Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Two things (Score 1) 220

by gurps_npc (#49191445) Attached to: Facebook Rant Lands US Man In UAE Jail
No. My equivalences are exactly the same. I am not applying state laws to an international framework, I am applying long standing international legal principles to a an international framework. when a country does something stupid, like you describe, you have two choices - International treaties and the penalties spelled out in them, or WAR.

Perhaps you have heard of it.

Which is exactly what is happening right now with ISIL. When countries get out of hand, we have two choices - diplomatic punishment or military punishment. You on the other hand, seem to think we can call their mommy and have them punish them.

Yes, the US works with Interpol to stop cybercrime. Bit you demonstrate total ignorance of how that works. You've been watching way too many movies and think that's how it works. If you were aware of how Interpol actually you would realize it proves me correct, as they take a lot of effort to avoid extra-territorial jurisdiction.

I am not outside of my depth, I work in the legal field, and my stepfather is a defense lawyer for international criminals. I have had long discussions about what is and is not legal - and which countries obey those laws and which countries ignore them.

So to educate someone that clearly knows very little about how international law works, particularly Interpol, here is a short education

1. Interpol is not some kind of magic international police. Countries - and not all of them - willing sign treaties, agreeing with a set of rules govern how it works. The participating countries then change their own laws to do what the treaty says. Note treaties, not national laws control Interpol. The treaties in question (like all such treaties) specify what happens if the country signs the treaty but does not change their own laws in a timely fashion.

2. Interpol does NOT HAVE ANY POLICE. There are no Interpol cops. No SWAT, not even traffic cops. They provide training and communication between national police. That's it. So when a crime takes place in say Sweden, committed by a band of criminals that reside in Finland, Sweden does not send cops to Finland. Finland does not send cops to Sweden. Sweden investigates, gets an extradition order, and sends information to their Interpol office. That office sends it to all their other offices, and notifies Finland. In Finlnd, the standard, regular Finish police go and arrest the criminals. Once the Finish cops arrest them, the criminals go through the Finish legal system, where they are either extradited to Sweden or a Finish judge say no.

You live in a movie based fantasy world that does not exist. There are NO EXTRA TERRITORIAL INTERPOL COPS.

Comment: Re: Two things (Score 1) 220

by gurps_npc (#49191335) Attached to: Facebook Rant Lands US Man In UAE Jail
I never said it was. In fact I will outright agere that it is not illegal for a company to use a VPN. Nor is it illegal to use a glove when firing a weapon, nor is it illegal to burn that glove.

But it IS illegal to destroy evidence. The second you do that, it becomes a crime. So if your burn a glove that was connected to a crime, that action becomes illegal. Totally legal actions, when taken in furtherance of a crime become illegal. And the use of a VPN you describe would be a crime.

No offense, but you are making assumptions about the legal system that indicate you don't know jack shit about how it works.

Knowledge of tcp/ip etc is irrelevant to the legal code.

I did not oversimplify, nor did I make a technical misunderstanding.

I simply applied long standing, generally accepted legal principles in use for hundreds of years to current issues.

I repeat - the fact that technology now allows people to hide the fact that they are breaking the law does not invalidate the law.

Here, let me explain is to you in a simple manner. 1) Online poker is illegal in certain countries (The DOJ says the US is one of them).

2) But it is legal in England.

3) If you personally set up a VPN to make it seem like people are playing London, when in fact they are playing online poker from Utah, then YOU HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME. Even if you yourself never play online poker, only renting out your VPN to your neighbors.

This is a very simple legal concept. Not that hard to understand. Legal actions become criminal when used in furtherance of a crime. Perhaps you have heard of the words "accessory to a crime"? That is what you are describing.

Comment: Re: Two things (Score 1) 220

by gurps_npc (#49189797) Attached to: Facebook Rant Lands US Man In UAE Jail
Some people use a glove when firing a gun to prevent fingerprints and gunpowder residue. Then they burn the glove.

Similarly, it is possible to switch your license plate for that of a car that has a similar color and make, then speed. When you get home, switch it back.

The ability for a criminal to hide their crimes is not relevant to this discussion.

Comment: Re:Two things (Score 1) 220

by gurps_npc (#49189705) Attached to: Facebook Rant Lands US Man In UAE Jail
No offense, but you are an incredibly ignorant of the law and history. You mention history books but have no idea what is in them. My idea is not 'my idea' - it is century old accepted legal principle that diplomats and ambassadors use to site all the time. The US can't tell Britain what side of the road to ride on, we can't arrest Putin for murdering his opponent, and we can't arrest people in Mexico for playing music so loud that people in America can hear it.

But the internet came along, and ignorant people did not know how to deal with it so they suddenly said forget the principle.

The fact that a new technology comes along and makes it harder to stick by your principle does not mean your principle is stupid, nor does it mean you abandon the principle. It means you work to create a new set of laws to handle that issue. In this case, the proper way to deal with the internet problems is with treaties. Treaties that establish what laws are in each country.

If the treaties don't work, you go to war against that country. That's why we are fighting with ISIL. We disagree with the laws that they created in their own country, so we bomb them.

You seem to think that all problems can be solved by laws. No. Laws apply to their own nations, not other countries. International problems can not be solved by national laws, and this is clearly an international issue - it happened between 2 nations. You solve international problems with either treaties between countries or wars.

Your insistence on solving international problems with national laws is a bad idea. The long established concept of jurisdiction is an intelligent, well tested idea. The fact you can't tell the difference is indicative of your intelligence.

Comment: Re:Two things (Score 1) 220

by gurps_npc (#49188957) Attached to: Facebook Rant Lands US Man In UAE Jail
Your objection makes little sense. First of all, International laws are not some strange set of things. Basically, anything that violates International law almost always also violates National laws. Genocide is multiple counts of murder, War Crimes are torture, rape and murder.

International trade law has some severe penalties in taxes.

International criminal law is focused on the severe crimes I mentioned - Genocide and War crimes. There is NO international law against cyber-crime. That does not mean it has no teeth, it means it does not exist as a law.

In fact international criminal law lets the host country decide to prosecute first. It only goes to the international court if the host country would rather not try the case but want the court to try it. As such, it has SEVERE teeth - capable of imprisoning someone for life. But it has a loophole designed to let the host country have a veto on it. If they use the veto they lose reputation - which has some severe trade penalties - and possibly military ones as well.

Your comment about cybercrime being completely legal is true and pointless. As you pointed out already we have NO POWER TO ENFORCE THAT LAW AS IS, so my proposed rule does not create a new problem. It merely stops governments from abusing their current power.

My idea is well thought out, it simply does not solve all possible problems. Similarly, my idea does not cure AIDS, teach kids to read, or double your lifespan.

The question is does my idea cause more new problems or solve them. The answer to that is that it solves problem.

Comment: Re:Two things (Score 2) 220

by gurps_npc (#49188847) Attached to: Facebook Rant Lands US Man In UAE Jail
You are incorrect. Mainly because you are ignorant of how international laws work. There are treaties that various countries have agreed to. Specifically, the International Court of Justice is supported by a treaty that over 120 countries have agreed to. By agreeing to that treaty, those countries have ceded legal jurisdiction.

International Law does NOT apply to countries that have not accepted that treaty - including but not limited to China and India.

In addition, the treaty has exceptions that let countries attempt to bring charges in their home country rather than using the international court.

As for Drug cartels, they are rarely involved in International courts, in part because they do rarely violate the laws created by the treaty (which tend to focus on genocide and war crimes) and in part because their home countries would rather bring charges themselves.

So no what I propose would not in any way affect the International court of Justice

Comment: Re:Two things (Score 2, Insightful) 220

by gurps_npc (#49188737) Attached to: Facebook Rant Lands US Man In UAE Jail
Tricky? No. Simple. Same rules apply as when using the phone.

When I get on the phone in California and call Russia, I abide by the laws of California, not Russia. Same for mail.

This is straightforward, simple concept.

Facebook (and the rest of the internet) means you abide by the laws of the country you are in when you post. That part is NOT tricky.

Comment: Two things (Score 5, Interesting) 220

by gurps_npc (#49188397) Attached to: Facebook Rant Lands US Man In UAE Jail
1) Going to another country simply to resign is not the sanest action.

2) We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country. Any country that refuses to abide by this simple rule (I'm including my own beloved United States which routinely violates this simple legal concept.), should have punitive trade restrictions placed on them.

When I'm in New York state, I have to abide by NYS laws, not New Jerseys. Similarly, when I am in the US, I should abide by the US laws, not any other countries.

Comment: Hiding it and always was a bad idea (Score 1) 560

by gurps_npc (#49172273) Attached to: Why We Should Stop Hiding File-Name Extensions
We gave them extensions for a reason - to let people easily tell what kind of code it was.

Then we build verification code into software so that when a program needed X file, it would only load it if it had the right extension.

Then things got a lot more complicated. We started building verification code into the first bytes of the data and added icon to tell humans what it was.

So someone decided that 'hey, we don't need this older, more primitive system of file extensions, lets' deprecate it by defaulting to hide it."

But the problem is the extension system is STILL useful and always has been useful. People like it because it lets them type into a search what kind of file to look for.

On top of that, icons are not in any way related to the system that the computer uses - the first few bytes of a data file. More importantly, we have found OTHER, BETTER uses for icons than to signify what kind of data it is - specifically the concept of displaying a short bit of the data - a micro photo of the photo, or a micro photo of a still shot from a movie.

As such, that leaves us NO simple way for a human to tell what kind of file the photo is.

File extensions have multiple real purposes. The attempt to deprecate and eliminate it was a stupid idea and needs to end. We need to tell the difference between a jpeg and a tiff, an mpg and wav.

The file extension in the main way a human can easily do that. We need file extensions and anyone that doesn't think that is a fool

Comment: Re:Best idea is not to hide. (Score 1) 244

Actually, I am VERY fun - I just write far better scripts.

If I were going to write a zombie script it would be:

1) You know that incredibly stupid fantasy someone that is bitten but hides it because they think 'they are different'? That would be my main plot point - the heroes a group of four -eight people would actually BE bitten and infected but naturally immune to the disease

2) They would in fact be 'carriers' of the disease - like Typhoid Mary.

3) The government would be quarantining a large area and killing anyone infected - and TELLING people that on the radio.

4) So our small band of heroes would be forced to live inside the zombie quarantine zone.

5) Sequel: Eventually the zombies get all killed by the army and our group of Zombie Mary's are now on the run, hiding from the government, all the while leaving a trail of zombie victims pointing directly at them. They make it a small abandoned island and that is the happy ending.

Comment: Re: Best idea is not to hide. (Score 1) 244

In other words, your basic assumption is that people are morons.

But as I said earlier, people are NOT morons.

What you describe is the stuff of poorly written novels, not realism. People do NOT panic first and then act - accept in very specific circumstances.

In general, people only panic when a) they have never faced a situation before and b) no one has any idea what to do. But we know what to do against zombies, because we have seen the movies.

Comment: Re:Best idea is not to hide. (Score 1) 244

Still not a reasonable result. Disease does not coordinate the deaths. Elderly people die first. After the first couple of oldsters go zombie, and easily get destroyed by their nurses, word gets out and anyone near death gets handcuffed to a bed. When they can no longer speak, the healthy people kill them.

Humans outsmart the dumb zombies.

Comment: Re:The idea was a good one, the execution poor (Score 4, Interesting) 201

by gurps_npc (#49164923) Attached to: That U2 Apple Stunt Wasn't the Disaster You Might Think It Was
The basic problem was the mindset, technological capabilities, and trust.

If you give me your phone for 30 seconds, I can download software on it to let me track your location anytime I want to. Other people can download software to turn on the microphone and listen in without having the phone ring.

The only real difference between your cellphone and a spying device used to track you, listen to every word you say, is the software on it.

Just because all they CLAIMED to download was a 'free song' doesn't mean it really was a free song.

Doing the download indicates:

1. The ability to treat pwn your electronics at their convenience.

2. Weak morals, ethics and lack of respect for us such that they see nothing wrong with pwning our devices.

This is a matter of trust - and they proved they are not trustworthy.

Some people have a great ambition: to build something that will last, at least until they've finished building it.

Working...