Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras

On 3 Dec 2005 06:44:49 -0800, "Annika1980" <annika1980.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:

>>I bought a Sony Digital camera.
>>Any possibility that Sony loaded malichious sofware on my computer?
>
>Yes, and all that porn you've been downloading is now being sent to the
>FBI every time you log on.

Why? Can't they find it on their own?

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 08:51:58 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

>>Yes, and all that porn you've been downloading is now being sent to the
>>FBI every time you log on.
>
> Why? Can't they find it on their own?

It's not that easy. J. Edgar's private stash has been sealed to
prevent exposure to even the most private eyes.
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 05:13:27 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter RemoveThis @charter.net>
wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:58:35 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy RemoveThis @moltenimage.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> kashe RemoveThis @sonic.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>> People always have some reason, however lame, for their behavior.
>>>>> Even law enforcement personnel need a court order to tap into the phone
>>>>> line of a suspected criminal to get information on his activities.
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect. In the age of the National Security Letter, all
>>>> bets are off. Simply asserting "a connection to an investigation into
>>>> terrorist activities" will get the ball rolling. Granted it requires a
>>>> signoff by any one of 165 officials, there is absolutely no judicial
>>>> supervision. And any information gained, even absent any later
>>>> provable connection, all the information gained can be archved
>>>> forever.
>>> Well for that matter, I don't believe that a court order would be
>>> required to PERFORM the wiretap... but it is generally necessary if the
>>> evidence is to be admissible in court.
>>
>> In most states, there are laws concerning tapping/listening
>> in/recording phone lines. Usually, these laws require one or both or
>> all parties to a converstaion to know about the tap/recording absent a
>> court order. In such states, a phonetap by LEOs without a court order
>> is illegal.
>>
>> For example, in Arizona, without a court order, one of the parties to
>> a conversation must know about any recording/covert listening.
>>
>Patriot Act and Homeland Security trump these laws, but judicial review
>IS a part of the process before the evidence reaches court.

Reaching court is not an issue -- they can get all they want
on you and archive it forever with no court supervision. And you can
be damned sure there wiill be all sorts of "national security
interest" arguments proffered to aviod disclosur. The evidence should
be tainted from the outset. But now they don't have to disclose it if,
by any chain of circumstances, they come up with something they can
use. All they have to do is not disclose the tainted path to how they
got something they can use.
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 13:07:19 -0500, ASAAR <caught.TakeThisOut@22.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 08:51:58 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>>>Yes, and all that porn you've been downloading is now being sent to the
>>>FBI every time you log on.
>>
>> Why? Can't they find it on their own?
>
> It's not that easy. J. Edgar's private stash has been sealed to
>prevent exposure to even the most private eyes.

Yes, I understand that. His clothing has been locked away, too.
However, that doesn't mean the FBI can't get their own porn without
having to have it forwarded to them.
Does it?

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 05:13:27 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter.RemoveThis@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:58:35 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy.RemoveThis@moltenimage.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> kashe.RemoveThis@sonic.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> People always have some reason, however lame, for their behavior.
>>>>>> Even law enforcement personnel need a court order to tap into the phone
>>>>>> line of a suspected criminal to get information on his activities.
>>>>> Incorrect. In the age of the National Security Letter, all
>>>>> bets are off. Simply asserting "a connection to an investigation into
>>>>> terrorist activities" will get the ball rolling. Granted it requires a
>>>>> signoff by any one of 165 officials, there is absolutely no judicial
>>>>> supervision. And any information gained, even absent any later
>>>>> provable connection, all the information gained can be archved
>>>>> forever.
>>>> Well for that matter, I don't believe that a court order would be
>>>> required to PERFORM the wiretap... but it is generally necessary if the
>>>> evidence is to be admissible in court.
>>> In most states, there are laws concerning tapping/listening
>>> in/recording phone lines. Usually, these laws require one or both or
>>> all parties to a converstaion to know about the tap/recording absent a
>>> court order. In such states, a phonetap by LEOs without a court order
>>> is illegal.
>>>
>>> For example, in Arizona, without a court order, one of the parties to
>>> a conversation must know about any recording/covert listening.
>>>
>> Patriot Act and Homeland Security trump these laws, but judicial review
>> IS a part of the process before the evidence reaches court.
>
> Are you sure?
> I'm under the impression that pen registers can be used with minimal
> cause, but that's not listening, only determining who's been called or
> calling, and it still requires a judge's approval (but the judge isn't
> even suppopsed to be allowed to *ask* for more than a desire on the
> part of the LEA for the pen register request).
> I don't think that fits the idea of listening to converstaions.
>
The judicial review comes AFTER the fact when/if something goes to trial.
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:01:53 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter.DeleteThis@charter.net>
wrote:

>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 05:13:27 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter.DeleteThis@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Funk wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:58:35 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy.DeleteThis@moltenimage.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> kashe.DeleteThis@sonic.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> People always have some reason, however lame, for their behavior.
>>>>>>> Even law enforcement personnel need a court order to tap into the phone
>>>>>>> line of a suspected criminal to get information on his activities.
>>>>>> Incorrect. In the age of the National Security Letter, all
>>>>>> bets are off. Simply asserting "a connection to an investigation into
>>>>>> terrorist activities" will get the ball rolling. Granted it requires a
>>>>>> signoff by any one of 165 officials, there is absolutely no judicial
>>>>>> supervision. And any information gained, even absent any later
>>>>>> provable connection, all the information gained can be archved
>>>>>> forever.
>>>>> Well for that matter, I don't believe that a court order would be
>>>>> required to PERFORM the wiretap... but it is generally necessary if the
>>>>> evidence is to be admissible in court.
>>>> In most states, there are laws concerning tapping/listening
>>>> in/recording phone lines. Usually, these laws require one or both or
>>>> all parties to a converstaion to know about the tap/recording absent a
>>>> court order. In such states, a phonetap by LEOs without a court order
>>>> is illegal.
>>>>
>>>> For example, in Arizona, without a court order, one of the parties to
>>>> a conversation must know about any recording/covert listening.
>>>>
>>> Patriot Act and Homeland Security trump these laws, but judicial review
>>> IS a part of the process before the evidence reaches court.
>>
>> Are you sure?
>> I'm under the impression that pen registers can be used with minimal
>> cause, but that's not listening, only determining who's been called or
>> calling, and it still requires a judge's approval (but the judge isn't
>> even suppopsed to be allowed to *ask* for more than a desire on the
>> part of the LEA for the pen register request).
>> I don't think that fits the idea of listening to converstaions.
>>
>The judicial review comes AFTER the fact when/if something goes to trial.

Ah.
However, that's a non-sequitur to what I said.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

Bill Funk wrote:
> On 3 Dec 2005 06:44:49 -0800, "Annika1980" <annika1980 DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> I bought a Sony Digital camera.
>>> Any possibility that Sony loaded malichious sofware on my computer?
>> Yes, and all that porn you've been downloading is now being sent to the
>> FBI every time you log on.
>
> Why? Can't they find it on their own?
>
On slow days, they need something to keep them 'up'. Grin.
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras 

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 19:31:10 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

>>> Why? Can't they find it on their own?
>>
>> It's not that easy. J. Edgar's private stash has been sealed to
>>prevent exposure to even the most private eyes.
>
> Yes, I understand that. His clothing has been locked away, too.
> However, that doesn't mean the FBI can't get their own porn without
> having to have it forwarded to them.
> Does it?

They probably can now. But as recently as a couple of years ago
the FBI was complaining that their computers couldn't do more than
one trick at a time and they were barely email literate. Now that
they're free of Freeh they've probably been able to get a couple of
E-machines and Macs. I'll bet they monitor this newsgroup using
Outlook Express. When they're not battling viruses and worms.
 >> Stay informed about: Dangerous Sony sofware for cameras