Not everything is post-scarcity, mostly food and clothes. Land, fuel, weapons, art, fame, and labor are still limited resources in the Star Trek world. Also, not everywhere is post-scarcity, as we see many "poor" or restricted societies. The post-scarcity bit is mostly about a social safety net for individuals in the Federation.
> Armin Shimerman addressed the issue when asked at a question-and-answer session at a Star Trek convention. He stated that:
> In America, people ask "Do the Ferengi represent Jews?" In England, they ask "Do the Ferengi represent the Irish?" In Australia, they ask if the Ferengi represent the Chinese ... The Ferengi represent the outcast ... it's the person who lives among us that we don't fully understand.[30]
A Jewish comedian made a joke about how jews (only in the US*) were offended that Ferengi in Star Trek were based on them - "why would we assume these ugly greedy people are _us_?"
*Outside the US, it looks like the Ferengi are mocking American capitalist culture.
All my corporate AML training says that not performing some KYC for large payments, directly or through a bank, is a crime in its own even if the recipient isn't sanctioned.
From Claude, maybe it's a little nuanced compared to conservative corporate policies, but doesn't feel very legal: "You can be charged with money laundering (18 USC 1956/1957 in the US, equivalents elsewhere) if you knowingly — or with willful blindness — process proceeds of crime. "I didn't ask" is not a defense if the circumstances were suspicious; deliberately avoiding KYC to preserve deniability is exactly what willful blindness doctrine targets. The recipient doesn't need to be formally sanctioned; the funds just need to be tainted."
How is it not a violation of AML laws to pay a ransom like this? Surely they didn't verify that the recipient (a criminal) isn't sanctioned or associated with sanctioned organizations.
Philadelphia cheese brand is from New York. Presumably, the German market licenses the brand but produces locally in Europe and doesn't import from the US (New York and Wisconsin).
In New York it's the same, they make the license plates and also school furniture, and maybe other things too. I was scared for a moment when I was told by USPS Informed Delivery that I have incoming mail from Auburn Correctional Facility - but it was a license plate.
> This is used for namespacing and to ensure forward compatibility (since no elements will be added to HTML, SVG, or MathML with hyphen-containing local names going forward).
So things that work today without a dash might break in the future if <badge>, for example, becomes a standard HTML element.
Customer A pays you $100 for goods that cost you $10. You invest $100-$10=$90 in customer B so that they'll pay you $90 for goods that cost you $9. Your reported revenue is now $100+$90=$190, but the only money that entered the system is the original $100.
This incident has nothing to do with (a)(2) as Marak didn't _access_ any system. The only sections violated are (a)(5) (_knowingly damaging_ a system) and, arguably, (a)(7) (extortion). (a)(7) is a lot harder to argue though as his extortion attempt doesn't have a named target or an explicit demand and is generally... lame.
Edit: Note that I'm seeing this the same as a virus, not the same as a data-extraction hack.
The precedent doesn't apply. The SCOTUS interpreted (and in effect, defined) that the "authorized access" in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2) can't be qualified and limited to less access. If I'm authorized to see usernames, and due to light hacking I can also see emails - I'm n̵o̵t̵ ̵a̵ ̵c̵r̵i̵m̵i̵n̵a̵l̵ maybe a criminal (EDITED). If I'm authorized to check license plates for some reasons, and despite employer policy I checked license plates for some other reasons - I'm not a criminal.
The issue we're discussing here is based on 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) (note the last digit) and "authorized access" is not mentioned there at all. This section deals with damage and not access.
If we're honest about the US justice system, this would be a subjective decision decided by non-technological lawyers, jurors, and judges. The purposeful malicious intent is working hard against his stance.
"18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;"
https://d1md4c6gq9re9p.cloudfront.net/blog/gpt-5.6-buildoff/...
https://d1md4c6gq9re9p.cloudfront.net/blog/gpt-5.6-buildoff/...
https://d1md4c6gq9re9p.cloudfront.net/blog/gpt-5.6-buildoff/...