Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Wrong Title (Score 1) 499

by DaHat (#47877125) Attached to: Researcher Fired At NSF After Government Questions Her Role As 1980s Activist

You know, the really pathetic thing about what you just said is that I've never illegally downloaded music or movies, and never cheated on my partner.

Care to cite where I accused you of any such thing?

And you're seriously saying that will get flagged as a lie and make me untrustworthy?

Depends on what else they know... either based on their own info or that which is said about you by others and the credibility of those statements.

Let me tell you this right now ... the people screening based on those things are morons unless they actually have proof to the contrary.

Oh? And you've been on the receiving end of such Q's and know their mental processes? I haven't... so I can't say either way.

Because unless you have evidence, assuming everyone who answers no to those questions is lying is completely idiotic. Because, not everybody has done those things, and if you have no evidence suggesting otherwise is just being an asshole.

No where did I say answering no would get you flagged as a liar... I said that depending on the circumstances they it will raising a flag that they may not be the most trustworthy. Key word in that sentence *may*. Further investigation may be required. Maybe they've honestly never used Napster back in the day and instead has a rather lengthy iTunes purchase history?

A broader thing is you seem to thinks such a background check has the same level of evidence & burden of proof as a court does in a criminal trial. It does not.

I increasingly believe the people who do security screenings don't give an actual damn about the truth, just their own interpretations of reality.

Very true at the airport, when it comes to security clearances... it depends on who is doing the vetting and to what degree they are doing it (based on the degree of clearance being sought).

Comment: Re:Wrong Title (Score 2) 499

by DaHat (#47876829) Attached to: Researcher Fired At NSF After Government Questions Her Role As 1980s Activist

It's not about answering yes or no. It's about disclosure.

Exactly, but let me add... these background checks aren't so much about checking as to if you've lead a boring and uncompromised life... but more about gauging your integrity with regards to honesty and ability to be blackmailed.

Example: An old college of mine is now a feeder to a couple of government agencies which give out a few scholarships each year... which in turn require a background check. One of the questions that screws up most kids is "Have you ever illegally downloaded any music or movies from the internet?" (or something to that effect).

Most kids put "no"... not wanting to admit wrong doing... but by doing so end up raising a flag that they may not be the most trustworthy as it's rather unlikely given their age and background (those applying for these scholarships).

Ditto for Q's regarding fidelity. If you've been unfaithful and your spouse doesn't know, it can be used against you (ie "Give me a copy of the blueprints or... I'll tell your wife and the rest of your family that you cheated on them... with another man."

Comment: Re:I don't see how MS can comply (Score 1) 123

by DaHat (#47872963) Attached to: Microsoft Agrees To Contempt Order So It Can Appeal Email Privacy Case

You can't deliberate engage in activities to make it more expensive or complex for law enforcement to search subpoenaed records.

That's not quite accurate.

If the intent is to make it more difficult... then you best not have any evidence that it was done deliberately then you will be in for a world of pain.

If however it is part of your normal business processes and as a side effect it makes law enforcement's job harder... that is still perfectly legal.

Comment: Re:Photographic law precedence (Score 1) 200

by DaHat (#47705067) Attached to: Phoenix Introduces Draft Ordinance To Criminalize Certain Drone Uses

You can't climb a ladder and take pics of some girl sunbathing in her backyard legally if she is behind a privacy fence that you had to go out of your way to see over, that includes using a drone to do so.

Who said a ladder is required? From the second floor of a house you can often see much of a neighbors yard when there is only a man sized fence.

Sometimes a bigger fence is required, just ask Todd Palin: http://xfinity.comcast.net/blo...

Microsoft

Microsoft's Nokia Plans Come Into Better Focus 149

Posted by timothy
from the ringtones-baby-the-future-is-ringtones dept.
Forbes has an update on what sort of future Nokia faces, as Microsoft reveals a strategy for making sense of the acquisition: [Microsoft EVP of devices Stephen] Elop laid out a framework for cost cuts in a memo to employees on July 17. Devices would focus on high and low cost Windows smartphones, suggesting a phasing out of feature phones and Android smartphones. Two business units, smart devices and mobile phones, would become one, thereby cutting overlap and overhead. Microsoft would reduce engineering in Beijing and San Diego and unwind engineering in Oulu, Finland. It would exit manufacturing in Komarom, Hungary; shift to lower cost areas like Manaus, Brazil and Reynosa, Mexico; and reduce manufacturing in Beijing and Dongguan, China. Also, CEO Satya Nadella gave hints about how Microsoft will make money on Nokia during Tuesday' conference call. Devices, he said, "go beyond" hardware and are about productivity. "I can take my Office Lens App, use the camera on the phone, take a picture of anything, and have it automatically OCR recognized and into OneNote in searchable fashion. There is a lot we can do with phones by broadly thinking about productivity." In other words, the sale of a smartphone is a means to other sales.
United States

When Spies and Crime-Fighters Squabble Over How They Spy On You 120

Posted by timothy
from the we-may-or-may-not-have-done-that dept.
The Washington Post reports in a short article on the sometimes strange, sometimes strained relationship between spy agencies like the NSA and CIA and law enforcement (as well as judges and prosecutors) when it comes to evidence gathered using technology or techniques that the spy agencies would rather not disclose at all, never mind explain in detail. They may both be arms of the U.S. government, but the spy agencies and the law enforcers covet different outcomes. From the article: [S]sometimes it's not just the tool that is classified, but the existence itself of the capability — the idea that a certain type of communication can be wiretapped — that is secret. One former senior federal prosecutor said he knew of at least two instances where surveillance tools that the FBI criminal investigators wanted to use "got formally classified in a big hurry" to forestall the risk that the technique would be revealed in a criminal trial. "People on the national security side got incredibly wound up about it," said the former official, who like others interviewed on the issue spoke on condition of anonymity because of the topic’s sensitivity. "The bottom line is: Toys get taken away and put on a very, very high shelf. Only people in the intelligence community can use them." ... The DEA in particular was concerned that if it came up with a capability, the National Security Agency or CIA would rush to classify it, said a former Justice Department official.
Government

FBI Studied How Much Drones Impact Your Privacy -- Then Marked It Secret 139

Posted by timothy
from the awfully-suggestive dept.
v3rgEz writes When federal agencies adopt new technology, they're required by law to do Privacy Impact Assessments, which is exactly what the FBI did regarding its secretive drone program. The PIAs are created to help the public and federal government assess what they're risking through the adoption of new technology. That part is a little trickier, since the FBI is refusing to release any of the PIA on its drone project, stating it needs to be kept, er, private to protect national security.

Comment: Re:Customer service? (Score 2) 928

You assume that security being called on me would have allowed me to board my flight as I had planned.

That being said, I am not saying both situations are the same, my point was and is that I expect that this story is not unique and that only a portion of them do we ever hear about.

Comment: Re:Customer service? (Score 1) 928

Remember that for a threat to be effective it need only be believed by the target... even if there is no actual plan to make good on it.

In a world where after going through a laughable but invasive search by TSA screeners and about to board an aircraft where you are legally required to obey all instructions of the flight crew in order to return to your home many miles away... is it any wonder that even the threat of the police being called might make someone comply?

"Pull the wool over your own eyes!" -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs

Working...