Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Streisand Effect (Score 2) 377

by SeaFox (#49747497) Attached to: Student Photographer Threatened With Suspension For Sports Photos

Where is the line between having a spirited discussion on how an administrator can lack common sense...and providing their contact details (regardless of how public they may be) to a public forum?

The contact details exist for the express purpose of allowing people to contact them, and you're saying we shouldn't post them because folks might contact them? They can always take them down if they don't want people emailing them.

You're also assuming this is a real personal email account and not a general "bulk mail" contact address that's really handed by someone else.

Comment: Re:Won't save most of the 4000 lives (Score 1) 615

by SeaFox (#49708323) Attached to: The Economic Consequences of Self-Driving Trucks

To give a counterexample, I was driving down a long hill that I have driven daily for 20+ years. At the bottom of the hill, right before it went around a curve, I saw cars hitting their brakes, and knew there was probably a traffic jam around the corner, so I started slowing down.

There was a truck driver pretty far behind me, and he didn't bother slowing down until he came around the curve, saw the traffic jam, locked his brakes, and ran off the road, and blamed me for the accident.

I don't know why it would be necessary for you to defend yourself in this to begin with. It's his responsibility to maintain a safe following distance. If he can't come to an emergency stop behind you without running off the road, it's his fault for either following too closely or driving too fast. It doesn't sound like he hit you, so I wonder how you got ensnared in this at all. I would have driven away (I'm not involved in the accident so I don't have an obligation to stay there and have someone try to blame their mistakes on me).

Comment: Re:Why connect EVERYTHING? (Score 1) 131

by SeaFox (#49677459) Attached to: Beware the Ticking Internet of Things Security Time Bomb

Once everything is connected a company will be able to use the shoddy IoT security to peek around your house and learn what brands/models of appliances and other products your own. Think how easy market research will be! No more have to convince people to complete a survey by giving them some freebie.

Comment: Re:Every cell phone is a lo-jack... (Score 1) 216

by SeaFox (#49636251) Attached to: Police Can Obtain Cellphone Location Records Without a Warrant

It doesn't have to be used in a crime. All cell phone switch cell towers while you travel... your cell provider it keeps a timestamp log of this switching whether you use your phone or not. If you are suspected of a crime, all they need to do is guess your (plausible) location and see if your phone agrees.

Yes, I think you're missing the point of my original reply. The AC is saying that it's makes sense to him that the police can get records on cell phone on the idea "somebody builds something for you, and you use it in a crime, the court can order them to disclose what they know". I'm saying there is nothing here to suggest the cell phone was a tool used in the actual crime, so there isn't justification for the police to be able to get the records of the device using the reasoning he claims. It's just a case of "oh, gee, this idiot was carrying a device that happens to make it easy for us to get an idea where he's been, can we haz records nao?"

Comment: Re:Every cell phone is a lo-jack... (Score 1) 216

by SeaFox (#49625769) Attached to: Police Can Obtain Cellphone Location Records Without a Warrant

Though I don't agree with the judgment, I understand where they're coming from. This goes back years to hidden compartments. If somebody builds something for you, and you use it in a crime, the court can order them to disclose what they know. Cellphones kind of fall into the same category.

Was the cellphone actually used in the crime, or was it just in his pocket at the time.
Sounds like the police are just using the location records to establish the suspect being at the location of the robbery.

It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong. -- Chris Torek

Working...