Actually I had posted prior to his comment, my post detailing similar rhetoric. I was just happy to see that another person would have the understanding that, just sometimes, people are not entirely truthful, biased and *gasp* even (what!?) lie in their own accounts of an event. It's unwise to chose sides until all the details and facts, as all as all individual's accounts come out, lest we look like fools (old example- UCLA pepper spray incident, current example- teen who said he made $27 million in stock investments).
Good post! I agree wholeheartedly. How the hell do you "+1" on Slashdot, or is it only editors that can do it? Finally, a person who can think for themselves and not be led like a sheep as the others on this thread seem to be doing, having read only one biased account of the incident and "assuming" that what was said was truth.
You ASSUME what she said is true- that the police deleted the video. Why do you assume that, because she said so? If she was looking to make an issue of this, hence all the shouting and drawing attention to herself to get their attention and get arrested, is it not possible she deleted the file herself and said they did it so people reading only one account of the incident (hers) would automatically assume that she was telling the truth, thus bolstering her chance of financial benefit? Do we not realize that she could have prevented the whole situation by not breaking the law in the first place, and legally recording from a parked position not blocking the flow of traffic?
My computer's internet access died in the storm so I had to transfer the txt to my phone to use mobile to submit, looks like character artifacts were left in...
You all seem to be on the "cops are bad" side on this one. ÂListen up to some other possibility. ÂIt says it in the article, she stopped her car in the middle of the street to record. ÂYou have all the right to record you want, from a safe distance, while not breaking the law. ÂYou DO NOT have the right to block traffic to record an incident, as you are now impeding on others movements (the cars behind you). ÂAlso, why does she keep drawing attention to her self saying she's recording? ÂIs she trying to start an altercation? ÂIs it not also possible that with police in front of her, she did pull forward almost hitting them? ÂThat's what they're saying. ÂThe video doesn't show evidence either for or against it. ÂThat would be Assault with a deadly weapon- a felony (though I doubt she intended to, it's hard for police to know or care much about it when they are in front of a vehicle with a person acting strangely and moving towards them, they're only though is safety first, they have to assume the worst). Â Â There are certain facts that, if known, could have made this situation virtually all her fault, as we know she WAS breaking the law (operating a cell phone for non gps purposes in traffic, at least). ÂThere are facts that, if known, could make this seem like just annoyed police officers. Â Â And IF she did almost run over them with the car, the fact that they called her a bitch, though stupid, is PETTY. ÂSticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me. ÂIt's words, against her possibly almost hitting them with a car? ÂAnd she does seem like a dumb chick for bringing it upon herself. ÂWhy didn't she just pull over first and then record? ÂBecause she's stupid like so many other people and heard from the media, "You have the right to record the police no matter what they tell you" and ignorantly thought that to mean anytime, anywhere, rather than listening to the caveat most news agencies failed to say, "from a safe distance, and as long as it doesn't interfere with the officers and you're doing nothing illegal."
You were doing it as a means of defending your computer, not as a punishment or to be malicious. Also, you wanted to be able to identify your suspects (similar to an attack victim who scrapes suspect skin dna under their nail).
All landline for me. Though I did get a BofA scam call on cell phone the other day.
They are not monitoring your computer until you give them access. That they are monitoring your computer is the ruse they use to give them access.
You're right, my legal basis was poorly worded. Let me draw it in an analogy, it's usually illegal to shoot someone, one exception is when they're shooting you. It's illegal to record someone without their permission on the phone in California (felony wiretapping law), unless they know they're being recorded or if they're doing something illegal. It's illegal to break someone hammer, unless they're using it to break into your house. When a computer hacker is trying to gain illegal access to your computer for illegal purposes, you can use whatever means short of physical force likely to stop said attack. On top of it not being illegal to defend yourself and help destroy a burglar's tools, you also have jurisdictional issues, and the issues that short of them stealing several million dollars no one is going to bother with attempting to prosecute anyone EVEN IF somehow they found a legal loophole to do so. And even if they DID issue a warrant, and these fraudsters are surely foreign, there is no way the US Government would ever allow extradition. So it's a moot point. But my previous reasoning did fail to show a good enough reason, I grant.
I've gotten 4 of these calls. I'm glad there's someone working on a way to scam the scammers, a la 419eater.org. I've tried to keep them on as long as possible and mess with them, the last one got so upset he told me, "You're an idiot, your mother's an idiot, everyone in your family is a big fucking idiot. F*ck you!" Before he hung up on me, it was adorable. I did, of course, record him to show to all my friends how funny it was. I can't keep them on for more than 5 minutes or so before they grow wise and flustered and just give up though. As no law enforcement agency is going to go after these guys, and they are running free, I'm pleased someone is working on a way to mess them up a bit. It's not going to be illegal to scam a scammer, as in order for the authorities to know about it the hackers would have to identify themselves to them, something they would never do. And there's no way Interpol is going to deal with it, just as they won't deal with our complaints.
Ignorant. "Police are scum." Way to mark them with one stroke of the brush. When you track your iphone to a "location" you're not handing the information to them on a silver platter. When it "pinpoints" your iphone it gives an area good to within several houses. If your iphone tracks to 123 ABC Street, your iphone might just be at 117 ABC Street, or behind that house at 123 DEF street. You're giving the iphone location isn't as good as giving the perp on a platter. Now, let me set your straight- Police love these cases in that IF they can find your iphone, they solve a case, and often solve several other cases as well. But it's not that easy- it's only easy for the police if you track your iphone to a park and there's only one person in the park. Do you think the public is really going to tolerate a police officer stopping 10 people in a park? They can't do that and get away with it for fear of public outcry- it's not good enough to go in court! Now, picture one of your common iphone thieves- he lives in a tightly packed apartment complex- your "phone location" could refer to several different apartments on that floor, or any of the ten floors! Iphone doesn't give which floor it's on. And there's many people in each apartment. So know you're talking about searching tens of rooms with hundreds of people. The police can't expend that kind of energy on property loss, it's not a money issue- it's a time issue- this is because there are a ton of crimes occurring every couple minutes and they have to respond to the most pressing ones. Now, when your phone is stolen from you by a person- that's a HOT call, lots of units will respond quick, because of a ROBBERY in progress. Usually, though, it's too late and the person is gone. Days later when you track your phone it's now a property crime response, not a violent crime response (as your original robbery was). You're ignorant to paint them with a "scum" brush. You don't know what you're talking about. They're busy. They would love to help. They know how much it sucks to have a several hundred dollar phone stolen. But often their hands are tied. It's the bad guy whose the scum.
I went with the Toshiba DVR610. I found the hardware conversion to DVD far superior to any form of computer conversion. I converted to DVD files directly and then used those DVD files to edit them into better DVDs on my computer with a program that could work with the files directly with no need for conversion.
I was reading through all the comments to see if I would have to mention this myself, but you beat me to it. The engineering costs of translating brain/muscle signals into mechanical signals I imagine would account for the bulk of the $42k engineering price of the other hand, of which the plastic printed model uses none.
The hard drive space to keep this information is negligible. It's text files. This kind of data has been used to solve murders, robberies, rapes, etc. If they have this database police can search for license plates that keep popping up around crime areas and correlate the bits of info. Let's be clear all agencies already retain this info, and all other LE agencies can request this info. What's happening now is they're just making the information more readily accessible to those who can make use of it.
It is easy to confuse causation with correlation. Without an experiment, causation cannot be shown. Data suggests correlation only. To a person whose never taken a statistics course (a statistics course should be mandated for all students, would decrease people's gullibility), said data might look as though the parents that help with homework CAUSE poorer test scores. To someone who's used to seeing this causation fallacy, I see a possibility that kids who are doing poorly in school are more likely to be helped with their homework by their parents, and therefore it's the poor cognitive ability which CAUSES the parent to help, and the poor cognitive ability CAUSES the poor test scores.