The wording seems to be contradictory. However, it is clearly stating in the first part that the lawyers may read documents such as the Wikileaks detainee related state department cables in the New York Times and from their personal, "non-U.S.-government issued" computers. I can imagine that a lawyer might like to highlight certain passages, save or print out copies of these documents. They still can't do that, but they can at least read them.
"In guidance to the lawyers — who have security clearances, and so are required to follow government rules for the handling of classified information — the department’s court security officer said Friday that they were now permitted to view the leaked documents on the Internet."
“While you may access such material from your non-U.S.-government-issued personal and work computers, you are not permitted to download, save, print, disseminate, or otherwise reproduce, maintain, or transport potentially classified information,” the directive said.
The wording in this last paragraph is from the Department of Justice and appears to ignore the technical reality that viewing a document in a browser requires a copy of that document to be downloaded to your computer. I don't think they are that naive. Instead, it is probably their way of saving face and pretending that all the security restrictions needed are still in place for a classified document while avoiding any problems in court for their prosecution of these detainees. The truth, of course, is that once a classified document is public, there is no point in maintaining policies intending to keep that, still classified, document secret.
So, the law allows warrantless searches within a reasonable distance from the border (100 air miles which includes any ocean borders 12 miles from land). There are restrictions on this that the ACLU link doesn't mention.
"A search at the border’s functional equivalent is constitutionally valid when: (1) a reasonable
certainty exists that the person or thing crossed the border; (2) a reasonable certainty exists that
there was no change in the object of the search since it crossed the border; and (3) the search was
conducted as soon as practicable after the border crossing."
The above test pretty much eliminates the Orlando area. There is also an exception for ICE or CBP to enter private property (but not buildings) within 25 miles of the border. I had been under the delusion that Orlando was closer to the coast, but this exception also does not apply to Orlando area. Finally, ICE can question or detain individuals anywhere in the U.S. to determine, for example, if aliens have a right to be in the U.S.. It is not clear to me if this includes the ability to stop a vehicle to ask questions. Apparently, this does not allow them to search a vehicle which involves the same restrictions for all law enforcement officers.
16 INA § 287(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3). This statute also authorizes searches without warrant “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.” Reasonable distance is defined by 8 C.F.R. § 287.1(a)(2) to mean “within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance which may be fixed by the chief patrol agent of CBP, or the special agent in charge of ICE.” External boundary is defined by 8 C.F.R. §287.1(a)(1) to mean “the land boundaries and the territorial sea of the United States extending 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law
Are those impromptu pull-overs ICE agents detaining someone driving on a highway? Impromptu suggests arbitrary, in that there may not be reasonable suspicion. ICE certainly has the ability to do this on the border (and airports for international flights). I remember reading somewhere that random searches can be done anywhere within 20 miles of the border. I am curious if that power is being used in the Orlando area.
Iran, hire me as a consultant and I will give you the full details of how to have this up and running quickly. Here's the overview on my proposal: Use Novell's IPX protocol stack instead of TCP/IP. Any patents have probably expired by now and although core routers still handle and route IPX packets, most hosts do not handle this stack anymore. Additionally, we can change a couple of key fields in the headers to make it incompatible with the existing IPX protocol stack in such a way that makes it a huge pain in the ass to do protocol conversion. You would have to know these IPX packets were coming from Iran to handle conversion to regular IPX or the TCP/IP stack. Large scale gateways would be impossible without Iran's cooperation and this scheme would make small scale gateways much more difficult.
As your consultant I would have to point out a couple of caveats. You will never be able to drop the parallel network plan. A TCP/IP network connected to the rest of the world will always be needed for business, scientific research, and for your government to keep tabs on world news, foreign governments, and ex-pat dissidents. Finally, I must advise you that separating your network from the internet may spark a backlash among the general populace which will end up countering the effect you desire. You cannot erase the knowledge of the existence of the internet. Although your government clearly understands the dangers of unfiltered information to it's people and itself, you cannot suppress the inherent curiosity that exists in all cultures.
click on the other link, for Public Citizen, and then click on the "dendrite rule" link within that article. This is free and contains the court documents.
My guess is the park police will just close the memorial like they did at the end of the video. It will be curious to see how they handle an, un-permitted protest in front of it. They could bring in the riot police and not let anyone near it or they could let it happen and hope interest in later mass protests dies down.
On further thought, the only way I can see this work is if Bamboom receives a signal from one or more rooftop antennas and then inside a faraday caged room re-broadcasts the signal to all it's tiny antennas. What is the legal twist on that, I wonder?
According to Bamboom's video they have arrays of tiny antennas connected to tuners in a rack of equipment that is inside some room in a building. I am rather skeptical that this odd technology setup will give users a decent and reliable signal. This is particularly true when you consider that ota television in any community often comes from several, separately located, broadcast antennas. There is also the consideration that antenna element length has to match the transmission wavelength, either half-wave or quarter-wave. Cell phone antennas can be tiny because the wavelength is shorter than that used for ota television. So, apart from any discussion of legality of such a system as presented by Bamboom, I am wondering if there is some hoodwinking going on.
I must disagree. Multicast is more efficient than broadcast as it uses only the bandwidth needed to get to just the current set of active destinations and not all destinations. This is why the internet was not set up to allow broadcast. LANs allow broadcast in the MAC layer but this was later seen as a mistake. Sat and ota technologies are not amenable to multicast but cable is. As the internet, cable, and phone systems merge, multicast will replace any broadcast technology in use within a copper or fiber pipe.
As far as watching video on a tiny screen, I don't get it either.
Re: Bigger fundamental errant assumption at issue here...
Are you sure that file size and hash signature are not used as factors in identifying infringing files as well as filename? If you set up your honeypot as you describe, why wouldn't they sue you for trademark infringement?
The easiest way is if two or more devices are found to have overlapping sessions for a single account. If the server won't allow that, even the attempt to log on while another session was active should be enough to indicate a violation. Another way is to fingerprint a fixed set of devices during registration and only allow those devices to log on. This works best with just one device, but I think you would have to allow at least one fixed device and one mobile one. This is not foolproof and works better as a discussion between you and the company, with the threat of losing service, rather than in a court of law.
How do you fingerprint a device? Most service is going to involve a browser and that can be fingerprinted with information from the HTTP headers (user agent etc.). A separate application, plug-in for the browser, or script running within the browser may have access to further information from the computer account. Acceptable IP addresses or range of IP addresses can also added to this fingerprint. Software can flag a deviation much like that used in flagging credit card fraud.
Tech savvy people could always find a way to get around this. A company doesn't need a foolproof system and there is always going to be some sort of sharing allowed (e.g. within a single household).
In a court of law, LEO would have to locate and seize the devices involved and through forensic analysis and other evidence, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person other than you was using the account on said device. This is no harder than proving a particular person actually downloaded child porn but sure is a lot of effort to go through for sharing subscriptions. If Tennessee needs to fill their jails they can take some from California's overflowing gulag.
This is already illegal under federal law, CFAA. Your friend, that you gave the password to, has accessed a server without, (the company's) authorization. That's one count, probably misdemeanor, with a max penalty of one year in the slammer. A second count would be that it was done with the intent to defraud the company. I can imagine that you, the sharer, can be charged with exceeding authority to access a computer by allowing your friend to log on as well.
Now that Bin Laden is dead, let's get the FBI's priorities right and have them focus on subscription sharing.
I am not sure if you are trying to be funny or are seriously trolling. Either way, it made me laugh. I do suggest you put your comments on the same day as the posts or the next day, otherwise no one is going to read them.
MJ cannot release the names of patients to any journalist without being in violation of HIPAA. In the comments to the ARS article, Tim Lee addresses this by saying he asked MJ to have patients contact him. The fact that no one did cannot be construed to mean that all the patients are fictional. Maybe none of them wanted to talk to a journalist about it.
Neither Tim Lee, nor anyone else, can really conclude that MJ is astroturfing. I think there is enough evidence for law enforcement to investigate and I would expect that to happen soon.
The MJ blog post, "thou shall not impersonate others on the internet", refers to a case where a professor was impersonating another actual professor in postings on the internet. That is not what is happening in the reviews coming from MJ which are likely from fictional people. Thus, the blog post is not closely related and I wouldn't bother trying to read nefarious motivations into their removal of it. Tim Lee's story references a lawsuit brought by NY State Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, against a cosmetic surgery company in 2009 for not only writing and posting many self-serving positive reviews about themselves, but actually creating their own review website without revealing who they really were. The suit was settled for $300K in penalties. From the press release:
These tactics constitute deceptive commercial practices, false advertising, and fraudulent and illegal conduct under New York and federal consumer protection law. The settlement marks a strike against the growing practice of “astroturfing,” in which employees pose as independent consumers to post positive reviews and commentary to Web sites and Internet message boards about their own company.
I would hope that MJ is hit with such charges under consumer protection law rather than some DA or Attorney General trying to extend computer fraud law to apply in this case.
It is ironic that the case against Thomas Tamm was dropped by the Justice Department a few months ago while they are continuing the case against Thomas Drake. The case against Drake arose because the FBI/NSA was searching for the source of the leak to the NY Times about "stellar wind", and Tamm was the original source for the Times. This adds to the feeling that the choice of leak cases is arbitrary and driven by other motivations than national security.
On the post: ACLU Drags The State Department To Court For Its Failure To Declassify Publicly Available Documents
Re: Re: lawyers access
On the post: ACLU Drags The State Department To Court For Its Failure To Declassify Publicly Available Documents
lawyers access
From a June 10th NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/us/politics/11wiki.html
"In guidance to the lawyers — who have security clearances, and so are required to follow government rules for the handling of classified information — the department’s court security officer said Friday that they were now permitted to view the leaked documents on the Internet."
“While you may access such material from your non-U.S.-government-issued personal and work computers, you are not permitted to download, save, print, disseminate, or otherwise reproduce, maintain, or transport potentially classified information,” the directive said.
The wording in this last paragraph is from the Department of Justice and appears to ignore the technical reality that viewing a document in a browser requires a copy of that document to be downloaded to your computer. I don't think they are that naive. Instead, it is probably their way of saving face and pretending that all the security restrictions needed are still in place for a classified document while avoiding any problems in court for their prosecution of these detainees. The truth, of course, is that once a classified document is public, there is no point in maintaining policies intending to keep that, still classified, document secret.
On the post: Is Pretending Your Domain Name Has Been Seized By ICE The New Rickroll?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"A search at the border’s functional equivalent is constitutionally valid when: (1) a reasonable
certainty exists that the person or thing crossed the border; (2) a reasonable certainty exists that
there was no change in the object of the search since it crossed the border; and (3) the search was
conducted as soon as practicable after the border crossing."
The above test pretty much eliminates the Orlando area. There is also an exception for ICE or CBP to enter private property (but not buildings) within 25 miles of the border. I had been under the delusion that Orlando was closer to the coast, but this exception also does not apply to Orlando area. Finally, ICE can question or detain individuals anywhere in the U.S. to determine, for example, if aliens have a right to be in the U.S.. It is not clear to me if this includes the ability to stop a vehicle to ask questions. Apparently, this does not allow them to search a vehicle which involves the same restrictions for all law enforcement officers.
From: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31826.pdf
16 INA § 287(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3). This statute also authorizes searches without warrant “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.” Reasonable distance is defined by 8 C.F.R. § 287.1(a)(2) to mean “within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States or any shorter distance which may be fixed by the chief patrol agent of CBP, or the special agent in charge of ICE.” External boundary is defined by 8 C.F.R. §287.1(a)(1) to mean “the land boundaries and the territorial sea of the United States extending 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law
On the post: Is Pretending Your Domain Name Has Been Seized By ICE The New Rickroll?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Censoring Begins At Home: Iran Announces Plans To Build Its Own Internet, Operating System
Hey Iran, hire me!
As your consultant I would have to point out a couple of caveats. You will never be able to drop the parallel network plan. A TCP/IP network connected to the rest of the world will always be needed for business, scientific research, and for your government to keep tabs on world news, foreign governments, and ex-pat dissidents. Finally, I must advise you that separating your network from the internet may spark a backlash among the general populace which will end up countering the effect you desire. You cannot erase the knowledge of the existence of the internet. Although your government clearly understands the dangers of unfiltered information to it's people and itself, you cannot suppress the inherent curiosity that exists in all cultures.
On the post: Censoring Begins At Home: Iran Announces Plans To Build Its Own Internet, Operating System
Re: Now everyone is going to want their own internet
On the post: Judge Orders Unmasking Of Wikipedia Users; Fails To Follow Standard Anonymity Protections
Re:
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re:
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Re: That's what the guards at the Auschwitz said ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xGw2e7P8g-s#at=15
On the post: Yet Another Company Rigs Up A Silly Technical Setup To Let You Watch Broadcast TV On Your Mobile Device
Re: tiny antennas
On the post: Yet Another Company Rigs Up A Silly Technical Setup To Let You Watch Broadcast TV On Your Mobile Device
tiny antennas
On the post: Yet Another Company Rigs Up A Silly Technical Setup To Let You Watch Broadcast TV On Your Mobile Device
Re: Re: Re: Well, yeah...
As far as watching video on a tiny screen, I don't get it either.
On the post: Litigious Porn Producers Claim People Infringe Even If They Accidentally Downloaded Its Porn Disguised As Popular Works
Re: Bigger fundamental errant assumption at issue here...
On the post: RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends
Re: Wheeeee!
How do you fingerprint a device? Most service is going to involve a browser and that can be fingerprinted with information from the HTTP headers (user agent etc.). A separate application, plug-in for the browser, or script running within the browser may have access to further information from the computer account. Acceptable IP addresses or range of IP addresses can also added to this fingerprint. Software can flag a deviation much like that used in flagging credit card fraud.
Tech savvy people could always find a way to get around this. A company doesn't need a foolproof system and there is always going to be some sort of sharing allowed (e.g. within a single household).
In a court of law, LEO would have to locate and seize the devices involved and through forensic analysis and other evidence, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person other than you was using the account on said device. This is no harder than proving a particular person actually downloaded child porn but sure is a lot of effort to go through for sharing subscriptions. If Tennessee needs to fill their jails they can take some from California's overflowing gulag.
On the post: RIAA Wants To Put People In Jail For Sharing Their Music Subscription Login With Friends
already illegal
Now that Bin Laden is dead, let's get the FBI's priorities right and have them focus on subscription sharing.
On the post: IFPI/BPI: Picking Off The Weak In The Herd
Kudos to those who know which movie ghostnet is from.
On the post: The Federal Government's Vindictive Legal Assault On NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Whistleblowers
Re:
On the post: Medical Justice Caught Posting Happy Reviews Of Doctors; Claims It's Just Helping Patients
talking to patients
Neither Tim Lee, nor anyone else, can really conclude that MJ is astroturfing. I think there is enough evidence for law enforcement to investigate and I would expect that to happen soon.
On the post: Medical Justice Caught Posting Happy Reviews Of Doctors; Claims It's Just Helping Patients
impersonation or fictional?
These tactics constitute deceptive commercial practices, false advertising, and fraudulent and illegal conduct under New York and federal consumer protection law. The settlement marks a strike against the growing practice of “astroturfing,” in which employees pose as independent consumers to post positive reviews and commentary to Web sites and Internet message boards about their own company.
I would hope that MJ is hit with such charges under consumer protection law rather than some DA or Attorney General trying to extend computer fraud law to apply in this case.
On the post: The Federal Government's Vindictive Legal Assault On NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Whistleblowers
Irony
Next >>