Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Polls on the front page of Slashdot? Is the world coming to an end?! Nope; read more about it. ×

Comment: Re:Signs you are in trouble (Score 2) 165

by gnasher719 (#49828627) Attached to: Tim Cook: "Weakening Encryption Or Taking It Away Harms Good People"
Looks like someone at MoneyCNN has an axe to grind.

There has never been any evidence, or any good reason to believe that anyone hacked into iCloud to get pictures of "celebrities". On the other hand, plenty of evidence that there were easy to guess username / password combinations. Plus, the article title is "Tim Cook didn't address Apple's real privacy problem", when the first statement it makes is that Apple actually _did_ address a problem.

Comment: Re:Missing option (Score 2, Insightful) 216

by gnasher719 (#49823667) Attached to: Ross Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison, and ...

Giving him a particularly tough sentence for something he was not even charged with should be enough to get the judge disbarred and the verdict automatically overturned. Won't happen though.

Won't happen because you are clueless. After a criminal is found guilty, the judge can use his character, his overall behaviour, regret, remorse or lack thereof, whether the person is likely to reoffend and so on to adjust the sentence. The sentence can and often is increased for things that are no crimes. For example if you kill a person, then telling the mother that you really enjoyed every second of it will get your sentence increased.

Comment: Re:Missing option (Score 3, Insightful) 216

by gnasher719 (#49823643) Attached to: Ross Ulbricht was sentenced to life in prison, and ...

I agree. I think he received life in prison though for the soliciting murder for hire episodes. To me that is worth 20 years. Life should only be used as an alternative to the death penalty, not a as 'really stiff sentence'.

He didn't. He got a life sentence for his website. Which didn't just sell drugs and other illegal stuff, but an absolute shitload of it. Nine dollar digits.

After found guilty, the judge had to set the sentence, and by law it had to be "at least 20 years", but with lots of leeway upwards. The soliciting for murder showed his bad character and convinced the judge to go to the upper limit, but he wasn't punished for it per se.

Comment: Re:A victory for internet trolls (Score 1) 144

The gist of this is that now statement in and of themselves cannot be actionable until it can be proven that the mind of the person making the threat actually intends harm.

This doesn't mean what you seem you think it means. The man harmed his wife by making what a reasonable person (including his wife) saw as credible threats. If he had no intent whatsoever to assault her in any way, but had the intent to make her afraid by sending credible threats, then he did in fact intent to cause her harm.

They have to prove that he intended to make threats, not that he intended to follow up on his threats. I don't actually see this as much of a problem. I am sure he would have been convicted with the right jury instruction, but the right jury instruction was not given.

Comment: Re:Legal analysis (Score 2) 144

Basically, the long-and-short of it appears to be that SCOTUS just made this shit a hell of a lot more confusing.

Not at all.

Courts sometimes get things wrong, and then SCOTUS steps in and tells them that they got it wrong. The courts then have to look at the matter again. They are supposed to do it right the next time. SCOTUS is not supposed to tell them how to do it right. They are not little children that need hand holding. They are assumed to get it right on their own most of the time.

Comment: Re:$commentSubject (Score 1) 144

One thing that bugs me about these is that people seem to get the unconscious takeaway that the guy gets off scott free. That he walks away without consequence for his words. And they think to themselves (pretty reasonably) "that's unacceptable!" and even "we need to make the law more interpretable and arbitrary!"

Well, he is not getting away with it (not yet). It was decided that the judge gave wrong instructions to the jury. The wrong instruction was that the jury had to decide whether a reasonable person would think of his posts as threats. The correct instruction would have to be that the man himself knew that what he posted would be taken as threats.

So it's going back to court. I personally believe and hope that he will be found guilty with the correct jury instruction as well.

Comment: Re:I for one.... (Score 1) 128

by gnasher719 (#49813591) Attached to: China Unveils World's First Facial Recognition ATM

No, this is big brother technology. They can now map the serial numbers of the currency from the ATM to a person. One step closer to cashless, surveillance society.

They can already map the serial numbers of the currency to the account holder and the person in possession of PIN and card. And there already are cameras, except that currently they don't protect you from misuse of your card by a thief, but can only tell that it was a thief after the fact.

Comment: Re:coercion is the flaw (Score 1) 128

by gnasher719 (#49813559) Attached to: China Unveils World's First Facial Recognition ATM

Perfect is the enemy of improvement. The crime of kidnapping/murder is far more serious than pick pocketing or card cloning. A lot fewer people will try the more serious crime.

That's always the same on Slashdot. They come up with weird fantasies of kidnapping and so on.

Stealing or duplicating a credit card is relatively easy and no big risk. If you get caught, the punishment isn't too bad even if you stole a thousand cards. Kidnapping on the other hand doesn't give you any more reward, even a single attempt is dangerous for you, unlike normal kidnapping where you hide the victim you must bring the victim to a public place which hugely increases the risk, and if you are caught they never let you out again.

Comment: Re:Epic fail: someone always matches (Score 1) 128

by gnasher719 (#49813541) Attached to: China Unveils World's First Facial Recognition ATM

This scheme will work for one branch in Lesser Nowhere, Sechwan Province, with a finite and small set of pictures, and a small number of crooks. Once the number of faces increases, the probability of a false positive explodes,

Not at all. If someone puts Joe Smith's card into the reader, and types in Joe Smith's card PIN, then they only need to compare the face of the person with a picture of Joe Smith, and nobody else. A crook can only get your money if by a huge coincidence that crooks looks the same as you. And that crook cannot get anybody else's money. There are no false positives, there is no reason to compare the face with the photo of anybody else.

Comment: Re:Labour laws (Score 1) 422

by gnasher719 (#49805303) Attached to: Mandriva CEO: Employee Lawsuits Put Us Out of Business

I can't claim to know how bankruptcy laws work in France, but in the U.S. secured creditors get paid before priority unsecured creditors, which include employee claims for wages. So employees get paid last, since any corporate debt is sure to be secured. This is a company with only $600k per year in revenue that has already filed for bankruptcy once, so I doubt it is standing on a pile of cash.

In European countries the order is typically tax, social security, employees, then everyone else. Tax includes income tax for the employees, so as long as that is paid, the employee will get some cash in their tax return. (Say you were supposed to make $100,000, they paid $40,000 tax on your behalf and the money is gone, then you effectively made $40,000 that year and all the overpaid tax gets returned to you).

Comment: Re:I kind of agree (Score 1) 306

Whilst most jobs don't _require_ coding skills, a lot of them would be done more efficiently if people had those skills.

Depending on the level of your coding skills, you are either harmless, dangerous, or useful.

You need to learn quite a bit to skip over "dangerous" into the "useful" territory.

Comment: Re:This cannot have been legal??? (Score 1) 82

It's not hearsay when the prosecution were the ones (under false pretenses) who were asked by the defendant to arrange the hit.

Police officer says: "He told me that he had hired a hitman" - hearsay.
Police officer says: "He asked me to kill the guy" - not hearsay.

Actually, a bit more complicated. If someone is accused of intimidating witnesses. and the police officer says "I heard him telling Mr. X that he had hired hitmen to kill people giving evidence against him before". That's hearsay as far as hiring hitmen and killing people is concerned, but it is perfectly acceptable evidence for witness intimidation.

You can tell how far we have to go, when FORTRAN is the language of supercomputers. -- Steven Feiner