> which begs the question why they didn't take him in for tresspassing
Do people even get "taken in" for tresspassing? Arrest isn't required for citation or charges. Seems like the proper thing to do would be to cite him, ask him to leave, and then, only if he refuses and makes it clear that he will not leave on his own terms, then arrest him for it sure.
However, neither trespassing nor 5 cents of electricity, alone or together, justify the expense of an arrest.
Exactly. And...if the relevant individuals don't care, why would you care more than them? It is, quite litterally their problem. If it hurts the company and your job, that may be your problem but.... and I can't stress this enough.... if that happens, for those reasons, then.... your problem is not the security problem; its the management; and you should stop trying to help them more than they want to be helped, and plan your exit strategy before it comes crumbling down on top of you.
How likely are you to get caught for speeding? I mean, most people drive over the speed limit. The average traffic speed here is 15 MPH over on the highway (outside of rush hour). I mean yes, you will get nabbed eventually when they need to make numbers, but they get so few at a time that the chanced of getting caught is so low, it garauntees targerts. They have no incentive to enforce it more widely (not the least of which since there would be no benefit)
So we should ignore the fact that making punishments harsher is a terrible deterrent; in spite of how simple it sounds? The chance of getting caught is what is an actual deterrent.
So hitting a few people, very hard, for an action much larger than them, produces very little result. Whereas slapping a lot of people lightly on the wrist, would likely produce a much bigger result.
Course, paypal deserved it. I applaud everyone who took part.
> You have a strange viewpoint. I don't share your viewpoint.
Let me try to elaborate just a bit that might help then.... I don't really think its ok to steal power, water or anything. However, I do think people can be a bit mindless, and not think, and make assumptions and do small, mostly inconsequential stupid things.
So...I think the state probably can and should step in for many issues of theft, but, really should have some sort of thresholds to determine where they will or wont: and people have a responsibility to try to not create situations that will result in them relying on the state to come in and solve their problem for them.
For example... if you put a power outlet, on the edge of your property, by the street, or by where public people park cars, or wait for the bus. That is your right. If you add no signage, make no attempt to hide it, or switch it, or otherwise control it.... you are not doing that. If someone steals a significant amount from you, sure, the state should still deal with a problem like that, but, for really small infractions, you didn't live up to your end of being responsible enough to deserve someone else coming in and fixing it for you.
If someone clearly ignored a posted sign, if they came into your property in a more than superficial manner, if they circumvented some access control...sure. But....if you just put a fountain or outlet there where any schmuck with a phone charger could plug in.
Its not that its right for people to do it.... its that you could easily prevent it without the states help, and chose not to, and yet, want them to step in at great expense to everyone else and waste resources arresting and charging people over something so small.
Its not the states job to agressively deal with everything that is unfair no matter how insignificant. Frankly, if this is the best they have, its an argument for downsizing the legal system.
> No, it absolutely will not. People need to get through their heads that just because your rights are > violated, that doesn't mean expecting them not to be becomes unreasonable
The problem is it already has become that. Expectation of privacy is a "god of the gaps" problem. You have it, except where there is some reason you don't....and those reasons keep expanding. Most, taken individually are small: But even a large container can be filled and then buried in the smallest grains of sand.
The thing is, this is already where we are. This is not a real change, it already happened right under everyone's nose. The very moment it was decided that third party data had no privacy protection, the door was wide open; we lost. In fact, as soon as the idea of a "reasonable expectation" came about we lost because "reasonable" is very vague; and allows for an expanding definition....as soon as you have no reason left to expect privacy, you no longer have a right to it. You may as well erase privacy from the dictionary at that point.
Its not hopeless, maybe people will come to realize the problem here. Maybe people will see the wisdom that is actually in some court decisions. Read the supreme court decision on this very issue in relation to thermal imaging of homes without a warrant: They got it right and got it right for all the right reasons. They even recognized that a technology which is not granular enough to give away specific private details is not garauntee that it never will be; and that even the heat signatures of a house could give away private activity (like when you take a shower, or when you go to bed)
However, I don't expect it. People are too easily distracted; and real solutions would have to involve stopping the data from being collected as it is, all the way back to the towers. Because even having the phone company gather it, means it is gathered, and they can always share it without telling anyone.
Privacy respect needs to go all the way back to the endpoints.... maybe it will happen but I am skeptical in the near term.
Also, how did the cop know something was being stolen? Did he go to the school and ask them if it was authorized?
Seems to me, what he should have done, was first, ask the school, second, if they have a problem, give them the info on the car (which is enough for them to deal with it; including bringing a legal case) and... at most....unplug the car.
Since he doesn't need to enter the car to find out who the owner is (being registered in a DB he can query) there really is no probably cause to assume anything else is going on which would be uncovered by entering the car.
At that point, incident is over, stealing has stopped, and the victim has everything they need to decide whether to pursue the issue or not.
If anything.... the guy was debatably wrong for assuming the outlet was ok to use, but the cop violated his civil rights, which is a much more serious infraction than if the amount stolen was in the hundreds or thousands of dollars.
The man should get a stern talking to, and be informed he should not do it again. The school should put controls on their power outlets that are out in public spaces....and the cop should GO TO JAIL.
I work at a large company where this wouldn't fly for one reason: We have a security policy that specifically forbids it. Under the security policy, we have specific guidance for who must be told and, very specifically, that it should not be discussed or divulged beyond that.
So check the policies first, because, just sending a message out to a large group of people may get you in hot water itself for violating policy.
oh and.... fuck that shit entirely, get yourself back on the market, if you have to hammer them to get them to take real security issues seriously, its not worth it.
and if I install a water fountain at the edge of my property by the street with no signage whatsoever, and someone walking by assumes it is for public use and takes a drink...is that not ok?
Because that is a lot closer to what we are talking about than an invasion of private home, or other building. This is about a guy, out on the street, using a facility that was left, open to use, out on the street.
Honestly, I don't see any theft at all, that it was free to use seems like a reasonable assumption to me, afterall, why else leave a live outlet out in public, within reach of people (including children)? If anything, the school is negligent and created an attractive nuisance by not leaving it switched off when not in use, or otherwise protecting it from use.
Hell, I don't even leave the power outlets on the backside of my property switched on when not in use.
Going back to my own post which you replied to: "Its not so much about being ok or not being ok....its about it being such a small amount that anyone making any sort of a deal over it is an asshole"
Except this is a "commons" that doesn't have to be common. I don't know about this school or how far from the car it was but.... I have an electrical outlet on the outside of my house. Its not very close to the street, and I STILL have it on a switch which is inside the house.
Fact is, they put it out there, in public, where people could use it. If they put up a water fountain would they arrest people for stealing water when they drank from it?
Personally, I am perfectly ok with setting the precedent that if you put something that looks like a service out in public with no control over it whatsoever, you are giving them implicit license to use it.
Its not so much about being ok or not being ok....its about it being such a small amount that anyone making any sort of a deal over it is....kind of an asshole.
If I caught someone stealing 5 cents from me, it would be unlikely to garner more than a "hey what the fuck man".
There is being right, and there is being an asshole who is right.
How draconian. He used his hand to tell the computer to start the DDOS, maybe they should cut his hand off too? I guess he should have just said "in for a dime in for a dollar" and stuck with the DDOS, afterall, once started its all the same right?
> "Tranny" is not just a label that implies transsexual, it specifically implies a transsexual *prostitute* > which is why most transsexuals would be offended to be so labeled.
Hmm interesting. I often forget about the prostitution link. Only time I ever ran into that sort of tranny was walking drunk in the city with a friend of mine who decided to pretend he didn't realize she was a transsexual just to get a reaction (same friend; someone used a gay slur in his presence to refer to someone else, and he put his arm around me and started talking with a lisp until the guy stormed off)
> Either you know several transexual friends who are all either prostitutes or do not mind being > called such, or you just made this all up.
Actually that may be part of it....I mean they are not prostitutes (or if they are, none ever indicated it to me) however I don't really think any of them would look down on a prostitute either. Though the more I think of it, I can only think of one or maybe two individuals who self-applied tranny or used it to refer to the whole group. One of them is also quite openly a kinky sub, so it may be why she likes the term?
Course the funny thing is, in years of hanging out with them, its never really come up. Though, unless we are discussing a topic like this, the distinction of whether a person is trans or not is generally not that useful, and even less so when the event you are attending is 1/3 or more transsexuals. We are usually talking about other things.... or doing something like... engaging in the first documented re-enactment of flying artillery by a pony girl pulling a real (if small) cannon. It was admittedly, neither well disciplined nor well executed, but, we are pretty sure it was a first.
Ahhh but what if there is no destruction? DDOS does not actually damage anything.
How about if I run up to a protester with a blank board and keep it in front of his sign. Same effect, not illegal. That is much closer to a DDOS attack. Its more like getting out a bull horn and messing up the protester's chant.
However, even so. We are talking about a crime committed by many people, of which he was entirely minor; participated for a very short portion of time compared to others. Yet, he bears the full brunt of punishment himself? He pays the whole restitution even though he was possibly the most minor of all contributors?
So what happens if someone else in the group gets caught? Does he pay full restitution too?
This isn't even close to fair. He should have received a slap on the wrist.
> So it's okay to participate for only one minute in a hate crime?
Who said ok? Are you really saying there is no difference between someone who starts committing a crime and thinks better of it and stops on their own, before doing anything of consequence, and confesses to it later; and someone who does it, continues doing it, and doesn't confess later?
If he had acted alone, it would have been nothing. His 1 minute would not have even been noticed. Its only his action in concert with others, and really, the actions of those others since his was so small and ineffectual, that caused the damage.
Its not about right, its about the fact that the award is ridiculous, it assigns more culpability for the damage to him than is deserved, and it makes him pay for services that clearly went beyond dealing with the actual issue that he was a very small part of.
Exactly. The price of fixing the window is the price the malcontent causes them. The extra security and upgrades to the window to deal with future bricks is.... their choice. I mean, if I destroy your dodge neon. Its perfectly fair to say I need to to pay you its replacement value; and probably more if it was malicious; Its replacement value is not the cost of the Ferrari you decided you wanted to upgrade to since you had to get a new car anyway.
Whoa....and this one really makes my head whirl: "Perhaps more remarkably, two-thirds of FTM transsexuals reported the sensation of a phantom penis from childhood onwards, replete with phantom erections and other phenomena"
I mean, I thought Phantom limb made sense. You had a limb, its gone, the brain has trouble adjusting to the fact its getting no input where it used to and senses a limb that doesn't exist. However, to sense a limb that you never had? I don't even know what to make of that.
Based on everything I have heard and talked with people about its been clear that transsexualism has some manner of deep and biological basis, but the idea that it actually extends that deeply into kinaesthetic sense is boggling; and kind of horrifying.
I really think I may start using wikipedia as my first stop before google. We seem to be rapidly reaching the point where everything I want to know is already in there.
Don't know what to tell you, one persons slur is another persons self-applied label. Geek used to be an insult too. And retard was the clinical word invented because idiot became an insult. People can ignore intent and be offended at words if they like, I never found it very interesting and really counterproductive. Hell I still use the term marijuana despite knowing why it was coined too.
Anyway, thanks for the tiny bit of info and condescending remarks. Sorry I saw that someone had read something interesting and asked if they might be able to point me at what they read. I will certainly make absolutely no effort to not do that again.
It would but I never really thought about looking it up. Then again, the trans woman I have spent the most time with, is in her 50s and uses "tranny" and "tranny girl" like they are going out of style. Most of the other transfolk I have met have been through her (and the ones I knew before also were long time friends of her), so I guess I never really considered that they had appropriated a term others found offensive.
I mean now that I think about it, maybe she and one or two others are the only ones who use the term tranny and a few others do tend to say "trans" but...they always just seem more uptight.
Slashdot Mirror
> which begs the question why they didn't take him in for tresspassing
Do people even get "taken in" for tresspassing? Arrest isn't required for citation or charges. Seems like the proper thing to do would be to cite him, ask him to leave, and then, only if he refuses and makes it clear that he will not leave on his own terms, then arrest him for it sure.
However, neither trespassing nor 5 cents of electricity, alone or together, justify the expense of an arrest.
Exactly. And...if the relevant individuals don't care, why would you care more than them? It is, quite litterally their problem. If it hurts the company and your job, that may be your problem but.... and I can't stress this enough.... if that happens, for those reasons, then.... your problem is not the security problem; its the management; and you should stop trying to help them more than they want to be helped, and plan your exit strategy before it comes crumbling down on top of you.
How likely are you to get caught for speeding? I mean, most people drive over the speed limit. The average traffic speed here is 15 MPH over on the highway (outside of rush hour). I mean yes, you will get nabbed eventually when they need to make numbers, but they get so few at a time that the chanced of getting caught is so low, it garauntees targerts. They have no incentive to enforce it more widely (not the least of which since there would be no benefit)
Or they didn't want to admit they got their batteries from the ATF.
As if they should talk, the US can't even send their own tracking devices into mexico with working batteries.
So we should ignore the fact that making punishments harsher is a terrible deterrent; in spite of how simple it sounds? The chance of getting caught is what is an actual deterrent.
So hitting a few people, very hard, for an action much larger than them, produces very little result. Whereas slapping a lot of people lightly on the wrist, would likely produce a much bigger result.
Course, paypal deserved it. I applaud everyone who took part.
> You have a strange viewpoint. I don't share your viewpoint.
Let me try to elaborate just a bit that might help then.... I don't really think its ok to steal power, water or anything. However, I do think people can be a bit mindless, and not think, and make assumptions and do small, mostly inconsequential stupid things.
So...I think the state probably can and should step in for many issues of theft, but, really should have some sort of thresholds to determine where they will or wont: and people have a responsibility to try to not create situations that will result in them relying on the state to come in and solve their problem for them.
For example... if you put a power outlet, on the edge of your property, by the street, or by where public people park cars, or wait for the bus. That is your right. If you add no signage, make no attempt to hide it, or switch it, or otherwise control it.... you are not doing that. If someone steals a significant amount from you, sure, the state should still deal with a problem like that, but, for really small infractions, you didn't live up to your end of being responsible enough to deserve someone else coming in and fixing it for you.
If someone clearly ignored a posted sign, if they came into your property in a more than superficial manner, if they circumvented some access control...sure. But....if you just put a fountain or outlet there where any schmuck with a phone charger could plug in.
Its not that its right for people to do it.... its that you could easily prevent it without the states help, and chose not to, and yet, want them to step in at great expense to everyone else and waste resources arresting and charging people over something so small.
Its not the states job to agressively deal with everything that is unfair no matter how insignificant. Frankly, if this is the best they have, its an argument for downsizing the legal system.
> No, it absolutely will not. People need to get through their heads that just because your rights are
> violated, that doesn't mean expecting them not to be becomes unreasonable
The problem is it already has become that. Expectation of privacy is a "god of the gaps" problem. You have it, except where there is some reason you don't....and those reasons keep expanding. Most, taken individually are small: But even a large container can be filled and then buried in the smallest grains of sand.
The thing is, this is already where we are. This is not a real change, it already happened right under everyone's nose. The very moment it was decided that third party data had no privacy protection, the door was wide open; we lost. In fact, as soon as the idea of a "reasonable expectation" came about we lost because "reasonable" is very vague; and allows for an expanding definition....as soon as you have no reason left to expect privacy, you no longer have a right to it. You may as well erase privacy from the dictionary at that point.
Its not hopeless, maybe people will come to realize the problem here. Maybe people will see the wisdom that is actually in some court decisions. Read the supreme court decision on this very issue in relation to thermal imaging of homes without a warrant: They got it right and got it right for all the right reasons. They even recognized that a technology which is not granular enough to give away specific private details is not garauntee that it never will be; and that even the heat signatures of a house could give away private activity (like when you take a shower, or when you go to bed)
However, I don't expect it. People are too easily distracted; and real solutions would have to involve stopping the data from being collected as it is, all the way back to the towers. Because even having the phone company gather it, means it is gathered, and they can always share it without telling anyone.
Privacy respect needs to go all the way back to the endpoints.... maybe it will happen but I am skeptical in the near term.
Also, how did the cop know something was being stolen? Did he go to the school and ask them if it was authorized?
Seems to me, what he should have done, was first, ask the school, second, if they have a problem, give them the info on the car (which is enough for them to deal with it; including bringing a legal case) and... at most....unplug the car.
Since he doesn't need to enter the car to find out who the owner is (being registered in a DB he can query) there really is no probably cause to assume anything else is going on which would be uncovered by entering the car.
At that point, incident is over, stealing has stopped, and the victim has everything they need to decide whether to pursue the issue or not.
If anything.... the guy was debatably wrong for assuming the outlet was ok to use, but the cop violated his civil rights, which is a much more serious infraction than if the amount stolen was in the hundreds or thousands of dollars.
The man should get a stern talking to, and be informed he should not do it again. The school should put controls on their power outlets that are out in public spaces....and the cop should GO TO JAIL.
Potentially good advice, potentially bad.
I work at a large company where this wouldn't fly for one reason: We have a security policy that specifically forbids it. Under the security policy, we have specific guidance for who must be told and, very specifically, that it should not be discussed or divulged beyond that.
So check the policies first, because, just sending a message out to a large group of people may get you in hot water itself for violating policy.
oh and.... fuck that shit entirely, get yourself back on the market, if you have to hammer them to get them to take real security issues seriously, its not worth it.
and if I install a water fountain at the edge of my property by the street with no signage whatsoever, and someone walking by assumes it is for public use and takes a drink...is that not ok?
Because that is a lot closer to what we are talking about than an invasion of private home, or other building. This is about a guy, out on the street, using a facility that was left, open to use, out on the street.
Honestly, I don't see any theft at all, that it was free to use seems like a reasonable assumption to me, afterall, why else leave a live outlet out in public, within reach of people (including children)? If anything, the school is negligent and created an attractive nuisance by not leaving it switched off when not in use, or otherwise protecting it from use.
Hell, I don't even leave the power outlets on the backside of my property switched on when not in use.
F for subject mastery
C for effort
Going back to my own post which you replied to:
"Its not so much about being ok or not being ok....its about it being such a small amount that anyone making any sort of a deal over it is an asshole"
So your entire proof is irrelevant.
Except this is a "commons" that doesn't have to be common. I don't know about this school or how far from the car it was but.... I have an electrical outlet on the outside of my house. Its not very close to the street, and I STILL have it on a switch which is inside the house.
Fact is, they put it out there, in public, where people could use it. If they put up a water fountain would they arrest people for stealing water when they drank from it?
Personally, I am perfectly ok with setting the precedent that if you put something that looks like a service out in public with no control over it whatsoever, you are giving them implicit license to use it.
Its not so much about being ok or not being ok....its about it being such a small amount that anyone making any sort of a deal over it is....kind of an asshole.
If I caught someone stealing 5 cents from me, it would be unlikely to garner more than a "hey what the fuck man".
There is being right, and there is being an asshole who is right.
How draconian. He used his hand to tell the computer to start the DDOS, maybe they should cut his hand off too? I guess he should have just said "in for a dime in for a dollar" and stuck with the DDOS, afterall, once started its all the same right?
> Yes it does. You simply reject the fact for convenience's sake.
No it doesn't. You simply reject the fact for convenience's sake.
> Not relevant.
Is too.
> Hopefully.
Nuh uh.
> Because he's a geek? No.
If that is your takeaway then sure why not?
> "Tranny" is not just a label that implies transsexual, it specifically implies a transsexual *prostitute*
> which is why most transsexuals would be offended to be so labeled.
Hmm interesting. I often forget about the prostitution link. Only time I ever ran into that sort of tranny was walking drunk in the city with a friend of mine who decided to pretend he didn't realize she was a transsexual just to get a reaction (same friend; someone used a gay slur in his presence to refer to someone else, and he put his arm around me and started talking with a lisp until the guy stormed off)
> Either you know several transexual friends who are all either prostitutes or do not mind being
> called such, or you just made this all up.
Actually that may be part of it....I mean they are not prostitutes (or if they are, none ever indicated it to me) however I don't really think any of them would look down on a prostitute either. Though the more I think of it, I can only think of one or maybe two individuals who self-applied tranny or used it to refer to the whole group. One of them is also quite openly a kinky sub, so it may be why she likes the term?
Course the funny thing is, in years of hanging out with them, its never really come up. Though, unless we are discussing a topic like this, the distinction of whether a person is trans or not is generally not that useful, and even less so when the event you are attending is 1/3 or more transsexuals. We are usually talking about other things.... or doing something like... engaging in the first documented re-enactment of flying artillery by a pony girl pulling a real (if small) cannon. It was admittedly, neither well disciplined nor well executed, but, we are pretty sure it was a first.
Ahhh but what if there is no destruction? DDOS does not actually damage anything.
How about if I run up to a protester with a blank board and keep it in front of his sign. Same effect, not illegal. That is much closer to a DDOS attack. Its more like getting out a bull horn and messing up the protester's chant.
However, even so. We are talking about a crime committed by many people, of which he was entirely minor; participated for a very short portion of time compared to others. Yet, he bears the full brunt of punishment himself? He pays the whole restitution even though he was possibly the most minor of all contributors?
So what happens if someone else in the group gets caught? Does he pay full restitution too?
This isn't even close to fair. He should have received a slap on the wrist.
> So it's okay to participate for only one minute in a hate crime?
Who said ok? Are you really saying there is no difference between someone who starts committing a crime and thinks better of it and stops on their own, before doing anything of consequence, and confesses to it later; and someone who does it, continues doing it, and doesn't confess later?
If he had acted alone, it would have been nothing. His 1 minute would not have even been noticed. Its only his action in concert with others, and really, the actions of those others since his was so small and ineffectual, that caused the damage.
Its not about right, its about the fact that the award is ridiculous, it assigns more culpability for the damage to him than is deserved, and it makes him pay for services that clearly went beyond dealing with the actual issue that he was a very small part of.
Exactly. The price of fixing the window is the price the malcontent causes them. The extra security and upgrades to the window to deal with future bricks is.... their choice. I mean, if I destroy your dodge neon. Its perfectly fair to say I need to to pay you its replacement value; and probably more if it was malicious; Its replacement value is not the cost of the Ferrari you decided you wanted to upgrade to since you had to get a new car anyway.
Whoa....and this one really makes my head whirl:
"Perhaps more remarkably, two-thirds of FTM transsexuals reported the sensation of a phantom penis from childhood onwards, replete with phantom erections and other phenomena"
I mean, I thought Phantom limb made sense. You had a limb, its gone, the brain has trouble adjusting to the fact its getting no input where it used to and senses a limb that doesn't exist. However, to sense a limb that you never had? I don't even know what to make of that.
Based on everything I have heard and talked with people about its been clear that transsexualism has some manner of deep and biological basis, but the idea that it actually extends that deeply into kinaesthetic sense is boggling; and kind of horrifying.
I really think I may start using wikipedia as my first stop before google. We seem to be rapidly reaching the point where everything I want to know is already in there.
What if she isn't wearing a dress?
Don't know what to tell you, one persons slur is another persons self-applied label. Geek used to be an insult too. And retard was the clinical word invented because idiot became an insult. People can ignore intent and be offended at words if they like, I never found it very interesting and really counterproductive. Hell I still use the term marijuana despite knowing why it was coined too.
Anyway, thanks for the tiny bit of info and condescending remarks. Sorry I saw that someone had read something interesting and asked if they might be able to point me at what they read. I will certainly make absolutely no effort to not do that again.
It would but I never really thought about looking it up. Then again, the trans woman I have spent the most time with, is in her 50s and uses "tranny" and "tranny girl" like they are going out of style. Most of the other transfolk I have met have been through her (and the ones I knew before also were long time friends of her), so I guess I never really considered that they had appropriated a term others found offensive.
I mean now that I think about it, maybe she and one or two others are the only ones who use the term tranny and a few others do tend to say "trans" but...they always just seem more uptight.