Slashdot Mirror
Schneier On Un-Authentication
Trailrunner7 writes "Bruce Schenier writes on Threatpost.com: 'In computer security, a lot of effort is spent on the authentication problem. Whether it is passwords, secure tokens, secret questions, image mnemonics, or something else, engineers are continually coming up with more complicated — and hopefully more secure — ways for you to prove you are who you say you are over the Internet. This is important stuff, as anyone with an online bank account or remote corporate network knows. But a lot less thought and work have gone into the other end of the problem: how do you tell the system on the other end of the line that you are no longer there? How do you un-authenticate yourself? My home computer requires me to log out or turn my computer off when I want to un-authenticate. This works for me because I know enough to do it, but lots of people just leave their computer on and running when they walk away. As a result, many office computers are left logged in when people go to lunch, or when they go home for the night. This, obviously, is a security vulnerability.'"
No. What I did was no more stealing than when you (and lots of other people) download movies, songs, or tv shows. It's not real property - it's just internet data.
Think about it. If I'm right - it's not stealing. If you're right, then it is stealing and so too is downloading/bittorenting and you too are a thief. (ponder) Ooops.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>having a charge appear on someone else's account for services you got.
Sooooo just like when you block ads on various websites, and you make a charge appear on that webowner's account for services you took
.
>>>you assume I download music/other files illegally. I don't.
I don't believe you. At some point whether now or over the last two decades, I bet you took a song, movie, or tv show without paying the original owner. Not that I really care because I do it myself. My point is this: If you believe you are without sin, then you are mistaken, so maybe you ought to put down that stone.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>you actually created a charge for somebody else to pay.
That's true. Likewise the production of a song or movie "creates a charge" on somebody's account which they have to pay. And you've taken that item without compensating them for that charge, so really it's no different than what I did back in 1990.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Yes well... I was 17 and stupid. I wasn't really thinking about the consequences of my actions - I just thought "free paper!" and went to work causing about two hundred in damages. I obviously wouldn't do the same thing today. ...
Unless it was Bank of America. I wouldn't have any qualms sticking-it to that corrupt organization, especially after they stole 20 billion in bailout money from taxpayer wallets*...... stupid thieves. Plus they charged me a $30 "underlimit fee" on my account that I had emptied last month and asked them to close that same day. Grrrr. If they had closed it when I asked them to close it, there wouldn't be a fine.
*
* legalized theft is still theft
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
(shrug) Still results in starving artists, due to people downloading the songs instead of paying. Maybe you think I'm not being fair, but you see it pisses me off when I hear someone say "C64love is a thief!" while you or your readers are running bit-torrent in the background.
Hello? McFly? Hello? Anybody home? (knock knock knock). I'm sure Sally the Singer whose song you're downloading doesn't see any distinction - she simply sees her labor being stolen.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall