What a lot of people don't realize is how close Trudeau's family was to Castro. Castro was a pallbearer at Justin Trudeau's father's funeral. Castro held Justin's baby brother in his arms.
Moreover your wouldn't have to look very hard to find recent quotes of American presidents praising some rather nasty regimes.
The bank sets a cookie on your machine and only displays the image if you have the cookie. You won't get the image on a machine you've never used to log in before.
It's also trivially easy to defeat this. Here in Canada, your ballot has a counterfoil with a number on it. That number is only removed immediately before you deposit your vote into the ballot box. This ensures that the ballot you deposit is the same one you were given by the polling clerk.
"The default PIN is the last four digits of your registered mobile phone number. Please call Shift support at 800-897-0717 to reset your Shift Card pin."
That's a terrible idea. This isn't a library card. You're PIN shouldn't be known by anyone who knows your phone number.
> but if someone intercepts your mail, then they know your address and could possibly know your phone number. How secure is the activation process
Every "normal" credit and debit card I've received in the mail has used this same procedure -- call a number on a removable sticker stuck to the card to activate it where the only verification is the phone number you're calling from (and caller ID is easily faked).
How is this any worse than how every other card activates?
And how do you propose they get around the mail interception problem? Have a courier deliver it to you and place it in your hand?
Where I am, PIN and Card arrive in different letters, and the Card letter is only sent once you confirmed via your online banking interface (which uses 2FA) that you received the PIN letter. And you need to confirm online in your banking interface to have received the card to be able to use it.
This may seem foreign to most people here, but there's still a TON of people who don't do online banking or have an account setup/bookmarked for all their financial institutions online sites.
That's changing as of this month. Most banks have already issued new chip cards, which require a PIN. If a merchant is still using the old swipe and sign system, now they'll be liable for any fraudulent transactions if the customer has a chip card.
All of the new chip cards in the US I've read about are signature only. It was decided that the US consumer would dislike the added complication of needing to use PIN.
I'd like a chip card that requires a PIN (and that is accepted widely in the US) because such a card would make unauthorized charges less likely after the card is lost or stolen, but was not able to find one.
I have a US chip card where I've set a PIN for transaction purposes, so it's not signature only, but it'll still accept both. That said, all of the chip card readers that I've used (few and far between still...) seem to have been configured for signature only, so I haven't been prompted for my PIN yet.
I opened an account at Metro Bank (in London), in a branch. They verified my id, then printed a debit card — this took about 10 minutes — and let me set its initial PIN in the bank.
I don't know if this is now normal in the UK. The previous time I opened an account in-branch was 2004, when the chip card arrived by post a few days later, with the PIN in a separate letter.
Similar situation here in Germany – but some banks, as I mentioned, require you to verify online that you received the letters, if you enabled this security feature.
In fact, I’ll go next friday to the bank to get a new debit card, as my existing one stopped working a few months ago.
Metro Bank are a newcomer to the market who've focused heavily on streamlining their customer enrolment because of that. I don't think other banks offer this.
Half of the cards I remember activating were based on the originating phone number (which I think you could still possibly spoof) which should have been tied to your account when you signed up. If the phone you're calling from isn't the same one on your account, there's likely some additional information you provide or maybe go through a CS rep to finish activation. Unfortunately, like you say, there are also many bank's systems who ignore or simply don't care about the call ID number.
As for interception, I guess you could require a signature for delivery but that's a pita. You just have to weigh the risks in that situation and the convenience of not requiring a signature obviously outweighs the risks of theft.
The bitcoin industry has a long and chequered history when it comes to best practices.
Part of the appeal of bitcoin to many is "Banks are so unnecessarily expensive to transmit value", the bitcoin industry has slowly and painfully been learning one disaster after another that maybe some of that cost isn't unnecessary after all.
"Banks are so unnecessarily expensive to transmit value"
.. which isn't really true in the EU ("Faster Payments"). It's only true in the US because the regulation is fragmented and reflexively in favour of the capitalist over the consumer. It's the banking equivalent of Comcast.
What disasters are you talking about? It is possible to transmit value securely and safely with bitcoin so Im not sure what point you are trying to make other with this sort of vague statement.
EDIT: My point is that a financial service is more than just the protocols used. Actually the protocols are the least important thing to the average customer. The more important thing is trust. I trust that my money in the bank will stay there and that transactions made using my bank will go to the person I say they should. Part of the reason for my trust is in the regulation around the banking industry. E.g. the savings guarantee here in the UK(/EU?). The bitcoin industry (not the protocol but the services around it) have yet to provide me that level of trust coupled with comparative ease of use.
Yes there is a savings guarantee in the US/UK/EU however if funds are stolen from your bank account you are as unlikely to get them returned as you are to get stolen bitcoin back. The difference is that the government is covering (with taxes) the loss incurred by the bank (if necessary) but that doesn't mean you are automatically covered by this insurance in the case of a theft.
I've had my credit card and debit card stolen several times. One time, the person who got it took out over a thousand dollars from an ATM in another country. I got it all back (from Chase) within 5 days every time, which would never happen with Bitcoin.
In terms of theft. It depends upon the manner of the theft. If one follows the banks required precautions then one is usually covered (in the UK at least). If one does not then one is not covered -- although I'd agree that banks are increasingly not covering people if they can avoid doing so.
I was more thinking of institutional theft (i.e. embezzlement). I'm almost certain my bank won't just vanish the money I have lent them through my savings account. Of course the same cannot be said of "Random Investment Company Name" who was recommended to me on a forum/down the pub. As yet (and I hope that this changes) non of the bitcoin service companies have risen above this level of trust (for me personally).
EDIT:
Added fact that my assessment of trust is my personal subjective opinion and shouldn't be taken as a fact.
But that was not a disaster for bitcoin, that was a case of fraud and theft. Not much different to someone embezzling fiat from a firm e.g.secure investmen, and that wasn't a disaster for fiat currencies or the traditional banking system.
I think that many people hold bitcoin and bitcoin businesses to a higher standard than they would companies that operate outside this sphere.
If someone stole 5% of all the world's fiat currency from an unregulated, uninsured financial institution (Which in that sense was no different from any other BTC exchange... So it's not like anyone had better options.) with customers not getting any recourse, that would be a disaster for fiat currencies.
At least, it would be an unmitigated disaster for the Wild West style of regulating fiat currencies.
People hold BTC businesses to a higher standard because after your BTC is stolen by 'hackers' in an ex-Soviet republic, you have absolutely zero recourse. They hold BTC to a higher standard because no individual in the fiat world siphoned off a trillion dollars into his accounts last year. They hold BTC to a higher standard because the companies operating in the space absolutely refuse to properly protect their customers.
I would note that siphoning off massive amounts of money does happen in the fiat world despite regulation (but because off ineffective implementation of regulation) e.g. the Madoff case.
> I think that many people hold bitcoin and bitcoin businesses to a higher standard than they would companies that operate outside this sphere.
I hold them to exactly the same standard as traditional financial services. I can see you point in that for many people bitcoin is just voodoo (on the other hand for many people traditional financial services are voodoo and people trust them with their pensions).
I hope you live in a place where everyone leaves their doors unlocked, children walk to school and play freely in the streets, and the police actually serve and protect the public.
So I spent about 60 seconds doing research. The J-1 visa they initially applied for is a work visa (or study visa). The ETSA they came on is for visa-waiver (tourism.) Most countries are going to be very unhappy if you apply for a work visa, don't get it, then show up anyway and say you're just a tourist. Non unreasonably, they assume you're lying. This isn't just a US thing.
And the fact that you cannot ask for ESTA if you already asked for a J1 is not explained in that site.
Besides it is crazy that instead of displaying an error when they asked for the ESTA, they were put in jail for 33 hours. The worse part is that some people do not see anything wrong with that...
Sorry - your response doesn't cut it. The ETSA and the J-1 infrastructure obviously can talk - how else would the border agent know to arrest you? If it can talk, then why doesn't it tell you that you're breaking the law, if it's so gosh-darn clear with 60 seconds of research? Remember - you're a local. Tourists are not.
Potential tourists see these articles and factor them into their travel plans, usually by not going to the country in question. If it was Venezuela putting people in prison for not following an obscure visa-rule, I doubt you'd be justifying it so happily.
Indeed, I've loved Australia, Asia and Europe, but I'll never set foot in US, despite multiple business conferences which happen nowhere else. I picture the agent asking: "So, you're not using your real name on Facebook. Would you agree that your are impersonating your identity against a US company?"
I think the point is they were treated horribly. They made a mistake, but it was a clerical error. Seriously in NZ you could shoot someone in the face at the airport and not get treated like that. It's a very different way of life here.
They knew they weren't tourists. They applied for a tourist visa in lieu of the proper visa. They may not have been aware of the consequences but they were aware that their actions didn't represent their actual intent. If I visit Canada and steal socks from a department store, I might not be aware of the penalty, but I am aware of the crime.
If I cross into gang territory I might get shot. It's their turf and perhaps I should research the area to stay safe. That is my personal responsibility to stay safe. But that in no way would take any blame away from the gang members shooting me.
In the same way these tourists are at fault, but perhaps there are lessons for US border security too?
I'm sure tourist dollars are worth something to the US economy. It might be worth nurturing the tourist experience, to coax more people into the US.
Actually, they never said it's "in lieu of proper visa". It may be, but that's not what they wrote.
The only indication about any work may be the "colleagues-not-to-be", but that may well be just a description related for the J-1 process, not their later situation. If they already had friends in the US, what's wrong with deciding to just visit them anyway on the visa waiver? (and not going to work)
I might not have read it correctly, but I didn't spot the point where they said their J-1 was not approved - just that it was in progress (and from what I hear, months-long approval processes seem pretty common in the States).
The two countries whose visa process I'm most familiar with in this situation are Singapore and Australia. I've hired many foreigners into Singapore on Employment Passes (the H1-B equivalent) and in some cases, they came in on a tourist visa whilst their EP was in progress (testimony of our hiring speed rather than the Singaporean administration, which delivers the thing in 7 working days).
Similarly, when I applied for Australian PR, which takes quite a bit longer than Singapore, the embassy specifically told me it was fine to travel in and out of the country during the application, and I did so on the usual visa waiver whatever it is called.
I once was cornered - in a polite and friendly manner - by an Australian immigration agent in Singapore on my way to Perth, who for all intents and purposes looked like a perfectly normal, unarmed civil servant in a suit, and who was wondering why I kept popping in and out of his country. Satisfied with the explanation he let me continue after 2 minutes. And if you think immigration is a hot topic in the US, you should see Australian news at the moment...
I've also held two work visas in Switzerland despite owning an "inferior, work-stealing frontalier" (not my words, those of the more right wing protectionists) French passport and I regularly fly in and out of the country without any issues.
Therefore, this story strikes me as an illustration of how bad the backend/IT/processes for immigration are in the US. The main failure point was a lack of communication, with the airline as well as with the travelers. All airlines flying to Singapore and Australia check your visa situation (as in, ask to see the visa and scan it) before you check in precisely to avoid these problems. One also has to wonder the wisdom of not allowing visa types to overlap conditionally, since other countries seem more than able to cope; and whether failing to obtain a work visa really ought to be grounds for exclusion from tourism travel.
> All airlines flying to Singapore and Australia check your visa situation (as in, ask to see the visa and scan it) before you check in precisely to avoid these problems
And I got burned by this. Wasn't aware that you need this waiver/visa thing. Got to the check-in gate about 30 minutes before they close and got rejected. Called friend in Sydney to quickly apply online. Got confirmation of application from where it normally takes about 20 minutes to get visa. Showed it to airline lady, so she called Australian border/customs where she was informed that process might take up to 9 days. Hence I wasn't allowed to even check in. I begged to do something and they just blabbered about systems not allowing them to do it. 8 minutes after registration closed I got my visa and obviously wasn't allowed to fly that day. This was Emirates airlines by the way.
When I got to Sydney next day I was questioned by a smug fatlus about what I am doing here. I could see satisfaction in her face when she asked me how I am flying back. She though 'now I got him'. Turns out I had tickets booked with different airline via different city. Asked to scan my phone for CP and drugs. Asked my friend contact details and if I can prove I am currently employed.
Entry to NZ was ok, but you could see people are intimidating. To be honest all borders I ever seen look intimidating. UK now has these spinning lights on top of their cameras that create this feeling of being surveyed. My home country agents were also incompetent not being tell the difference between my GFs passport (Taiwan republic of China). She also got bad treatment on UK border. My treatment upon entering US was intimidating as well, but fortunately short.
I also witnessed bias to uniform. Pilot found someones phone just before agents desk. Agent said in this ridiculous blockubster-marine-like voice "Sir, I will have to ask you turn off the phone". He managed get it thru to the guy in front, but you can bet your balls he would be pushed to the ground if he wasn't wearing his uniform.
> I might not have read it correctly, but I didn't spot the point where they said their J-1 was not approved - just that it was in progress (and from what I hear, months-long approval processes seem pretty common in the States).
A J-1 is initiated from a host institution, similar to how a company needs to file a Labour Condition Application (LCA) before they can hire a H1B/E3 etc.
That provides you with the invitation, and you take that and all supporting evidence to a US embassy in your country of citizenship and they assess on the spot whether to approve or deny the visa.
They either couldn't get sponsorship from a host institution, or the consulate officer rejected the application because of some other criteria.
There's not really a "months-long" approval process.
Fair. I'm not familiar with US immigration beyond anecdotes from my network.
From first contact to goes-through-the-door-of-your-office, how long would you say it would typically take to hire a Vietnamese or Chinese citizen into your SF company? Singapore's figure is 7 working days and I've done it in 36 hours.
Also, judging by the words "colleagues-to-be" they intended to work on their visa waver. This is illegal as well so even if they've got in they could have been deported later and banned from the US. The whole write up can be summed as "What do you mean 'Ignorantia juris non excusat'?!"
Not allowing entry isn't an unreasonable thing to do. It's a failure of procedure that these things are able to happen so easily. If your systems and laws make it easy to unintentionally break the law you should fix that.
The problem is also the way the US does these things. The amount of hostility and the way they treat people.
Can you give an example of a country where the laws are hard to break unintentionally or otherwise? I know only one, Somalia, because there are no laws. So I don't think I'd like you "fixing" this.
As for this case I am pretty sure their intent was to break the law, they just did not expect the consequences. They did try to get J-1 so they knew they need a visa for their visit and a waiver is not enough. They went without a visa anyways, probably hoping to talk their way through the immigration, feigning ignorance.
Australia: laws are hard to break because their IT is efficient. And they're awesome characters.
I reckon you have a point: So many people come to US with the intent of lying to the border agent, getting a tourist visa and working. Border law isn't shoplifting or traffic law.
So, if, for example, I drive drunk in Australia (easy to do) I am not breaking any laws? Or don't pay taxes? I find this hard to believe. No matter how efficient the IT some laws are easy to break. You probably meant just the immigration laws, which was not what I asked.
>The whole write up can be summed as "What do you mean 'Ignorantia juris non excusat'?!"
Well, ignorantia SHOULD be "excusat" in some cases.
That idea of "Ignorantia juris non excusat" ("you're not excused for not knowing the law") is one of the worst and most undefensable aspects of the legal system, especially since modern law has become so vague and all-catching.
So? If I apply for a work visa and get denied, am I forbidden to spend some holidays in the US as well? If that's the case, the application form for the ETSA should include a question "have you recently applied for a work permit before this application?" and if the answer is yes, reject it, saving hassle for everybody involved.
My anonymous friend always goes to USA on the ETSA, puts business as the reason for travel, and works there (not a new job though, just the same job they already do from overseas). Although he too has been detained for random stupid reasons, never for more than 6 hours, and of course has had his luggage gone through 2-3 times each trip.
The ETSA shouldn't be any less valid just because you applied for a visa (denied or not) first. As far as I understand the visa was still being processed too.
What a misleading title. If you actually read the statement of claim posted at that link, you see that Georgia doesn't object to the laws being posted online for free, they do that themselves. But, they hired LexisNexis to produce an annotated code, and Public Resource is blatantly copying all the annotations. This is exactly what copyright is supposed to protect.
If Public Resource wants to they can make their own annotations.
If GA hired LN to produce an annotated code, then that means the annotations are owned by Georgia, which means they are public record and not therefore copyrightable.
Yes, you are right I should have said public documents to be more precise. "Public record" is different than "copyrightable" which is what the issue is about. Public documents, that is owned by the state aka the people, cannot be copyrighted.
The sort of people who'd be willing to pay an extra few hundred dollars for this aren't the sort of people who drive drunk. It doesn't make sense unless the government forces it.
HelloFax has a no-subscription tier that lets you send individual faxes at $0.99 each. If you're like me and send only a few a year, this is a great option.
I've been using HelloFax since shortly after they launched, and it just works (TM). Highly recommended.
Moreover your wouldn't have to look very hard to find recent quotes of American presidents praising some rather nasty regimes.