Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: This is normal (Score 1) 572

by halln (#46419965) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Does Your Employer Perform HTTPS MITM Attacks On Employees?
This is extremely common. A lot of newer firewalls have it built in and it is basically just a checkbox and configuring a CA. Palo Alto prevents issues with banking by allowing a company to perform SSL decryption on all traffic, but exclude decryption on certain categories of sites. Therefore, you can perform decryption, but not decrypt banking sites. And, btw, even those "HTTPS" VPNs will often use IPSEC after the initial authentication. SSL is usually a fallback.

Comment: Re:Need a new law (Score 2) 423

by halln (#38328338) Attached to: Juror's Tweets Overturn Trial Verdict
At no point in the article is it stated that these tweets were made while the trial was in progress. Do jurors only drink coffee while listening to testimony? They are given breaks and can drink coffee when they aren't in court. While I agree that jury duty is just that, your duty, I don't believe these instances should fall under anything other than being stupid.

Comment: Re:Where do they keep finding 12 morons? (Score 5, Informative) 1127

by halln (#30337588) Attached to: "Accidental" Download Sending 22-Year-Old Man To Prison
Sounds like a good example where the Fully Informed Jury Association website should have been reviewed. From their site fija.org:

"The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government. The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict."

Comment: Re:how many users will complain about removal? (Score 1) 353

by halln (#26286441) Attached to: 400,000 PCs Infected With Fake "Antivirus 2009"
I would have to disagree. IANAL either, but from what I gathered a person is not supposed to be responsible for all operations on and communication to/from their computer unless there is proof that they were the ones who did it. Just because somebody was looking at porn on my computer at work using my name doesn't mean I did it. I could potentially be held responsible for it if there is a policy that states that I am not to allow anybody else to use my credentials, but if there is sufficient evidence to show that it might not have been me then it would be fairly hard to found guilty in a wrongful termination lawsuit.

In this situation I wouldn't really know which way to take it, but I would say that there is enough against the makers to invalidate the EULA. I would say the AV 2009 authors would be more likely to face fraud charges than Microsoft would for removing it.

Comment: Re:dumb people lose money, not freedom (Score 1) 809

by halln (#24701463) Attached to: Jail 'Greedy' Scam Victims, Says Nigerian Diplomat
Taking the typical scam and assuming the scammer is not law enforcement, then there is no entrapment defense. Entrapment cannot be committed by non-law enforcement or non-government officials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entrapment
http://www.grayarea.com/entrap.htm

IANAL,
--
Nathan

"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai

Working...