Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Canada vs US: Race for the stupidest interpretation for a serious crime

12346

Posts

  • StarcrossStarcross Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Pony wrote: »
    yeah generally i am against "Tiered Rights" but alcohol is such a potent thing that i actually think this is a good idea

    I also like the French approach where they have 2 classes of alcohol and you can legally buy beer/wine/cider etc. at a younger age than you can spirits.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Pony wrote: »
    yeah generally i am against "Tiered Rights" but alcohol is such a potent thing that i actually think this is a good idea

    In some US States it is actually legal for minors to consume alcohol in their place of residence under supervision by their parents or legal guardians. If these laws were better-known, the whole teenage/college binge drinking thing wouldn't be as big of an issue, because it wouldn't be such a social taboo thrill and people would learn their limits early on (because if your mother sees you doing something embarrassing while you are shit-faced she will never let you live it down).

    Texas actually doesn't require you to be in your residence, just under the supervision of your parents.

    PSN: allenquid
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Jesus fucking christ though this is retarded. Almost everyone has a story of a drunk child via a relative or friend. There's a guy at my uni who's own story is of how he got into the wine cabinet when he was young. Would the kid getting accidentally hammered once have been a problem? No. This is just stupid.

    It's negligence. Whether it's a kid breaking into their pop's wine cabinet or two siblings having consensual sex, if the parents know about it, they should put a stop to it. The guy who lost his kid to a hard lemonade should have checked the label on the bottle.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Jesus fucking christ though this is retarded. Almost everyone has a story of a drunk child via a relative or friend. There's a guy at my uni who's own story is of how he got into the wine cabinet when he was young. Would the kid getting accidentally hammered once have been a problem? No. This is just stupid.

    It's negligence. Whether it's a kid breaking into their pop's wine cabinet or two siblings having consensual sex, if the parents know about it, they should put a stop to it. The guy who lost his kid to a hard lemonade should have checked the label on the bottle.

    Giving a Mike's Hard Lemonade is reasonable grounds for a child to be taken away from their parents due to negligence? You are seriously agreeing with this?

    optimusighsig.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I had a friend I worked with and her daughter ended up pouring herself a screwdriver one morning.

    Said friend had made a pitcher of screwdrivers when friends were over the night before and her daughter poured herself an OJ from the pitcher instead of the OJ bottle.

    "This OJ tastes funny" was when she realized her what her daughter was drinking :P

    sigtk.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Jesus fucking christ though this is retarded. Almost everyone has a story of a drunk child via a relative or friend. There's a guy at my uni who's own story is of how he got into the wine cabinet when he was young. Would the kid getting accidentally hammered once have been a problem? No. This is just stupid.

    It's negligence. Whether it's a kid breaking into their pop's wine cabinet or two siblings having consensual sex, if the parents know about it, they should put a stop to it. The guy who lost his kid to a hard lemonade should have checked the label on the bottle.

    Giving a Mike's Hard Lemonade is reasonable grounds for a child to be taken away from their parents due to negligence? You are seriously agreeing with this?

    I don't know what the punishment should be but there should be a punishment. The guy didn't intend to give alcohol to his kid but that doesn't let him entirely off the hook - he neglected to read the label on the bottle. Raising your hands and saying, "I didn't know!" isn't acceptable.

    What if I wanted to be the cool uncle who lets his twelve year old nephew and his friends drink vodka on a camping trip? When the police show up and find intoxicated tweens, could I say I didn't know vodka contained alcohol? I just thought it was a funny-sounding beverage. Let me go, officers, and it'll never happen again!

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Yes.

    Because trying to claim you didn't know Vodka has alchohol in it is totally the same as not being familiar with what amounts to a semi-obscure wine cooler that is labeled as lemonade.

    Those are totally the same thing.

    sigtk.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Yes.

    Because trying to claim you didn't know Vodka has alchohol in it is totally the same as not being familiar with what amounts to a semi-obscure wine cooler that is labeled as lemonade.

    Those are totally the same thing.

    Let me find a picture of a Mike's Hard Lemonade. If the label doesn't do a good job of identifying itself as an alcoholic beverage, I'll change my mind and support the dad.

    EDIT: OK, I'm on the Dad's side. Those labels were terrible.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • N1tSt4lkerN1tSt4lker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Yes.

    Because trying to claim you didn't know Vodka has alchohol in it is totally the same as not being familiar with what amounts to a semi-obscure wine cooler that is labeled as lemonade.

    Those are totally the same thing.

    Let me find a picture of a Mike's Hard Lemonade. If the label doesn't do a good job of identifying itself as an alcoholic beverage, I'll change my mind and support the dad.

    EDIT: OK, I'm on the Dad's side. Those labels were terrible.

    Really? I was raised in a teetotalling household, and I knew somewhere around the age of 12 that "hard cider" and "hard lemonade" were alcoholic. How naive is this dad?

  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    And I had never heard of hard cider or lemonade until Mike's started showing up in bars here.

    If the guy didn't frequent the bars very often and is as capable of tuning out commercials as I am I could totally see it.

    sigtk.jpg
  • SliderSlider Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    A guy over here was recently arrested for taking pictures of girls during a high school dance/cheerleading contest-thingy. At first I thought, "Well, so what? That isn't illegal." Then I read further and the article explained that he was hiding underneath the bleachers trying to get upskirt shots of the girls. Um, yeah, you can't do that.

  • rational vashrational vash Registered User
    edited December 2009
    N1tSt4lker wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Yes.

    Because trying to claim you didn't know Vodka has alchohol in it is totally the same as not being familiar with what amounts to a semi-obscure wine cooler that is labeled as lemonade.

    Those are totally the same thing.

    Let me find a picture of a Mike's Hard Lemonade. If the label doesn't do a good job of identifying itself as an alcoholic beverage, I'll change my mind and support the dad.

    EDIT: OK, I'm on the Dad's side. Those labels were terrible.

    Really? I was raised in a teetotalling household, and I knew somewhere around the age of 12 that "hard cider" and "hard lemonade" were alcoholic. How naive is this dad?

    It's really not that hard to imagine a scenario in which someone doesn't know mikes hard lemonade is alcoholic.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    N1tSt4lker wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Yes.

    Because trying to claim you didn't know Vodka has alchohol in it is totally the same as not being familiar with what amounts to a semi-obscure wine cooler that is labeled as lemonade.

    Those are totally the same thing.

    Let me find a picture of a Mike's Hard Lemonade. If the label doesn't do a good job of identifying itself as an alcoholic beverage, I'll change my mind and support the dad.

    EDIT: OK, I'm on the Dad's side. Those labels were terrible.

    Really? I was raised in a teetotalling household, and I knew somewhere around the age of 12 that "hard cider" and "hard lemonade" were alcoholic. How naive is this dad?

    It's really not that hard to imagine a scenario in which someone doesn't know mikes hard lemonade is alcoholic.

    If an adult gave a seven year old an unopened pack of cigarettes because they honestly thought is was a box of mints, would you give them a pass?

    http://www.pitara.com/news/news_world/online.asp?story=1

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    What does a story about flavored cigarettes in New Zealand have to do with a hypothetical parent mistaking an unopened pack of cigarettes for a box of mints?

    On top of which what does a hypothetical about a parent mistaking an unopened pack of cigarettes for a box of mints have to do with anything?

    sigtk.jpg
  • FubearFubear Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So mistaking alcoholic lemonade for lemonade is the same as mistaking mints in a tin case to cigarettes in a paper case?

    Makes perfect sense.

    I'm pretty sure they'd catch on when the 'mints' have the consistency of mowed grass and cause vomiting.


    In all honesty, the point I was trying to make with the '16 should be the legal drinking age' is that it is in developed countries (for beer and wine, at least), it is. I think the US has a thing with keeping young adults in a state of perpetual adolescence. What better way to mature than to find out 'I was drunk' or 'I wasn't thinking' is not a good excuse for ANYTHING?

    What's more baffling is why you're ready to give teenagers/young adults the keys to a ton of propelled steel 3 to 5 years before they are supposed to be legally familiar with the effects of alcohol.

    .... I blame this thinking on my German expat dad.

    Loklar wrote: »
    I wouldn't trust the government to be able to distinguish between what's a secret and what makes them look bad.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Lots of people don't know at "hard" even means.

    A girl in an old class of mine didn't even know cider could be alcoholic.

    PSN: allenquid
  • zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    On the other hand, my girlfriend thought that Smirnoff flavored coolers were the same as Smirnoff Vodka when she was informing me of how she was such a hardcore drinker.

    So we went out drinking, and she was well below her '8 shot limit' when she realized it was really, really hard to stay away from the ground.

  • N1tSt4lkerN1tSt4lker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Then maybe we need to spend more time explaining that adjectives are there for a reason. If there weren't something different about "hard lemonade" from plain old "lemonade," it wouldn't need the adjective. It would just be "lemonade."

    Also, as was previously mentioned, I would hate to work for CPS. They can't know this was a mistake right off the bat. It's in a public place, etc., so they have to do something. Either way they're going to get criticized, so they may as well go farther and cover themselves.

  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    N1tSt4lker wrote: »
    Then maybe we need to spend more time explaining that adjectives are there for a reason. If there weren't something different about "hard lemonade" from plain old "lemonade," it wouldn't need the adjective. It would just be "lemonade."

    Also, as was previously mentioned, I would hate to work for CPS. They can't know this was a mistake right off the bat. It's in a public place, etc., so they have to do something. Either way they're going to get criticized, so they may as well go farther and cover themselves.

    The fact that "hard" is there is in no way inherently indicative of alchohol. If one were not familiar with the term as it applies to cider or lemonade it could reasonably be interpreted as simply a reference to the flavor of the lemonade. Which is kind of the point.

    I absolutely agree that working for CPS is an incredibly tough job. The thing is "it's a tough job" is not a valid excuse for making a mistake. It's a good explination and makes why the mistake happened more understandable. It's still a mistake.

    sigtk.jpg
  • N1tSt4lkerN1tSt4lker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    N1tSt4lker wrote: »
    Then maybe we need to spend more time explaining that adjectives are there for a reason. If there weren't something different about "hard lemonade" from plain old "lemonade," it wouldn't need the adjective. It would just be "lemonade."

    Also, as was previously mentioned, I would hate to work for CPS. They can't know this was a mistake right off the bat. It's in a public place, etc., so they have to do something. Either way they're going to get criticized, so they may as well go farther and cover themselves.

    The fact that "hard" is there is in no way inherently indicative of alchohol. If one were not familiar with the term as it applies to cider or lemonade it could reasonably be interpreted as simply a reference to the flavor of the lemonade. Which is kind of the point.

    I absolutely agree that working for CPS is an incredibly tough job. The thing is "it's a tough job" is not a valid excuse for making a mistake. It's a good explination and makes why the mistake happened more understandable. It's still a mistake.

    Maybe it's just me, but I tend to ask about foods and drinks that have unfamiliar adjectives in them. I suppose that's an advantage of being moderately apprehensive of foods/drinks I've never heard of before. I really think it would be silly to think it was a reference to the flavor. What flavor would that even be? If there's an adjective you don't get, ask questions. It's there for a reason.

    True. I wasn't implying it wasn't a mistake. I can just see why it can happen when you're in a situation dealing with the welfare of children.

  • DeadlySherpaDeadlySherpa Registered User
    edited December 2009
    Pepsi Edge
    Pepsi Max
    Pepsi Kick
    Gatorade- G2, Be Tough, Bring it, No Excuses
    7up plus
    a ton of root beer names
    (etc)


    "hard" lemonade can be easily mistaken for typical branding by corporate marketing looking to "punch up" thier product to grab the eye

    also if you're not familiar with lemonade, perhaps lemonade could be served hard- carbonated, or more syrup, more/less sugar - and soft, which would be flat or have different levels of sugar or whatever

    why am I making this argument

    tf2_sig.png
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Yeah I was gonna say what exactly is "Code Red" referring to as far as flavor.

    The more I think about it the more I wonder if I can somehow find a way to blame the entire situation on retarded marketing departments :P

    sigtk.jpg
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited December 2009
    Re the guy in the UK - holy crap, absolute liability for a penal offence? That won't fly in Canada for a second.

    Re criminalisation of child pornography - of course it's a crime. Even if you make the incredible stretch of believing that demand doesn't drive supply and that this stuff is shared freely, folks who possess it are still complicit in child abuse. They have evidence of a child being abused, possibly know who did it and know that it is going on. Obviously there are going to be innocent people who come across this stuff by accident, but intentional possession is a crime.

    Whether Canada is particularly draconian about this, I don't think so. I read a child pornography case once and the accused was treated pretty tamely. Court made a distinction between downloaded files and files in the cache, made it clear that the Crown would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was under 18 or could reasonably be mistaken for someone under 18: R. v. Garbett (though the whole thing is pretty dumb - the image all of the fuss about had an address for a website, which presumably they could have easily followed-up on).

    Oh, and the general fucked-up tendencies of prosecutors? I'm glad the rule here is:
    It cannot be over-emphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction; it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented: it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength, but it must also be done fairly. The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged with greater personal responsibility. It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness and the justness of judicial proceedings.

  • ProhassProhass Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    ronzo wrote: »
    It still makes me sad that, in florida at least, a 16 and 17 year old can have legal sex, but taking pictures of each other and send them to each other makes them both guilty of production, distribution and possession of child porn

    i mean, seriously, what the hell

    http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Teens-prosecuted-for-racy-photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html

    Ok thats fucking insane, pretty much every teenager is guilty of this. Wont somebody please lock up the children???

  • ParagonParagon Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Re the guy in the UK - holy crap, absolute liability for a penal offence? That won't fly in Canada for a second.

    Re criminalisation of child pornography - of course it's a crime. Even if you make the incredible stretch of believing that demand doesn't drive supply and that this stuff is shared freely, folks who possess it are still complicit in child abuse. They have evidence of a child being abused, possibly know who did it and know that it is going on. Obviously there are going to be innocent people who come across this stuff by accident, but intentional possession is a crime.

    The problem is that the way things work you're a criminal from just surfing 4chan. You have to asplode your disk with HDDErase* or some such program if you've ever frequented that site at length, because as we see in the OP they are being incredibly blind about this.

    In any case, the bolded is the important part; intent is key and it is very obvious that someone who deletes it immediately and didn't actually search for it had no such intent, same thing if it was just in your cache.

    * = Does that actually work? Can they still scrub your disk and find stuff? I seem to remember someone saying that even if you ground up your hard drive they might still find info on them if the pieces aren't tiny.

    Bagginses wrote: »
    Really, -J-'s argument against empiricism comes down to "sure, it might work in practice, but it still doesn't work in theory," which I suppose makes rationalists the philosophical version of paultards and goldbugs.
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited December 2009
    Paragon wrote: »
    The problem is that the way things work you're a criminal from just surfing 4chan. You have to asplode your disk with HDDErase* or some such program if you've ever frequented that site at length, because as we see in the OP they are being incredibly blind about this.

    In any case, the bolded is the important part; intent is key and it is very obvious that someone who deletes it immediately and didn't actually search for it had no such intent, same thing if it was just in your cache.

    * = Does that actually work? Can they still scrub your disk and find stuff? I seem to remember someone saying that even if you ground up your hard drive they might still find info on them if the pieces aren't tiny.
    I think the problem is that we're overlooking how the authorities become interested in your computer in the first place. I'd imagine you'd have to be downloading files from a source they are already investigating/monitoring, and be connecting to the source pretty frequently, or handing over personal information to someone that can be traced back to you.

    I don't think you're going to even show up on their radar if you stumble across a single picture . . . but maybe I'm completely ignorant to how all of this works and how much information an IP address contains or the information that is stored on a server you are connected to :shrug:

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Paragon wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    Re the guy in the UK - holy crap, absolute liability for a penal offence? That won't fly in Canada for a second.

    Re criminalisation of child pornography - of course it's a crime. Even if you make the incredible stretch of believing that demand doesn't drive supply and that this stuff is shared freely, folks who possess it are still complicit in child abuse. They have evidence of a child being abused, possibly know who did it and know that it is going on. Obviously there are going to be innocent people who come across this stuff by accident, but intentional possession is a crime.

    The problem is that the way things work you're a criminal from just surfing 4chan. You have to asplode your disk with HDDErase* or some such program if you've ever frequented that site at length, because as we see in the OP they are being incredibly blind about this.

    In any case, the bolded is the important part; intent is key and it is very obvious that someone who deletes it immediately and didn't actually search for it had no such intent, same thing if it was just in your cache.

    * = Does that actually work? Can they still scrub your disk and find stuff? I seem to remember someone saying that even if you ground up your hard drive they might still find info on them if the pieces aren't tiny.

    Man, it's best to assume that regardless of what tool you use to delete the shit, they have a better tool to recover it. Basically, they've got the NSA on speed dial...do you feel confident that you can out-do the NSA?

    Delete the shit you don't want found, copy the rest to a new hard drive (only the logical data will go, obviously, leaving all the old physical traces behind), then destroy the old hard drive. Then scatter the pieces. Far and wide.



    Oh, and somebody touched on it but regarding Mike's Hard Lemonade I'd say the bulk of the Mountain Dew family of drinks (there are like a dozen now, no?) sounds no more or less alcoholic than Mike's. I'd like to think that somebody would take a gander at the label and notice the "X% alcohol by volume" portion, but then if you think it's just bottled lemonade (of which there are several brands) then why would you?

    It's one of those things that I think it incredibly stupid, and can't imagine myself doing (but probably only because I'm so familiar with teh drinkin'), but at that same time I know there are probably a dozen equally stupid things I can imagine myself doing.
    I think the problem is that we're overlooking how the authorities become interested in your computer in the first place. I'd imagine you'd have to be downloading files from a source they are already investigating/monitoring, and be connecting to the source pretty frequently, or handing over personal information to someone that can be traced back to you.

    I don't think you're going to even show up on their radar if you stumble across a single picture . . . but maybe I'm completely ignorant to how all of this works and how much information an IP address contains or the information that is stored on a server you are connected to :shrug:

    I'd like to think so too, but I can see them busting you for downloading just once from a monitored source. I mean, they have no problem busting a John who may well be on his first and only visit to a hooker, no? Conviction's a conviction.

  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited December 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote:
    I think the problem is that we're overlooking how the authorities become interested in your computer in the first place. I'd imagine you'd have to be downloading files from a source they are already investigating/monitoring, and be connecting to the source pretty frequently, or handing over personal information to someone that can be traced back to you.

    I don't think you're going to even show up on their radar if you stumble across a single picture . . . but maybe I'm completely ignorant to how all of this works and how much information an IP address contains or the information that is stored on a server you are connected to :shrug:
    I'd like to think so too, but I can see them busting you for downloading just once from a monitored source. I mean, they have no problem busting a John who may well be on his first and only visit to a hooker, no? Conviction's a conviction.
    I agree, I doubt they'd overlook someone they do catch/trace.

    I'm just saying that if someone were to post something on these forums right now, the chance that anyone who innocently saw it (i.e. downloaded it automatically into their cache) would even register any kind of usable evidence, anywhere, is vanishingly small. I think you have to do something more than merely be the victim of a horrible RickRoll to even stand a chance of being investigated.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Andrew_Jay wrote:
    I think the problem is that we're overlooking how the authorities become interested in your computer in the first place. I'd imagine you'd have to be downloading files from a source they are already investigating/monitoring, and be connecting to the source pretty frequently, or handing over personal information to someone that can be traced back to you.

    I don't think you're going to even show up on their radar if you stumble across a single picture . . . but maybe I'm completely ignorant to how all of this works and how much information an IP address contains or the information that is stored on a server you are connected to :shrug:
    I'd like to think so too, but I can see them busting you for downloading just once from a monitored source. I mean, they have no problem busting a John who may well be on his first and only visit to a hooker, no? Conviction's a conviction.
    I agree, I doubt they'd overlook someone they do catch/trace.

    I'm just saying that if someone were to post something on these forums right now, the chance that anyone who innocently saw it (i.e. downloaded it automatically into their cache) would even register any kind of usable evidence, anywhere, is vanishingly small. I think you have to do something more than merely be the victim of a horrible RickRoll to even stand a chance of being investigated.

    I'm pretty sure there was an incident where someone posted anonymous links to websites which they knew were being monitored. I'm pretty sure it probably happened on 4chan.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    The Mike's Hard Lemonade incident should only have led to the father having his child taken away IF it was merely evidence of a larger pattern of abuse/neglect.

    This is fucking obvious.


    N1tSt4lker wrote: »
    Also, as was previously mentioned, I would hate to work for CPS. They can't know this was a mistake right off the bat. It's in a public place, etc., so they have to do something. Either way they're going to get criticized, so they may as well go farther and cover themselves.

    I love how you are suggesting that you took a kid from his family solely to cover your own asses.

    You are really inspiring confidence in the CPS here....

  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I don't think he works for CPS but yeah, taking a kid away "just in case we get criticized" strikes me as a very bad policy.

    sigtk.jpg
  • CoinageCoinage The man from the other side Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I'm pretty sure there was an incident where someone posted anonymous links to websites which they knew were being monitored. I'm pretty sure it probably happened on 4chan.
    Are you talking about that time the FBI set up a fake child porn download and busted everyone who tried it? Because we don't know if anybody unintentionally clicked it, everybody was just complaining because somebody might.

    coinage.gif
  • zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Why would you think that.

    This news story says otherwise.

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    zerg rush wrote: »
    Why would you think that.

    This news story says otherwise.

    You know dude, hiding a NSFW flagged website behind an innocuous link might get someone fired

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I thought linking to there period was verboten. Has this changed?

  • ParagonParagon Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Robman wrote: »
    zerg rush wrote: »
    Why would you think that.

    This news story says otherwise.

    You know dude, hiding a NSFW flagged website behind an innocuous link might get someone fired

    I'd advise you both to remove that link, dudes.

    Bagginses wrote: »
    Really, -J-'s argument against empiricism comes down to "sure, it might work in practice, but it still doesn't work in theory," which I suppose makes rationalists the philosophical version of paultards and goldbugs.
  • zerg rushzerg rush Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    I wasn't aware of that. I assumed the front page was always SFW, and I've edited my post to something more innocuous (CNN).

    My point was supposed to be that it's very easy to run afoul of laws through no fault of your own. I guess I did that too well. My bad.
    Edit: That is not to say that I wasn't at fault, but that anybody clicking wouldn't be at fault. That link could be any hostile place on the net. I just didn't think it was so hostile. Again sorry.
    Editx2: Checking rules seems to indicate nothing special about that site, but I'll err on the side of caution anyhow.

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Paragon wrote: »
    * = Does that actually work? Can they still scrub your disk and find stuff? I seem to remember someone saying that even if you ground up your hard drive they might still find info on them if the pieces aren't tiny.

    The DoD standard is three passes of random data written to the disk, although with the magnetic density of today's perpendicular-recording hard drives, one pass would be sufficient. You will, however, need to erase the entire disk, or bits of files might remain in the file system journal or Windows System Restore or something.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Paragon wrote: »
    * = Does that actually work? Can they still scrub your disk and find stuff? I seem to remember someone saying that even if you ground up your hard drive they might still find info on them if the pieces aren't tiny.

    The DoD standard is three passes of random data written to the disk, although with the magnetic density of today's perpendicular-recording hard drives, one pass would be sufficient. You will, however, need to erase the entire disk, or bits of files might remain in the file system journal or Windows System Restore or something.

    I thought DoD standard required the drive physically destroyed for Top Secret data no matter what? As far as I know recovering stuff from even a zeroed-disk these days is getting pretty impossible due to the densities though. Just not enough uncertainty allowed in the position of the magnetic writes.

  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Paragon wrote: »
    * = Does that actually work? Can they still scrub your disk and find stuff? I seem to remember someone saying that even if you ground up your hard drive they might still find info on them if the pieces aren't tiny.

    The DoD standard is three passes of random data written to the disk, although with the magnetic density of today's perpendicular-recording hard drives, one pass would be sufficient. You will, however, need to erase the entire disk, or bits of files might remain in the file system journal or Windows System Restore or something.

    I thought DoD standard required the drive physically destroyed for Top Secret data no matter what? As far as I know recovering stuff from even a zeroed-disk these days is getting pretty impossible due to the densities though. Just not enough uncertainty allowed in the position of the magnetic writes.

    I was referring for the standards for FOUO stuff like social security numbers, the standards for Top Secret or higher require them to physically destroy things like photocopiers and shredders, too.

    regardless, while an electron microscope would maybe have recovered something from a zeroed disk back when a platter held fifty megabytes, it would be a bit of a stretch nowadays.

    vvvvvv-dithw.png
Sign In or Register to comment.