Oddly enough, I posted an article last night detailing some thoughts that crossed my mind about potential legal issues looming for Ethereum ( https://www.linkedin.com/pulse... ) and I'd love to get some feedback from someone connected with Ethereum on how the issues are being address--if at all.
I really don't see how Ethereum gets around their DAO issue when a legal challenge arises seeking a hard fork, it really seems like a sticking point to me.
They're also holding a Hack-for-Change hackathon in June ( http://hackforchange.org/hack-change-tampa ) -- Tampa and Hillsborough are definitely working to push growth of the technology center and open data within the tri-county area.
If anyone can pulls an alert from a public domain torrent, please post the link. I'd really like to get my 5 alerts out of the way this weekend so I can speak with the CAS team about how utterly useless they, and their entire scheme, are before my account cancels.
Well, if they overbook the flight too much and no one will take their offers, the airline's involuntarily deny passengers entry and hand them a form detailing 14 USC 250.9 ( link ). The law is a protectionary measure that says, any airline can break our contract with you at any time by handing you a maximum of $200.00 and finding you an alternative flight within 2 hours of your flight, or by handing you $400.00 and telling you to piss off. Though, you can refuse the payment, and opt to sue them in court.
Of course, airlines loathe paying any money back, so they offer you the free flights instead. All-in-all I guess the law works decently well, but I can assure you getting one of those forms and being told your next flight will be available in 8 hours after a red-eye flight from California is not a fun experience. Though, here's a tip, tell them you're refusing the payment and opting to seek compensation in court while booking the first available last-minute ticket on whatever airline is leaving next. In my case, they, amazingly, found me a seat.
Don't forget that if they'd simply bothered to show up to the ex-parte hearing, Samsung could have easily informed the court that the camera man had made such a terrible mistake. So, clearly, it's their fault.
Roughly 10 years ago, I was war-driving and one of the hotspots came up: 'CIA SAFE HOUSE'. The sad part was, I wasn't sure if it was a joke or if someone was actually that daft. It was a posh area of town, so I'm still undecided to this day.
I'm sure you were trying to be funny, but I'd hope that both Google and Oracle would have had enough brains to bring in qualified attorneys.
I'm a full-time appellate attorney and co-founder of the Azureus Bit-Torrent client (written in Java, but don't blame me for Vuze -- I left the project long before then). I've taught classes on computer security and advanced programming at 4-year universities. I also speak around the country on both legal and security topics (DefCon, Shmoocon, ToorCamp, and various legal-bar events etc.). I've spoken on anything from constitutional issues, intellectual property, contracts law, reverse engineering, code design, etc. Actually, the latest talks I'm working on are on advanced techniques with Python bytecode. So, yes, while most attorneys would have a hard time explaining these topics to judges, not all of them would and I'm hopeful that the judge was presented with competent people.
And, yes, I've had to explain computer topics to both attorneys and judges -- they understood them. Conversely, I've had to explain legal topics to software engineers -- they also understood them. It's really not that difficult, and you'd be amazed at how similar some of the concepts really are.
Or maybe they got the idea from Tennessee, who has had this on the books for a number of years? See Tenn. Statutes: 39-14-602(b)(1):
Accesses any computer, computer system, or computer network commits a Class C misdemeanor. Operating a computer network in such a way as to allow anonymous access to that network shall constitute implicit consent to access under this part
There seems to be a slight conflict of interest here (slight might be the wrong word). Honestly, isn't this encouraging the companies producing these machines to intentionally include bugs in their code? Your code is filled with bugs, we'd like to procure your services:
Casino: Someone won the jackpot! Game Producer: What machine revision? Casino: Money Sucker R12 Game Producer: No problem, checkout line 112 -- I think you'll find something you like...
Given that these jackpots only occur once every couple of years, it wouldn't be that big of a problem. Plus, everyone here knows that no code is perfect. The people won, give them their money...
You're dead wrong (see: Transocean's limitation of liability filing). There is a little known clause, outside of admiralty law practitioners, that allows parties to limit their liability to the value of the vessel after the wreck. For reference, that generally isn't a low of money and it appears from their filing that it's roughly $26M. They are correct that it doesn't protect claims from the Oil Pollution Act but I'd wonder how many incidentals that'll apply to.
So, yes, yes, Transocean and BP, as a successor to liability, are actively working to limit to the claims as much as possible. I won't speculate on the outcome but I'll throw in that I'm glad I never did buy property on the Gulf side of Florida.
For reference: Explaination of the law. There are better sources but that one is publicly available.
Cheers,
T
P.S. Yes, IAAL and Exxon still hasn't paid for the Valdez accident --consider it... P.S.S. Sorry for the repost --didn't realized I wasn't logged in.
IAAL and here's a presentation I gave at ShmooCon and DefCon last year entitled "They Took My Laptop! - 4th and 5th Amendment Explained." The Defcon video isn't available yet, unfortunately, since the content is more up to date. The video goes into a decent amount of depth on the current body of laws in regards to laptop seizures. Anyway, thought it might be of use.
It's known as a long arm jurisdiction ( link ). Generally, the test is if the entity had sufficient contact with the jurisdiction. In this case I would guess it was based on the fact that the website was reachable, and more importantly, foreseeably reachable by American (Californian) citizens.
Or jurisdiction may have been waived. I didn't bother to pull the filings off PACER --sorry.
Just for reference, all Federal Court and several State courts require, and some will even provide them free of charge, mediation sessions before a case is allowed to go to trial. Statistically, aka. take it with a grain of salt, 98% of cases settle when taken to mediation.
Second, some laws do require notice before claims are allowed. The dreaded and oft hated DMCA requires notices in certain circumstances. Additionally, there are requirements on most statutes involving administrative agencies that all administrative remedies must be exhausted required and I'm sure there are more examples.
In conclusion, people do think of this. Maybe there are just too many law suits, or maybe people are afraid to talk to each other anymore?
If you watch the video he sets the keyboard.eavesdropper into a listening/polling state waiting for keypress information. From there it's filtered and decoded --fine. Now the part that seemed odd to me is it exits as soon as it finds the 'e' in 'trust no one', why?
If the eavesdropper is in a polling state it should continue looking for more keypresses, unless something there are some smoke and mirrors going on. Also, if you listen there's no termination sent --no keypresses heard on camera.
In response to the $200,000 in the freezer. I watched a federal judge reprimand a prosecutor one time for continually bringing up that the defendant having $50,000 in a brown paper bag in his freezer. The judge "politely" reminded the prosecutor that it's not a crime to not use a bank and where the defendant stored his money was of no concern unless there was a law against it and there was no law against sticking $50,000 into a brown paper bag and then a freezer.
Some officers don't just abuse their position, they seem to think they're the law and can do anything they want, including hurting people for no good reason.
No offense, but that can be spoofed quite easily. Make it say BitTorrent, uTorrent, or Azureus and then what? As the co-founder of Azureus this has always been a problem and threat to the BT protocol. The best clients can do is make sure packets are being spread once they're sent to another person. The algorithm works like this --send a "rare" packet, watch to make sure another client shows up with that rare packet in X time. Clients should send their rarest packets first, to keep the swarm happy. So if the packet doesn't show up, you've got a leech and your drop him in the Queue.
TdC
For those of you who don't know the episode is based on Hachiko the famous Japanese Dog who returned to the Shibuya train station in Tokyo for 11 years in an attempt to greet his dead master. So I don't know if I'd say it was the best writing ever, but a nice adaption from reality and a damn fine episode.
I wish people would read: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm (or one of another billions sources or the actual case files) before always mentioning "the coffee case." I am studying to be a lawyer and 9 out of 10 people who reference a case have never read the case, the facts, or otherwise, but still are "horrified" at the results. I was speaking with a Federal Judge yesturday and he told me how people constantly come up to him and call him and activist judge for his decision in XYZ case, but when asked if they've read the case they more than 90% of the time will say no, but they heard about it on the news.
I know this is Slashdot and no one reads that article, but please at least read the points of your post(s), because you only spread more FUD or at the very least misinformation.
IANAL [yet. 1 more year]. The case your described is famous because it involved "mutual" mistake. The farmer believed he was selling a sterile cow and the buyer assumed he was buying a sterile cow --hence the low price. No farmer would sell a fertile cow for such a low price and no buyer would expect to buy a fertile cow at such a high price.
In general mutual mistakes are more likely to be "voidable," unilateral mistakes are less likely. Frankly, your comparison between the cases is completely wrong. While it may be possible to argue unconscionablity as you said, a court would most likley reject the arguement without something more (fraud, etc.). If, however, the person said "I thought this land was zoned commercial not residencial" and the plaintiff also said "Yes, I thought so too" then the contract would most likely be voidable.
Cheers,
TdC
Seriously, I thought up until this morning the Wii would be the first console I bought in years --the day it came out. Now, I don't think it will be. Mainly, I hate hate hate sports games (can't stand them). I wanted the Wii, a demo disk, and then I'd pickup Zelda when it came out. Now, I get a Wii and a useless 50.00 disk (can't resell it as EVERYONE with a Wii has it) and old console games for $5-10 a piece? I'll wait for an un-bundled version.
Slashdot Mirror
@jamesmartinluther
Oddly enough, I posted an article last night detailing some thoughts that crossed my mind about potential legal issues looming for Ethereum ( https://www.linkedin.com/pulse... ) and I'd love to get some feedback from someone connected with Ethereum on how the issues are being address--if at all.
I really don't see how Ethereum gets around their DAO issue when a legal challenge arises seeking a hard fork, it really seems like a sticking point to me.
Best regards,
Tyler
They're also holding a Hack-for-Change hackathon in June ( http://hackforchange.org/hack-change-tampa ) -- Tampa and Hillsborough are definitely working to push growth of the technology center and open data within the tri-county area.
If anyone can pulls an alert from a public domain torrent, please post the link. I'd really like to get my 5 alerts out of the way this weekend so I can speak with the CAS team about how utterly useless they, and their entire scheme, are before my account cancels.
Well, if they overbook the flight too much and no one will take their offers, the airline's involuntarily deny passengers entry and hand them a form detailing 14 USC 250.9 ( link ). The law is a protectionary measure that says, any airline can break our contract with you at any time by handing you a maximum of $200.00 and finding you an alternative flight within 2 hours of your flight, or by handing you $400.00 and telling you to piss off. Though, you can refuse the payment, and opt to sue them in court.
Of course, airlines loathe paying any money back, so they offer you the free flights instead. All-in-all I guess the law works decently well, but I can assure you getting one of those forms and being told your next flight will be available in 8 hours after a red-eye flight from California is not a fun experience. Though, here's a tip, tell them you're refusing the payment and opting to seek compensation in court while booking the first available last-minute ticket on whatever airline is leaving next. In my case, they, amazingly, found me a seat.
The article is wrong, the cape doesn't go on display until the 25th link. So don't pop over and try and see it until next Wednesday.
You mean like this patent on the magsafe power supply connector: http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7311526.PN.&OS=PN/7311526&RS=PN/7311526
Don't forget that if they'd simply bothered to show up to the ex-parte hearing, Samsung could have easily informed the court that the camera man had made such a terrible mistake. So, clearly, it's their fault.
Roughly 10 years ago, I was war-driving and one of the hotspots came up: 'CIA SAFE HOUSE'. The sad part was, I wasn't sure if it was a joke or if someone was actually that daft. It was a posh area of town, so I'm still undecided to this day.
Here's a presentation discussing the issue of force password disclosures and laptops I gave at DefCon 17: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibQGWXfWc7c
Check the law and make up your own mind.
I'm sure you were trying to be funny, but I'd hope that both Google and Oracle would have had enough brains to bring in qualified attorneys.
I'm a full-time appellate attorney and co-founder of the Azureus Bit-Torrent client (written in Java, but don't blame me for Vuze -- I left the project long before then). I've taught classes on computer security and advanced programming at 4-year universities. I also speak around the country on both legal and security topics (DefCon, Shmoocon, ToorCamp, and various legal-bar events etc.). I've spoken on anything from constitutional issues, intellectual property, contracts law, reverse engineering, code design, etc. Actually, the latest talks I'm working on are on advanced techniques with Python bytecode. So, yes, while most attorneys would have a hard time explaining these topics to judges, not all of them would and I'm hopeful that the judge was presented with competent people.
And, yes, I've had to explain computer topics to both attorneys and judges -- they understood them. Conversely, I've had to explain legal topics to software engineers -- they also understood them. It's really not that difficult, and you'd be amazed at how similar some of the concepts really are.
Cheers,
T
And that's why people dislike lawyers -- they think it's about winning not justice. A good lawyer knows it's about justice, not simply winning.
Or maybe they got the idea from Tennessee, who has had this on the books for a number of years? See Tenn. Statutes: 39-14-602(b)(1):
Accesses any computer, computer system, or computer network commits a Class C misdemeanor. Operating a computer network in such a way as to allow anonymous access to that network shall constitute implicit consent to access under this part
[link]
There seems to be a slight conflict of interest here (slight might be the wrong word). Honestly, isn't this encouraging the companies producing these machines to intentionally include bugs in their code? Your code is filled with bugs, we'd like to procure your services:
Casino: Someone won the jackpot!
Game Producer: What machine revision?
Casino: Money Sucker R12
Game Producer: No problem, checkout line 112 -- I think you'll find something you like...
Given that these jackpots only occur once every couple of years, it wouldn't be that big of a problem. Plus, everyone here knows that no code is perfect. The people won, give them their money...
You're dead wrong (see: Transocean's limitation of liability filing). There is a little known clause, outside of admiralty law practitioners, that allows parties to limit their liability to the value of the vessel after the wreck. For reference, that generally isn't a low of money and it appears from their filing that it's roughly $26M. They are correct that it doesn't protect claims from the Oil Pollution Act but I'd wonder how many incidentals that'll apply to.
So, yes, yes, Transocean and BP, as a successor to liability, are actively working to limit to the claims as much as possible. I won't speculate on the outcome but I'll throw in that I'm glad I never did buy property on the Gulf side of Florida.
For reference: Explaination of the law. There are better sources but that one is publicly available.
Cheers,
T
P.S. Yes, IAAL and Exxon still hasn't paid for the Valdez accident --consider it...
P.S.S. Sorry for the repost --didn't realized I wasn't logged in.
IAAL and here's a presentation I gave at ShmooCon and DefCon last year entitled "They Took My Laptop! - 4th and 5th Amendment Explained." The Defcon video isn't available yet, unfortunately, since the content is more up to date. The video goes into a decent amount of depth on the current body of laws in regards to laptop seizures. Anyway, thought it might be of use.
Cheers,
T
It's known as a long arm jurisdiction ( link ). Generally, the test is if the entity had sufficient contact with the jurisdiction. In this case I would guess it was based on the fact that the website was reachable, and more importantly, foreseeably reachable by American (Californian) citizens.
Or jurisdiction may have been waived. I didn't bother to pull the filings off PACER --sorry.
Actually, sometimes they do.
Just for reference, all Federal Court and several State courts require, and some will even provide them free of charge, mediation sessions before a case is allowed to go to trial. Statistically, aka. take it with a grain of salt, 98% of cases settle when taken to mediation.
Second, some laws do require notice before claims are allowed. The dreaded and oft hated DMCA requires notices in certain circumstances. Additionally, there are requirements on most statutes involving administrative agencies that all administrative remedies must be exhausted required and I'm sure there are more examples.
In conclusion, people do think of this. Maybe there are just too many law suits, or maybe people are afraid to talk to each other anymore?
Cheers,
TdC
If you watch the video he sets the keyboard.eavesdropper into a listening/polling state waiting for keypress information. From there it's filtered and decoded --fine. Now the part that seemed odd to me is it exits as soon as it finds the 'e' in 'trust no one', why?
If the eavesdropper is in a polling state it should continue looking for more keypresses, unless something there are some smoke and mirrors going on. Also, if you listen there's no termination sent --no keypresses heard on camera.
In response to the $200,000 in the freezer. I watched a federal judge reprimand a prosecutor one time for continually bringing up that the defendant having $50,000 in a brown paper bag in his freezer. The judge "politely" reminded the prosecutor that it's not a crime to not use a bank and where the defendant stored his money was of no concern unless there was a law against it and there was no law against sticking $50,000 into a brown paper bag and then a freezer.
Some officers don't just abuse their position, they seem to think they're the law and can do anything they want, including hurting people for no good reason.
NYPD Officer Stripped of Badge After YouTube Video Shows Cyclist Shove: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,392901,00.html
No offense, but that can be spoofed quite easily. Make it say BitTorrent, uTorrent, or Azureus and then what? As the co-founder of Azureus this has always been a problem and threat to the BT protocol. The best clients can do is make sure packets are being spread once they're sent to another person. The algorithm works like this --send a "rare" packet, watch to make sure another client shows up with that rare packet in X time. Clients should send their rarest packets first, to keep the swarm happy. So if the packet doesn't show up, you've got a leech and your drop him in the Queue. TdC
For those of you who don't know the episode is based on Hachiko the famous Japanese Dog who returned to the Shibuya train station in Tokyo for 11 years in an attempt to greet his dead master. So I don't know if I'd say it was the best writing ever, but a nice adaption from reality and a damn fine episode.
Cheers,
TdC_VgA
I wish people would read: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm (or one of another billions sources or the actual case files) before always mentioning "the coffee case." I am studying to be a lawyer and 9 out of 10 people who reference a case have never read the case, the facts, or otherwise, but still are "horrified" at the results. I was speaking with a Federal Judge yesturday and he told me how people constantly come up to him and call him and activist judge for his decision in XYZ case, but when asked if they've read the case they more than 90% of the time will say no, but they heard about it on the news.
I know this is Slashdot and no one reads that article, but please at least read the points of your post(s), because you only spread more FUD or at the very least misinformation.
Cheers,
TdC
IANAL [yet. 1 more year]. The case your described is famous because it involved "mutual" mistake. The farmer believed he was selling a sterile cow and the buyer assumed he was buying a sterile cow --hence the low price. No farmer would sell a fertile cow for such a low price and no buyer would expect to buy a fertile cow at such a high price. In general mutual mistakes are more likely to be "voidable," unilateral mistakes are less likely. Frankly, your comparison between the cases is completely wrong. While it may be possible to argue unconscionablity as you said, a court would most likley reject the arguement without something more (fraud, etc.). If, however, the person said "I thought this land was zoned commercial not residencial" and the plaintiff also said "Yes, I thought so too" then the contract would most likely be voidable. Cheers, TdC
Seriously, I thought up until this morning the Wii would be the first console I bought in years --the day it came out. Now, I don't think it will be. Mainly, I hate hate hate sports games (can't stand them). I wanted the Wii, a demo disk, and then I'd pickup Zelda when it came out. Now, I get a Wii and a useless 50.00 disk (can't resell it as EVERYONE with a Wii has it) and old console games for $5-10 a piece? I'll wait for an un-bundled version.