"I agree that the painter analogy is a bit forced..."
I actually liked the analogy of sketching to the approach of (for lack of a better label) _highly iterative development making frequent use of a debugger_ when initially getting a feel for the shape of a design:
"For example, I was taught in college that one ought to figure out a program completely on paper before even going near a computer. I found that I did not program this way. I found that I liked to program sitting in front of a computer, not a piece of paper. Worse still, instead of patiently writing out a complete program and assuring myself it was correct, I tended to just spew out code that was hopelessly broken, and gradually beat it into shape. Debugging, I was taught, was a kind of final pass where you caught typos and oversights. The way I worked, it seemed like programming consisted of debugging.
For a long time I felt bad about this, just as I once felt bad that I didn't hold my pencil the way they taught me to in elementary school. If I had only looked over at the other makers, the painters or the architects, I would have realized that there was a name for what I was doing: sketching."
This would prevent law enforcement agencies tapping the signal.
Strictly speaking, LEA's could still "tap", encryption would just make it more difficult to make sense of the captured voice stream (in the case of a voice intercept, that is). And even with "user encryption", you could still service "pen register" and "trap and trace" warrants (basically timestamped records of who called who).
Furthermore, though I can't find the reference now, I remember reading that carriers are permitted to offer "unreversible" encryption on their networks (i.e. if they are able to decrypt the communication they have to do it when faced with an appropriate warrant, but if they can't they are still in compliance with CALEA).
It wouldn't be different, the legal process would be the same, etc.
The real question is whether the company operating the service has to comply with CALEA, which among other things requires the provider to create/maintain infrastructure to supply Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) with information like the following (when requested via a warrant, that is):
Content of subject-initiated conference calls -- An LEA will be able to access the content of conference calls initiated by the subject under surveillance (including the call content of parties on hold), pursuant to a court order or other legal authorization beyond a pen register order.
Party hold, join, drop on conference calls -- Messages will be sent to an LEA that identify the active parties of a call. Specifically, on a conference call, these messages will indicate whether a party is on hold, has joined, or has been dropped from the conference call.
Subject-initiated dialing and signaling information -- Access to dialing and signaling information available from the subject will inform an LEA of a subject's use of features (e.g., call forwarding, call waiting, call hold, and three-way calling).
In-band and out-of-band signaling (notification message) -- A message will be sent to an LEA whenever a subject's service sends a tone or other network message to the subject or associate (e.g., notification that a line is ringing or busy, call waiting signal).
Timing information -- Information will be sent to an LEA permitting it to correlate call-identifying information with the call content of a communications interception.
Dialed digit extraction --The originating carrier will provide to an LEA on the call data channel any digits dialed by the subject after connecting to another carrier's service., pursuant to a pen register authorization. The FCC found that some such digits fit within CALEA's definition of call-identifying information, and that they are generally reasonably available to carriers.
If you advertised a device which will allow you to pay no taxes...
Sadly, you'd probably sell a bunch of them.
The NYTimes had a series of articles over the last few months about the big accounting firms selling "tax avoidance strategies" to their customers. The customers had to sign NDAs and fork up $50k up-front fees to be let in on the secrets of the "shelter", whose main attraction was a letter from a tax attorney which stated that, in their humble opinion, it would pass muster with the IRS.
As you might expect, things didn't work out quite that cleanly -- an example is the ex-CEO of Sprint who tried to shelter $140 million in stock options, and instead will be left with a net loss upwards of $20 million.
FYI, New Jersey upped the minimum corporation tax to $500 from $200 this year (they raised taxes 150% for S Corps, to be sensationalist).
And things looked even uglier in the final days of the budget process -- there was a seriously-considered proposal to institute a minimum corporate tax based on revenue, not just profits.
"In most states you have to keep track of nontaxed purchases and pay a use-tax at the end of the year. If you are not you are illegally avoiding taxes and will likely never be caught..."
There is a bit of twist here, assuming he's selling to companies (and from the looks of his web site, he is).
The company purchasing the equipment would most likely want to claim it as a business expense, and once it does that it has created an auditable item that can be checked up on. For example, and auditor could say "Gee, he expensed this $2k heart monitor, but never submitted it as an item on his use-tax declaration -- I wonder if we should send a nastygram demanding the use tax due along with interest and penalties..."
I vaguely remember NJ nailing a bunch of dentists in the late 1980's in a similar situation (buying from PA, not paying taxes).
"I belive it is the insurance companies that allow this to continue. They play both sides of the field. They take money from doctors when patients sue them, and they take money from patients to pay the doctors."
The doctors are playing both sides, too, sometimes choosing to have an attitude ("don't question my diagnosis, I'm really smart and went to med school, know what I'm doing, blah, blah, blah"), at other times pleading ignorance/best-effort ("I asked a lot of questions & acted in accordance with the standards of my profession, don't sue me if I prescribed a treatment plan that harmed the patient..."). All culminating, of course, in their desperate attempts to maintain the status quo by threatining to "quit practicing if you don't legally protect me from being sued" (i.e. taking their marbles and going home).
On a related note (and I don't know if this is true) I've heard that the US has the largest salary disparity between doctors and other health care professionals (e.g. nurses) -- in the US it approaches 10 to 1, and in the UK it's more like 1.5 or 2 to 1.
On a somewhat off-topic note, second opinions are really interesting, seeing as they probably aren't any better that the first opinion -- they just may match a patient's own inclinations a bit better.
What's the matter with following trends? Your data could be taken to imply that by 2010 there will be:
48000+((2010-2002)*(48000-37)/(2002-1977))
63,348.16 Elvis impersonators.
Doesn't sound so improbable, now does it? (except for that 1/6 of a person, of course)
Now if you want to quibble with the assumptions behind trend predictions, whether the future will be like the past, whether the model considers enough influencing factors, etc., that's another matter...
Not to get into a pedantic civics lesson, but isn't that an example of the system working (assuming everyone acted in good faith)? Your friend thought he had a criminally actionable issue, the police agreed with them, and the judge then rejected it. The same thing might happen in these cases.
Besides which, if they really were stealing service, I *am* against that. Arrest and prosecute them. This seems like a ploy to confiscate their hardware without a trial.
Actually, I think he may have said they only used slightly more than their allocation. Which means in a trial, they only have to prove that the extra was on a local segment, and not to some peering trunk, and they're home free. Or maybe they can show instances where they used far less than their fair share, and it balances out.
You seem to understand the issues well and can think logically about this issue. That said, I think you'll agree that if the criminal charges don't stick, if the hardware seizures are deemed to be excessive, etc., then that will be the end of these kind of prosecutions (at least until another prosecutor comes up with a novel way to approach it). But the only way to reach that state is by running a few guinea pigs through the system (which admittedly sucks for them).
In the sense in which you probably used it, it might be illegal, but it might not be criminally punishable.
One way to look at contracts is that both sides will uphold their end as long as it is in their best interests to do so. From that you can infer that people will breech a contract when the monetary penalty they can expect to incur if they breech (e.g. by losing in a subsequent lawsuit) is less than that which they can gain by breeching. That's why most contracts include monetary penalties (or other remedies) for breech from the start.
I think criminal prosecution isn't really the right course here, but with regard to:
Should it not be the responsibility of the provider to monitor that contract, and take any action they have within their private jurisdiction to prevent this?
they obviously did monitor the terms of the contract, and there's nothing stopping them from seeking civil remedies (like breach of contract) in addition to the current criminal course of action.
Do you have a problem with prosecution for theft of services?
Do you think it will be difficult to make a case that the alleged thieves could reasonably have been expected to know that uncapping their modems and "stealing" bandwith was illegal?
I've heard from various folks that CALEA enforcement is pretty toothless, as telco's can delay implementation almost endlessly through legal maneuverings, and then claim a section 109 hardship exemption due to economic impact (pretty relevant these days what with the telcomm-related stock crashes).
"...the whole social system that reinforces the idea that people are worth "exactly what they're being paid.""
Please consider that I in no way suggested that:
(people's worth) == (their compensation)
Please interpret the statement that "teachers are paid what they're worth (as employees, not as people)" as "the public's willingness to spend money on education, and the teachers' pay requirements have reached an equilibrium."
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore, though I can't find the reference now, I remember reading that carriers are permitted to offer "unreversible" encryption on their networks (i.e. if they are able to decrypt the communication they have to do it when faced with an appropriate warrant, but if they can't they are still in compliance with CALEA).
The first 3 digits of your SSN are (or at least used to be) related to where you got your SSN.
Where was that mentioned in the article? From what's happened in recent similar situations, I'd suspect that there's no access to a lawyer.
The real question is whether the company operating the service has to comply with CALEA, which among other things requires the provider to create/maintain infrastructure to supply Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) with information like the following (when requested via a warrant, that is):
how about the following?
As you might expect, things didn't work out quite that cleanly -- an example is the ex-CEO of Sprint who tried to shelter $140 million in stock options, and instead will be left with a net loss upwards of $20 million.
And things looked even uglier in the final days of the budget process -- there was a seriously-considered proposal to institute a minimum corporate tax based on revenue, not just profits.
The company purchasing the equipment would most likely want to claim it as a business expense, and once it does that it has created an auditable item that can be checked up on. For example, and auditor could say "Gee, he expensed this $2k heart monitor, but never submitted it as an item on his use-tax declaration -- I wonder if we should send a nastygram demanding the use tax due along with interest and penalties..."
I vaguely remember NJ nailing a bunch of dentists in the late 1980's in a similar situation (buying from PA, not paying taxes).
On a related note (and I don't know if this is true) I've heard that the US has the largest salary disparity between doctors and other health care professionals (e.g. nurses) -- in the US it approaches 10 to 1, and in the UK it's more like 1.5 or 2 to 1.
On a somewhat off-topic note, second opinions are really interesting, seeing as they probably aren't any better that the first opinion -- they just may match a patient's own inclinations a bit better.
Haven't you found things like dynamically loading OPTIONs into SELECT elements to be slower in Mozilla than in IE?
Do you know how it's implemented (e.g. SS7 switches, softswitch/PacketCable combo, etc.)?
Not to get into a pedantic civics lesson, but isn't that an example of the system working (assuming everyone acted in good faith)? Your friend thought he had a criminally actionable issue, the police agreed with them, and the judge then rejected it. The same thing might happen in these cases.
One way to look at contracts is that both sides will uphold their end as long as it is in their best interests to do so. From that you can infer that people will breech a contract when the monetary penalty they can expect to incur if they breech (e.g. by losing in a subsequent lawsuit) is less than that which they can gain by breeching. That's why most contracts include monetary penalties (or other remedies) for breech from the start.
Probably "theft of services" (?)
Do you have a problem with prosecution for theft of services?
Do you think it will be difficult to make a case that the alleged thieves could reasonably have been expected to know that uncapping their modems and "stealing" bandwith was illegal?
I've heard from various folks that CALEA enforcement is pretty toothless, as telco's can delay implementation almost endlessly through legal maneuverings, and then claim a section 109 hardship exemption due to economic impact (pretty relevant these days what with the telcomm-related stock crashes).
Just do the usual stuff, i.e. establish source code control, build procedures, regular meetings, milestones, etc.
how about "gravity" in place of "levity"?
How about Delawenians? Or Delawarites?
(for more options, see the original _Taxi_ episode)
Please interpret the statement that "teachers are paid what they're worth (as employees, not as people)" as "the public's willingness to spend money on education, and the teachers' pay requirements have reached an equilibrium."