I have an rack of 8" floppy disk drives and boxes of blank 8" disks that are so old that they are about as reliable as a firefighter made of chocolate. They'd be perfect!
If exceptions to rules like "you have to have a valid warrant" are ignored because of some nebulous notion of "good faith", then the rules may as well not exist at all.
This is yet another piece of evidence pointing to how the "justice system" is anything but just.
Re: Re: Telling possessions and more telling responses
Their view of what constitutes "justice" is "whatever outcome we prefer". If that's the definition, then due process certainly is an impediment to "justice".
Yes, I'm absolutely sure that they're straight-up lying. My point was really aimed at people who assume that the feds are honest and virtuous. If you assume that they are, then their statement means that they're dangerously incompetent.
No, it's not against the law. The reason that employers usually don't say anything (good or bad) about former employees aside from facts (start date, end date, eligible for reemployment) is because of fear of lawsuits. Years ago, there were a couple of high-visibility lawsuits involving this (where the comments the former employer made were part of an active effort to make sure the employees could never be hired by anybody for vindictive reasons.
Although the lawsuit involved uncommon behavior that pretty much everybody would consider actionable, not just routine "he slacked off and was always late" stuff, ever since then the collective wisdom has been to not take any chances.
I'm not seeing any facts in that article that change a thing. It is an opinion piece, much like this article is an opinion piece. We have two opposing opinions, but where is the disagreement about facts?
I love the firm's comment in so many ways. I can't decide which has greater comedic value -- the wondrously frothy diatribe or the fact that any doubts one might have about the accuracy of the complaints of the ex-workers are immediately destroyed by it.
"you had one person flat out admit that the 'trade' deals had to be kept secret because if the public knew what was in them they'd object and the deals might not go through as a result."
Yes, this was (and still is, I think) the official explanation for the secrecy. They usually phrase it a little differently, though. The line is that trade deals have to be negotiated secretly because there will always be strenuous objections from the public no matter what the deal contains. Those objections would derail the entire process because the fighting would never end.
This is the model I see as the future of TV. Each show existing like its own "channel", with its own web presence where you can watch it, and probably (but not necessarily) also distributing through an aggregator like Hulu, YouTube, etc.
Basically, much like a refined form of podcasting.
"We as a society will have to learn that everyone makes mistakes. Everyone has pasts. Everyone has teenage nudes on the web somewhere."
From what I can see amongst my kids and their friends, folks from their mid 20s and younger totally get this already. We'll have a period where the old farts like me will stand in their way, but I think it will be a pretty brief period.
Strictly speaking, navigating and selecting from tree structures predates electronic computing entirely, arguably by at least 1,000 years, but certainly by 17th or 18th century.
On the post: Congrats, FBI, You've Now Convinced Silicon Valley To Encrypt And Dump Log Files
Re: Re: Until forced to keep logs
On the post: Sony Thinks It Can Charge An 'Administrative Fee' For Fair Use
Re: Re:
On the post: Another Court Finds FBI's NIT Warrants To Be Invalid, But Credits Agents' 'Good Faith' To Deny Suppression
Re: If exception exist
On the post: Another Court Finds FBI's NIT Warrants To Be Invalid, But Credits Agents' 'Good Faith' To Deny Suppression
If exception exist
This is yet another piece of evidence pointing to how the "justice system" is anything but just.
On the post: Another Whistleblower -- One Who Tried To Protect Other Whistleblowers -- Says The 'Official Channels' Are Worthless
Re: Re: Telling possessions and more telling responses
Never mind that the definition is absurd.
On the post: Shameful: House Panel Votes Down Plan To Make Public Domain Congressional Research Public
Re: Re: any tax payer funded research ... should be public domain
Why not worry about both?
On the post: FBI Agent Testifies That The Agency's Tor-Exploiting Malware Isn't Actually Malware
Re: Re: Color me surprised
On the post: Oculus Is Hurting VR's Development By Supporting Walled Gardens, Closed Ecosystems
This is why
On the post: Law Firm Subpoenas Glassdoor For Negative Anonymous Reviews, Supercharges Streisand Effect With Its Response
Re: I thought it was against the law
Although the lawsuit involved uncommon behavior that pretty much everybody would consider actionable, not just routine "he slacked off and was always late" stuff, ever since then the collective wisdom has been to not take any chances.
On the post: FBI Agent Testifies That The Agency's Tor-Exploiting Malware Isn't Actually Malware
Re:
On the post: FBI Agent Testifies That The Agency's Tor-Exploiting Malware Isn't Actually Malware
Color me surprised
Not at all.
On the post: Self-Proclaimed 'Badass Lawyer' Loses Defamation Suit Against Parody Twitter Account
Re: Watch out guys, we're dealing with a badass over here
On the post: Court Says Google Doesn't Have A First Amendment Right To Drop A Site From Its Search Results
Re: Re:
On the post: Law Firm Subpoenas Glassdoor For Negative Anonymous Reviews, Supercharges Streisand Effect With Its Response
That is beautiful
On the post: Why Is Congress Undermining President's Surveillance Oversight Board?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Is Congress Undermining President's Surveillance Oversight Board?
Re: Re: Re: The problem is, you're not voting FOR anyone.
On the post: New Leak Reveals Proposal To Extend Corporate Sovereignty Massively To Include Intra-EU Investments
Re: Re:
Yes, this was (and still is, I think) the official explanation for the secrecy. They usually phrase it a little differently, though. The line is that trade deals have to be negotiated secretly because there will always be strenuous objections from the public no matter what the deal contains. Those objections would derail the entire process because the fighting would never end.
It's a clever piece of bullshit.
On the post: Once Again With Feeling: Cord Cutting Is Not A 'Myth'
Re: Re: Would cut, but cannot figure how to
Basically, much like a refined form of podcasting.
On the post: Why Is Twitter Sending Legal Letters Warning People About Tweeting About The Gagged Topic Of A 'Celebrity Threesome'
Re: Society disrupted by technology.
From what I can see amongst my kids and their friends, folks from their mid 20s and younger totally get this already. We'll have a period where the old farts like me will stand in their way, but I think it will be a pretty brief period.
On the post: Google Goes On The Offensive Against Troll Armed With Old Mp3 Player Patent
Re: Re:
Next >>