Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:NSA (Score 1) 72

Of course "on paper" they actually did police work.

But what do you think gave them "the hunch" that so-and-so was the badguy and just so happened to have exactly the incriminating evidence they needed to bust him in folder XYZ in his "My Documents" folder?

"Police Work" is often just another term for collecting the evidence and creating the link from A to Z, after the fact, to justify the police's actions.

Comment: Re:Sure (Score 1) 500

by Marful (#46350465) Attached to: Supreme Court Ruling Relaxes Warrant Requirements For Home Searches
The only requirement is if one of the occupants consents to the search. It doesn't have to be someone that lives there or owns the property. Any random person whom is inside the property can give consent, including a 2 year old or a dog.

And you don't see this getting abused?

That is fucking absurd.

Comment: Most likely you'll just have to deal with them... (Score 4, Interesting) 384

by Marful (#46235261) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Do You To Tell Your Client That His "Expert" Is an Idiot?
My best advice for anyone in this situation is to document everything .

I spent a few years working customer service handling orders for manufacturing company. One particularly customers was a consistent problem. This company believed one of their personnel shat gold bricks, but I realized right off that they were incompetent and used lies & intimidation to cover this up.

This person would routinely fax their orders at the end of the day (right before they would leave) without confirming that they actually sent me the files necessary to start their order, and that their orders were almost always "rush" orders with very very short turn around times. Another thing this person would do, would be to call me up, tell me they had an order and ask me what the latest day they would need to receive the order by a specific date and time. I would tell them, then they would wait well past this final submittable date, submit their order and then claim that I had promised to turn around the product by that time. Over the years, the turn around time necessary to complete their orders shrunk to impossible expectations and their customer began getting upset as my customer started blaming me personally for the delays.

The irritating part, is that whenever I some how failed to live up to this person's errors (i.e., I was unable to cover for them), they would call up my boss and complain about me. My boss only believed half their bullshit, but it was still enough to impact my career.

Unfortunately for them, one of their customers wasn't an idiot, and had remembered me when he came along to our plant for a facility inspection prior to us beginning production of their product. This customer set up a meeting between our companies and asked me point blank when I received the purchase order, when I received the files and when I delivered the product. Thankfully, I had records of the time and date of every purchase order that company had ever sent, along with records of the time and date of receipt of every file to begin production, as well as the delivery date of the product to their warehouse.

It turned out that the end customer was sending the purchase orders to our problem person up to three weeks before the problem person would send me the PO and files. The problem person would sit on the file for weeks before submitting it to their production and farming out our part to us. The problem person ended up losing their company around $2million in sales yearly when they lost their client.

We ended up being directly contracted by the end customer to continue manufacturing our part of their product.

Comment: Re:Anything it sees may be used against you (Score 2) 192

by Marful (#46200323) Attached to: Cops With Google Glass: Horrible Idea, Or Good One?
Given how shady cops are with their actions while they conduct themselves, the cameras are much much more of a detriment to an officer's behavior/actions than the citizenry's.

Many of the article's I've read on the subject talk about how many less complaints the department received. One article even mentioned that the when only half the police department wore the cameras (the other half refused to wear said cameras...), the Excessive Use of Force complaints went down by over 70%.

So the question becomes, is this because the citizenry aren't making complaints? Or is it because police were moderating their behavior and not using excessive force or heavy handed tactics as their first response to every situation?

Either way is a win/win for us taxpayers. And the latter is a HUGE win for us citizenry as far as police tyranny is concerned.

Having been on the receiving end of such a shady cop violating the law, departmental "procedure" and having the dash-cam video go "missing" during discovery, I am all for more accountability for cops.

Comment: Re:Translation: (Score 1) 236

by Marful (#43320681) Attached to: DOJ, MIT, JSTOR Seek Anonymity In Swartz Case
Yay ignorant populace!

I love how making something illegal, no mater how innocuous and innocent that something is, immediately polarizes the populace against them. After all, that person is now a scumbag felon.

Who cares if they were railroaded. Who cares if the prosecutions abused the law. Who cares if the prosecutors used smear campaigns and black mail to destroy a persons life just so they can cut a notch on their belt during their next their re-election. None of this matters because the ignorant public (in case you didn't catch it, I'm referring to you, spire3661) see only the "label" of what they are accused of and instantly write off that person as a human being and are perfectly acceptable in watching that person's rights be violated.

I just fucking love how history keeps repeating itself.

Comment: Re:Better off enforcing an EA boycott (Score 1) 469

by Marful (#43154031) Attached to: Is It Time To Enforce a Gamers' Bill of Rights?
I agree.

The only discretion available in a completely voluntary relationship where you are dissatisfied with the other participant, is to not participate. (I.E. boycott EA).

On the flipside, some of the things done by these companies can be considered fraudulent or criminal (particularly in the case of installing rootkits).

Comment: Re:His mansion (Score 5, Insightful) 127

by Marful (#43102803) Attached to: Dotcom Wins Right To Sue NZ Government

When did we start to allow police forces in Western countries start to behave like militias?

It's been that way for over almost a decade now.

DHS just dropped ~$100 million on a bunch of APCs, school Districts are buying assault weapons for their on-campus police forces and the LAPD has been known to send out swat team members to deal with parking tickets.

The bottom line is: the police have realized that they can practically guarantee they get to go home at the end of the day if they treat every interaction like a military engagement and utilize overwhelming force to suppress their enemy. The fact that innocent people will get murdered in their zeal of officer-safety-at-all-costs doesn't even enter their thought process.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap

Comment: Re:The mindset of criminal investigators in Americ (Score 1) 409

by Marful (#43090367) Attached to: The Accidental Betrayal of Aaron Swartz
You're right, "Lawyer up" is more of something you do once you are arrested, regardless of how ambiguous or pretextual the whole encounter appears.

And Hiibel v. Nevada isn't applicable to every state, only those with Stop & Identify laws. IIRC Hiibel v. Nevada even mentions this in reference to Kolender v. Lawson.

There is quite a bit of difference between complying with legal requests by a law enforcement officer and answering vague open-ended questions that are superfluous to a LEO's execution of their job. Questions like "Do you know why I pulled you over?", "Why are you in such a hurry?" and my all time favorite: "Is there anything illegal in your possession that I should know about?"

But to be fair, you are absolutely right. When subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury and give testimony there isn't much you can do. And historically federal criminal prosecutors have used subpoena's to force individuals to divulge sensitive information against other members of their family, friends, cliques, groups or organizations. But some subpoena's can be squashed (not saying that is very likely or easy with a federal subpoena...) and most importantly, going in with the mindset and knowledge that you aren't going to some how miraculously say the magic words that make the situation all better is an important piece of information to understand and remember when answering questions. I'm sure a practiced attorney could help coach an individual on how to answer questions and the exact scope of the required complicity a subpoenaed individual most provide.

I.E. if a criminal investigator is asking you questions, they aren't asking you questions to get information to exonerate your friend/family member/self, that is not their job (that is your friend/family's defense attorney's job). They are asking you questions to give them evidence and help them build a case to so they can bring charges and/or convict someone of a crime.

On a side note, I present this quote from Supreme Court Justice of the United States Stephen Breyer, quoted in the oft famous (and I think cited several times on by other commentators on this topic...) "Don't talk to the Police" youtube video, as quoted from Rubin v. United States (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-93.ZD.html)

“...the complexity of modern federal criminal law, codified in several thousand sections of the United States Code and the virtually infinite variety of factual circumstances that might trigger an investigation into a possible violation of the law, make it difficult for anyone to know, in advance, just when a particular set of statements might later appear (to a prosecutor) to be relevant to some such investigation.”

Again, you are absolutely right. There wasn't much Quinn Norton could do when subpoenaed, but still I think this quote is particularly applicable given the context of the situation that Quinn Norton found herself in her unwitting contribution to the miscarriage and perversion of justice executed against Aaron Swartz.

I think subpoenas and discovery motions are two elements of our legal system that are oft abused to the detriment of this nation as a whole. The former by the zealous over-criminalization of America and the latter by copyright attorneys extorting money from individuals otherwise protected from identification by law. This case is just yet another incident of the rampant abuse of our legal system and what saddens and disgusts me is that there isn't much that can be done about it.

Comment: Re:The mindset of criminal investigators in Americ (Score 2) 409

by Marful (#43085393) Attached to: The Accidental Betrayal of Aaron Swartz
Sadly, immunity wouldn't of helped Quinn Norton in this case as her words weren't being used against herself, but another.

Now if only such a similar criminal investigation would be brought against the people (and by people, I mean the federal prosecutors who targeted Swartz) who subverted the justice system to push corporate special interest.

Comment: The mindset of criminal investigators in America: (Score 3, Insightful) 409

by Marful (#43084645) Attached to: The Accidental Betrayal of Aaron Swartz
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

~Attributed to Cardinal Richelieu.

When it comes to criminal investigations in America, there is nothing you can ever say that will help your case. The only thing you can do is make it worse. The best bit of advice is to shut the fuck up and lawyer up.

Comment: Re:The case was badly constructed (Score 1) 306

by Marful (#43022993) Attached to: Supreme Court Disallows FISA Challenges
Before they can do that, they have to show standing. I.E. they have to show that they were harmed/inconvenienced by FISA in some way.

It is the ultimate legal "chicken and the egg" situation. You can't "prove" you have standing to challenge the law until you can challenge the law so you can prove you have standing...

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all alike.

Working...