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.
I can imagine that one of the first uses for autonomous vehicles will be for rental trucks. The advantages: non-stop travel to the destination and the customer can then drive their car to the same destination. The, initial, high cost of autonomous vehicles can be absorbed easily by a nationwide truck rental company. There will be a higher demand, and perhaps a premium charged, compared to normal trucks. Even if there are one or two bombing incidents per year, killing 200 or 300 people apiece, using autonomous Ryder, or Uhaul if you prefer, trucks this will be more than offset by the lives saved because automation has replaced fallible human drivers. I don't fault the FBI for thinking forward about the potential dangers of autonomous vehicles. I would fault them, or anyone, if they used the potential for misuse as an argument to outlaw or discourage such vehicles.
When autonomous vehicles are outlawed only outlaws will drive autonomous vehicles.
HIPAA restricts the release of medical records by a health care provider. There are exceptions for release to law enforcement, including the case where the information is evidence of a crime. Release of medical information by law enforcement is not covered under HIPAA. The only medical information included here is the lab report for BAC, which is evidence for the DUI charge.
The DUI report was for FOIA request #14-0745 instead of MuckRock's request which was FOIA request #14-0754. Obviously the result of a typo or a misread and search.
The interesting thing about this woman's DUI is that her BAC was .392. This is beyond severe impairment and well into life threatening. It is amazing this woman was conscious enough to even get in a car and start it.
Re: He probably meant to refer to bittorrent -- and I'm not sure he's correct
The 90% figure comes from the estimate of the percentage of the web portion of the Internet which is not indexed by the various robots (e.g. google-bot). So, we know this is not the same as the percentage of the Internet that is not accessible via DNS much less the percentage that is only accessible via the use of a TOR browser. The COLP have apparently, taken their juvenile fear of dark places, together with a basic misunderstanding of Internet architecture, and projected this into a fear of everything connected to TOR.
I don't have much sympathy for this guy. He seemed to think he was doing some kind of public service doxing various famed people among the illuminati(???). In reality, he is just an annoying miscreant publicizing any personal information he got his hands on via guessing answers to account security questions. By now, any serious hacker knows you cannot rely on the use of a single proxy to maintain your anonymity. Yet, he made that mistake and he sometimes used screen captures when the same data was available via files. This reveals his lack of true hacker skills. No l33t H4x0r is he! The main reason I don't have much sympathy for him though, is he is a cab driver and I have had some very bad experiences with cab drivers in Eastern Europe.
Despite all that, The US DOJ is still overreaching in its prosecution here. There are 9 counts.
For counts 1-3, wire fraud, they include "...to obtain money and property...". From what is revealed in the indictment and various media reports, he was not selling the information he illicitly acquired or using it for extortion. Yet, they will argue, as with Weev, that he profited from his hacking, so a charge of fraud applies. That charge is not justified.
Count 7, Aggravated Identity Theft: Guccifer's actions consisted of sending an email from victim 4 to victim 3, intending to provoke victim 3. I can see how that fits into identity theft but I wonder how believable, to victim 3, that email was. I doubt the prosecution would want take that into account. My hunch is that, being provocative, it was not so believable and then count 7 would not be justified.
Count 8, Cyberstalking: Without further information it is hard to evaluate this charge. This is what mystifies me though. How can a hacker thousands of miles away be both capable of surveillance and able to harass a victim at the same time? It were talking about control of an email account and possibly other social media accounts, it would seem, that once the victim became aware of the hacking they could changes passwords and answers to security questions and block the surveillance.
Count 9, Obstruction of Justice: This seems too easy to add as a serious crime when it can include any attempt by the culprit to stay hidden or erase his tracks. Recent examples are: 1: An obstruction of justice charge against Barret Brown's mother for putting a laptop in a kitchen cabinet.
2: A recent charge against Khairullozhon Matanov, a friend of the Boston bombers. He erased some of the browser history on his computer not to cover any crime he did (The FBI does not think he was involved) but his connection with the bombers, his interest in jihad, and his interest in news coverage of the story. So, the indictment mentions his erasure of his browser history for CNN coverage of the bombing story as an example of obstruction of justice.
A final issue, is when someone is convicted in a foreign country is there any overlap when the US charges them with similar crimes. Is it fair to convict them of the same crime in two different countries? The indictment even asks for forfeiture when you can be sure Romania has already seized his computer and he did not gain any property from his exploits.
Well, now they've done it. If Tor and Doctorow are going to send 200 copies to the school the principal is going to have to actually burn those copies. Although, maybe shredding is the modern way, so as to avoid air pollution and an increased carbon footprint. A principal's job is to avoid controversy at all costs, including sacrificing education. So, the principal will be forced to do this in secret. I suggest Tor publish special copies with an asbestos cover. They can use the same type of cover used for a special edition of Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451". The publisher claimed the asbestos based material for that cover was safe to handle but it does preclude burning or shredding which would render the material hazardous.
Nicholson I think is correctly pointing out that technology, blogging and viral videos in particular, have greatly diminished the ability of a publicist to control the public image of a star. She points out that Cruise's publicist, Pat Kingsley, was an especially strong choice for a publicist. Kingsley was able to control media image of Cruise, the propaganda, by using her connections to unfairly force mainstream media outlets to kowtow to her wishes. This (Geigner's) article misses the point though that Kingsley was fired by Cruise in March, 2004. Cruise hired his sister, who is also a Scientologist, as a replacement. The couch incident occurred in May of 2005. Nicholson is pointing out that Kingsley was no longer in the picture. Tom's sister wasn't able to control the negative impression of Tom Cruise pushing, not unlike a drug, Scientology. There are several reasons for that. She may not have had either the desire or ability to keep Tom from doing that. She, as any publicist did around 2005, lost the ability to control Tom's image with the rise of blogging, vlogging, podcasting, memes, and viral videos. Despite the potential for negative image distortion from those new types of media, Tom Cruise, himself, is still greatly responsible for pushing his views involving a rather controversial religion/cult. I agree with Nicholson that this affected his film career after 2005. A star of his caliber doesn't have nearly the number of films his peers have starred in during that period. She does exaggerate his talents, and I really don't understand why she considers him "the last movie star".