Posts by Doctor Syntax 33045 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
The money they "squirrelled away" had to come from somewhere. It would be money that might otherwise have been paid as dividends or invested in some other nastiness aspect of the business.
Of course it's a cost of doing business. A business has only costs*, income and profits or losses which are the difference between the first two. Yes, a fine adds to the costs. It's intended to. What did you think it should have done?
* It has capital from investors and maybe borrowings but these exist to cover the costs until the income rolls in.
" the decision to shut facebook down would transform Zuckerberg form villain to world class hero, overnight."
Actually it wouldn't make him a hero, just an ex-villain and the defendant in a class action from the shareholders who'd want their money back.
"What's to stop the US from moling all the other stuff and making them useless as well."
Contrary to common US opinion they don't rule the world. The only effect would be to make the products of US-owned corporations unsaleable elsewhere. As I keep saying, if US politicians achieve what they keep aiming for their tech industry will relocate itself wherever there's a tech-friendly government* leaving local franchises to sell broken products to the US market.
*Yes, there would be such things. In fact there'd be strong competition in this field just as there is in tax at present. The rewards would be huge.
If - and it's a big if given some recent media reports - the prosecution are doing their job properly it shouldn't be incumbent on the defence to go to that trouble. It should never get to court.
Ideally we would have a forensic science service as an arm of the court who could carry out such examinations as a neutral body. Unfortunately the privatisation of the service was a step in the opposite direction as labs now have to sell services to someone, mostly the police.
"The rules which apply to the ordinary person, which require search warrants, reasonable suspicion, etc must apply, a fortiori, to a victim."
Yes. But once an accusation is made there are two potential victims. Anyone properly investigating such cases has to at least consider the possibility of a false accusation for the simple reason that it happens.
It's a long time since I was involved in such investigations so it's possible that things have changed but my experience was that there were a few cases which were self-evidently false and a few that were self-evidently genuine and a lot that were somewhere in between. I for one wouldn't have wanted to be part of a miscarriage of justice either way. I think it's probably one of the thorniest areas of criminal investigation. Every case requires thinking about. I'd certainly hate to be on a jury in such a case but the jury should have the best and fullest evidence before it.
Indeed. In my day police were more sceptical.
On the other hand we also had Kincora House back then and everyone concerned in investigating that thought it must be a one-off, how could it slip under the radar, there must be political protection etc. We now know it wasn't unique and may, in fact, have subsequently given credibility to the apparently incredible.
"And if the perpetrator has been identified via his DNA, why search the victim's mobile at all?"
There are -or should be - two elements to prove a case. One is to prove an offence and the other to identify the perpetrator. This is an area where false allegations are not unknown. Anyone who has experience of investigating allegations of sexual offences is aware of the need to tread carefully in order to avoid serious miscarriages of justice.
In general you're spot on but in the case of the 12 year old it might have shown grooming by the accused or others and been significant for sentencing or bringing more cases to light. Without knowing the circumstances of the case it's not possible to say it was wrong.
"This is positively Orwellian, where the victim is having to prove that they are innocent."
It's more complex than you think.
My experience in investigating such cases is well out of date - in fact it's almost exactly disjunct with mobile phones. Mores may well have changed but there was always a problem with trusting rape allegations. There were a few fairly obvious attempts to cause trouble: in one case I remember on breaking up with a former boyfriend and in another in an attempt to inconvenience the police after she'd had a telling off.
Where the dubious claims actually name an alleged perpetrator there are now two potential victims. Out of fairness to someone who may have been wrongfully and even maliciously accused the police have to tread a very fine line.
The data they collect was passed to them by other firms who collected it for various other purposes. By the time Equifax have processed it and turned it into credit scores it must be legally dubious as to whether there's a chain of informed consent.
I don't know if the term chain of informed consent is in use but seems a useful concept rehter like chain of continuity handling court evidence.
"Do you folks have any idea what would happen if corporate officers were routinely held legally responsible for their actions?"
Yes. Instead of anyone in the lower ranks proposing improvements to security being told to GFO they'd be being asked anxiously if they were sure there wasn't something else that could be done.
"This comprehensive settlement is a positive step for US consumers and Equifax as we move forward from the 2017 cybersecurity incident and focus on our transformation investments in technology and security as a leading data, analytics, and technology company,"
Of course it is. It establishes the price of the industry's raw materials as being quite low.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
