arkem

I wouldn't call the two cases eerily similar.

One is about operating a private email server and using it for official business that occasionally included sensitive information that shouldn't be held on internet connected computers.

The other is removing classified information from secure systems (I think it's implying SIPRNET) and keeping copies of them in your home.

One case is a person not saying "hey guys, we shouldn't talk about this here" when topics get sensitive and the other is a deliberate copying of classified information.

One constitutes careless handling of sensitive information, one constitutes intentional mishandling of classified information.

Thank you for the reminder.

I've just added a calendar entry for 6 years time to consider whether or not I am willing to be subject to an exit tax (and give myself two years to plan alternatives if I'm not).

My E-3 process was always about 2 or 3 weeks (including interview) except for the one time the US Government shutdown while I was trying to get a LCA.

The six month process for the labor requirements for a green card was longer in processing but also longer due to non-processing time spent getting letters attesting to my skills from previous employers and my current employer running job adverts to try and find local candidates that met the skill requirement.

I was basing it on the priority date for my category (EB-2) when I first considered getting my green card.

For Indians in the EB-2 category the priority date is July 2009, so assuming that the demand remains constant it would be roughly 6 years until my hypothetical priority date would be current.

The green card process wasn't specifically helped by being Australian but more by being from a country that does not submit a lot of green card applications.

There's a rate limiting approach so that countries can not use more than a certain amount of USCIS's application processing bandwidth. Currently China, Mexico, India, Honduras, The Philippines, El Salvador and Guatemala are being "rate limited".

Here are some tables about the backlog for each country in each category: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bul...

E-3 which is like a H1-B but for Australians (from a free trade agreement). It is capped per year but has never reached the limit.

I had been on an E-3 visa (similar to a H1-B but for Australians and without dual-intent), I applied for a PERM via the EB-2 category (employment based advanced degree / extraordinary ability).

I had good immigration lawyers (McCown & Evans) and the process really had only a few main steps.

1. My employer describes to the Department of Labor a position that they would like to fill and demonstrating that they are unable to fill the position with a permanent resident or citizen.

2. A process where my employer submits my resume and reference letters to the Department of Labor to show that I am an alien that could fill the position.

3. I submit an application for permanent residence and and application to adjust my immigration status (from E-3 to PERM). Because there isn't a queue in my category (for my nationality) these can be filed simultaneously.

The first two steps took about 6 months and the final step about a year.

I got my green card yesterday. It took me eighteen months, which is a ridiculously short amount of time, if I had been from India instead of Australia it'd be another 6 years or so before anyone even looked at my application.

For me a green card was a convenience rather than a necessity. It wasn't anything life changing as it was for the article's author. As a software engineer that qualified for a non-supply capped visa I could live in the US almost whenever I felt a need (I only needed to find an employer willing to fill out some extra paperwork for me).

That said I'm really grateful to have my green card, I'm much less stressed about my future. I no longer worry about having to leave the US if I lose my job. Now, maybe I'll buy a house, maybe I'll start a business? Exciting new possibilities.

Here's the California statute: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&gr...

It says that IP assignment clauses that cover non-competing work done on the employee's own time with their own equipment are not allowed.

How it works at Google is that you sign an IP assignment clause that says effectively "All the intellectual property that you create is the property of Google except where prohibited by law" and then they attach a copy of that law to the contract.

After that you can work on personal projects but if you don't like uncertainty Google has a process that will affirm that Google has no claim to your side project. The process has you describe the project and affirm you worked on it on your own time and then if Google agrees that it doesn't compete with them they'll let you know that they're ok with it.

Yes, generally all employee stock options will have an expiry date, typically 10 years.

Thanks for the feedback, I'll let the recruiters know.

We do hire people who don't play League of Legends, though we are looking for people who are passionate about games LoL or others.

I commuted on an electric bicycle (and didn't own a car) in 2010-2012 on a eZee Torq http://ezeebike.com/bikes-and-options/torq/ it cost less than 2k.

I'm a bit out of touch of the latest developments in the market (I walk to work these days) but I'm sure you can find plenty of good options under 3k.

Google Allo is the chat app, you're thinking of Google Home.

Snowden is saying Allo is dangerous because end-to-end encryption is an opt in setting and not the default setting. Google set it up this way to provide Google Now style automated context based annotation to messages. Users can turn on an "off-the-record" style mode with end to end encryption but it disables the message annotation.

Here's an article with an example (a video game review by Jim Sterling that was DMCA'd by the game developer): http://www.polygon.com/2015/11/19/9761654/youtube-fair-use-p...

Taxed as income based off of the fair market value of the RSUs as determined by a independent auditor's assessment (It's called a 409A Valuation).

In practice most companies will allow you to surrender non-liquid RSUs to pay the tax withholding so you don't have a massive tax bill from a non-liquid asset.

You bet on a team to win. The skins are used in place of currency. Instead of betting $5 I be 3 skins and if I win I get my 3 skins back plus 2 more.

Since skins can be traded and sold it's effectively gambling for cash.

This is one of the least appropriate use of Betteridge's Law of Headlines.

The article starts with 'yes' and waters it down to 'maybe' and a real discussion could be had about whether or not the ends justifies the means, especially when it comes to criminal acts revealing dubious but legal acts.

I know what you mean but Mary Mallon aka Typhoid Mary was asymptomatic and wasn't coughing over anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

I think it shows that they have an excellent understanding of their authorizing legislation.

It also reflects that unlike other types of warrants the court can request revisions or additional information before making a decision and requests can be withdrawn before a formal rejection can take place.

Some estimates put the reject/withdrawal rate closer to 25%

Some more information: https://newrepublic.com/article/115257/fisa-warrants-court-t...

https://web.archive.org/web/20140402093319/http://www.uscour...

tehwebguy: I'd prefer if you replied to me in a separate post rather than editing in a reply to your post. It makes it hard for me to respond.

In a way I'm heartened by stories about NSA employees acting inappropriately, it means that they're being caught and disciplined and the Office of the Inspector General is doing its job. If it was routine and accepted it wouldn't be a newsworthy story and the inspector general.

That said, I don't think employee abuses have much bearing on the effectiveness of the FISA court as a source of judicial oversight for intelligence operations inside the United States.

I hear this a lot, what is the basis of considering the FISA court merely a rubber stamp?

Is it the approval rate? Is it the lack of transparency?

If it's the approval rate, in my experience the reason why court warrant approvals are so high is because intelligence / law enforcement are very risk adverse and will not submit requests that are likely to be rejected. Anecdotally, the officers I talked to considered it career poison to submit a request that got rejected by a court.

There's an exception if you can convince the FTC that the product will only work correctly with branded parts. Take a look at 15 USC 2302(c): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2302

Basically because of the EFF.

He worked full time at the EFF 2002-2006 and was named an EFF Fellow when he left. That combined with his blogging and fiction writing left him a reasonably high profile privacy and technology spokesperson.

Peter Gutmann? https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/

Thanks for the explanation. The terrorism and law enforcement angles on the use of IoCs were my least favorite parts for me as well.

After reading the text of the bill I'm full of indifference towards it. Can you expand on why you think it's a bad law? I'd like to know because I'm probably missing an angle.

It's really not.

CISA is a vehicle for the distribution of Indications of Compromise and other standard infosec threat intelligence between Government entities as well as the public and large corporations. The liability protections are completely reasonable if private companies were going to participate at all. The privacy protections built in are also much more thorough than I was expecting in a bill of this nature.

Really the only thing that really worries me about is that the things that the Government is allowed to do with shared information includes "identifying the use of an information system by a foreign adversary or terrorist". Which seems a little too broad for my tastes.

In fact, I was on the CISA hate train but after reading it I feel that it's an entirely inoffensive law and my outrage has fizzled into indifference. I'm not going to lose sleep if this passed nor if it isn't but likening it to a Letter of Marque is not warranted.

Here's the text for anyone interested: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/754

Not that it takes away from the point but this passage:

  Unfortunately, the problems the average 22-year-old male programmer has experienced
  are all about being an affluent single guy in Northern California.
  That’s how we’ve ended up with so many games (Angry Birds, Flappy Bird,
  Crappy Bird) and all those apps for what one start-up founder described
  to me as cooler ways to hang out with friends on a Saturday night.

Strikes me as odd as neither Angry Birds nor Flappy Bird were make by people in California and I doubt either games' core audience is 22 year old technologists.

How do you determine what the correct level of funding is for the project?

We can solve problems beyond pharmaceuticals with a command economy style approach if we can come up with a good methodology for resource allocation.