You don't revoke passports. Once you arrested someone, the judge may decide to retain the travel documents to avoid that person fleeing justice. But the passport is not revoked, it is confiscated. And that is done once the person is arrested, not while the person is sitting somewhere in the world in a transit area.
Revoking a passport is quite extreme and I have never heard of such action. It is not the usual way to pursue international criminals. Thus it is a different treatment.
Passport Canada (US must have something similar) has a description of actions that may get your passport revoked. At this point I think he does fall in there.
Revoking Snowden's passport also violates this from what I can see as by removing his passport they're removing his right to travel and hence to leave Russia.
Or in other words the US has pretty much now completely thrown the de-facto document on basic levels of standards of human rights entirely out the window.
Owning a passport/travelling between countries is a privilege not a right. When someone is suspected of a crime and there is a good chance this person may seek to leave the country to evade prosecution, the passport will be revoked. Snowden is not a special snowflake to warrant a different treatment.
Apparently he withdrew his asylum request after Putin asked him to stop leaking more secrets. Funny he would consider it in the first place knowing that Russians are likely much worst when it comes to surveillance of their own citizens. Can't see many nations wanting him at this time.
Before he got recruited, he was a long time volunteer of Wikileaks which means he was probably in trouble with the law. I think he was fortunate to get any money at all from this deal as he had not much leverage. Risk going to jail with nothing or cut a deal for some pocket change and a jail free card - he made the smart move.
Google already has employees who, when notified, investigate and remove obscene content which means they are already exposed to the worst of what Internet has to offer. When CP is reported, there is a legal requirement to act and remove such content within 24 hours or so. If Google can pull a decent solution, they will have a more proactive approach to dealing with this problem and will potentially save money as less human intervention will be required.
He disclosed the bug way back in March then provided an update in May and now a fully functional (have not tested) exploit. While he could have been more discrete, seems to me like this is more than enough time for the vendor.
I don't know Italian law but in some (most?) countries online intimidation/harassment is illegal. In addition of posting the video, they also posted insults/bullying messages which sounds to me like it fits the definition and they could be criminally liable for what happened. Now how can you criminally blame Facebook for what happened I don't know. Under normal circumstances I'd expect a civil case as an attempt to get some $$$ from someone with deep pockets but we are not talking about US here.
Indeed, you could have 1 large empty bottle + 2 small bottles as if it was impossible to fill the large bottle with the small one once you cross the checkpoint. But we know this is done to give an impression of security and not really provide much security.
browsers.
Where did you got this information? MS bulletin does not state that and I doubt MS would ever make such recommendation no matter how serious the bug was.
Once this is deployed for everyone, will a normal user who is being targeted receive a % of the fee? Obviously in this case Zuck gets indirectly the money but what about the average folk?
My wife works at a rehabilitation/nursing home and there are so many college professors in there that have gone Looney. Some think they are aliens and others have gone Looney in other ways
As the saying goes, there is a fine line between the genius and insanity.
I appreciate all of the comments and encourage you to read them. My intention here was to relay an intriguing list put together by a career and job listing site, CareerCast, that surveyed data on 200 jobs and drew up a list of professions it deemed least stressful, according to metrics I describe above, which are weighted toward categories like physical demands, environmental conditions and risking one’s life. CareerCast didn’t measure things like hours worked and the stresses that come from trying to get papers published in a competitive environment or writing grants to fund research.
Does not look like any reputable source was used to elaborate this study. No wonder it turned out botched.
Slashdot Mirror
People forgot about NSA quickly I see.
If hands are cold -> passenger must be nervous -> must have something to hide -> red light.
You don't revoke passports. Once you arrested someone, the judge may decide to retain the travel documents to avoid that person fleeing justice. But the passport is not revoked, it is confiscated. And that is done once the person is arrested, not while the person is sitting somewhere in the world in a transit area.
Revoking a passport is quite extreme and I have never heard of such action. It is not the usual way to pursue international criminals. Thus it is a different treatment.
Passport Canada (US must have something similar) has a description of actions that may get your passport revoked. At this point I think he does fall in there.
Revoking Snowden's passport also violates this from what I can see as by removing his passport they're removing his right to travel and hence to leave Russia.
Or in other words the US has pretty much now completely thrown the de-facto document on basic levels of standards of human rights entirely out the window.
Owning a passport/travelling between countries is a privilege not a right. When someone is suspected of a crime and there is a good chance this person may seek to leave the country to evade prosecution, the passport will be revoked. Snowden is not a special snowflake to warrant a different treatment.
Apparently he withdrew his asylum request after Putin asked him to stop leaking more secrets. Funny he would consider it in the first place knowing that Russians are likely much worst when it comes to surveillance of their own citizens. Can't see many nations wanting him at this time.
Before he got recruited, he was a long time volunteer of Wikileaks which means he was probably in trouble with the law. I think he was fortunate to get any money at all from this deal as he had not much leverage. Risk going to jail with nothing or cut a deal for some pocket change and a jail free card - he made the smart move.
Google already has employees who, when notified, investigate and remove obscene content which means they are already exposed to the worst of what Internet has to offer. When CP is reported, there is a legal requirement to act and remove such content within 24 hours or so. If Google can pull a decent solution, they will have a more proactive approach to dealing with this problem and will potentially save money as less human intervention will be required.
He disclosed the bug way back in March then provided an update in May and now a fully functional (have not tested) exploit. While he could have been more discrete, seems to me like this is more than enough time for the vendor.
I don't know Italian law but in some (most?) countries online intimidation/harassment is illegal. In addition of posting the video, they also posted insults/bullying messages which sounds to me like it fits the definition and they could be criminally liable for what happened. Now how can you criminally blame Facebook for what happened I don't know. Under normal circumstances I'd expect a civil case as an attempt to get some $$$ from someone with deep pockets but we are not talking about US here.
Indeed, you could have 1 large empty bottle + 2 small bottles as if it was impossible to fill the large bottle with the small one once you cross the checkpoint. But we know this is done to give an impression of security and not really provide much security.
but why is this news for nerds? Looks to me like this will another political debate.
Uranus?
Someone had to do it.
when you send Dennis Rodman as your CIA agent/ambassador to NK.
So if I put locks on my pockets, Police won't be allowed to search them?
Some not so credible newspapers report unconfirmed military sources stating that Russian air defence shot down this bad boy.
Just look at the health warning at the back of your keyboard.
They use it as yet another indicator of your personality to better target ads.
But IE does not bundle Java - why would the IE bugfixes be related to the Java bugfixes?
IE is so slow, it was probably written in java.
browsers. Where did you got this information? MS bulletin does not state that and I doubt MS would ever make such recommendation no matter how serious the bug was.
Looks to me like she is now better than ever qualified for the job.
Once this is deployed for everyone, will a normal user who is being targeted receive a % of the fee? Obviously in this case Zuck gets indirectly the money but what about the average folk?
And they were so happy when they successfully traced the latest attack to user "goatse" at fbi.gov.
You mean Goatse was able to expose their gaping hole?
My wife works at a rehabilitation/nursing home and there are so many college professors in there that have gone Looney. Some think they are aliens and others have gone Looney in other ways
As the saying goes, there is a fine line between the genius and insanity.
I appreciate all of the comments and encourage you to read them. My intention here was to relay an intriguing list put together by a career and job listing site, CareerCast, that surveyed data on 200 jobs and drew up a list of professions it deemed least stressful, according to metrics I describe above, which are weighted toward categories like physical demands, environmental conditions and risking one’s life. CareerCast didn’t measure things like hours worked and the stresses that come from trying to get papers published in a competitive environment or writing grants to fund research. Does not look like any reputable source was used to elaborate this study. No wonder it turned out botched.
So why not have it orbit Earth? Is it the risk of crashing on Earth or into other orbiting space objects or is there some other explanation?