Seems the point still remains, if it can't tell the difference between 1 unit less than 10k and 10k or more, then its a useless test; and certainly not specific enough to expose someone to the very real dangers of extra scrutiny.

> Now, why would an honest citizen need to carry his cash with him?.. Oh, well...

That certainly seems to be the attitude of the aristocracy here. Maybe they should ask the 78 year old German woman who was caught traveling with $40k on her person.

Thank god these thugs are out there...protecting us from old women who don't trust banks! Just think what might have happened if she hadn't been caught. I, for one, am glad our jack booted border enforcers have no fear of the geriatric maffia. Kudos to them for standing up to a dangerous old woman!

If it can't tell the difference between $9999 and $10,000 then its not good enough in my book. Then again, I can't think of any good reason to limit the cash people can travel with. However, protecting people from unreasonable search is more important by far than anything they are otherwise triying to do...it is supposed to be, one of their highest priorities!

But less than 10k is not illegal and even quite common, as in, you can pretty much expect everyone is carrying some amount. As such, everyone should be expected to be putting off these gasses. So basically....this is just a prop that can be used to justify a search on anyone they want to search but don't want to give the real reason.

Problem here is they are not looking for anything that is evidence of a crime. It is legal to carry money over the border up to a certain amount so, the smell of money doesn't actually indicate any crime, and isn't evidence of any crime.

Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to justify expenditures on cool new technology which will be quickly mothballed after its found to be useless or ruled by the courts to not be justification for extra scrutiny.

Not sure why it matters where the end points are. If we live in the same state and do business and I call your cell phone while you are in another state, should that state's laws apply?

I am in my state, they do business in my state, they have offices in my state. I don't see why it should matter where the particular employee I talk to is located at the moment I talk to them.

The fact that they are in india or the call routes through several states seems like it should have no bearing since I, and the entity I am doing business with both do business within the same state.

You have to look at the specific law though. My state, MA is listed as a "two party state" but digging a little more finds: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guid...
" (3) Massachusetts bans "secret" recordings rather than requiring explicit consent from all parties.). "

So, informing someone that they are being recorded is really the requirement, not "consent" though, I would argue that continuing a conversation after being informed of the recording is, in fact, consent. (barring any extraordinary circumstances of course like would normally otherwise be considered as precluding consent, of course)

> The real problem is that firing an underling reflects poorly on his manager(s). This is also the truth everywhere, of
> course, but in normal enterprises there is this dirty and otherwise reprehensible "profit" to think about, so a bad
> employee can still be fired even if the manager's record gets hurt in the process.

I think you are looking at the wrong problem. Yes, this exists but, I look at it this way:

If there is an underperforming employee who just isn't doing the work, there is, most likely, a problem with THAT employee. It may be one you can work with or fix, but, very likely it is localized; and there is a chance, either way, that replacing him fixes it.

If many employees are not doing the work however, the problem is likely not the employees but a more general systemic issue relating to management or work structure; and replacing the employees will likely be about as effective as rotating your tires because the battery stopped charging.

Ever seems to be missing the point. Sure, nearly everybody goofs off occasionally. Have I ever spent most of a work from home day goofing off? Sure. Have I ever dialed into a meeting and played video games because the meeting was totally useless for me? Yup. Ever encompasses many many things.

The thing is, the article isn't about how this one time a guy at the Patent office spent a day goofing off. Its about how goofing off, not doing the work, and then rushing the report is standard operating procedure.

You do get that there is a difference between something that someone did or something that happened and... how business is normally conducted. Like, its one thing to go out for lunch with your coworkers and all get drunk one day....its quite another to do it every day as a matter of course.

> 2. Don't know what happens if they charge your card and you've signed the agreement.

I call them up and let them know that if they don't remove the charge they are going to find out just how effective this policy is at getting them notoriety. Pretty sure I have a lot less to lose in the court of public opinion than they do.

I mean, depending on how you want to call it, you may or may not call the customer a victim in this scenario but...the real victim is the public who are being denied honest opinions; I have no qualms about letting the public know what one group of scammers is trying to pull over on them.

Except "We pay for a license so we have someone to sue" really means "we want someone to blame". You are right, the idea of an actual lawsuit over anything anyone says that about is true.... however, they will use the someone to blame, both to their customers, and for employees to their managers, managers to their directors etc.

What its really comes down to is they want to be able to say "We are working with support right now" so they don't have to take the heat for not knowing what the issue is right away, even if its unreasonable for them to.

Thinking back it was local in Boston so you are probably right. If there is one thing I am sure of, its that the people I was working for would never send us anywhere to go for a conference or pay any reasonable amount for it either; so whatever it was was something they got tossed in for free on a contract. Must have been one of those events.

Prior to working for them I had been to Usenix. Need to start making some requests for next year, I bet I can get these guys to send me to a conference.

> lol Hackers have been doing this for a very long time, but this is nothing new or smart a script kiddie could do it

Sure but it isn't so much about the technology being used as that they are now using it and legitimizing their use of it by targeting a group that is so reviled as to taint any discussion of how they were targeted.

I hate to say it, but this is pretty smart. They seem to have realized that using their new techniques against child porn is the best way forward for them because the issue has stigma to spare that can help quell dissent, then, once the practice is firmly established, they can quietly expand it to everything else they desire.

well.... I don't like to get into the label game of whether I am or am not a libertarian, I do have many such symptahies though.

That said.... there is respected....and there is respected.

On its face, it is hard to argue with such terms without also arguing with other kinds of NDAs which, while I tend to not be a fan of, I am not really dead set against either. In fact, I can only find one reason split that hair, but I do think its a decent reason.... bad reviews are a form of consumer protection and so they are actually asking you to cover up their quality so as to reduce other people's ability to make an informed decision. As such, I would generally be ok with saying.

That said, I should also point out that one has generally already paid by the time one writes a bad review. If they wanted to charge you, they would have to do it after the fact.

As such, I would say, I am ok with them having this policy and not ok with the force of the state being used to enforce its terms. So feel free to charge me $500, I am not going to pay, and i will never come to your establishment again, you can grow old and die thinking I owe you $500 for all I care. Enjoy your policy.

Hows that for libertarian?