Both you and that which you reply to are incorrect. Deliberate surveillance of domestic communications of any persons or international communications of U.S. persons without judicial approval is unlawful. Nonpublic information regarding U.S. persons incidentally captured in foreign surveillance must be minimized.
Surveillance state may be real, and we all know what has actually been going on (to include massive interception and storage of so-called metadata of domestic U.S. communication on a vast scale), but that doesn't change the fact that U.S. surveillance of foreigners located in the U.S., or of communications of U.S. persons that take international paths, is flat-out illegal without judicial approval.
What is really needed (barring a codified policy change by the legislature and executive), is some meaningful restraint from the Supreme Court on government intrusion into so-called metadata collection. We've come a long way since the pen register.
That was your point, but the replies by x5n1 and arca_vorago to which rebutting, misrepresented the status quo as legally permitting surveillance of U.S. persons transiting international boundaries. It does not.
Do you even know what coreutils is? It is not openbsdutils. It is not plan9utils. It is not even linuxutils. It builds and runs on virtually every deployed vaguely POSIX-ish environment and then some.
Can I take the OpenBSD userland and untar, configure, build and run in cygwin? Nope. You have proven my point. Nobody uses the little SYS V version.
One hint as to why the GNU version is so "long" and "messy":
/* System V machines already have a /bin/sh with a v9 behavior.
Use the identical behavior for these machines so that the
existing system shell scripts won't barf. */
bool do_v9 = DEFAULT_ECHO_TO_XPG;
It has to run in environments that others do not in order to provide full functionality, so it has to implement that functionality.
And Unix Fifth Edition, imbued with the cleanliness of Ken Thompson's ghost? Yeah, that's lovely, but not only is it again, of limited utility and portability across idiosyncratic modern environments, but it's full of bugs dating to an era where simplicity was valued above handling all inputs. In 1983, crashing on a bad input wasn't even generally understood to BE a bug, much less extremely dangerous especially in core system utilities.
I've used the -e option in GNU's echo many times. The various other versions are strictly less useful to me.
Does the option really belong in echo? Who knows, but it's certainly been useful to me.
UNIX fifth edition goes for absolute minimalism. Echo in Plan 9 is apparently used enough that it's worthwhile to optimize the number of times write is called. FreeBSD echo looks like someone just learned about writev. OpenBSD's seem like the sanest of the minimalists.
For many people, from the writers of the Single Unix Specification to the Debian Policy people, the take-away was and is use printf, for nigh on 20 years now.
I've used -e on GNU's `echo` quite a bit as well. But FreeBSD also supports `printf` (as does Linux by the way), so it's not a great inconvenience the missing -e flag on FreeBSD's `echo`.
$ printf "This\tis an\nexample\n"
This is an
example
You can also use the usual C-style printf parameters as well:
$ printf "This is %-20s example\n" another
This is another example
As a result, the specification for echo is a ridiculous mess which deviates from the other POSIX utilities. It doesn't have the normal command argument handling, and also has implementation-defined behaviors. It's a good command to avoid in serious scripting, other than for outputting fixed, alphanumeric strings.
That said, it's useful to have features like C escape sequences for control characters or arbitrary characters. That feature should be in the shell language. Someone needed it and hacked it into some version of echo. Others elsewhere didn't and so now it's implementation defined whether or not you get backslash processing.
That was a timing weakness in an older version of iOS that was patched in software. Previously you could just cut power at a precise monent and get unlimited attempts. It's no longer exploitable.
Yes you can, if you sync the commit to NVRAM before giving any external indication of success/failure, and don't leak through any side-channels. The CVE before demo'd by the famous youtube video was that you had a split second after failure was indicated where you could cut the power and keep the failure from being stored.
Of course. Despite the title the article is only about off-grid storage, basically batteries. Though even off-grid storage can be on-grid if it's sometimes connected, as some plans for the future of plug-in hybrids call foresee.
Sadly you cannot very well use a miniature hydroelectric dam for off-grid energy storage on-board an electric car or electronic mobile device.
If someone is not a relative or intimate partner, there's no easy way to get a civil restraining order against someone in New York the way you can in domestic cases. There either has to be a criminal prosecution to get a criminal restraining order, or you have to retain a lawyer and file a full-blown lawsuit in a court of general jurisdiction.
It should definitely be enough for police to act if you establish that you demanded that contact cease and and that it continued unabated. In this case it seems that the author may not have clearly established it, perhaps did not understand the best way to frame this, and police were unhelpful and didn't want to be involved unless there were threats or a domestic incident involved (where mandatory arrests come into play).
Or just telling him directly to stop himself. Maybe she did, but she didn't say she did. "Don't message me SO MUCH or I will BLOCK YOU" isn't quite the same thing as DON'T CONTACT ME AGAIN. A gentleman would get the hint, but a gentleman wouldn't be such a creepy asshole to begin with.
You don't legally have the right to dictate to someone how they talk to you. You do legally have the right to cut off all contact with someone (unless they have a reasonable need to do so and their contact is in line with such purpose). It's not a crime to be a creep. If you tell a creep, "Call me whenever you want, just don't be creepy," that doesn't criminalize their creepy personality when they continue to make creepy calls. If you tell them, "Never call me again, you creep," and they continue to call, that becomes aggravated harassment in the state of New York.
His response to ""Don't message me SO MUCH or I will BLOCK YOU", followed by a block when the messaging remained unchanged was to file a series of nuisance complaints about her and start messaging her friends and employers.
I don't think any reasonable law enforcement agency could conclude that this behaviour wasn't a problem because she hadn't asked him to stop.
There's no question that his behavior was "problematic." What is not at all clear in that scenario is whether or not it was unlawful for him to continue to communicate with her. "So much" literally means there is an acceptable amount of communications. Blocking on Facebook is a completely passive action which does not directly communicate anything. Sure you can deduce that she didn't want to hear from him again, but she should have sent an unhedged message to cease and desist further contact, THEN block him.
"Don't message me SO MUCH or I will BLOCK YOU" sounds exactly like "I told my cyber stalker that if he didn't ease up on how much he was messaging me - my phone was beeping multiple times per day, bothering me at all hours - he could forget about breakfast in the morning from here on out - the next time he showed up at my apartment, I'd send him home with the night bus as soon as we were done having sex." (not a quote, I'm making fun here.)
Like, seriously. They're still facebook friends through all this?
The woman in the article says "When I got a Facebook account in 2006 he found me again and, not wanting to be rude, I accepted his friend request. He often sent me rambling accounts of his day-to-day life. I usually didn’t respond, but sometimes I messaged back if I was bored or lonely."
Oh really? Sometimes you messaged back if you were bored or lonely?
This is how you end up in a happy marriage with the guy twenty years later after you've finished your studies and want to start settling down.
The guy's behavior is COMPLETELY BATSHIT INSANE and there is ZERO excuse for ANY of what is described.
At the same time, he's not a stalker until she unequivocally tells him that she would not like any further contact and asking him to move on. I cannot believe that she is a writer, yet this bad at communication.
What is so hard about saying, "I don't want this. Leave me alone." Jesus H. Christ. I hope I never, ever have anything to do with a woman like this one, because who knows if she really consented when I make out with her in my or her bedroom?
Does she have an inability to open her mouth and communicate what is going on? Jesus.
All that said, (I only glanced through the article) the guy's behavior completely surpasses anything even remotely justifiable. He's in the wrong. She's in the wrong for not telling him.
Blame the victim, right? The article doesn't say she has not told him never to contact her again, so I don't know why you assume that. And regardless, she's not bad at communcation. If someone blocks you and stops responding for years, it can't reasonably be interpreted as an invitation for more contact.
You also insinuate that they had a sexual relationship, which I think it's pretty clear they didn't.
> Like, seriously. They're still facebook friends through all this?
Nope. She definitely blocked him on Facebook, but only once she felt his behavior constituted harassment. And that's reasonable, in my mind - especially given that this portion of the story occurred 10 years ago when people had much less experience with online social networks. Problems like these can start small and escalate gradually.
Yes, the article is lengthy, but it might be more responsible to read the whole thing before passing judgment.
It's not about whether she "feels" his behavior constitutes harassment. She has a choice about whether to be contacted by him and she has to tell him in no uncertain terms exactly what she wants. She has to say, "Please don't contact me again. I am not interested in having you in my life in any way. Move on." (not a quote, my suggestion).
This is like her quote,
>"He handed me the latest Red Hot Chili Peppers CD (Stadium Arcadium, not great) and asked if we could eat dinner together. I panicked; I hadn’t seen Danny since middle school and didn’t want to see him now. But I also didn’t want to hurt his feelings and felt touched by his gift. I took him to the cafeteria and made awkward conversation until I faked an excuse and left."
Really? Why would she mention that his gift "Stadium Arcadium" was "not great"??
What does it matter? But at that part of the story, she literally went with him to the cafeteria and ate with him.
Like, where at any point does she clearly simply say, "Do not contact me again in any way. I am not interested in having you in my life. Please move on." or "I told you not to contact me. Please don't do this" etc.
Women are completely in the wrong if they refuse to unambiguously state what they want from communications but expect that they can just "feel" a certain way. They have a duty to tell the person unambiguously.
By the way this goes the other way too. A woman can be totally, completely into you and you can be oblivious. In that case too, if she does want something she needs to just say it.
There are literally entire articles written for how a woman can go about planting the seed in a man's brain that maybe he should ask her out. It's ridiculous. women can communicate and they have an obligation to do so, not to "be touched and take him to the cafeteria and make conversation" while thinking that they are doing so with a harasser. come on.
I think she hates and sympathises with this guy at the same time. One could block someone on every single internet (or other) channels these days easily.
> How would you so them from emailing your employer?
My employer would show me the email, asked WTF and swiftly proceeded with legal action if applicable. My employer is there to make my life easier, and the fact that they do it in their best interest - the less time I spend on being stressed out, the more time and value I can contribute - makes me comfortable when asking for help.
But there may be a somewhat unusual level of trust between my employer and myself, maybe I'm just lucky to work at such a company.
Okay, so this creep's behavior pretty clearly rises to the level of harassment at a minimum.
But legally the FIRST thing to do with a stalker or harasser is to TELL them unequivocally that you want NO further contact. Preferably document in writing; in New York, you can record conversations that you are party to. At this point further unwanted contact becomes more clearly a criminal matter.
Too often, those on the receiving end ignore or laugh off bad behavior. This is natural enough, but unless someone is clearly threatening, if they haven't been told unequivocally to stop all further contact, then they can always argue, sincerely or not, that they didn't know their contact was unwelcome. Or that in any event they were free to continue their advances.
The closest the author explicitly posts is "I caved and sent him a message asking him to please stop messaging me so much or I’d block him." That is unlikely enough to suffice as "clearly informed to cease that conduct." All it would take is a message saying "never contact me again." Period, full stop. Better yet, add "or I will report you to police." At that point, further contact is actionable, criminal harassment.
That being said, much of this cyberstalker's behavior is independently harassing, e.g. forged emails to friends etc. But putting someone on notice is a first step to protecting yourself. It is premature to go to police to say, "X is bothering me, I'm not afraid of him and I haven't told him firmly to go away, but I really want him to go away." If someone isn't in any way actually putting you in fear, and all that is involved is unwanted communications/nonphysical contact, then it's on you to first tell him to go away before involving police. Then if he won't, you have an unambiguous complaint.
Edit: The author does also describe some poor policing. Good community-oriented policing centers around mediation. Ideally the police in this situation would not simply say "it's not a crime" and make the complainant feel helpless and ignored, but would try to solve help solve the problem. Specifically by taking a report and offering to communicate to the person that all further contact is unwelcome and may lead to a criminal complaint, and documenting this. This type of approach is likely to help bring an end to the behavior, or in the alternative lay a foundation for a future, actionable criminal complaint. In the best case, behavior improves, complainant can move on with her life, police don't have to deal with future complaints, everybody wins. Sadly many departments just don't want to get involved or have the resources to deal with community mediation, even if it pays for itself over time.
> in New York, you can record conversations that you are party to.
In case people get ideas from this and are unaware, California and several other states are the "other" ones that forbid this without consent from both parties in certain circumstances. Yes, even recording your stalker could get you prosecuted. Yes, it has happened. Yes, it is stupid. Yes, it even affects reporters to an extent.
Surveillance state may be real, and we all know what has actually been going on (to include massive interception and storage of so-called metadata of domestic U.S. communication on a vast scale), but that doesn't change the fact that U.S. surveillance of foreigners located in the U.S., or of communications of U.S. persons that take international paths, is flat-out illegal without judicial approval.
What is really needed (barring a codified policy change by the legislature and executive), is some meaningful restraint from the Supreme Court on government intrusion into so-called metadata collection. We've come a long way since the pen register.