Slashdot Mirror
B&N Nook Successfully Opened
garg0yle writes "A team has managed to open the Barnes and Noble Nook e-reader, gaining full access to the operating system. From the article: 'The Nook is now a computer running a full Android operating system, with a built-in, free cellular connection to the internet. It also has a battery that lasts days, not hours.' They are documenting their progress on the Nook Devs wiki."
until this whole operation gets blocked? I might have to snag one now before BN gets wise to this.
Its great to see the Nook being opened up to allow unsupported apps, but I wonder about the impact of free 3G will be if this hack is widely used. Will this lead to the Nook2 featuring even more DRM, or perhaps no 3G at all? I sure hope not, but considering that BN will likely take a lot of heat from the service provider I wouldn't be surprised to see abuse of the network leading to a more locked down future device.
What crazy antics are AT&T going to throw out to try and stop this one?
- Aetheral Research -
From TFA: If you tear open a Nook (which the team has done) you’ll find that the Android operating system is contained on a microSD card (separate from the microSD expansion slot). From here, it’s a simple matter of using a card reader to mount this card on your computer and changing a single word in the init.rc file (the file that is in charge of which services are begun at startup, similar to a Linux boot).
I'm incredibly surprised it isn't even using proprietary flash storage for this purpose, and am suddenly incredibly attracted to the prospect of this device due to its free cellular internet connection. Can I attach a foldable keyboard to this thing? This begs the question of why we don't already have netbooks this awesome, with free internet and days of battery life.
What does the FCC care? It's still compliant, even if it's hacked.
I daresay the wireless carrier will be a bit ticked though, but they should have seen it coming. If the data connection this thing uses isn't firewalled to only talk to the B&N servers it's their own fault.
Add another device to your overladen 3G network!
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
I may? Oh, joy!
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Welcome to the Arms Race, Android and Nook. Enjoy your stay.
Now I have to get one of these, mod it, install the teathering package that I have on my G1 and I'm set... Read books AND provide random WiFi Hotspot...
Who's going to make the Android App that will allow me to use this thing to track my D&D 3.5/4.x character? ;)
I used to date a girl who called her pussy a "nook." I succesfully opened it many times :)
Can I attach this term to the Nook now too?
If you do this, your Nook will be openly accessible to anyone who port-scanned your Nook and found that port 5555 is open.
I once had a signature.
And suddenly, I want a nook.
I was going to wait for the next gen, but the likelihood that B&N would keep it as accessible in the next hardware revision is about as much as Amazon buying these for all their employees.
We've been down this road before.
Don't do that. Pushing the connection to carry things it wasn't meant to is pretty much theft of service, and it will get pushback from rightfully upset providers, and maybe more from policymakers who see hackers who can't behave themselves.
Do what you'd like with the devices and/or media that you've purchased, but recognize that there's a line of fairness and don't cross it.
Tweet, tweet.
If those 3G connections are not VPNed exclusively to B&Ns servers that is criminally stupid. If they are, then there is no big deal here, they just showed how you can get full access to a device you purchased. The way it should be.
alias possession='chmod 666 satan && ls
They used an open source operating system and stuck in on a removable (albeit internal) MicroSD card?? It's almost as though they wanted it to be hacked. And then they just implemented it with a SIM card (which makes me think the AT&T network abstracts it as a standard cell phone). I wonder what happens if you stick that SIM card in a cellphone (probably doesn't work or else it would've been in the article). Still... I think we all know this won't last for long
Someone say Nook Opened
This space for rent, inquire within.
This begs
raises
the question of why we don't already have netbooks this awesome, with free internet
Subsidized by book sales, as OldeTimeGeek pointed out.
and days of battery life.
Netbooks can view YouTube. Readers with electronic paper displays can't.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. See the problem is cellular Internet costs money. Even if you don't think corporations should be allowed to make a profit, it is still going to cost money. You have to have a large network of radio towers to broadcast the signal, those have to be wired back in to a robust network to route the data, which has to be connected to the Internet at large. Of course all that doesn't maintain itself once built, things break, people need to fix it and look after it.
That all costs money, as such, access is going to have to cost money.
So, why is access "free" on things like the Kindle and Nook? Well it isn't. What happens is that Amazon or Barnes and Noble pick up the cost. There are two reasons they can do this:
1) Usage is low. Since access is used only for searching for, or downloading, new books as well as a smattering of other things like news, it isn't all that much. That means they aren't having to pay out a whole lot per device.
2) A large part of the usage has a profit associated with it, namely buying books. Thus each time you use the wireless to get a book, they make some money.
This leads to a situation where it is feasible to offer it to customers at no charge.
However, if you start using it as general purpose Internet, to browse whatever you want, to download files, to play games, that breaks down. Suddenly cost goes up a whole lot, and less (or perhaps none) of the activity generates any money. As such it can't be sustained. They have to restrict it, shut it down, or charge.
Things in life aren't free. If you think everyone should just give everything away, well that shows a real lack of understanding of how the world works (and a good indication you've never had to provide for yourself).
I'd like to see how long the battery lasts during heavy internet use.
Days? Sorry, but I just don't think so. My Kindle DX battery lasts about two weeks, as long as I don't have wireless on and only read 1-2hrs a day. If wireless is on, substantially less. If I'm *using* the wireless a lot, even less than that.
So, let's leave the hyperbole out of the summary, shall we?
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
I really would love an eInk (read: no back light) MPD client for my custom MPD server. Although, stealing Internet access is not my forte. I wonder of the modem can be swiped out for a WiFi card.
This is why we can't have nice things.
This is a sig. It is like every other sig in the world, except that it is mine, and it is different.
Whoooosh, the sound of a Nook zooming over your head.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
No... not really. Any "fault" comes from those actually hacking the Nook. I mean, unless it's your fault you got stabbed in the face walking down the street because you didn't bother to wear a steel mask.
Just-World Fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon
A lot of wireless carriers impose restrictions and/or higher charges on tethering.
The unit has a SIM slot, hopefully it will take another SIM. Then you can buy service from someone who supports tethering (is there anyone doing that on GSM? heh) if you need that feature. Otherwise, configure your Linux side to perform all communications via WiFi somehow, and you won't have a problem with abusing their network. I don't know if this will increase uptake significantly, but I certainly wouldn't consider buying any such device that I wasn't able to load Linux on.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
no but it might be your fault when your car gets stolen if you left it running while you were shopping. Especially if you also put a big red sign on top that said "UNATTENDED RUNNING CAR".
Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
http://nookdevs.com.nyud.net/Main_Page
It's not hard. Just add .nyud.net after the hostname.
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
Again, wrong. The fault lay with the thief. Things do not steal themselves. A running car at an intersection does not skip away merrily. The thief is the cause and catalyst... the fault lay with the thief. (Such is why we don't prosecute victims of crime.)
One was successfully bought. I tried weeks before they were to hit the stores and the preorders were already into January and I was informed none would be in stores until after the first of the year. The scalpers seemed to have got their hands on them and for $750 to $800 you could buy one on Ebay. I said screw it and bought my niece a Kindle.
Remember the I-Opener?
I predict a similar fate to the Nook:
- Wicked cool device hits the market.
- Hacked and liberated.
- Provider(s) lose money due to the liberation.
- Tug-of-war between provider(s) and hackers.
- Provider(s) give up and more on after losing too much money.
I expect the cell connection will be firewalled pretty soon unless they completely munged the process and can't. Expect some OTA updates pronto to keep the rooters out. Tug-of-war over rooting. Eventually new TOS to make you a criminal for using the cell connection in ways other than expected. Dead Nooks all over the place.
I'm kinda tempted to buy one just to root it. I had a LOT OF FUN with my v5 I-Opener. Short-lived, but it made my soldering iron useful again, and kept my GF's 9-year-old daughter entertained and safer than with a standard PC, until she discovered LimeWire. Ugh.
I wonder if Cyanogen has any interest in Nook rooting. He's the best right now.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I think both views are far too abstract and simplified to be of any practical use. Blame isn't a true/false value that can only be assigned to a single entity.
On one hand, it's somewhat witless to leave a car like that. On the other, stealing it is a despicable thing to do. Both the situation and action are necessary so the blame for the incident goes to both. Since the action is far worse than the situation, the blame is very heavily weighted towards the criminal.
Even that's too simplified. But you get the idea.
Some juridictions will charge you as an "accessory" if you leave your car running, it gets stolen, and it's used in a crime.
[citation needed]
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
They should have seen it coming since everything else gets repeatedly hacked/Unlocked and its not hard to see some capability that would enable given the devices specs. Yes you can expect it to be broken. If you know that its highly likely that you will get stabbed in the face, maybe you should wear a steel mask. There is only so much you can do on the device, but the network is a different story.
If you're dealing with the Nook and you power cycle without properly shutting down, you can expect a visit from Mr. Resetti... Those are never fun.
Bow-ties are cool.
Gotta disagree. The act would not happen on its own without the actor (the criminal). In every single crime, someone must act to make the crime happen.
You're confusing the concepts of "accident" where variables outside of control/observation come together to create an unfortunate circumstance.
No one accidentally steals a running car. No one accidentally hacks a Nook thus subjecting a company to many new costs. Those situations require people with intent to create them. Those people with intent are at fault for any ill-effects of their actions. Not the victims.
It is not your fault if you get shot in the leg and robbed while walking down a street. You shouldn't be *surprised* if it happens while you're wearing expensive clothing while walking in a war zone, but the fault lay with the person choosing to harm you.
I doubt people will be getting free cellular internet very long if at all. The SIM card identifies the user as a Nook, and if the service provider has any brains, they will restrict the routing of all traffic from such users to where they want.
Not that this is not a cool hack. I would like to throw in my own SIM card and take this baby for a spin.
But what intent are you looking for? Intent to hack the device they own shouldn't be enough to fault them, only an explicit intent to cost B&N more money. (So no, intending to use the cellular connection that coincidentally costs B&N money doesn't count.)
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
I don't know where you live, but in my state it is illegal to leave an unattended car running. And it is illegal specifically because it presents an easy target for thieves.
I've honestly never heard of such a thing, and find that bizarre.
Most definitely, they should see it coming. I'm not saying they shouldn't be surprised. Everything gets cracked. However, "fault" is a very particular word. Fault attributes "cause of harm". In such a case, the potential cause of harm is not the maker of the nook, but the people that find and implement exploits of their products.
This is why it's irrational for a child to be at blame for abuse. For example: A child in poor circumstance may reliably be beaten when he doesn't do his chores. If one day, he decides to refrain from doing his chores and gets beaten, where does the blame, or fault, lay? With the child-- the victim of the crime? Or with the person who beats the child?
The fault is the the person who beats the child. The child, understanding his circumstance, should not be surprised when he gets beaten, but it's the external actor, the "beater" who is at fault for causing harm to the child.
If variable names have been left int he jars, you may be able to dissamble so that you can start add your own classes.
I havent coded for the Android yet. But was under the impression it used a "custom" form of Java, mainly special multi-process JVM.
(Such is why we don't prosecute victims of crime.)
Wouldn't negligence occasionally involve prosecuting victims?
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
We agree. They are not the cause of the problem, but they should have taken reasonable precautions. Unlike the a random act they had opportunity to take reasonable precautions to protect there interests.
A fine seems fairly reasonable to me. If that car IS stolen, someone has to pay for the police work to track it down (or more realistically, the tow to impound and processing when your car's stripped husk is found two weeks later in a Burger King parking lot). I've got no problem with my taxes being offset by fines issued to the people who are contributing to rising costs of enforcement.
No, the blame still belongs 100% to the thief. All because you make something trivially easy to steal doesn't make you at all guilty if it is stolen. You might say "well what did you expect to happen?" or "*of course* your car's going to get stolen if you leave it running and unattended." That would only work, if the thief had no choice (or less of a choice) but to steal your car because you left it running. As it is, the thief is a moral actor capable of making moral decisions. Right-doers would pass up the running vehicle. Car thieves would simply choose to steal your car before trying to break into the properly secured ones.
Nook e-reader has been hacked and rooted
I'm sure Slashdotters in New Zealand will get a kick out of that.
New York law.
Umm, no. Certainly morally it is, but not legally.
If you leave your car running, the blame for the theft can be placed on you, and in some states you can actually be held partly liable if the thief does something wrong with the vehicle. Especially if the person who stole your car is underage.
Some decades ago, at my father's business, my mother stopped by to drop something off. Since she was parked next to the rear entrance to the store (which was in a mall), she hopped out of her car with the keys in it and the car running. It was winter, and the car had a habit of not starting well if it was already warmed up. Apparently a couple of kids were hanging out in the area, because the car was stolen in the 30 seconds it took her to drop off the paperwork and come back outside.
The police eventually caught the kids who did it once they wrecked the car. The kids were 17 and 16, and one of them was a repeat offender (petty theft, etc) whose name appeared in the police blotter regularly. But since the keys were in the car, the car was considered an "attractive nuisance" and the kids could not be held liable to stealing it. Quite the contrary, the presence of the keys was legally considered to be a compulsion for someone to steal it, and my mother was therefore liable for the theft AND everything they did in the car, including any injuries to themselves or others.
Fortunately for us, when the kids totalled her car neither of them was seriously hurt, and the property damage they did was minimal. We had to buy a new car, and pay for the property damage the wreck caused, and pay the medical bills for the kids to get checked out at the hospital. It set us back about $15,000 or so, since insurance wouldn't pay a penny of it of course, but it was an interesting and eye-opening lesson in liability.
Fortunately, the police officer decided not to press charges for reckless endangerment of a child, or my mother could have ended up in real trouble for having her car stolen.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Tell that to the insurance. =)
Switch carriers.
For example, T-Mobile's most expensive data plan is around $20 a month, and tethering works on most of their phones. For an even cheaper route, go with what used to be their $5.99 plan which is proxied http access only (you set your web browser to use T-Mobile's proxy).
I'm not saying the thief doesn't bear fault. But giving someone an unnecessary opportunity does give a person some of the blame.
For example, if I setup a mail server, and don't take even the simplest precautions to secure it (so it is a wide open smtp relay), who is my boss going to blame when his mail keeps bouncing because we have been blacklisted as a spam bot? The guy(s) who actually exploited us? Or me for leaving the front door open to them in a way that would certainly lead to us sending spam?
Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
Semi-OT anecdote. A while back, a woman had her car stolen and the thieves ditched it in one of the Great Lakes. The authorities located the submerged vehicle and notified the owner that it was now a hazard to navigation and she was responsible for the cost of removing it, which would cost thousands of dollars. Alternatively, she could pay to have a warning buoy placed above it, but she would also have to pay the annual upkeep on the buoy, presumably forever.
Since I read this news item sometime in the 1970s/1980s, I don't know what the final outcome was.
so, you are saying buy one now? I have been kind of interested in the Nook, I may be really interested in it.
Sorry for the double post, but I think we also need to draw attention to the notion of negligence. In an act of negligence a person has no malicious intent, he just fails to do something he ought to have done, but he still bears fault for the bad outcome. If a company doesn't want the device being used for some purpose, and it is completely predictable that people will try certain trivial things to use it for that purpose, then the company would be negligent not to take basic steps to stop them.
If I don't want people using my wifi, I need to encrypt it. If I don't encrypt it, then yes I do bear some significant responsibility for my connection being slow.
If I live in the city and don't lock my door when I go on vacation I have to blame myself when I come back to a burglarized home. Of course this doesn't mean the thief was right to steal from me. But it does mean we can't just ignore reality and our own part in bringing misfortune on ourselves.
Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
But isn't there more to it than that? Isn't it rational for the boss to be mad at me? I mean, I did fail to do something that any competent IT person would have known to do. (See my post below.)
Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
If you aquire a nook and do not sign or agree to any EULA that prohibits you from opening the device and using the internet connection then there is no stealing happening. If you do that and the carriers aren't happy then it is their fault. If they don't like it, but you agreed to a EULA or something else that prohibited it, then it's not their fault.
If you name something the nookie book, of course people are going to try to open it!
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
You do realize that they "days" of battery life are due to the fact that it is designed to read books?
The battery life on ereaders really should be rated in "page turns". This gets about 2000 page turns on a single charge.
Using that color screen all the time or actively using the internet will suck down that battery so fast your head will spin!!!
The battery on this device is going to suck if you are using it to IM your friends or regularly browse the web. The battery on these devices is actually significantly SMALLER than a netbook battery. These devices have a cheap and small cell phone battery.
The real advantage is the internet....but it isn't that big of a deal. The kindle already has a web-browser.
Plus, as many have explained...they will just block non-B&N usage if it is abused.
The blame belongs with the people that didn't have the foresight to limit traffic and allowed an open connection with the assumption that people would only use that connection in they desired. If you grant full access, then it isn't stealing. The "thief" is using a connection that they have been allowed to use by nature of the device and their ability to use it as they see fit. The blame belongs 100% with the thief when a crime is committed. Using the full capabilities of a device you have paid for is not a crime, and could only be considered wrong if you signed some agreement saying you wouldn't do so in the first place.
What does the FCC care? It's still compliant, even if it's hacked.
Not necessarily true. For instance, most open firmware for routers (Tomato, for instance) allows you to boost the transmitter power beyond FCC certified levels. You can also enable the use of frequencies not allowed in the USA. So hacking firmware can certainly break compliance.
If the money wasn't in the bank, the thief wouldn't have the opportunity to steal it
If she hadn't worn that short skirt, she would've made it home ok
I he hadn't have been a Tutsi, Jew, Muslim, Christian, it probably wouldn't have happened.
Nice relativism. I agree with your take on the car analogy, but I think your belief about blame breaks down the closer it gets to reality.
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
But unless you put pen to paper, it has no legal force.
If you don't believe that, then:
By reading this comment, you agree to send $5 to the EFF.
Why would you want to? It's an E-ink display. Oooh...look at the pretty greyscale.
On top of that, according to two reviews I read that were both posted here on Slashdot last week, the thing is dog slow just displaying the next page of the book you are reading. Think it will do any better with the web?
You've now brought another harm-causer into the mix. The criminal and the person who was hired to protect the company from the criminal. Again, the criminal would hold *fault* for the damage he causes because he would be the one choosing to cause damages. You, the person hired to protect the company, would be guilty of negligence of your duties in your position. The difference is that you would still be guilty of negligence with or without the criminal spammer. The two actions (or inactions) interact but are still separate. The spammer would not receive reduced fault because it was easier-than-expected to commit a crime.
Such is why we don't prosecute victims of crime
Except you do, in certain circumstances. Usually involving child pornography laws in some fashion. And possibly other cases involving bizarre twisted applications of anti-terror laws.
Firmware on cellular devices does not allow hardware-level access to the transmitter. That chip has its own firmware, and they only communicate over a serial bus, usually.
Wow this could not have been a simpler hack.
A blob of epoxy on the sdcard would have prevented it, or perhaps a more complex reconfiguring then editing ONE LINE in a file. Furthermore why the hell does the cellular connection have full internet access. I mean it should be locked down to only what B&N want you to access on AT&T's side.
An unless the Terms and conditions of service state anything about accessing parts of the internet that B&N don't approve, these guys aren't breaking any laws.
The real elephant in the room is the high cost of a ubiquitous internet connection.... Locally, here in Canada it costs a minimum of $30/month for a 3G internet only connection... with low transfer numbers (500mb). That makes Kindles and Nooks use of 3G look like "free" beer. And even that charge is shown to be far too high as I get 6GB for $30 on my iPhone. And that is not really subsidized by the phone side (well not too much) as I only have the minimum voice plan they provide.
What we need is for the carriers to get the price down far enough that it makes sense for every netbook, laptop etc to have 3G builtin. Usable with a pre-paid SIM or very low cost monthly. We'll get there eventually. But not while the carriers continue to overcharge.
Contributory negligence is a valid argument and certainly can weigh in on decisions. Like someone said above, its not black and white.
Good-bye
Someone that stupid should be nailed as an accessory to their own robbery and the car should be sold off to cover investigative expenses.
While nothing is impossible, I'd be really surprised if they actually managed to successfully prosecute your mom for an attractive nuisance this way. Normally that would apply to something like a swimming pool without a fence, or an abandoned truck in the middle of a field. Teenagers stealing a running car would normally be a really hard sell, since 17 is an age where you should clearly know that taking a car without permission is illegal.
I'm not doubting your story, but I suspect that the cop in that case may have brought that out as a way of not having to deal with the car-theft for some reason, and scaring your parents out of pressing charges against the kids themselves.
Of course I could be wrong, but something here doesn't seem quite right....
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
You sell me a box of electronics and wires. I use that box in a way you didn't intend. Somehow I'm in the wrong here?
$ make available
No. You do NOT get part of the blame. That's like saying "She shouldn't have been wearing that mini-skirt, it's no wonder she got raped."
Bullshit. Pure bullshit. I should be ABLE to leave my house unlocked, its MY fucking house, not yours, and you know that, and if you steal my shit it's all YOUR fault.
I should be ABLE to leave my car with the keys in it, its MY car, not yours, if you take it you're 100% responsible.
Yes, it may be predictable that if I leave my car with the keys in it some immoral asshole is likely to steal it... but the mere fact that it's predictable that you might be an asshole doesn't make me share the blame for you being an asshole.
This space available.
Rights that you would not have if you did not agree to it. You aren't bound to it by downloading the BusyBox source code, but it grants you the right to redistribute that code (or binaries produced from it). You can't on the one hand claim not to agree to the GPL and exercise the rights it grants you on the other.
EULAs, in contrast, do not grant you any rights you did not already have, and so there's nothing to prevent you from simply not agreeing to them.
You can't sell someone software and then turn around and claim it's a license. If you want to negotiate a license, you have to do it beforehand. Once the transaction is complete, there are no backsies.
Again, if you disagree, here's the EULA for this comment:
By reading this comment, you agree to make a $5 donation to the EFF.
From TFA: This could turn into the Roomba of e-readers, only it won't suck.
Let me guess.. it will blow?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Bullshit. Pure bullshit. I should be ABLE to leave my house unlocked, its MY fucking house, not yours, and you know that, and if you steal my shit it's all YOUR fault.
Yet, at the same time, I'm going to have less sympathy for the idiot who leaves his house open all the time in a bad neighborhood than someone who locks their doors. Same for a slut being taken advantage of, vs. a chaste woman. If you willingly put yourself in a compromising situation, you should not only expect to get burned, but also have the realization that the amount of sympathy provided to you will be substantially less than if you were cautious.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Um so is this in the US? And if so, which state? That is an absurd law, absolutely absurd. While I can't state with certainty that it's not applicable nationwide, it would surprise me if that were the case.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I know this is largely redundant with what others have said throughout this thread, but I think it needs saying together in one succinct form:
When you buy a Nook, you're buying two things bundled together: (1) a physical good which you own and can (or at least should be able to) do any damn thing you want to, and (2) the service of connectivity to Barnes & Noble to buy books. If you're unintentionally being given perpetual connectivity to the general internet for all purposes, then it's up to the service provider to stop giving you that service and start limiting what they give you to what you bought. If they do so, you have no right to complain about the loss of service you never bought; but until they do so, they have no right to complain if you use the service they're giving you.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
That's simply wrong, both reasonably AND legally. What you're describing is a victim mentality, which is neither productive, healthy, nor sensible. The fact that we are restrained in placing responsibility on the victim of a crime does not mean that they were not at all responsible, just that in most cases it's neither necessary nor productive to do so. But it's not always the case that zero blame is assigned, and it's certainly not applicable in the private sector. If you leave the keys in the door when you lock up your employer's place of business and someone notices and takes all the valuables, it's a safe and reasonable assumption that you *will* get fired for it. If you leave your car running, your insurance almost definitely will *not* compensate you for theft.
But even in the legal realm there are consequences:
If a store makes alcohol or tobacco accessible to a minor, whether or not they knew the person was a minor, then they are guilty of an offense. The minor may have defrauded the store, but the store is still to blame for falling for the (relatively obvious in most cases) fraud. Clearly this is an extreme example -- stores have a vested interest in selling merchandise, and absolutely none in enforcing age limits, so controls had to be put in place -- but it acknowledges the fact that blame is not absolute, and it's not the only example.
In some states and localities, it is actually *illegal* to leave your car running unattended, because recovering stolen cars takes a toll on the resources of law enforcement, and taking the slightest bit of personal responsibility can prevent these crimes of opportunity, by simply removing the opportunity.
So to your original question: Is the scantily clad woman asking to be raped? Of course not. But dressing in such a manner does invite sexual attention, and as in the above examples, we know that 100% of people will not be able to resist temptation. Dressing like a slut isn't asking to be raped, but it's partially encouraging it, and certainly doing little to prevent it unless the only thing you're wearing is a chastity belt.
The difference between legal blame and actual cause-effect chains of responsibility are not always the same. You can argue about what the difference *should* be, but the fact remains that criminals cannot exist without victims. Even removing an opportunity doesn't erase your portion of the cause; it just reduces it.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
It doesn't break down at all in reality, only in law. That's not because the balance of blame shifts; but because our laws tend to reflect our ideals, and it is our ideals which are most often disconnected from reality, for better or for worse. It would be great if the world were perfect, but knowing that it's not, I can take steps to prevent becoming a victim for who I am or what I do. Those steps may not agree with my ideals, but they agree perfectly with reality.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
You are confusing blame, responsibility, and rights.
You have the right to be secure in your domicile and a woman in her body. Therefore, when someone violates those rights, they are to blame for that violation.
You also have the responsibility to protect your domicile, and a woman to protect her body, in the face of the sure knowledge that others will try to violate them. And when people do not act responsibly, they are at blame for the consequences.
The former is a legal position; modern law is generally rights based, and therefor sanction is levelled by the authorities for the violation of another's rights. The latter is a moral/ethical position, and governs how we function and live in society. While there may be no legal repercussions for irresponsiblity, social repercussions can and SHOULD exist.
Being a victim and being a fool are not mutually exclusive. The woman in The Accuseddid not "deserve" to be raped, but I dare anyone to assert that she was acting responsibly by getting drunk and flirty in a miniskirt in a seedy bar. I can feel sorry for her ordeal, but I cannot feel admiration for her actions.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
The fact that you and the and the other responder referred to a woman exercising her right to dress as she chooses as a slut, that it's HER fault if a man uses that as an excuse to victimize her, when men are free to wear whatever they want without that worry... shows where you're coming from.
Yes, it's true that legally the victim is sometimes is held responsible, but that's not because it makes sense that's because we've still got a flawed system and a long way to go as a society.
Yes, we have a system where racism is still excused, where people can racially profile, and where the justice system locks up far more minorities for longer sentences than their white counterparts. That is NOT because of a lack of some pie in the sky liberal unrealistic dreams of equality, that's because of racism still inherent in our society and system.
Yes, we do have a legal system where defense attorneys can paint rape victims as "sluts" who were responsible for what they got, where sexist commenters can make those same assertions, where the victim can be called responsible because, gosh, you have to expect some men to not be able to control themselves if they see female flesh.
This is NOT a case of the law recognizing an unfortunate reality - this is a case of male-dominated sexist culture perpetuating its sexism throughout a flawed legal system, sexists defending sexists on message boards, and thereby creating an atmosphere where violent sexists get an excuse and where their victims get blamed.
This is NOT a case of the law being reasonable, this is an example of an immoral, sexist law written by sexist people, defended by sexist people, excusing sexist behavior.
It's something broken that must be fixed - NOT something to point to to assert the superiority of your moral argument.
This space available.
I agree.
The only legal fault that the car owner would have is in dealing with his or her insurance company.
From Wikipedia:
Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up") is a legal concept in the common law legal systems mostly applied in tort cases to achieve money compensation (damages) for physical and mental injuries (not accidents).
Negligence is a type of tort or delict (also known as a civil wrong). "Negligence" is not the same as "carelessness" , because someone might be exercising as much care as they are capable of, yet still fall below the level of competence expected of them. It is the opposite of "diligence".
In this case, the reader was not set up to be easily accessible. You can't just plug it in to a USB port and install Android on it. It takes special skills to figure out how to hack it and root it. Claiming that they left it open to hacking is rather disingenuous IMO. No piece of hardware is immune to hacking, especially when you have physical access to the hardware. I would say the manufacturer took reasonable precautions and if someone bypassed those, then the hackers are responsible. I would equate what they did to picking a lock to get in someone's house. You don't lock every door in your house, you lock the front door.
From TFA:
"If you tear open a Nook (which the team has done) you’ll find that the Android operating system is contained on a microSD card (separate from the microSD expansion slot). From here, it’s a simple matter of using a card reader to mount this card on your computer and changing a single word in the init.rc file (the file that’s in charge of which services are begun at startup, similar to a Linux boot).
This single hack will let you plug the Nook into your computer (once you have reassembled it) and access the OS, using the freely available Google Android developers kit. Right now you’ll have to be a hardcore nerd to make much use of this, but as we saw with the iPhone, these things progress to user-friendly applications fairly fast, especially when the hard work has already been done."
I would equate what they had to go through to root this thing a reasonable effort to resist casual hacking.
Except you do, in certain circumstances. Usually involving child pornography laws in some fashion. And possibly other cases involving bizarre twisted applications of anti-terror laws.
For example refer to this.
"You are only young once, but you can be immature forever." -www.animemusicvideos.org
Bullshit. Pure bullshit. I should be ABLE to leave my house unlocked, its MY fucking house, not yours, and you know that, and if you steal my shit it's all YOUR fault.
I like your point of leaving your house unlocked... but it look likes more as if you left your house fully open... there's no need to solder or unsolder anything to hack the nook... just modify some files from an SD card. But once I buy a nook it's MY fucking nook
Here in Holland it's forbidden to leave your car running, while going away yourself. If a cop sees it you will get a fine. The reason is, you're stimulating someone to commit a crime.
I do agree though, the one who would steal your car then is to blame for the action and the crime, but I also think it would be fair to still get a fine for leaving your car running.
Well, don't worry about that. We can get you back before you leave. (Dr. Who)
yaaaaaaa your artical is so nice about your topic.Thanks to write your artical.So i am agree with your artical. http://blog.itechtalk.com/2009/nitro-muscle-mass-review