Here are some fuzzy numbers from google / wiki.
1) He was sending 20 million emails over 15 days. Let's call that 1 million emails per day.
2) He was doing this since 2003. Let's call that 3 years.
3) 3 Years * 365 Days * 1 million emails per day is 1,095,000,000 emails.
4) Some spam emails are obvious and some are not. Lets say it takes you, on average, 5 seconds additional time to detect and delete a spam email. That's 5,475,000,000 seconds he has cost people.
5) 60 seconds, 60 minutes, 24 hours, 365.25 days = 173 years.
6) That doesn't include cpu cycles waisted or law enforcement costs. That's 2+ lifetimes. *just in wasted time*.
Even if I am off by an order of magnitude. I'm ok with years of prison. (I'm also ok with higher penalties for drunk driving, but that's another story.)
Looks like either 1) The author was exagerating, 2) There are other circumstances not in the article or 3) Somehow they figure he stole more than $1,000 worth of wireless service.
Here is an excerpt. Note it says this is a misdemeanor unless certain things are met. (IANAL)
(1) A person who violates section 4 is guilty of a crime as follows:
(a) If the violation involves an aggregate amount of less than $200.00, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00 or 3 times the aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine.
(b) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $2,000.00 or 3 times the aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:
(i) The violation involves an aggregate amount of $200.00 or more but less than $1,000.00.
(ii) The person violates this act and has a prior conviction.
(c) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00 or 3 times the aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:
(i) The violation involves an aggregate amount of $1,000.00 or more but less than $20,000.00.
(ii) The person has 2 prior convictions.
How do you define allowed users? Was there a login? Was there a sign? Was it visible outside? It seems to me that "allowed users" requires *some* form of authentication. If I visit a website and there is no password, I assume I have permission (not a right, permission) to be there. The network was brodcasting it's availability via SSID. He or his O/S said ok. Without any other authentification that sounds like permission to me.
I think the issue here is that this information came from publicly available data. If an informat's name is in court documents, at the very least, the guy he informed on is going to find out about it. The genie is already out of the bottle. It should have been stopped at the source.
I think it would be great if this kind of data mining was made illegal, however, I have no idea how it could be inforced. There are problems that come up whenever this kind of data collection is done, no matter what the reason. Who maintains the list? If I find a mistake on my credit report I can, after some effort (cough), have the reporting Bureaus fix it. What if you are not in law inforcement at all and you are on this list? "Uh, yea, Mr. convicted drug dealer? I wonder if you could be so kind as to take me off your list? No?.. uh ok, bye."
Here is a crappy silver lining: At least you know if you are on it. It's not secret like some government lists I can think of.
This is one of the differences between the movies (without Duncan) and the tv show / movie with Duncan. Here is the wikipedia entry. It is pretty spotty. There used to be a nice faq in alt.tv.highlander but I can't seem to find it. Seems like that would be a nice thing to put in wikipedia. (If someone still has it. I'm jus sayin')
Here is an article from the April issue of Bee Culture. (Coincidentally called "Death by a thousand cuts, perhaps.") This guy has some thoughts on the subject. It's an opinion piece but I bet he is pretty close.
CCD may be a new, exotic, imported, insidious horrible pest of some kind, or a brand new pesticide we haven't been exposed to before. Or maybe one that's always been here. It even may be the Disappearing Disease of old or simply African absconding behavior. But, I'll tell you what I think after talking to those in the middle of this, the researchers, the scientists, the beekeepers who have had to pick up thousands of empty boxes (there are, by the way, lots of beekeepers who haven't seen this, and don't know what I'm talking about . . . Recall the Brethren?). No, I don't think it is any of these. Nope. Rather, I think it's all of these. I believe they'll find that exotic bug, that newest virus, that lethal disease or toxin from hell . . . but frankly, even when they do I don't think it's the only thing they'll find.
Maybe there is something wrong with my fine motor skills but, my signature is different every single time. I have never once had someone question it. I don't think signatures are used for verification except in a small number of cases. It is more often an acknowledgment that you have read the document / accept the charges / agree to the terms.
...the spammer didn't know I was the guy from the phone call, so he claimed that he didn't even know how to send spam and had no idea what I was talking about, while Jorgensen kept Judge-Judying me in between just about every other sentence for picking on this obviously innocent man. After I brought out the recording, she became very flustered for a few moments and then started accusing me of "entrapment". (Entrapment, of course, is where you trick someone into doing something, and then sue them or arrest them for it. That wasn't the case here, since he spammed me first
IANAL. In a federal case you could not do this. Both sides have to present their evidence to the other side so they can examine it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)#Rule_ 26._General_Provisions_Governing_Discovery.3B_Duty _of_Disclosure This is to prevent this very thing from happening. I think the "entrapment" the judge is referring to may be for the charge of perjury, not the charge of spamming.
Can anyone with more knowledge comment? Is this a factor on the state level in any state?
Don't forget that our 17 year olds can be sent to Iraq to kill but can't buy a beer when they get home.
At this rate they will be at least 21 when they get home. So, this is not a problem.
To stay on topic: With the exception of drinking age, 17 & 364/365 is the *maximum* age you can be treated like a child. That implies there should be some leeway for parents to treat their children like an adult before that, under supervision. i.e.: Let them drive in a parking lot before they are 16. Let them see an R-rated movie. Let them have a small drink before 21. I am not sure if the law always allows for this. (The drinking age is pretty solid in the US.)
Censorware gives that kind of control to a parent while COPA may not.
Yes, we need many more weather computers in the world if we stand a chance in tracking all the damn butterflys. It seems like those things cause problems in predicting all kinds of phenomena, not just weather!
What if you have a child that you can't trust? What if you're kid has a drug problem? What if he/she is acting out in dangerous ways? Kids are not perfect. They make bad decisions. (As we all do.) It's a parent's job to keep those decisions from being detrimental to them.
Sir, I commend your use of capitalization here. However, with Google's default case insensitivity, I bet your message ends up as a result of some pretty interesting searches.
OK, don't get me wrong. That *is* funny. However, instead of possibly tying up emergency services that may be needed elsewhere, give them the phone number / address to your state attorney general. (I'm in the US. I just noticed you wrote 'centre'. Feel free to substitute the equivalent for your government.)
I have seen the small glass bottles of coke in the US. They were at a store where many of the customers were elderly. My grandfather *insists* on them. I have also seen them in a "real" mexican restaurant. (Real meaning it catered to people from Mexico.) They had american coke in plastic bottles and mexican coke in glass bottles. I wonder if the mexican coke was made with less / no high fructose corn syrup?
To go back on topic: the article mentioned the 15 who died. We assume they died of cancer. I hope they made sure that none of them died of the gene therapy itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Here are some fuzzy numbers from google / wiki.
1) He was sending 20 million emails over 15 days. Let's call that 1 million emails per day.
2) He was doing this since 2003. Let's call that 3 years.
3) 3 Years * 365 Days * 1 million emails per day is 1,095,000,000 emails.
4) Some spam emails are obvious and some are not. Lets say it takes you, on average, 5 seconds additional time to detect and delete a spam email. That's 5,475,000,000 seconds he has cost people.
5) 60 seconds, 60 minutes, 24 hours, 365.25 days = 173 years.
6) That doesn't include cpu cycles waisted or law enforcement costs. That's 2+ lifetimes. *just in wasted time*.
Even if I am off by an order of magnitude. I'm ok with years of prison. (I'm also ok with higher penalties for drunk driving, but that's another story.)
Looks like either 1) The author was exagerating, 2) There are other circumstances not in the article or 3) Somehow they figure he stole more than $1,000 worth of wireless service.
Here is a link to the law
Here is an excerpt. Note it says this is a misdemeanor unless certain things are met. (IANAL)
(1) A person who violates section 4 is guilty of a crime as follows:
(a) If the violation involves an aggregate amount of less than $200.00, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00 or 3 times the aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine.
(b) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $2,000.00 or 3 times the aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:
(i) The violation involves an aggregate amount of $200.00 or more but less than $1,000.00.
(ii) The person violates this act and has a prior conviction.
(c) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00 or 3 times the aggregate amount, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:
(i) The violation involves an aggregate amount of $1,000.00 or more but less than $20,000.00.
(ii) The person has 2 prior convictions.
allowed users
How do you define allowed users? Was there a login? Was there a sign? Was it visible outside? It seems to me that "allowed users" requires *some* form of authentication. If I visit a website and there is no password, I assume I have permission (not a right, permission) to be there. The network was brodcasting it's availability via SSID. He or his O/S said ok. Without any other authentification that sounds like permission to me.
I think the issue here is that this information came from publicly available data. If an informat's name is in court documents, at the very least, the guy he informed on is going to find out about it. The genie is already out of the bottle. It should have been stopped at the source.
I think it would be great if this kind of data mining was made illegal, however, I have no idea how it could be inforced. There are problems that come up whenever this kind of data collection is done, no matter what the reason. Who maintains the list? If I find a mistake on my credit report I can, after some effort (cough), have the reporting Bureaus fix it. What if you are not in law inforcement at all and you are on this list? "Uh, yea, Mr. convicted drug dealer? I wonder if you could be so kind as to take me off your list? No?.. uh ok, bye."
Here is a crappy silver lining: At least you know if you are on it. It's not secret like some government lists I can think of.
If you get pulled over and you give the cop your license. He could think you are trying to bribe him!
This is one of the differences between the movies (without Duncan) and the tv show / movie with Duncan. Here is the wikipedia entry. It is pretty spotty. There used to be a nice faq in alt.tv.highlander but I can't seem to find it. Seems like that would be a nice thing to put in wikipedia. (If someone still has it. I'm jus sayin')
Here is an article from the April issue of Bee Culture. (Coincidentally called "Death by a thousand cuts, perhaps.") This guy has some thoughts on the subject. It's an opinion piece but I bet he is pretty close.
CCD may be a new, exotic, imported, insidious horrible pest of some kind, or a brand new pesticide we haven't been exposed to before. Or maybe one that's always been here. It even may be the Disappearing Disease of old or simply African absconding behavior. But, I'll tell you what I think after talking to those in the middle of this, the researchers, the scientists, the beekeepers who have had to pick up thousands of empty boxes (there are, by the way, lots of beekeepers who haven't seen this, and don't know what I'm talking about . . . Recall the Brethren?). No, I don't think it is any of these. Nope. Rather, I think it's all of these. I believe they'll find that exotic bug, that newest virus, that lethal disease or toxin from hell . . . but frankly, even when they do I don't think it's the only thing they'll find.
Here is the entire article.
there are many innocuous words that can have multiple meanings. You can't type in "head", "facial", or "blow"
You mean there are innocuous meanings to those words? Who knew?
Maybe there is something wrong with my fine motor skills but, my signature is different every single time. I have never once had someone question it. I don't think signatures are used for verification except in a small number of cases. It is more often an acknowledgment that you have read the document / accept the charges / agree to the terms.
Or, hire a stripper to sneak into bed with your best friend and his wife
So, what do I have to do... mark you as friend, or what?
Sorry, I forgot where I was: "I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter..."
...the spammer didn't know I was the guy from the phone call, so he claimed that he didn't even know how to send spam and had no idea what I was talking about, while Jorgensen kept Judge-Judying me in between just about every other sentence for picking on this obviously innocent man. After I brought out the recording, she became very flustered for a few moments and then started accusing me of "entrapment". (Entrapment, of course, is where you trick someone into doing something, and then sue them or arrest them for it. That wasn't the case here, since he spammed me first_ 26._General_Provisions_Governing_Discovery.3B_Duty _of_Disclosure This is to prevent this very thing from happening. I think the "entrapment" the judge is referring to may be for the charge of perjury, not the charge of spamming.
IANAL. In a federal case you could not do this. Both sides have to present their evidence to the other side so they can examine it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)#Rule
Can anyone with more knowledge comment? Is this a factor on the state level in any state?
Don't forget that our 17 year olds can be sent to Iraq to kill but can't buy a beer when they get home.
At this rate they will be at least 21 when they get home. So, this is not a problem.
To stay on topic: With the exception of drinking age, 17 & 364/365 is the *maximum* age you can be treated like a child. That implies there should be some leeway for parents to treat their children like an adult before that, under supervision. i.e.: Let them drive in a parking lot before they are 16. Let them see an R-rated movie. Let them have a small drink before 21. I am not sure if the law always allows for this. (The drinking age is pretty solid in the US.)
Censorware gives that kind of control to a parent while COPA may not.
Mission Accomplished,
Ed Pinkley
The secret is it's made of real family!
I've said too much, haven't I?
Punchline without a joke:
"Ok, I'll do it... but it will take me a while to get the 500 dollars."
Tip your waitstaff!
Ok, this is off topic, but, *well done* on the sig. I assume you had to exploit flaws in the function to generate it?
Yes, we need many more weather computers in the world if we stand a chance in tracking all the damn butterflys. It seems like those things cause problems in predicting all kinds of phenomena, not just weather!
3 weeks?!? That's just the tip of the iceburg, man. (ie: only the part you can see.)
At least with a fuse they can just stick a penny behind it "for now" and replace it next time they happen to be in the area.
What if you have a child that you can't trust? What if you're kid has a drug problem? What if he/she is acting out in dangerous ways? Kids are not perfect. They make bad decisions. (As we all do.) It's a parent's job to keep those decisions from being detrimental to them.
You forgot: [guy drops gun.] "You now have 5 seconds to comply"
really practice safe Word use
Sir, I commend your use of capitalization here. However, with Google's default case insensitivity, I bet your message ends up as a result of some pretty interesting searches.
How about this: What is the largest known prime number where all previous prime numbers are also known?
Ed
OK, don't get me wrong. That *is* funny. However, instead of possibly tying up emergency services that may be needed elsewhere, give them the phone number / address to your state attorney general. (I'm in the US. I just noticed you wrote 'centre'. Feel free to substitute the equivalent for your government.)
Block their home computer. Use a whitelist of allowable sites rather than a blacklist of bad sites.
I have seen the small glass bottles of coke in the US. They were at a store where many of the customers were elderly. My grandfather *insists* on them. I have also seen them in a "real" mexican restaurant. (Real meaning it catered to people from Mexico.) They had american coke in plastic bottles and mexican coke in glass bottles. I wonder if the mexican coke was made with less / no high fructose corn syrup?
To go back on topic: the article mentioned the 15 who died. We assume they died of cancer. I hope they made sure that none of them died of the gene therapy itself.
Ed