Comment Re:Allegedly (Score 1) 310
Until a trial has been completed all allegations made by the government must be prefaced with "allegedly".
Until a trial has been completed all allegations made by the government must be prefaced with "allegedly".
It has yet to be proven in court so it is "allegedly".
So was it illegal to do this?
Placing sell orders with no intention of fulfilling them is against SEC rules.
As long as you place trades on the book that you're willing to fill based on the rules of that market there's no reason why you should be called a 'crook' for that.
He didn't do that.
By allegedly placing multiple, simultaneous, large-volume sell orders at different price points—a technique known as “layering”—Sarao created the appearance of substantial supply in the market. As part of the scheme, Sarao allegedly modified these orders frequently so that they remained close to the market price, and typically canceled the orders without executing them.
He places many sell orders with no intention of filling them. While it is fine to cancel an order it becomes manipulation when one places and cancels many orders.
What's the advantage of the Stingray then?
Timing. Stingray allows real-time access to the presence of a desired number without having to wait for the information to filter through the telco's bureaucracy. A telco will not watch for a suspect while police will.
BTW, would a blanket search warrant even be Constitutional?
I bet the warrant was more like "here is the list of locations from the cell phone we would like to search". I think that because the judge approved all the locations the OP calls it a "blanket warrant".
Maybe the the officer was acting like a dick in response to some action on your part. I find police officers have a tendency to respond in a similar manner to which they are treated.
To me it looks like the "stable" period between October 2014 and December 2014. Notice what happened in January 2015? It lost value again.
I wince whenever I hear flaky claims like "most people do not have the experience or knowledge..."; heck, most people don't have the experience or knowledge to read Slashdot. That is just arrogance, and dismissal, and is entirely unworthy.
How about instead of making blanket assessments you look at each individual instance. Sure, in many instances the "most people do not have the experience or knowledge..." argument is invalid. In this instance I think it is.
I really don't give a hoot about this particular case, but how about giving us an educated guess as to how many 'innocent' cell phone calls are intercepted each and every day in each and every major city(and undoubtedly many mid and small sized cities as well) by not only the local PD but also any number of state and federal agencies.
Those are "interceptions" that are not logged or looked at. All that happens is the call is passed through to the real cell tower.
You see the judge had decided to issue a blanket search warrant for all the locations on the GPS.
So the cell phone of a suspect found in possession of dealer quantities of drugs was searched and found to contain an number of locations. The judge found that the link between the drugs and the locations on the cell phone sufficient evidence to provide probable cause to search those locations. You do not have enough detail to make an accurate determination on how far the warrant went. Was it restricted to locations visited in the previous few hours? Last day? Last Week? Ever? It it was the last few hours I would call it reasonable. Do you even know how many places were searched and in what priority? If the warrant only covered a few hours I do not see the problem.
A search warrant for one cell phone is really a warrant for thousands of cell phones.
Nope, a search warrant allows evidence in court. Any evidence gathered from phone numbers not on the stingray warrant would not be allowed in court. See the difference?
Auto mechanics has always required knowledge, skill, and personal responsibility, and nothing has changed!
Modifying a physical device such as a throttle cable has well known and simple testing procedures. In this case the car would act improperly the first time the gas pedal was pressed. Undocumented software, on the other hand, is much more complex and there may be unknown interactions. Auto mechanics are not system programmers and do not have the testing rigs to apply many different inputs to verify that the system works correctly.
1. How many accidents have happened in the last years due to misprograming of ECUs
Some accidents need to happen before anything is done?
2. How many independent and small shops that eat into automakers profits will close down due to the impossibility of performing any but the most simple repair jobs?
This is exactly why I mate my original comment. It is not about "simple repair jobs". Or even tuning the car using approved software.
Industry concerns are mounting that modifying these ECUs and the software coding that runs them could lead to vulnerabilities in vehicle safety and cyber security.
It is about modifying the code in the ECU not about modifying the parameters in the ECU. The latter is how one tunes the vehicle. It has nothing to do with any other repair on the vehicle.
Well then you'd better fucking quit driving, because any backyard genius has always been able to do that with a fucking brick on the pedal (or under it, as applicable)!
That would be a deliberate act rather than an accident caused by not fully understanding the interactions in an undocumented control system. See the difference?
Police outlined for the first time this month their usage of the stingray, pegging it at more than 4,300 times — a figure experts called a "huge number" compared to a trickle of disclosures in other cities.
Lets do the math over. 4300/8/365= 1.5 times a day. Then there is the issue of duration and range. Is every day a different court order? Is every Stingray a different court order? One ongoing investigation that covers a home, a workplace and a meeting place would more than cause that many "uses".
Big numbers look big until you break them down.
isn't dangerous enough to justify destroying the concept of ownership of property and replacing it with corporate serfdom,
Exaggerate much? Not allowing mods to one component of vehicles is not "destroying the concept of ownership of property". You still own the car, you can still sell the car, you can still fix almost everything on the car. Ability to mod an ECU has nothing to to with ownership of other items. This blatant exaggeration just shows that you don't have a real argument.
If they try that then bitch. They have not.The ECU (engine control unity) has nothing to do with the infotainment unit. Sorry but I dont want to be driving down the road with some backyard genius who has "tweaked" their ECU and ABS in such a way as it disables the breaks and locks the throttle open.
"Don't try to outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal." - Zaphod Beeblebrox in "Hithiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
