What information regarding their case can ICE hope to get from the seized computer?
Kiddie porn? Remember, they were probably going off some server logs, and this guy's IP showed up. It's pretty reasonable to think that he might have had something to do with it, so you investigate. Note that he was NOT arrested, and did get his stuff back.
And yet, when they go off to their final destination, the IP that shows up in the logs is the exit node. And if I'm a law enforcement guy with a kiddie porn server log in front of me, I'm gonna go investigate those IPs, be they Tor exit node or not.
Have we really gotten to the point where it is unreasonable to think that evidence should actually identify a person?
YES. In this case, we want to identify the machine that actually downloaded the CP. We can identify the owner after that.
And remember, THIS GUY WAS NOT ARRESTED. He was served a search warrant, overseen by a judge, following proper procedure, and given due process. His rights were very well respected.
A provably false assumption even when Tor is not involved.
No, it's not. Just because you share the connection with others doesn't mean that the person who signed the agreement to be legally responsible for the connection is any less responsible for it.
I know you like to toe the Republican line and all, but you realize that Obama has overseen more deportations and raids on plants and businesses that employ illegal immigrants than any other President, right?
No, but I would imagine someone's IP showing up in the logs of a kiddie porn server might.
And read the fucking article. The guy was not accused of anything; he was not charged with anything. He had a search warrant served on him, and he got his stuff back after it was shown that his computers had no evidence. There is no violation of anyone's rights going on here.
Fuck off with your "Amerika" and "Gestapo" bullshit. That might have worked had this been an unprovoked seizure, but the fact of the matter is, they had a warrant, they followed proper procedure, and they gave the guy due process. No rights were violated.
So in order to identify the person they serve the warrant on, they go to the ISP, get who was *legally responsible* for that connection at whatever time, and then serve the warrant on them for searching the premises. That accounts for multiple roommates sharing the IP, and if it is someone freeloading on their wifi, it will be found out that the persons at the residence don't have any more evidence.
No, that is a completely unreasonably high bar to attain. An IP address might not identify a person, but given an IP address, a time, and logs from the ISP, it can definitely identify a residence. Which is plenty enough for a warrant.
No, it's not. I agree that if the only evidence is an IP address, then they shouldn't be convicted. However, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be investigated, and other evidence possibly brought up.
iPod doesn't work in disk mode. You knew this when you bought it. You can bitch all you want, but at the end of the day, wiping your iPod by syncing it to an empty library, AFTER IT TOLD YOU IT WOULD DO THIS, is completely your fault.
No, what happened is that someone wiped their computer. Meaning the library on their computer was empty. They plugged the iPod into the computer, and hit the sync button, even though it told them that would delete things on their iPod. They are now trying to blame Apple for that.
With every other MP3 player, you don't have to worry about your music magically disappearing.
Your music didn't "magically disappear". You clicked yes on the dialog that says, "Hey, I'm going to delete the stuff on your iPod. Do you want me to do this?"
If you bought the music, you just re-download it from iTunes or Amazon or where you bought it before. If you didn't (shame on you), then you should have kept actual backups prior.
But that doesn't answer my question. Your music is not your data, and should be backed up elsewhere. What "data" of yours can you not get out of your iPhone?
No it's not, and to say so is to be ignorant as to what a tablet can bring differently than a phone. Simply making things bigger doesn't make something a tablet. And part of what the iPad has done is to encourage tablet specific apps, ones that make use of the extra screen real estate.
Slashdot Mirror
What information regarding their case can ICE hope to get from the seized computer?
Kiddie porn? Remember, they were probably going off some server logs, and this guy's IP showed up. It's pretty reasonable to think that he might have had something to do with it, so you investigate. Note that he was NOT arrested, and did get his stuff back.
And yet, when they go off to their final destination, the IP that shows up in the logs is the exit node. And if I'm a law enforcement guy with a kiddie porn server log in front of me, I'm gonna go investigate those IPs, be they Tor exit node or not.
Have we really gotten to the point where it is unreasonable to think that evidence should actually identify a person?
YES. In this case, we want to identify the machine that actually downloaded the CP. We can identify the owner after that.
And remember, THIS GUY WAS NOT ARRESTED. He was served a search warrant, overseen by a judge, following proper procedure, and given due process. His rights were very well respected.
Because someone being a Tor exit means that there's NO CHANCE that they could have committed the crime. Yup.
A provably false assumption even when Tor is not involved.
No, it's not. Just because you share the connection with others doesn't mean that the person who signed the agreement to be legally responsible for the connection is any less responsible for it.
They got a court order in this instance, though.
Because the IP that came up on the logs TOTALLY announced itself as a Tor node.
I know you like to toe the Republican line and all, but you realize that Obama has overseen more deportations and raids on plants and businesses that employ illegal immigrants than any other President, right?
No, but I would imagine someone's IP showing up in the logs of a kiddie porn server might.
And read the fucking article. The guy was not accused of anything; he was not charged with anything. He had a search warrant served on him, and he got his stuff back after it was shown that his computers had no evidence. There is no violation of anyone's rights going on here.
Fuck off with your "Amerika" and "Gestapo" bullshit. That might have worked had this been an unprovoked seizure, but the fact of the matter is, they had a warrant, they followed proper procedure, and they gave the guy due process. No rights were violated.
So in order to identify the person they serve the warrant on, they go to the ISP, get who was *legally responsible* for that connection at whatever time, and then serve the warrant on them for searching the premises. That accounts for multiple roommates sharing the IP, and if it is someone freeloading on their wifi, it will be found out that the persons at the residence don't have any more evidence.
I like how you go off on him, and don't provide any sort of answer to his question. It totally makes you seem bad ass.
No, that is a completely unreasonably high bar to attain. An IP address might not identify a person, but given an IP address, a time, and logs from the ISP, it can definitely identify a residence. Which is plenty enough for a warrant.
No, it's not. I agree that if the only evidence is an IP address, then they shouldn't be convicted. However, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be investigated, and other evidence possibly brought up.
It shouldn't, but if I'm tracking CP downloaders, say from a honeypot, I'm going to investigate the IPs that show up, be they Tor exit node or not.
iPod doesn't work in disk mode. You knew this when you bought it. You can bitch all you want, but at the end of the day, wiping your iPod by syncing it to an empty library, AFTER IT TOLD YOU IT WOULD DO THIS, is completely your fault.
No, what happened is that someone wiped their computer. Meaning the library on their computer was empty. They plugged the iPod into the computer, and hit the sync button, even though it told them that would delete things on their iPod. They are now trying to blame Apple for that.
Though the fact that there's so little demand for other devices to be supported by iTunes is a testament to that fact
There used to be HUGE demand for this. But everyone just accepted that iTunes was only going to be used for Apple devices.
No, because odds are she's not going to care about ANY computer. She's going to care about hers.
Many users don't really understand what it says it's going to do,
It says, "I am going to delete the items on this iPod. Do you want me to continue?"
Someone who can't understand that has bigger problems. That's as clear as it could have been made.
Nope, none of that is a valid reason. Remember, the iPod is NOT A BACKUP DEVICE. If you want a backup of your music, you make an actual backup.
With every other MP3 player, you don't have to worry about your music magically disappearing.
Your music didn't "magically disappear". You clicked yes on the dialog that says, "Hey, I'm going to delete the stuff on your iPod. Do you want me to do this?"
There's no one to blame but yourself.
If you bought the music, you just re-download it from iTunes or Amazon or where you bought it before. If you didn't (shame on you), then you should have kept actual backups prior.
But that doesn't answer my question. Your music is not your data, and should be backed up elsewhere. What "data" of yours can you not get out of your iPhone?
No it's not, and to say so is to be ignorant as to what a tablet can bring differently than a phone. Simply making things bigger doesn't make something a tablet. And part of what the iPad has done is to encourage tablet specific apps, ones that make use of the extra screen real estate.
Only if the options are worthwhile.