He hasn't been found guilty yet*. The premise that since you were charged, you're guilty, so you shouldn't waste taxpayer money fighting the charges is so monumentally stupid that I'm lost for any more eloquent description.
*He has admitted as much as would make him guilty of an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1994, that doesn't mean that he's guilty of the set of clearly trumped-up charges being levelled at him in the states.
Seriously, do you have no concept of how a properly functioning justice system ought to work? If you can't afford to fight the charges, agree to plead guilty to something to make them go away?
The whole debate about funding defence work revolves around the innocent and not the guilty anyway - an innocent person should not be found guilty due to inadequate representation, or be obliged to plead guilty due to lack of ability to fight charges, as a result of not having enough money. Once you accept that you also have to accept the extension of that principle to the guilty because when the question of paying for a defence arises, the actual guilt or innocence of the accused is still unclear (indeed, we assume the accused to be innocent until they are proven guilty). Why, then, should a person who is innocent, or is assumed to be innocent, have to bear the cost of 'proving' that?
If the near limitless power of government organises the prosecution, why should a mere individual's finances be expected to support the cost of defence?
they did, they sued the director of public prosecution to force him to charge McKinnon here. He used some pathetic cop-out about most of the evidence being in the US, as if it nobody could have said to the DoJ "you want a realistic prospect of this guy being convicted? send the evidence over".
well, his lawyer has been stretching it out for years now. I suspect that the reason why the pace has quickened now is because either of the opposition parties, whichever of them comes to power in May, will likely block this if for no other reason than to make a point, so the Labour government is forcing this through as quickly as they can so that doesn't happen and McKinnon doesn't get to thumb his nose at them.
unlikely, in the Andrew Symeou case, the British courts has shown that they will not consider the question of the dysfunctionalness of the courts of a friendly country, irregardless of evidence.
not the US punishment system, that's for sure. Last time there was a high profile extradition from the UK to the US (the Natwest 3) when they arrived, they weren't tried. They were released on obscene bail, required to stay in the Houston area, and had to find work to support themselves and their legal defence for OVER A YEAR, and eventually accepted a plea bargain because they couldn't support any attempt to actually fight the charges.
Now, how is someone who is unemployable supposed to support themselves, their legal defence, and medical bills? I reckon that he'll have a breakdown within a week.
So now I know what their engineers have been doing instead of upgrading the upstream infrastructure so that my 10Mbit connection can provide better than 500kbit with 33% packet loss. Trebles all round.
not in a country where you have to pay your own legal fees for criminal defence, it isn't. The costs of fighting off a baseless charge for a petty offence probably exceed the cost of pleading guilty.
someone has never met a loneshark... Or any other scam-artist by the sound of it. The whole point of a scam is that you DID agree to something which turned out to be in some way deceptive. If you didn't agree at all then it would be straight up robbery.
They write it so that when people just stop paying and stop using their phones, they don't have to rely upon getting a hefty judgement based upon calculating fair compensation for the breach of contract (which would be their margin - they may no longer be getting $100\mo from you, but they're also not having to provide you with service worth $X\mo - fighting over the value of X could end badly). They can just point the judge to the agreed-upon fee.
well, yes and no. Normally during a war, all bets are off - if you can't keep, in peacetime, to the minimum standards expected during wartime, you're doing something wrong.
so if TPB guys 'delete' the data by killing their Dutch servers and relocate elsewhere, will the Dutch court leave them alone when all the material reappears?
for 'your peers' read 'bunch of random people who you don't know who've had a sticker saying 'your peer' hastily stuck onto them'. Your peers used to actually mean that - people who you actually knew and who knew you.
would exclusive publishing rights allow them to persue 'ordinary' copyright violations (like shoving the whole book into a photocopier)? Or only those where someone else was publishing those violating copies? Because if it was the latter I don't se how it would be possible for themn to realistically persue anyone over an anonymous PDF file just doing the rounds on the intertubes
brewed at 200, held at 185, drunk at? I'd guess that I probably drink my coffee at 120-130 - and hotter and I can't actually taste it for my tongue being taken up with screaming 'hot hot hot!'
And let's not forget that the national coffee association are talking about ideal circumstances, not the production of coffee made with cheap beans & little care, to be served in a cardboard or styrofoam cup and intended to be consumed in a (probably moving) vehicle.
Serve it in insulated cups with lids which will allow milk\sugar in without having to be removed.
It's up to you if you think it will be cheaper to sell a safer (but fractionally more expensive) product, or settle claims for inevitable injuries when your less safe product hurts someone.
Slashdot Mirror
He hasn't been found guilty yet*. The premise that since you were charged, you're guilty, so you shouldn't waste taxpayer money fighting the charges is so monumentally stupid that I'm lost for any more eloquent description.
*He has admitted as much as would make him guilty of an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1994, that doesn't mean that he's guilty of the set of clearly trumped-up charges being levelled at him in the states.
Seriously, do you have no concept of how a properly functioning justice system ought to work? If you can't afford to fight the charges, agree to plead guilty to something to make them go away?
The whole debate about funding defence work revolves around the innocent and not the guilty anyway - an innocent person should not be found guilty due to inadequate representation, or be obliged to plead guilty due to lack of ability to fight charges, as a result of not having enough money. Once you accept that you also have to accept the extension of that principle to the guilty because when the question of paying for a defence arises, the actual guilt or innocence of the accused is still unclear (indeed, we assume the accused to be innocent until they are proven guilty). Why, then, should a person who is innocent, or is assumed to be innocent, have to bear the cost of 'proving' that?
If the near limitless power of government organises the prosecution, why should a mere individual's finances be expected to support the cost of defence?
That's 'Landing Strip One' to you, bub.
Obama has abolished that treaty, has he?
they did, they sued the director of public prosecution to force him to charge McKinnon here. He used some pathetic cop-out about most of the evidence being in the US, as if it nobody could have said to the DoJ "you want a realistic prospect of this guy being convicted? send the evidence over".
When can he be up for parole on a 60 year sentence? And will he be allowed to leave the country once he gets it?
well, his lawyer has been stretching it out for years now. I suspect that the reason why the pace has quickened now is because either of the opposition parties, whichever of them comes to power in May, will likely block this if for no other reason than to make a point, so the Labour government is forcing this through as quickly as they can so that doesn't happen and McKinnon doesn't get to thumb his nose at them.
unlikely, in the Andrew Symeou case, the British courts has shown that they will not consider the question of the dysfunctionalness of the courts of a friendly country, irregardless of evidence.
the US, that's where you put it into the mail system
yes, MI6 denies all knowledge, and that would include not protecting him from an extradition request. They left him in North Korea for 18 months.
not the US punishment system, that's for sure. Last time there was a high profile extradition from the UK to the US (the Natwest 3) when they arrived, they weren't tried. They were released on obscene bail, required to stay in the Houston area, and had to find work to support themselves and their legal defence for OVER A YEAR, and eventually accepted a plea bargain because they couldn't support any attempt to actually fight the charges.
Now, how is someone who is unemployable supposed to support themselves, their legal defence, and medical bills? I reckon that he'll have a breakdown within a week.
So now I know what their engineers have been doing instead of upgrading the upstream infrastructure so that my 10Mbit connection can provide better than 500kbit with 33% packet loss. Trebles all round.
not in a country where you have to pay your own legal fees for criminal defence, it isn't. The costs of fighting off a baseless charge for a petty offence probably exceed the cost of pleading guilty.
except thet you will likely have already replaced the glass, and the judge would like to see the receipt please.
someone has never met a loneshark...
Or any other scam-artist by the sound of it. The whole point of a scam is that you DID agree to something which turned out to be in some way deceptive. If you didn't agree at all then it would be straight up robbery.
They write it so that when people just stop paying and stop using their phones, they don't have to rely upon getting a hefty judgement based upon calculating fair compensation for the breach of contract (which would be their margin - they may no longer be getting $100\mo from you, but they're also not having to provide you with service worth $X\mo - fighting over the value of X could end badly). They can just point the judge to the agreed-upon fee.
well, yes and no. Normally during a war, all bets are off - if you can't keep, in peacetime, to the minimum standards expected during wartime, you're doing something wrong.
Wine Is Not an Emulator
would you pass my details their way if you don't want it?
or Comrade Lord Mandelson, as he is known to the readers of the great journal of the nation's affairs
so if TPB guys 'delete' the data by killing their Dutch servers and relocate elsewhere, will the Dutch court leave them alone when all the material reappears?
for 'your peers' read 'bunch of random people who you don't know who've had a sticker saying 'your peer' hastily stuck onto them'. Your peers used to actually mean that - people who you actually knew and who knew you.
would exclusive publishing rights allow them to persue 'ordinary' copyright violations (like shoving the whole book into a photocopier)? Or only those where someone else was publishing those violating copies? Because if it was the latter I don't se how it would be possible for themn to realistically persue anyone over an anonymous PDF file just doing the rounds on the intertubes
brewed at 200, held at 185, drunk at?
I'd guess that I probably drink my coffee at 120-130 - and hotter and I can't actually taste it for my tongue being taken up with screaming 'hot hot hot!'
And let's not forget that the national coffee association are talking about ideal circumstances, not the production of coffee made with cheap beans & little care, to be served in a cardboard or styrofoam cup and intended to be consumed in a (probably moving) vehicle.
Serve it in insulated cups with lids which will allow milk\sugar in without having to be removed.
It's up to you if you think it will be cheaper to sell a safer (but fractionally more expensive) product, or settle claims for inevitable injuries when your less safe product hurts someone.
they may not be, but laptop thieves probably are