Slashdot Mirror
The Study of Physical Hacks at DefCon
eldavojohn writes "DefCon usually focuses on electronic security, but Saturday a talk was held that focused on possibly the oldest form of hacking — lockpicking. As software security becomes better and better, the focus may be shifting towards simple hacking tips like looking over someone's shoulder for their password, faking employment or just picking the locks to gain access to the building where machines are left on overnight. From the article: 'Medeco deadbolt locks relied on worldwide at embassies, banks and other tempting targets for thieves, spies or terrorists can be opened in seconds with a strip of metal and a thin screw driver, Marc Tobias of Security.org demonstrated for AFP ... Tobias says he refuses to publish details of 'defeating' the locks because they are used in places ranging from homes, banks and jewelers to the White House and the Pentagon. He asked AFP not to disclose how it is done.' I'm sure all Slashdot readers are savvy enough to use firewall(s) but do you know and trust what locks 'physically' protect your data from hacks like these?"
Jesus Christ, Chuck Norris is not funny anymore. Besides I find it strange that the internet community chose to make a meme out of a creationist conservative.
You know, this reasoning is wrong:
[quote]A "burglar" (intruder) is a huge risk to the occupant of a house because the intruder has incentive to kill the householder to shut him/her up, and sometimes does.[/quote]
Now read:
A "politician" is a huge risk to the occupant of a country because the politician has incentive to kill the householder to shut him/her up.
Now, do you see it happening?
A burglar has no intent to kill. If he would, why not do armed robbery instead? Why not take people hostage, take them to their home, clear out and kill them?
Why? Because burglars do not have the intent to kill.
For some reason burglary is seen as a vile crime. It is nothing more then taking valuable (worldly) possessions, and possessions likely to make money too (which also means that chances are small you're emotionally attached to the possessions - it'll be money, expensive media systems, etc. and probably not your photo albums, your nice comfy chair, or your childs favorite nappy).
For me, burglary is a wee tad more then nicking a purse, but not near as bad as any physical assault (... but that's just *me*)
Along that line, I think it is madness to be allowed lethal force inside your home, and inside your home only.
What is the difference between someone entering into your house, and someone stealing your luggage?
Someone stealing your luggage from your car?
Someone stealing your laptop from your car while you are driving in it?
And in what case is it allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself?
As it is, none. But why is there a difference when the person doing the stealing is in your house?
The fallacy here is that it's not burglars you're worried about - they are just thieves. You're worried about homocidal maniacs entering your house, killing you, *and* stealing everything.
But how different is that from the same thing happening in the street?
The reason, of course, is that on the street it's relatively unsafe for people pulling guns and start threatening people. They have a big risk vs doing such a thing in a relatively unpatrolled environment of a home. But... we're *still* not talking burglars here. This is homocidal maniacs, and they are few and far between.
Using weapons to intimidate as a means to defend your property is fine. Actually resorting to grievous bodily harm (and really, any gun is designed for it and nothing else, so firing one is) is overly reacting in almost all cases. Shooting a burglar means shooting with intent to hit, which also means shooting with intent to kill (and if you're saying you only wanted to hurt him, you should have tossed the ming vase at him instead). Shooting a burglar is not penalizing said burglar, it's penalizing with possible deadly cause (of course, heavy duty penitentiary might have similar death-risks... but it shouldn't have).
Then all of a sudden it is the burglar who is being threatened for life, and who feels a need to defend yourself. Do you really want to go into that spiral?