Charlie Owls Guide to the F-14

[VZ_342]

Laws and regulations do not follow the rules of logic. If the text says you go to jail if you mention the name Jehovah, you will be prosecuted, found guilty and thrown in jail no matter if everyone knows it, it has been published, can be googled on the internet...

 

Life of Brian

 

"You're only making it worse for yourself!"

 

/Life of Brian

[VZ_342]

in this case Heatblur should be worried. They produced a tool to train Iranian F-14 pilots. . Cobra, you better stay off the US soil. (sarcasm)

 

Heatblur doesn't have a job which needs a security clearance; such clearance changes everything.

 

"...Part of my RL work requires various military clearances, which are subject to constant reviews and in-depth background checks...

[shagrat]

It's a dated analogy, though. Intellectual property is a thing, and protected information is protected the same as tangible goods now.

It is in fact a very recent topic... who "owns" the data in an autonomous car? Legally as in "you stole my data", nobody! The Intellectual Property starts with the database design in the cloud which "uses" the data. The information itself "I drove from A to B, using the roads X, Y and Z", for example, is not protected and it can't be, as you need to lobotomize all passengers after each ride to no longer have it. If you secure access to the data stored and some other vendor's entertainment system breaks into the secured system to provide the passengers with the information, then it gets interesting. The act of breaking the system is a crime, so the vendor would be responsible, yet the passengers have the information, but the possession of information as an intangible asset, unlike the possession of stolen/or forbidden goods cannot be prosecuted. I am very positive you won't find a law that states: "If the accused knows XYZ he will be sentenced to..." That is Secret Agencies stuff, then...

[mkosmo]

It is in fact a very recent topic... who "owns" the data in an autonomous car? Legally as in "you stole my data", nobody! The Intellectual Property starts with the database design in the cloud which "uses" the data. The information itself "I drove from A to B, using the roads X, Y and Z", for example, is not protected and it can't be, as you need to lobotomize all passengers after each ride to no longer have it. If you secure access to the data stored and some other vendor's entertainment system breaks into the secured system to provide the passengers with the information, then it gets interesting. The act of breaking the system is a crime, so the vendor would be responsible, yet the passengers have the information, but the possession of information as an intangible asset, unlike the possession of stolen/or forbidden goods cannot be prosecuted. I am very positive you won't find a law that states: "If the accused knows XYZ he will be sentenced to..." That is Secret Agencies stuff, then...

 

This entirely depends on jurisdiction. It's not the mere act of "knowing" that is the problem -- It tends to be about how you found that information in the first place.

[shagrat]

This entirely depends on jurisdiction. It's not the mere act of "knowing" that is the problem -- It tends to be about how you found that information in the first place.

Well, if you read it somewhere or somebody told you without your consent... if you can show me any law from a western country that forbids you to know an information I would be very, very surprised.

[mkosmo]

Well, if you read it somewhere or somebody told you without your consent... if you can show me any law from a western country that forbids you to know an information I would be very, very surprised.

 

No, of course not, but I didn't think that was ever an issue. No matter how you get it, production and distribution would still be a problem, though. Just because somebody blabs (regulatory) protected information to you doesn't necessarily give you the right to freely distribute it or reproduce it.

[shagrat]

No, of course not, but I didn't think that was ever an issue. No matter how you get it, production and distribution would still be a problem, though. Just because somebody blabs (regulatory) protected information to you doesn't necessarily give you the right to freely distribute it or reproduce it.

So, you think all journalists and media who reported and distributed Edward Snowdens information about certain organisations violating citizens right were acting wrong and should be prosecuted? Moreover, everybody watching the media basically should have been prosecuted as well, as soon as he was telling, texting, sending the news to his family or a co-worker?

Snowden violated some laws and a bunch of regulations, yet I never heard of any prosecution of the press or citizens that then "distributed" that information, and for good reason.

The act of gaining certain information and the act of passing it if you as an individual (!) are under regulations are punishable. The knowledge of the information in a civilised country is not.

[AG-51_Sabot]

Somebody please lock this thread. As the original poster all I wanted was a basic key and curve assignment to start out with and somehow it’s digressed into 3 pages of foolishness

[mkosmo]

Somebody please lock this thread. As the original poster all I wanted was a basic key and curve assignment to start out with and somehow it’s digressed into 3 pages of foolishness

 

You've been on these forums long enough to know that it's normal here, I thought :pilotfly: