No, the keyword is "prove" in "prove beyond a reasonable doubt". This means you need to prove something happened, not just show that it's the most likely situation. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor, not the defendant, to prove that something happened. Being in your house when a crime was committed does not prove that you committed that crime.
If my wife and I are the only ones home and she gets murdered, there needs to be more evidence than "you were the only one there, so you must have done it" to prove that I was the one who murdered her. Again, why should that argument work when it comes to acts on computers?
First off, if accused of a crime, you don't have to blame someone else. I know that "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't hold up much anymore, but it's not the defendants job to collect / provide evidence for a case against someone else. The defense isn't "my invisible friend did it", it's "I didn't do it, and you have not shown that I did it beyond a reasonable doubt."
Secondly, are you saying that if I'm the only one home, and some crime is committed in my house, I must be the one who committed it? That would not hold up in court for any non-computer related crime, so why should anyone believe that I must be the one committing crimes with my computer?
If the person lives alone and only has one computer, it does effectively identify the person.
So I guess it's not possible for someone to come over and plug into my network. The only way it could identify one person would be if the person lived alone, has one computer, no family or friends, and never lets anyone into the house. Even then I can think of a few ways that it could be someone else.
Also, it's generally understood in legal circles, and is spelled out in most ISPs' TOS agreements, that the account owner is ultimately responsible for any activity originating from that connection.
This is to protect the ISP from being responsible. And do we really need to go into whether or not TOS are legally binding?
Things get muddier when talking about open wireless access points, but in general it's been held that if you open up your wireless connection, you're responsible for any illegal activity people might use it for.
You can almost get away with that claim because of the phrase "in general", but there are so many exceptions to that rule, I don't want to get started.
You only escape responsibility if you've taken some measure to restrict access and the perpetrator has defeated it.
So if my friend comes over and accesses my network, I'm responsible for what my friend did? Let me try that a different way: By your logic, I can do whatever I want on any open network that I can find without any fear of prosecution because the owner of that open network is responsible for my actions. Is that really how you think it works?
Almost everything that you said, with the exception of the last paragraph, is not common knowledge in "legal circles", but instead is common myth within the general public.
I've been out of college for one year and have a great engineering job that I can stay in for as long as I want. When I was in school, there was what I assumed to be the start of talk about getting jobs that offered promotions without requiring movement into management. As far as I know, those jobs don't really exist. If you like management, then in my opinion, the choice is simple: go into it.
The tough question is for people who are 40 and can't decide whether to move into management so they can get a pay raise and better support their families or to stay in engineering / tech / IT / programming and do what they enjoy while sacrificing the extra cash. Most of the time, management gets paid better in long run, so that's something to consider. Also, most non-management would prefer to be working under someone who has experience in what they are doing instead of someone who took a few classes to get a degree that would offer more pay. Just keep your tech years in mind when you're managing.
damnit, i spend a solid 2 and a half minutes trying to come up with a clever analogy to go with my explanation, and all that kept running through my head were pick up trucks with stickers of Calvin pissing on the competition...
Maybe, just maybe, he meant, "any answer" is the other / wrong answer. And from the variety of replies to your message, I think that's probably the case. Kinda like if someone said, "There's two kinds of race car drivers out there, Ford drivers and losers."
That was what I meant with "etc.", but I agree with ya. After all, isn't it the hassle that's driven most of us to use torrents in the first place? Why would the new kids learn from the mistakes of those who came before them... but there's always a chance.
If my cable company would let me sign into some site (which I would get access to because I pay for the cable in my house) and watch tv episodes, I'd watch it on that site over a site like hulu. Of course, that all depends on which has better quality, fewer commercials, etc.
I travel a lot, so in lieu of a slingbox, I'd appreciate the added feature of being able to watch the service I pay for when I'm on the road.
When I first read the article (admittedly, a bit late), I thought the same thing. I'm just disappointed I had to read this far down to see someone who pointed this out. Wish I had mod points.
Everyone seems to be missing the more obvious shows which were what a generation grew up on: G.I. Joe, Transformers, and others. These shows were created to ramp up action figure sales. While it's true that the shows became a great source of revenue, that wasn't their original purpose. They were the ultimate shows created specifically for a product.
I agree with you, but for a different reason. There needs to be an understanding that what you find on the internet is NOT evidence of an action, and I think there should be something in the books to prevent companies/universities/governments/institutions from using such information in that manner. Should a picture on Facebook of an underage kid with a red plastic cup in his hand be viable evidence that the kid was drinking alcohol and therefore grounds for punishment at his school? Should companies be able to use blog information against an employee or potential employee even though they have no evidence, besides the claims made in the blog, that the blog was written by the person? Information on the internet is not always accurate information and usually has no references to prove its accuracy, so it shouldn't be treated as if it is irrefutable proof.
...for people who don't know that the internet can be "dangerous"?
But seriously, half of me agrees with you since this should be completely obvious, but the other half knows that people like my mom still don't realize it's risky to open an eCard even if it comes from someone she knows. If these "news" stories keep getting out there, maybe the thick-headed people out there will finally get the picture... then again, if they haven't gotten it by now, this type of thing just makes them more scared instead of aware of what they're doing.
Sorry for the late response, but that makes a lot more sense than your original post. I see what you're trying to get at now. However, I think it's all a matter of who you talk to. I stopped listening to the radio almost a decade ago because it's all the same stuff played over and over again (not just the songs, but the music isn't really any different in my opinion). Just because the advertising doesn't hit the fringes doesn't mean people don't expand their horizons. The cable networks IFC and IMF are good examples of American's desire for something different (although I've been pretty disappointed DishNetwork dropped IMF). Regardless, I think you make a fair point.
That was sarcasm, right? I'm in the US and the majority of my friends (most of whom don't know what slashdot is, btw) are constantly downloading and streaming content. I'm lucky enough to have a fiber connection to feed my need, but the lack of strong connection doesn't stop others from grabbing things. And "ever-expanding their tastes and knowledge of the canon of art", seriously? I hope you were being sarcastic and not waving your elitist flag.
Can you explain what you mean by the media tending to be leftist? Is it just because journalists tend to be liberal or Democrats? To me, the media favors the right because they focus on the "unimportant" or superficial issues that Republicans usually do better with instead of real issues that matter. I'm not saying Dems do better with the "real" issues, just that Republicans sound good when they're talking about "pro-life" and other such things.
I'm not trying to pick a side here either, I just honestly don't understand why people think the media leans to the left. Could you give a couple real examples?
I hope he responds with something like, "I'll come right down and fix it as soon as you fix the problems with your show, namely all the hypocritical, baseless, or just plain incorrect statements."
Would you just rather it be a form that says "You understand that your information will be shared with the application" with "I understand" and "I do not want to share my information" boxes? If a user installs a photo-sharing application, where does he/she think the application gets it's photos from? What's your point?
Another reason why constant monitoring doesn't work: Penn and Teller: Bullshit - Big Brother (about 5:30 into the video, but there's a lot more good stuff if you watch the full episode).
None of our viable candidates for the next presidency are willing to pull the troops out
Really? I'm not trying to get into a policy debate because those are endless, but I think that's an unfair generalization. On the site you linked, it says of Obama, "Would remove one to two combat brigades each month until most U.S. troops are out in 16 months. Would leave residual force to fight terrorists." I don't know much about the site or where the author got the information, but that isn't very clear. What are "residual forces"?
In the Jan. 31, 2008 Democratic debate, Obama said, "So I have said very clearly: I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and we will not have permanent bases in Iraq." He goes on to say that a "strike force" will remain to help deal with any terrorists that pop up, and others will remain to help with the humanitarian effort. Does that count as pulling out all the troops? What if the strike force wasn't there, would it then be pulling out all the troops? What if we put all the troops on a carrier ship near Iraq? Is it ok to leave "soldiers" in our embassy in Iraq, or do they need to be "pulled out" as well?
Again, I'm not trying to get into a he said / she said policy debate or to argue about symantics or the best way to stop the war in Iraq; I'm just trying to point out that it's not a simple issue, and in my opinion, at least one of the candidates is willing to "pull the troops out"... depending on how you define it, lol.
You acknowledge the poster is a troll, but then go on to argue with his post. Stop feeding the trolls. Most of these posters don't even have any real opinion on the subject, they just try to find the perfect post that will garner the greatest number of angry responses without being so outlandish that everyone recognizes it for what it is: flamebait.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the keyword is "prove" in "prove beyond a reasonable doubt". This means you need to prove something happened, not just show that it's the most likely situation. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor, not the defendant, to prove that something happened. Being in your house when a crime was committed does not prove that you committed that crime.
If my wife and I are the only ones home and she gets murdered, there needs to be more evidence than "you were the only one there, so you must have done it" to prove that I was the one who murdered her. Again, why should that argument work when it comes to acts on computers?
First off, if accused of a crime, you don't have to blame someone else. I know that "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't hold up much anymore, but it's not the defendants job to collect / provide evidence for a case against someone else. The defense isn't "my invisible friend did it", it's "I didn't do it, and you have not shown that I did it beyond a reasonable doubt."
Secondly, are you saying that if I'm the only one home, and some crime is committed in my house, I must be the one who committed it? That would not hold up in court for any non-computer related crime, so why should anyone believe that I must be the one committing crimes with my computer?
So I guess it's not possible for someone to come over and plug into my network. The only way it could identify one person would be if the person lived alone, has one computer, no family or friends, and never lets anyone into the house. Even then I can think of a few ways that it could be someone else.
This is to protect the ISP from being responsible. And do we really need to go into whether or not TOS are legally binding?
You can almost get away with that claim because of the phrase "in general", but there are so many exceptions to that rule, I don't want to get started.
So if my friend comes over and accesses my network, I'm responsible for what my friend did? Let me try that a different way: By your logic, I can do whatever I want on any open network that I can find without any fear of prosecution because the owner of that open network is responsible for my actions. Is that really how you think it works? Almost everything that you said, with the exception of the last paragraph, is not common knowledge in "legal circles", but instead is common myth within the general public.
I've been out of college for one year and have a great engineering job that I can stay in for as long as I want. When I was in school, there was what I assumed to be the start of talk about getting jobs that offered promotions without requiring movement into management. As far as I know, those jobs don't really exist. If you like management, then in my opinion, the choice is simple: go into it.
The tough question is for people who are 40 and can't decide whether to move into management so they can get a pay raise and better support their families or to stay in engineering / tech / IT / programming and do what they enjoy while sacrificing the extra cash. Most of the time, management gets paid better in long run, so that's something to consider. Also, most non-management would prefer to be working under someone who has experience in what they are doing instead of someone who took a few classes to get a degree that would offer more pay. Just keep your tech years in mind when you're managing.
damnit, i spend a solid 2 and a half minutes trying to come up with a clever analogy to go with my explanation, and all that kept running through my head were pick up trucks with stickers of Calvin pissing on the competition...
bravo to you.
Maybe, just maybe, he meant, "any answer" is the other / wrong answer. And from the variety of replies to your message, I think that's probably the case. Kinda like if someone said, "There's two kinds of race car drivers out there, Ford drivers and losers."
That was what I meant with "etc.", but I agree with ya. After all, isn't it the hassle that's driven most of us to use torrents in the first place? Why would the new kids learn from the mistakes of those who came before them... but there's always a chance.
If my cable company would let me sign into some site (which I would get access to because I pay for the cable in my house) and watch tv episodes, I'd watch it on that site over a site like hulu. Of course, that all depends on which has better quality, fewer commercials, etc.
I travel a lot, so in lieu of a slingbox, I'd appreciate the added feature of being able to watch the service I pay for when I'm on the road.
When I first read the article (admittedly, a bit late), I thought the same thing. I'm just disappointed I had to read this far down to see someone who pointed this out. Wish I had mod points.
I like to imagine the look on her face if she hasn't seen the movie and was reading that comment...
Everyone seems to be missing the more obvious shows which were what a generation grew up on: G.I. Joe, Transformers, and others. These shows were created to ramp up action figure sales. While it's true that the shows became a great source of revenue, that wasn't their original purpose. They were the ultimate shows created specifically for a product.
I agree with you, but for a different reason. There needs to be an understanding that what you find on the internet is NOT evidence of an action, and I think there should be something in the books to prevent companies/universities/governments/institutions from using such information in that manner. Should a picture on Facebook of an underage kid with a red plastic cup in his hand be viable evidence that the kid was drinking alcohol and therefore grounds for punishment at his school? Should companies be able to use blog information against an employee or potential employee even though they have no evidence, besides the claims made in the blog, that the blog was written by the person? Information on the internet is not always accurate information and usually has no references to prove its accuracy, so it shouldn't be treated as if it is irrefutable proof.
fair point... if only the question was, "Will we ever have a Bill of Rights for the electronic age"?
...for people who don't know that the internet can be "dangerous"?
But seriously, half of me agrees with you since this should be completely obvious, but the other half knows that people like my mom still don't realize it's risky to open an eCard even if it comes from someone she knows. If these "news" stories keep getting out there, maybe the thick-headed people out there will finally get the picture... then again, if they haven't gotten it by now, this type of thing just makes them more scared instead of aware of what they're doing.
Sorry for the late response, but that makes a lot more sense than your original post. I see what you're trying to get at now. However, I think it's all a matter of who you talk to. I stopped listening to the radio almost a decade ago because it's all the same stuff played over and over again (not just the songs, but the music isn't really any different in my opinion). Just because the advertising doesn't hit the fringes doesn't mean people don't expand their horizons. The cable networks IFC and IMF are good examples of American's desire for something different (although I've been pretty disappointed DishNetwork dropped IMF). Regardless, I think you make a fair point.
That was sarcasm, right? I'm in the US and the majority of my friends (most of whom don't know what slashdot is, btw) are constantly downloading and streaming content. I'm lucky enough to have a fiber connection to feed my need, but the lack of strong connection doesn't stop others from grabbing things. And "ever-expanding their tastes and knowledge of the canon of art", seriously? I hope you were being sarcastic and not waving your elitist flag.
Can you explain what you mean by the media tending to be leftist? Is it just because journalists tend to be liberal or Democrats? To me, the media favors the right because they focus on the "unimportant" or superficial issues that Republicans usually do better with instead of real issues that matter. I'm not saying Dems do better with the "real" issues, just that Republicans sound good when they're talking about "pro-life" and other such things.
I'm not trying to pick a side here either, I just honestly don't understand why people think the media leans to the left. Could you give a couple real examples?
I hope he responds with something like, "I'll come right down and fix it as soon as you fix the problems with your show, namely all the hypocritical, baseless, or just plain incorrect statements."
Would you just rather it be a form that says "You understand that your information will be shared with the application" with "I understand" and "I do not want to share my information" boxes? If a user installs a photo-sharing application, where does he/she think the application gets it's photos from? What's your point?
Another reason why constant monitoring doesn't work: Penn and Teller: Bullshit - Big Brother (about 5:30 into the video, but there's a lot more good stuff if you watch the full episode).
In the Jan. 31, 2008 Democratic debate, Obama said, "So I have said very clearly: I will end this war. We will not have a permanent occupation and we will not have permanent bases in Iraq." He goes on to say that a "strike force" will remain to help deal with any terrorists that pop up, and others will remain to help with the humanitarian effort. Does that count as pulling out all the troops? What if the strike force wasn't there, would it then be pulling out all the troops? What if we put all the troops on a carrier ship near Iraq? Is it ok to leave "soldiers" in our embassy in Iraq, or do they need to be "pulled out" as well?
Again, I'm not trying to get into a he said / she said policy debate or to argue about symantics or the best way to stop the war in Iraq; I'm just trying to point out that it's not a simple issue, and in my opinion, at least one of the candidates is willing to "pull the troops out"... depending on how you define it, lol.
And I usually don't bother to read the replies to the trolls for the same reasons, but I'm weak sometimes too.
You acknowledge the poster is a troll, but then go on to argue with his post. Stop feeding the trolls. Most of these posters don't even have any real opinion on the subject, they just try to find the perfect post that will garner the greatest number of angry responses without being so outlandish that everyone recognizes it for what it is: flamebait.
Guns don't kill people, people do.
Sorry, but it's been over 22.3 years since the AIDs epidemic started, so it's acceptable to make fun of it. Just ask Jared.