This story brought up two interesting questions for me.
1). He has been charged with conspiracy to aid and abet computer hacking. The charge is based on SR2 allowing vendors to sell password crackers, keyloggers, and remote access software. It is not illegal to possess any of those items, and they are sold on other websites. However, if a manufacturer or vendor advertises the illegal purposes these things can be used for, that vendor can be charged with a crime. Can Blake Benthall be held accountable for how the vendors at SR2 marketed their wares?
2). I am not sure that the HSI undercover agent was instrumental in bringing down SR2 and Benthall. If he was instrumental it would have been in locating the server. As a member of the support staff did he have access to the server location or IP address? If he did then it is likely he discovered the location early on such as in January. However, the server was imaged in late May which was probably the time the server location was discovered.
One possibility is that the de-anonymizing attack on Tor that started in late January and lasted till July 4th was a government operation intent on discovering the location of such Tor hidden services. The Tor group discovered this and removed some 115 relays that had been added as a group in late January. They also fixed an associated vulnerability. When that fix was announced at the end of July, Defcon moved the location of the servers. The new locations was also discovered but by then they already had Benthall's identity.
I believe expectation of privacy comes into play here. If the phone or computer, belong to your work place you don't have an expectation of privacy in using them. This is true even if you use them at your home. Now, if your workplace gave you a laptop which is now yours to do with as you wish, there is an expectation of privacy. You can install a keylogger on your home computers which are used by your kids. Because they are minors, the law doesn't require you to inform them about such monitoring. Once a child turns 18 though they have an expectation of privacy when using that computer and any surreptitious monitoring becomes illegal (I think wiretapping applies in this case). The same is true if you own the computer and your spouse also uses it. The upshot here is that if StealthGenie had marketed their spyware as a way to protect children then they would not have their current legal problems.
Oettinger is wrong in that governments do have a responsibility to ensure the average person is informed enough about the handling of their personal data to make good decisions about their privacy. Apple encourages their customers to not worry, or even think, about how they use their iWhatever. So, as part of providing a "seamless experience" they tend to hide, or at least not point out, that backups to the cloud are done automatically by default. They made a major security error in allowing unlimited attempts to logon via their "find my iPhone" service. In this case, the users still could have come up with a secure password, one that still could not be discovered despite millions or billions of guesses. I wouldn't call a victim stupid, nor would I blame them for being a victim. Given that, if someone really wants their nude picture to be private they should know they can take steps to guarantee that. Users are not helpless when they can use cryptography themselves and disable functions that defeat such security. The role of a government is in creating incentives, regulations or otherwise, for companies to inform their customers about the handling of personal data. I'm not sure I can expect that anytime soon given that many governments want all your data to be available to the government itself. So, here is my advice to celebrities. Stop using your smartphone to take risque pictures. Use a dedicated digital camera instead (you can afford it) and download those photos only to your computer. If you want to send it to someone, use encrypted email.
My Internet accessible bank account is termed "on-line banking". I certainly hope it is not accessible to others. I would use the term "on-line" to mean anything accessible via the Internet despite whatever levels of security exist to block general access.
Out of curiosity I glanced through her blog and this article on the 1st amendment. http://debmcalister.com/2011/06/03/7-things-you-cant-claim-first-amendment-rights-to-say/ W hat caught my attention was this statement concerning free speech: "...Hustler paid damages to a preacher over a parody labelled as such in the magazine." This is about the famous Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell case which was an important Supreme Court case dealing with free speech. The important fact she glossed over is that while Hustler (Larry Flynt) lost in the lower courts, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, finding the parody involved to be legal. She even provided a link which discussed the whole history of the case. It seems she didn't read the last part dealing with the Supreme Court and that is indicative of her writing as a whole.
what is an expert? Because it is so common now, computer forensic experts can be specifically licensed to do forensic work after having taken an accredited course using some commonly accepted forensic tool. You have to have the stupid license to be an expert. You could be the guy who designed the file system, knows every detail of the OS, and is familiar with all the network protocols but if you haven't taken a week-long course and earned a certificate in computer forensics you can't testify as an expert.
Top secret FBI investigation methods: Here, the FBI guy performed a test to recreate timestamps on a set of temporary internet files. The reason is to confirm that the actual timestamps for a Google Map search from Cooper's laptop are reasonable and not files planted on the computer at some later time. I am really trying to think hard as to what sort of important secret is being protected here, but I am coming up empty. The original court's rationale for restricting this evidence is completely bogus.
Forensic mistakes by the police: The computer should have been checked immediately for anything useful that would be changed (e.g. main memory, internet connections) once it was shut down. Instead, the computer was left in the house, connected to the Internet, for 27 hours. It was not in Cooper's physical custody and it was a machine that belonged to Cisco and, supposedly, only Cisco IT had a password for an administrator level account. This left the chain of custody uncertain even though the police had physical custody. The mysterious altered files could easily be due to internet connection activity including automated updates, or a Cisco IT guy, or Cooper himself. Intentional planting of evidence is not necessarily indicated nor is it ruled out. This uncertainty is precisely what a forensic examiner and detailing chain of custody is supposed to prevent.
Missing cookies: It's not hard to identify and delete a particular cookie on a computer. It is a lot harder to delete a portion of the temporary internet data. What I am not sure about is if that deleted cookie can be recovered or it is quickly overwritten by a new cookie or something else entirely if an entire sector has been freed up. My hunch is that a cookie, once deleted, may not be recoverable if other cookies are added later which is the case here. The other side of the defense argument is that it is impossible to spoof a Google cookie and so a fake one cannot be planted on a machine. I don't think that is true. At any rate, not get the cookie from Google's own server logs was a major mistake for the prosecution. I am not sure the defense couldn't have done it's own inquiry given the laptop's IP address, date, and time.
Hmm..., Grope Attendant, sounds nice. That is, if it's the right sort of person (I have standards). Once, while going through the typical security check entering a rock-concert venue a woman placed her hand briefly right on my junk. This had never happened before so I was speechless for about half a minute and of course she was then searching other people and I had to get out of the way. At first, I couldn't decide if this was simply the realization of a male fantasy or it was a rather objectionable invasion of my privacy. I decided on the latter and that I would make a scene if it ever happened again. It hasn't.
I thought it was a lovely dance by the TSA agent. He doesn't have the authority to detain anyone and he knows that. He is forced by Nygard's lack of cooperation to run through all the plays in his book to convince him to submit to secondary screening. In this context, TSA doesn't have the leverage of refusing to allow him to board a flight. In the end, we have an instructional video showing the limits of TSA authority and all for the ridiculous effort of attempting to close what is just a bureaucratic loose end. Apparently, Nygard was never detained by the police, but I wonder if they were actually trying to find him before he left the airport. Good play by Nygard, but I wonder if that just ensures he is permanently quad-S or was he already?
fox news identified initially identified him as Somali-American
A Minneapolis-St Paul Fox news affiliate initially identified Nygard as being of Somali origin. So, in an area well known for having a lot of people of Nordic heritage, a local Fox news affiliate mistakes a common Nordic name for Somali? At least they fessed up to their mistake, but this just confirms my suspicion that fact-checking is a just a four letter word at Fox.
p.s. contact me if you're interested in anonymously purchasing a 28 quart pressure cooker. I do require proof of religious affiliation first. Atheists are OK unless, they also communists or anarchists.
Not only can we use purchase of pressure cookers to catch terrorists, it can also help in the war on drugs. A pressure cooker can be used as a cheap autoclave to sterilize equipment used to grow certain kinds of mushrooms (don't ask me how I know this). I seem to remember a story that the police were able to get a search warrant based on purchases of large amounts of baggies. Forget about training sales clerks. Just have the government provide incentives to businesses to expand their customer loyalty programs which allow the business to gather everyone's purchases in a, 3rd party business records, database. If all goods cost twice as much unless you provide your loyalty account info, who is going to purchase anonymously except terrorists and other criminals? Of course, this requires those loyalty accounts to reliably tied to your actual identity.
If the police were performing their job perfectly they would be performing 100% of the homicides in a jurisdiction. Alternatively, if the police existed as an armed, corrupt, and evil entity, the only one in a jurisdiction, they would also be performing 100% of the homicides. I'm pointing out that a ratio of homicides is not a good metric for judging a police force. What's important is whether such a powerful and committed (as in one that can't be taken back, there is a better word here but I can't think of it at the moment) use of force is justified. That justification shouldn't come from just internal reviews.
The real reason she was denied a passport is because the US has the Skywalker name on a terrorist watch list (Have you seen the movie? He is personally responsible for destroying the deathstar. How many innocent workers for the Empire were residing on the deathstar when it was blown up?) The Home Office, per the US restrictions, can't admit to Skywalker being on a terrorist watch list. Hence, the made-up story about copyright and trademark.
The most absurd example may be the name Wendy which came into existence in 1904 with the performance of the play "Peter Pan". The novel was first published in 1911 and the script for the play was first published in 1928. The name Wendy is now fairly popular. howmanyofme.com shows that 294,707 people have Wendy as a first name in the U.S.. Yet, it only came into the public domain in the UK in 2007 and the play is under copyright until 2023 in the US although the novel is in the public domain. I don't know if the name was ever trademarked but obviously it wasn't defended it it had been. In actuality, Wendy is a good example because it shows the lack of a negative effect even when a name invented by an author becomes widely used a first name.
So, I think we are talking about PTSD. I have a hard time believing that seeing a photo of your dead brother or son some 8 years after he died is enough of a traumatic experience to result in PTSD. It would be more believable if they had already experienced PTSD as a result of the murder and this incident just triggered that. However, no mention was made of pre-existing PTSD. To tie it to your comment, PTSD is a situation where repeated traumatic stress has reinforced particular brain pathways to cause the pituitary gland to release a hormone which, in turn, causes the adrenal glands to synthesize and release bursts of stress hormones, such as cortisol, which has as one of its effects suppression of the immune system. The repeated occurrences of stress is required but this can occur when the memory of a single traumatic event is replayed, often uncontrollably, by your own brain.
The photo in question is one of about a dozen polaroids of headshots that are pinned together on a bulletin board and shown, as a group, for a total of 3 seconds during the opening credits. So, perhaps we shall soon see another 10 or so lawsuits coming. It does look like at least some of these victims were gang members. I certainly don't know if all of them were but it is a possibility. I mention this because I wonder if the Southland staff thought they wouldn't be getting any complaints if the photos were gang members.
I can imagine if the sister and/or mother were watching the show and saw their brother unexpectedly how upsetting that might be. However, since the show had ended 6 months before they claim they saw the image it makes me wonder if they were told about the use of a photo of their brother first.
If you read the wording closely in both your cited HIPAA regulation and Dr. Stöppler's faq, the coroner is not a HIPAA covered entity and so doesn't need to comply with HIPAA regulations. What is discussed is a covered doctor releasing medical information to a coroner or a covered doctor performing the autopsy itself.