Umm... using a bat to kill someone IS murder. And if you can't prove that he committed the murder, then how can possession of a bat be a crime in the first place?
That's right. L0phtCrack is a burglary/theft tool when it is used to commit a burglary or theft. A crowbar qualifies too. Using a meat cleaver to kill someone makes you guilty of possessing a deadly weapon.
If I beat someone to death with a rubber ducky, then the rubber ducky is a deadly weapon, just like anything else would be if I use it to kill someone. What, then, is the point of it being a separate crime? Why not just charge me with murder, regardless of what I used as a weapon? How does it make sense to have a separate crime for using a rubber ducky or a cleaver or anything else to commit murder? Murder is the crime. Stupid extra charges should not be introduced when they serve no purpose.
The language is important here: he should have been charged with "illegal use of password-grabbing tools", just like a felonious locksmith would be charged with "illegal use of locksmithing tools".
Actually, he should have just been charged with theft of whatever he stole, as well as breaking into a computer system, regardless of what he used to get in.
David Thomas Bell, 33, of Coon Rapids, faces 11 felony charges. They include three counts of unauthorized computer access, two counts of theft of trade secrets, two counts of attempted theft of trade secrets, two counts of computer theft and two counts of possession of burglary or theft tools (specifically, a software program for extracting user IDs and passwords from a computer system).
Using anything to break into a car (without the owner's permission) is illegal. I could use a rubber ducky to break in and it would be illegal. The point of this is that the crime is breaking into the car, not possession of a rubber ducky. Possession of a rubber ducky shouldn't be a crime, even when it's used to break into a car. The crime is breaking into the car. That crime has a punishment associated with it. Why do we have to overcomplicate matters by trying to say that possessing a rubber ducky is a crime if you break into a car with it?
David Thomas Bell, 33, of Coon Rapids, faces 11 felony charges. They include three counts of unauthorized computer access, two counts of theft of trade secrets, two counts of attempted theft of trade secrets, two counts of computer theft and two counts of possession of burglary or theft tools (specifically, a software program for extracting user IDs and passwords from a computer system).
From this we see that having the "burglary tools" is one of the charges. The screwed up thing about charges like this is that they can't seem to be brought unless you commit a crime. Once you commit a crime, they tack on this extra crime, that isn't really a crime by itself, just so they can increase your sentence. Why is this necessary? Apparently because some people don't want anyone to understand just what the penalties are for a crime. If they want to put people away for a longer time, why don't they just work to get the maximum sentence increased for that crime? Maybe because people wouldn't like that? So they just look for a way to get around what the people want and we end up with b/s charges like this one.
Well gee, what are they gonna charge you with? Possession of a "SWAG BAG?" If they are going to charge you with murder, then they should charge you with murder, not possession of a knife. If they want the sentence to be longer, then they should work at getting the maximum sentence for murder to be made more severe (hmm.. in Texas, that would mean they get to fry you AND your dog:) If they can't get that done, then maybe it's because people feel that the current punishment is enough, and if that's the case, tacking on b/s charges is just wrong.
David Thomas Bell, 33, of Coon Rapids, faces 11 felony charges. They include three counts of unauthorized computer access, two counts of theft of trade secrets, two counts of attempted theft of trade secrets, two counts of computer theft and two counts of possession of burglary or theft tools (specifically, a software program for extracting user IDs and passwords from a computer system).
Seems like that's where possession of (L0pht)Crack comes in.
If you hit someone with a bat, it becomes assault with a deadly weapon, but possession of a baseball bat is not a legitimate charge. Even possession of deadly weapon shouldn't be a legit charge. I mean, what's the point of making it a separate crime if you can't be prosecuted for it without committing another crime? Why not just increase the punishment for the actual crime? Bell was charged with 2 counts of possession of burglary tools for having (L0pht)Crack on his computer in addition to his actual crimes.
David Thomas Bell, 33, of Coon Rapids, faces 11 felony charges. They include three counts of unauthorized computer access, two counts of theft of trade secrets, two counts of attempted theft of trade secrets, two counts of computer theft and two counts of possession of burglary or theft tools (specifically, a software program for extracting user IDs and passwords from a computer system).
So, you see? Apparently (L0pht)Crack is a burglary tool, and Bell was charged with 2 counts of possession of it.
You can be arrested for carrying a screwdriver if a cop thinks you might have bad intentions. It doens't matter if you have actually commited a crime or not.
No, you're not expected to just stand and die, that would be silly. But your argument is basically 'some one else might have one, so i need one' and thats just daft.
I think his argument was perfectly reasonable. I would extend it even further. Just because someone breaks into my house and threatens me with a knife instead of a gun, should I not be allowed to shoot him, or must I use a weapon more equivalent to the intruder's weapon?
Perhaps I should just challenge him to an arm-wrestling match. Winner gets to keep the TV and stereo equipment. I guess you think that whomever is bigger or stronger or faster should always have the upper hand when committing a crime against another person. Why should I be forced to try to defend myself from someone who would have no trouble twisting me into a pretzel, without the aid of a gun? A gun requires little physical prowess to be proficient in its use. If I learn how to use it and practice often enough that I don't get overly rusty, then I have a pretty good means of defending myself. Even if I'm disabled and can't use my legs, I could still operate a gun, which would probably be my only method of self-defense.
I firmly believe that everyone should have the right to own guns for self-defense. Simply because they are one of the most effective tools for self-defense. Quite often they don't even have to be used, just the fact that you have one can be enough to deter the criminal, even if they have one as well. Criminals don't like even odds. They want the easy score.
I could also go into other reasons why people should have the right to own guns, mainly dealing with defending against the government, but I'll leave that for another discussion. I think others have gone into that in some of the threads here already anyway.
Arms race has nothing to do with it either. The cops that shot that guy were reckless and/or insufficiently trained. They couldn't have seen a gun because the guy didn't have a gun, or anything even resembling a gun. Therefore, they should never have fired a shot, let alone 41 shots. You can't get rid of guns. Criminals, by definition, don't give a damn what the law says. If it allows them to get what they want, they will always have guns. Banning guns won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals any more than banning drugs has kept drugs out of the hands of drug users.
Gunpowder has been around for over a thousand years. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to use it to propell a hunk of metal at another preson. Banning guns (even if it was remotely feasible) will just ensure that people are defenseless against those who are bigger, stronger, faster, or more numerous than themselves. What's to stop the tyranny of a corrupt government if all the citizens are unarmed? The military will possess the vast majority of weapons in the country and even though they will likely lose much of their manpower (because many wouldn't be able to be convinced that they should fire on american citizens, although many others will be much easier to persuade or bribe) they will have the sole ability to enforce the government's wishes. Then we end up like so many other countries out there with opressive governments backed by military force. Our government has already taken many steps to limit our rights. They already use federal forces to enforce the law on citizens. Don't think it will stop anytime soon.
go blow gary kleck, you fucking gun-loving baby killer
Man, with intelligent, well-spoken people like you arguing against guns, it's tough to understand why so many of us here think people like you are idiots.
You can look at it from his point of view all you want, but his point of view is wrong.
He agreed to the GPL when he used the Quake source. He knew what it meant, he's tried this before. He wants something for nothing. He wants to use someone else's work to help him make something and give nothing back. That's exactly what the GPL is supposed to prevent. If he wants to make something and keep it to himself then he should write the damn software from scratch instead of trying to rip Carmack off.
The fact that I am legally obligated to pay my taxes which fund the public library means that my rights under the constitution must be observed, regardless of what the majority (or vocal minority) wants. If I'm an adult and therefore responsible for my own actions, the library has no cause to filter out what I may or may not view if I can access it through their computers. It's not the same as carrying or not carrying a certain book or magazine. Those are physical objects which must be obtained and cost money to obtain. (that example would be more analogous to the library determining what websites to purchase subscriptions to rather than whether to block sites or not) Internet filtering is more like the librarian taking a magic marker and marking through lines and paragraphs of a book, or simply tearing out objectionable pages.
If I choose to look at something that violates some local decency law, then I can be prosecuted for that, but we don't need new laws for that. As far as children's access goes, that should be up to the parent. Perhaps children's library cards should be used for computer access. The card could let the computer know to turn the filtering on or off according to the parents' wishes.
I doubt that would work well. You'd have to find really good lawyers to represent you in order to even have a chance at standing up against the lawyers that a big corporation can field. You wouldn't have a choice. The corp is going to spend a ton of money fighting you, whether you hire the best lawyers you can get or not. If you don't get good lawyers, the corp will probably win and you'll be in debt for life. If you do get really good lawyers, then your financial future is entirely dependent on the outcome of the case, because you will end up paying not only your own legal bills, but also the corp's legal bills if you lose. As we've seen in many cases, being right doesn't mean you'll win, especially if you have a case related to technology (the courts haven't been real impressive in their grasp of technology issues). Such a system would probably destroy a lot of people.
He was talking about solving the problems of corruption in the government that allows legislation like UCITA to become law, not solving the problem of buggy software. If the government decides that it would rather serve its own interests and those of its biggest financial backers, then it is the duty of the people to remind them that it just ain't so. If this requires force, then it's the government that brought it on itself.
They are however removing the right of library visitors to visit the many many sites that are mistakenly blocked by their crappy software, while letting hundreds, maybe thousands of porn sites through. Seems like that should be more than enough reason to get rid of the filters.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm... using a bat to kill someone IS murder. And if you can't prove that he committed the murder, then how can possession of a bat be a crime in the first place?
That's right. L0phtCrack is a burglary/theft tool when it is used to commit a burglary or theft. A crowbar qualifies too. Using a meat cleaver to kill someone makes you guilty of possessing a deadly weapon.
If I beat someone to death with a rubber ducky, then the rubber ducky is a deadly weapon, just like anything else would be if I use it to kill someone. What, then, is the point of it being a separate crime? Why not just charge me with murder, regardless of what I used as a weapon? How does it make sense to have a separate crime for using a rubber ducky or a cleaver or anything else to commit murder? Murder is the crime. Stupid extra charges should not be introduced when they serve no purpose.
The language is important here: he should have been charged with "illegal use of password-grabbing tools", just like a felonious locksmith would be charged with "illegal use of locksmithing tools".
Actually, he should have just been charged with theft of whatever he stole, as well as breaking into a computer system, regardless of what he used to get in.
Sort of like saying rape really isn't a problem. She didn't lose anything.
That's just dumb. Rape isn't even comparable to theft, it's a form of assault, which is a crime and nobody is arguing that.
Your other arguments have at least some merit. Stick to those.
Getting hold of my credit card number isn't a crime. Using it to make purchases when you aren't the cardholder is fraud and is a crime.
From the article (my emphasis):
David Thomas Bell, 33, of Coon Rapids, faces 11 felony charges. They include three counts of unauthorized computer access, two counts of theft of trade secrets, two counts of attempted theft of trade secrets, two counts of computer theft and two counts of possession of burglary or theft tools (specifically, a software program for extracting user IDs and passwords from a computer system).
Using anything to break into a car (without the owner's permission) is illegal. I could use a rubber ducky to break in and it would be illegal. The point of this is that the crime is breaking into the car, not possession of a rubber ducky. Possession of a rubber ducky shouldn't be a crime, even when it's used to break into a car. The crime is breaking into the car. That crime has a punishment associated with it. Why do we have to overcomplicate matters by trying to say that possessing a rubber ducky is a crime if you break into a car with it?
From the article (my emphasis):
David Thomas Bell, 33, of Coon Rapids, faces 11 felony charges. They include three counts of unauthorized computer access, two counts of theft of trade secrets, two counts of attempted theft of trade secrets, two counts of computer theft and two counts of possession of burglary or theft tools (specifically, a software program for extracting user IDs and passwords from a computer system).
From this we see that having the "burglary tools" is one of the charges. The screwed up thing about charges like this is that they can't seem to be brought unless you commit a crime. Once you commit a crime, they tack on this extra crime, that isn't really a crime by itself, just so they can increase your sentence. Why is this necessary? Apparently because some people don't want anyone to understand just what the penalties are for a crime. If they want to put people away for a longer time, why don't they just work to get the maximum sentence increased for that crime? Maybe because people wouldn't like that? So they just look for a way to get around what the people want and we end up with b/s charges like this one.
Well gee, what are they gonna charge you with? Possession of a "SWAG BAG?" If they are going to charge you with murder, then they should charge you with murder, not possession of a knife. If they want the sentence to be longer, then they should work at getting the maximum sentence for murder to be made more severe (hmm.. in Texas, that would mean they get to fry you AND your dog :) If they can't get that done, then maybe it's because people feel that the current punishment is enough, and if that's the case, tacking on b/s charges is just wrong.
From the article (my emphasis):
David Thomas Bell, 33, of Coon Rapids, faces 11 felony charges. They include three counts of unauthorized computer access, two counts of theft of trade secrets, two counts of attempted theft of trade secrets, two counts of computer theft and two counts of possession of burglary or theft tools (specifically, a software program for extracting user IDs and passwords from a computer system).
Seems like that's where possession of (L0pht)Crack comes in.
If you hit someone with a bat, it becomes assault with a deadly weapon, but possession of a baseball bat is not a legitimate charge. Even possession of deadly weapon shouldn't be a legit charge. I mean, what's the point of making it a separate crime if you can't be prosecuted for it without committing another crime? Why not just increase the punishment for the actual crime? Bell was charged with 2 counts of possession of burglary tools for having (L0pht)Crack on his computer in addition to his actual crimes.
From the article: (emphasis is mine)
David Thomas Bell, 33, of Coon Rapids, faces 11 felony charges. They include three counts of unauthorized computer access, two counts of theft of trade secrets, two counts of attempted theft of trade secrets, two counts of computer theft and two counts of possession of burglary or theft tools (specifically, a software program for extracting user IDs and passwords from a computer system).
So, you see? Apparently (L0pht)Crack is a burglary tool, and Bell was charged with 2 counts of possession of it.
You can be arrested for carrying a screwdriver if a cop thinks you might have bad intentions. It doens't matter if you have actually commited a crime or not.
Wouldn't 1/0 approach infinity?
No, you're not expected to just stand and die, that would be silly. But your argument is basically 'some one else might have one, so i need one' and thats just daft.
I think his argument was perfectly reasonable. I would extend it even further. Just because someone breaks into my house and threatens me with a knife instead of a gun, should I not be allowed to shoot him, or must I use a weapon more equivalent to the intruder's weapon?
Perhaps I should just challenge him to an arm-wrestling match. Winner gets to keep the TV and stereo equipment. I guess you think that whomever is bigger or stronger or faster should always have the upper hand when committing a crime against another person. Why should I be forced to try to defend myself from someone who would have no trouble twisting me into a pretzel, without the aid of a gun? A gun requires little physical prowess to be proficient in its use. If I learn how to use it and practice often enough that I don't get overly rusty, then I have a pretty good means of defending myself. Even if I'm disabled and can't use my legs, I could still operate a gun, which would probably be my only method of self-defense.
I firmly believe that everyone should have the right to own guns for self-defense. Simply because they are one of the most effective tools for self-defense. Quite often they don't even have to be used, just the fact that you have one can be enough to deter the criminal, even if they have one as well. Criminals don't like even odds. They want the easy score.
I could also go into other reasons why people should have the right to own guns, mainly dealing with defending against the government, but I'll leave that for another discussion. I think others have gone into that in some of the threads here already anyway.
Arms race has nothing to do with it either. The cops that shot that guy were reckless and/or insufficiently trained. They couldn't have seen a gun because the guy didn't have a gun, or anything even resembling a gun. Therefore, they should never have fired a shot, let alone 41 shots. You can't get rid of guns. Criminals, by definition, don't give a damn what the law says. If it allows them to get what they want, they will always have guns. Banning guns won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals any more than banning drugs has kept drugs out of the hands of drug users.
Gunpowder has been around for over a thousand years. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to use it to propell a hunk of metal at another preson. Banning guns (even if it was remotely feasible) will just ensure that people are defenseless against those who are bigger, stronger, faster, or more numerous than themselves. What's to stop the tyranny of a corrupt government if all the citizens are unarmed? The military will possess the vast majority of weapons in the country and even though they will likely lose much of their manpower (because many wouldn't be able to be convinced that they should fire on american citizens, although many others will be much easier to persuade or bribe) they will have the sole ability to enforce the government's wishes. Then we end up like so many other countries out there with opressive governments backed by military force. Our government has already taken many steps to limit our rights. They already use federal forces to enforce the law on citizens. Don't think it will stop anytime soon.
go blow gary kleck, you fucking gun-loving baby killer
Man, with intelligent, well-spoken people like you arguing against guns, it's tough to understand why so many of us here think people like you are idiots.
You can look at it from his point of view all you want, but his point of view is wrong.
He agreed to the GPL when he used the Quake source. He knew what it meant, he's tried this before. He wants something for nothing. He wants to use someone else's work to help him make something and give nothing back. That's exactly what the GPL is supposed to prevent. If he wants to make something and keep it to himself then he should write the damn software from scratch instead of trying to rip Carmack off.
The song wasn't making fun of Canada at all. It made fun of America.
Know of anyplace I can find a picture of one of those $75 IBM keyboards?
The fact that I am legally obligated to pay my taxes which fund the public library means that my rights under the constitution must be observed, regardless of what the majority (or vocal minority) wants. If I'm an adult and therefore responsible for my own actions, the library has no cause to filter out what I may or may not view if I can access it through their computers. It's not the same as carrying or not carrying a certain book or magazine. Those are physical objects which must be obtained and cost money to obtain. (that example would be more analogous to the library determining what websites to purchase subscriptions to rather than whether to block sites or not) Internet filtering is more like the librarian taking a magic marker and marking through lines and paragraphs of a book, or simply tearing out objectionable pages.
If I choose to look at something that violates some local decency law, then I can be prosecuted for that, but we don't need new laws for that. As far as children's access goes, that should be up to the parent. Perhaps children's library cards should be used for computer access. The card could let the computer know to turn the filtering on or off according to the parents' wishes.
An adult's access should not be filtered, period.
And civilised countries have a loser-pay system.
I doubt that would work well. You'd have to find really good lawyers to represent you in order to even have a chance at standing up against the lawyers that a big corporation can field. You wouldn't have a choice. The corp is going to spend a ton of money fighting you, whether you hire the best lawyers you can get or not. If you don't get good lawyers, the corp will probably win and you'll be in debt for life. If you do get really good lawyers, then your financial future is entirely dependent on the outcome of the case, because you will end up paying not only your own legal bills, but also the corp's legal bills if you lose. As we've seen in many cases, being right doesn't mean you'll win, especially if you have a case related to technology (the courts haven't been real impressive in their grasp of technology issues). Such a system would probably destroy a lot of people.
Methinks you missed the point.
He was talking about solving the problems of corruption in the government that allows legislation like UCITA to become law, not solving the problem of buggy software. If the government decides that it would rather serve its own interests and those of its biggest financial backers, then it is the duty of the people to remind them that it just ain't so. If this requires force, then it's the government that brought it on itself.
They are however removing the right of library visitors to visit the many many sites that are mistakenly blocked by their crappy software, while letting hundreds, maybe thousands of porn sites through. Seems like that should be more than enough reason to get rid of the filters.