1. I love my country (The USA), but it's laughable to think that it should be the only country that can have nuclear weapons. The USSR had them, and that kept everybody honest during the cold war. Mutually Assured Destruction is an effective deterrant to someone doing anything with his nukes.
2. Nuclear weapons aren't useful to anyone except terrorists unless they have a delivery mechanism. If my country is hit by a nuclear attack, I'd rather it be a missile that can be traced back to its source so that a retaliatory strike can be sent than some anonymous briefcase nuke.
3. Why do you think that anyone has an interest in your message digests?
When quoting a post, it's useful to pick out the relevant part of the post you're referring to. It's also helpful to point out which "answer" you're referring to in the original post. Fill me in on the details and I can do my best to respond appropriately.
I did. I quoted your question and in the next sentence you made it clear that you weren't interested in listening to the answer.
Why should someone who commits crimes against someone in another country not be held liable for those crimes simply because of geographic boundaires? Now you can argue about the defenition of crime in relation to warez until you're blue in the face, but I'm not going to tread there...
If you're not going to listen to his answer, why in the fuck did you ask the question?
It makes sense. Anyone that brilliant would see how pointless it is to worry about money.
Perhaps all of these years of fertilizing your organic garden with human feces has lead to some sort of spongiform encephalitus.
Money IS important. It may not be the most important thing in the world, but we all need to eat and have a safe place to sleep at night. Those things take money.
Legitimate use? Phone id spoofing is a form of id theft.
No it isn't. For there to be theft, there must be a victim. Making up a pseudonym doesn't cause anyone's identity to be stolen.
There is no legitimate use for id theft.
Way to argue against a point that I never made.
If a Bail bondsmen really needs to get someone on the phone, he can always block his id or go down the street and use a public phone with a different id. If he wants to pretend he's calling from the phone of the target's mother, that's id theft and he shouldn't be allowed to do that.
If the bail bondsman spoofs the caller id to use the same last name as, but a different (fictitious) first name than the bail jumper's mother, who has had their ID stolen?
Smith, I have responded to you with examples and definitions because even though we disagree, you at least have a defensible position. I was responding to him on his level.
Maybe He's a h4rdc0r3 g33k! For all you know he's whistling modem tones into a tin can that's connected by two miles of string to the payphone in town.
Your information is just plain wrong. Law enforcement agencies can already spoof their ids.
We weren't talking about cops, we were talking about PIs, Bail Bondsmen and the like. People who aren't law enforcement but still have a legitimate reason to mask their caller ID info.
The military and the police are different parts of the government. And the CIA and other spooks is yet another. They're not at all the same organization.
They're all agents of the state.
I'm starting to wonder what you have against the police,
Having to deal with them.
In my experience, cops won't hassle you unless they think you are doing something illegal. And even then, they might let you go.
Then apparently you either come from an affluent family, or you haven't had much experiences.
Overall, though, I feel safer with a cop car around, than without it, despite the fear of getting a speeding ticket.
It's been years since my last speeding ticket, and I can't fault the cops for it. I was exceeding the speed limit. It was my own fault.
The fact that you seem to overly fear and distrust cops leads me to believe that you either have
It's not fear, it's dislike.
1) little experience with the real world2) some kind of problem with authority (teenage angst?)
See last answer.
3) are involved in something illegal
I quit smoking the green about a decade ago. So far you're 0 for 3.
I see you attend CMU, I grew up less than 15 minutes away from Oakland. Google for John Vojtas or Jeffrey Cooperstein. In 1997 the Pittsburgh police dept reached a settlement with the US DOJ to end a "pattern and practice" of police misconduct. These are just the police within a 20 mile radius of where you are right now.
Since this is like the third response similar to this one, I guess that I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't talking about pretending to be a division of IBM. I was talking about a small outfit pretending to be a bigger one. Instead of "John Smith 415-555-3232" replace that with "Smith Co Inc. 415-555-3232"
It gives the impression of an actual big business, when it's his part time project.
I don't know what fantasy you live in, but the last time I checked, a 9mm semi-automatic pistol is outgunned when faced with fully automatic and assault type weapons loaded with armor piercing ammunition. These weapons are COMMON among the criminal element.
Police departments in every major city in this country have fully automatic firearms, snipers and armor piercing ammunition. Sure, an individual cop can be outgunned, but "the police" are not.
Think back 3 years ago to a bank robbery in California when 2 gunmen were able to hold off over 40 LAPD officers for almost an hour due to superior firepower and body-armour.
You're talking about the North Hollywood Shootout which, by the way, was over seven and a half years ago.
None of the cops were killed, and both of the suspects were. That speaks volumes about who was outgunned.
We are supposed to take YOUR WORD for the fact that they are not outgunned. I, however, have given SOLID and REAL evidence that they are. Your stating that they are not outgunned is anecdotal at best, and a complete fabrication of your imagination at worst.
You seem to have little to no understanding of what "anecdotal" means. One story does not constitute solid or real evidence. Even the story that you brought up supports my argument.
Can you think of any existing laws that would apply to enable prosecution of caller ID spoofing that would be criminal, rather than civil suits?
Fraud.
If there is no fraud, there is no crime.
It's odd that you mention file sharing because current criminal copyright law applies to people who are trafficing in illegal music and software, no new laws are needed in that arena either.
It's the same principle, the technology has the potential to be used for nefarious purposes, and those things are ALREADY illegal. It's idiotic to make one thing illegal because it could be used to do something else that is illegal.
Alcohol can be used to drive drunk. Guns can be used to commit murder. Rat poison could be used to commit murder. They all have the capability to be used for an illegal purpose and only an idiot would advocate making them illegal because of those possible uses.
Not at all. I'm not talking about pretending that you belong to IBM's Clevelant branch, I mean a little mom an pop computer store putting out the image that they are a big corporate entity.
Unless Bail Bondsmen, PIs and Repo Men are properly regulated and reviewed by a governmental authority (read as: state licensure and review board) then there is no way we can be sure these individuals and/or businesses are using the product legitimately.
The state isn't need to micromanage every activity. There are plenty of existing civil and criminal laws that can be used against people who abuse the system.
Unlike other commonly available products that could share dubious possible uses but still have many legitimate legal ones (like file sharing), this spoofing "service" has precious few possible legal applications.
Don't go there. You will lose on it. How many GiB of Warez and MP3s are downloaded via P2P versus Linux distros and copies of XP-SP2?
No, no paradox here...does the computer weigh any more than it did before starting the simulation...no.
Technically, yes. As the computer heats up there is a very small increase in the mass of the components. With a sensitive enough scale that change in mass is measureable.
Yeah, like a terrorist is going to call the Whitehouse switchboard spoofing John McCain's caller ID info and ask which ports will be unprotected next week.
Getting rid of that ability is endangering victims and making life a lot harder for law enforcement agencies. That is a far more substantial argument than that of a marketing tool.
Life is supposed to be hard for law enforcement. Federal agents complaining that they don't have the tools that they need to do their jobs is BS; pandering at its worst.
Those agencies who need to hide their numbers already can do that, with no new help.
No, they can block their Caller ID information, they can't replace it on the fly.
Introducing this service would give that power to everyone, which (as I've pointed out before) can only harm.
So in your worldview, power should be kept for the select few and you get to select those few.
Slashdot Mirror
That I'll be able to get a London Telephone number, while I remain in the US?
I'll finally be able to call the telephone numbers that are in European magazines.
LK
To reply to these points in order...
1. I love my country (The USA), but it's laughable to think that it should be the only country that can have nuclear weapons. The USSR had them, and that kept everybody honest during the cold war. Mutually Assured Destruction is an effective deterrant to someone doing anything with his nukes.
2. Nuclear weapons aren't useful to anyone except terrorists unless they have a delivery mechanism. If my country is hit by a nuclear attack, I'd rather it be a missile that can be traced back to its source so that a retaliatory strike can be sent than some anonymous briefcase nuke.
3. Why do you think that anyone has an interest in your message digests?
LK
I wonder what a day with this cluster could do for my distributed.net keyrate.
LK
When quoting a post, it's useful to pick out the relevant part of the post you're referring to. It's also helpful to point out which "answer" you're referring to in the original post. Fill me in on the details and I can do my best to respond appropriately.
I did. I quoted your question and in the next sentence you made it clear that you weren't interested in listening to the answer.
LK
Why should someone who commits crimes against someone in another country not be held liable for those crimes simply because of geographic boundaires? Now you can argue about the defenition of crime in relation to warez until you're blue in the face, but I'm not going to tread there...
If you're not going to listen to his answer, why in the fuck did you ask the question?
LK
It makes sense. Anyone that brilliant would see how pointless it is to worry about money.
Perhaps all of these years of fertilizing your organic garden with human feces has lead to some sort of spongiform encephalitus.
Money IS important. It may not be the most important thing in the world, but we all need to eat and have a safe place to sleep at night. Those things take money.
LK
Legitimate use? Phone id spoofing is a form of id theft.
No it isn't. For there to be theft, there must be a victim. Making up a pseudonym doesn't cause anyone's identity to be stolen.
There is no legitimate use for id theft.
Way to argue against a point that I never made.
If a Bail bondsmen really needs to get someone on the phone, he can always block his id or go down the street and use a public phone with a different id. If he wants to pretend he's calling from the phone of the target's mother, that's id theft and he shouldn't be allowed to do that.
If the bail bondsman spoofs the caller id to use the same last name as, but a different (fictitious) first name than the bail jumper's mother, who has had their ID stolen?
LK
Smith, I have responded to you with examples and definitions because even though we disagree, you at least have a defensible position. I was responding to him on his level.
LK
Not very good at the ol' Amish lifestyle, eh?
Maybe He's a h4rdc0r3 g33k! For all you know he's whistling modem tones into a tin can that's connected by two miles of string to the payphone in town.
LK
It works just fine for me using Opera.
LK
Your information is just plain wrong. Law enforcement agencies can already spoof their ids.
We weren't talking about cops, we were talking about PIs, Bail Bondsmen and the like. People who aren't law enforcement but still have a legitimate reason to mask their caller ID info.
LK
Go blow a cop, fanboy.
LK
And despite everything that I've seen, in a hand-to-hand combat situation I've never seen the lonely Oakland cop take out his gun from his holster.
Shooting upper middle class college students would garner far too much negative publicity.
LK
The military and the police are different parts of the government. And the CIA and other spooks is yet another. They're not at all the same organization.
They're all agents of the state.
I'm starting to wonder what you have against the police,
Having to deal with them.
In my experience, cops won't hassle you unless they think you are doing something illegal. And even then, they might let you go.
Then apparently you either come from an affluent family, or you haven't had much experiences.
Overall, though, I feel safer with a cop car around, than without it, despite the fear of getting a speeding ticket.
It's been years since my last speeding ticket, and I can't fault the cops for it. I was exceeding the speed limit. It was my own fault.
The fact that you seem to overly fear and distrust cops leads me to believe that you either have
It's not fear, it's dislike.
1) little experience with the real world2) some kind of problem with authority (teenage angst?)
See last answer.
3) are involved in something illegal
I quit smoking the green about a decade ago. So far you're 0 for 3.
I see you attend CMU, I grew up less than 15 minutes away from Oakland. Google for John Vojtas or Jeffrey Cooperstein. In 1997 the Pittsburgh police dept reached a settlement with the US DOJ to end a "pattern and practice" of police misconduct. These are just the police within a 20 mile radius of where you are right now.
There are myriad other cases like Abner Louima, Malice Green, and Byron Gillum; I could go on about itfor hours.
Why don't I trust agents of the state? Because they can't be trusted.
LK
Since this is like the third response similar to this one, I guess that I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't talking about pretending to be a division of IBM. I was talking about a small outfit pretending to be a bigger one. Instead of "John Smith 415-555-3232" replace that with "Smith Co Inc. 415-555-3232"
It gives the impression of an actual big business, when it's his part time project.
LK
For the BATF, "outgunned" means that the target has anything more powerful than a straw and some napkins.
LK
I don't know what fantasy you live in, but the last time I checked, a 9mm semi-automatic pistol is outgunned when faced with fully automatic and assault type weapons loaded with armor piercing ammunition. These weapons are COMMON among the criminal element.
Police departments in every major city in this country have fully automatic firearms, snipers and armor piercing ammunition. Sure, an individual cop can be outgunned, but "the police" are not.
Think back 3 years ago to a bank robbery in California when 2 gunmen were able to hold off over 40 LAPD officers for almost an hour due to superior firepower and body-armour.
You're talking about the North Hollywood Shootout which, by the way, was over seven and a half years ago.
None of the cops were killed, and both of the suspects were. That speaks volumes about who was outgunned.
We are supposed to take YOUR WORD for the fact that they are not outgunned. I, however, have given SOLID and REAL evidence that they are. Your stating that they are not outgunned is anecdotal at best, and a complete fabrication of your imagination at worst.
You seem to have little to no understanding of what "anecdotal" means. One story does not constitute solid or real evidence. Even the story that you brought up supports my argument.
LK
Can you think of any existing laws that would apply to enable prosecution of caller ID spoofing that would be criminal, rather than civil suits?
Fraud.
If there is no fraud, there is no crime.
It's odd that you mention file sharing because current criminal copyright law applies to people who are trafficing in illegal music and software, no new laws are needed in that arena either.
It's the same principle, the technology has the potential to be used for nefarious purposes, and those things are ALREADY illegal. It's idiotic to make one thing illegal because it could be used to do something else that is illegal.
Alcohol can be used to drive drunk. Guns can be used to commit murder. Rat poison could be used to commit murder. They all have the capability to be used for an illegal purpose and only an idiot would advocate making them illegal because of those possible uses.
LK
As agents of the state the military and intelligence communities ARE police.
LK
Let's see if you feel the same after loosing one of your family members in the next attack.
I'm more worried about losing a family member to an overzealous cop on an ego trip.
The police are outgunned, under-equipped and out-manned.
BS. Police have the best guns, best equipment and more manpower than ANY criminal organization.
LK
IANAL, but this sounds like fraud to me.
Not at all. I'm not talking about pretending that you belong to IBM's Clevelant branch, I mean a little mom an pop computer store putting out the image that they are a big corporate entity.
LK
Unless Bail Bondsmen, PIs and Repo Men are properly regulated and reviewed by a governmental authority (read as: state licensure and review board) then there is no way we can be sure these individuals and/or businesses are using the product legitimately.
The state isn't need to micromanage every activity. There are plenty of existing civil and criminal laws that can be used against people who abuse the system.
Unlike other commonly available products that could share dubious possible uses but still have many legitimate legal ones (like file sharing), this spoofing "service" has precious few possible legal applications.
Don't go there. You will lose on it. How many GiB of Warez and MP3s are downloaded via P2P versus Linux distros and copies of XP-SP2?
LK
No, no paradox here...does the computer weigh any more than it did before starting the simulation...no.
Technically, yes. As the computer heats up there is a very small increase in the mass of the components. With a sensitive enough scale that change in mass is measureable.
LK
Yeah, like a terrorist is going to call the Whitehouse switchboard spoofing John McCain's caller ID info and ask which ports will be unprotected next week.
LK
Getting rid of that ability is endangering victims and making life a lot harder for law enforcement agencies. That is a far more substantial argument than that of a marketing tool.
Life is supposed to be hard for law enforcement. Federal agents complaining that they don't have the tools that they need to do their jobs is BS; pandering at its worst.
Those agencies who need to hide their numbers already can do that, with no new help.
No, they can block their Caller ID information, they can't replace it on the fly.
Introducing this service would give that power to everyone, which (as I've pointed out before) can only harm.
So in your worldview, power should be kept for the select few and you get to select those few.
I am not buying it.
LK