Does marrying outside the US work? After all then you haven't signed any waiver stating you won't do that and I doubt the US requires citizens to sign such a waiver before going on a vacation somewhere?
They only fired West and Zampella (the rest quit on their own volition) and overall IW doesn't exactly seem like a bunch of model employees, more like a bunch of assholes that weren't being punished because of their contribution to the bottom line (some of the IW guys publicly insulted Activision guys on their forums).
Also Activisiopn alleged that W&Z were in talks with EA over defecting and what do you know? A few days after getting fired they get hired by EA. Sure, that's not evidence but it's pretty suspicious anyway and the investigations might dig up some dirt that shows Activision had a reason to act like it did.
Many of the games on the App Store have violence, often more casually brutal (like people being dissected and their entrails dangling about or heads exploding and fountains of blood gushing out) than you'd see in a retail release that has to pass the ESRB rating yet people get upset by a smoking game?
Wait, I thought the whole insubordination deal came about because IW didn't want to make MW3? Sounds like they want to have their cake (not make MW3) and eat it too (get the money for it).
Honestly with a 15 year old I wouldn't be worried about them buying M rated games, it's not gonna leave any real damage and his pals at school are probably bragging about their violent games at that age. That's the rebellious age and anything the parents don't like will be doubly attractive for the minor (triply if the retailer or law doesn't allow it either).
In the USA it is not illegal to let a minor into a movie he isn't rated for (unless it's porn) because for some reason age limits are considered a freedom of speech violation. It's theater policy that keeps the kids out.
Besides, we're talking about a prototype for an unannounced product, most likely this was kept a secret from the customer service reps because they have no business knowing about research projects.
It's either an independent evaluator's call (though in this case it's easy enough to just point at the selling price of regular iPhones) or a "reasonable expectation" thing. Is it reasonable to expect that they know it's worth more than a hundred dollars? Of course it is, iPhones cost way more than that. The dude sold it for 5000$ so he clearly didn't think it was low in value.
The question is whether Gizmodo can be considered on the hook. They had to knowingly receive stolen goods.
It's pretty clear that they knew exactly what it was (or at least suspected it strongly) when they bought it, otherwise they wouldn't have paid nearly as much. Having a reason to suspect the good is stolen when you buy it is enough to run afoul of the law (and the law states that that's worth up to a year of jail or prison).
Doesn't really work if the phone is locked (I know my phone is locked all the time when I have it in my pocket just to prevent it from dialing by accident and it can only be unlocked by entering the PIN).
NASA claims that faking the moon rocks to a degree where they would fool the scientists examining them would have been more expensive than the actual moon landing.
Then lay off the guy giving them. If nobody follows, what's the problem? Right there is the free will issue. We supposedly have the choice not to follow orders. And if that's the case, then only the followers can be blamed.
Let's say the order giver is a dictator or another person in a position of power. You can't lay him off because he's your superior, disobeying him will make him order his other followers to punish you.
Do not conflate verbal with physical. Even "I'll kill you motherfucker!" must be treated on a purely individual basis. So unless you can find means and motivation, and maybe a couple of other things, you're SOL. The mere statement doesn't cut it. Until a crime has been committed there is no crime.
The statement does cut it if it causes psychological damage to the subject (and psychology is a very real thing). Sending someone written death threats (written text is speech too) will cause them a lot of distress and can lead to physical illness, in addition to declaring your own motivation to murder him (you don't need means at this point, it can be reasonably assumed that you could get some means). There is no reason to assume somebody who is making death threats is only making them for the heck of it.
Generally threats are considered to be a statement that you truly intend to follow up on, even your boss threatening to fire you if you don't do X can cause trouble for him if X is against the law (because it can be reasonably assumed that he will indeed fire you if you fail to violate the law).
If you want to make sure nobody ever assumes your speech has a relation with reality get yourself admitted to a mental institution.
That's not the point, cellphones can have a ton of megapixels but with their tiny lens setup the image will be garbage no matter how fine grained the sensor is. This isn't about getting more megapixels, it's about getting digital images out of expensive old cameras with very expensive lens setups.
Given how often drives full of recoverable data are thrown away even just file system encryption would be useful. There's no 100% security but the law mandates that you at least have to try.
when you just are going to extremes like the need of encrypting *public* and easily available information like, say the name of a person, which is also available (with even more details) in your favorite telephone directory, you are not being "good". You're being ridiculous.
The law specifically excludes data that was gathered from publicly available sources.
Slashdot Mirror
Policy isn't necessarily laws or morals.
Kinda related but in first aid training we were told never to give first aid to an American because they'll sue you.
You can sue because the sky is blue but did they win?
Dunno, don't you guys have some kind of national ID card or citizen registry that could prove you are indeed a citizen?
Does marrying outside the US work? After all then you haven't signed any waiver stating you won't do that and I doubt the US requires citizens to sign such a waiver before going on a vacation somewhere?
What, banning online sales to force people to buy at retail (and likely from Apple Stores)? It's at least an anti-consumer move.
They only fired West and Zampella (the rest quit on their own volition) and overall IW doesn't exactly seem like a bunch of model employees, more like a bunch of assholes that weren't being punished because of their contribution to the bottom line (some of the IW guys publicly insulted Activision guys on their forums).
Also Activisiopn alleged that W&Z were in talks with EA over defecting and what do you know? A few days after getting fired they get hired by EA. Sure, that's not evidence but it's pretty suspicious anyway and the investigations might dig up some dirt that shows Activision had a reason to act like it did.
Many of the games on the App Store have violence, often more casually brutal (like people being dissected and their entrails dangling about or heads exploding and fountains of blood gushing out) than you'd see in a retail release that has to pass the ESRB rating yet people get upset by a smoking game?
Wait, I thought the whole insubordination deal came about because IW didn't want to make MW3? Sounds like they want to have their cake (not make MW3) and eat it too (get the money for it).
Honestly with a 15 year old I wouldn't be worried about them buying M rated games, it's not gonna leave any real damage and his pals at school are probably bragging about their violent games at that age. That's the rebellious age and anything the parents don't like will be doubly attractive for the minor (triply if the retailer or law doesn't allow it either).
If the family's lawyer tries to sue an entertainment company for "making the kid do it" I'd say that's a good indicator.
In the USA it is not illegal to let a minor into a movie he isn't rated for (unless it's porn) because for some reason age limits are considered a freedom of speech violation. It's theater policy that keeps the kids out.
Besides, we're talking about a prototype for an unannounced product, most likely this was kept a secret from the customer service reps because they have no business knowing about research projects.
If you do not intend to deprive someone of their property indefinitely, then you are not committing a crime.
So if you borrow something without the consent of the owner there's nothing the owner can do to stop you? Somehow that doesn't sound likely.
It's either an independent evaluator's call (though in this case it's easy enough to just point at the selling price of regular iPhones) or a "reasonable expectation" thing. Is it reasonable to expect that they know it's worth more than a hundred dollars? Of course it is, iPhones cost way more than that. The dude sold it for 5000$ so he clearly didn't think it was low in value.
The question is whether Gizmodo can be considered on the hook. They had to knowingly receive stolen goods.
It's pretty clear that they knew exactly what it was (or at least suspected it strongly) when they bought it, otherwise they wouldn't have paid nearly as much. Having a reason to suspect the good is stolen when you buy it is enough to run afoul of the law (and the law states that that's worth up to a year of jail or prison).
Doesn't really work if the phone is locked (I know my phone is locked all the time when I have it in my pocket just to prevent it from dialing by accident and it can only be unlocked by entering the PIN).
Isn't that only in international waters? I doubt this iPhone was floating.
They aren't charged by Apple, they are charged by the government. Even if Apple says it's all fine the prosecution doesn't care.
NASA claims that faking the moon rocks to a degree where they would fool the scientists examining them would have been more expensive than the actual moon landing.
Then lay off the guy giving them. If nobody follows, what's the problem? Right there is the free will issue. We supposedly have the choice not to follow orders. And if that's the case, then only the followers can be blamed.
Let's say the order giver is a dictator or another person in a position of power. You can't lay him off because he's your superior, disobeying him will make him order his other followers to punish you.
Do not conflate verbal with physical. Even "I'll kill you motherfucker!" must be treated on a purely individual basis. So unless you can find means and motivation, and maybe a couple of other things, you're SOL. The mere statement doesn't cut it. Until a crime has been committed there is no crime.
The statement does cut it if it causes psychological damage to the subject (and psychology is a very real thing). Sending someone written death threats (written text is speech too) will cause them a lot of distress and can lead to physical illness, in addition to declaring your own motivation to murder him (you don't need means at this point, it can be reasonably assumed that you could get some means). There is no reason to assume somebody who is making death threats is only making them for the heck of it.
Generally threats are considered to be a statement that you truly intend to follow up on, even your boss threatening to fire you if you don't do X can cause trouble for him if X is against the law (because it can be reasonably assumed that he will indeed fire you if you fail to violate the law).
If you want to make sure nobody ever assumes your speech has a relation with reality get yourself admitted to a mental institution.
Well yeah but no matter what was done to crack it the people whose data is stolen will be hurt either way.
That's not the point, cellphones can have a ton of megapixels but with their tiny lens setup the image will be garbage no matter how fine grained the sensor is. This isn't about getting more megapixels, it's about getting digital images out of expensive old cameras with very expensive lens setups.
Given how often drives full of recoverable data are thrown away even just file system encryption would be useful. There's no 100% security but the law mandates that you at least have to try.
when you just are going to extremes like the need of encrypting *public* and easily available information like, say the name of a person, which is also available (with even more details) in your favorite telephone directory, you are not being "good". You're being ridiculous.
The law specifically excludes data that was gathered from publicly available sources.