Or, are those bots with really stupid sounding names leaving their calling cards on my personal web server logs and accessing stuff in contradiction to my bots tags the work of these "spy" companies?
Although, in this case, he has to be very very careful to use only the published legal access methods as a customer.
Better, really, to contact the credit card companies. Not about insecure web sites, about improper use of credit card numbers.
Several people have posted phone numbers or on-line links below, with quotes relative to the credit card companies wanting to be informed about improper use of credit card numbers.
Probably don't want to admit to illegal access, even to the credit card companies, just to having noticed the vulnerability. If you can leave some sort of record of your attempt to contact the credit card company, that will help if it does blow up in your face.
Companies who do this are the ones who should be hauled into court, and their CEOs, CIOs, and anyone responsible for making the decisions should be the ones put in jail.
Unfortunately, right now, that's not what would happen.
If his own account is secure and he has noticed that he could have accessed it without credentials?
Actually accessing his own account without credentials could also be breaking himself against the law.
Building a proof of concept legally is probably not possible, even if he builds it on his own network, on his own machine.
The laws are screwed until we can figure out how to get people to understand that computer memory is just fancy paper and CPUs are just fancy pens with fancy erasers.
I need to change my sig. Apple is now only a co-conspirator.
Have you ever tried troubleshooting a microprocessor off the assembly line?
I think you're thinking in terms of replacing the circuit board etching kits for hobbiests. Sure, transparency would put a minor kink in that use, but not a show stopper.
(And I'm sure we can both think of cool things to do with the transparency.)
It would be interesting to know how much various pigments interferred with the electrical properties, of course. Home printing of circuit boards (circuit papers?) would definitely make a lot of projects easier, particularly when the active components can also be printed on, perhaps in the same pass.
Ordinary companies may have taken out domain names in the.xxx TLD, but they will not be doing ordinary business with those urls.
They may re-direct those urls to their primary domains, or they may put up a page that says, "We do not support non-family content." Or they may actually run their own porn sites in the.xxx TLD.
But, for people who aren't interested in porn, there will never be any reason to wander into the.xxx TLD, and that allows the porn companies to behave in a more community-minded fashion. Some of them will.
About porn companies that will put their stuff in non-.xxx domains, you are insisting on re-directing the argument to 100% when you invoke your "reliance." As I said, 100% is not necessary.
The internet is not a 100% guarantee, and arguments based on the assumption that it should be 100% guaranteed do nothing more than expose that fact.
We don't assume that our children, walking down the street, will never see a copy of Oui or Playboy in the gutter. We aren't sure we would want such a sterile society, anayway, not because we want them to see such magazines, but because we know that the collateral damage in making society so sterile is unacceptable.
With the.xxx domain, blacklists are more meaningful. Not 100% guaranteed, but more meaningful.
What we are looking at right now at is trying to get some gutter space that isn't plastered with the junk.
This is not about 100% regulation, although there are good odds that there will be some attempts in the courts. 100% or nothing rhetoric like what you're spouting will make it all the more likely that pornprohibitionists will try stupid court tricks.
This is about establishing a better base-line for self-regulation.
But the filtering could be significantly improved if there were some baseline conditions built in to the url. Not 100%, of course, but maybe close to 50%.
Right now, we're nowhere close to 50%, although the porn industry is beginning to self-regulate as it naturally discovering that booby-trap sites tend to quickly turn into financial drag, and clean them up.
Right now, the filtering tends to have too much hysteresis. Too much leakage and too many false positives. The separate domain will reduce both.
If you can afford to worry that potential customers of yourdomain.com would be confused by the existence of yourdomain.xxx, you can probably afford to buy the domain as a blocking fee.
Although I am sure there will be some abuse, some anti-fsf folks plastering the domain name, "fsf.xxx" all over the place. Such behavior will usually boomerang, as well.
A certain amount of self-regulation will occur, and that will be better than the present.
The companies and schools that get excited about their names being used in the.xxx domain, well, if they get excited about such things, let them pay for the blocking move.
Internet users who see "washington.edu" and "washington-edu.xxx" in a browser that doesn't hide the TLD are going to be aware that the latter is not the former.
The.xxx domain is not the best solution theoretically possible, but I don't have any real hope that all internet users will suddenly figure out how to keep their libidos in check.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFriendlyA
GoDaddy has the e-mail that requested the change, and the domain owner did not send it.
Or, are you the thief, trying to misdirect the conversation?
This is why it keeps getting worse.
None of want to get our own hands dirty trying to fix it.
Or, are those bots with really stupid sounding names leaving their calling cards on my personal web server logs and accessing stuff in contradiction to my bots tags the work of these "spy" companies?
Incompetence all around.
Why is parent modded funny?
I don't get the joke.
At least, I don't want to get the joke.
I think it takes a certain amount of confidence in one's own point of view to go blowing whistles.
To do what Assange has done takes quite a bit more of it.
Ego is not the primary problem, even if the people who think they have something to hide want to distract us by pointing at the ego.
Bad grammar, good idea.
Although, in this case, he has to be very very careful to use only the published legal access methods as a customer.
Better, really, to contact the credit card companies. Not about insecure web sites, about improper use of credit card numbers.
Several people have posted phone numbers or on-line links below, with quotes relative to the credit card companies wanting to be informed about improper use of credit card numbers.
Probably don't want to admit to illegal access, even to the credit card companies, just to having noticed the vulnerability. If you can leave some sort of record of your attempt to contact the credit card company, that will help if it does blow up in your face.
bites you from behind every time.
Hobson's choice: get screwed now or get screwed later, and it seems like the whole world these days thinks that getting screwed is fun.
Practically, that may be the path of expedience.
Ethically, you're telling him to become a co-conspirator with a company that is operating illegally.
That's not just the neighbors' doors.
Companies who do this are the ones who should be hauled into court, and their CEOs, CIOs, and anyone responsible for making the decisions should be the ones put in jail.
Unfortunately, right now, that's not what would happen.
It's time to re-examine your laws. (And mine.)
If his own account is secure and he has noticed that he could have accessed it without credentials?
Actually accessing his own account without credentials could also be breaking himself against the law.
Building a proof of concept legally is probably not possible, even if he builds it on his own network, on his own machine.
The laws are screwed until we can figure out how to get people to understand that computer memory is just fancy paper and CPUs are just fancy pens with fancy erasers.
I need to change my sig. Apple is now only a co-conspirator.
There are many places in the world where oil is, indeed, burned to produce electricity, and not to run car lights.
Some of them are known for being primarily nuclear powered. (... for a hint on the search terms you might use.)
Don't argue with them. They know what they're doing. They've built their empire on confusion.
If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, we, as a race, have been doing just that for millenia.
Letting other people claim they own our thoughts so we don't have to think for ourselves.
6809 processor on a sheet of paper.
And could we squeeze in a 6821, and a 6847? (Still lots of NTSC TVs not in the land fills. Intel deserves to die for HDCP.)
Capacitive keyboard? (Not a whole lot worse than the chiclet keyboards.)
Have you ever tried troubleshooting a microprocessor off the assembly line?
I think you're thinking in terms of replacing the circuit board etching kits for hobbiests. Sure, transparency would put a minor kink in that use, but not a show stopper.
(And I'm sure we can both think of cool things to do with the transparency.)
It would be interesting to know how much various pigments interferred with the electrical properties, of course. Home printing of circuit boards (circuit papers?) would definitely make a lot of projects easier, particularly when the active components can also be printed on, perhaps in the same pass.
Lo-res LSI.
But if he doesn't have the license, they can put him in jail for buying it and selling it, wherever he buys it.
I think you mean thirty?
Twenty years ago is so, '90s.
A secure out-of-band channel is essential to secure communication.
One channel is never enough.
There is a difference between indulging one's libido from time to time and exposing onesefl at every opportunity.
Let's think about that carefully:
Ordinary companies may have taken out domain names in the .xxx TLD, but they will not be doing ordinary business with those urls.
They may re-direct those urls to their primary domains, or they may put up a page that says, "We do not support non-family content." Or they may actually run their own porn sites in the .xxx TLD.
But, for people who aren't interested in porn, there will never be any reason to wander into the .xxx TLD, and that allows the porn companies to behave in a more community-minded fashion. Some of them will.
About porn companies that will put their stuff in non-.xxx domains, you are insisting on re-directing the argument to 100% when you invoke your "reliance." As I said, 100% is not necessary.
The internet is not a 100% guarantee, and arguments based on the assumption that it should be 100% guaranteed do nothing more than expose that fact.
We don't assume that our children, walking down the street, will never see a copy of Oui or Playboy in the gutter. We aren't sure we would want such a sterile society, anayway, not because we want them to see such magazines, but because we know that the collateral damage in making society so sterile is unacceptable.
With the .xxx domain, blacklists are more meaningful. Not 100% guaranteed, but more meaningful.
What we are looking at right now at is trying to get some gutter space that isn't plastered with the junk.
This is not about 100% regulation, although there are good odds that there will be some attempts in the courts. 100% or nothing rhetoric like what you're spouting will make it all the more likely that pornprohibitionists will try stupid court tricks.
This is about establishing a better base-line for self-regulation.
But the filtering could be significantly improved if there were some baseline conditions built in to the url. Not 100%, of course, but maybe close to 50%.
Right now, we're nowhere close to 50%, although the porn industry is beginning to self-regulate as it naturally discovering that booby-trap sites tend to quickly turn into financial drag, and clean them up.
Right now, the filtering tends to have too much hysteresis. Too much leakage and too many false positives. The separate domain will reduce both.
If you can afford to worry that potential customers of yourdomain.com would be confused by the existence of yourdomain.xxx, you can probably afford to buy the domain as a blocking fee.
Although I am sure there will be some abuse, some anti-fsf folks plastering the domain name, "fsf.xxx" all over the place. Such behavior will usually boomerang, as well.
Making a 100% barrier is not the point.
A certain amount of self-regulation will occur, and that will be better than the present.
The companies and schools that get excited about their names being used in the .xxx domain, well, if they get excited about such things, let them pay for the blocking move.
Internet users who see "washington.edu" and "washington-edu.xxx" in a browser that doesn't hide the TLD are going to be aware that the latter is not the former.
The .xxx domain is not the best solution theoretically possible, but I don't have any real hope that all internet users will suddenly figure out how to keep their libidos in check.