Of course not. 6 month down the road it's "old sh1t" and people have moved on to newer stuff.
That's just sad. Music that is good today will be good in 50 years. If it's not good in 50 years time it isn't good today. If it's "old shit" six months from now, then it's "new shit" now.
There was a CIA agent who was involved with some rendition during the Bush Administration who got tried in absentia in Italy, found guilty and then shipped over there. Let me see if I can find it...yes. Here it is:
Not quite like that. Quite a few CIA agents have been tried and found guilty in absentia in Italy. (And the person they abducted was apparently innocent, but got tortured in the country that he was moved to and then let go. So these CIA agents were responsible for the torture of an innocent man). None of them was extradited from the USA. One of them made the mistake of going to Portugal and is now waiting for extradition. And she says she went for "to clear her name" - and not quite figuring out in her mind that Italy is s sovereign country, and that she has been convicted to a jail sentence in that country.
Changing your phone number is mightily inconvenient. What would be really helpful would be if say Google and Apple set up something so that you change your number, tell Google and Apple about the change complete with a list of all people you want to know about it (that could be for example your address book on your phone), and then they go and update your phone number on all Android phones and iPhones where the user is on your list.
You're own link points to the fact that 2 of the 3 S7 models (the S7 and S7 Edge) passed Consumer reports water resistant test; only the Active failed (oddly enough) but was fully covered by warranty. How many iPhones 6's have the same level water resistance (5 feet for 30 minutes)?
The iPhone 6 and 6s are as water resistant as Apple promises. Samsung makes promises for the Active that are apparently just lies.
You don't even need the analogue hole (for an iPhone). Use Airplay, which transmits everything with lossless encoding, and for 20 pound you get an Airplay receiver with digital USB audio and analog audio (plus works as a network extender).
Heard a story of a friend of a friend who borrowed his car to a friend, who drove off without the key (the guy with the key in his pocket stood right besides the car); 100 miles later he filled the borrowed car up at petrol station and couldn't start the car again because he didn't have the key...
So for $90,000 you can set up a trap for a Tesla car running with autopilot, and possibly cause a crash and kill the driver. Lots of people can do that a lot cheaper using a gun. So what's the problem?
She can't. She's still guilty of theft, so this defense doesn't work on theft. It only works on being accused of using a computer without authorization when you steal lottery tickets you're authorized to print.
So if I, as a customer, sneaked into the store and printed thousand lottery tickets without paying, _that_ would be theft _and_ computer hacking because I was not authorized to print tickets. In her case, because she was authorized to print the ticket, it's only theft.
Everyone knows that a GPS like TomTom doesn't rely on the GPS coordinates it's given. Instead it assumes that it is on a road, assuming slightly stronger that it is on the road it's supposed to be on than on a nearby road, and corrects it's position.
A TomTom would not be able to recognise for example that you are driving on the wrong side of the motorway. It would find your rough position (GPS is "rough" with an error of a few meters if you're lucky), detects your motion vector, the figures out the location on its map where you are most likely to be.
I think that is what has actually happened in court cases: If the police doesn't have actual evidence that you know the password, then giving the password is quite obviously proof that you know it. And if the fact that you know the password is incriminating evidence, then giving the password is self incriminating.
On the other hand, if the police has evidence that the computer or phone is yours, and that you have repeatedly used the password to unlock it, then giving the password is not self incriminating.
Give me a fucking break. He had no assets in the United States, was not operating a company in the United States, seems to have had no ties to the United States.
He was selling to people in the United States and made money from that. There's your connection.
Apple isn't supposed to be able to read what's on your phone. But Apple is very much supposed to be able to access information about purchases made on their store.
$1067.76 per copy sounds a bit low compared to the typical damages per copied mp3.
That's because the law about statutory damages leads to strange consequences.
Statutory damages are up to $150,000 _per infringed work_. If you make one copy of a CD with 20 songs illegally, that's 20 infringed works - up to $3,000,000 damages for ocpying a CD, which is ridiculous. If you make 10 million copies of a CD with 20 songs illegally and sell them, that's 20 infringed works. $3,000,000 for 10 million CDs sold, not bad. If you make 500,000 copies as is claimed here for software that is sold for $1076 per copy, that's _one_ infringed work. $150,000 maximum instead of buying the software for $500 million total, that's a bargain.
Uh.. you'd have a pretty hard time arguing I wasn't authorized to enter your home if you gave me a key. By virtue of giving me the key you've authorized me to enter your home.
Absolutely not. I can give my neighbours my house keys when I go on holiday, so they can enter if there is an emergency. That doesn't give them authority to enter without reason. I had my neighbour's key with authorisation to enter the kitchen to feed the cats while she was on holiday; that didn't give me authorisation to enter her living room or bedroom.
If you are renting, the landlord may have a key, the caretaker may have a key, they both have no authority to enter your home in most situations.
No. If 1) your company IT policy strictly prohibits sharing your password with anyone, including IT support staff (like many policies do), and 2) you access a database using a co-worker's credentials, then it should be crystal clear to you that this access is unauthorized.
Sorry, but if you are authorized to access the computer, and you were stupid and forgot the password, then you are still authorised to access the computer. And using a co-workers password wouldn't take that authorisation away. It's correct that it doesn't give you authorisation either. The authorisation comes from elsewhere.
Considering he wasn't an employee anymore, it doesn't really matter.
Of course it matters. We know the person in question committed crimes (stealing trade secrets), the question is whether charges of "computer hacking" aka unauthorized access to a computer with the intent blah blah blah can be added to the charges.
The same thing with authorized access would have still been "stealing trade secrets" but without the additional charge.
What about an anonymous FTP server? It could be argued it's like an open restaurant, or it could be argued it's like a private home with the door left open, so if you apply the "trespassing" analogy it's not clear at all whether you are "authorized" or not.
The arguing what it's like would be pointless. What counts is whether you have authorisation or not. And whether you have authorisation would depend on the circumstances. For example, if you went to Apple's website and found a page titled "Downloads" you would be authorised. If you found a page titled "Downloads - Employees only" you wouldn't be authorised if you are not an employee.
Many websites have in their EULA somewhere that using someone else's account is prohibited, or that signing up for a second account, or new account if you've been banned, are prohibited. Doing any of these prohibited things could be legally considered 'unauthorized access', even for a normally public website that anyone is welcome to use (Facebook etc.)
Read the court decision. These things could be considered "unauthorised access" by the company, but not legally by the court.
What I worry about with laws like this is where they end. It's fairly common to password-share between employees to get some damn work done, and it's not unheard of to share social site passwords, and I don't think we want these cases to be against the CFAA.
You should read the court decision, and it is might quite clear. First, it's not just unauthorised access, it's unauthorised access plus causing some kind of damage. So the employees trying to get their job done are fine. (Legally. If the employer made absolutely clear that no passwords are to be shared under any circumstances then they could be fired). The same would apply to the social site password. And violating the terms of service of a website doesn't make access unauthorized.
Likewise, the court decision also explains things about "exceeding authorisation". Say a bank manager has authorisation to access the bank's computer to give loans to people. And he gives himself a $1,000,000 loan, repayable at $1 a week. He is surely exceeding his authorisation to give loans, but he isn't exceeding his authorisation to access the computer. He uses his authorised access to the computer to commit what is likely a crime; that doesn't make the computer access unauthorised.
Sharing a password is a federal crime for you or I.
As the court made clear, no, if by sharing you mean "handing over your password to an unauthorised outsider". It may get you fired, but it is not a crime.
Being given a shared password doesn't give you authorisation. Not when the person giving you the password didn't want to give you authorisation, or didn't have the authority to give you authorisation. Using a shared password to gain unauthorised access can of course be a federal crime. Any means to gain unauthorised access can be a federal crime.
Couldn't one argue that authorization was granted by the database when a valid login/password pair was provided?
One could argue so, but one would be laughed out of court. Databases are not authorities who can give or deny authorisation. They are not people, they are not employees of the company, and they are not employees high enough up the ladder in the company to give or take away authorisation.
A password doesn't give you authorisation. You get authorisation from your boss, or from your company, to access a computer to do your job. A password is only a means to help keeping unauthorised people out.
If you lose your job, or your position where you need to access the computer, you lost the authorisation. If the company forgets to remove your password, or you find someone else's password, or a password is shared with you, that doesn't give you authorisation. In this case, everything is absolutely clear.
Where this law is abused in some cases is in situations where someone had the authority to access the computer, but abused the authority to commit a crime. Say a bank manager with authorisation to access computers moving money into his own bank account, or a police officer with access to a license plate database abusing his position by finding out the address of his ex's new boyfriend. That's when authorities try to add "computer hacking" to the list of crimes.
Fear Uncertainty Doubt The campaign to turn people's opinion has started. It seems that the good people of Britain took by surprise some very powerful goups.
It also took by surprise the likes of lying coward Boris Johnson and lying Gove. These two shit stirrers wanted to gain political points by getting the government in trouble. They were shitting themselves when their campaign was more successful when they thought. They were shitting themselves even more when Cameron stepped back and said "you got us into this shit, now you try to get out of it".
If you want to be an EU citizen, your best bet is to get an EU passport and emigrate. Let the little britainers play their experiment, it's the best of all worlds.
Wrong solution. Throw out anyone who voted to leave the EU. Let them swim to America.
Seriously, anyone saying "if you don't like it, leave" should be automatically punched in the face.
People have been rounding off corners for thousands of years. If you think that Samsung had to sit down and carefully study Apples ingenious new design for corners then you're one of the smallest thinkers on the planet.
Another idiot who doesn't know how design patents work. Samsung didn't copy rounded corners, Samsung copied the whole list of design items in Apple's design patent for the iPhone 3. They made phones that were indistinguishable from an iPhone 3. They also made tablets that Samsung's own lawyers couldn't distinguish from an iPad. At the same time, Samsung _also_ has design patents for Samsung phones with rounded corners. Which look amazingly different from iPhones.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course not. 6 month down the road it's "old sh1t" and people have moved on to newer stuff.
That's just sad. Music that is good today will be good in 50 years. If it's not good in 50 years time it isn't good today. If it's "old shit" six months from now, then it's "new shit" now.
There was a CIA agent who was involved with some rendition during the Bush Administration who got tried in absentia in Italy, found guilty and then shipped over there. Let me see if I can find it...yes. Here it is:
Not quite like that. Quite a few CIA agents have been tried and found guilty in absentia in Italy. (And the person they abducted was apparently innocent, but got tortured in the country that he was moved to and then let go. So these CIA agents were responsible for the torture of an innocent man). None of them was extradited from the USA. One of them made the mistake of going to Portugal and is now waiting for extradition. And she says she went for "to clear her name" - and not quite figuring out in her mind that Italy is s sovereign country, and that she has been convicted to a jail sentence in that country.
Changing your phone number is mightily inconvenient. What would be really helpful would be if say Google and Apple set up something so that you change your number, tell Google and Apple about the change complete with a list of all people you want to know about it (that could be for example your address book on your phone), and then they go and update your phone number on all Android phones and iPhones where the user is on your list.
You're own link points to the fact that 2 of the 3 S7 models (the S7 and S7 Edge) passed Consumer reports water resistant test; only the Active failed (oddly enough) but was fully covered by warranty. How many iPhones 6's have the same level water resistance (5 feet for 30 minutes)?
The iPhone 6 and 6s are as water resistant as Apple promises. Samsung makes promises for the Active that are apparently just lies.
You don't even need the analogue hole (for an iPhone). Use Airplay, which transmits everything with lossless encoding, and for 20 pound you get an Airplay receiver with digital USB audio and analog audio (plus works as a network extender).
Heard a story of a friend of a friend who borrowed his car to a friend, who drove off without the key (the guy with the key in his pocket stood right besides the car); 100 miles later he filled the borrowed car up at petrol station and couldn't start the car again because he didn't have the key...
So for $90,000 you can set up a trap for a Tesla car running with autopilot, and possibly cause a crash and kill the driver. Lots of people can do that a lot cheaper using a gun. So what's the problem?
She can't. She's still guilty of theft, so this defense doesn't work on theft. It only works on being accused of using a computer without authorization when you steal lottery tickets you're authorized to print.
So if I, as a customer, sneaked into the store and printed thousand lottery tickets without paying, _that_ would be theft _and_ computer hacking because I was not authorized to print tickets. In her case, because she was authorized to print the ticket, it's only theft.
Everyone knows that a GPS like TomTom doesn't rely on the GPS coordinates it's given. Instead it assumes that it is on a road, assuming slightly stronger that it is on the road it's supposed to be on than on a nearby road, and corrects it's position.
A TomTom would not be able to recognise for example that you are driving on the wrong side of the motorway. It would find your rough position (GPS is "rough" with an error of a few meters if you're lucky), detects your motion vector, the figures out the location on its map where you are most likely to be.
I think that is what has actually happened in court cases: If the police doesn't have actual evidence that you know the password, then giving the password is quite obviously proof that you know it. And if the fact that you know the password is incriminating evidence, then giving the password is self incriminating.
On the other hand, if the police has evidence that the computer or phone is yours, and that you have repeatedly used the password to unlock it, then giving the password is not self incriminating.
Give me a fucking break. He had no assets in the United States, was not operating a company in the United States, seems to have had no ties to the United States.
He was selling to people in the United States and made money from that. There's your connection.
Apple isn't supposed to be able to read what's on your phone. But Apple is very much supposed to be able to access information about purchases made on their store.
$1067.76 per copy sounds a bit low compared to the typical damages per copied mp3.
That's because the law about statutory damages leads to strange consequences.
Statutory damages are up to $150,000 _per infringed work_. If you make one copy of a CD with 20 songs illegally, that's 20 infringed works - up to $3,000,000 damages for ocpying a CD, which is ridiculous. If you make 10 million copies of a CD with 20 songs illegally and sell them, that's 20 infringed works. $3,000,000 for 10 million CDs sold, not bad. If you make 500,000 copies as is claimed here for software that is sold for $1076 per copy, that's _one_ infringed work. $150,000 maximum instead of buying the software for $500 million total, that's a bargain.
Uh.. you'd have a pretty hard time arguing I wasn't authorized to enter your home if you gave me a key. By virtue of giving me the key you've authorized me to enter your home.
Absolutely not. I can give my neighbours my house keys when I go on holiday, so they can enter if there is an emergency. That doesn't give them authority to enter without reason. I had my neighbour's key with authorisation to enter the kitchen to feed the cats while she was on holiday; that didn't give me authorisation to enter her living room or bedroom.
If you are renting, the landlord may have a key, the caretaker may have a key, they both have no authority to enter your home in most situations.
No. If 1) your company IT policy strictly prohibits sharing your password with anyone, including IT support staff (like many policies do), and 2) you access a database using a co-worker's credentials, then it should be crystal clear to you that this access is unauthorized.
Sorry, but if you are authorized to access the computer, and you were stupid and forgot the password, then you are still authorised to access the computer. And using a co-workers password wouldn't take that authorisation away. It's correct that it doesn't give you authorisation either. The authorisation comes from elsewhere.
Considering he wasn't an employee anymore, it doesn't really matter.
Of course it matters. We know the person in question committed crimes (stealing trade secrets), the question is whether charges of "computer hacking" aka unauthorized access to a computer with the intent blah blah blah can be added to the charges.
The same thing with authorized access would have still been "stealing trade secrets" but without the additional charge.
What about an anonymous FTP server? It could be argued it's like an open restaurant, or it could be argued it's like a private home with the door left open, so if you apply the "trespassing" analogy it's not clear at all whether you are "authorized" or not.
The arguing what it's like would be pointless. What counts is whether you have authorisation or not. And whether you have authorisation would depend on the circumstances. For example, if you went to Apple's website and found a page titled "Downloads" you would be authorised. If you found a page titled "Downloads - Employees only" you wouldn't be authorised if you are not an employee.
Many websites have in their EULA somewhere that using someone else's account is prohibited, or that signing up for a second account, or new account if you've been banned, are prohibited. Doing any of these prohibited things could be legally considered 'unauthorized access', even for a normally public website that anyone is welcome to use (Facebook etc.)
Read the court decision. These things could be considered "unauthorised access" by the company, but not legally by the court.
What I worry about with laws like this is where they end. It's fairly common to password-share between employees to get some damn work done, and it's not unheard of to share social site passwords, and I don't think we want these cases to be against the CFAA.
You should read the court decision, and it is might quite clear. First, it's not just unauthorised access, it's unauthorised access plus causing some kind of damage. So the employees trying to get their job done are fine. (Legally. If the employer made absolutely clear that no passwords are to be shared under any circumstances then they could be fired). The same would apply to the social site password. And violating the terms of service of a website doesn't make access unauthorized.
Likewise, the court decision also explains things about "exceeding authorisation". Say a bank manager has authorisation to access the bank's computer to give loans to people. And he gives himself a $1,000,000 loan, repayable at $1 a week. He is surely exceeding his authorisation to give loans, but he isn't exceeding his authorisation to access the computer. He uses his authorised access to the computer to commit what is likely a crime; that doesn't make the computer access unauthorised.
Sharing a password is a federal crime for you or I.
As the court made clear, no, if by sharing you mean "handing over your password to an unauthorised outsider". It may get you fired, but it is not a crime.
Being given a shared password doesn't give you authorisation. Not when the person giving you the password didn't want to give you authorisation, or didn't have the authority to give you authorisation. Using a shared password to gain unauthorised access can of course be a federal crime. Any means to gain unauthorised access can be a federal crime.
Couldn't one argue that authorization was granted by the database when a valid login/password pair was provided?
One could argue so, but one would be laughed out of court. Databases are not authorities who can give or deny authorisation. They are not people, they are not employees of the company, and they are not employees high enough up the ladder in the company to give or take away authorisation.
A password doesn't give you authorisation. You get authorisation from your boss, or from your company, to access a computer to do your job. A password is only a means to help keeping unauthorised people out.
If you lose your job, or your position where you need to access the computer, you lost the authorisation. If the company forgets to remove your password, or you find someone else's password, or a password is shared with you, that doesn't give you authorisation. In this case, everything is absolutely clear.
Where this law is abused in some cases is in situations where someone had the authority to access the computer, but abused the authority to commit a crime. Say a bank manager with authorisation to access computers moving money into his own bank account, or a police officer with access to a license plate database abusing his position by finding out the address of his ex's new boyfriend. That's when authorities try to add "computer hacking" to the list of crimes.
Fear Uncertainty Doubt The campaign to turn people's opinion has started. It seems that the good people of Britain took by surprise some very powerful goups.
It also took by surprise the likes of lying coward Boris Johnson and lying Gove. These two shit stirrers wanted to gain political points by getting the government in trouble. They were shitting themselves when their campaign was more successful when they thought. They were shitting themselves even more when Cameron stepped back and said "you got us into this shit, now you try to get out of it".
If you want to be an EU citizen, your best bet is to get an EU passport and emigrate. Let the little britainers play their experiment, it's the best of all worlds.
Wrong solution. Throw out anyone who voted to leave the EU. Let them swim to America.
Seriously, anyone saying "if you don't like it, leave" should be automatically punched in the face.
People have been rounding off corners for thousands of years. If you think that Samsung had to sit down and carefully study Apples ingenious new design for corners then you're one of the smallest thinkers on the planet.
Another idiot who doesn't know how design patents work. Samsung didn't copy rounded corners, Samsung copied the whole list of design items in Apple's design patent for the iPhone 3. They made phones that were indistinguishable from an iPhone 3. They also made tablets that Samsung's own lawyers couldn't distinguish from an iPad. At the same time, Samsung _also_ has design patents for Samsung phones with rounded corners. Which look amazingly different from iPhones.