Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:criminal defense attorney and programmer here (Score 2) 560

by Svartalf (#47328231) Attached to: Mass. Supreme Court Says Defendant Can Be Compelled To Decrypt Data

Precisely. There's several copies of a prominent law professor's lecture on the subject and spells out PRECISELY why you don't do things like that.

Now, the burning question would be, "how did they get access to his encrypted system files?"- without a warrant, they're just as screwed in light of the recent Supreme Court rulings. You need a warrant for those things- and you need to state you're looking for a specific on them before they can legitimately reach the conclusion the Mass Supreme Court arrived at. Without that, it's just like the Fourth Amendment violation I experienced about 5 years ago. No *VALID* warrant? No case. No seizure allowed.

Comment: Re:WTF? How is this not self incrimination? (Score 1) 560

by Svartalf (#47328165) Attached to: Mass. Supreme Court Says Defendant Can Be Compelled To Decrypt Data

If so, it's not hard to have them get a warrant that specifies this, not a court order to relinquish the password. They're distinctly differing notions- and the Judges there overstepped their authority. If it's legit, they could've issued a warrant for specific information and as a part thereof, compelled the unlock of the secured device for that specific information. Since they didn't...doesn't meet the sniff test in light of current precedent.

Comment: Re:WTF? How is this not self incrimination? (Score 1) 560

by Svartalf (#47328153) Attached to: Mass. Supreme Court Says Defendant Can Be Compelled To Decrypt Data

Heh... Actually, that line of bullshit might be at risk with the recent unanimous decision that law enforcement needed a warrant for mucking about on a defendent's phone. Basically, this is the same thing and it's expected to be overturned by the SCOTUS if it gets before them.

Comment: Re:I lost the password (Score 1) 560

by Svartalf (#47328137) Attached to: Mass. Supreme Court Says Defendant Can Be Compelled To Decrypt Data

And, in recent times (as in within THIS month...) the Supreme Court of the US handed down a UNANIMOUS decision that they had to get a warrant to go digging about on a defendant's phone- this is the same thing.

You have to have a legitimate reason and a warrant to do this. It's expected that this will go to the Supreme Court and be overturned just like the mobile phone story went down.

Comment: I Suppose Next We'll Be Seeing Benghazi Stories... (Score -1, Flamebait) 465

by ewhac (#47260871) Attached to: IRS Lost Emails of 6 More Employees Under Investigation
I don't know who the miserable asshat is who keeps front-paging this blithering right-wing horseshit, but they need to be fired yesterday.

This is a non-story. It has always been a non-story. It has already been investigated, and what turned up was a gigantic pile of nothing. But then, that's all Daryl Issa's "investigations" have ever turned up.

Yes, the IRS investigated a bunch of applications for tax-exempt status for a number of "Tea Party" groups. They also performed the same investigations on so-called liberal groups. They're supposed to do that; otherwise any moron could claim tax-exempt status. Were there problems with the investigations? Yes, because the tax law that requires them is so vague that it's basically left entirely to the discretion of the investigator.

Were any applications denied? No, not really. Did the IRS investigate more "Tea Party" groups than liberal groups? It would appear so. It would also appear that there were a hell of a lot more "Tea Party" applications flooding in during the timeframe in question (which makes sense, given that the "Tea Party" is not grassroots, but entirely the construction of FreedomWorks).

As for how "terribly convenient" it is for multiple IRS personnel under investigation to have lost the data in question, well... Considering that the IRS is underfunded (sounds weird, but it's true); and considering that they have tens of thousands of personal computers, none of them brand new, and all of them in various states of disrepair and subjected to various forms of abuse; and considering that every one of those tens of thousands of computers are running FUCKING WINDOWS , then you are provably a drooling idiot if you think the probability for unrecoverable data loss is anything less than 1.0.

The only story here is that IRS regs concerning tax-exempt political advocacy organizations are hopelessly vague. Moreover, it's not a story that belongs on a tech-oriented site. If I wanted to read about fabricated right-wing ghost stories, I'd visit RedState. Get this shit off Slashdot.

Comment: Re:Who Cares? (Score 1) 354

by Svartalf (#47167001) Attached to: 3D Printed Gun Maker Cody Wilson Defends Open Source Freedom

Your reading is flawed. Hint for you: Militia means group of able-bodied people, not what you think it means. If you're an adult US're that "Militia" they talk to in that part of the Amendment. Using it to exclude and preclude ownership and bearing is to misunderstand quite a bit of the writings of the times ON TOP of misunderstanding the Constitution.

Comment: Re:One of the oldest semantic games played on /. (Score 2) 126

by ewhac (#46719391) Attached to: Photo Web Site Offers a Wall of Shame For Image Thieves

I see this old semantic game blooms anew on Slashdot. "It isn't stealing". Fine. It's fraud. Don't worry that your reputation is shot and/or somebody else is trading on your good name. It isn't stealing. Oh... the victim feels much better now.

I don't understand; what are you complaining about? You're correct. It isn't theft, it is fraud. So why call it theft when it's clearly something else?

If you call it by the correct name, you'll get community support, even among the "copying is not theft" crowd. OTOH, if you call it stealing, then you'll get mired in a gigantic semantic dogpile as hundreds of people re-litigate what constitutes "stealing."

We don't even need to raise the "Is it stealing?" question in this case. It's clearly fraud. So call it "fraud." Geez...


Can the ObamaCare Enrollment Numbers Be Believed? 723

Posted by timothy
from the 7.1m-impossible-things-before-breakfast dept.
An anonymous reader writes "When the Obama administration announced on April 1 that an estimated 7.1 million had signed up for ObamaCare by the end of March, it seemed a nearly impossible achievement. To reach 7.1 million, sign-ups had to rocket up by 67% in just one month. That's astounding enough, but an IBD review of existing ObamaCare enrollment data shows that the mathematical challenge of reaching 7.1 million sign-ups was even tougher."

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson