But from the sounds of things, they didn't even try to do any of these things.
Yes, there is only so much one can do, but it sounds like they didn't exhaust (or even come close to) taking all reasonable steps.
Sure, if you at home put up a filtering proxy so the kid can't access facebook, or prevent him entirely from using a computer, he could still go to the library or use a school computer or go to his mates house. But at least they would have tried reasonable steps.
This is why I don't auto-anything to a cloud service.
If I upload something to a cloud storage locker, it is explicitly and knowingly done every single time.
I try to avoid online cloud backup/storage as much as possible.
If I need synchronisation/file sharing services, if its some random file I don't care about sure I'll use dropbox or whatever to share it out. If it's something I care about, I have a USB hard-drive attached to my router that I have secured (as far as is practical) that I can access from anywhere I can get a HTTPS connection.
To revoke US membership would require a UN security council resolution. The US (along with China, Russia, UK and France) has veto power over any UN resolution. Therefore any resolution raised to eject the US could be vetoed by the US.
Well yes, they'd be very surprised as the Boston PD doesn't have any jurisdiction in NY.
England isn't a series of states and counties and cities that have their own police forces. There is no London Police force who only have jurisdiction in London. There is just the British Police force. When people talk about the Met or City of London Police, these are NOT police raised from and 'citizens' of London or the City of London or whoever. Each of these forces really are just precincts. Any NY Police officer has jurisdiction in all of NYCs 5 boroughs, however they are assigned to precincts who usually just deal with crime in those precincts, however if their suspect is in another precinct, they can still go and arrest them, as they are still within their jurisdiction.
So this isn't the equivalent of Boston PD coming to NY, it's the equivalent of the officers from the 9th Precinct (Manhattan South) going and arresting someone in 77th Precinct (Brooklyn North)
Though, they could argue that Satoshi was a public figure... But still...
To me this doesn't make sense.
The AUTHOR of Bitcoin MAY be a public figure, but Satoshi is saying he's not the author. If HE's not the author, then HE isn't a public figure. Wouldn't Newsweek have to prove that Satoshi is a public figure, and to do that wouldn't they have to prove (at least to a standard of on the balance of probabilities test) that he is the author?
It seems nonsensical to me to have a party claim that a second party is a public figure, and it then being up to said 2nd party to prove they aren't. How do you prove a negative? Surely the claiming party would have to prove that the 2nd party is a public figure?
LaTex was released in 1984. Therefore if you were in grade school before 1984, that sorta proves the argument doesn't it that using 2 periods after a space is an indicator of someone not being young, say 40+?
While I agree with this article stating that using/knowing about using 2 spaces after a period isn't a good indication of age, your comment has basically reinforced the argument that it is a good indicator of age ;)
Also, 2 spaces are still sorta used after a period. With proportional fonts, the size of the space between the period and next letter is automatically set by the font, the actual measurement may be in fact equivalent to 2 spaces (even tho as it's only registered as 1 space). If you enter 2 spaces into a WYSIWYG editor (word and whatever other word processors are around today), or 1 space, or 5 spaces, it'll automatically adjust the distance between the period and the letter to what is defined in the font definition. Therefore you don't have to manually add any spaces at all if you don't want to. If you use a mono-spaced font (or a plain text editor like notepad or what have you) tho then you might have to enter the number of spaces you want.
GCHQ directed the Guardian to destroy documents it had in it's possession that GCHQ claimed were illegally obtained. Therefore they had to be destroyed. The actual subject matter of the documents was irrelevant.
The Guardian didn't destroy any stories or other journalistic content.
It had nothing to do with actual surveillance, which is what the court case is about.
If GCHQ had found out that The Guardian had the documents via their surveillance activities then it may have been relevant. However the Guardian told the government that it was in possession of these documents, it asked the government to comment on them, not to mention the fact that they published stories regarding the documents.
Should they hire their own security expert to examine the lock before they use it?
If they are serious about security, then yes. The best bet would be to hire a security consultancy/contractor company to advise on and install an appropriate level of security lock. Then, if the lock fails like this, you sue that security consultant/contractor, as they were the ones who should have done due diligence on the lock.
(there's no such thing as a "legitimate MITM attack.")
Well, I guess that depends on which side of the network management infrastructure you sit on.
While I don't like it, my organisation performs what I consider a legitimate MITM.
They have a hardware appliance proxy server that performs MITM attacks against HTTPS traffic on staff internet use except those sites on a whitelist. The whitelist includes mostly financial sites (i.e. banks and internet banking, and other similar known sites). The appliance has it's own certificate, which is inserted into the windows standard desktop build as a trusted cert, so you don't even get errors (unless you install a 3rd party browser like firefox, that doesn't include the cert in it's trusted cert store). The appliance decrypts the incoming/outgoing stream and virus/malware scans it and compares it to a black/whitelist of unauthorised/authorised sites, then re-encrypts it to continue to the site/user.
The organisation has a legitimate interest in limiting it's legal exposure to staff accessing illegal content, and a legitimate interest in virus scanning all incoming/outgoing data.
By using the work supplied computers and internet bandwidth of the organisation, you have to abide by it's acceptable use policy.
The DA can still prosecute, even if there is no 'victim' that will press charges. For example, if someone is murdered, the victim can't press charges, yet people are still charged with and convicted of murder.
However, to secure a conviction, you must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And if the victim (of a non-death related crime obviously!) refuses to press charges, i.e. refuses to provide a statement and testify in court to the effect that the perpetrator is the one who 'did it', then that's a huge hole blown in the prosecutor's case. In these situations, unless there is a lot of evidence to counter-weigh the fact that the victim hasn't provided a statement of appeared as a witness, then there is no point in pursuing what will be a losing hand.
However, after the release of this video, assuming the police/DA had seen it previously, I would think there is enough evidence to outweigh the victim not testifying.
Of course, that assumes the victim refuses to testify at all. If, however, the victim was prepared to appear for the defence and spin (if not outright lie) the video (e.g. we were play fighting, and he accidentally hit me too hard) then even the video might not be enough for conviction.