If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sun Sentinel)   Remember the good old days when the only organization tracking your cell phone calls was the NSA and not your local police department?   (sun-sentinel.com) divider line 89
    More: Asinine, cell phones, assistant commissioner, stingrays, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, tracking, Broward Sheriff's Office  
•       •       •

4804 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 May 2014 at 9:56 AM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-19 11:09:20 AM  
I thought Fark already covered this.  Drew is monitoring you in between beers.  Bring him more
 
2014-05-19 11:09:39 AM  

dittybopper: neversubmit: That has got to be boring, most of the time.

Ever call up a business and have a machine route your call based upon your voice responses to questions?

Ever see an ad for software that allows you to speak and it transcribes (albeit somewhat imperfectly) what you said into written word?

The days of people having to sit there, hunched over with headphones on, transcribing every last word of a conversation are long over.  Software does the boring stuff for you.


twi-ny.com
 
2014-05-19 11:10:55 AM  

reveal101: FitzShivering:
As someone who got harassed/inves ...

So that's justice nowadays in America. How is it the land of the free exactly, because I just don't get it.


Other than the officer in question intentionally (IMO, no way to prove it) harming one of my animals, just to be an aggressive prick, nothing happened to me regarding it. There was pretty easy exculpatory evidence, I think they just thought because I lived in the ghetto they weren't dealing with a well educated person who was aware of his rights and could hire a nice lawyer.

And yes, justice in America is highly perverted nowadays.  This is even more so true if you aren't a white male as I am.
 
2014-05-19 11:18:15 AM  

Muta: fireclown: So . . . . . .we're all comfortable with this?

I think the only people who are uncomfortable are criminals and people who have something to hide.


The slope. It's slippery.
 
2014-05-19 11:27:16 AM  

dittybopper: Hey Subby, ever hear of a little thing called "CALEA"?  It was signed into law 20 years ago by Bill Clinton, and it requires that the telecommunications industry actively facilitate government wiretapping.  So don't go thinking this is something new.

StingRay-type devices have been around in one form or another pretty much since cell phone use became popular.


Crazy Talk!!! Clinton was 100% without fault and that is why we must elect Hillary!!!!
 
Xai
2014-05-19 11:31:43 AM  
This Police state is all Bush's fault, vote for the other guy.
This Police state is all Obama's fault, vote for the other guy.

Problem is, both parties want to make the surveillance state bigger
 
2014-05-19 11:32:05 AM  

Dirty J1: Securitywyrm: Dirty J1: Kinda crappy about the potential privacy violation, but I can see the good outweighing the bad in this case. If these guys want to get their jollies by reading my sexts and listening to me bs with my buddies and tell my wife I'm on my way home from work then whatever. Personally I have nothing to hide that I would ever communicate via phone with anyway. Eventually you'd think criminals would go back to old school methods of writing letters and would strip victims of their phones and destroy them before kidnapping to keep this tech from working. But thankfully criminals is dumb as hell.

So let's say someone you don't like at the place you work gets murdered. They then play to the Jury a solid hour of your conversations complaining about that individual, even though that occurred over a two year period. You're screwed. Bear in mind, the "job" of the police is to capture "the bad people" and what easier way to capture the bad people than to be in control of who gets that label?

The data they gather can only be used against you.

First of all, I'd never be dumb enough to voice a legitimate threat to anyone via phone. They can listen to me biatch about how i hate my coworkers all day, but that wouldn't be sufficient evidence to actually convict me of the crime. Sure they may waste my time by making me a suspect, but in the end i would come out on top if i legitimately didnt do it. Simply stating negative opinions about someone may be sufficient enough to suspect them, but not convict them. Remember, you don't need to prove to them your innocence, but they absolutely have to prove your guilt to convict you. For example, I really hate my neighbor in the apartment above me because he plays that damn rap music constantly and it bugs me. I would love to beat his ass and smash his face into his boom box. If those things were actually to mysteriously happen, what i preciously said would not get me convicted.


Doesn't matter. "We will now present the motive of the accused, here is him complaining about it!" Also they'll portray you as a very angry person by every clip of you ever swearing on your phone. And bear in mind: conviction is determined by 12 people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty, or who want to be important.
 
2014-05-19 11:46:58 AM  

FitzShivering: reveal101: FitzShivering:
As someone who got harassed/inves ...

So that's justice nowadays in America. How is it the land of the free exactly, because I just don't get it.

Other than the officer in question intentionally (IMO, no way to prove it) harming one of my animals, just to be an aggressive prick, nothing happened to me regarding it. There was pretty easy exculpatory evidence, I think they just thought because I lived in the ghetto they weren't dealing with a well educated person who was aware of his rights and could hire a nice lawyer.

And yes, justice in America is highly perverted nowadays.  This is even more so true if you aren't a white male as I am.


How long did they bug you before they realized you were a dead end? Smart cops usually move on fairly quickly when the lead doesn't go anywhere.
 
2014-05-19 11:55:35 AM  

Xai: This Police state is all Bush's fault, vote for the other guy.
This Police state is all Obama's fault, vote for the other guy.

Problem is, both parties want to make the surveillance state bigger


And they will.
 
2014-05-19 12:00:46 PM  

Muta: dittybopper: Muta: fireclown: So . . . . . .we're all comfortable with this?

I think the only people who are uncomfortable are criminals and people who have something to hide.

We *ALL* have something to hide from someone.

Whenever someone suggests that something like this is no big deal, as you seem to be, I like to ask them how they would feel if their worst nightmare of a government had the same capability to abuse as they wish.

Would you still feel the same way?

This is America.


Yes, America, which is a nation for which privacy against unwarranted government intrusion is enshrined in the founding document.

But screw that, because TURRISTS!
 
2014-05-19 12:07:50 PM  

Another Government Employee: FitzShivering: reveal101: FitzShivering:
As someone who got harassed/inves ...

So that's justice nowadays in America. How is it the land of the free exactly, because I just don't get it.

Other than the officer in question intentionally (IMO, no way to prove it) harming one of my animals, just to be an aggressive prick, nothing happened to me regarding it. There was pretty easy exculpatory evidence, I think they just thought because I lived in the ghetto they weren't dealing with a well educated person who was aware of his rights and could hire a nice lawyer.

And yes, justice in America is highly perverted nowadays.  This is even more so true if you aren't a white male as I am.

How long did they bug you before they realized you were a dead end? Smart cops usually move on fairly quickly when the lead doesn't go anywhere.

Smart cops...

 
2014-05-19 12:08:55 PM  

King Something: Dirty J1: Personally I have nothing to hide

Then you are part of the problem.

Bathing isn't illegal, and I have no reason to believe you cook meth in your bathtub while you bathe (or at all, for that matter). Would you want the cops to come to your home and watch you bathe just to make sure you aren't cooking meth while bathing?

Reading books and newspapers is legal. Would you like the cops to be looking over your shoulder while you read?


Well to be realistic, the tech that the police uses is more than likely significantly downgraded from what the NSA uses. That being said, they won't have the same range of usage and overall capability to monitor every single signal at all times. As a professional police force they would use this tech only when called upon, even perhaps needing a warrant and valid reasoning to use it. So no, I can't compare it to them watching me in my house 24/7 via camera or following me around reading over my shoulder. And I'm sure that your attitude against this would change should, god forbid, a loved one of yours is abducted and they are lucky enough to find them and the abductors in good time because of this very technology. You see i prefer to let the good outweigh the bad in cases like this and not condemn something that may, dispite the drawbacks, help one day save a love one.
 
2014-05-19 12:09:13 PM  
Dirty J1
2014-05-19 10:22:01 AM

fireclown: So . . . . . .we're all comfortable with this?

Since the good really outweighs the bad then yeah. If they find missing kidnap victims and criminals by tracking their phones at the cost of getting a few giggles out of reading our sexts and listening in on mundane conversations then I'd say its worth it. Just dont communicate anything via phone that you wouldn't want them to find out and you're golden.

Which is why you use an alias online and don't set your password to abc123
 
2014-05-19 12:09:50 PM  

Another Government Employee: Smart cops usually move on fairly quickly when the lead doesn't go anywhere.


Not all cops are smart.

And sometimes even smart cops can make mistakes and latch on to a theory that they just can't let go of, even after it's been shown to be wrong.
 
2014-05-19 12:10:29 PM  

telejester: Dirty J1: Kinda crappy about the potential privacy violation, but I can see the good outweighing the bad in this case. If these guys want to get their jollies by reading my sexts and listening to me bs with my buddies and tell my wife I'm on my way home from work then whatever. Personally I have nothing to hide that I would ever communicate via phone with anyway. Eventually you'd think criminals would go back to old school methods of writing letters and would strip victims of their phones and destroy them before kidnapping to keep this tech from working. But thankfully criminals is dumb as hell.

Yes they is.


Lol for the record, I said "is dumb as hell" on purpose. More of a personal laugh gained out of it lmao.
 
2014-05-19 12:11:59 PM  
snocone [TotalFark]
2014-05-19 11:55:35 AM

Xai: This Police state is all Bush's fault, vote for the other guy.
This Police state is all Obama's fault, vote for the other guy.

Problem is, both parties want to make the surveillance state bigger

And they will have.
 
2014-05-19 12:13:44 PM  

Dirty J1: Securitywyrm: Dirty J1: Kinda crappy about the potential privacy violation, but I can see the good outweighing the bad in this case. If these guys want to get their jollies by reading my sexts and listening to me bs with my buddies and tell my wife I'm on my way home from work then whatever. Personally I have nothing to hide that I would ever communicate via phone with anyway. Eventually you'd think criminals would go back to old school methods of writing letters and would strip victims of their phones and destroy them before kidnapping to keep this tech from working. But thankfully criminals is dumb as hell.

So let's say someone you don't like at the place you work gets murdered. They then play to the Jury a solid hour of your conversations complaining about that individual, even though that occurred over a two year period. You're screwed. Bear in mind, the "job" of the police is to capture "the bad people" and what easier way to capture the bad people than to be in control of who gets that label?

The data they gather can only be used against you.

First of all, I'd never be dumb enough to voice a legitimate threat to anyone via phone. They can listen to me biatch about how i hate my coworkers all day, but that wouldn't be sufficient evidence to actually convict me of the crime. Sure they may waste my time by making me a suspect, but in the end i would come out on top if i legitimately didnt do it. Simply stating negative opinions about someone may be sufficient enough to suspect them, but not convict them. Remember, you don't need to prove to them your innocence, but they absolutely have to prove your guilt to convict you. For example, I really hate my neighbor in the apartment above me because he plays that damn rap music constantly and it bugs me. I would love to beat his ass and smash his face into his boom box. If those things were actually to mysteriously happen, what i preciously said would not get me convicted.


said all those who have been on death row, only to have the conviction overturned by DNA or evidence not available or 'missing' at their trial./

you sound white ...
 
2014-05-19 12:14:01 PM  

FitzShivering: And yes, justice in America is highly perverted nowadays.  This is even more so true if you aren't a white male as I am.


Bullshiat. As a white, professional, clean-shaven, short-haired, middle-class male I can speak from experience.

Cops have our best interest in mind at all times.
 
2014-05-19 12:16:06 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Not at all impressed
 
2014-05-19 12:19:51 PM  

King Something: Dirty J1: Securitywyrm: Dirty J1: Kinda crappy about the potential privacy violation, but I can see the good outweighing the bad in this case. If these guys want to get their jollies by reading my sexts and listening to me bs with my buddies and tell my wife I'm on my way home from work then whatever. Personally I have nothing to hide that I would ever communicate via phone with anyway. Eventually you'd think criminals would go back to old school methods of writing letters and would strip victims of their phones and destroy them before kidnapping to keep this tech from working. But thankfully criminals is dumb as hell.

So let's say someone you don't like at the place you work gets murdered. They then play to the Jury a solid hour of your conversations complaining about that individual, even though that occurred over a two year period. You're screwed. Bear in mind, the "job" of the police is to capture "the bad people" and what easier way to capture the bad people than to be in control of who gets that label?

The data they gather can only be used against you.

First of all, I'd never be dumb enough to voice a legitimate threat to anyone via phone. They can listen to me biatch about how i hate my coworkers all day, but that wouldn't be sufficient evidence to actually convict me of the crime. Sure they may waste my time by making me a suspect, but in the end i would come out on top if i legitimately didnt do it. Simply stating negative opinions about someone may be sufficient enough to suspect them, but not convict them. Remember, you don't need to prove to them your innocence, but they absolutely have to prove your guilt to convict you. For example, I really hate my neighbor in the apartment above me because he plays that damn rap music constantly and it bugs me. I would love to beat his ass and smash his face into his boom box. If those things were actually to mysteriously happen, what i preciously said would not get me convicted.

They could just show the "evidence" that you might have conspired to murder that coworker -- simply not liking that person could be enough for that purpose, especially if that person is a photogenic white girl. Then there's the fact that you'd be tried by either 6 or 12 people who couldn't get out of jury duty, and even if you didn't get convicted you'd still have an arrest on your record.

/the cops could also say that there's a non-zero chance that at some point in your lifetime you handled currency that was either used in a drug transaction or handled by someone who did buy or sell drugs at some point in their lifetime, and they'd be able to seize all your worldly possessions and sell it at auction unless you can prove beyond all doubt that that is not the case
//and if you're homeless or not white, they could just up and blow your brains out and call it "self-defense"


Now there is no evidence showing conspiracy of murder if i say something like "man this guy is a douche and i wish he was dead." If I said something like "I'm going to kill him" or even "I'm thinking of killing him" then maybe there's a case. The first quote is not incriminating me for anything other than voicing an opinion. Now im not a lawyer by any means, however i have read my share of legal texts and have even interviewed lawyers and police for what they think was for me being an aspiring young crime novel writer or a career day assignment. In reality i just wanted to know some things they knew just in case. Immoral maybe, but not sure it's illegal. You'd be surprised at how much illicit crap they do to prey on our ignorance and force a confession.
 
2014-05-19 12:23:03 PM  

Another Government Employee: FitzShivering: reveal101: FitzShivering:
As someone who got harassed/inves ...

So that's justice nowadays in America. How is it the land of the free exactly, because I just don't get it.

Other than the officer in question intentionally (IMO, no way to prove it) harming one of my animals, just to be an aggressive prick, nothing happened to me regarding it. There was pretty easy exculpatory evidence, I think they just thought because I lived in the ghetto they weren't dealing with a well educated person who was aware of his rights and could hire a nice lawyer.

And yes, justice in America is highly perverted nowadays.  This is even more so true if you aren't a white male as I am.

How long did they bug you before they realized you were a dead end? Smart cops usually move on fairly quickly when the lead doesn't go anywhere.


Only place there are smart cops is on TV.
 
2014-05-19 12:23:50 PM  

FitzShivering: Dirty J1: Securitywyrm: Dirty J1: Kinda crappy about the potential privacy violation, but I can see the good outweighing the bad in this case. If these guys want to get their jollies by reading my sexts and listening to me bs with my buddies and tell my wife I'm on my way home from work then whatever. Personally I have nothing to hide that I would ever communicate via phone with anyway. Eventually you'd think criminals would go back to old school methods of writing letters and would strip victims of their phones and destroy them before kidnapping to keep this tech from working. But thankfully criminals is dumb as hell.

So let's say someone you don't like at the place you work gets murdered. They then play to the Jury a solid hour of your conversations complaining about that individual, even though that occurred over a two year period. You're screwed. Bear in mind, the "job" of the police is to capture "the bad people" and what easier way to capture the bad people than to be in control of who gets that label?

The data they gather can only be used against you.

First of all, I'd never be dumb enough to voice a legitimate threat to anyone via phone. They can listen to me biatch about how i hate my coworkers all day, but that wouldn't be sufficient evidence to actually convict me of the crime. Sure they may waste my time by making me a suspect, but in the end i would come out on top if i legitimately didnt do it. Simply stating negative opinions about someone may be sufficient enough to suspect them, but not convict them. Remember, you don't need to prove to them your innocence, but they absolutely have to prove your guilt to convict you. For example, I really hate my neighbor in the apartment above me because he plays that damn rap music constantly and it bugs me. I would love to beat his ass and smash his face into his boom box. If those things were actually to mysteriously happen, what i preciously said would not get me convicted.

As someone who got harassed/investigated for a murder once for saying something barely negative about a guy who was later murdered, I think, assuming you aren't trolling, you don't know much about how crimes and conviction work.  People have been convicted for literally doing nothing.  Saying how much you hate your coworkers could absolutely get you convicted if you don't have good legal counsel.  People get convicted on circumstantial evidence quite often -- it's only in TV shows that they don't.  Police departments, especially smaller ones, are not supposed to leave cases open, and so if they don't have hard evidence against a particular individual, they will go with whatever evidence they have, however soft, against anyone they can.  People often get incredibly scared and plea out, even when they aren't guilty, which gets the case closed; sometimes these pleas even make sense for them, despite the fact they did nothing wrong.


That's why you need good legal council and the ambition to interview lawyers and police and read legal texts in your free time. I've interviewed police and lawyers in college under the guise of a student doing a career day assignment and go an aspiring young crime writer. Neither of these were really the case of course. I just wanted knowledge.
 
2014-05-19 12:28:38 PM  

listernine: Dirty J1: Securitywyrm: Dirty J1: Kinda crappy about the potential privacy violation, but I can see the good outweighing the bad in this case. If these guys want to get their jollies by reading my sexts and listening to me bs with my buddies and tell my wife I'm on my way home from work then whatever. Personally I have nothing to hide that I would ever communicate via phone with anyway. Eventually you'd think criminals would go back to old school methods of writing letters and would strip victims of their phones and destroy them before kidnapping to keep this tech from working. But thankfully criminals is dumb as hell.

So let's say someone you don't like at the place you work gets murdered. They then play to the Jury a solid hour of your conversations complaining about that individual, even though that occurred over a two year period. You're screwed. Bear in mind, the "job" of the police is to capture "the bad people" and what easier way to capture the bad people than to be in control of who gets that label?

The data they gather can only be used against you.

First of all, I'd never be dumb enough to voice a legitimate threat to anyone via phone. They can listen to me biatch about how i hate my coworkers all day, but that wouldn't be sufficient evidence to actually convict me of the crime. Sure they may waste my time by making me a suspect, but in the end i would come out on top if i legitimately didnt do it. Simply stating negative opinions about someone may be sufficient enough to suspect them, but not convict them. Remember, you don't need to prove to them your innocence, but they absolutely have to prove your guilt to convict you. For example, I really hate my neighbor in the apartment above me because he plays that damn rap music constantly and it bugs me. I would love to beat his ass and smash his face into his boom box. If those things were actually to mysteriously happen, what i preciously said would not get me convicted.

Judge: Why are you admitting these recordings?
Prosecutor: Goes to motive, your honor.


Motive in this case can be subjective since its not a direct threat, and also doesn't mean anything if you have a rock solid alibi. As for me, I'm either at work or at home with my wife, so pretty much have an alibi 24/7 to back me up. Without an alibi you may be screwed but then again im not the kind of person who goes out all the time for anything. I don't do much recreational crap at all unless I'm with someone anyway, mainly my wife.
 
2014-05-19 12:31:28 PM  
This may shock you but, I don't even want a cell phone.
 
2014-05-19 12:32:11 PM  

Securitywyrm: Dirty J1: Securitywyrm: Dirty J1: Kinda crappy about the potential privacy violation, but I can see the good outweighing the bad in this case. If these guys want to get their jollies by reading my sexts and listening to me bs with my buddies and tell my wife I'm on my way home from work then whatever. Personally I have nothing to hide that I would ever communicate via phone with anyway. Eventually you'd think criminals would go back to old school methods of writing letters and would strip victims of their phones and destroy them before kidnapping to keep this tech from working. But thankfully criminals is dumb as hell.

So let's say someone you don't like at the place you work gets murdered. They then play to the Jury a solid hour of your conversations complaining about that individual, even though that occurred over a two year period. You're screwed. Bear in mind, the "job" of the police is to capture "the bad people" and what easier way to capture the bad people than to be in control of who gets that label?

The data they gather can only be used against you.

First of all, I'd never be dumb enough to voice a legitimate threat to anyone via phone. They can listen to me biatch about how i hate my coworkers all day, but that wouldn't be sufficient evidence to actually convict me of the crime. Sure they may waste my time by making me a suspect, but in the end i would come out on top if i legitimately didnt do it. Simply stating negative opinions about someone may be sufficient enough to suspect them, but not convict them. Remember, you don't need to prove to them your innocence, but they absolutely have to prove your guilt to convict you. For example, I really hate my neighbor in the apartment above me because he plays that damn rap music constantly and it bugs me. I would love to beat his ass and smash his face into his boom box. If those things were actually to mysteriously happen, what i preciously said would not get me convicted.

Doesn't matter. "We will now present the motive of the accused, here is him complaining about it!" Also they'll portray you as a very angry person by every clip of you ever swearing on your phone. And bear in mind: conviction is determined by 12 people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty, or who want to be important.


Still a jury needs to find me guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. The fact that its not a direct threat is doubt. Also you have more than motive to worry about, alibi is a huge factor as well. For example if I'm truly innocent, during this crime i could easily be placed at my home with my wife or at work during the time, and don't forget the lack of hard evidence. Fingerprints, weapons, footprints, DNA samples..... Hard to make a valid case without any of that.
 
2014-05-19 12:37:28 PM  

petec: Dirty J1: Securitywyrm: Dirty J1: Kinda crappy about the potential privacy violation, but I can see the good outweighing the bad in this case. If these guys want to get their jollies by reading my sexts and listening to me bs with my buddies and tell my wife I'm on my way home from work then whatever. Personally I have nothing to hide that I would ever communicate via phone with anyway. Eventually you'd think criminals would go back to old school methods of writing letters and would strip victims of their phones and destroy them before kidnapping to keep this tech from working. But thankfully criminals is dumb as hell.

So let's say someone you don't like at the place you work gets murdered. They then play to the Jury a solid hour of your conversations complaining about that individual, even though that occurred over a two year period. You're screwed. Bear in mind, the "job" of the police is to capture "the bad people" and what easier way to capture the bad people than to be in control of who gets that label?

The data they gather can only be used against you.

First of all, I'd never be dumb enough to voice a legitimate threat to anyone via phone. They can listen to me biatch about how i hate my coworkers all day, but that wouldn't be sufficient evidence to actually convict me of the crime. Sure they may waste my time by making me a suspect, but in the end i would come out on top if i legitimately didnt do it. Simply stating negative opinions about someone may be sufficient enough to suspect them, but not convict them. Remember, you don't need to prove to them your innocence, but they absolutely have to prove your guilt to convict you. For example, I really hate my neighbor in the apartment above me because he plays that damn rap music constantly and it bugs me. I would love to beat his ass and smash his face into his boom box. If those things were actually to mysteriously happen, what i preciously said would not get me convicted.

said all those who have been on death row, only to have the conviction overturned by DNA or evidence not available or 'missing' at their trial./

you sound white ...


Clearly these people got very poor legal council then. Or though evidence wasnt substantial they still had questionable alibis. Though hard evidence is key, it's not always enough. Any idiot who watches CSI or some other forensic crime show can easily learn to carefully scrub a crime scene, and I'm sure the legal system realizes this and has measures to compensate. However, an alibi complete with witness testimonial can make or break the case.
 
2014-05-19 12:43:25 PM  

dittybopper: Another Government Employee: Smart cops usually move on fairly quickly when the lead doesn't go anywhere.

Not all cops are smart.

And sometimes even smart cops can make mistakes and latch on to a theory that they just can't let go of, even after it's been shown to be wrong.


That is true.

Been proven many times.
 
2014-05-19 01:00:18 PM  

Dirty J1: Fingerprints, weapons, footprints, DNA samples..... Hard to make a valid case without any of that.


You'd think, wouldn't you? Let's hope you never have to find out how wrong you are personally, because you obviously haven't been paying attention to the world around you.
 
2014-05-19 01:13:18 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Dirty J1: Fingerprints, weapons, footprints, DNA samples..... Hard to make a valid case without any of that.

You'd think, wouldn't you? Let's hope you never have to find out how wrong you are personally, because you obviously haven't been paying attention to the world around you.


The pressure would be to get a plea before trial. And that would be a lot of pressure in the form of sitting in a jail cell with no bond until you (or your lawyer) crack under the mounting costs.

I knew a fellow that was a long time judge. He looked dimly upon those kinds of shennanigans. But until the case actually hit his docket, he really couldn't do anything about it.  He kicked a few forced plea deals in his career, though.
 
2014-05-19 01:46:58 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: You'd think, wouldn't you? Let's hope you never have to find out how wrong you are personally, because you obviously haven't been paying attention to the world around you.


My wife watches a bunch of those Dateline NBC and 20/20 type shows where they review crimes.  It is amazing how some people get convicted with evidence that directly contradicts the story the prosecutor is selling.  Some of it is on par with the type of prosecution that was done on Amanda Knox.

//They don't care about justice, they care about conviction stats.
 
2014-05-19 02:33:01 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com

This surveillance crap really gets my goat.
 
2014-05-19 03:41:12 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: [24.media.tumblr.com image 236x132]

This surveillance crap really gets my goat.


Understandable.  Some people just don't realize the significance of what the NSA has been doing.  Even if they don't understand why, every person should use some method of concealing their communications.  Not all methods are created equal.  Ciphers that are weak should be avoided for all but the most mundane communications.  Requiring the NSA to break every single message confers a sort of herd immunit on everyone:  Your communications might well be vulnerable individually but they have to break them first to find out that they aren't significant.  Put all of the communications in the US in that category, then they have to really work at it to figure out.  In other words, only by acting together can we hope to stymie the biggest threat to our freedom and privacy, NSA.

/One slightly used intarwebs to the first person to find the hidden message.
 
2014-05-19 03:42:50 PM  
Time to start thinking about encryption at each end of the call?
 
2014-05-19 03:47:22 PM  

dittybopper: The Irresponsible Captain: [24.media.tumblr.com image 236x132]

This surveillance crap really gets my goat.

Understandable.  Some people just don't realize the significance of what the NSA has been doing.  Even if they don't understand why, every person should use some method of concealing their communications.  Not all methods are created equal.  Ciphers that are weak should be avoided for all but the most mundane communications.  Requiring the NSA to break every single message confers a sort of herd immunit on everyone:  Your communications might well be vulnerable individually but they have to break them first to find out that they aren't significant.  Put all of the communications in the US in that category, then they have to really work at it to figure out.  In other words, only by acting together can we hope to stymie the biggest threat to our freedom and privacy, NSA.

/One slightly used intarwebs to the first person to find the hidden message.


Use ncrypin Use encryption.
 
2014-05-19 04:01:56 PM  

dittybopper: /One slightly used intarwebs to the first person to find the hidden message.


Be sure to drink your Ovaltine!
 
2014-05-19 04:04:40 PM  

mjbok: dittybopper: The Irresponsible Captain: [24.media.tumblr.com image 236x132]

This surveillance crap really gets my goat.

Understandable.  Some people just don't realize the significance of what the NSA has been doing.  Even if they don't understand why, every person should use some method of concealing their communications.  Not all methods are created equal.  Ciphers that are weak should be avoided for all but the most mundane communications.  Requiring the NSA to break every single message confers a sort of herd immunit on everyone:  Your communications might well be vulnerable individually but they have to break them first to find out that they aren't significant.  Put all of the communications in the US in that category, then they have to really work at it to figure out.  In other words, only by acting together can we hope to stymie the biggest threat to our freedom and privacy, NSA.

/One slightly used intarwebs to the first person to find the hidden message.

Use ncrypin Use encryption.


The second one.  First letter after every punctuation mark.

But if I hadn't put the slashy there, would you have found it?  The tell-tale marks of a null cipher, strained wording, are easy enough to get past if you use enough nulls.  It makes the message much bigger, of course, but that's OK.  Bits are cheap.

Plus, you could combine it with a simple substitution cipher or transposition based on a short, memorable keyword, and then any automated process scanning text won't be able to find the text of the hidden message.
 
2014-05-19 06:16:53 PM  

dittybopper: But if I hadn't put the slashy there, would you have found it? The tell-tale marks of a null cipher, strained wording, are easy enough to get past if you use enough nulls. It makes the message much bigger, of course, but that's OK. Bits are cheap.


I just grabbed the first letter of every capitalized thing and filled in the gaps.  I wouldn't have known it was there if not told to, which is part of the beauty of it.  It's simple, but you won't see it unless told to look at it.  CSB time, this is similar to one of the ways we used to cheat on open-book tests in high-school.  Someone could look at your textbook and never see it.  (we used hi-lighting instead punctuation).
 
2014-05-19 08:13:38 PM  

Dirty J1: Securitywyrm: Dirty J1: Securitywyrm: Dirty J1: Kinda crappy about the potential privacy violation, but I can see the good outweighing the bad in this case. If these guys want to get their jollies by reading my sexts and listening to me bs with my buddies and tell my wife I'm on my way home from work then whatever. Personally I have nothing to hide that I would ever communicate via phone with anyway. Eventually you'd think criminals would go back to old school methods of writing letters and would strip victims of their phones and destroy them before kidnapping to keep this tech from working. But thankfully criminals is dumb as hell.

So let's say someone you don't like at the place you work gets murdered. They then play to the Jury a solid hour of your conversations complaining about that individual, even though that occurred over a two year period. You're screwed. Bear in mind, the "job" of the police is to capture "the bad people" and what easier way to capture the bad people than to be in control of who gets that label?

The data they gather can only be used against you.

First of all, I'd never be dumb enough to voice a legitimate threat to anyone via phone. They can listen to me biatch about how i hate my coworkers all day, but that wouldn't be sufficient evidence to actually convict me of the crime. Sure they may waste my time by making me a suspect, but in the end i would come out on top if i legitimately didnt do it. Simply stating negative opinions about someone may be sufficient enough to suspect them, but not convict them. Remember, you don't need to prove to them your innocence, but they absolutely have to prove your guilt to convict you. For example, I really hate my neighbor in the apartment above me because he plays that damn rap music constantly and it bugs me. I would love to beat his ass and smash his face into his boom box. If those things were actually to mysteriously happen, what i preciously said would not get me convicted.

Doesn't matter. "We ...


No, the term is "Beyond a "reasonable" doubt, and we all know that Americans have a big difference in what they consider "reasonable."
 
2014-05-20 05:52:50 AM  
"Police in Florida deploy the tool to track down violent offenders and rescue victims of abduction."

Sure they will.
 
Displayed 39 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report