The problem is that airgaps only work if the hacker is on the other side of the airgap. Hackers can bring in computers to a rented office to wreck their havoc from inside the country.
91 posts • joined 15 Jun 2009
I am a firm believer in the 5th amendment, but this is a stretch. If this is self incrimination, then so is providing breath for a breathalyzer, DNA, Urine, and Blood. Even finger prints would be considered self incrimination by this standard. The warrant was rightly denied as too broad, but if they apply again narrowed to just the suspects, then I think it should be approved.
I am not a fan of businesses selling customer data, but if it is going to be allowed, I don't see bounty hunters as an illegitimate use of the data. The customers would be people who have broken their promise to show up in court. Some of the US states give bounty hunters too much power and some bounty hunters abuse what powers they do have so some bounty hunters are not worthy of respect, but that can be said about regular police forces as well.
The US courts have ruled that law enforcement access to customer location data does not require a warrant. Other meta data such as when phone calls are made and to what number also does not require a warrant. Generally, only the content of the communication (texts, voice, etc.) requires a warrant.
I had a friend who described an at sea encounter similar to the one described in the article. The other ship had the right of way, so my friends ship altered course. The other ship altered course at the same time putting them on conflicting courses again. This happened several times before they were able to get on safely passing courses. Sometime being helpful can cause more problems.
>Not at all. Probable cause (in US speak) is not the same as being declared guilty, that is the prerogative of the court.
Not really. That is the prerogative of the jury unless the defendant waives his/her right to a jury. A judge can give a directed verdict of not guilty, but cannot declare guilt.
Have the businesses forgotten that the Internet was created by academics to share knowledge and their
bottom line is as much a concern as the excretory end of genus rattus?
That is correct, and they can use IPv6 to share all of the knowledge that they want, but business is about making a profit and until there is no profit in IPv4, they will continue to support it.
>>If my bank left a pile of money on a table for me to take my own, I might be tempted to take a bit extra. >>Yes, that would be theft, but also entrapment.
No it would not be entrapment. Entrapment requires the prosecution or their agents to suggest the crime. While the money is unsecured, the bank is not suggesting you take it. We are supposed to be honest and take only what is ours.
This does not apply to the fellow that was arrested as he had reason to believe that all of the information is public when he copied it. I suppose if he knew that there was private information there an argument could be made that it was not his to copy, but how could he know that without looking at it first.
That gets you to Europe, but not the rest of the world. If you want to get to south asia, you have to go through Russia or lay a cable across the Bosphorus which is vulnerable to those nasty submarines. Australia, Iceland, Ireland, and the Americas can only be accessed by submarine bait.
Maybe we need to dig some REALLY long tunnels to put the cables in.
It seems reasonable to me that search warrants should be limited to the jurisdiction of the court making the order. How about an order to perform an action? Could the court order Microsoft, which is in the court's jurisdiction to move something that they control into the court's jurisdiction in order tp make the search warrant valid?
Why would anyone lease their car out? It seems to me that once autonomous cars become common, they will mostly become taxis. Without the cost of a driver, I would think that the cost of a taxi would be lower than driving your own car. Some individuals might have their own specialty vehicle such as luxury cars for the wealthy or muscle cars for hoons. Just chrystal ball thoughts.
While you can make small purchases with just a card swipe, many vendors still require a signature. I can make a $20 purchase at Safeway with just a swipe, but If I buy more at $50 or $60, then they want a signature. Some, mostly smaller companies, still require signatures even for small purchases. I do wish they would expand requires for PINs as I believe that it is better than my scrawl for verifying transactions. At this point, only my Target card has a PIN.
Yep. This is lousy security, but it is on the users as well as Facebook. Even if FB forced a PW change, that won't stop crackers from getting in. It might warn the user that something is going on or it might not. Either way, it reminds be about a saying about horses and barn doors. Users should also be held responsible for not keeping contract info up to date.
It seems to me that they should just get the account holder to give them the mail. If he/she is in the US, they should be able to force him/her to login and give them access. If the police had a search warrant for my house, they can force me to open the door. How is this different?
Generally, a company's first priority is its share holders, followed by its customers. Everyone else is at the end of the list. It is up to the rest of us to set rules through our government that more balanced. It is understandable the Mercedes will take this position, but it should not last.
There have been some fascinating analogies about where the crime was committed, but it seems to me that crimes are being committed in both places. The UK should have first dibs on prosecuting Mr. Love as he is currently in the UK. If they choose not to or the US feels that the punishment is inadequate, then they should be able to push for their own prosecution. Of course the UK has the power to tell the US to take a flying leap, but there could be political or financial consequences to that.
My mother was born in 1929 and never touched a computer until she was in her 70s, but she was no dummy when it came to security. She wrote her ATM PIN, the only PIN she had, as a phone number in her address book. If someone stole her purse, they would have the PIN, but it probably would not be recognized as such.
My response is not listed as an option. I would have left the message where it was and told the sender that while I am not the morality police, I am the network (or at least e-mail) police and he should not be using the corporate mail for these kinds of messages. These kinds of messages can come back to haunt you in the form of a harassment suit.
The data did not leave Europe. The original case was about data on a news papers website. The right to be forgotten applies to search results, not the data itself. I agree that if you have the right to be forgotten, then the data itself should be erased rather than the search results. The search results will sort themselves out once the data is gone.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019