Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I was surprised he was convicted on hate charge (Score 1) 683

by bv728 (#40071999) Attached to: Rutger's Student Dharun Ravi Sentenced To 30-Day Jail Time
Most hate crime laws are based on racketeering charges - effectively a hate crime is one which targets one person as a means to target a larger group. Racketeering was used against criminals who attack one business to make others pay up protection money. When shooting someone who is gay/black/jewish/russian, because they're gay/black/jewish/russian, the message that gets communicated to the rest of the gay/black/jewish/russian community is 'You are not safe, we will kill you, unless you leave'. Generally speaking, most of the time, Hate Crime laws aren't applied, largely because you need to establish that the goal wasn't just to get the person, but because you wanted to have a chilling effect on people who are gay/black/jewish/russian as well. In the US, as well, hate crimes typically have to be Punishment Enhancing - that is, they can only attach to an existing crime, not on their own, and make the sentence worse.

+ - CCP investigates player panel that encouraged cyber-bullying

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: GoonSwarm alliance speaker and second-time CSM chairman Alexander "The Mittani" Gianturco gave a talk on some of the year's most memorable alliance activities, from shutting down Ice Mining operations across several regions to scamming people with fake supercapital ship trades. As part of the talk, Alex aired a private correspondence in which a victim revealed that he'd been severely depressed following a divorce and expressed suicidal thoughts. "We're sure that he's not dead," Alex flippantly remarked during the talk before adding that "he might have committed suicide."

+ - News Corp. pirated rival's DRM to bankrupt them 4

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: In a story that exceeds any conspiracy theory, the BBC's Panorama reports that a News Corp. subsidiary (of which James Murdoch was a non-executive officer) hacked the DRM of rival ONdigital and hired warez site THOIC to distribute it for up to 60,000 GPB ($95,000) per year. News Corp's defense: The hacking was for research purposes and they paid THOIC's operator "for his expertise so information from THOIC could be used to trap and catch hackers and pirates." The Guardian covers the story here. Remember the same people publish America's most popular cable news channel and newspaper!

Comment: Re:Damn unfortunate (Score 1) 714

by bv728 (#39381543) Attached to: Rutgers Student Ravi Convicted of Bias Intimidation and Spying
Hate Crime laws exist because the purpose of certain crimes isn't to simply hurt a specific person, but to intimidate and modify the behavior of a group. The secondary charges are typically very similar to Racketeering, like a protection racket, because they have the same goal - to perform a SINGLE crime (shame about that merchandise) which affects a larger population (you heard about Bob's merchandise). Most Hate Crime legislation is just an expansion of Racketeering charges to explicitly allow them to be brought in the case where the crime was both motivated by bias and intended to intimidate the group.

Comment: Obligitory Quasi-Legal Bit (Score 2) 332

by bv728 (#37535738) Attached to: Bethesda's 'Scrolls' Lawsuit Going Ahead
Bethesda are required to provide the court with a comprehensive list of points of similarity, including minor ones. If they do not provide a point of similarity, it can be used against them as evidence that their claim is incomplete, that they concede certain elements of similarity do not infringe, or that their understanding of the property is incomplete. The Judge is expected to filter through this list and determine which elements are co-incidental and which contribute to possible infringement, as well as evaluating them for any potential damages, if it comes to that.

Comment: Legal Stuffs (Score 5, Informative) 72

by bv728 (#32686278) Attached to: Twitter To Establish Information Security Program
IANALBIFWI, "Twitter will be barred for 20 years ..." does NOT mean that twenty years from now they have the right to mislead. It means that if the Government finds out they're misleading within the next 20 years it does not need to have a trial to take action - they can just slam them as violating the existing ruling. This is, functionally, a suspended sentence (thus third party review of their new security measures).

Comment: The Change has a Reason (Score 1) 409

by bv728 (#26899511) Attached to: Facebook Scrambles To Contain ToS Fallout
Largely, the change was made so that if they made, say, a Facebook TV commerical and they flashed your picture on the screen, they didn't have to pull the TV ad if you deleted your account. Or if they made a commerical where you see thousands of statuses in the background, or a Quiz a user made is referenced. Is it a good reason, I basically think so - it's not so they can claim your data after you close the account, but a CYA so users can't grief them when they do their next marketing push. The company doesn't WANT your data.

Comment: Re:Typical government response (Score 1) 232

by bv728 (#24052759) Attached to: Lt. Col. John Bircher Answers Your Questions
There exist, to my knowledge as a civilian, such standards, mostly imported from civilian agencies such as the NSA. There are a finite number of ways to secure a connection; each branch doesn't need to come up with a new way to secure their connections, and they don't. They do have their own set of informational tools, which are frequently customized software unused by other branches.

So, they need to decide what hardware best serves their needs. At what levels beyond the standard to implement strong cryptography, and to what degree. Which systems need specific kinds of protection, and what technology is needed to provide secure and useful network connections to their men. The Navy has far different requirements than the Army -- see the Army's use of collaborative mapping systems. It's a great, low level system for sharing data. The Navy, on the other hand, would need such systems to be used at a much higher level; the individual squad leaders on a Naval vessel don't need that intel, but reports and information from other vessels might help a ship captain who needs to patrol. Implimenting such a system for differing useage styles, hardware requirements, and access patterns will nesscitate very different final solutions. And that's just an fairly public one; the Air Force needs systems, backups, procedures, and the like to cover information intrusion into their sensor detection systems, and those will all be different than those used by another branch.

Sure, there's a lot of basic overlap. But the existing data security regulations used in other government branches mean that the basic software and hardware needed to do many things exists and can be reused or modified to spec... and some money will just get wasted anyway.

"In my opinion, Richard Stallman wouldn't recognise terrorism if it came up and bit him on his Internet." -- Ross M. Greenberg