Re:Hacke contribute to the security of the communi
on
Adrian Lamo Surrenders
·
· Score: 1
Hear hear! Lets bring that spirit offline!
Burglars, murderers, rapists all make the offline community more secure by pointing out weaknesses in our physical security. We should honor them for their service rather than imprison and execute them. The pain and difficulty they cause their small number of victims is a small price to pay for the greater security the rest of us enjoy.
Exactly. Now if Lamo had been browing the website and randomly came across a security hole, and notified the admins, that would be one thing. That would be analagous to someone seeing your door is open, and politely leaving a note rather than going in and rummaging through your stuff.
But, you are right, actively probing for them wihtout permission is another thing entirely.
If he wanted to audit their systems for free, he should have emailed "hey, I think you might have some security issues. Call me at 555-555-5555 and we can discuss an audit I can do pro bono at a time it will not unnecisarily disrupt your corporate operations"
A lot of the code needed for this already exists. Activating a song for someone, they *should* be able to take that code and drop it right into the transfer app. Verification code for logging in, thats also written and debugged already. Basically they just have to write the code to deactivate it(IIRC thats also there for you to transfer it to another device of your own).
So basically they just have to write an interface to draw the existing code together, assuming a clean seperation already exists between user interface and the code that actually does the work. This would be far less expense than writing the initial iTunes client and server software.
Given the likely low demand for this service, they might not need much if any additional server space for it- and even throwing a new server onto the cluster would be much less expense than building the initial service.
Since hardware and software implementation of the transfer service would be drastically lower than the implementation of the initial service, they wouldn't have much implementation outlay to recover, and while there would be transfer fees involved, they could still pull a profit on far lower pricing. Cheap and easy transfers to third parties would also be something they could advertise to get people to use their service over their competitiors.
Only real reason not to implement this would be the RIAA holding them back.
They did this for a simple reason. Should resale of iTunes songs hurt their business, they can crack down without appearing to be hypocrites. "after further research it appears to be illegal".
They aren't giving an absolutely firm answer to make it easier to take whatever position helps them most when it does become an issue.
THat too. Its trivial to reload ammo... criminals saving all the brass they can(several guns have attachments to automatically do this), a guy with a mold to form the bullets, gunpowder is easy enough to make, don't know how easy primers are to make but someone could surely come up with something.
If the shotgun was loaded with pellets, rather than slugs, it could cause results that someone not understanding guns could call bullet fragments. Also, such rounds would not leave baseball size holes in cars, but a series of small holes.
Switzerland. EVERY, that means 100% every single one, adult male is *required* to have a firearm.
Their gun murder rate is incredibly low. Think about it, would you try something if you knew there was a gun present? Criminals target the weak, they don't knowingly take on someone who is armed(or is likely to be) without strong "justification"(in their minds). Don't piss off criminals, and they won't specifically target you.
You still have to worry about being a target of opportunity of course. Pulling a weapon out drastically raises the stakes for a criminal. Even if he has a gun of his own, most likely, he will turn and run.
Without privately owned firearms, the United States would still be part of the British Empire. Plain and simple, thats the way it is. When government breaks its duty to the people, the people- not just government approved militias- must be armed to be able to fight back.
Don't give me crap about not making a difference against tanks. The Viet Cong were massively outgunned in both number and quality of weapons in Vietnam. They won.
The people need the final vote that comes at the end of a barrel. I pray the day we need it never comes to pass, but I am not willing to stand by and let that one go on hope alone. I took an oath "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and *domestic*" and I do not intend to fail that oath. I will use peaceful means wherever possible, but if our own government becomes such an enemy, and votes/letters/protests fail, the time for armed rebellion is at hand and the people WILL win. Because we have the weaponry to do so.
Yup. Parents who have guns have a moral obligation to teach their kids respect for gun safety and how dangerous they can be. If you own guns, you should be the one to first satisfy your childrens curiosity about them.
Showing them some objects that have been shot is a good call too- say "Look at this piece of wood. Now imagine if all these holes were in a person. Any questions?" can be very effective.
Not sure if I want to see the parents jailed over it, but if someone has a weapon taken and used in a crime, and investigation shows it was improperly secured, all their weapons should be confiscated without compensation.
Though, the law should be written carefully- if you store them in a heavy safe that it would take explosives/blowtorch/hollywood movie safecracker to get into, and they get in anyways, I don't think you should be liable as you made a good faith effort to prevent the theft, likely at great expense.
Then how in gods name do you propose keeping deer and other large herbivore populations in balance?
Wolves? They are within a hairs width of moving from threatened to endangered, and from there extinction isn't very far off. Not nearly enough of them, though they could do it if there were enough.
Coyotes? Foxes? Not quite big enough to reliably take on large herbivores such as deer.
Face it, unless you want to see whitetail deer invading the city streets for food, pricing ammunition that high is incredibly irresponsible.
When people die, that is a major burden on the families. Financial impact of the funeral, medical bills just prior to death, possible loss of wages- it all adds up. Plus dealing with the stress of losing a loved one, added onto the stress of normal life, can be a lot.
A significant monetary award from those at fault can get the final expenses of the deceased paid. It can cover for the lost wages long enough for the family to get more income otherwise. It can pay off other longstanding bills, freeing the family from financial stress so that they can focus thoroughly on recovering from their sorrow. It can even pay for a therapist if they can't deal on their own and need proffessional help.
For the record, I do not feel the game company is a legitimate target. Just explaining why such lawsuits can be appropriate when you can pin down someone as being at fault.
If someone will go and kill because they saw it in a game, they have serious other issues and probably would have killed someone anyways. They might see the game as an especially fun way to go about the killing, but they would have done it regardless.
Though, disclosure of techniques should be mandatory.
If it is marketed as a standard audio CD, and it fails to play in a CDDA compliant device, refund.
If it says "may not play in all devices" and your device that won't play it is not on their list of devices that don't play it, refund.
However, if the industry wants to copy protect, let them so long as they are up front if it might interfere with playback, and offer refunds if it fails to play in a device they do not specifically state won't play it.
Well, one of those two predicted the end of the world roughly around the time that that asteroid is going to do its flyby. Perhaps that is what they were predicting, this rock crashing into earth, and their techniques weren't quite precise enough to estimate the odds properly. Or on further research maybe we will see it is on a collision course.
Either way, I'd say there is a good chance we've now sighted the end predicted by those wacky prehistoric mexicans, well in advance, and can come up with countermeasures in time should further observation in the next few years show a significant likelihood of an impact.
What measures will be taken to prevent the Iranian Government from just blocking the site? IP address blocking could be dealt with through proper use of DNS, but blocking both IP and domain would really kill it... as soon as the new IP is known, it would get blocked. I don't see this as a very useful thing to do..
However, in cases where you have to agree before you can see what you are agreeing to, that is clearly not a valid license. Also, if EULAs are too long and too complex to understand even the basic principles of it, or they are written in such a way that important bits are glossed over, that could be said to be deceptive and also should be declared invalid.
Slashdot Mirror
Hear hear! Lets bring that spirit offline!
Burglars, murderers, rapists all make the offline community more secure by pointing out weaknesses in our physical security. We should honor them for their service rather than imprison and execute them. The pain and difficulty they cause their small number of victims is a small price to pay for the greater security the rest of us enjoy.
Exactly. Now if Lamo had been browing the website and randomly came across a security hole, and notified the admins, that would be one thing. That would be analagous to someone seeing your door is open, and politely leaving a note rather than going in and rummaging through your stuff.
But, you are right, actively probing for them wihtout permission is another thing entirely.
If he wanted to audit their systems for free, he should have emailed "hey, I think you might have some security issues. Call me at 555-555-5555 and we can discuss an audit I can do pro bono at a time it will not unnecisarily disrupt your corporate operations"
A lot of the code needed for this already exists. Activating a song for someone, they *should* be able to take that code and drop it right into the transfer app. Verification code for logging in, thats also written and debugged already. Basically they just have to write the code to deactivate it(IIRC thats also there for you to transfer it to another device of your own).
So basically they just have to write an interface to draw the existing code together, assuming a clean seperation already exists between user interface and the code that actually does the work. This would be far less expense than writing the initial iTunes client and server software.
Given the likely low demand for this service, they might not need much if any additional server space for it- and even throwing a new server onto the cluster would be much less expense than building the initial service.
Since hardware and software implementation of the transfer service would be drastically lower than the implementation of the initial service, they wouldn't have much implementation outlay to recover, and while there would be transfer fees involved, they could still pull a profit on far lower pricing. Cheap and easy transfers to third parties would also be something they could advertise to get people to use their service over their competitiors.
Only real reason not to implement this would be the RIAA holding them back.
They did this for a simple reason. Should resale of iTunes songs hurt their business, they can crack down without appearing to be hypocrites. "after further research it appears to be illegal".
They aren't giving an absolutely firm answer to make it easier to take whatever position helps them most when it does become an issue.
I have a real IP from OOL... if I check in windows it shows a 192.whatever but tahts because I've got a router here. the routers IP is a real one.
THat too. Its trivial to reload ammo... criminals saving all the brass they can(several guns have attachments to automatically do this), a guy with a mold to form the bullets, gunpowder is easy enough to make, don't know how easy primers are to make but someone could surely come up with something.
If the shotgun was loaded with pellets, rather than slugs, it could cause results that someone not understanding guns could call bullet fragments. Also, such rounds would not leave baseball size holes in cars, but a series of small holes.
Switzerland. EVERY, that means 100% every single one, adult male is *required* to have a firearm.
Their gun murder rate is incredibly low. Think about it, would you try something if you knew there was a gun present? Criminals target the weak, they don't knowingly take on someone who is armed(or is likely to be) without strong "justification"(in their minds). Don't piss off criminals, and they won't specifically target you.
You still have to worry about being a target of opportunity of course. Pulling a weapon out drastically raises the stakes for a criminal. Even if he has a gun of his own, most likely, he will turn and run.
Without privately owned firearms, the United States would still be part of the British Empire. Plain and simple, thats the way it is. When government breaks its duty to the people, the people- not just government approved militias- must be armed to be able to fight back.
Don't give me crap about not making a difference against tanks. The Viet Cong were massively outgunned in both number and quality of weapons in Vietnam. They won.
The people need the final vote that comes at the end of a barrel. I pray the day we need it never comes to pass, but I am not willing to stand by and let that one go on hope alone. I took an oath "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and *domestic*" and I do not intend to fail that oath. I will use peaceful means wherever possible, but if our own government becomes such an enemy, and votes/letters/protests fail, the time for armed rebellion is at hand and the people WILL win. Because we have the weaponry to do so.
Yup. Parents who have guns have a moral obligation to teach their kids respect for gun safety and how dangerous they can be. If you own guns, you should be the one to first satisfy your childrens curiosity about them.
Showing them some objects that have been shot is a good call too- say "Look at this piece of wood. Now imagine if all these holes were in a person. Any questions?" can be very effective.
Not everyone has or can even afford life insurance. And those who have it don't always have enough.
ACtually, thats where I got that information. There are serious problems that go far deeper than guns being available.
We'd all be running around darkened rooms, listening to repetitive electronic music and munching magic pills.
(yes, I am a raver)
Not sure if I want to see the parents jailed over it, but if someone has a weapon taken and used in a crime, and investigation shows it was improperly secured, all their weapons should be confiscated without compensation.
Though, the law should be written carefully- if you store them in a heavy safe that it would take explosives/blowtorch/hollywood movie safecracker to get into, and they get in anyways, I don't think you should be liable as you made a good faith effort to prevent the theft, likely at great expense.
Then how in gods name do you propose keeping deer and other large herbivore populations in balance?
Wolves? They are within a hairs width of moving from threatened to endangered, and from there extinction isn't very far off. Not nearly enough of them, though they could do it if there were enough.
Coyotes? Foxes? Not quite big enough to reliably take on large herbivores such as deer.
Face it, unless you want to see whitetail deer invading the city streets for food, pricing ammunition that high is incredibly irresponsible.
Canada has about 10 million households. 7 million of them have firearms, which is very close to the ratio here in the US.
Tell me again how firearms accessibility is the issue?
Gun crime is going down in the US, has been for years. After Florida passed a concealed carry permit law, violent crime dropped immediately.
When people die, that is a major burden on the families. Financial impact of the funeral, medical bills just prior to death, possible loss of wages- it all adds up. Plus dealing with the stress of losing a loved one, added onto the stress of normal life, can be a lot.
A significant monetary award from those at fault can get the final expenses of the deceased paid. It can cover for the lost wages long enough for the family to get more income otherwise. It can pay off other longstanding bills, freeing the family from financial stress so that they can focus thoroughly on recovering from their sorrow. It can even pay for a therapist if they can't deal on their own and need proffessional help.
For the record, I do not feel the game company is a legitimate target. Just explaining why such lawsuits can be appropriate when you can pin down someone as being at fault.
If someone will go and kill because they saw it in a game, they have serious other issues and probably would have killed someone anyways. They might see the game as an especially fun way to go about the killing, but they would have done it regardless.
I'd put money on that.
Intelligence has limits.
Never underestimate the ability of a pickup truck to plow right through your firewall.
Though, disclosure of techniques should be mandatory.
If it is marketed as a standard audio CD, and it fails to play in a CDDA compliant device, refund.
If it says "may not play in all devices" and your device that won't play it is not on their list of devices that don't play it, refund.
However, if the industry wants to copy protect, let them so long as they are up front if it might interfere with playback, and offer refunds if it fails to play in a device they do not specifically state won't play it.
Well, one of those two predicted the end of the world roughly around the time that that asteroid is going to do its flyby. Perhaps that is what they were predicting, this rock crashing into earth, and their techniques weren't quite precise enough to estimate the odds properly. Or on further research maybe we will see it is on a collision course.
Either way, I'd say there is a good chance we've now sighted the end predicted by those wacky prehistoric mexicans, well in advance, and can come up with countermeasures in time should further observation in the next few years show a significant likelihood of an impact.
So Iran blocks the domain name.
If the IP is constantly changing, and the domain is blocked, how do the people that are supposed to use it find it?
What measures will be taken to prevent the Iranian Government from just blocking the site? IP address blocking could be dealt with through proper use of DNS, but blocking both IP and domain would really kill it... as soon as the new IP is known, it would get blocked. I don't see this as a very useful thing to do..
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
However, in cases where you have to agree before you can see what you are agreeing to, that is clearly not a valid license. Also, if EULAs are too long and too complex to understand even the basic principles of it, or they are written in such a way that important bits are glossed over, that could be said to be deceptive and also should be declared invalid.