Where do you put the Customer ID numbers on cheques? Are the completed with the IBAN numbers when you get them, or do you have to type them in yourself?
The customer's contact information is printed on the check, and there is a "memo" field to transmit any additional information.
This Cheque thing is intriguing - sound's like a device my mother used back in the 70s before I was born, only it couldn't be - could it?
It is exactly what you're picturing from the 70s. It's a terrible system, and it's pitifully insecure (hint: if you know someone's bank account # and routing #, you can create checks that draw against their account--as in, you can print them yourself on an inkjet printer, as long as you purchase the correct ink, and there are no restrictions on that).
Unfortunately, the US doesn't have any better, realistic way to transfer money between individuals. Our options are:
Cash - works OK for small amounts of money, but who wants to carry large amounts and risk loss/theft?
ACH transfer - Takes many days to set up, and most banks won't allow ACH transfers between accounts that don't have the same owner for security reasons
Wire transfer - "Instantaneous", but you still need to physically go into your bank, wait in line, fill out a ton of paperwork, and pay $30 per transfer. This could be the way to get rid of checks, but as the system stands right now, it's not a reasonable way to move money around
Paper Checks
Unfortunately, paper checks are free, so there is no motivation for an enterprising business to invent a replacement. Who would pay for something that is free?
Some banks are starting to offer free wire transfers for their best clients. I'm guessing that means that wire transfers will eventually be free for all clients, but it's slow going.
I offer electronic payments to my tenants, but none of them will switch. Even when I tell them they'll never have to worry about another late payment fee again. No one will switch. So I still waddle over to the bank each month and deposit check after check and pray that they all clear. Unbelievable.
it's so much more convenient to just enter a bank transfer order on your online banking web site.
And what do you do if you aren't near a trustworthy, network-connected computer?
I'm not trying to defend checks. My clients and customers all pay me by check, and I despise it. I would 100x prefer to log into my bank account and see who paid me what, when and download that into quickbooks than to participate in the massive paper check shuffle.
You have to be pretty goddamn stupid to fly into a fanatical military state like Israel from a Muslim country with a laptop covered in Arabic stickers. What's the next leg of her journey? From Israel to Iran wearing a star of David and demanding a kosher meal?
Hopefully you realize that you are being ridiculous, and that the comparison you're making is invalid.
Crossing into Israel (not flying, Taba is not an airport) from Egypt with Arabic stickers on your keyboard is enough to get you some extra questioning. Entering Iran wearing a star of David and demanding a kosher mean is enough to get you killed.
Would it be possible to design a bomb that goes off when shot? That way, you-the-bomber get around the most popular technique for defusing rather easily...
(not that I encourage bombing stuff)
The bomb squad clears the area before destroying a suspicious package. That way, they can avoid casualties in case the package explodes.
Feels more like they were little babies because they didnt agree with her on some subjects so they hurt the only thing they could. School playground antics from grown ups, awesome.
More likely that the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.
Fact 1: If you show up at an Israeli border crossing with a bunch of Arab stuff, you are going to be subjected to extra questioning. Fact 2: If you leave a bag unattended in Israel, it will be assumed to be a bomb (for obvious reasons), and will be destroyed.
I'm guessing that when the guard saw all her Arab stuff, they told her to leave her bag and go get questioned. Then another guard saw an unattended bag and called the bomb squad, who destroyed it.
It sounds from the article like Israel is reimbursing Sussman for her loss, and I feel that's appropriate. They shouldn't have shot up her laptop.
She had the following on herself -hand drawn map of downtown Jerusalem -Arabic stickers on laptop -"Fuck Star of David" pic on phone
-passport stamps from Arab countries -various Arab publications -photos condemning Israeli military action in Gaza
The border guards were definitely right to question her rigorously, and I wouldn't even mind if they denied her entry into Israel (although I would consider that to be an overreaction). But none of the above called for the destruction of her laptop. Even the Israeli authorities agree, as they are reimbursing her for her loss.
Look at the things you mention:
herself -hand drawn map of downtown Jerusalem: Incriminating, how?
Arabic stickers on laptop: Go ahead and ask her about them, but does that make the lappy a threat?
"Fuck Star of David" pic on phone: I can envision taking such a photo, to document hateful graffiti
passport stamps from Arab countries: She was crossing at Taba--how the hell could she have even gotten there without a passport stamp from an Arab country (Egypt)?
various Arab publications: Worthy of questioning
photos condemning Israeli military action in Gaza: just like hundreds of thousands of Israelis would
Like I said, question her. Deny her entry if you have to. But there was no reason to destroy her laptop.
And before you hurl any accusations my way, I am Jewish and used to live in Israel. I have gone through the Taba crossing many times, and am familiar with the security procedures there. The Israeli guards at all crossings are generally very professional; but in this case, I would argue that they made an error. I'm glad that they are reimbursing this whack-job Lily Sussman for destroying her laptop.
She sounds like a real piece of work, but that doesn't mean she deserves to have her computer shot up.
3 year TCO for such a machine in my environment today would be about $8k
Ahh, but what would the 1 hour TCO for that machine? And how quickly could you get me 100 of them? And what if after a week, I don't need them anymore. Do I have to continue paying for them?
What if I need 1000? But only for a few days? Can you even fit 1000 in your data center?
EC2 is for elastic computing needs. The price will never compare favorably to static computing on a 3-year basis.
By the way, your 8k is very low compared to what you'd have to pay to get the same featureset of Amazon Web Services. What happens if your data center catches fire? How quickly could you get that machine up and running in a new data center, and at what cost? How quickly could you upgrade the storage? Backup online to fault-tolerant storage? Clone that machine?
What if I want to to load testing of my application? Can you get me a full copy of my production environment and let me quit paying for it once my load testing is done? How much would that cost?
What about staging my application before production deployment? Do I have to pay a full year for a server I plan on using for like 100 hours of that year, tops?
Bottom line: There are a many use cases that call for elastic resources. Comparing EC2 with an ordinary server makes no sense, because they are different tools for different jobs.
No, the limit for On Demand instance creation is still 20 instances per account (but it is allowed by amazon TOS to create multiple accounts, hint hint).
The limit for Spot instances (the kind described in the summary) defaults to 100 per account.
As you note above, you can get that limit raised by Amazon, upon request.
Are there any decent warranty companies out there, other than the rip-off ones that the Best Buy clerk is hawking, that deliver good value at a fair price?
I could see paying for one that would come to my home to fix big-ticket items, like the HDTV example in the summary.
and i'm not sure of US law in this manner, but is it legal to deny someone a job opportunity based on an alleged crime for which they were completely pardoned?
I am not aware of any jurisdiction where "People who were accused of a crime but the charges were dropped" is a protected class. But even if it was, it would be difficult to prove that that was the reason for the denial.
I deal with Fair Housing law all the time, and you'll hear the phrase, "Find a legal reason to reject" used a lot, to get rid of people who you don't like, but may be a protected class member.
Employers turn down applicants because of photos showing the applicant drinking beer in college.
I have to believe this is extremely rare, if it happens at all. Any reasonable employer outside the state of Utah is going to understand that many college students do consume beer.
For what it's worth, back when I had a job, I went on a college recruiting trip, and the region's HR director went out drinking with us lowly peons. Not only did she get completely shit-faced, but she joined the local freshmen in flashing her tits on the way home from the bars.
I'm pretty sure if she found a photo of you enjoying a fine, brewed beverage, it would not faze her in the slightest.
Simple. When you confidently make a claim, and that claim is simply false, and it's about something that I know about, I have to assume that you are similarly careless when you pontificate about things that I don't know about.
I've said repeatedly that I don't believe we have enough information to second-guess the accused's decision making, or even his attorney's decision making. You've claimed that the attorney gave his client bad advice.
Well, you've also claimed that ex-cons have no credit, which is false. You've claimed that felons have no job protection, which is true but irrelevant. You've claimed that felons have an inability to purchase property, which is false.
What motivation have you given me to give even one tenth of one hoot what you have to say? Making claims that are false, however confidently you state them, does not provide me with the required motivation.
Felons generally have no credit. When you have no credit that becomes a very difficult hurdle to overcome.
And in the same breath you ask why I'm not giving your opinions more credence.
Try again when you're willing to accept that other people know more than you. How many ex-cons' credit reports have you read? How many do you think an experienced landlord has read?
Apparently you didn't read what you posted. If it can be shown that the law was applied incorrectly, that would be a legal error. A guilty verdict that did not reasonably consider the facts presented, or was rendered based on questionable fact, can be considered for appeal.
I don't think you understood what I posted as well as you think you did. An example of a legal error would be the judge allowing evidence that should have been suppressed, or a defense that should have been permitted that wasn't allowed to be raised, or something of that nature. A jury reaching a verdict that you don't agree with is not a legal error.
I did not tell anyone what to do. I said what I would do. I did not force my opinion on anyone, though I did say that I very strongly disagree with what his lawyer is telling him to do.
Fine, you're entitled to your own uninformed opinion. There could be some very good reason for the accused to take the plea, but you believe there is not, which is your right.
Have you considered why they are living in rental properties? They likely have multiple reasons, but I suspect one of those reasons is because felons have almost no chance to own real estate.
Each situation is different. Most of my residents, irrespective of criminal background, rent instead of own for one of the following reasons:
No savings
Bad credit
Transience
Inability to care for property
FYI, there is no law that prevents people with a criminal record from owning real estate.
Also, please note that owning real estate is not automatically better than renting. Just ask anyone who bought a house in 2006, if you don't believe me.
I'll be slightly less lazy than you and provide criminal procedure in the US. Can you find something that states a limitation on appeal?
Well, if it isn't in wikipedia, it didn't happen. Sign of the times, I guess.
"A litigant who files an appeal, known as an "appellant," must show that the trial court or administrative agency made a legal error that affected the decision in the case. The court of appeals makes its decision based on the record of the case established by the trial court or agency. It does not receive additional evidence or hear witnesses. The court of appeals also may review the factual findings of the trial court or agency, but typically may only overturn a decision on factual grounds if the findings were "clearly erroneous."" --http://www.uscourts.gov/understand03/content_6_5.html
So now I guess it's incumbent upon you to find a source that says a valid grounds for appeal is, "the jury found me guilty, and that bums me out."
And that is overlooking how dramatically disappointing (and pedantic) your most recent reply was.
I'm sorry, but I thought you were done repeating yourself. Clearly you believe that you know better than the affected party what is in his best interest. I believe you do not. Can we agree that we are basically at an impasse now?
This is a life-changing - no, life-ending - choice that you are suggesting he make.
For what it's worth, all I am saying is that you do not have enough perspective or information to tell the guy what to do. I am not familiar with the facts of his case, and I am not personally facing the prospect of a lengthy prison term; therefore, I have no choice but to trust the affected party to act in his own self-interest. I already told you how I would have handled it differently if it were me, but it isn't me, so it doesn't really matter what I would have done.
All that said, I do find funny, your belief that a felony conviction is life-ending. Several of my tenants have had felony convictions, and their lives do not appear to have ended.
However I will state that IMHO the attorney advising the 22 year old man take that plea bargain is an idiot.
I still believe that you don't have enough information to make this judgment.
If I were the accused I would plead not guilty and profess my innocence until the end of time. I would plead not guilty, and appeal any verdict other than that.
"I don't like the jury's verdict" is not a valid grounds for appeal. You might just be professing your innocence from the comfort of a prison cell for the following 20 years.
For the accused, anything less than a not guilty verdict, or dismissal of charges, would be a tremendous failure.
Assuming his version of the story is true and accurate, I would tend to agree. But if you were the accused, you'd have to factor in that the system does fail from time to time, and it might fail YOU. You need to weigh in the consequences of such a failure.
the very thought that a few deleted images could lead to the end of this man's productive life are truly insane.
I would tend to agree with that, however the rationality of the situation the accused is in is not what I was commenting on.
All I'm saying is that, given the reality that the accused currently faces, I can't see how taking the plea bargain is idiotic. It might very well be idiotic, but I if not seen enough information to make that determination.
Do you know of a tool that only wipes unallocated filesystem space? Obviously such a tool would need to be filesystem-aware. Just curious if you know of one.
The law is clear - if someone sends you kiddie porn, or you are tricked into downloading some, you only have to immediately delete it.
And you can have the privilege of paying $50,000 to make that argument in open court. $50,000 that the 22-year-old probably doesn't have.
And how sure of that are you? Sure enough to gamble 20 years of your life?
I'm not saying I think the guy is guilty, but I am just trying to help you realize that the stakes are high here. It's hard to make decisions for someone after reading an article. Try walking a mile in his shoes, first.
It's a lot easier to say that when you're not standing in that guy's shoes.
When you're 22, 20 years sounds like an awfully long time. Hell, 20 years ago, the guy was still in diapers, and now he's facing 20 years in prison. And given his substandard legal counsel and society's negative views on child porn, he's got to consider that 20 years is a real possibility for him.
I don't know what I'd do if I were in his shoes (well, I do know--I'd hire a good lawyer, but I've probably got a little more money than that 22-year-old kid), but I have a hard time second-guessing his reasoning. He must believe that he is acting in his own best interest.
That being said, I am not a big fan of the "throw the book at them" criminal justice system we have. It's not fair to make draconian penalties with the intent of offering plea deals. "You're facing 50 years in the slammer, punk. But if you plead guilty, you'll be out in 2." How is that fair?
Slashdot Mirror
Where do you put the Customer ID numbers on cheques? Are the completed with the IBAN numbers when you get them, or do you have to type them in yourself?
The customer's contact information is printed on the check, and there is a "memo" field to transmit any additional information.
This Cheque thing is intriguing - sound's like a device my mother used back in the 70s before I was born, only it couldn't be - could it?
It is exactly what you're picturing from the 70s. It's a terrible system, and it's pitifully insecure (hint: if you know someone's bank account # and routing #, you can create checks that draw against their account--as in, you can print them yourself on an inkjet printer, as long as you purchase the correct ink, and there are no restrictions on that).
Unfortunately, the US doesn't have any better, realistic way to transfer money between individuals. Our options are:
Unfortunately, paper checks are free, so there is no motivation for an enterprising business to invent a replacement. Who would pay for something that is free?
Some banks are starting to offer free wire transfers for their best clients. I'm guessing that means that wire transfers will eventually be free for all clients, but it's slow going.
I offer electronic payments to my tenants, but none of them will switch. Even when I tell them they'll never have to worry about another late payment fee again. No one will switch. So I still waddle over to the bank each month and deposit check after check and pray that they all clear. Unbelievable.
it's so much more convenient to just enter a bank transfer order on your online banking web site.
And what do you do if you aren't near a trustworthy, network-connected computer?
I'm not trying to defend checks. My clients and customers all pay me by check, and I despise it. I would 100x prefer to log into my bank account and see who paid me what, when and download that into quickbooks than to participate in the massive paper check shuffle.
You have to be pretty goddamn stupid to fly into a fanatical military state like Israel from a Muslim country with a laptop covered in Arabic stickers. What's the next leg of her journey? From Israel to Iran wearing a star of David and demanding a kosher meal?
Hopefully you realize that you are being ridiculous, and that the comparison you're making is invalid.
Crossing into Israel (not flying, Taba is not an airport) from Egypt with Arabic stickers on your keyboard is enough to get you some extra questioning. Entering Iran wearing a star of David and demanding a kosher mean is enough to get you killed.
Probably morons.
I'm guessing one guard told her to leave her bag and go get questioned, and another guard saw the unattended bag and called in the bomb squad.
At any rate, Israel is admitting the error and reimbursing her for her loss.
It's not clear to me that she did anything that justified the destruction of her laptop. Questioning, yes. Denied entry, maybe.
But there was no reason to destroy her laptop.
Would it be possible to design a bomb that goes off when shot? That way, you-the-bomber get around the most popular technique for defusing rather easily...
(not that I encourage bombing stuff)
The bomb squad clears the area before destroying a suspicious package. That way, they can avoid casualties in case the package explodes.
Feels more like they were little babies because they didnt agree with her on some subjects so they hurt the only thing they could. School playground antics from grown ups, awesome.
More likely that the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.
Fact 1: If you show up at an Israeli border crossing with a bunch of Arab stuff, you are going to be subjected to extra questioning.
Fact 2: If you leave a bag unattended in Israel, it will be assumed to be a bomb (for obvious reasons), and will be destroyed.
I'm guessing that when the guard saw all her Arab stuff, they told her to leave her bag and go get questioned. Then another guard saw an unattended bag and called the bomb squad, who destroyed it.
It sounds from the article like Israel is reimbursing Sussman for her loss, and I feel that's appropriate. They shouldn't have shot up her laptop.
She had the following on herself -hand drawn map of downtown Jerusalem -Arabic stickers on laptop -"Fuck Star of David" pic on phone
-passport stamps from Arab countries -various Arab publications -photos condemning Israeli military action in Gaza
The border guards were definitely right to question her rigorously, and I wouldn't even mind if they denied her entry into Israel (although I would consider that to be an overreaction). But none of the above called for the destruction of her laptop. Even the Israeli authorities agree, as they are reimbursing her for her loss.
Look at the things you mention:
Incriminating, how?
Go ahead and ask her about them, but does that make the lappy a threat?
I can envision taking such a photo, to document hateful graffiti
She was crossing at Taba--how the hell could she have even gotten there without a passport stamp from an Arab country (Egypt)?
Worthy of questioning
just like hundreds of thousands of Israelis would
Like I said, question her. Deny her entry if you have to. But there was no reason to destroy her laptop.
And before you hurl any accusations my way, I am Jewish and used to live in Israel. I have gone through the Taba crossing many times, and am familiar with the security procedures there. The Israeli guards at all crossings are generally very professional; but in this case, I would argue that they made an error. I'm glad that they are reimbursing this whack-job Lily Sussman for destroying her laptop.
She sounds like a real piece of work, but that doesn't mean she deserves to have her computer shot up.
3 year TCO for such a machine in my environment today would be about $8k
Ahh, but what would the 1 hour TCO for that machine? And how quickly could you get me 100 of them? And what if after a week, I don't need them anymore. Do I have to continue paying for them?
What if I need 1000? But only for a few days? Can you even fit 1000 in your data center?
EC2 is for elastic computing needs. The price will never compare favorably to static computing on a 3-year basis.
By the way, your 8k is very low compared to what you'd have to pay to get the same featureset of Amazon Web Services. What happens if your data center catches fire? How quickly could you get that machine up and running in a new data center, and at what cost? How quickly could you upgrade the storage? Backup online to fault-tolerant storage? Clone that machine?
What if I want to to load testing of my application? Can you get me a full copy of my production environment and let me quit paying for it once my load testing is done? How much would that cost?
What about staging my application before production deployment? Do I have to pay a full year for a server I plan on using for like 100 hours of that year, tops?
Bottom line: There are a many use cases that call for elastic resources. Comparing EC2 with an ordinary server makes no sense, because they are different tools for different jobs.
No, the limit for On Demand instance creation is still 20 instances per account (but it is allowed by amazon TOS to create multiple accounts, hint hint).
The limit for Spot instances (the kind described in the summary) defaults to 100 per account.
As you note above, you can get that limit raised by Amazon, upon request.
Are there any decent warranty companies out there, other than the rip-off ones that the Best Buy clerk is hawking, that deliver good value at a fair price?
I could see paying for one that would come to my home to fix big-ticket items, like the HDTV example in the summary.
I googled for Jesse Hirsh, and I did not find the Unauthorized access of a computer link anywhere in the first 10 pages of the results.
I doubt he has anything to worry about.
and i'm not sure of US law in this manner, but is it legal to deny someone a job opportunity based on an alleged crime for which they were completely pardoned?
I am not aware of any jurisdiction where "People who were accused of a crime but the charges were dropped" is a protected class. But even if it was, it would be difficult to prove that that was the reason for the denial.
I deal with Fair Housing law all the time, and you'll hear the phrase, "Find a legal reason to reject" used a lot, to get rid of people who you don't like, but may be a protected class member.
IMHO just as thre's a 7-year stature of limitations on law
Minor nitpick, but statutes of limitations vary by offense and by state.
So if you intend to break a law and then wait out the 7 years, might want to do a little research first. ;)
Employers turn down applicants because of photos showing the applicant drinking beer in college.
I have to believe this is extremely rare, if it happens at all. Any reasonable employer outside the state of Utah is going to understand that many college students do consume beer.
For what it's worth, back when I had a job, I went on a college recruiting trip, and the region's HR director went out drinking with us lowly peons. Not only did she get completely shit-faced, but she joined the local freshmen in flashing her tits on the way home from the bars.
I'm pretty sure if she found a photo of you enjoying a fine, brewed beverage, it would not faze her in the slightest.
I believe your best next move would be to not reply.
Well, you may not be a good lawyer, but you did predict my next move with surprising accuracy.
Simple. When you confidently make a claim, and that claim is simply false, and it's about something that I know about, I have to assume that you are similarly careless when you pontificate about things that I don't know about.
I've said repeatedly that I don't believe we have enough information to second-guess the accused's decision making, or even his attorney's decision making. You've claimed that the attorney gave his client bad advice.
Well, you've also claimed that ex-cons have no credit, which is false. You've claimed that felons have no job protection, which is true but irrelevant. You've claimed that felons have an inability to purchase property, which is false.
What motivation have you given me to give even one tenth of one hoot what you have to say? Making claims that are false, however confidently you state them, does not provide me with the required motivation.
Felons generally have no credit. When you have no credit that becomes a very difficult hurdle to overcome.
And in the same breath you ask why I'm not giving your opinions more credence.
Try again when you're willing to accept that other people know more than you. How many ex-cons' credit reports have you read? How many do you think an experienced landlord has read?
Apparently you didn't read what you posted. If it can be shown that the law was applied incorrectly, that would be a legal error. A guilty verdict that did not reasonably consider the facts presented, or was rendered based on questionable fact, can be considered for appeal.
I don't think you understood what I posted as well as you think you did. An example of a legal error would be the judge allowing evidence that should have been suppressed, or a defense that should have been permitted that wasn't allowed to be raised, or something of that nature. A jury reaching a verdict that you don't agree with is not a legal error.
I did not tell anyone what to do. I said what I would do. I did not force my opinion on anyone, though I did say that I very strongly disagree with what his lawyer is telling him to do.
Fine, you're entitled to your own uninformed opinion. There could be some very good reason for the accused to take the plea, but you believe there is not, which is your right.
Have you considered why they are living in rental properties? They likely have multiple reasons, but I suspect one of those reasons is because felons have almost no chance to own real estate.
Each situation is different. Most of my residents, irrespective of criminal background, rent instead of own for one of the following reasons:
FYI, there is no law that prevents people with a criminal record from owning real estate.
Also, please note that owning real estate is not automatically better than renting. Just ask anyone who bought a house in 2006, if you don't believe me.
I'll be slightly less lazy than you and provide criminal procedure in the US. Can you find something that states a limitation on appeal?
Well, if it isn't in wikipedia, it didn't happen. Sign of the times, I guess.
"A litigant who files an appeal, known as an "appellant," must show that the trial court or administrative agency made a legal error that affected the decision in the case. The court of appeals makes its decision based on the record of the case established by the trial court or agency. It does not receive additional evidence or hear witnesses. The court of appeals also may review the factual findings of the trial court or agency, but typically may only overturn a decision on factual grounds if the findings were "clearly erroneous."" --http://www.uscourts.gov/understand03/content_6_5.html
So now I guess it's incumbent upon you to find a source that says a valid grounds for appeal is, "the jury found me guilty, and that bums me out."
And that is overlooking how dramatically disappointing (and pedantic) your most recent reply was.
I'm sorry, but I thought you were done repeating yourself. Clearly you believe that you know better than the affected party what is in his best interest. I believe you do not. Can we agree that we are basically at an impasse now?
This is a life-changing - no, life-ending - choice that you are suggesting he make.
For what it's worth, all I am saying is that you do not have enough perspective or information to tell the guy what to do. I am not familiar with the facts of his case, and I am not personally facing the prospect of a lengthy prison term; therefore, I have no choice but to trust the affected party to act in his own self-interest. I already told you how I would have handled it differently if it were me, but it isn't me, so it doesn't really matter what I would have done.
All that said, I do find funny, your belief that a felony conviction is life-ending. Several of my tenants have had felony convictions, and their lives do not appear to have ended.
You have the right to appeal any conviction if you so choose.
[citation needed]
However I will state that IMHO the attorney advising the 22 year old man take that plea bargain is an idiot.
I still believe that you don't have enough information to make this judgment.
If I were the accused I would plead not guilty and profess my innocence until the end of time. I would plead not guilty, and appeal any verdict other than that.
"I don't like the jury's verdict" is not a valid grounds for appeal. You might just be professing your innocence from the comfort of a prison cell for the following 20 years.
For the accused, anything less than a not guilty verdict, or dismissal of charges, would be a tremendous failure.
Assuming his version of the story is true and accurate, I would tend to agree. But if you were the accused, you'd have to factor in that the system does fail from time to time, and it might fail YOU. You need to weigh in the consequences of such a failure.
the very thought that a few deleted images could lead to the end of this man's productive life are truly insane.
I would tend to agree with that, however the rationality of the situation the accused is in is not what I was commenting on.
All I'm saying is that, given the reality that the accused currently faces, I can't see how taking the plea bargain is idiotic. It might very well be idiotic, but I if not seen enough information to make that determination.
Do you know of a tool that only wipes unallocated filesystem space? Obviously such a tool would need to be filesystem-aware. Just curious if you know of one.
The law is clear - if someone sends you kiddie porn, or you are tricked into downloading some, you only have to immediately delete it.
And you can have the privilege of paying $50,000 to make that argument in open court. $50,000 that the 22-year-old probably doesn't have.
And how sure of that are you? Sure enough to gamble 20 years of your life?
I'm not saying I think the guy is guilty, but I am just trying to help you realize that the stakes are high here. It's hard to make decisions for someone after reading an article. Try walking a mile in his shoes, first.
It's a lot easier to say that when you're not standing in that guy's shoes.
When you're 22, 20 years sounds like an awfully long time. Hell, 20 years ago, the guy was still in diapers, and now he's facing 20 years in prison. And given his substandard legal counsel and society's negative views on child porn, he's got to consider that 20 years is a real possibility for him.
I don't know what I'd do if I were in his shoes (well, I do know--I'd hire a good lawyer, but I've probably got a little more money than that 22-year-old kid), but I have a hard time second-guessing his reasoning. He must believe that he is acting in his own best interest.
That being said, I am not a big fan of the "throw the book at them" criminal justice system we have. It's not fair to make draconian penalties with the intent of offering plea deals. "You're facing 50 years in the slammer, punk. But if you plead guilty, you'll be out in 2." How is that fair?