Whilst the drives are still classed as evidence the contents are protected. When they're deemed not to be and the PCs are returned, they get destroyed.
Even if the drives weren't destroyed, the second they're returned to the owner, they're largely useless as evidence. Examining the drive after receiving it wouldn't tell you anything you don't already know anyway (ie that the police have probably looked through everything).
This is something required by the police for all hard drives seized with suspected illegal material on it.
The stereotypical example is if they seize a PC with suspected child porn on it, can't find any on the drive, they return it, only for them to have missed the material, the police could be accused of then distributing child porn and get sued or even prosecuted.
Likewise with classified information, they are not allowed to 'distribute' classified info so are required to destroy the hard drives. It's not the government being naive and thinking they can stem the data, it's the government pretty much being forced to by various laws (and a litigious society).
Former airport McDonalds worker here. Your post, and most of the posts replying to this guy amuse me a lot.
I was an hourly employee and I had to go through security before starting my shift. This was unpaid and there were often queues. It was the same for all the staff working airside who were paid by the hour.
The EU countries have all signed various treaties stating that people being extradited cannot be tortured or face the death penalty, these treaties form the basis of the European Arrest Warrant.
They've effectively just signed the same letter as the US in advance. The relationship between Russia and the US isn't exactly rosy enough to have EU style treaties so the letters need to be done on a case by case basis.
This is the legalese "a chance", the same legalese that can make tapping someone on the shoulder 'assault'. It doesn't need to be a realistic prospect or even slightly likely, there just needs to be a faint glimmer of a hint of a chance that he may face torture.
Eventually the Russians courts could come to the decision that the US wouldn't torture him but it would probably involve the case being escalated several times to higher courts on appeal and the case being dragged out for a number of years. A letter from a ranking US official means that there would not be any reasonable doubt with which could be the basis of an appeal.
It isn't a case of "look how awful the US is", this kind of thing happens everywhere. Even countries that many people would consider incredibly liberal can find themselves struggling to get another country to extradite a wanted criminal to them because of the insane number of technicalities that can draw out an extradition. The EU eventually came up with a new extradition treaty so that EU countries could much more freely extradite wanted criminals between the countries.
tldr: This isn't "this is how awful the US has become", it's simply legally crossing the t's and and dotting the i's.
It's to prevent a technicality often used to block extraditions.
Most countries will not extradite someone if there's a chance of them getting tortured or executed. Even if the prospect is very unlikely, defendant lawyers will be able use it to block an extradition. A signed letter from a head of state/justice from a country prevents this from being used as a defence.
Extraditions can take a decade if someone has unlimited resources to fight them in the courts, prosecutors need to be really exhaustive in their approach if they want it to happen in months rather than years
All e-readers allow you to put DRM free books on, even if you have to use Calibre (which you really should be using anyway) and you can convert some DRM formats if you have the key. Believe the Kobo store allows publishers to put their book up DRM free.
Alternatively, a democratically elected leader with a near impossible task was ousted after only a year (Most people consider an entire term of a US president not enough for lasting change) by a minority who shouted louder than everyone else. The army has now moved in to arrest people simply for being members of a legitimate political party that had done nothing illegal.
You think this is unprecedented? Are you joking? The army moving in to oust an unpopular democratically elected head of state? Yeah, that's never happened before! I'm sure it wouldn't have had dire consequences for that country either!
As it stands, what's happening in Egypt will at best lead to a rise in extremism ("we did things the right way and look what happened?") at worse, full on civil war.
14 million is utter bullshit. The figure's original source? an unnamed " military source".
The biggest protest was 500,000, the next biggest was Alexandria at 'a few 100,000'. After that you've probably a bit of long tail but the numbers likely plummeted drastically. A figure of 1-1.5mill seems most likely.
Think about it, you've people too old, too young, not physically able, too scared, to busy with work, people living in a low density populated area, people who don't care enough, people who just flat out do not agree with it.
Believing that 17% were out protesting is either delusional or it's propaganda trying to justify the actions of the army.
Closed source, open source, it doesn't matter when you can just give them access to a database, an admin account or access to logs.
The fear of backdoors into your OS is out of date in today's society. Why would they need wait for you to be online then risk detection by using a backdoor when they can just make a call to facebook, your ISP or your mobile phone network and probably get far more valuable information?
It's also very naive to think that intelligence organisations don't have a catalogue of undisclosed exploits and security holes that they keep secret in case they need to attack someone, Whether it's Linux, Windows or whatever.
Alas, this means less shelf space for the items that low-margin customers buy, like basic staples. Who cares, you can get those things from the Mom & Pop store, right? Oh...
Actually, this just isn't true. Basic staples will always be a main part of a supermarket and have the widest choice.
Yes supermarkets want you to buy the profitable high margin items but the most important thing is that they get you into the door to shop with them in the first place. If you go to a Supermarket and feel they don't have enough choice or, even worse, they don't stock the item you're after, you're probably not going to want to come back.
It's for this reason supermarkets also stock stuff they barely sell anything of, like DIY goods and budget office supplies. Only a tiny portion of customers will want some of these on a weekly shop but it means that a supermarket more and more becomes their first port of call when they need to buy something.
Does the study factor in the cost of producing a massive, complex battery that'll only last 3 years? Or the fact that a significant portion of the charge gets lost whilst electric cars are sitting in the garage (I believe in reviews it showed the Tesla losing 20% range purely from having spent a night in cold conditions)?
The conclusion people reached from that study is questionable at best.
The reason they avoided the "green" snickered product is because they assumed that because it went out of it's way to show it was enivornmentally friendly, that they were paying extra for it. It's like buying a product where they say "50c will be donated to a charity" can backfire because consumers assume (sometimes rightly) that the product simply costs 50c extra.
Organic foods are known to be more expensive than regular food, if you buy environmentally friendly washing products they're either more expensive or not as powerful. All this study may show is that people are cautious about 'eco' products because of the negatives associated with them in general shopping.
You can run diesel cars off of perfectly renewable oils from crops. Heck, if you don't mind having to change or rinse the filters more often, you can run a diesel car off of waste oil from fast food restaurants
GMOs are given genetic traits that make them bigger, require less water or make them hardier against certain chemicals or pests. None of these things are inherently toxic.
Genetically modifying a foodstuff is basically doing dozens (or even hundreds) of generations of selective breeding in a single step. Even with selective breeding you could, in theory try and breed an apple less prone to bruising and be successful, only to find that the genes that affect bruising also control the levels of cyanide in apple pips and you've now got a deadly strain of apples cross spreading its pollen everywhere. It doesn't happen because genetic traits are very specific an unintended consequences are obscenely unlikely.
There's also a lot of opinion that the DDT ban has causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) and that rather than a kneejerk reaction completely banning it, it just needed tighter controls ensuring safe usage.
I believe there hasn't been a single incidence so far of a farmer being sued for genuine accidental pollination.
The big headline grabbing court cases of poor innocent farmers have been one of two things:
using or buying seed when they, or the seller have signed an aggreement saying that they will not use or sell and seeds from crops they bought from Monsato.
Deliberate pollination followed by selective breeding to ensure their entire crop is basically growing Monsanto owned GM crop.
I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the time this happens it's because a woman's put her handbag on the counter to get the wallet out, it's brushed up close against the sensor and activated it. Contactless is designed to be able to be used in a wallet, guessing distance is the big limiting factor, not having a couple of layers of cloth between them.
IOS pre-dates Android and is of a size where removing Youtube hurts Google more than Apple. Anti-trust is when you abuse your size and power so the fact they didn't do this when they weren't in a position of power strengthens the case against them.
Yeah, who cares if one teenager got put through hell and the parents of another missing teenager experienced even more heartbreak, eventually they identified the real people (after seeing them identified by actual responsible news reporters) and had no noticeable impact on the man hunt!
Slashdot Mirror
Whilst the drives are still classed as evidence the contents are protected. When they're deemed not to be and the PCs are returned, they get destroyed. Even if the drives weren't destroyed, the second they're returned to the owner, they're largely useless as evidence. Examining the drive after receiving it wouldn't tell you anything you don't already know anyway (ie that the police have probably looked through everything).
This is something required by the police for all hard drives seized with suspected illegal material on it.
The stereotypical example is if they seize a PC with suspected child porn on it, can't find any on the drive, they return it, only for them to have missed the material, the police could be accused of then distributing child porn and get sued or even prosecuted.
Likewise with classified information, they are not allowed to 'distribute' classified info so are required to destroy the hard drives. It's not the government being naive and thinking they can stem the data, it's the government pretty much being forced to by various laws (and a litigious society).
Former airport McDonalds worker here. Your post, and most of the posts replying to this guy amuse me a lot.
I was an hourly employee and I had to go through security before starting my shift. This was unpaid and there were often queues. It was the same for all the staff working airside who were paid by the hour.
That is not really true.
The EU countries have all signed various treaties stating that people being extradited cannot be tortured or face the death penalty, these treaties form the basis of the European Arrest Warrant.
They've effectively just signed the same letter as the US in advance. The relationship between Russia and the US isn't exactly rosy enough to have EU style treaties so the letters need to be done on a case by case basis.
You're not quite getting my point.
This is the legalese "a chance", the same legalese that can make tapping someone on the shoulder 'assault'. It doesn't need to be a realistic prospect or even slightly likely, there just needs to be a faint glimmer of a hint of a chance that he may face torture.
Eventually the Russians courts could come to the decision that the US wouldn't torture him but it would probably involve the case being escalated several times to higher courts on appeal and the case being dragged out for a number of years. A letter from a ranking US official means that there would not be any reasonable doubt with which could be the basis of an appeal.
It isn't a case of "look how awful the US is", this kind of thing happens everywhere. Even countries that many people would consider incredibly liberal can find themselves struggling to get another country to extradite a wanted criminal to them because of the insane number of technicalities that can draw out an extradition. The EU eventually came up with a new extradition treaty so that EU countries could much more freely extradite wanted criminals between the countries.
tldr: This isn't "this is how awful the US has become", it's simply legally crossing the t's and and dotting the i's.
It's to prevent a technicality often used to block extraditions.
Most countries will not extradite someone if there's a chance of them getting tortured or executed. Even if the prospect is very unlikely, defendant lawyers will be able use it to block an extradition. A signed letter from a head of state/justice from a country prevents this from being used as a defence.
Extraditions can take a decade if someone has unlimited resources to fight them in the courts, prosecutors need to be really exhaustive in their approach if they want it to happen in months rather than years
All e-readers allow you to put DRM free books on, even if you have to use Calibre (which you really should be using anyway) and you can convert some DRM formats if you have the key. Believe the Kobo store allows publishers to put their book up DRM free.
Quote the number of hours to implement a new feature or change request.
Adding an arbitrary fixed minimum for the changes and features is just going to piss them off and seem stupid, especially for trivial changes.
Quote them a realistic time, show them that quote when they want something rushed through and it deploys with serious issues.
Some of the greatest literary works known to man are scripts.
Sure Hangover part IV isn't Shakespeare but that doesn't mean scripts in themselves aren't an art form worth protecting.
Alternatively, a democratically elected leader with a near impossible task was ousted after only a year (Most people consider an entire term of a US president not enough for lasting change) by a minority who shouted louder than everyone else. The army has now moved in to arrest people simply for being members of a legitimate political party that had done nothing illegal.
You think this is unprecedented? Are you joking? The army moving in to oust an unpopular democratically elected head of state? Yeah, that's never happened before! I'm sure it wouldn't have had dire consequences for that country either!
As it stands, what's happening in Egypt will at best lead to a rise in extremism ("we did things the right way and look what happened?") at worse, full on civil war.
14 million is utter bullshit. The figure's original source? an unnamed " military source".
The biggest protest was 500,000, the next biggest was Alexandria at 'a few 100,000'. After that you've probably a bit of long tail but the numbers likely plummeted drastically. A figure of 1-1.5mill seems most likely.
Think about it, you've people too old, too young, not physically able, too scared, to busy with work, people living in a low density populated area, people who don't care enough, people who just flat out do not agree with it.
Believing that 17% were out protesting is either delusional or it's propaganda trying to justify the actions of the army.
Closed source, open source, it doesn't matter when you can just give them access to a database, an admin account or access to logs.
The fear of backdoors into your OS is out of date in today's society. Why would they need wait for you to be online then risk detection by using a backdoor when they can just make a call to facebook, your ISP or your mobile phone network and probably get far more valuable information?
It's also very naive to think that intelligence organisations don't have a catalogue of undisclosed exploits and security holes that they keep secret in case they need to attack someone, Whether it's Linux, Windows or whatever.
Alas, this means less shelf space for the items that low-margin customers buy, like basic staples. Who cares, you can get those things from the Mom & Pop store, right? Oh...
Actually, this just isn't true. Basic staples will always be a main part of a supermarket and have the widest choice.
Yes supermarkets want you to buy the profitable high margin items but the most important thing is that they get you into the door to shop with them in the first place. If you go to a Supermarket and feel they don't have enough choice or, even worse, they don't stock the item you're after, you're probably not going to want to come back.
It's for this reason supermarkets also stock stuff they barely sell anything of, like DIY goods and budget office supplies. Only a tiny portion of customers will want some of these on a weekly shop but it means that a supermarket more and more becomes their first port of call when they need to buy something.
Does the study factor in the cost of producing a massive, complex battery that'll only last 3 years? Or the fact that a significant portion of the charge gets lost whilst electric cars are sitting in the garage (I believe in reviews it showed the Tesla losing 20% range purely from having spent a night in cold conditions)?
The conclusion people reached from that study is questionable at best.
The reason they avoided the "green" snickered product is because they assumed that because it went out of it's way to show it was enivornmentally friendly, that they were paying extra for it. It's like buying a product where they say "50c will be donated to a charity" can backfire because consumers assume (sometimes rightly) that the product simply costs 50c extra.
Organic foods are known to be more expensive than regular food, if you buy environmentally friendly washing products they're either more expensive or not as powerful. All this study may show is that people are cautious about 'eco' products because of the negatives associated with them in general shopping.
The answer to both is yes.
You can run diesel cars off of perfectly renewable oils from crops. Heck, if you don't mind having to change or rinse the filters more often, you can run a diesel car off of waste oil from fast food restaurants
You'd better stop eating anything if BT scares you.
It occurs naturally in soil and can be used on organic certified veg.
DDT is a chemical designed to be toxic.
GMOs are given genetic traits that make them bigger, require less water or make them hardier against certain chemicals or pests. None of these things are inherently toxic.
Genetically modifying a foodstuff is basically doing dozens (or even hundreds) of generations of selective breeding in a single step. Even with selective breeding you could, in theory try and breed an apple less prone to bruising and be successful, only to find that the genes that affect bruising also control the levels of cyanide in apple pips and you've now got a deadly strain of apples cross spreading its pollen everywhere. It doesn't happen because genetic traits are very specific an unintended consequences are obscenely unlikely.
There's also a lot of opinion that the DDT ban has causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) and that rather than a kneejerk reaction completely banning it, it just needed tighter controls ensuring safe usage.
I believe there hasn't been a single incidence so far of a farmer being sued for genuine accidental pollination.
The big headline grabbing court cases of poor innocent farmers have been one of two things:
using or buying seed when they, or the seller have signed an aggreement saying that they will not use or sell and seeds from crops they bought from Monsato.
Deliberate pollination followed by selective breeding to ensure their entire crop is basically growing Monsanto owned GM crop.
I'd be willing to bet that 90% of the time this happens it's because a woman's put her handbag on the counter to get the wallet out, it's brushed up close against the sensor and activated it. Contactless is designed to be able to be used in a wallet, guessing distance is the big limiting factor, not having a couple of layers of cloth between them.
Apple had a youtube app long before then (it came with the original iphone).
IOS pre-dates Android and is of a size where removing Youtube hurts Google more than Apple. Anti-trust is when you abuse your size and power so the fact they didn't do this when they weren't in a position of power strengthens the case against them.
Google are dominant in the video hosting industry. They have been providing APIs and help to other platforms in order to to get youtube on there.
They've been refusing to provide MS will the same tools and help as other companies because they're a competitor in a different field.
Seems open and shut anti-trust
*Where's Wally
Yeah, who cares if one teenager got put through hell and the parents of another missing teenager experienced even more heartbreak, eventually they identified the real people (after seeing them identified by actual responsible news reporters) and had no noticeable impact on the man hunt!