 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Took me a while to get around to checking back in here. Not that anyone was
probably wondering/caring, but I'm still around. Guy I was renting from got
arrested for CP posession on 17 Jun, my computers got hauled in along with
his. No idea if/when I'll get my stuff back.
*sigh*
How 'bout them there Cubbies? :P
- Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Took me a while to get around to checking back in here. Not that anyone was
> probably wondering/caring, but I'm still around. Guy I was renting from got
> arrested for CP posession on 17 Jun, my computers got hauled in along with
> his. No idea if/when I'll get my stuff back.
I will never understand the obsession the police has with confiscating
computer equipment. It's never enough to catch the suspect and stop what
he is doing (or suspected to be doing), the computer *always* has to be
confiscated if it had anything to do with the suspected crime, regardless
of whether that makes the least amount of sense or not.
Like this teenager chatting online with his xbox, and I don't remember
exactly what the chat was about, maybe something about bomb threats or
whatever, and the police goes and takes the kid for questioning and
confiscates his xbox. Now, mind you, the program/game he was using does
not log any conversations anywhere. The xbox was in no way any kind of
evidence. It's like if you made a threatening phone call, via a landline
phone, to someone and they confiscated your phone. It makes no sense.
Or how about the Pirate Bay fiasco in Sweden. The Swedish police raided
the Pirate Bay servers and confiscated all of them. You know, because it
was not enough to stop what they were doing. Because of the obsession of
the police, they had to physically confiscate the server hardware and
remove it from their location. Without even asking if maybe, just maybe
those servers might have been used by someone else.
And it resulted that the servers *were* used by someone else. A dozen
or so companies which used them as their main website and development
servers. The confiscation costed them quite sizeable amounts of money
in lost revenue and work hours because suddenly all their websites and
development servers were inaccessible. Physically removed from where
they were.
These companies sued the Swedish government for this.
The irony? Pirate Bay was *not* convicted, and they are still doing what
they did before, completely unhindered. Because of the obsession the police
has with confiscating everything, the Swedish government had to pay to the
companies which lost money because of it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I will never understand the obsession the police has with confiscating
> computer equipment.
It's even worse in the USA. The wise government has decided that if
you're dealing drugs, it's often difficult to prove it, so what they do
instead of trying to arrest you is they arrest your money, your cars,
your house, etc. Since your money isn't guaranteed a lawyer, you have
to sue the government and prove you're innocent to get your stuff back.
If you don't the police get to keep it.
Funny enough, in the states where the law says the police give all those
confiscated assets to (for example) the school system instead of
themselves, the number of abuses of the practice is far lower. </sarcasm>
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I don't even mind *too* much if they keep the hardware...that can be
replaced. But stuff like my financial records I really could use back.
Now, as an obsessive image hoarder, I a) understand that it'll take them a
while to sift through over 200,000 images and over a month's worth of video,
no matter how neatly organized and b) worry that, since I sometimes
batch-downloaded from newsgroups and image boards without necessarily
actually viewing them all, might end up having something problematic.
(Though its been long enough that I presume they'd've already come get me if
I did have something major.)
Plus I have stuff like live-action Sailor Moon, PreCure, and Ebichu that it
wouldn't surprise me if they arrested me after watching, simply on
principle. :P
That or I get them addicted to anime.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:26:32 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:
> How 'bout them there Cubbies?
It's a pity they fell apart in the series; I actually unexpectedly got to
go to game 2 of the series against the LAD (I was in town and a friend of
a friend is a season ticket holder, and wasn't able to go). Z pitched a
good game in game 2, but the fielding was *terrible*, especially in the
2nd inning (which really was the end of the game).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Now, as an obsessive image hoarder, I a) understand that it'll take them a
> while to sift through over 200,000 images and over a month's worth of video,
> no matter how neatly organized and b) worry that, since I sometimes
> batch-downloaded from newsgroups and image boards without necessarily
> actually viewing them all, might end up having something problematic.
Especially given that the *exact* same image can be completely normal and
legal when it's a photograph in a family album, but illegal and sick when
it's a jpeg in the computer of a lonely man.
I would be surprised if the laws of any country made that kind of
distinction, but who cares? At least not law enforcement.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> I don't even mind *too* much if they keep the hardware...that can be
> replaced. But stuff like my financial records I really could use back.
Um, isn't that what backups are for?
> (Though its been long enough that I presume they'd've
> already come get me if I did have something major.)
Isn't that what encryption is for?
Warp wrote:
> Especially given that the *exact* same image can be completely
normal and
> legal when it's a photograph in a family album, but illegal and sick when
> it's a jpeg in the computer of a lonely man.
It's OK as long as you keep it general: "I like children."
It's when you get specific that you get in trouble: "I like 12-year olds."
:-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:48f29c16$1@news.povray.org...
> Um, isn't that what backups are for?
No, the warrant said 'all data storage media'. For some reason they left
what anime I'd backed up to DVD, and a spindle of various TV shows the guy I
was renting from had burned...even though they took a bunch of other stuff
that was irrelevant to their search. If they were serious about it they
should've taken all the DVDs, instead of assuming that what was on them was
what they were labelled (though it defeats the purpose of being organized to
intentionally put things where they don't belong to hide them).
As far as backups...that's what the one hard drive I had was for. They took
that too. I've taken to uploading my re-started financial records
spreadsheet to my web space...the warrany only said data storage media at
these premises. So I suppose it would've been a good idea to get one of
those off-site backup services. They didn't even ask about *that*. heh heh
heh
> Isn't that what encryption is for?
No, encryption is that big red flag that says you've got something to hide.
I do not, will not encrypt any of my data. Most I'll do is password-protect
my list-of-passwords spreadsheet.
> It's OK as long as you keep it general: "I like children."
> It's when you get specific that you get in trouble: "I like 12-year olds."
Except I hate kids. And most adults, for that matter.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:00:48 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:
> No, encryption is that big red flag that says you've got something to
> hide. I do not, will not encrypt any of my data. Most I'll do is
> password-protect my list-of-passwords spreadsheet.
It doesn't just say you've got something to hide - it also says "I've got
something that's sensitive" - like trade secrets and other proprietary
corporate data that you want to protect in the event of theft of the
machines.
I work with data like that myself, and yes, it is encrypted.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> No, the warrant said 'all data storage media'.
I wonder if you're required to tell them where it all is. :-)
Anyway, off-site backup is good. Encrypt it, and take the disk to work
and leave it there. :-) Or put it in the safe. I'm pretty sure you're
not required to give them the password to it.
>> Isn't that what encryption is for?
>
> No, encryption is that big red flag that says you've got something to
> hide.
Um, yeah. Other company's confidential files. Your financial records.
Etc. And putting a door on your bathroom or curtains on your windows
means you have something to hide also, right? :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
