoat just outside the gate right before the gun shots were heard. This brown overcoat is found in the guys possession who has been so helpful to the police already. He claims that he took it from your home without your knowledge after hearing about the reports of the guy in the brown coat and the police find it has gun powder residue on it. That's it, you did it right? Or is there reason to suspect all this evidence pointing to your guilt?
What anonymous has essentially done is created a path way to cause doubt on the weight of the evidence. So the company destroys the backups by paying a IT staffer a bonus and offering him a job at one of the other rags they produce, he destroys the backups claiming it was anonymous in their hacking efforts to retrieve the emails and take control of the servers. Now, were is your proof? Oh, you mean the proof that the activist group who will not identify themselves released in their attempt to further their own agenda?
Also remember, there are accusations that this voice-mail hacking happened with victims and first responders at 9/11 too. So the US could have a means for prosecution as well as the country of nationality of anyone else killed in the attacks.
The company can look filthy as hell, and still use this lost chain of custody concerning the evidence to their advantage. Even if it's discovered the backups were deleted after the release of information, they can still claim anonymous hacked them and did it to make them look guilty of more then what they have already admitted to.
No, I'm saying that there is not a lot of evidence that Nixon was involved in any illegal activity outside of hiding things from congress. Him resigning is by no means an admission of guilt to everything surrounding Watergate. Some people make the case that Clinton and Bush were in the same boat to the extent of wrong doing- except they refused to step down. Clinton certainly rode out the impeachment storm by distracting the populous over what it was about.
This is true, if the tapes weren't accessible from the machines that were hacked or someone picked the right person in the IT staff and paid them to make it look like it was.
I mean common, I described a way that they could get the evidence tossed aside or have somewhat of a plausible deniability over something we pretty much know they did. Erasing the backup tapes or claiming there was a worm implanted during the break-in that caused them to be erased when restoring the systems is not out of the question is it?.
Well, in my experience, a lot of people will do a lot of things if the money is good enough. But here is a major problem, if anonymous hides their tracks to remain anonymous, then how can you trust any server or backup of any server after a point of any signs of any intrusion?
And here is another situation you need to consider, well before the person tells a court, I did not write that email, the lawyer gets it removed from evidence unless the prosecutor or plaintiff can prove it's legitimacy from sources outside those compromised servers. That's something that would be very hard to do and simply altering a time stamp on those emails in the personal computers of the accused can reinforce the illegitimacy of the communications meaning it will not be in evidence.
This differs from the cables release in that you do not have someone to testify that they did not alter anything. You have a group to acted illegally and wish to remain secret so now the onus is not on providing the emails/communications, but proving they were not altered in the process of obtaining them. And fortunately/unfortunately, in some jurisdictions, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine could prevent the documents from ever being used in court if it can be shown that law enforcement was involved in the hacking and disclosure without properly obtaining a warrant. And since Anonymous wants to remain anonymous, a low level cop can say he had a criminal who was facing severe jail time do it to get around getting a warrant then it becomes a he said she said situation with little accountability. As I already said, a lot of people will do a lot of things for a lot of money. How much "a lot" is defined to each individual too so it might not even be a lot by our definitions.
As for Nixon, You need to look into that a little better. Nixon doesn't seem to be behind any of the accusations by Deep Throat, he was mostly guilty of trying to keep it hidden once he learned of it after it happened. the most damning evidence against him was a taped conversation with an 18 minute gap in it.
"What NotW/The Sun/News International was doing was hacking into phones to obtain stories that were "of interest to the public" (ie provided entertainment) but was NOT "in the public interest" (ie didn't provide information to improve public life/inform the public). What anon/luz are have done is hack into email servers of companies which have been embroiled in a very serious scandal which has interfered with ongoing police investigations, bribed police, possibly lied to members of parliament, and has also got links to the prime minister himself and in the process compromised the legitimacy of any evidence that could be found within emails or communications stores on the servers they illegally access and manipulated for their own activist goals. Knowing what went/goes on in such an organisation is of interest to the public and is in the public interest but is sadly a lot harder from a communications forensics point or view to prove now that an activist group illegally gained access to the communications for it's own agenda and purpose."
In the end, we have the word of "a group of activist who want to remain hidden, that participated in illegal actions by accessing these servers without permission or proper oversight who also altered some documents on them to further their own goals, when they claim they did nothing to tamper with the evidence at hand" verses the words of "a company accused of wrong doing who was illegally hacked by an activist organization who altered some contents on that server and hid their tracks".
The loser in this mess, the public who does have an interest in the unbiased truth. the winners, anonymous who got their names in the news yet again, the newspaper org, the police and politicians who can now claim the emails were a plant, altered, or distorted and do not reflect reality with the proof that they were by the public acknowledgment of an activist organization.
Actually, I think it is more severe to hack and release the emails of a company/person facing both civil and criminal charges/actions.
Now all the internal email and communications that could be subpoenaed to discover the depth of this scandal and criminal or civil liability can be questioned for it's legitimacy. after all, their servers were hacked and some activist group had complete control over them for an unspecified period of time in which they covered their tracks making it difficult to know exactly what they did while in control of it.
So in court, it would go like this, well, MR CEO, did you tell the reporter to hack the voice mail as is stated in this document? You Honor, I have never ordered anyone to do anything of the sort, it was not a company policy and if it was know, the people responsible would have been reported to the authorities and terminated, that accusation is a fabrication created by an activist group calling itself anonymous who hacked our servers and planted evidence of what they wanted the case to become.
But the investigators have this email sent from your computer. Well, your honor, those documents were retrieved by investigators after the activist group had illegally accessed our servers and one of our IT staff showed us how these headers and identifying information can be fabricated like in this example that looks very realistic as if it was an email you sent under your court email account but from a Disney world resort 3000 miles away and 5 minute into the future from now. IF this was planted on the courts servers by an activist group, would it be evidence that you went to Orlando Florida instead of presiding over this hearing?
The judge would then order the evidence after the break in unreliable unless supported by something the activist group did not hack into. This would likely result in only low level employees who admitted to the deeds getting into trouble.
I'm bashing him because he presents it as if it some new bad thing when in fact, it's already addressed by other laws and what is not addressed, is already legal and in practice. I do not understand why some people think that doing something that is not against the law is bad when no law prevented them from doing it. The essence of freedom is being able to do anything unless a law bars it. We do not need laws telling us what we can do.
BTW, the US can enforce it's laws in the cayman islands when those companies are practicing business inside the US. The US has frozen bank accounts of companies like this before as well as other countries. These companies can be put on a Credit card processing freeze list in which no credit card company or bank doing business in the US will be legally allowed to deposit money in accounts held by that company or it's subsidiary companies. Of course that only happens after a trial in abstentia but it happens. This isn't just a US thing either, almost all of the major nations "(read g8 and affiliates) have these tools at their disposal under certain situations. Every country in the world with a military takes taxing the populous seriously and will work to aid other countries in turn to mutual aid in collecting taxes due to them.
I maybe thinking conservative here, but lowering taxes and regulations do attract business.
How about I just call you observant. There is no need to politically label paying attention to reality which you demonstrated that you are capable of doing.
Texas can get its revenue from these companies hiring more people and raising salaries and having employers/workers buy more products in Texas.
I agree. In fact, I think that if we got rid of most corporate taxes and instead taxed dividend distribution at a higher rate, we could encourage more of the good stuff you just mentioned there. At least in that case, the way for a company to avoid taxes would be to expand and employ more people which as you mentioned benefits more then just the company.
This is no different then a New York company printing a mail order offer as a printing press in Texas and sending the offers to residents in California.
That's the only thing Texas is attempting to Clarify with this. The term shouldn't be a "business presence", it's properly refereed to as a "substantial business presence" and is most likely an attempt make the law on collecting sales tax jive with settled mail order law which the US Supreme Court has already handled (which is where the substantial business presence comes from).
I would say, your post is probably one of the biggest arguments for mental capacity testing for people who intend to vote. Let's just hope you are one of those stoners who does not leave the couch when it matters and sits back and complains about how everyone is ruining your ignorant dream of what the US is supposed to be like.
In heat above that of body temperature, it's simple to stay cool by layering light layers of natural cloth loosely around the body. This creates pockets of cooler air and causes a quasi insulation effect and evaporation cooling of your own sweat when it's wicked away by the clothing. It sort of goes counter to what we want to do which is shed the clothing, but you can make a scorching 110 degree day seem like a nice cool 85 or so day in your little micro climate.
85 degrees F might still seem extremely hot for some, but remember that the humidity is really low and the sun is not beating down on your skin directly. Civilizations have been using this to survive in the dessert for longer then recorded history most likely.
why don't you look it up then you can go on their word.
No, I do not agree that the actions need to normally be illegal in both countries. It would all depend on what the actions where and a host of other conditions involved. Some things, it would need to be illegal in both countries, others, it would not.
I do not believe the language concerning the "states" limits this portion of the directive to just EU states in it's application.
It allows for the member states to make rules that limit obligations concerning notification and so on and those rules do not seem to bar the US from being part of it.
In other words, if the UK has a treaty allowing the US to regulate certain types of businesses operating within the UK who are operated by US companies, then that would envelope the US into that authority just the same. Now I do believe there is already an arrangement in place that not only allows for that under section (b) defence; but also the important one with section (f) a monitoring, inspection or regulatory function connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority in cases referred to in (c), (d) and (e); which gives blanket authorization to use (c) public security; (d) the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offenses, or of breaches of ethics for regulated professions; (e) an important economic or financial interest of a Member State or of the European Union, including monetary, budgetary and taxation matters; as excuses.
And to make matters even more unclear, This agreement is largely multilateral with most if not all of the EU states,
What is it with you and your reading comprehension?
GENERALLY does not mean ALWAYS.
The hew Griffith case I cited, was someone who actually used "it's not illegal here" as a defense against being extradited and is now in a Virginia prison. So we know that it has happened in the past.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, the spy program in question takes screenshots, logs key strokes, sound recordings as well as snapshots from the webcam. It's primary goal is to track and recover lost and stolen devices in order to return them to the proper owner as well as prosecute the theft. This is hidden in what they call a detective mode in which Arron's would have activated in order to take web cam snap shots.
Blocking the web cam from view still does nothing to the bulk of the interception of electronic communications which the case is centered around with the wiretapping laws. If I remember in the story about original complaint, the plaintiff fell behind in payments and Arron's asked for it back. She declared that she no longer had the laptop in her possession and they pulled up screenshots of her logging into her email and other accounts under her name as well as web cam images showing her to be the operator of the device. So this is really about more then just web cam images like the concept of the school that became peeping toms on preteen kiddies.
I know, i shouldn't have added the ad hominen in the last sentence, But why not call a spade a spade, it's what they were doing.
Yes, they would, unless somewhere hidden in the rental agreement, they agreed to allow them to do the monitoring and that somehow constituted consent and awareness. I mean you cannot say that you aren't aware your conversation is being recorded if you signed a consent form allowing someone to record the conversations any time they felt it necessary.
However, the reason I brought up the state laws is because they can be more strict and there might be situations where no consent agreement could make it legal as the laptop might be outside the lessee's control as well as others might be present with no knowledge of the agreement. In other words, if this way to skin a cat doesn't work, just remember, there is more then one way to do it. Especially with then hidden camera bit where they turn on the web cam and take screenshots.
And yet I still care enough to mock you.
I guess I do care.
The social security tax the company pays is separate from the tax the employee pays unless the employee is a self employed owner of the company.
There is no indication that a foreign employee not paying SS tax would mean that the company that hires them would not pay the SS tax.
how naive you are. It would be sort of cute if it wasn't a sign of the deluded and misguided BS people believe when voting these jokers in office.
Remember NAFTA? Democrat administration. How about the Visa Wavier program started under a democrat controlled congress in 1986 and permanently extended by President Bill Clinton in 95 or was it 2000 just before he left office? Or how about the idea that most of the stimulus money designated for clean energy programs granted by the Obama administration that went to stimulate foreign companies operating in foreign lands?
Stop paying attention to what they say and look at what they do. There is no reason why you should be surprised here or blaming tea party supporters for something that should be obvious with a minute amount of paying attention.
Yeah, we know you can't do it. At least not with a straight face.
This all varies from state to state. Federal law is at least one person party to the conversation needs to be aware of the recording. Some state make it clear that all parties need to be aware of the recording. Most of the laws concerning the recordings state something about the recording being done for or used in a legal actions.
Also, most states now make it illegal to record video without an obvious notice of the recording and never in places where someone expects a level of privacy. This stems from a rash of hidden web cams recording the hot neighbor. I know ohio has a law about it for this reason now. Obviousness can be signed posted in prominent places as well as the cameras being placed in visible areas.
And according to the provided court documents, the spyware company claims they do not ship the software capable of doing this by default, they offer package deals for companies to develop and customize their own deployments of the software and claim this feature is considered a "detective mode" designed to help recover lost or stolen laptops. So they do not seem to be too concerned with the laws either.
I do not think it would matter what you think she would think. In fact, she makes it clear in her statements that she would not like it.
The judge basically stated in the decision that she was bound by law not to provide the injunction as it would be over turned in the direct appeals court to her court due to several reasons. She cited precedent with these reasons too. First, they can only consider the immediate and irreparable harm of the named parties to the suit, not class parties who might be subjected. The named parties would not suffer any immediate harm since they no longer have a computer with the software on it. Another problem was that common sense conclusions cannot be injected into a case. She spends a good deal of time talking about this in which she notes several reversals when this happened in the past and gives notice that the court can only consider things brought up within the complaint.
There are more problems with providing an injunction complete with citations of previous cases to back her reasoning. If someone would initiate a suit alleging direct harm and capable of showing continued harm that doesn't skip important issues in the complaint, she could order an injunction and extend it to everyone putatively involved. But her hands are tied with the way this case have panned out to date as she cited several ways the injunction would be overturned easily if she had granted it.
Thanks you, I will let my sleep deprived half drunken self who really didn't care at the time know that next time I decide to comment on something in that state again..
Charge who? You are "assuming" that the emails are truthful representations of real events. That very fact is brought under contention by Anonymous "hacking" them and gaining access to their servers and electronic documents to suit their own purposes. Sure, they could charge anonymous, if they knew who anonymous was.
This also has everything to do with the scenario because you were the one who actually attempted to murder the person. the other idiot feeding the cops information was just there to throw doubt into the accusations against you. You bought it hook line and sinker when you concentrated on the idea that possession of the coat made someone else suspicious. why did it make him look suspicious, because he had access to all the information that incriminated you while you denied everything and had some plausible excuse to how it could have been someone else.
It's the same thing when an activist organization illegally enters your property and takes things they claim were in your possession or makes statements about possessions of yours on the property in an attempt to further their own activist causes.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm convinced they are guilty of this behavior. I'm sure you are too. But when in court, they have to keep an open mind, and they have to consider the weight of the evidence before it's introduced. The fact that someone broke into the property and then yelled, look here, look here, now look at us it's out agenda and we did it again, but you will never know who we are, puts a path to the doubt of that evidence clearly in the company's hands.
Actually, I followed that case closely and watched the arguments in the supreme court. Ohio does video tape it's supreme court sessions and plays them on one of the PBS stations for anyone to watch.
The corrupt cop was certified, he didn't bring his certificate to court. The court was very meticulous in determining this officers record on estimating speed. They considered factors like cops go through training to estimate the speed of a vehicle and this particular cop's record was something like within 5 mph over 35 of the 40 times needed to pass some part of the academy training.
So let's not make this into more then what it it. It's also not a republican thing. The most corrupt cities with the most corrupt cops in history in the US is demonstratively democrat controlled. Los Angeles, Chicogo, Denver, Cincinnati, Cleavland. And lets not forget the deputies in Zanesville ohio who were busitng people for drugs just to keep the evidence and sell themselves. And yes, Zanesville ohio, Cleavland ohio, and Cincinatti ohio are largely democrat strongholds even though they are in as you put it, "in Ohio (a Republican stronghold)". If there is any connections to republicans and this behavior, it's probably because they don't pay enough to get quality officers hired (I would suspect the same with democrats) and instead end up with these inbred john wayne syndrome asshats because it's all that is willing to work for the same amount of money as a waiter in a halfway decent restaurant. I know cops in ohio who make just over $12-14 an hour.
Lets present something similar for you to think about. Suppose you owned a gun, this gun was uses to attempt the murder of someone you know. Now suppose the police found the gun near the crime scene and someone recognized it as your gun. Now, you look pretty guilty don't you. Your probably the prime suspect. Now what if the person who recognized the gun also told the cops you hated the person who was almost killed by the gun and offered some communications as evidence. Not quite the same yet is it. Well, now we will suppose that your home was broken into why you were away on holiday and you kept the gun in a drawer that anyone could access easily. Let's also assume that there were 5 other sets of fingerprints on the gun besides yours, but all can be accounted for because they have handled the gun within your presence.
You swear it wasn't you who did it, and you swear that you didn't hate the person who was shot at with your gun. You also swear that the email claiming that you hated the person wasn't sent by you even though it came from your home computer the same day you took your vacation. All the evidence pointed to you until someone else had an opportunity to gain possession of the gun, the means to send an email from your personal computer, and manipulate the ways the evidence is seen in context with a very big crime. But once all the facts are in, it's obvious that someone set you up- or attempted to make it look that way. So how reliable is this circumstantial evidence now?
Now suppose that someone saw someone in a brown overcoat just outside the gate right before the gun shots were heard. This brown overcoat is found in the guys possession who has been so helpful to the police already. He claims that he took it from your home without your knowledge after hearing about the reports of the guy in the brown coat and the police find it has gun powder residue on it. That's it, you did it right? Or is there reason to suspect all this evidence pointing to your guilt?
What anonymous has essentially done is created a path way to cause doubt on the weight of the evidence. So the company destroys the backups by paying a IT staffer a bonus and offering him a job at one of the other rags they produce, he destroys the backups claiming it was anonymous in their hacking efforts to retrieve the emails and take control of the servers. Now, were is your proof? Oh, you mean the proof that the activist group who will not identify themselves released in their attempt to further their own agenda?
Also remember, there are accusations that this voice-mail hacking happened with victims and first responders at 9/11 too. So the US could have a means for prosecution as well as the country of nationality of anyone else killed in the attacks.
The company can look filthy as hell, and still use this lost chain of custody concerning the evidence to their advantage. Even if it's discovered the backups were deleted after the release of information, they can still claim anonymous hacked them and did it to make them look guilty of more then what they have already admitted to.
No, I'm saying that there is not a lot of evidence that Nixon was involved in any illegal activity outside of hiding things from congress. Him resigning is by no means an admission of guilt to everything surrounding Watergate. Some people make the case that Clinton and Bush were in the same boat to the extent of wrong doing- except they refused to step down. Clinton certainly rode out the impeachment storm by distracting the populous over what it was about.
This is true, if the tapes weren't accessible from the machines that were hacked or someone picked the right person in the IT staff and paid them to make it look like it was.
I mean common, I described a way that they could get the evidence tossed aside or have somewhat of a plausible deniability over something we pretty much know they did. Erasing the backup tapes or claiming there was a worm implanted during the break-in that caused them to be erased when restoring the systems is not out of the question is it?.
Well, in my experience, a lot of people will do a lot of things if the money is good enough. But here is a major problem, if anonymous hides their tracks to remain anonymous, then how can you trust any server or backup of any server after a point of any signs of any intrusion?
And here is another situation you need to consider, well before the person tells a court, I did not write that email, the lawyer gets it removed from evidence unless the prosecutor or plaintiff can prove it's legitimacy from sources outside those compromised servers. That's something that would be very hard to do and simply altering a time stamp on those emails in the personal computers of the accused can reinforce the illegitimacy of the communications meaning it will not be in evidence.
This differs from the cables release in that you do not have someone to testify that they did not alter anything. You have a group to acted illegally and wish to remain secret so now the onus is not on providing the emails/communications, but proving they were not altered in the process of obtaining them. And fortunately/unfortunately, in some jurisdictions, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine could prevent the documents from ever being used in court if it can be shown that law enforcement was involved in the hacking and disclosure without properly obtaining a warrant. And since Anonymous wants to remain anonymous, a low level cop can say he had a criminal who was facing severe jail time do it to get around getting a warrant then it becomes a he said she said situation with little accountability. As I already said, a lot of people will do a lot of things for a lot of money. How much "a lot" is defined to each individual too so it might not even be a lot by our definitions.
As for Nixon, You need to look into that a little better. Nixon doesn't seem to be behind any of the accusations by Deep Throat, he was mostly guilty of trying to keep it hidden once he learned of it after it happened. the most damning evidence against him was a taped conversation with an 18 minute gap in it.
Let me Fix that for you
"What NotW/The Sun/News International was doing was hacking into phones to obtain stories that were "of interest to the public" (ie provided entertainment) but was NOT "in the public interest" (ie didn't provide information to improve public life/inform the public).
What anon/luz are have done is hack into email servers of companies which have been embroiled in a very serious scandal which has interfered with ongoing police investigations, bribed police, possibly lied to members of parliament, and has also got links to the prime minister himself and in the process compromised the legitimacy of any evidence that could be found within emails or communications stores on the servers they illegally access and manipulated for their own activist goals. Knowing what went/goes on in such an organisation is of interest to the public and is in the public interest but is sadly a lot harder from a communications forensics point or view to prove now that an activist group illegally gained access to the communications for it's own agenda and purpose."
In the end, we have the word of "a group of activist who want to remain hidden, that participated in illegal actions by accessing these servers without permission or proper oversight who also altered some documents on them to further their own goals, when they claim they did nothing to tamper with the evidence at hand" verses the words of "a company accused of wrong doing who was illegally hacked by an activist organization who altered some contents on that server and hid their tracks".
The loser in this mess, the public who does have an interest in the unbiased truth. the winners, anonymous who got their names in the news yet again, the newspaper org, the police and politicians who can now claim the emails were a plant, altered, or distorted and do not reflect reality with the proof that they were by the public acknowledgment of an activist organization.
Actually, I think it is more severe to hack and release the emails of a company/person facing both civil and criminal charges/actions.
Now all the internal email and communications that could be subpoenaed to discover the depth of this scandal and criminal or civil liability can be questioned for it's legitimacy. after all, their servers were hacked and some activist group had complete control over them for an unspecified period of time in which they covered their tracks making it difficult to know exactly what they did while in control of it.
So in court, it would go like this, well, MR CEO, did you tell the reporter to hack the voice mail as is stated in this document? You Honor, I have never ordered anyone to do anything of the sort, it was not a company policy and if it was know, the people responsible would have been reported to the authorities and terminated, that accusation is a fabrication created by an activist group calling itself anonymous who hacked our servers and planted evidence of what they wanted the case to become.
But the investigators have this email sent from your computer. Well, your honor, those documents were retrieved by investigators after the activist group had illegally accessed our servers and one of our IT staff showed us how these headers and identifying information can be fabricated like in this example that looks very realistic as if it was an email you sent under your court email account but from a Disney world resort 3000 miles away and 5 minute into the future from now. IF this was planted on the courts servers by an activist group, would it be evidence that you went to Orlando Florida instead of presiding over this hearing?
The judge would then order the evidence after the break in unreliable unless supported by something the activist group did not hack into. This would likely result in only low level employees who admitted to the deeds getting into trouble.
I'm bashing him because he presents it as if it some new bad thing when in fact, it's already addressed by other laws and what is not addressed, is already legal and in practice. I do not understand why some people think that doing something that is not against the law is bad when no law prevented them from doing it. The essence of freedom is being able to do anything unless a law bars it. We do not need laws telling us what we can do.
BTW, the US can enforce it's laws in the cayman islands when those companies are practicing business inside the US. The US has frozen bank accounts of companies like this before as well as other countries. These companies can be put on a Credit card processing freeze list in which no credit card company or bank doing business in the US will be legally allowed to deposit money in accounts held by that company or it's subsidiary companies. Of course that only happens after a trial in abstentia but it happens. This isn't just a US thing either, almost all of the major nations "(read g8 and affiliates) have these tools at their disposal under certain situations. Every country in the world with a military takes taxing the populous seriously and will work to aid other countries in turn to mutual aid in collecting taxes due to them.
How about I just call you observant. There is no need to politically label paying attention to reality which you demonstrated that you are capable of doing.
I agree. In fact, I think that if we got rid of most corporate taxes and instead taxed dividend distribution at a higher rate, we could encourage more of the good stuff you just mentioned there. At least in that case, the way for a company to avoid taxes would be to expand and employ more people which as you mentioned benefits more then just the company.
This is no different then a New York company printing a mail order offer as a printing press in Texas and sending the offers to residents in California.
That's the only thing Texas is attempting to Clarify with this. The term shouldn't be a "business presence", it's properly refereed to as a "substantial business presence" and is most likely an attempt make the law on collecting sales tax jive with settled mail order law which the US Supreme Court has already handled (which is where the substantial business presence comes from).
I would say, your post is probably one of the biggest arguments for mental capacity testing for people who intend to vote. Let's just hope you are one of those stoners who does not leave the couch when it matters and sits back and complains about how everyone is ruining your ignorant dream of what the US is supposed to be like.
In heat above that of body temperature, it's simple to stay cool by layering light layers of natural cloth loosely around the body. This creates pockets of cooler air and causes a quasi insulation effect and evaporation cooling of your own sweat when it's wicked away by the clothing. It sort of goes counter to what we want to do which is shed the clothing, but you can make a scorching 110 degree day seem like a nice cool 85 or so day in your little micro climate.
85 degrees F might still seem extremely hot for some, but remember that the humidity is really low and the sun is not beating down on your skin directly. Civilizations have been using this to survive in the dessert for longer then recorded history most likely.
why don't you look it up then you can go on their word.
No, I do not agree that the actions need to normally be illegal in both countries. It would all depend on what the actions where and a host of other conditions involved. Some things, it would need to be illegal in both countries, others, it would not.
Or less violent and deadly wars is more like peace.
I do not believe the language concerning the "states" limits this portion of the directive to just EU states in it's application.
It allows for the member states to make rules that limit obligations concerning notification and so on and those rules do not seem to bar the US from being part of it.
In other words, if the UK has a treaty allowing the US to regulate certain types of businesses operating within the UK who are operated by US companies, then that would envelope the US into that authority just the same. Now I do believe there is already an arrangement in place that not only allows for that under section (b) defence; but also the important one with section (f) a monitoring, inspection or regulatory function connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority in cases referred to in (c), (d) and (e); which gives blanket authorization to use (c) public security; (d) the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offenses, or of breaches of ethics for regulated professions; (e) an important economic or financial interest of a Member State or of the European Union, including monetary, budgetary and taxation matters; as excuses.
And to make matters even more unclear, This agreement is largely multilateral with most if not all of the EU states,
What is it with you and your reading comprehension?
GENERALLY does not mean ALWAYS.
The hew Griffith case I cited, was someone who actually used "it's not illegal here" as a defense against being extradited and is now in a Virginia prison. So we know that it has happened in the past.
lol.. Your trying to use to many words to say the same thing I said.