Comment Clearly you're not Canadian. (Score 4, Informative) 502
The parent post was clearly not written by a Canadian, as any good Canadian knows that Tim Horton's does NOT serve poutine. Otherwise though, your post is spot on.
A restaurant supply reclamation company should surely have the expertise and the responsibility, no?
Responsibility to do what? It's not their data nor their customers data on the stuff they're selling. They're just a buyer and seller of goods. As long as the equipment is not stolen and is in good working order when supplied to their customers they've met their responsibility. I'm not aware they have any responsibility to the former owners or their employees at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, though, I'm not a lawyer.
When someone goes out of business and liquidates (is forced to liquidate) their capital assets, they're not going to give a crap about what data might be left on these devices.
And even if they do give a crap, they might not be able to do anything about it. It is not uncommon in bankruptcy or liquidation proceedings for property to be seized immediately in order to prevent the (former) owners from carting off all the valuable goods and hiding them, possibly selling them off at a much later time. Businesses can be locked up and chains put on the doors to prevent the owners from looting the place before their inventory can be assessed. This could very well prevent even a security conscious business from deleting private data from systems before they're taken and sold off.
This gets more warped. It would likely be illlegal to produce certain data on EU citizens like this according to EU privacy directive.
I've never heard of a privacy law that doesn't have an exemption for court ordered production of documents. Generally speaking, complying with a court order is an absolute defense against otherwise unlawful activity. (There may be extreme exceptions, in cases of war crimes, genocide etc., such as the Nazis engaged in.)
How can any nation grant right over something outside its sovereignty?
It happens all the time right here on earth: fishing rights, offshore drilling rights, shipwreck recovery rights, etc. It's nothing new. There are laws and treaties that cover all kinds of extra-territorial stuff. Why should space be any different?
As close as you can be without the title.
So, when a Republican does something bad, it's because they're a Republican (further reinforcing the notion that Republicans are "bad".) When a Democrat does something bad, it's because they're acting Republican (further reinforcing the notion that Republicans are "bad".)
Although that is true, there are also many states that have laws on the books regarding police officers "moonlighting" since so many of them got caught double dipping claiming their police salary at the same time they were working their security stint.
I think you missed the point of my post. I'm not talking about city police officers moonlighting, I'm talking about officers working for private companies as their only job. As I said in my post, you don't have to work for a police department to be a police officer.
They don't give you a Purple Heart for shooting yourself in the foot.
When did it become popular to hate on Perl on Slashdot? I thought Slashdot itself was written in Perl.
> Last I heard private security does NOT have the same powers as police. Not even close.
Unless they ARE police.
Believe it or not, this situation is less uncommon than you might think, and not exactly new.
This is quite correct. You don't have to be working for a public police department to be a police officer. All you need is to be deputized, which usually involves passing some sort of exam and then getting a letter signed by some controlling police agency (usually state or municipal). There are many examples. As the parent pointed out, campus police at most universities work this way. Some high schools also have police officers on salary, and some private business which accommodate a large public population (eg. shopping malls, etc.) may employ deputized police officers for security. They have largely the same arrest powers that ordinary police officers do, so for example you could be charged with resisting arrest if you try to run away from them when they stop you, etc. It is a big mistake to assume that you don't have to do what they tell you just because they are working for a private company rather than the city or state.
We barely avoided this catastrophe!
No thanks to Obama.
And if he drove past an accident and interrupted a 911 call? Man fuck you.
There's no reason to think he wouldn't have turned off the jammer if he saw an accident.
By jamming their phones, drivers are more likely to look down at their phones wondering why the hell their calls isn't going through, making them MORE likely to cause an accident.
An accident which wouldn't have occurred if the driver weren't using the cell phone while driving in the first place! Don't try to shift the blame here. This guy is just trying to make the roads safer; he got no personal or financial benefit by operating this jammer. His motives were good, even if his methods were a bit extreme.
This is called suborning perjury and is a crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
It's only a crime if you're suborning a specific instance of perjury. If I write a book saying that people should lie on the witness stand all the time, that isn't a crime. In fact there have been books written on how to be a hit man (The Death Dealers Manual). It isn't a crime to publish such a book since it doesn't advocate a specific instance of murder, but just instructs how to do it in general.
It won't stop until the DoJ actually starts handing out serious penalties instead of a slap on the wrist for this sort of behavior. I'm talking jail time.
It's only illegal if they counseled the cops to do this in a specific case. If they just told the cops that's what they should do in general, then it isn't a crime.
BLISS is ignorance.
