Fraud was never part of "freedom of speech," and it is no implication. It is explicit. He's not accused of saying words, he's accused of assisting illegal actions. Fraud, specifically.
Did you really think that if you make sure to only speak words, that your actions can't amount to a crime? If somebody says, "Give me all the money in the till or I'll kill you all," did you presume there is no crime unless he actually kills somebody?
Did you really think that if you lie to the bank about your name and information in order to get a loan, that there is no crime, because it was only speech? No, it isn't just speech, it is the action.
For somebody claiming to care about freedom of speech, you sure haven't spent much time learning about the issues. You seem totally clueless about both the law and the philosophy.
He literally told somebody that his service can help beat the FBI hiring test, and that that indeed is what many of his customers have successfully used it for.
It isn't just helping somebody lie, which would be a smaller crime, but helping people fraudulently obtain employment.
If he had instead said, "well, no, I can't help you break the law, but I can still help you learn about beating a polygraph for informational purposes, so that you understand what the test is really about," then he'd be fine.
Intent is almost impossible to prove in a way that would let them charge people with this crime. Unless they open up their mouth and are totally honest while being recorded. Then we might know pretty well their intent. As in this case.
No, absolutely not. That is, frankly, moronic. You haven't even read a basic article about this case.
He's not accused of helping people beat polygraphs. He's not accused, as you say, of "exposing polygraphy as a pseudoscience."
He's accused of actually advertising specifically that he can help people beat an FBI polygraph that is part of a hiring process. That is clearly fraud.
There are lots of people selling the same information as him. It is totally legal. The difference is that the others are advertising it as a method of fraud. The others are advertising it as simply "exposing polygraph as a pseudoscience." For informational purposes only.
If you advertised accounting services to help trick the FBI into hiring you, that would be exactly the same accusation as here. Or if you offered on-site breakfast services specifically and explicitly to people robbing banks. You'd be offering to be an accomplice in robbing banks. OTOH if you customer was merely a bank robber, and you didn't tell an undercover cop that you knew it and that was the nature of the service you were offering, then no problem.
Think about it like this: if you have no idea what the details are, it isn't fair for you to bloviate about them.
It is funny you're calling people "dumb," since your comment doesn't at all have any connection to the story or the events in the story.
This story is not about any of the things you talk about. It is about a guy selling anti-polygraph training, which itself is indisputably legal in the US, and who was also advertising his service as a way to defraud the FBI. That part is totally illegal, and doesn't implicate the "war or terror," or any supposed balancing between security and freedoms. Instead, it balances the freedom of the FBI to set their hiring practices against a person accused of advertising a service to assist people in tricking the FBI into hiring people they don't want to hire, and who their policies would successfully reject without this guy's services.
This particular story is about data that was leaked in relation to the case that shows that his services are probably highly effective, because everybody the government has caught cheating the test were really bad at cheating it. The test is obviously stupid and is an ineffective hiring practice. However, that in no way changes the fraudulent nature of this individual's accused actions.
Moral of the story: if you're offering innocent services, and your target demographic are criminals, don't actually advertise that your intent is to assist criminal behavior. Plausible deniability is a vital part of any attempt to do business in "grey areas." Grey areas rarely exist naturally. Being in a grey area implies that your actual intent is something illegal, but you're doing it in a way that can't be punished. In the case of assisting fraud, you just have to be subtle enough that you might have meant something else. If you think you're in a grey area but then you come right out and say what your honest intent is, well gee, now you just shined a spotlight and made it black and white.
Sadly, the ignorant outnumber the literate by at least an order of magnitude.
F still equals m * a at the scale it was originally claimed to have been tested. Sure, for dealing with sub-atomic crap we needed somebody to come along and figure out that E equals mc^2. True enough. But F=ma is only "wrong" when used outside the original context. For human-scale objects, F=MA is still correct, and a more useful equation than E=mc^2.
Things don't become wrong later. When you think that happens, it means you misunderstood the claims. Not that there were problems in the claims.
This appears to be more of a bringing "internet way" closer to how things are done in real life.
As in if someone anonymously puts up a poster on private land that defames you, you actually get to challenge it in court and if it's found to be libel it's taken down.
This is censorship in the same way as "not allowing libel" is censorship.
No, if a poster is found to be libel in Japan, it is not taken down elsewhere.
In this case, it is protected speech in the US because it is opinions that the reviewers believe to be true. If it is still not allowed under Japanese law, that is fine; I've never heard them accused of supporting Free Speech. But the idea that it would be taken down in the US is, well, "insane."
Yeah, they should just say "no," and make it clear to Japan, if they think the ruling applies outside of Japan, it doesn't. If they want it to apply in the US, they need to come here and get a court here to say that Japanese legal rulings apply here.
It is actually hilarious that they would think that, given the history of the past 70 years.
Actually, I think the US State Department should be getting involved at an early stage here. They shouldn't even be putting out preliminary rulings of this nature. Surely it violates our peace treaty for them to make orders about what happens in the US.
If the purpose of the app is not to manage network connections, then that is useless information. It is just supposing that you should check first, without any reason.
A key thing to understand is that checking if the OS says a connection is up doesn't mean your connection will succeed or that there is really a real connection. The networking technology is already designed to deal with that. You have to have error handling already. Checking the network connection first is silly, it adds extra code to bug out, and redundantly covers the same condition that the regular networking code handles. You may not be able to connect to the server. The way to find out if you can connect is by connecting. That is the same as on a desktop computer. I've never once encountered a desktop or server app that wants permission to fiddle or list my network connections before trying to use a network resource. You open your port and do your thing, if the connection isn't up, you handle the error.
You're supposing you'd have an extra helper app to do the thing instead, but actually you just rip that crap code out, and use the error checking you already have in place right after it.
In the case of a mail app, maybe a user wants it to be aware right when the connection is available. And maybe they're happy with it trying again after a minute. That is not a problem. That is a reasonable use case for the feature.
However, almost every app that uses the network wants to read the connections. The vast majority of those do not need the permission. I personally would let an email app do that. But lots of other apps I choose not to install because they asked for ACCESS_NETWORK_STATE and that isn't a feature they should be using.
They've actually only required the Government to respond to the case. They haven't, and won't, require them to "justify their conclusion." They will only have to verify that they are claiming a national security reason, and state the category of their objection. They already sided with the Government. This is an application for re-hearing, and all they said was that the Government has to respond to that request.
Yep. We can have plans, and when the police are abusive, that too can be handled in the Courts.
And, how could a lack of planning somehow restrain police abuse? In your example, the abusive police would not have even been privy to any national security planning involving when to invoke the legal mechanisms to cut off phone service. That is all based on national emergency.
Just because you're scared of Obama doesn't mean that emergency planning, or war planning, is somehow dangerous.
If you're paranoid about dystopian futures, why would a lack of legal planning prevent them? In your fantasy where evildoers take over the Government and ignore the law... guess what, they didn't need to have legal emergency planning. Your fantasy's very premise is that they had illegal planning that went beyond what any law allows for. See also: Treason.
The whole concept of reasonableness of searches requires the Court to balance the conflicting needs of the individual and the State. Generally the individual is protected, because it is a big invasion of the individuals privacy, balanced only against the mere convenience of the State in desiring not to get a warrant.
If National Security is invoked, the Court isn't going to muck around worrying if National Security is more important than individual privacy. That's a slam dunk for the Executive. They're also not going to attempt to second-guess the actual decision about National Security interests. All they are going to do is general analysis; did the correct person in the Executive Branch determine the national security concern; and is the claimed concern within the Government's right to manage. So if the claimed concern is something military, or involving espionage, or international terrorism, then it is pretty much guaranteed that the word of the executive weighs more heavily than the privacy of an individual or neighborhood.
You don't have to like the Constitution of the United States of America to learn how these things work. Hand-waving and libertarian propaganda won't change the fact that the role of the Court in balancing these various rights and responsibilities is also outlined in the Constitution. Don't hate or ignore what it says, while pretending to worship it and consider it absolute. If it is absolute, then bow before the role of the Court here.;)
Because in Android development you're required to use a different paradigm that assumes the app the user is interacting with will be killed at any moment. So there is no important work being done in that process. The important work is being done in a background process that is lightweight and doesn't need to get killed when the app interface is killed.
If the phone status changing causes the app you were using to be killed (the most recent app used will actually not be killed then, but the penultimate app is likely to be) then that user interface just gets whacked. But the background process of the app won't get killed then; that only happens if the OS is truly out of resources and apps are crashing from lack of RAM. And even then, it triggers a callback and you have a few milliseconds to save your stuff in the background app.
So there is no connection between the phone status and saving stuff; and when there IS a need to save stuff, you get a callback activated. You would never be able to monitor the phone app from the front end process that gets killed, because the status would change first; the phone rings, the dialer app preempts your user interface, and you interface is already gone (if you're out of RAM) or switched to the background if not. And the backend already can get a callback to tell it that the front end went away; there is no utility in trying to figure out "why" because the whole programming paradigm requires assuming the front end interfaces will be killed frequently, and without notice. This is why there is a lot of emphasis on XML layouts. Traditional GUI apps it doesn't matter, you can generate widgets programmatically at application start. But with Android those would be regenerated constantly because the GUI part of the app is killed and restarted frequently.
Sounds backwards to me. The plans that are secret are NOT used for training unless the situation becomes likely to really happen. The plans that are secret are there to give guidance to the Generals when "something happens" and they have to give orders to start actual specific training for the soldiers.
A hint: the movement of troops, tanks, ships, planes, supply lines, that is what is *in* the secret plans.
Training is exactly what you don't do with a secret.
In these scenarios, a compatriot on a hilltop is not a concern. They warn each other, no big deal, they didn't warn their nation's Navy.
Wifi, presumably the internet is also cut at that time. Analog phones, probably just cutting international service would be effective. VHF/UHF will out his exact position, and the other side if he is trying to confirm receipt. Also, that can be jammed easily by standard military equipment. Sat phone is easy to jam, too.
None of that refutes the wisdom of planning, those are just additional details that would be in the plan. Even if the plan isn't expected to be 100% successful, it can still be a plan. It doesn't have to be Plan A, or Plan B, or L or M. If Plan M sucks, that is not going to be a surprise.
Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
in determining that use of a thermal imaging device whose output was used to establish cause for a search warrant was, itself, a search that required a warrant.
By making intrusive surveillance devices available inexpensively (perhaps by showing hobbyists how to build their own), such devices could move (as planes have) into "general public use" and then be usable by police without a warrant to surveil areas normally off-limits to them without a warrant.
Almost makes it sound like they won't need a search warrant anymore, as long as enough people build these things and put them into general use.
Nonsense, burns are well known causes of skin cancer. If your microwave is burning you, that is just as dangerous as the Sun burning you.
The easy tinfoil-free way to know if the radar is increasing your cancer risk: Does it hurt yet? Burns hurt. Stay safe. If your microwave causes pain, unplug.
Depends... did you install 3-phase industrial power in the garage to power the radar? No? Then you'll have to move the installation into the garage, most likely.
You want to see through walls across the street? I guess you better start buying up used smoke alarms.
Slashdot Mirror
Fraud was never part of "freedom of speech," and it is no implication. It is explicit. He's not accused of saying words, he's accused of assisting illegal actions. Fraud, specifically.
Did you really think that if you make sure to only speak words, that your actions can't amount to a crime? If somebody says, "Give me all the money in the till or I'll kill you all," did you presume there is no crime unless he actually kills somebody?
Did you really think that if you lie to the bank about your name and information in order to get a loan, that there is no crime, because it was only speech? No, it isn't just speech, it is the action.
For somebody claiming to care about freedom of speech, you sure haven't spent much time learning about the issues. You seem totally clueless about both the law and the philosophy.
He literally told somebody that his service can help beat the FBI hiring test, and that that indeed is what many of his customers have successfully used it for.
It isn't just helping somebody lie, which would be a smaller crime, but helping people fraudulently obtain employment.
If he had instead said, "well, no, I can't help you break the law, but I can still help you learn about beating a polygraph for informational purposes, so that you understand what the test is really about," then he'd be fine.
Intent is almost impossible to prove in a way that would let them charge people with this crime. Unless they open up their mouth and are totally honest while being recorded. Then we might know pretty well their intent. As in this case.
No, absolutely not. That is, frankly, moronic. You haven't even read a basic article about this case.
He's not accused of helping people beat polygraphs. He's not accused, as you say, of "exposing polygraphy as a pseudoscience."
He's accused of actually advertising specifically that he can help people beat an FBI polygraph that is part of a hiring process. That is clearly fraud.
There are lots of people selling the same information as him. It is totally legal. The difference is that the others are advertising it as a method of fraud. The others are advertising it as simply "exposing polygraph as a pseudoscience." For informational purposes only.
If you advertised accounting services to help trick the FBI into hiring you, that would be exactly the same accusation as here. Or if you offered on-site breakfast services specifically and explicitly to people robbing banks. You'd be offering to be an accomplice in robbing banks. OTOH if you customer was merely a bank robber, and you didn't tell an undercover cop that you knew it and that was the nature of the service you were offering, then no problem.
Think about it like this: if you have no idea what the details are, it isn't fair for you to bloviate about them.
It is funny you're calling people "dumb," since your comment doesn't at all have any connection to the story or the events in the story.
This story is not about any of the things you talk about. It is about a guy selling anti-polygraph training, which itself is indisputably legal in the US, and who was also advertising his service as a way to defraud the FBI. That part is totally illegal, and doesn't implicate the "war or terror," or any supposed balancing between security and freedoms. Instead, it balances the freedom of the FBI to set their hiring practices against a person accused of advertising a service to assist people in tricking the FBI into hiring people they don't want to hire, and who their policies would successfully reject without this guy's services.
This particular story is about data that was leaked in relation to the case that shows that his services are probably highly effective, because everybody the government has caught cheating the test were really bad at cheating it. The test is obviously stupid and is an ineffective hiring practice. However, that in no way changes the fraudulent nature of this individual's accused actions.
Moral of the story: if you're offering innocent services, and your target demographic are criminals, don't actually advertise that your intent is to assist criminal behavior. Plausible deniability is a vital part of any attempt to do business in "grey areas." Grey areas rarely exist naturally. Being in a grey area implies that your actual intent is something illegal, but you're doing it in a way that can't be punished. In the case of assisting fraud, you just have to be subtle enough that you might have meant something else. If you think you're in a grey area but then you come right out and say what your honest intent is, well gee, now you just shined a spotlight and made it black and white.
Sadly, the ignorant outnumber the literate by at least an order of magnitude.
A clear violation of 1st Amendment rights. Ah, well... It's what people want
Fraud was never part of "freedom of speech." Never.
You've got some derp on your chin. Don't forget to wipe next time. Get back in the pile.
F still equals m * a at the scale it was originally claimed to have been tested. Sure, for dealing with sub-atomic crap we needed somebody to come along and figure out that E equals mc^2. True enough. But F=ma is only "wrong" when used outside the original context. For human-scale objects, F=MA is still correct, and a more useful equation than E=mc^2.
Things don't become wrong later. When you think that happens, it means you misunderstood the claims. Not that there were problems in the claims.
News flash, sharks are vertebrates. They have softer/different bones than humans, true. But they do still have bones. Lots of them.
This appears to be more of a bringing "internet way" closer to how things are done in real life.
As in if someone anonymously puts up a poster on private land that defames you, you actually get to challenge it in court and if it's found to be libel it's taken down.
This is censorship in the same way as "not allowing libel" is censorship.
No, if a poster is found to be libel in Japan, it is not taken down elsewhere.
In this case, it is protected speech in the US because it is opinions that the reviewers believe to be true. If it is still not allowed under Japanese law, that is fine; I've never heard them accused of supporting Free Speech. But the idea that it would be taken down in the US is, well, "insane."
Yeah, they should just say "no," and make it clear to Japan, if they think the ruling applies outside of Japan, it doesn't. If they want it to apply in the US, they need to come here and get a court here to say that Japanese legal rulings apply here.
It is actually hilarious that they would think that, given the history of the past 70 years.
Actually, I think the US State Department should be getting involved at an early stage here. They shouldn't even be putting out preliminary rulings of this nature. Surely it violates our peace treaty for them to make orders about what happens in the US.
If the purpose of the app is not to manage network connections, then that is useless information. It is just supposing that you should check first, without any reason.
A key thing to understand is that checking if the OS says a connection is up doesn't mean your connection will succeed or that there is really a real connection. The networking technology is already designed to deal with that. You have to have error handling already. Checking the network connection first is silly, it adds extra code to bug out, and redundantly covers the same condition that the regular networking code handles. You may not be able to connect to the server. The way to find out if you can connect is by connecting. That is the same as on a desktop computer. I've never once encountered a desktop or server app that wants permission to fiddle or list my network connections before trying to use a network resource. You open your port and do your thing, if the connection isn't up, you handle the error.
You're supposing you'd have an extra helper app to do the thing instead, but actually you just rip that crap code out, and use the error checking you already have in place right after it.
In the case of a mail app, maybe a user wants it to be aware right when the connection is available. And maybe they're happy with it trying again after a minute. That is not a problem. That is a reasonable use case for the feature.
However, almost every app that uses the network wants to read the connections. The vast majority of those do not need the permission. I personally would let an email app do that. But lots of other apps I choose not to install because they asked for ACCESS_NETWORK_STATE and that isn't a feature they should be using.
They've actually only required the Government to respond to the case. They haven't, and won't, require them to "justify their conclusion." They will only have to verify that they are claiming a national security reason, and state the category of their objection. They already sided with the Government. This is an application for re-hearing, and all they said was that the Government has to respond to that request.
Click the link, read the pdf. It is one page.
Yep. We can have plans, and when the police are abusive, that too can be handled in the Courts.
And, how could a lack of planning somehow restrain police abuse? In your example, the abusive police would not have even been privy to any national security planning involving when to invoke the legal mechanisms to cut off phone service. That is all based on national emergency.
Just because you're scared of Obama doesn't mean that emergency planning, or war planning, is somehow dangerous.
If you're paranoid about dystopian futures, why would a lack of legal planning prevent them? In your fantasy where evildoers take over the Government and ignore the law... guess what, they didn't need to have legal emergency planning. Your fantasy's very premise is that they had illegal planning that went beyond what any law allows for. See also: Treason.
The whole concept of reasonableness of searches requires the Court to balance the conflicting needs of the individual and the State. Generally the individual is protected, because it is a big invasion of the individuals privacy, balanced only against the mere convenience of the State in desiring not to get a warrant.
If National Security is invoked, the Court isn't going to muck around worrying if National Security is more important than individual privacy. That's a slam dunk for the Executive. They're also not going to attempt to second-guess the actual decision about National Security interests. All they are going to do is general analysis; did the correct person in the Executive Branch determine the national security concern; and is the claimed concern within the Government's right to manage. So if the claimed concern is something military, or involving espionage, or international terrorism, then it is pretty much guaranteed that the word of the executive weighs more heavily than the privacy of an individual or neighborhood.
You don't have to like the Constitution of the United States of America to learn how these things work. Hand-waving and libertarian propaganda won't change the fact that the role of the Court in balancing these various rights and responsibilities is also outlined in the Constitution. Don't hate or ignore what it says, while pretending to worship it and consider it absolute. If it is absolute, then bow before the role of the Court here. ;)
Because in Android development you're required to use a different paradigm that assumes the app the user is interacting with will be killed at any moment. So there is no important work being done in that process. The important work is being done in a background process that is lightweight and doesn't need to get killed when the app interface is killed.
If the phone status changing causes the app you were using to be killed (the most recent app used will actually not be killed then, but the penultimate app is likely to be) then that user interface just gets whacked. But the background process of the app won't get killed then; that only happens if the OS is truly out of resources and apps are crashing from lack of RAM. And even then, it triggers a callback and you have a few milliseconds to save your stuff in the background app.
So there is no connection between the phone status and saving stuff; and when there IS a need to save stuff, you get a callback activated. You would never be able to monitor the phone app from the front end process that gets killed, because the status would change first; the phone rings, the dialer app preempts your user interface, and you interface is already gone (if you're out of RAM) or switched to the background if not. And the backend already can get a callback to tell it that the front end went away; there is no utility in trying to figure out "why" because the whole programming paradigm requires assuming the front end interfaces will be killed frequently, and without notice. This is why there is a lot of emphasis on XML layouts. Traditional GUI apps it doesn't matter, you can generate widgets programmatically at application start. But with Android those would be regenerated constantly because the GUI part of the app is killed and restarted frequently.
Sounds backwards to me. The plans that are secret are NOT used for training unless the situation becomes likely to really happen. The plans that are secret are there to give guidance to the Generals when "something happens" and they have to give orders to start actual specific training for the soldiers.
A hint: the movement of troops, tanks, ships, planes, supply lines, that is what is *in* the secret plans.
Training is exactly what you don't do with a secret.
If your planning can only find one category, I'll be voting for somebody else to be in charge of planning. ;)
No, it means he's a furriner.
In these scenarios, a compatriot on a hilltop is not a concern. They warn each other, no big deal, they didn't warn their nation's Navy.
Wifi, presumably the internet is also cut at that time. Analog phones, probably just cutting international service would be effective. VHF/UHF will out his exact position, and the other side if he is trying to confirm receipt. Also, that can be jammed easily by standard military equipment. Sat phone is easy to jam, too.
None of that refutes the wisdom of planning, those are just additional details that would be in the plan. Even if the plan isn't expected to be 100% successful, it can still be a plan. It doesn't have to be Plan A, or Plan B, or L or M. If Plan M sucks, that is not going to be a surprise.
Or, if you want to save some money, just wrap the room in chicken wire and aluminum foil.
Works for hats, too. And you can keep your phablet under the hat when not in use.
I know, talk about overkill. What a waste of bandwidth.
In KYLLO v. UNITED STATES , the Supreme Court held in 2001 that:
in determining that use of a thermal imaging device whose output was used to establish cause for a search warrant was, itself, a search that required a warrant.
By making intrusive surveillance devices available inexpensively (perhaps by showing hobbyists how to build their own), such devices could move (as planes have) into "general public use" and then be usable by police without a warrant to surveil areas normally off-limits to them without a warrant.
Almost makes it sound like they won't need a search warrant anymore, as long as enough people build these things and put them into general use.
Nonsense, burns are well known causes of skin cancer. If your microwave is burning you, that is just as dangerous as the Sun burning you.
The easy tinfoil-free way to know if the radar is increasing your cancer risk: Does it hurt yet? Burns hurt. Stay safe. If your microwave causes pain, unplug.
Depends... did you install 3-phase industrial power in the garage to power the radar? No? Then you'll have to move the installation into the garage, most likely.
You want to see through walls across the street? I guess you better start buying up used smoke alarms.
How are the kitchen-built walls different from the garage built walls?
Well to start with, the usual construction materials are ginger bread, or (for people that don't have ginger servants on hand) chocolate "bricks."