Courts have held that a suspect is NOT required to hand over the keys to a safe. They have ALSO held that the same suspect is also NOT required to unlock the safe for the police. The distinction between giving the authorities your password or simply decrypting the files for them is the same - if one is considered unlawful, so too should the other be.
And beyond that, this should be protected under the 4th amendment, regardless of whether or not it violates the 5th. This is about as damn well "unreasonable" as a search can possibly be.
Anyhow...if the defendant was asked to have over a disk - still encrypted - with the files on it, that is legal. After that, the police are free to take as much time as they like (should be around 2,000 years with a strong password and good algorithm) and try to crack it themselves. This is like saying they can seize the safe and have a locksmith try to open it for them. Legally, they can do this. But compelling the suspect and/or defendant to make their case for them? Pretty damn unreasonable.
But not by Apple. Take the second logo, remove the stem, and rotate it 90 degrees clockwise. Looks practically identical to the LG logo. I'm not saying that anyone could get a latte confused with a smartphone, mind you, but if the cafe has in-house computers with stickers on them, I could see a potential claim there. Far reaching and somewhat bogus, but at least it'd have SOME legal merit to a point. As for Apple having an anywhere-near-valid claim on ANY of this, obviously not.
I do find this funny though. I saw a few specials over the weekend on the late Mr. Jobs. I noticed that several - at least 4 or 5 different people - said he had more or less total reverence for the Beatles. For a Beatles fan, he had one hell of a lawsuit going against Apple Records for several years. Doesn't sound like what a fan would do to me. Maybe an artist or a studio, but not a fan. Of course, the truth is Steve wasn't an "innovator" as everyone in the popular media is saying now. Steve Jobs was a master iterator. He couldn't invent an original concept if his life depended on it, but when it came to taking the work of others and improving upon it, nobody did better. Well, that and marketing. I swear to god I spent the last 10 years just waiting on the day when Steve would stand up and introduce iShit, a turd that was painted white and doesn't smell. The sad thing is, he could've totally pulled it off - and sold millions of handfuls of shit. Literally. Don't get me wrong, I respect him for that.
But still. For someone who talked about innovation, his actual genius was iteration. For someone who loved the Beatles, he sure seemed to hate them in a courtroom. For someone who kept hocking a bunch of "fastest" computers, he never did actually release a single system that was top of the line. Ever. But eh, it was white and metal and "cool" so who cares about actual performance, right?
Anyhow...as to the topic at hand, no surprise here Mike. Anyone willing to sue their favorite band in the whole wide world clearly has no limits on who they'll sue, or for what.
I'm not actually sure what problem the whole policy is supposed to solve. Presumably, this is to prevent spammers. I mean, it's not meant to prevent anonymity, because practically nothing on Google+ is really "public" anyway, and anonymity is useless in private to begin with. All I can think of here is they're trying to prevent spammers. So...here's a better way:
- Require a random portion (roughly 20% should work) to check a box when adding you as a friend that says "I know who the person behind this account is." If at any point in time the percentage of friends who check this box drops below the required amount, the account will be unable to post more than 1 public posting per day, or to address any private posting to more than a single recipient.
Problem solved. Now can we please, PLEASE get Google Apps support added?! I mean, that's SOOOOOO much more important than this is!
I'm going to run under the vague assumption that you genuinely wish me well and say thanks. After all, if that was your best attempt at sarcasm, you're doing it wrong.
That said, here's a thought experiment to drive my point home:
On a day when it's 69-73 degrees outside and sunny, go to your closet in the morning and pick out your clothes to wear. Don't put much thought into it (yet) but rather just choose whatever first comes to mind. Now go outside and go about your day. No doubt, at some point during your day, you will run across a problem: you need somewhere to store something you're carrying around. Might be your phone, your wallet, a receipt from the store, or a candy bar. Now, in this situation, the weather is good. You're probably wearing shorts. WHY??? It's not hot outside. You could've worn cargo pants and had ample room to store whatever you're now trying to carry in your hand and juggle around. Yes, they're not "cool" or "stylish" but yanno what? They're affordable, and they're the most functional piece of clothing you can wear. From a purely logical standpoint, a pair of cargo pants and a t-shirt with a single breast pocket (if you're a guy) is the best outfit for every possible occasion. They're lightweight, provide good freedom of movement, ample storage capacity (weighted against your waist, which is capable of supporting almost 6 times the dead vertical weight that your back is) and protection against dirt, bugs, or anything else that might otherwise get you dirty. Barring hot days (in which case I'd go with cargo shorts) there is no bad time to wear cargo pants. Why doesn't everyone do that? Simple: because they'd rather do something "cool" than something that makes logical sense. And who creates cool? Lancome, et.al.
As I said before, stop buying this crap and they'll stop selling it, then there won't be any unrealistic expectations to meet in the first place. This is basic logic and economics, folks.
Am I the only person who realizes you can't vote without an address to register with? How exactly are they going to lose the vote of homeless people...who can't vote because they're homeless???
I mean, I assume some off these people will use the shelter as their address, and some may be registered at the address of family, etc. But certainly, some of these people probably can't even read or write - probably a majority of them - so the threat of not getting a dozen votes here rings pretty hollow, no?
It's the consumers. Not the general public, but the people who buy the products these simi-plastic models are hocking. Considering the cost of a model, photographer, graphic artist, and advertising, it's costing Lancome, et.al. in excess of $5,000 per ad to run those, on the cheap end. Yet, they still make money hand over fist. Why? Because those same girls who are having self esteem issues now are turning around and are now purchasing the very products that made them feel bad 10 years ago. You want to combat this? You want to have a revolution where we reject the airbrushed BS image of what a woman is supposed to look like? THEN QUIT BUYING THAT OVERPRICED PAINT THEY'RE SELLING! Problems like this aren't solved via the law. They're solved via the checkbook. Stop buying this crap and they won't have any money to run the damn ads with.
I'm a 24 year old white male living in a college town in Alabama (there's only 2 so start guessing and you'll get it eventually...) I'm also a lifelong geek. If anyone knows the value of inner beauty, it's me. I've been interested in maybe 4 or 5 girls over the past 5 or 6 years. So far, no bites. I have an IQ of 137 and a good job making $12/hour working for my Mom as a paralegal (read: 100% job security) and my own 800 square foot downtown apartment. I weigh 165 pounds and I'm 6'2" and I'm not going to win any contests but god knows I'm better looking on my worst day than half of this god forsaken town is at their own wedding. Yet, I can't get a second glance. But I should expect this. I don't use hair gel, don't use mouthwash, and only shave twice a week. I shower daily and use plain old cheap shampoo and bar soap. I spend maybe $6/month on hygene products and I'm as clean as a motherboard assembly room. Yet, because I don't look like DiCaprio, I'm not worthy of the time of day.
So yeah, we live in a society where first impressions are EVERYTHING (I believe because everyone is too LAZY to actually get to know people these days) and I believe it's the root cause of everything wrong with the country. I mean, JESUS F**KING CHRIST, WE ELECTED ELMER FUDD PRESIDENT BECAUSE WE WANTED TO HAVE A BEER WITH HIM! Even Bill Clinton, who I liked, was elected because he had nice hair and could play the Saxophone. Are you kidding me? Why not just elect Paris Hilton president? I mean, if controlling our nuclear arsenal and passing a new $5,000+ page budget 4 times are such easy jobs and this is all just a goddamn beauty pageant, might as well go all the way, right?
So anyhow...bit of a rant, and sorry about that, but the issue here is not going to be solved by yet more poorly thought out legislation. This is an issue with SOCIETY, not the law, and we need to have SOCIETAL reform, enacted via mutual agreement with each other, and enforced via that wonderful thing we call an economy. Speaking of whicch, in this economy, people can barely afford to pay their power bill every month. Stop buying lip gloss and mineral powder makeup and you may find yourself struggling a lot less to keep your lights on!
As for me? I love geeky chicks anyway, but none of them around here are single, and I'm not the homewrecker type, so for now I'm stuck waiting on the world to change. And no, it's not NEARLY as enjoyable as Mr. Maher makes it sound.
- FTP, SAMBA, HTTP, SFTP, or even just a damn USB cable
- Projectors. Any kind of projector.
- Wifi routers. All of them.
- Any and every smartphone that includes a cradle or dock.
- The Apple App Store, the Android Market, Synaptic on Linux, any other "app store"
- Dropbox, the cloud in general.
Isn't there supposed to be some sort of test for, yanno, obviousness? Shouldn't ALL of these patents FAIL that test? Or prior art? Or just the "you've got to be shitting me" test in general?
I mean nevermind the lawsuit. Hell, nevermind the bad patents. In this case, if one patent examiner approved more than one of these patents, someone needs to either fire him, or move the examiner out of his cave to a new residence that has electricity. Seriously, half the issue here is the village IDIOTS working in the USPTO who couldn't take a 10-second glance at this (as I did) and see how blatantly obvious it is that these are BAD PATENTS and SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO BEGIN WITH! To anyone! Ever!
Re: It's not illegal, but some people don't understand their exposure
"Some people leave their wifi open, which is fine, but we've already seen that the behavior can be problematic."
Then it's an education problem. The solution here isn't to police ALL the users, it's to EDUCATE the users who don't know what they're doing. You wanna solve this problem? Require everyone who buys a router at Best Buy to watch a 2 minute tutorial on WEP and/or WPA. Hell, just refer them to one of the countless YouTube videos of someone cracking WEP with Backtrack in under 2 minutes. Problem solved.
Seriously, this is the problem with America. People here think Educations ends at Graduation. Don't get me wrong, I personally believe the US Educational system is badly broken and should be scrapped entirely and recreated from scratch, but that's not the point. The problem here in America is that, at some age, everyone stops learning. People hit 40 or 50 or 60 and they start thinking "I'm old, I'm busy, and some younger person can figure this stuff out for me for $6/hour, so I give up." This mindset has cost more trillions of dollars and more millions of lives than any war in the last 3 centuries. Education should be like healthcare - cradle to grave. The thought that you hit some magical point where you've "paid your dues" and no longer need to learn anything is as insane as thinking "well, I'm 55, so even though everyone else is going to get a Flu Shot, I've had 50 of those things and I'm alright." It's insane.
So rather than passing a law that punishes everyone (or worse, using the police to enforce a misguided viewpoint with zero law to back it up) - including those who actually properly secure a network without WEP/WPA (it can be done!) let's focus on educating those who simply don't have the KNOWLEDGE to do it.
Also, in case someone is wondering, here's my setup:
DSL Modem > Router A > Router B
Router A has no encryption but is configured to allow only 1 wifi connection at a time. My Nintendo DS uses this connection 24/7 unless a friend needs it. Thus, the single slot is always occupied, preventing use by the public. Router B uses WPA, a MAC Filter, a 9 connection limit (the exact number of devices I connect to it), static DHCP, expires leases every 30 minutes, and sends me an email if all previous devices don't reconnect within 5 minutes.
Now, if you don't understand ANY of what I just said, GO EDUCATE YOURSELF. THIS IS INTERNET 101 PEOPLE!
So in other words, now we can have parents, students, and teachers fight 20 different, separate policies in multiple school districts across the state instead of a single law that the EFF or ACLU can fund. Way to improve the situation, guys!
I mean sorry but this is NOT good news. This outlandish law was MUCH easier to combat when it was a single law instead of multiple school-district-specific policies.
For once I'm actually happy to be an Alabamian - where we're so damn backasswards that our state congress can't even properly spell Facebook. Can't outlaw what they can't name, right? Right?!
As a paralegal working in an actual law firm that does primarily civil corporate contract law, I can say with certainty that at best we get 45% on any given case, and usually 1/3 or even less if by-the-hour. In Alabama, any lawyer asking for more than 45% is pretty much going to be hit with an automatic state bar complaint as this violates the standard in the Rules of Civil Procedure for a "reasonable attorneys fee" so anyhow...yeah, I really wish we could collect 4x the amount of a judgment as Attorney's fee but it ain't happening here. Don't know about other states but this is insane.
I realize this isn't exactly a new idea, but a large chunk of the "bad apples" in education do occur as a result of tenure. That said, rather than abolishing it outright, why not have a "strikes" system in place. That is, after students or parents file (this number is obviously debatable) 5 complaints against a specific teacher in a single school year, their tenure is suspended until the next school year. Thus, any complaints after this temporary suspension are treatesd as though the teacher has no tenure, and is thus easier to fire if they are truly a bad teacher.
Can someone please explain what's wring with this idea?
As a 24 year old typical American, I can say I have dealt with a wide array of teachers. Half were totally average. They cared, but usually more about the subject matter than the students - they knew their material, just not their audience. Of the other half, about 30% were total mooches, and were pty clearly phoning it in 4+ days per week. These people would've made excellent white collat managers, but just aren't cut out for a job that doesn't welcome sociopaths. They kept their head low, got tenure, and shelled out discioplanary infractions on a whim just because they felt like teaching a smaller class that day. The remaining 20% are like my 8th grade science teacher. We had 34 students in that class. I was new of 5 she had on a special curricukum. We'd be given chaoters to read just like the other kids. The next class, she'd ask us each a totally random question, and it was usually very, very specific. No way to skim those answers. If we got them right, we got to spend the class goofing off on a classroom computer that day. However, ALL of us had to get our question right, else we ALL spend the class listening too the lecture. I actually got mine wring twice because some of her lectures where that good, but usually we all made a point of living with 20 minutes of bring text each night because it meant an hour less boredom the next day.
This was an innovative technique she used on then smartest kids in the class. Hiwevwr, it eventually inspired many of my classmates to also study harder. I came back the next year for a visit and she had improved the program. Now, after each test, she chose the top 5 scores to participate in the program rather than a static 5 each year. A month from the end of the achol year, she said her test scores were uip almost 40% overa
In otherwords, she knew her students. She realized that if given a proper incentive, they'd put in the effort. In this case, she had a class full of two kinds of people. Those who wanted to learn, and lost causes. By using laziness as an incentive, she motivated both. In the end, the kids learned more, enjoyed the class more, and I heard the got a raise 2 years later.
Anyhow...badly off topic, but if we'd structure tenure to give an oppritunity to fire the worst teachers, then rehire more teachers like my 8th grade science teacher, I think it'd make the system better for everyone.
This reminds me why I pirated Brink a month ago. I. Hate. Steam. As it is literally impossible to buy the DLC without Steam, I took an alternate route. After signing up for a Steam acciunt and purchasing the DLC (I bought the original game itself in a local Best Buy) I then proceeded to illegally torrent the Game and the DLC and install it without Steam. Thus, I was forced to piracy, even though I purchased a totally legal copy of both the game and the DlC, in an effort to avoid the DRM. This is now the 6th time I've done this - purchasing a game then pirating it to avoid DRM - and it's getting really old.
I just hope someone can get ME3 on TPB before it's a month old. I love the Mass Effect series and fully intend to pay good money for ME3, just as I did for ME2 and all the DLC so far. But I'd rather leave the internet outright than have software spying on portions of my system that don't pertain to it.
As a happy T-Mobile customer with unlimited bandwidth on my data plan, I would love to personally thank the DoJ for blocking this merger. I'm not a lobbyist, so I can't afford to send you to Napa Valley for the weekend, but please let me know where I can mail one of you a decent bottle of something alcoholic!
All of this and the final answer is the quality of apps? Seriously? Not to be rude to th Apple fanatics out there, but I'll take the selection of apps available on my ASUS EEE Transformer (Android Honeycomb) over those on my mother's iPad any day of the week. I have a better launcher, better browser, better on screen keyboard, better email client, better maps, better music player, better movie player, better jabber client, and lastly, a better version of solitaire than anything she either has or can even get. Add to that hardware with twice the specs and a $299 price tag and frankly I can't understand why anyone would spit on an I pad if it was on fire.
Apple sells I pads not because they are any better at all, but simply because they LOOK better. If I slapped a white case and an Apple sticker on this thing and sat it in front of the typical Apple user I could earn $100/hour in lost bets. When you compare what actually matters (processor, memory, storage space, etc.) Android ALWAYS wins. mainly because it doesn't include a "coolness tax."
the really sad thing is, Apple used to be the opposite. there was a time when a G3 would outperform a Pentium 4. then, Steve came back and rapidly returned the company to profitability - by sacrificing ACTUAL greatness and substituting PERCIEVED greatness in its place
The masses are sheep. That Apple computer has more cash on hand than the US Government just proves this point.
Anyhow...awful rant, I know, but I had to say it somewhere. Since OP was an editorial I figured why not here.
Whether or not this is child porn is decided in a criminal court. This is a civil lawsuit brought by the girl in the tape. It is not a criminal charge.
That said, to prove almost any civil case of this nature, the girl must show damages. She must show how this somehow cost her something. Even if it's only emotional trauma, she has to prove that in some way she deserves money.
So...how did the principal showing this to his co-workers damage the girl? It's embarrassing, sure, but embarrassment isn't a reason to sue unless it lead to medical bills from seeing a psychologist or some other documented expense. Under what legal theory is this girl seeking relief?
Seems to me #8 and #9 inadvertently hit the nail on the head here. There's a very credible criminal child porn case. I would say not for production, since the surveillance system is obviously automated. However, most certainly both for possession and distribution. Nevertheless, unless there's something we haven't been told, this girl has no civil case.
She should drop the lawsuit ASAP and go to the cops, and get him prosecuted criminally. That has a vastly greater chance of resulting in the desirable outcome, i.e. punishing the guy.
Also, not to denigrate the victim here, but this sounds suspiciously like a shakedown. Yes, the guy is a creep, but if she was genuinely harmed, she should handle this criminally for the reasons above. Of course, even though it's more likely to work, it won't result in any money for the girl. The fact that she waited (at least?) a year and is suing him in civil court now speaks volumes to me. Sounds like someone who is trying to turn this around and profit from what happened.
I have 3 friends on facebook. One is my mom, one is my best friend, and one is my 8th grade science teacher. My mom and my best friend both communicate via Jabber, so basically the only reason I ever sign into facebook is my old teacher. I'm 24, and I have no interest in her physically (frankly, she's just the only teacher in my entire school career I've ever known who wasn't a total bitch. Ever. At all.)
So now I'll have no reason to ever go there again. I mean, I'm in Alabama, but anything that's "for the children" spreads like wildfire.
Dammit Google, open up Plus to Google Apps users now please!
The only difference between these seizures and the seizures of previous sites is that Homeland Security is working for the fashion industry instead if the RIAA/MPAA. This is still a branch of the US Federal Government doing something that benefits a private industry, which should be left in civil court. Beyond the specific industry in question, there is no other difference!
Seriously Mike. I know these aren't tech-related companies, but it's unfair for you to be any less outraged here!
Someone please explain to me why the following won't work:
- Buy Geiger Counters at 1/300th the cost of these ASPs
- Bolt said counters to cranes in ports, near the arms that actually pick up the containers ($20 for overpriced bolts)
- Run wire from counter to speaker in crane operator's cockpit ($30 for overpriced wire)
- Set threshholds where we inspect the containers in person. If shipper refuses, simply force them to ship it back unless they agree.
What is wrong with this? What is wrong with using existing, proven technology and common sense? I'm not a nuclear physicist, but from what little I do know, even the comparatively small amount of nuclear material needed for a dirty bomb is detectable several blocks away. Wouldn't a Geiger Counter a whopping 6 inches from the container pick it up? Even if it won't detect it 100% of the time, if Norton Anti-Virus has taught me anything, it's that NOTHING will detect threats 100% of the time. This ASP crap probably doesn't detect more than 80% of the time at best. Can't a simple Geiger Counter match that level of success???
The real question here is, "What crimes does the secret service have jurisdiction over." The answer seems to be "nothing that anyone could misconstrue as what this guy did."
Personally? I don't think this was the Secret Service. Why on earth would they collect his stuff and just leave? It sounds to me like something Apple themselves would do. These dudes were probably private security of some sort hired to attempt to scare the hell out of the artist. My money says they'll wipe his systems and he'll receive them in the mail in 4-7 weeks from "0 Infinite Loop" with a note inside the box that says "Gotcha! -J" The fact that there isn't any apparent law that they could charge him under would seem to support this.
I have to agree that a license for using the internet is going several steps too far. However, I've often thought that when a user gets new service from an ISP, they should be required to watch a 10-15 minute training video on the Internet. Seriously. They shouldn't be able to load a web page or pass any other traffic until they watch it. No test, no real verification that they actually watched it, but maybe, just maybe, if 10% of the total dumbasses on the internet had seen such a short video before they were unleashed on the web, we'd all be 10% better off.
As to the content of the video...well, I'd try to stick primarily to the technological end of things. "This is a web browser, it loads web pages. This is an email client, it reads and sends email." So on and so fourth. That said, a quick, 2 minute etiquette section would do the web as a whole a world of good. I'm not saying we should tell everyone 4chan is bad. But perhaps we should explain to the newbies that what happens on 4chan is best left there and not spread elsewhere on the web?