Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny, I've run the mail server of our family for quite a while and it would never enter my head to read someone else's email.
the mail server? how do you avoid being put in the spam bin of every email provider ever? seems like it would have been a hassle to deal with for the last 15 years
Judge Orders Yahoo to Explain How It Recovered ‘Deleted’ Emails in Drugs Case
71–80 of 81 posts
Re: Judge Orders Yahoo to Explain How It Recovered ‘Deleted’ Emails in Drugs Case
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have trouble understanding why people go through such lengths to maintain a hidden affair. If you've decided to have a long-term relationship with the new person, why not just file for divorce instead of going through ridiculous lengths to hide your new relationship? It seems like a lot of trouble, plus it makes it very clear that you're a terrible person when it's discovered. Please forgive my nosy question, but w…
Affairs aren't about leaving your current partner and starting with someone new. The point of many affairs is the keeping it hidden stuff which adds to the excitement.
Re: Judge Orders Yahoo to Explain How It Recovered ‘Deleted’ Emails in Drugs Case
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
The solution with backup tapes is obvious, you encrypt the files on the tapes with session keys and encrypt a copy of the session key with a client/project or project key stored on a separate random access medium. When the project needs to be deleted you destroy the key for that project, job done. The most difficult bit is enforcing the proper ownership and location of files so that you know which ones belong to whic…
But what about the backups of where the encrypted session keys are kept? Wouldn't this be a "backups all the way down" situation?
Re: Judge Orders Yahoo to Explain How It Recovered ‘Deleted’ Emails in Drugs Case
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Affairs aren't about leaving your current partner and starting with someone new. The point of many affairs is the keeping it hidden stuff which adds to the excitement.
Fair enough. That jives with my belief that anyone engaging in a long term affair is basically just a terrible human being, though. I'd like to believe that there is some way that people having affairs aren't necessarily horrible, but I can't see how anyone could get their thrills at the direct expense of the person they swore to love forever and not just be a horrible human.
The fact they are actively trying to hide it could also be because they are trying not to hurt them.
It's hard to argue that they are getting thrills at the direct expense of an unknowing party, if they don't get caught. Of course, just putting the one you're supposed to be in love with at the risk of hurt is fairly horrible.
The cynic in me also just doesn't think it's sane to expect that an oath to love forever could be relied upon anyway, and the statistics do bear this out.
Re: Judge Orders Yahoo to Explain How It Recovered ‘Deleted’ Emails in Drugs Case
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair enough. That jives with my belief that anyone engaging in a long term affair is basically just a terrible human being, though. I'd like to believe that there is some way that people having affairs aren't necessarily horrible, but I can't see how anyone could get their thrills at the direct expense of the person they swore to love forever and not just be a horrible human.
Maybe they're just not thinking about the other person's feelings. The fact they are actively trying to hide it could also be because they are trying not to hurt them. It's hard to argue that they are getting thrills at the direct expense of an unknowing party, if they don't get caught. Of course, just putting the one you're supposed to be in love with at the risk of hurt is fairly horrible. The cynic in me also just…
"It is only bad if you get caught" is an absurd justification for anything. Is it okay for me to break in and stay in your home while you are away, if you don't find out?
Re: Judge Orders Yahoo to Explain How It Recovered ‘Deleted’ Emails in Drugs Case
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair enough. That jives with my belief that anyone engaging in a long term affair is basically just a terrible human being, though. I'd like to believe that there is some way that people having affairs aren't necessarily horrible, but I can't see how anyone could get their thrills at the direct expense of the person they swore to love forever and not just be a horrible human.
Maybe they're just not thinking about the other person's feelings. The fact they are actively trying to hide it could also be because they are trying not to hurt them. It's hard to argue that they are getting thrills at the direct expense of an unknowing party, if they don't get caught. Of course, just putting the one you're supposed to be in love with at the risk of hurt is fairly horrible. The cynic in me also just…
Eh, kind of doubt it. Most people would rather have their partner break up than cheat on them. It's considerably less hurtful to just leave someone than to carry on a hidden affair.
> The cynic in me also just doesn't think it's sane to expect that an oath to love forever could be relied upon anyway, and the statistics do bear this out.
I guess the optimist in me believes that if a partner is no longer in love and no longer interested in trying, they should break up rather than cheat. Similarly, I believe a business partner who no longer wants to be involved in the business should sell off their shares rather than purposely tanking the business.
Re: Judge Orders Yahoo to Explain How It Recovered ‘Deleted’ Emails in Drugs Case
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
It probably is hard to argue, but that's what lawyers love isn't it?? He described it as "her laptop", there's a clear demarcation of ownership. I just wonder if those ownership laws of the physical property would overshadow the unauthorised access to material parts of UK's CMA (and it's ilk depending on your jurisdiction). AFAIR it just says unauthorised access nothing about 'of a system not owned by the accused'; i…
Well, when you're a teenager, your parents probably own your car, despite it being "your car". Just because they say it's "your car" doesn't mean it isn't legally theirs. Not to mention, in America, the majority of marriages have communal property. Just because your wife buys it, it's still yours; it's just extremely rude to "open" without permission.
So, what happens if my husband decides that my laptop is also his laptop, and uses it to access to company servers, accounts, and databases? I signed an NDA, he hasn't. Now he has access to intellectual property and trade secrets, he decides to go to a competitor and sell them for the highest price.
Fortunately, the ECPA exists, so even if my security practices were as terrible as the above scenario implies, I'd still have some legal protections.
If I've told him "this is my computer, you're not allowed to access it" and he did, that would violate the ECPA. If I protected it with an easy-to-guess password and he guessed it, that would violate the ECPA. If I had an unprotected computer, and let him use it, but he installed a keylogger to get work passwords, that would violate the ECPA. If I let him access my machine and he uses auto-fill stored passwords in a browser to log into my work email, that's also an ECPA violation.
Not only does this apply to husbands and spouses, but also parents and children.
In addition, the separate/community property laws vary from state to state, and most states allow for common-sense separate property laws within marriage. In most states, my spouse can't use a computer given only to me, or a computer I had before we got married, or a computer I purchased with my own separate assets (what constitutes a "separate asset" is a huge discussion, but you get the idea). You can make a written agreement that "this is separate property" and even if you didn't do that, it would likely be a strong argument in court that an unwritten "separate property" agreement exists for a particular machine, in certain circumstances.
"Just because your wife buys it, it's still yours" is absolutely not an ironclad rule.
Re: Judge Orders Yahoo to Explain How It Recovered ‘Deleted’ Emails in Drugs Case
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is somewhat different because you need to convince other mail servers to cooperate with yours whereas the HTTPS server works directly with clients (browsers) and may function completely independently.
I run my own mail server. It's simple enough to set up SPF in your DNS records to avoid landing in Gmail's spam, at least. Not sure about other providers. I send so little mail that I'm basically background noise.
https://zapier.com/learn/ultimate-guide-to-email-marketing-a...
It's possible to configure DKIM and SPF and your server correctly, and hopefully stay off blacklists, but if inbox deliverability really matters to you, a [no-cost] plan with a Mandrill or MailGun service should do well for you. It's what I use to have home servers and IoT things send me email, to gmail, and I never have deliverability issues.
Re: Judge Orders Yahoo to Explain How It Recovered ‘Deleted’ Emails in Drugs Case
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Her choice of email address for the shared account raised alarms on my firewall" That's a pretty serious firewall you have there. Assuming that s/he was not using encrypted smtp and imap or pop, then you still have a L7 filter that reads and logs email addresses and alarms on them. Now it is unlikely (to me) that you would have a whitelist of acceptable email addresses with which to alarm. I can think of a few other…
You don't have to save the messages. You just need to look at the logs. If you had traffic to/from mail.google.com, no problem. But if you have traffic /to/ ashleymadison.com or whatever, that's suspicious
Re: Judge Orders Yahoo to Explain How It Recovered ‘Deleted’ Emails in Drugs Case
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they're just not thinking about the other person's feelings. The fact they are actively trying to hide it could also be because they are trying not to hurt them. It's hard to argue that they are getting thrills at the direct expense of an unknowing party, if they don't get caught. Of course, just putting the one you're supposed to be in love with at the risk of hurt is fairly horrible. The cynic in me also just…
> It's hard to argue that they are getting thrills at the direct expense of an unknowing party, if they don't get caught. "It is only bad if you get caught" is an absurd justification for anything. Is it okay for me to break in and stay in your home while you are away, if you don't find out?