Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I hope this surprises no one,.. (Score 1) 68

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.

Comment: Re:I hope this surprises no one,.. (Score 1) 68

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.

Comment: Re: Maybe, maybe not. (Score 1) 749

by BitterOak (#47453665) Attached to: Obama Administration Says the World's Servers Are Ours

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.)

Comment: Re:Absurd (Score 1) 181

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?

Comment: Re:Over-reacting is required (Score 1) 148

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".)

Comment: Re:Shill (Score 1) 534

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.

Comment: Re:Shill (Score 1) 534

> 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.

Comment: Re:In other news (Score 1) 358

by BitterOak (#47310921) Attached to: Florida Man Faces $48k Fine For Jamming Drivers' Cellphones

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.

Comment: Re:And? (Score 1) 251

This is called suborning perjury and is a crime.

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.

Comment: Re:And? (Score 1, Interesting) 251

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.

Comment: Re:Overreach much? (Score 1) 216

by BitterOak (#47249273) Attached to: US Agency Aims To Regulate Map Aids In Vehicles

They want to have the authority to regulate apps that after release have been linked to "safety related issues" that have an intended purpose of being used primarily while driving on a road.

Ultimately though, they only have the authority to regulate what features are sold in cars as they leave the factory (this power derives from the Interstate Commerce Clause). It's up to state governments to set the rules of the road and penalize drivers for breaking those rules. As to whether or not the Constitution allows them the authority to regulate apps isn't so clear. If they are sold commercially in interstate commerce, then they might have such authority, but there might also be First Amendment issues as software has been classified by at least some courts as a form of protected speech. And I'm not sure how freeware would fit into all this. Personally, I think it would be best if the NHTSA stuck to offering guidelines and leave it up to the states to pass the actual laws.

Real Users hate Real Programmers.