Not misparsed. That would imply the source text obeys the target grammar.
Thanks, though. I'm glad someone could interpret that. There's so much bad punctuation on the Internet that one must frequently guess what the punctuation ought to be. I just got it wrong this time.
"Because a bitwise comparison of the two drives shows no differences."
"Because I have just made in your presence a bitwise duplicate of the original drive upon which my following testing was performed, and the results of that testing produce the same data that the FBI claims it does."
And we know this is the original drive how? And we know the original drive hasn't been tampered with how? And we know the FBI hasn't introduced an entirely new drive into the collection how?
Since it is evidence, the defendant will have a verified copy of the original drive that his own experts can testify about.
Very unlikely, actually. Oh, they'll need "access" to the evidence in some fashion. In cases like this, it will probably be limited to a "third-party expert" who will have to be approved by a federal agency. But even they won't be permitted access right away. There's lots of opportunity for evidentiary hijinks before that.
If I remember correctly, they don't need to give access to evidence until the discovery phase of the trial... and they don't need to declare evidence they don't intend to use. I know they don't need to declare witnesses who won't be testifying.
And a "verified copy"? Verified by whom? Verified how?
(Don't get me wrong, I generally trust the police, FBI, etc... but there are some really bad cookies among them. They can't be trusted in a court of law as a matter of course. That's what the court system is for.)
It sounds like you have spent some time and effort to address the situation on your network relative to your needs. I've seen shops where the policy was to bury their heads in the sand.
All in all, I don't even believe that I.T. is really so "expert" in handling outside threats and attacks. How can we be? We usually don't have access to the source code to the devices we implement and often aren't even good enough at coding to figure out what it meant if we were.
I didn't actually use the word "expert", but "professional" -- as in, it's part of the IT profession to understand and manage such risks.
Knit-picking aside, someone must determine various risks, attack vectors, and ways to deal with them. Like it or not, that's part of IT. That doesn't mean perfect security, releasing your own patches, or being omniscient. It does mean addressing the big three in a reasoned, balanced way: data confidentiality, integrity, availability. It does mean following industry guidelines and keeping your ear to the ground (metaphorically speaking) for changes in the field. It doesn't mean knowing each and every unpatched zero-day exploit, but it does mean knowing the broad types of exploits and how to avoid or recognize and recover from them.
Again, I largely agree with you, and think our stances aren't terribly different.
All the feds have to do is go before the judge, start with an archived copy of the original disk which can be proven to be bitwise identical, apply the correct decryption process, and when out pops all the data they claim was there you'll have to explain how they got the original encrypted bytes to decrypt directly into the alleged criminal data.
Uh, right. So, you're saying the Judge is going to personally verify a checksum of the drive AND you're suggesting that the judge already has a checksum of the drive?
"Uh, yes your honor. This is an unmodified copy of the drive"
"And how can I be sure?"
"Uh, the checksum matches."
"How do I know that's not a modified executable or a very small script? It tells me the checksum matches, but that's no guarantee."
"You can run it yourself?"
"...And, how do I know the checksum is of the original drive?"
"I say so?..."
This conversation would never actually happen, but you can see some of the problems. And the defendant isn't going to have a checksum of the drive either. If it is falsified, he's left trying to prove a negative.
I think this is why people make BYOD into a FAR bigger deal than it needs to be. Again, the cellphones and mobile devices are simply tools people can use to do their jobs. If you TRUST an employee enough to give them access to your digital information in the first place, then who really cares if your company has the legal right to wipe the device on demand or not? That's like issuing them a pad of paper and pencil and saying, "If you're terminated or quit, you must return the pad of paper to us."
I largely agree with you, but there is a very important aspect that you're overlooking. You're focused almost entirely at malicious insider activity. From this perspective, you're absolutely right.
What you're missing is outside malicious activity. The average employee hasn't a clue how to keep intruders out. Aside from minimal training, they can't be expected to. They aren't professionals at keeping computer systems secure and running. That's ITs job.
IT must therefore find strategies to enable other employees to keep the network secure and running. BYOD causes all kinds of problems in this regard. It must be addressed with time, effort, and resources, or prevented (again costing time, effort, and resources).
Remember, the problem here isn't (principally) what employees do with their devices. The problem is what their devices do despite them.
These CEO's often wonder why they end up with crappy IT departments.
Yes men tend to make very poor security decisions.
???
That was a non-sequiter. You took an example of bullying and tried using it to rail against men. Lots of men make great security decisions. Lots of jerks with power don't -- both men and women. This isn't a gender issue.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Are you trying to be inflammatory? If it was a joke, it was badly formed (and not funny).
According to one common definition of IQ, it is defined as having a population mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Someone would need to be -6.66... standard deviations to reach an IQ of zero. Unless I've messed up the math, there'd need to be approximately 76.5 billion people for us to start seeing negative IQs.
The difference between extortion and being a real hard-ass in negotiations is that an extorter would be breaking the law if he carried out his threats.
"Neither extortion nor blackmail require a threat of a criminal act" - Now I'm not sure where the line is drawn, but this doesn't seem to be it.
Common mistake. There are no "same feds". The "feds" are people from all walks of life, and come with opinions that vary as much as the general population.
Apologies in advance. I'm about to be pedantic.
Federal employees do come from all walks of life, and their beliefs do vary as widely as the general population, but not "as much as the general population". Their beliefs have a tendency to cluster. The distribution is not at all the same as the general population.
Why do their beliefs tend to cluster, because they have common factors: traits that led them to chose to apply for work in the Federal government; traits selected or filtered out during the hiring process (to varying degrees depending on the job); a shared set of interests (pay, working conditions, retirement packages); and a shared set of experiences that shape belief over time.
None of these are terribly strong factors, and there are still wild differences between different federal employees. But they simply don't "vary as much as the general population". There are distinct clusters around particular job types and organizations.
They have this patent. That means they have the right to sue you for infringing it. That means they have the right to tell you "we will sue your ass if you don't pay us."
Actually, they probably don't. They're not sending out threatening letters themselves, but are using forty different shell companies to send out their threats. That's intentional obfuscation. It's the sort of thing you'd do if you didn't actually hold the rights you're claiming.
And if they do own a patent, any patent, it isn't going to be for the end use of scanners. That is (pardon the pun) patently ridiculous. Of course, that would still need to be borne out in court, and the victims would need to shell out cash to lawyers to prove it.
To be extortion they'd have to threaten actual violence.
I'm not an expert in law, but this statement seems dubious. I wonder what it would take for this to be deemed extortion.
From Wikipedia
Under United States federal law extortion can be committed with or without the use of force and with or without the use of a weapon. A key difference is that extortion always involves a written or verbal threat whereas robbery can occur without any verbal or written threat.
Neither extortion nor blackmail require a threat of a criminal act, such as violence, merely a threat used to elicit actions, money, or property from the object of the extortion. Such threats include the filing of reports (true or not) of criminal behavior to the police,
This is a threat, not including violence, used to elicit money from another party and includes the threat of filing reports (probably quite false) with... not the police, but the judiciary.
I doubt the courts will be willing to besmirch their bread-and-butter with the term "extortion", but this is extraordinarily close to what's happening.
The California Attorney General? You mean the California that I live in, and is run by the left? Yeah, that sounds like a trustworthy source in this context. Totally believable.
Now I'm not accusing the AG of covering for a political activist group against a politically motivated investigation. But I cannot believe that he didn't receive pressure from political allies to bury this. Thus, he cannot be a credible source, on his own.
Yes, I just said that a politician can't be credible on a political matter. Big shock. And I'm not bashing Democrats. I'd say the same if it were the Republicans and one of their backers.
This doesn't protect you from being rear-ended yourself because you had to stop short for a red light and somebody is tailgating you.
You bring up an interesting point. I recently had a similar concern, but came to a different conclusion. If someone is tailgating me, it means I need to leave plenty of space in front of me, not only so I can slow down and stop, but so that the tailgater can slow down and stop. I also try to gauge the warning time for potential hazards. Thus, I actually drive slower when I'm being tailgated. In some situations, much slower.
Does that make me a jerk? I don't think so, but I can see why someone might think that. I'm not doing it to teach them a lesson. That's just a potential side benefit. I'm just doing the rational thing to adjust to someone else's dangerous behavior so they don't wind up injuring me.
(If anyone prints a bumper sticker "I drive slower for tailgaters", I'd actually consider buying one.)
If I recall correctly, rush hour traffic in LA gives a 2 second following distance of less than an inch. I'd be surprised if San Diego is significantly better.
Also, in many cases medication can really help people. Sometimes the reason doesn't matter so much as the end result. A good example of this is medication for schizophrenia. It was discovered by accident, but it can be incredibly effective, so why not give it to people, even if we don't know how or why it works? It works, which is the most important part.
My post was a side comment on a related topic, specifically tied to depression. I don't know enough about schizophrenia (for example) to refute the general case. It is not true for depression. You shouldn't reach straight for the meds before you know what you're dealing with, or have at least ruled everything known as reasonably unlikely.
Depression can strike people who don't really have any reasons for it. It can absolutely be just caused by a random shift in the levels of some brain chemicals.
There is a reason for it, even if we don't know what it is. The cause can vary wildly from case to case, but there is one. And I'm not arguing against SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, and MAOIs in each and every case. There are many, many patients that we (society) cannot otherwise help. They should simply NOT be the first thing the doctor thinks of.
There are so many "depression" patients with undiagnosed, treatable illness that it is simply not funny. They're living with less depression than they would if they weren't pilled up, but it won't go away until they're actually treated for what is actually wrong with them.
Drug addiction and alcoholism can not happen unless the person is mentally ill.
You've said a lot of interesting things... But I have no idea where you got this. Drug addiction can be viewed as a mental illness (if you squint just right), and the mentally ill may be more susceptible than most (unsubstantiated conjecture), but addiction can and does exist independent of any other condition. Most of the time, it is independent of any other mental condition.
As has been put much more eloquently by others, the space race wasn't about climbing a mountain because it's there. It was about trying to prevent world war 3 (or at least postpone it significantly). As expensive as it was, it was better than all out nuclear war.
It was akin to challenging one's rival to a foot race instead of a boxing match. It was one of the most mature things national governments have ever done. (room remains for improvement)
America may have forgotten about the drive to build, explore, settle, create, but humanity hasn't. Space isn't sour grapes. It's hard, and settling it is going to be a lot harder. But it will happen.
Today's treatments, as frequently used, are as worthless and misguided as those exorcisms.
I'd rather have no loaf, than have no loaf and pay for it. These drugs have side effects, some of them very bad, and some of them permanent. (and doctors generally won't tell you about them in advance)
True, honest diagnosis first.THEN treatment.
What would be better is to avoid diagnosis labels (or use only more specific labels) until we can understand and test for the neurological conditions that lead to the symptoms of mental illness. We could differentiate "depression due to low $HORMONE" from "depression due to physically-damaged $STRUCTURE", and "low levels of $CHEMICAL" from "high levels of $OPPOSITE_CHEMICAL". From there, drug treatment can be centered on solving specific problems, rather than just brutally shoving the mind in a particular direction. Once the underlying neurology is a bit closer to "fixed", therapy can be more effective at helping the patient cope with their chronic condition.
This isn't academic, when-the-sun-burns-out stuff here. Hormonal, structural, neuro-transmitter (chemical), and opposing neurotransmitter problems can often be diagnosed today. They just frequently aren't because doctors are either too busy, lazy, or ignorant. It is very reasonable to believe we'll have even more of these things that we'll be able to test for in the near future.
Slashdot Mirror
Not misparsed. That would imply the source text obeys the target grammar.
Thanks, though. I'm glad someone could interpret that. There's so much bad punctuation on the Internet that one must frequently guess what the punctuation ought to be. I just got it wrong this time.
And we know this is the original drive how? And we know the original drive hasn't been tampered with how? And we know the FBI hasn't introduced an entirely new drive into the collection how?
Very unlikely, actually. Oh, they'll need "access" to the evidence in some fashion. In cases like this, it will probably be limited to a "third-party expert" who will have to be approved by a federal agency. But even they won't be permitted access right away. There's lots of opportunity for evidentiary hijinks before that.
If I remember correctly, they don't need to give access to evidence until the discovery phase of the trial... and they don't need to declare evidence they don't intend to use. I know they don't need to declare witnesses who won't be testifying.
And a "verified copy"? Verified by whom? Verified how?
(Don't get me wrong, I generally trust the police, FBI, etc... but there are some really bad cookies among them. They can't be trusted in a court of law as a matter of course. That's what the court system is for.)
It sounds like you have spent some time and effort to address the situation on your network relative to your needs. I've seen shops where the policy was to bury their heads in the sand.
I didn't actually use the word "expert", but "professional" -- as in, it's part of the IT profession to understand and manage such risks.
Knit-picking aside, someone must determine various risks, attack vectors, and ways to deal with them. Like it or not, that's part of IT. That doesn't mean perfect security, releasing your own patches, or being omniscient. It does mean addressing the big three in a reasoned, balanced way: data confidentiality, integrity, availability. It does mean following industry guidelines and keeping your ear to the ground (metaphorically speaking) for changes in the field. It doesn't mean knowing each and every unpatched zero-day exploit, but it does mean knowing the broad types of exploits and how to avoid or recognize and recover from them.
Again, I largely agree with you, and think our stances aren't terribly different.
Warrants tend to come before charges.
Warrants require probable cause, not arraignment. There have been a great many charges brought because of evidence recovered by warrants.
Uh, right. So, you're saying the Judge is going to personally verify a checksum of the drive AND you're suggesting that the judge already has a checksum of the drive?
"Uh, yes your honor. This is an unmodified copy of the drive"
"And how can I be sure?"
"Uh, the checksum matches."
"How do I know that's not a modified executable or a very small script? It tells me the checksum matches, but that's no guarantee."
"You can run it yourself?"
"...And, how do I know the checksum is of the original drive?"
"I say so?..."
This conversation would never actually happen, but you can see some of the problems. And the defendant isn't going to have a checksum of the drive either. If it is falsified, he's left trying to prove a negative.
I think this is why people make BYOD into a FAR bigger deal than it needs to be. Again, the cellphones and mobile devices are simply tools people can use to do their jobs. If you TRUST an employee enough to give them access to your digital information in the first place, then who really cares if your company has the legal right to wipe the device on demand or not? That's like issuing them a pad of paper and pencil and saying, "If you're terminated or quit, you must return the pad of paper to us."
I largely agree with you, but there is a very important aspect that you're overlooking. You're focused almost entirely at malicious insider activity. From this perspective, you're absolutely right.
What you're missing is outside malicious activity. The average employee hasn't a clue how to keep intruders out. Aside from minimal training, they can't be expected to. They aren't professionals at keeping computer systems secure and running. That's ITs job.
IT must therefore find strategies to enable other employees to keep the network secure and running. BYOD causes all kinds of problems in this regard. It must be addressed with time, effort, and resources, or prevented (again costing time, effort, and resources).
Remember, the problem here isn't (principally) what employees do with their devices. The problem is what their devices do despite them.
These CEO's often wonder why they end up with crappy IT departments.
Yes men tend to make very poor security decisions.
???
That was a non-sequiter. You took an example of bullying and tried using it to rail against men. Lots of men make great security decisions. Lots of jerks with power don't -- both men and women. This isn't a gender issue.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Are you trying to be inflammatory? If it was a joke, it was badly formed (and not funny).
According to one common definition of IQ, it is defined as having a population mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Someone would need to be -6.66... standard deviations to reach an IQ of zero. Unless I've messed up the math, there'd need to be approximately 76.5 billion people for us to start seeing negative IQs.
So, yeah. IQ doesn't go negative... yet.
The difference between extortion and being a real hard-ass in negotiations is that an extorter would be breaking the law if he carried out his threats.
"Neither extortion nor blackmail require a threat of a criminal act" - Now I'm not sure where the line is drawn, but this doesn't seem to be it.
Common mistake. There are no "same feds". The "feds" are people from all walks of life, and come with opinions that vary as much as the general population.
Apologies in advance. I'm about to be pedantic.
Federal employees do come from all walks of life, and their beliefs do vary as widely as the general population, but not "as much as the general population". Their beliefs have a tendency to cluster. The distribution is not at all the same as the general population.
Why do their beliefs tend to cluster, because they have common factors: traits that led them to chose to apply for work in the Federal government; traits selected or filtered out during the hiring process (to varying degrees depending on the job); a shared set of interests (pay, working conditions, retirement packages); and a shared set of experiences that shape belief over time.
None of these are terribly strong factors, and there are still wild differences between different federal employees. But they simply don't "vary as much as the general population". There are distinct clusters around particular job types and organizations.
They have this patent. That means they have the right to sue you for infringing it. That means they have the right to tell you "we will sue your ass if you don't pay us."
Actually, they probably don't. They're not sending out threatening letters themselves, but are using forty different shell companies to send out their threats. That's intentional obfuscation. It's the sort of thing you'd do if you didn't actually hold the rights you're claiming.
And if they do own a patent, any patent, it isn't going to be for the end use of scanners. That is (pardon the pun) patently ridiculous. Of course, that would still need to be borne out in court, and the victims would need to shell out cash to lawyers to prove it.
To be extortion they'd have to threaten actual violence.
I'm not an expert in law, but this statement seems dubious. I wonder what it would take for this to be deemed extortion.
From Wikipedia
Under United States federal law extortion can be committed with or without the use of force and with or without the use of a weapon. A key difference is that extortion always involves a written or verbal threat whereas robbery can occur without any verbal or written threat.
Neither extortion nor blackmail require a threat of a criminal act, such as violence, merely a threat used to elicit actions, money, or property from the object of the extortion. Such threats include the filing of reports (true or not) of criminal behavior to the police,
This is a threat, not including violence, used to elicit money from another party and includes the threat of filing reports (probably quite false) with... not the police, but the judiciary.
I doubt the courts will be willing to besmirch their bread-and-butter with the term "extortion", but this is extraordinarily close to what's happening.
You're referring to Duverger's law.
I haven't yet found a "proportional" system that I feel actually represents the voters. Which would you recommend, and why?
And I agree, we really need to ditch first-past-the-post. ALMOST ANYTHING else would be better.
Wiki? That's your source?
The California Attorney General? You mean the California that I live in, and is run by the left? Yeah, that sounds like a trustworthy source in this context. Totally believable.
Now I'm not accusing the AG of covering for a political activist group against a politically motivated investigation. But I cannot believe that he didn't receive pressure from political allies to bury this. Thus, he cannot be a credible source, on his own.
Yes, I just said that a politician can't be credible on a political matter. Big shock. And I'm not bashing Democrats. I'd say the same if it were the Republicans and one of their backers.
You bring up an interesting point. I recently had a similar concern, but came to a different conclusion. If someone is tailgating me, it means I need to leave plenty of space in front of me, not only so I can slow down and stop, but so that the tailgater can slow down and stop. I also try to gauge the warning time for potential hazards. Thus, I actually drive slower when I'm being tailgated. In some situations, much slower.
Does that make me a jerk? I don't think so, but I can see why someone might think that. I'm not doing it to teach them a lesson. That's just a potential side benefit. I'm just doing the rational thing to adjust to someone else's dangerous behavior so they don't wind up injuring me.
(If anyone prints a bumper sticker "I drive slower for tailgaters", I'd actually consider buying one.)
If I recall correctly, rush hour traffic in LA gives a 2 second following distance of less than an inch. I'd be surprised if San Diego is significantly better.
(tongue only slightly in cheek)
???
Are you talking about the summary that quotes the relevant bits of the article?
You're two days behind what node_3 responded with. At least he had a valid point. How did you miss his post?
Also, in many cases medication can really help people. Sometimes the reason doesn't matter so much as the end result. A good example of this is medication for schizophrenia. It was discovered by accident, but it can be incredibly effective, so why not give it to people, even if we don't know how or why it works? It works, which is the most important part.
My post was a side comment on a related topic, specifically tied to depression. I don't know enough about schizophrenia (for example) to refute the general case. It is not true for depression. You shouldn't reach straight for the meds before you know what you're dealing with, or have at least ruled everything known as reasonably unlikely.
Depression can strike people who don't really have any reasons for it. It can absolutely be just caused by a random shift in the levels of some brain chemicals.
There is a reason for it, even if we don't know what it is. The cause can vary wildly from case to case, but there is one. And I'm not arguing against SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, and MAOIs in each and every case. There are many, many patients that we (society) cannot otherwise help. They should simply NOT be the first thing the doctor thinks of.
There are so many "depression" patients with undiagnosed, treatable illness that it is simply not funny. They're living with less depression than they would if they weren't pilled up, but it won't go away until they're actually treated for what is actually wrong with them.
Makes sense.
Either that, or on a psychedelic trip (etc).
You've said a lot of interesting things... But I have no idea where you got this. Drug addiction can be viewed as a mental illness (if you squint just right), and the mentally ill may be more susceptible than most (unsubstantiated conjecture), but addiction can and does exist independent of any other condition. Most of the time, it is independent of any other mental condition.
As has been put much more eloquently by others, the space race wasn't about climbing a mountain because it's there. It was about trying to prevent world war 3 (or at least postpone it significantly). As expensive as it was, it was better than all out nuclear war.
It was akin to challenging one's rival to a foot race instead of a boxing match. It was one of the most mature things national governments have ever done. (room remains for improvement)
I disagree.
America may have forgotten about the drive to build, explore, settle, create, but humanity hasn't. Space isn't sour grapes. It's hard, and settling it is going to be a lot harder. But it will happen.
"Verbing weirds language."
(Calvin and Hobbes--Bill Watson)
Anonopathy? Dansnomatophobia?
I've met people like that.
I've also met people who have gone out of their way to hide their disorder, out of a rational fear of being judged for it.
Today's treatments, as frequently used, are as worthless and misguided as those exorcisms.
I'd rather have no loaf, than have no loaf and pay for it. These drugs have side effects, some of them very bad, and some of them permanent. (and doctors generally won't tell you about them in advance)
True, honest diagnosis first.THEN treatment.
This isn't academic, when-the-sun-burns-out stuff here. Hormonal, structural, neuro-transmitter (chemical), and opposing neurotransmitter problems can often be diagnosed today. They just frequently aren't because doctors are either too busy, lazy, or ignorant. It is very reasonable to believe we'll have even more of these things that we'll be able to test for in the near future.