Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:No one cares, so why does it matter? (Score 1) 254

by sjames (#47438833) Attached to: William Binney: NSA Records and Stores 80% of All US Audio Calls

So then you agree with the NRA/2nd amendment supporters that it is not now time to use their firearms in a revolution. So what's your complaint about them again? We have no idea what they might have said through channels other than the NRA (which i specifically for gun related issues).

Comment: Re: Seems appropriate (Score 1) 345

by sjames (#47437549) Attached to: UK Computing Student Jailed After Failing To Hand Over Crypto Keys

Did you read my responses carefully? Where I expressed doubt that the prosecution would even try absent physical evidence or witnesses to a discussion of guilty knowledge to back up the theory? For example, an accountant will certainly know if they keep 2 books. A written communication indicating state of mind in the case of the adviser or at least a repeated pattern of behavior.

Comment: Re: Seems appropriate (Score 1) 345

by sjames (#47437491) Attached to: UK Computing Student Jailed After Failing To Hand Over Crypto Keys

I argue there cannot be enough evidence to discount that a person cannot recall the password. It's just too common an occurrence and there are simply too many factors that contribute to forgetting going on.

As for the examples you mention: i) Did the adviser have a professional duty to get that information right? Would getting it wrong constitute professional ma[practice? Is there an email or other document that suggests they had the correct information? Did they give other clients the correct information? Did it happen more than once?

But in general, if that's all the evidence you have, one client given wrong information once, it'll never see the inside of a courtroom.

ii. Was the car obviously beyond the means of the driver? Did the driver offer anything like a plausible explanation? Even with that, it likely wouldn't be prosecuted. OTOH, if multiple people heard them talking about it being stolen, they might actually prosecute it.

iii) If he kept two books, they'll likely prosecute. If not, it's doubtful.

More realistically, for i they won't even look in to it unless the client is wealthy. In ii they'll 'find' a baggie. In 3, they might use that as probable cause to search his files.

Note now that i would have to involve incriminating communications or a pattern of behavior. ii would likely not happen unles the cops are crooked, and 3 would involve physical evidence.

+ - NSA Admits Retaining Snowden Emails, no FOIA for US press->

Submitted by AHuxley
AHuxley (892839) writes "The reports on a FOIA request covering "... all e-mails sent by Edward Snowden"
Remember how Snowden should have raised his concerns with his superiors within the NSA?
Remember how no such communication could be found?
Remember how one such communication was released but did not seem to be raising direct concerns?
Well some record of e-mail communications seems to exist but they are exempt from public disclosure under the federal Freedom of Information Act."

Link to Original Source

Comment: There we have it (Score 1) 254

by sjames (#47436885) Attached to: William Binney: NSA Records and Stores 80% of All US Audio Calls

With each accusation, the NSA has 'admitted' to a small bit and denied the rest. Each denial has been proven to be a lie. They have proven now that nothing they say can ever be trusted. They have lied under oath. They have lied to Congress, and they have lied to the People. Repeatedly.

Since we can never trust anything they say, why should we continue to employ them? The entire organization is rotten to the core. The only possible cure is to disband them and start over. A mere re-org would just be moving the deck chairs.

+ - In New Zealand The Right To Silence And Presumption Of Innocence Are In Danger->

Submitted by cold fjord
cold fjord (826450) writes "The New Zealand Herald reports, "Fundamental pillars of the criminal justice system may be eroded whichever party wins the election this year, as both National's and Labour's proposals would look into changing the right to silence or the presumption of innocence in rape cases. Both major parties claim the current system is not upholding justice for victims, and are looking at changes that would effectively make it easier for prosecutors to obtain convictions. National wants to explore allowing a judge or jury to see an accused's refusal to give evidence in a negative light, while Labour wants to shift the burden of proof of consent from the alleged victim to the accused.""
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re: Seems appropriate (Score 1) 345

by sjames (#47435779) Attached to: UK Computing Student Jailed After Failing To Hand Over Crypto Keys

Alas, no. Your suggestions would determine that he knew it before he was arrested, none suggest his on-going memory of the password.

It's harder because the other questions only have to look at state of mind for a particular moment in the past before police activity could have influenced it.

This is closer to Heisenberg. The act of questioning can cause the accused to forget. That is exactly why this is a screwed up law.

Have you truly never heard someone say "If you hadn't asked, I could have told you?"

You've never known anyone who can type their password by muscle memory but cannot consciously call it out other than by watching themselves type it?

There are a great many factors that can confound memory and all must be ruled out to eliminate reasonable doubt. Furthermore because memory can be malleable and tricky, even evidence that he later recalled the password isn't evidence that he could recall it when asked. It's actually common for an answer to pop into mind once all pressure to remember has passed.

OTOH, there's really only one reason to arrange to meet someone in an out of the way place and take a gun, gloves, and a body bag with you. The prosecution and the judge don't have to determine what the defendant is thinking NOW.

+ - Rocket Scientist Designs 'Flare' Pot That Cooks Food 40% Faster->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Oxford University engineering professor Dr Thomas Povey just invented a new cooking pot that heats food 40% faster. The pot is made from cast aluminum, and it features fins that direct flames across the bottom and up the sides, capturing energy that would otherwise be wasted. The pot is set to hit the market next month in the UK."
Link to Original Source

A penny saved is a penny to squander. -- Ambrose Bierce