People have argued the right to not incriminate themselves right up to the European courts, but it was rejected. When you are arrested in the UK you are told that if you fail to mention when questioned anything you later rely on in court it may harm your defence, so there is no right to silence either.
I enquired about that. Here's a situation where it "may harm your defence". Let's say you are a crime suspect. You say you have a witness you can give evidence that you were nowhere near the crime scene. What should happen is that you tell the police who your witness is, they question your witness, and either let you go because the witness convinces them you were not there, or the witness says your story is bullshit, or they decide not to believe your witness and investigate further. In the last two cases this will then come up in your court case.
But let's say you refuse to say who the witness is. The police has no chance to check if the witness says the truth or not because they don't know who the witness is. And in your court case you suddenly present the witness. In that case, the judge can throw that witness out because the police had no chance to investigate.
So you do have the right to remain silence, and it doesn't harm your defense if you remain silent all the time including the court case. It _can_ harm your defense if you remain silent but only until you appear in court.
It doesn't matter. In the UK, you face jail time for not turning over passwords... even if you can prove you never had them.
And that is exactly nonsense. You can only go to jail if they can prove that you have the password and don't turn it over.
But seriously, you can't remember who is driving your car? I mean before you let anyone drive your car, you have to make sure that they have a valid driving license, and that they have insurance, so please tell me how can you forget who was driving? Or are you saying you were so drunk that you can't remember driving?
Since when is a password in itself evidence, or in any way incriminating yourself? What the police find from access granted by said password is another matter.
It would be incriminating in rare cases. For example, if the police don't know for sure that it is _your_ computer involved in a crime, then providing a password would prove that it's your computer, and it would be incriminating. That's why for this law to apply in the UK, the police must already have evidence that you have the password.
I bought 40~ used iphones off ebay and at least 12 of them were still logged into social media accounts (facebook, twitter, instagram, snapchat) and had thousands of photos and videos. i did not see any nudes but i did have fun with some of their profiles.
If you have burglars who are caught by logging into facebook at a victim's home computer and not logging out before they are leaving, what can you expect?
When someone says reset phone and reset data, the OS should ensure a clean wipe not a soft wipe. Should atleast fill it with 0s. And people should try to keep most of their data on sd cards and move those alongs when they get new phones.
There's one phone that just throws away the encryption keys, which are never stored anywhere than on two locations on the hard drive (in encrypted form), so only these two locations need to be wiped. That phone also has the ability to access a small amount of flash memory directly without the firmware interfering, to make sure that no invisible copies of those keys are created. Well, it's not Android...
What gives you that idea?
It means either Foxconn or Apple make more money. Perhaps both.
Obviously Foxconn has no other customers than Apple. Reminds me of the headlines last year "300 workers threaten suicide at Apple factory" (because they were in fear of losing their jobs due to dropping X-box sales).
A big part of the problem why Americans (and others) are fatter and fatter are because of misbeliefs foisted upon them.
Can't be voted up more enough. Let's say you buy some healthy low-fat yoghurt. And then you check and it's stuffed full with sugar! And it has a HUGE "low fat" printed on it, when it has more calories and is less healthy for you then the unmodified normal fat yoghurt. The problem is that your body _wants_ fat because that's what it has been designed to want for the last 100,000 years, and as long as it doesn't get the fat it wants it just wants more food!
How do you know they represent the content owner? Or are even really lawyers? Or that the claimed content owner owns the song in question?
They have to state under penalty of perjury that they are or represent the content owner. And they have to give you a contact address. As they make a statement under penalty of perjury, they are either right or criminals. If they are criminals, that will get sorted out.
That C file is part of the Android MSM kernel source tree and does contain a "Qualcomm Confidential and Proprietary" line while noting it's now under a Linux Foundation copyright.
Well, that could be just a tiny little problem for Qualcomm then. In a DMCA takedown notice, there are mistakes that you are allowed to make and mistakes that are criminal. A DMCA takedown notice against material that is not the one you own, or that has a license which you didn't notice, that's harmless. But you state under penalty of perjury that you are the copyright holder or represent the copyright holder of the item that you believe to be infringed. So if the Linux Foundation is indeed the copyright holder, that should be fatal.
Quite obviously if I use Tor for criminal activity, and my best buddy sets up a Tor exit node exclusively for me to support my criminal activity, then he will be convicted for running that exit node. Not just in Austria, but everywhere.
And equally obviously, someone who operates a Tor exit node, which is without his knowledge and without his agreement used by a criminal for criminal activity, that operator _should not_ be convicted, neither in Austria nor elsewhere.
What all these articles don't say is what exactly the Tor operator has done. And without that we can't judge what happened.
If you repair a car that is then used in a robbery, you shouldn't be accused of being an accomplice. Except if you knew it was going to be used in a robbery. For example, if you repeatedly fixed a car that was used to drive into shop windows, and even fix steel plates to the front of the car.
Uzi Nissan, of Nissan computer [nissan.com] fame has been paying the price for years for daring to be born with a name that was later copyrighted.
That case must be about the most stupid use of lawyers that I've heard of. If you follow the link, you will see that neither Uzi Nissan nor the Nissan car company can make proper use of the www.nissan.com domain. I'd bet that Nissan's lawyers very proudly reported that they won a court case - which is totally pointless, because their goal should have been to get the use of the domain name.
Had Nissan not sent lawyers but someone with intelligence, then they would be able to use the name, and Uzi Nissan would have a brand new Nissan car parked in front of his computer shop every year. Which would have been better all around for everyone involved.
Perjury will essentially be impossible to prove, so, they almost might as well have not included the penalty.
What? That's nonsense. You must claim _under penalty of perjury_ that some work is infringed and you are or represent the copyright holder. There should be nothing easier to prove or disprove.
Thanks for this. "Good faith belief" can cover a multitude of sins. The use of copyrighted work does not necessarily have to be authorized by the copyright owner, for instance in the case of "fair use".
The law says what it says. Now if we ignore the fact that "fair use" will be a very rare situation, the law says the copyright holder can ask for the work to be taken down if you are not authorised, and the copyright holder is not required to investigate at this point whether you did something that doesn't require authorisation. "Fair use" = not authorised. "Fair use" can only be used as a defence in court when you are sued for copyright infringement.