whoknew1122

The AWS issue related to DNS entries. And IAM doesn't use Dynamo DB. It wasn't related, other than an outage gives a good way to obfuscate TTPs.

ADHD and ADD have been rolled into one diagnosis: ADHD. There's Predominately Inattentive (PI) [which you might see as ADD] and Predominately Hyperactive-Impulsive (HI).

This is my experience with ADHD - PI

How they describe themselves, posted without comment:

"The Middle East Forum, a think tank founded in 1994 by Daniel Pipes, promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects Western values from Middle Eastern threats. In the Middle East, we focus on ways to defeat radical Islam; work for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; develop strategies to contain Iran; and deal with advancing anarchy. Domestically, the Forum emphasizes the danger of lawful Islamism; protects the freedoms of anti-Islamist authors, and activists; and works to improve Middle East studies."

I'm not sure how important that is to remember. The president is issuing the orders. The president is chief executive of the country.

The president can't pawn off responsibility to some White House staffer or think tank. An executive order is the president's order.

Is it useful to look at the people who wrote or lobbied for the order? Perhaps if you want to want to understand the context of an order. But none of that context mitigates the president's responsibility for any order. At the end of the day, it is a single person exercising their sole authority to issue executive orders.

The best thing I can say about OAuth is that--as an identity dude--it keeps me gainfully employed. If only because people often implement it incorrectly.

I concur. I work in architecture for a large public cloud provider. I'd definitely double-check that something like this isn't already in the market (or open-source).

It would be interesting to see a novel script though.

Civil asset forfeiture is when law enforcement seizes property of someone suspected of a crime.

Jones was sued and lost. Now his assets are being liquidated to pay off (a small part of) the judgment against him.

Two entirely different concepts.

But what is the response that works?

Average: I can't afford groceries at the store. Inflation sucks.

Response: Well, inflation plays a part, but grocery stores are still recording record profits despite inflation.

Average: Are you suggesting grocery stores shouldn't make as much money as they can? Free market hater! Communist!

Let's be clear. This guy had CSAM and was caught using digital forensics. The cops would've been able to secure the search warrant at the time had they been required to do so.

This isn't some innocent person who is spending time in prison because of a legal technicality.

Laws can also be unconstitutional and remain a law--the law just can't be enforced. For example, in the state of Texas sodomy is still technically illegal, just the law is unenforceable. But if the Supreme Court overrules previous court decisions and says anti-sodomy laws are constitutional, the Texas law immediately becomes enforceable again.

The law is super complicated.

It dates back to the constitutional ban on "ex post facto" laws. Meaning, the government can't retroactively make something illegal. Which is a good thing, IMO.

So, for example, it's illegal at the federal level to manufacture machine guns (and I'm not going to get into a gun debate or nuances as to what defines a machine gun--it's just an example). But a machine gun is legal as long as it was manufactured before the ban went into place. Because the government can't say "hey, destroy that thing that was legal to manufacture, purchase, and own when it was manufactured."

This concept is extrapolated here to say "The cops didn't do anything illegal at the time. We have determined this is illegal behavior now, but we can't use that to overturn police decisions that were made when the behavior wasn't illegal. In the future, cops won't be able to do this."

The cited ruling answers your question

The court ruled that at the time, when the State Police opened the file, they had no reason to believe that a warrant was required. While the search was later ruled unconstitutional, no court had ruled it was unconstitutional *at the time of the search*. One of the cornerstones of American jurisprudence is that you cannot go back in time and overrule decisions based on contemporary jurisprudence.

From the opinion: 'the exception can also apply where officers “committed a constitutional violation” by acting without a warrant under circumstances that “they did not reasonably know, at the time, [were] unconstitutional.”'

If you're interested, the discussion of a good faith exemption (and why fruit of the poison tree doesn't apply here) begins at page 40 of the doc.

Can we stop euphemistic language like this:

> In a letter to staff, Houston said that the reduction in headcount would impact 528 people.

He fired 528 people. That's what he did.

Also, he impacted a lot more than the 528 people he fired. Those who didn't get fired have to take on the work that was being done by their fired colleagues without an increase in pay.

As someone who has worked for less than $40,000 a year, and someone who now makes more than the average pay of someone at DropBox--I'm not sure it's a useful conversation to say "Hey, someone else has it worse." Yes, it'd suck to be a laid-off staff member of a university making $40,000. It also sucks to be a laid-off cashier at a grocery store making $16,500.

This talk of money also ignores the negative effects on mental health from being laid-off.

But the most important point here is that a CEO making an obscene amount of money takes "full responsibility" and... still gets paid an obscene amount of money. Easy to take responsibility if you have 0 consequences.

Having been a victim of grooming, trust me. It's better to talk to the parents than to give a child a gift without the parents' knowledge.