did he have the right to operate a business in the US on his visa?
He wasn't operating a business in the US. He was selling no product and offering no service while in the US. Besides, one can operate a business without any visa.
Wouldn't that mean you're illegally importing classified material? I'm not sure exactly how it works in Aussie, it may just be illegal to sell it...
It is only illegal to sell, or carry for sale, unclassified media.
Importing for personal use is completely ok.
There are other laws dealing with certain materials (i.e. goat porn, incest, sex involving minors).
A game that has been refused classification (not suitable for persons under 18) would be perfectly fine to import as long as it did not contain any of the aforementioned.
I have it on good authority from an SEO that links from dot orgs are weighted much more heavily by Google's ranking algorithm. In fact, I get free domain registration, hosting and admin for a few.org.au domains in exchange for a couple of (slightly relevant) links.
Do you realise that an ethical faction of the advertising industry itself is behind Ghostery?
FTFY
Ghostery provides reports to Evidon about advertisers and data collectors, which Evidon then provides to advertising industry groups including the Better Business Bureau (BBB) and the Direct Marketing Association, parts of the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA). These agencies then use those reports to monitor how Online Behavioral Advertisers operate and, when needed, refer them to the Federal Trade Commission.
This is a great business model. Offer a free service to the benefit of consumers; Use service to monitor and analyze advertisers methodology; sell data to advertisers and report advertisers breaking the law. Granted DMA have some shitty policies, but better than no policies at all.
I doubt they'll really care. While some people are impressed by his presentations, I wouldn't call it magic. You know exactly how it is done.
wikipedia: Magic is a performing art that entertains audiences by staging tricks or creating illusions of seemingly impossible or supernatural feats using natural means. A performance, yes. Magic, no. There are no secrets here.
Assuming this statement is serious and not just a gripe:
While I agree that the US is not a perfect example of democracy, their system closely resembles Australia's.
The US government, through the preamble of the constitution, has a social contract with the people to uphold the democratic philosophy.
Despite the corruption evident in both the major parties in the US, I think it would be a little fascist to call the US a plutocracy.
Why is being in bed with Beijing bad, but in bed with DC ok?
It is about preserving our way of life. China is a Marxist–Leninist single-party state (nominally communist). The US and Australia are both democracies whose constitutions share similar ideas. China has played a big part in the spread of communism, mostly through force.
Haha. So, American companies don't do spying work for the government? Nor would US government do spying work for corporate interests?
I am sure they will. I believe a tech company is more likely to design their products to perform their advertised primary function (i.e. a router does routing) and then will add, to the best of their ability, hidden secondary functions (i.e. kill switch, backdoor, mirroring) at the request of the government.
A government agency with a tech arm, OTOH, is much more likely to design a product from the ground up whose real purpose is covert infiltration of a specific target, yet, disguise the product as something the target actually wants.
As a car analogy: You buy an American made car with On-Star. Sure On-Star will allow the US government to track you through this device and may even go as far as killing the engine or setting off an alarm. These are secondary things enabled by the primary purpose of the device.
Now, let's say a much cheaper yet equivalent car is designed and built by the Tazbekstan government. The same government has a reputation for oppressing its people through use of a car-based surveillance programme. On top of the known surveillance, there are rumours that all Tazbeki cars have the capability to remotely control doorlocks, windows, braking system, steering and MAY even be able to re-route the exhaust to the air-con intake.
As a government, I wouldn't want these cars on my roads.
They [sic: China] will do everything to get you to back down - stop only when they give up and lose face.
If China maintain that Australia has contravened the Marrakech Agreement, I would expect China to consider trade sanctions such as refusing to export consumer tech to Australia or a temporary ban on resources from Australia.
The former type would be a minor inconvenience for distributors, retailers and consumers that will soon be countered by parallel importing and pressure from the contracting party (i.e. Apple).
The latter type would severely cripple our economy, having a devastating affect on the markets and local mining communities. China is believed to have been stockpiling for some time. Perhaps the only thing that will deter them from taking this course of action will be China's large stake in Australian resource shares.
Despite my suspicions, I have a lot of Huawei equipment for personal use as it is cheap and reliable. I wouldn't even consider it for anything to do with business or public infrastructure
Despite the WTO agreements in place, I believe Australia has a firm legal standing. We are not discriminating against a products manufactured in China, we are discriminating against a product designed, manufactured and controlled by a quasi-state-owned company directly involved in surveillance, censorship, oppression and espionage.
If an American company placed a tender, we wouldn't think twice. If a technology branch of the NSA placed a tender, we would, as diplomatically as possible, tell them to shove their tender up their ass despite being our closest ally that we already share intel on our citizens with.
I wonder if we had an open-source, open-specification requirement in the tender if all these companies would still bid.
I would suspect all those, except the ones with something to hide, would.
Wi-Fi did not exist in 1997. It existed about ten years ago.
I probably shouldn't have rounded up. It was actually in 1999 the first time I went 'wardriving'.
WiFi was also not called WiFi yet and WiFi was not available for laptops (but were being advertised).
I was a radio enthusiast and had often searched for other wireless networks.
I did work experience for a tech mag who had just reviewed a lot of 802.11 devices, I was allowed to keep them
My wardriving consisted of a few old nix desktop PC's on an inverter in the back of my mates van
No home users had wireless networks yet. But many businesses did - especially those in the Auto industry
Wardriving didn't become particularly popular until around 2002-2003.
I agree. By the time I first read about wardriving, I had gotten bored and stopped.
In 2004, another mate of mine caught the bug. We went out, this time with a laptop on an inverter with NetStumbler on Windows
WEP had become fairly standard and I had decided against alerting people of their unsecured networks because of the type of negative attention it brought me in the past
I went out all the time and was never questioned. Maybe that guilty look on your face got you second looks? Cops WILL hassle you if you appear to be doing something wrong and are looking around all the time.
I think part of the reason why I got a lot of attention is because I was usually parked (with van running) in front of Auto dealers, Marine dealers and Computer shops in the wee hours of the morning, and back before WiFi and Wardriving were words. I didn't mind the police asking questions, I just wished they had listened to the answers.
Also, why are they limiting themselves to wifi only? Unsecured trash cans, unsecured cable boxes, and cheap mailboxes can be another way for people to steal your data.
This is one of the reasons I suspect this may be a SIGINT operation by the state police so they don't have to keep giving up jurisdiction or credit to the feds.
Being a new car, I was being very careful ensuring that the car was always locked and parked under a streetlight at night.
Didn't help. Had the window panels slashed on 2 occasions in the first month of ownership. Once for some pocket change, and another for a work uniform.
Replacement panels are $1,200 a pop. I resorted to ALWAYS leaving the car unlocked to prevent this kind of vandalism. Never had a problem again.
Over the next 2 years, I only received a single $40 fine for leaving the vehicle unlocked. Argued the ticket and it was retracted.
While this is a nice service, I do think this does not fall under the purview of the state police
Why not?
The Commonwealth Criminal Code completely covers all aspects of unauthorised access. Computer crime has always been a federal crime. The federal police have the experience and resources to deal with this. In the past, I had reported (read: attempted to report but was refused) several minor computer crimes that involved my network or my workplaces. Usually theft of services/data. The state police had ZERO understanding. I realise that QPS have, for almost a decade, really focused on strengthening their tech ability and understanding. I just remain sceptical or perhaps it is just scorn.
What kind of "voluntary code of practice" are you talking about?
I am of the opinion that the majority of ISP subscribers buy their hardware from the ISP and sometimes this is the only option. Many ISP's also charge a setup fee which often also covers support and configuration. Such a code of practice could ensure that this configuration/support covers such things as education and assistance with securing WiFi.
these days the people with open APs are generally either still running old hardware, or are intentionally running them open.
With the role out of the NBN, most Queenslanders will be up for new hardware well before every street in the state has been audited. Implementing this code in time would mean that EVERY NBN subscriber would be at least aware of the security issues and I can see this approach possibly saving ISP's money.
If anyone has a secure wi-fi spot, will the "I did not download that file, someone did by accessing my wi-fi" excuse remain valid?
If your WiFi is secured, then you don't need the defense because nobody will use your WiFi to download files.
If your WiFi is secured and someone, through luck or through skill, manages to identify with your AP and use your connection for nefarious deeds, you no longer have that defence. I always keep an open but isolated, bandwidth-limited channel. I use a secure channel for myself and my guests.
and why is it illegal to leave your car unlocked ?
It is illegal as it encourages opportunistic crime resulting in more paperwork for the old bill.
It is quite difficult to type up reports when your fingers are all sticky from doughnut icing.
Slashdot Mirror
did he have the right to operate a business in the US on his visa?
He wasn't operating a business in the US. He was selling no product and offering no service while in the US. Besides, one can operate a business without any visa.
Why are we having polls about minutes-spent-on-the-phone-on-a-typical-day when the polls could ask for the community's opinion on upgrades to slashdot?
Someone enlighten me, why Wayland?
There are many reasons to adopt Wayland.
::further reading::
The reason I have been following Wayland so closely is to ditch X.
X is the Linux Desktop's largest security hole.
Internationally, "SA" usually refers to South Africa, not South Australia.
According to Google's "I feel lucky", SA refers to Sexaholics Anonymous
Or maybe Google has just profiled me and I should feel really embarrassed.
... what is South Australia
It is a state of Australia. The very one that spawned our saviour Nick Xenophon.
Wouldn't that mean you're illegally importing classified material? I'm not sure exactly how it works in Aussie, it may just be illegal to sell it...
It is only illegal to sell, or carry for sale, unclassified media.
Importing for personal use is completely ok.
There are other laws dealing with certain materials (i.e. goat porn, incest, sex involving minors).
A game that has been refused classification (not suitable for persons under 18) would be perfectly fine to import as long as it did not contain any of the aforementioned.
Who cares about dot orgs?
I have it on good authority from an SEO that links from dot orgs are weighted much more heavily by Google's ranking algorithm. In fact, I get free domain registration, hosting and admin for a few .org.au domains in exchange for a couple of (slightly relevant) links.
Do you realise that an ethical faction of the advertising industry itself is behind Ghostery?
FTFY
Ghostery provides reports to Evidon about advertisers and data collectors, which Evidon then provides to advertising industry groups including the Better Business Bureau (BBB) and the Direct Marketing Association, parts of the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA). These agencies then use those reports to monitor how Online Behavioral Advertisers operate and, when needed, refer them to the Federal Trade Commission.
This is a great business model. Offer a free service to the benefit of consumers; Use service to monitor and analyze advertisers methodology; sell data to advertisers and report advertisers breaking the law. Granted DMA have some shitty policies, but better than no policies at all.
...change explorer.exe to what exactly?
KDE? Sure
Gnome? Why Not?
XFCE? Not yet. But for lightweight you have LDE(x)
Have the Magicians' Alliance been informed?
I doubt they'll really care. While some people are impressed by his presentations, I wouldn't call it magic. You know exactly how it is done.
wikipedia: Magic is a performing art that entertains audiences by staging tricks or creating illusions of seemingly impossible or supernatural feats using natural means. A performance, yes. Magic, no. There are no secrets here.
Oh, you. The US is a plutocracy, not a democracy.
Assuming this statement is serious and not just a gripe:
While I agree that the US is not a perfect example of democracy, their system closely resembles Australia's.
The US government, through the preamble of the constitution, has a social contract with the people to uphold the democratic philosophy.
Despite the corruption evident in both the major parties in the US, I think it would be a little fascist to call the US a plutocracy.
Why is being in bed with Beijing bad, but in bed with DC ok?
It is about preserving our way of life. China is a Marxist–Leninist single-party state (nominally communist). The US and Australia are both democracies whose constitutions share similar ideas. China has played a big part in the spread of communism, mostly through force.
Haha. So, American companies don't do spying work for the government? Nor would US government do spying work for corporate interests?
I am sure they will. I believe a tech company is more likely to design their products to perform their advertised primary function (i.e. a router does routing) and then will add, to the best of their ability, hidden secondary functions (i.e. kill switch, backdoor, mirroring) at the request of the government.
A government agency with a tech arm, OTOH, is much more likely to design a product from the ground up whose real purpose is covert infiltration of a specific target, yet, disguise the product as something the target actually wants.
As a car analogy: You buy an American made car with On-Star. Sure On-Star will allow the US government to track you through this device and may even go as far as killing the engine or setting off an alarm. These are secondary things enabled by the primary purpose of the device.
Now, let's say a much cheaper yet equivalent car is designed and built by the Tazbekstan government. The same government has a reputation for oppressing its people through use of a car-based surveillance programme. On top of the known surveillance, there are rumours that all Tazbeki cars have the capability to remotely control doorlocks, windows, braking system, steering and MAY even be able to re-route the exhaust to the air-con intake.
As a government, I wouldn't want these cars on my roads.
I mean, are you insane or what?
A little.
They [sic: China] will do everything to get you to back down - stop only when they give up and lose face.
If China maintain that Australia has contravened the Marrakech Agreement, I would expect China to consider trade sanctions such as refusing to export consumer tech to Australia or a temporary ban on resources from Australia.
The former type would be a minor inconvenience for distributors, retailers and consumers that will soon be countered by parallel importing and pressure from the contracting party (i.e. Apple).
The latter type would severely cripple our economy, having a devastating affect on the markets and local mining communities. China is believed to have been stockpiling for some time. Perhaps the only thing that will deter them from taking this course of action will be China's large stake in Australian resource shares.
Despite my suspicions, I have a lot of Huawei equipment for personal use as it is cheap and reliable. I wouldn't even consider it for anything to do with business or public infrastructure
Despite the WTO agreements in place, I believe Australia has a firm legal standing. We are not discriminating against a products manufactured in China, we are discriminating against a product designed, manufactured and controlled by a quasi-state-owned company directly involved in surveillance, censorship, oppression and espionage.
If an American company placed a tender, we wouldn't think twice. If a technology branch of the NSA placed a tender, we would, as diplomatically as possible, tell them to shove their tender up their ass despite being our closest ally that we already share intel on our citizens with.
I wonder if we had an open-source, open-specification requirement in the tender if all these companies would still bid.
I would suspect all those, except the ones with something to hide, would.
Wi-Fi did not exist in 1997. It existed about ten years ago.
I probably shouldn't have rounded up. It was actually in 1999 the first time I went 'wardriving'.
WiFi was also not called WiFi yet and WiFi was not available for laptops (but were being advertised).
I was a radio enthusiast and had often searched for other wireless networks.
I did work experience for a tech mag who had just reviewed a lot of 802.11 devices, I was allowed to keep them
My wardriving consisted of a few old nix desktop PC's on an inverter in the back of my mates van
No home users had wireless networks yet. But many businesses did - especially those in the Auto industry
Wardriving didn't become particularly popular until around 2002-2003.
I agree. By the time I first read about wardriving, I had gotten bored and stopped.
In 2004, another mate of mine caught the bug. We went out, this time with a laptop on an inverter with NetStumbler on Windows
WEP had become fairly standard and I had decided against alerting people of their unsecured networks because of the type of negative attention it brought me in the past
I went out all the time and was never questioned. Maybe that guilty look on your face got you second looks? Cops WILL hassle you if you appear to be doing something wrong and are looking around all the time.
I think part of the reason why I got a lot of attention is because I was usually parked (with van running) in front of Auto dealers, Marine dealers and Computer shops in the wee hours of the morning, and back before WiFi and Wardriving were words. I didn't mind the police asking questions, I just wished they had listened to the answers.
Also, why are they limiting themselves to wifi only? Unsecured trash cans, unsecured cable boxes, and cheap mailboxes can be another way for people to steal your data.
This is one of the reasons I suspect this may be a SIGINT operation by the state police so they don't have to keep giving up jurisdiction or credit to the feds.
Yeah. Bloody zippo01 with his +5 Informative.
I once purchased a new Jeep Wrangler softtop.
Being a new car, I was being very careful ensuring that the car was always locked and parked under a streetlight at night.
Didn't help. Had the window panels slashed on 2 occasions in the first month of ownership. Once for some pocket change, and another for a work uniform.
Replacement panels are $1,200 a pop. I resorted to ALWAYS leaving the car unlocked to prevent this kind of vandalism. Never had a problem again.
Over the next 2 years, I only received a single $40 fine for leaving the vehicle unlocked. Argued the ticket and it was retracted.
That was another Conroy (Australian Communications Minister) brainfart that luckily never made it into law.
/me breathes a sigh of relief
While this is a nice service, I do think this does not fall under the purview of the state police
Why not?
The Commonwealth Criminal Code completely covers all aspects of unauthorised access. Computer crime has always been a federal crime. The federal police have the experience and resources to deal with this. In the past, I had reported (read: attempted to report but was refused) several minor computer crimes that involved my network or my workplaces. Usually theft of services/data. The state police had ZERO understanding. I realise that QPS have, for almost a decade, really focused on strengthening their tech ability and understanding. I just remain sceptical or perhaps it is just scorn.
What kind of "voluntary code of practice" are you talking about?
I am of the opinion that the majority of ISP subscribers buy their hardware from the ISP and sometimes this is the only option. Many ISP's also charge a setup fee which often also covers support and configuration. Such a code of practice could ensure that this configuration/support covers such things as education and assistance with securing WiFi.
these days the people with open APs are generally either still running old hardware, or are intentionally running them open.
With the role out of the NBN, most Queenslanders will be up for new hardware well before every street in the state has been audited. Implementing this code in time would mean that EVERY NBN subscriber would be at least aware of the security issues and I can see this approach possibly saving ISP's money.
Gosh is that Simpsons thing a joke?
No joke. Photos of small-breasted woman, regardless of age, is also considered child-porn.
They NEVER leave a Fine on a car for being unlocked.
Never Say Never
If anyone has a secure wi-fi spot, will the "I did not download that file, someone did by accessing my wi-fi" excuse remain valid?
If your WiFi is secured, then you don't need the defense because nobody will use your WiFi to download files.
If your WiFi is secured and someone, through luck or through skill, manages to identify with your AP and use your connection for nefarious deeds, you no longer have that defence. I always keep an open but isolated, bandwidth-limited channel. I use a secure channel for myself and my guests.
and why is it illegal to leave your car unlocked ?
It is illegal as it encourages opportunistic crime resulting in more paperwork for the old bill.
It is quite difficult to type up reports when your fingers are all sticky from doughnut icing.
police going around to everyone's door trying to open it?
Some police beats in shopping centres check parked cars and leave a nice little letter with a nice big fine if they find one unlocked.