Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Hiding evidence (Score 1) 192

by crioca (#48560739) Attached to: Microsoft To US Gov't: the World's Servers Are Not Yours For the Taking

If you are a US citizen, I don't think you could get out of producing a document the court ordered you to supply by airmailing it to a confederate in another country.

IANAL but that would seem to be a different situation: If the court requests a document you have and then you mail it to your overseas confederate, then I think you'll be on the hook for something like obstruction of justice.

But if you mail your confederate a document, then later the court requests you to produce it, you can tell them "That's the property of Confederate, who are a different entity. You'll need to request it from them."

Comment: Re:Waiving data charges is fine with net neutralit (Score 1) 134

by crioca (#48475623) Attached to: Wikipedia's "Complicated" Relationship With Net Neutrality

Yeah, but nobody talking about net neutrality wants all packets to be equal. They want all destinations to be equal.

If travelling to one destination does not count against your data cap, then that destination is not on equal footing.

Subsidizing traffic doesn't violate net neutrality, because it doesn't affect the delivery of data, only the cost to the end user.

It does violate net neutrality, because it affects the cost of delivery of data to and from the end user.

What Wikipedia is doing here is a good thing by itself, but if the practice were to become commonplace, it's something that would be very bad.

Comment: Re:Are they the same? (Score 1) 134

by crioca (#48475605) Attached to: Wikipedia's "Complicated" Relationship With Net Neutrality
Yes it is, imagine if you had a single tank of petrol each month, and there were some stores you could drive to but it wouldn't use up any of your petrol. Even if most months you didn't use all your petrol up, you'd still prefer to visit those stores because you might need that petrol later if something comes up.

Comment: Re:Contradictions (Score 1) 134

by crioca (#48475585) Attached to: Wikipedia's "Complicated" Relationship With Net Neutrality
Network congestion is a pretext (a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason), the real reason for data caps is two-fold:

1. It allows ISPs to use a pricing model that takes advantage of market segmentation

2. It provides ISPs with leverage they can apply to other market entities to gain benefits, such as cash or quid pro quo (preferential treatment).

Comment: Hang on, something isn't adding up (Score 1) 301

by crioca (#48365751) Attached to: Police Body Cam Privacy Exploitation
How is it that police are unable to refuse these requests? I mean if I asked for all the records the police held on Person X, would they just cough it up?

If yes, then the problem has nothing to do with body cams specifically.

If no, then why are these recording being treated so differently?

Remember -- only 10% of anything can be in the top 10%.