I have heard that embassies military bases are all on high alert in that region. but that could mean anything. This is just from some guy one reddit, so it is equally unsourced. But lets keep this rumor mill running.
It's actually chinese twitter rumors being translated and reported by Gawker.
Iron-fucking-clad right there.
I heard it was ghost dogs that killed him.
With my dyslexia and seeing this comment at the bottom of my screen while I was scrolling I thought it said Ghost Dad for a second. I had an awesome vision of the North Korean version film.
Word from on high is that Kim Jong Un is still alive. Apparently the rumor was part of an attempt to disrupt South Korea's economy, not an assassination, but still slightly sinister.
I still think it was a plant from the Party that'll be used as "proof" that social media is a danger to public order and Chinese international relations and lead to further clampdowns on net freedom.
There is some subtlety to this ruling, but I think they've got it mostly right. They are using the locked safe/file cabinet analogy here and I think that applies.
For example, you cannot be compelled to give up your encryption keys to your hard drive on the whim of law enforcement, as this ruling states. This flows in line with an encryption key being akin to the combination lock on a safe -- which you cannot be compelled to provide on a whim either.
However, if there is corroborating evidence that there is indeed illegal material on the hard drive (or the safe), then you can be compelled to reveal the key. An example would be a case where someone got legally obtained video of you stuffing incriminating documents into your safe. In that case, since law enforcement knows for sure there is evidence in said safe, they can then compel you to open it for them. Similarly, if law enforcement had a legally obtained wiretap where they hear you saying "yeah, I'm storing these incriminating records on my hard drive," you can also be compelled to hand over your encryption keys.
At least, that's how I've understood these rulings.
I reeeeally want them to make an anime omnibus DVD or some sort of high production value short anime based on Robocop. I think it would be perfect as anime, the subject material is there, and they could do like the Animatrix or the Batman shorts.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the guy still did illegal shit. Just not under that particular law, which says that something has to be tangible in order to be considered a stolen good. I don't know what the prosecution was thinking.
Can someone explain to me why state constitutions are capable in some situations to override the U.S. Constitutions, and in some scenarios not?
I'm pretty sure that there are some state constitutions which declare that public office can only be entrusted to christians, which is of course nullified by the fact that the U.S. constitution states that this can not be done. Shouldn't these marriage amendments be automatically voided by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
Anyway, this is probably going to play out the way it did in California: It's going to be struck down by the courts. Also, the topic belongs in this thread.
Comments
In unrelated news, this shows up on page 2 if you google "Kim Jong Il Ghost"
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/laptop-decryption-unconstitutional/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=MoreRecently
For example, you cannot be compelled to give up your encryption keys to your hard drive on the whim of law enforcement, as this ruling states. This flows in line with an encryption key being akin to the combination lock on a safe -- which you cannot be compelled to provide on a whim either.
However, if there is corroborating evidence that there is indeed illegal material on the hard drive (or the safe), then you can be compelled to reveal the key. An example would be a case where someone got legally obtained video of you stuffing incriminating documents into your safe. In that case, since law enforcement knows for sure there is evidence in said safe, they can then compel you to open it for them. Similarly, if law enforcement had a legally obtained wiretap where they hear you saying "yeah, I'm storing these incriminating records on my hard drive," you can also be compelled to hand over your encryption keys.
At least, that's how I've understood these rulings.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/02/mattel-reveals-back-to-the-future-hoverboards-for-sale/
http://techland.time.com/2011/10/24/anonymous-takes-down-40-child-pornography-sites/
Joel Kinnaman has been cast as the new Robocop.
http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-chicago-police-detain-journalists-0317,0,5465087.story
http://gizmodo.com/5901263/court-rules-it-is-impossible-to-steal-computer-code
I'm pretty sure that there are some state constitutions which declare that public office can only be entrusted to christians, which is of course nullified by the fact that the U.S. constitution states that this can not be done. Shouldn't these marriage amendments be automatically voided by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
Anyway, this is probably going to play out the way it did in California: It's going to be struck down by the courts. Also, the topic belongs in this thread.