You're a moron. Seriously. Your defense has devolved into "Let's make this illegal so it would be a crime to frame an innocent person."
It's already a crime to file false police reports, it's already a crime to have real child pornography, and it's already a crime to access an information system without authorization.
You're using a stretched-out, impossible situation as an example to further your moral crusades.
Somewhat offtopic, but related to your post. The EFF maintains a mailing list for technologists who would be willing to assist as witnesses or in other ways for cases such as this. When an attorney needs an expert witness for, say, a defense case against the RIAA, the EFF happily forwards it to this list.
http://www.eff.org/about/opportunities/volunteer
The sad thing is that what Hillary has thrown at Obama is nothing compared to what the Republicans will throw at him starting now. If they cannot stand Hillary's attacks, they're going to crumple under McCain and the whole Republican propaganda machine. That doesn't mean that they should react with warm and open arms to dirty politics.
I've seen and spoken with Mujahideen fighters. I've seen members of the Taliban. I've fought against insurgents in Iraq. I've seen the intimidation present during the Iraqi "elections". I've seen the reports and intel on Somali radical militias. I've seen 9/11.
You are taking nearly a dozen different issues and groups and bunching them all into one mess. They're not the same. Is the only connection you can draw the fact that they're (mostly) Muslim?
How about we turn this around and talk about any bad thing any member of any arbitrary religion has ever done. Hitler was raised Catholic, so that must mean all Catholics are evil and must be slaughtered? Stalin was basically athiest, so that must mean all athiests are responsible for gulags, right?
The ACLU Scorecard might be helpful. It doesn't contain some technical issues, and has a bit of fluff, but it's worthwhile anyway even for a general overview of a candidate's voting style.
Both of these candidates, however, are abstaining quite a bit in the recent votes to avoid alienating any swing groups.
In the government, strangely enough, there are very few instances where there is a clear chain of command. Situational authority, positional authority, and rank all combine to create a very confusing mix.
If someone higher than you makes the decision, it is their ass. If you are not asking a higher authority when asked to do something you think is wrong, it is your ass. It really is that plain and simple. I have personally witnessed many events that contradict that statement. I have heard of many more. "He told me to" is not a valid excuse when something is wrong. In the current economy, however, most people can't afford to be cavalier with their jobs, especially with silly things like "right" and "wrong".
Except the federal government is not a business. The officers and managers that fight IT do not have the authority to make the decisions they are making. A Colonel does not override the authority of the Major General who signed the policies into effect.
If that individual runs a computer which breaks security policy, then more than likely they are breaking a variety of laws. Not only that, IT personnel who allow that action are also breaking laws, laws which could land said IT personnel into federal prison for a LONG time.
At least in the military, and government contracting, IT personnel are seen as the "obnoxious geeks" that just get in everyone's way and try to make work hard. They don't understand that MySpace and certain advertisers are blocked for a reason. They don't understand that you have to provide a justification for that firewall modification because IT is trying to protect the network, not because they hate you.
Military officers ESPECIALLY despise IT. They were generally raised in a slightly more privileged environment, and therefore believe that their "education" makes them intellectually superior to others in every aspect.
It becomes a game of cat and mouse. The IT personnel scramble to keep things running on a minimal budget, while the "management" does everything it can to stop IT from doing its job.
I think you understand what I am saying, but not the angle which I am approaching the issue from.
A lawyer could, if this woman is found guilty on all counts, come along and say "This woman was found guilty under a computer crimes (anti-hacking) law for a violation of terms of service, therefore we should convict this person for ciminally unauthorized access to our system since he was not welcome under our TOS."
Slashdot Mirror
whooooooosh
You're a moron. Seriously. Your defense has devolved into "Let's make this illegal so it would be a crime to frame an innocent person."
It's already a crime to file false police reports, it's already a crime to have real child pornography, and it's already a crime to access an information system without authorization.
You're using a stretched-out, impossible situation as an example to further your moral crusades.
If you're living in the U.S., you don't live in a democratic society. Representative republic would be far closer to reality.
Somewhat offtopic, but related to your post. The EFF maintains a mailing list for technologists who would be willing to assist as witnesses or in other ways for cases such as this. When an attorney needs an expert witness for, say, a defense case against the RIAA, the EFF happily forwards it to this list. http://www.eff.org/about/opportunities/volunteer
I Lol'd.
Timothy McVeigh was a christian.
I'm relatively left-right moderate in my political views. It cost him my vote.
Ooh, Wesley Clark, I forgot about him. Good choice.
I've spent 2 years in Iraq and 18 months in Afghanistan. Could you truly fault me for focusing on that issue when choosing a candidate?
Bandwidth is bandwidth. I severely doubt any restrictions were present in the end user agreement specifying how the bandwidth is available by port.
Forging RST packets is not "shaping"
It does not use "medical/scientific jargon to explain itself," so what is the explanation? Magic?
You say "right" as if what's "right" for business is the "right" thing to do.
Just because a profit is reliably turned, does not mean that the entity in question isn't morally bankrupt.
I could reliably turn over a large profit selling young boys in southwest Asia, but that doesn't make it "right".
I've seen and spoken with Mujahideen fighters. I've seen members of the Taliban. I've fought against insurgents in Iraq. I've seen the intimidation present during the Iraqi "elections". I've seen the reports and intel on Somali radical militias. I've seen 9/11.
You are taking nearly a dozen different issues and groups and bunching them all into one mess. They're not the same. Is the only connection you can draw the fact that they're (mostly) Muslim?
How about we turn this around and talk about any bad thing any member of any arbitrary religion has ever done. Hitler was raised Catholic, so that must mean all Catholics are evil and must be slaughtered? Stalin was basically athiest, so that must mean all athiests are responsible for gulags, right?
Except you were a dick about it. Dick.
The ACLU Scorecard might be helpful. It doesn't contain some technical issues, and has a bit of fluff, but it's worthwhile anyway even for a general overview of a candidate's voting style.
Both of these candidates, however, are abstaining quite a bit in the recent votes to avoid alienating any swing groups.
Whoooooooosh!
Change that to "Evil, life-ruining, money grabbing individual pretending to be loyal for entirely self serving purposes" and you will soon understand.
Except the federal government is not a business. The officers and managers that fight IT do not have the authority to make the decisions they are making. A Colonel does not override the authority of the Major General who signed the policies into effect.
If that individual runs a computer which breaks security policy, then more than likely they are breaking a variety of laws. Not only that, IT personnel who allow that action are also breaking laws, laws which could land said IT personnel into federal prison for a LONG time.
At least in the military, and government contracting, IT personnel are seen as the "obnoxious geeks" that just get in everyone's way and try to make work hard. They don't understand that MySpace and certain advertisers are blocked for a reason. They don't understand that you have to provide a justification for that firewall modification because IT is trying to protect the network, not because they hate you.
Military officers ESPECIALLY despise IT. They were generally raised in a slightly more privileged environment, and therefore believe that their "education" makes them intellectually superior to others in every aspect.
It becomes a game of cat and mouse. The IT personnel scramble to keep things running on a minimal budget, while the "management" does everything it can to stop IT from doing its job.
At least in my state, they only accept Pentium 4 and above.
Or even, like a previous poster stated, child abuse. Aggravated child abuse lands you in prison for a few decades, minimum.
I think you understand what I am saying, but not the angle which I am approaching the issue from.
A lawyer could, if this woman is found guilty on all counts, come along and say "This woman was found guilty under a computer crimes (anti-hacking) law for a violation of terms of service, therefore we should convict this person for ciminally unauthorized access to our system since he was not welcome under our TOS."