Doesn't work that way. Not only are many domains registered under false info, but you can't bully registrars, especially since the majority of them are NOT in the US. The feds have no authority to bully a registrar in Brazil, for example.
If your RTFA, you would know that the FTC is doing this in concert with other authorities from around the world. If you knew anything about open relays, you would know that almost all of them are inadvertent misconfigurations. Of course a growing number are trojan and virus victums who need to know (and would appreciate knowing) that their system was compromised. Spammers (and other criminals) often use false info, but Joe Average may even still have his fax number listed. My email and contact is hidden by my registar, but they know my "real" address, and can easly contact me.
I am NOT saying that contacting these people would be easy. You might have made your "Postmaster" account go to spam hell, but many have not (you might consider using a filter like spamassassin), some (maybe many) read that account, there is also "abuse@", "webmaster@", "president@", "sales@" all of which might get the attention of the appropiate people. Perhaps the FTC will, as part of it's efforts, get the ISP to start sending out notices which implore poeple to check their configurations, or even link a website which checks for open relays.
There also exists the idea that you don't just give up contact info for a client if you are an ISP, if they are not doing anything illegal AND there is no warrant. This is not cool.
Open Relays (esp used ones) are a violation of most ISP's TOS. I am sure that most ISP won't mind "passing a note" from the FTC (or other country appropiate angency) to the offending user. Really I see this program as a way to establish relationships so that the entire Internet community can benifit.
Some servers are left as Open Relays on purpose, owners of those servers know what they doing is harmful, black hole-ing them would be easy.
Why not postmaster@[offending IP ADDRESS] (or a nslookup of that IP address) or simular role accounts. Also, the registars do have their contact information. I doubt if most registars would not honor a FTC "request" (if they know what's good for them). ISPs would stand in line to give up contact information for Open Relays on their network, as they are a network problem.
Yes, it is a valid point, for example (too lazy to look), but the chips that make for "smart-bombs" almost became a casuility of the flap with our European "allies". I remember reading that at least one supplier was balking over the war in Iraq.
One of the greatest misconceptions of this discussion is that people seem to believe that these robots will be completely on their own. There will be human operators for these systems, much like there are human pilots for the global hawk aircraft. The idea of the "40 lb brain" is to facilitate movement, not for fire control, or to make battlefield tactics.
Take Iraq for example, one of our "weakest points" have been with convoys of supplies, many of the insurgent attack have been against those movements. Systems like these can be programed to follow (or lead) a convoy from point A to B, If they run into trouble the Strykers can be used aggesively to hunt down the attackers, with remote humans "manning the cannons" and taking over directional control.
(a battle might go like this)"An RPG just hit auto-truck #450, let's see what's behind that hill" as the sgt. points the joystick for Strykers 504 and 890), while his gunner, who is also sitting the tent 30 miles away, keeps a close eye on both this thermal and optical monitors for trouble
Outside of the convoy these systems will be used to probe defenses and patrol perimeters. Later they will take the offensive lead in main Battle tanks. It's very telling that they are putting these systems in Styrkers first, it is a light tank, with many different design options, but it is not a primary weapons system.
I love Sci-fi as much as anyone, but I don't believe that we will hand over fire control any time in our lifetimes, however these systems will, over time, have more and more control over the "basic driving" up to forming basic formations to confont attackers (an that will take a long while).
Absolutly, that's a great link, it was futher tested by Hustler mag (I don't want to search for that link right now. As I remember it was featured in that movie about Larry Flint. The (U.S.) Supreme Court ruled in favor his parody of a liquor add featuring Jerry Falwell.
In all fairness, Google might have a case. I doubt if the Hustler ad would have been protected speach, if the ad was for a real service which Hustler was trying to make money on, but used the "form and style" of someone else's copyrighted work. In other words (IANA constitutional lawyer), you can make a parody of anything, you can sell that parody, but you cannot use that "parody" to directly sell other items (from the parody itself). So while it's ok to have a boogle website, the seach functionality and the paid for links can only be "part of the joke" and must not be "functional". Of course from what I understand the search functionality of that site is pretty much a joke anyways.
Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it's important to maintain the relationships that he's built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties.
I used that address all the time which would you rather type? http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com
or
http://windowsupdate.com
Social engineering for Sysadmins
on
More MyDoom Gloom
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Throwing the authorities off-track might have been the idea, but I think that it JUST MIGHT have been an attempt at social engineering aimed at the sysAdmins and virus hunters.
Just think, you are one of the first hunter to see the virus. You examine the code, and "Damn, their going after SCO, COOOOOOOOLL, I hate those bastards, I'm not reporting it". Or a sys admin at an email gateway. Most guys are real pros but maybe, just maybe a few took a little extra time...
They say that it's one of the fastest spreading Virus to date, perhaps targeting SCO was the bump it needed.
At the very least sites such as Yahoo, etc. should add a water mark to captchas which indicate that they are to be used for the Yahoo email signup, perhaps even add a "report abuse to.." wording on it.
(Paraphrasing)When to a show in '02, bought a wireless PC card and had trouble installing said card on Linux laptop.
Bought an Apple laptop, (you know the one with the bad logic board), sent it for repair, still a problem.
But this is not a "harward issue" as it is software issue because I cannot keep a second machine running Linux, every time I need to use my second machine I need to reload the OS with my preferences and settings.
So, I hate fucking OSX for not setting up my Linux box for me while my Power book is in the shop again. Damn vendor lock in
I think that he is going to try to load Linux on his Power Book. That's a followup story I'd like to see! I don't know if it is possiable, but he seemed to have trouble getting an wireless card running....
Apparently not well enough, I had lost the context of the "significant" you wanted defined. Mostly I was posting in response to "I'd be pissed,..." and assuming that you weren't aware of the current patent law (at least to my understanding), I should have more carefully read up the thread. I did read his post first, however, but his last paragraph didn't stick too well. I would agree what his idea of "significant improvement" lacks "insight", however the rest of the comment was clear and "informative". When I came to your comment, I found a blurb, "define significat" and then a crazy idea. I see now that it was intended as a (almost) "pure sarcasm" post.
I would suggest that when you comment directly on anothers post that you use quotes or (at least) paraphase to (help) avoid confusion, but that is (of course) just a suggestion. I generally try to be a little more careful in finding the context, but that time I clearly missed an important part of the thread. Still, I believe that my comment stands out on it own, perhaps if I could edit it, I would acknowledge your sarcasm.
I am sorry that the comment would make you seem uninformed, when in reality you were trying to point out the foolish idea you were responsing to.
That's a good point, but the idea is to keep the bullet holes from getting anywhere near the person altogether. The big advantage of these screens is that they can be updated with real time information (assuming that they are network connected). Say one unit reports a sniper in a general area, another unit coming from a different road, could "see" that the other unit is reporting fire in the area, and be a little more cautious.
I'll say it again, for effect, any press is good press. I believe that it open up the public to more information on the subject. Perhaps SCO will start to lose it's stock value. Sure they will blame "Linux users" for the problem, but maybe the press will start showing stories on why they are so hated by the community. I guess that we'll see over the next couple of days...
IANA Patent Lawyer, but I believe that situation could be called a "derivative work". I belive that the complaints that most people have with patents are the "overly broad", "obvious progression", and the "prior art" ones. To the best of my knowledge these are all incorporated into the patent law currently (at least in the U.S.). The problem is how the patent office handles the applications, and when they do make mistakes (which seems to be all the time) they give the legal force to what are truly outrageous claims. Due to the cost of litigation many companies find themselves "behind the 8-ball" when served with an infringement suit.
Based upon our "Latest 24" comments sections my comments seem to have been judged far more "useful" (which I'll define as rated insightful, informative, or interesting).
First of all, karma is not a "pissing contest", many people on Slashdot understand this you don't... Moderators are given their points in short supply,and they tend to concentrate those points into the latest discussion. Editors sometimes take up the slack and mod down entire threads which are off-topic (like this one), regardless of the "quality" of the conversation. I have had more than my fair share of mod points, and am capped. I didn't say that you never have anything to say, just that that particular comment was lame.
Whitespace is cheap and is a renewable resource, why not use it.
So are Bold tags, but you find that "offensive". I don't like excessive whitespace expecially in short abusive comments, which don't even pretend to be about the thread in question. Of course I don't jump into a discussion just to bitch about people who use excessive whitespace and how STUPID and IGNORANT they are, like you did to me, in third person, to boot.
Of course the non-stupid readers interprete it as the author saying "I am too stupid to compose a meaningful sentence that says what I want to say, so I'll bold the important bits of my drivel."
Again, personally insulting based on your preference.
Basicly you were saying that the "good people" of slashdot needed your general "wisdom" to fully understand that stupid poster (me). You have done again with words, exactly what you accuse me of doing with a simple HTML tag, talking down to people in general. What are you, like 12 years old, I doubt it, but you sure do act like it. (you might notice that this is the first time that I have made a general insult of your person, and character, but after all you said...).
No I don't find sigs offensive, I just don't have one. I also don't have a private jet - does that mean I find them offensive?
I said "I quess", not "I see" there is a difference. You could easily have a sig, but I doubt if you could easily have a jet, very bad annology. However, I do get your point.
You can suggest it, but I don't use HTML anymore.
You just did to make your comment format the way you want and your browser uses it all the time.
I, on the other hand, suspect that Grammar Trolls, Spelling Trolls, and Format Trolls, often disagree with the posts they FLAME, but have nothing intelligent to say (at least on a particular subject). So rather than burst out with something truly useful (which apparently you can't) they try to disparage the author of the original post for his "great crimes against proper etiquette".
Thank you! for your intelligent addition to this discussion. Your comment was completely insightful and shows your great whit, a welcome breath of fresh air. Perhaps you should petition Slashdot to have the offending tag removed. Of course we only get a choice 14 tags to format our posts, and two of them create bold text (<STRONG> and <B>), so that would leave us with only 12 (4 of which you used, you format whore, you). I for one would like to see a tag which properly renders dripping sarcasm, for now I'll have to settle with italics. BTW, your over use of the <BR> tag offends me.
-- little to say, lots of space
Did you really need to use what amounts to a paragraph for every insult?
Here's a list of my own...
I checked the code, sloppy, sloppy, you didn't even open the ordered list. Luckly for you most browsers will render the list anyways.
Also, when you close an ordered list, there is no need to futher break your line, which you did oddly enough, but I also suspect that you like the extra space. See below for an example.
My I suggest HTML for dummies, should be a short read you only need to cover 14 tags (12 if you get your wish)
One of the allowed tags is the <P>, it's very useful, but I would suggest that you don't close it. In the slashdot page it renders with extra space above the sig. As you don't have one, I guess you find sigs offensive as well, I am not sure what happens without a sig.
One more note about the paragraph tag, many people incorrect say that the tag is the same as the line break, but at the end of an list, a paragraph handles it correctly, but a hard break doesn't.
Just for the record, I do know the reason to limit tags; I used to see trolls break the rendering of the page.
I did go "a little overboard" on my use of the bold tag (Damn did it again), but to post shit like your post is (to coin a term) lame.
Since the Republicans told the Democrats that they could see their political files, I really don't think you can call it spying.
Correction: Some Republican said that they told the Democrats, but they have no proof of it (or at least as far as I know at this time; perhaps you have seen proof the communications). According to the article, there is proof that a Republican staffer leaked Documents from that share to the media. It's one thing to browse somewhere that you shouldn't, it another to read documents that you know you have no right to read, and presenting those to the media in a effort to create news is definately over the top.
It amazes me that you say that I am "trying to manufacture a scandal where one does not exist", when it is clear that one does exist. Just the leaking of documents is a scandal of itself, the current Republican President has said himself that people who leak government information should be procecuted to the fullest extent of the law. From a follow-up article.
Senate staffers referred to a statement last November by Judiciary chairman Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, after he conducted his own preliminary probe. He said he was "mortified that this improper, unethical, and simply unacceptable breach of confidential files may have occurred on my watch."
Yea, right nothing wrong here !, when a leading member of your party says something like that watch out
BTW, going Bold is a tool to help people clearly understand the point, much like using paragraphs so that the words don't all jumble together, or blockquotes to separate text, or lists to enumerate points. I am glad to hear that you were "almost" converted by my use of Bold words, it's very heartening to know that my carefully planned deception nearly worked - (note: SARCASM).
BTW, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, as you refer to it) pertains to archieved documents over 30 year old. Even then, certain documents (or parts of document) can be kept secret, and what is sent out is a paper blizard, which can take months even if you know what to look for. It (the FOIA) certainly doesn't allow anyone to see current materials. I would however suggest that you go the the Senate to assert what you believe to be your "right" and try, we'll miss you and your wisdom for 3 to 7 years.
The DNC's private servers would have been a better place to put these non-governmental documents, not on a taxpayer funded server. Everyone of those documents belong to the people of the United States...
So then I sould be able to walk into a Senators office and look through all of his government files, check his phone messages, and email. After that, I need to check out the Pentagon, then the NSA. Government files in all of those places. You might mean only "political files" should be public (like the ones from Watergate), well even if that was true (which it's not), these files were about the appointment of Federal Judges, granted there is a strong political tone to the discussions, that is the basic order of the business of the Senate (everything is political). It should be noted that Federal Judges have lifetime appointments. The fact is any good American should be outraged at this, these Republican staffers were not only spying on the business of Senators, but releasing some of those documents to the press. I bet that there were many documents which were picked apart, but not released.
However, somehow I don't believe that you will be convienced, of course if the shoe was on the other foot, I bet you would be calling it treason in a time of war.
What if you knew that you weren't supposed to be on that machine and released documents on that machine to the press, in an effort to gain political advantage from the find. What if you continue to browse the machine...
It's obvious that the access was not innocent, it's silly to pretend otherwise, given the actions of the staffers. Just the other day, I jumped into a van of one of my co-workers, which looks very much the same as mine. It was completely innocent, but I as soon as I sat down, I realilized that "this is not my van" and got out. According to your logic, I would have the right to start searching through his property and then make public anything I want. Perhaps I could post an old paycheck stub, or his bank account number, all just becuase I "accidentally stumbled" onto them.
Another poster in this thread say "This is espionage" That was the word I was looking for. Espionage is often linked with treason, but you are right it doesn't match the (U.S.) Constitutional definition of "Treason" (which is intentional very hard to prove), but a looser definition of it is a crime that undermines the offender's government"
The original Watergate crime was part of a much larger pattern.
It was also discovered by a security guard who found a door held open twice and decided to take a look around. And at the time it was only thought of as a common burglary of a political office, and to a certain extent It was just that. To me it is like the difference between breaking into a recruiting station, and breaking into the pentagon. You can get a lot better information (intended or not) at the Pentagon (or Senate building server)than at a recuriting station (or a political office, like what was at the Watergate).
The Watergate break-ins were about political dirty tricks and elections (which is bad), but the "HackerGate" (if you will) is about the shaping of the Federal Bench. Far worse and longer lasting, hell the only reason why Bush(the younger) is President is because the Supreme Court was split 5 to 4. All Federal Judges are lifetime appointments.
My example was not about the candy bar it was about the inattentive clerk. Maybe you will like this one better:
Just because the security guard is asleep in the lobby doesn't mean you can root throught the office.
But that isn't exactly the same as well....That is why it is called an ANALOGY
Sounds to me that you just wanted a platform for your anti-copyright agenda. Oh sure you say violating a copyright is wrong, "but it's not the same as theft". Perhaps you don't think that it's theft, but it is (sorry).
Just remember, ethics are for people who can't afford lawyers !
Just because it was easy, it doesn't mean that they are not crackers (or hackers, whatever). If I steal a candy bar from a store with an inattentive clerk, that doesn't mean that I am any less of a criminal.
Some people consider this to be like Watergate, but I see it as far worse. The original Watergate crime was a single breakin relating to a political campain, this has to do with private internal discussion of Senators about matters of government. Ok, sure there might have been some real partisan politics mixed in, but the Republican staffers would have had to wade through a lot of messages to get to the parts they wanted to publish. I don't think that it's treason, but it's damn near.
Ultimately, the company plans to offer versions of its detectors for cell phones, dating services, teaching aids, toys and games.
I can imagine it now, a wristwatch which will vibrate when it hears bullshit or better yet one that screams "BULLSHIT". That whould be a lot of fun in meetings!
Also, it would be nice to get truthful answers to these questions:
Are you going to over-charge me. (at the dealership for service and purchase)
Are you cheating on me (for your spouse)
Are you selling your vote to special interests (for your congressman)
Did you, George start a war to (at least in part) supply oil contract for your buddies?
I agree that something has to be done with space junk, every piece is a missle waiting to hit something important, but I don't think that there would be so great of a recycling market for the old equipment.
let's see..., what do we got here a 386 computer, some 15 yo solar cells, and an empty canaster of propellent...
I think that it would be best just to design a "space tug" with a big cage on the front, with a eye to letting the whole mess burn up.
IANAL, but I believe that the "standard laws relating to ships at open sea", if it's a derilict, you can do anything you want with it.
Slashdot Mirror
I am NOT saying that contacting these people would be easy. You might have made your "Postmaster" account go to spam hell, but many have not (you might consider using a filter like spamassassin), some (maybe many) read that account, there is also "abuse@", "webmaster@", "president@", "sales@" all of which might get the attention of the appropiate people. Perhaps the FTC will, as part of it's efforts, get the ISP to start sending out notices which implore poeple to check their configurations, or even link a website which checks for open relays.
Open Relays (esp used ones) are a violation of most ISP's TOS. I am sure that most ISP won't mind "passing a note" from the FTC (or other country appropiate angency) to the offending user. Really I see this program as a way to establish relationships so that the entire Internet community can benifit.Some servers are left as Open Relays on purpose, owners of those servers know what they doing is harmful, black hole-ing them would be easy.
Why not postmaster@[offending IP ADDRESS] (or a nslookup of that IP address) or simular role accounts. Also, the registars do have their contact information. I doubt if most registars would not honor a FTC "request" (if they know what's good for them). ISPs would stand in line to give up contact information for Open Relays on their network, as they are a network problem.
Yes, it is a valid point, for example (too lazy to look), but the chips that make for "smart-bombs" almost became a casuility of the flap with our European "allies". I remember reading that at least one supplier was balking over the war in Iraq.
Take Iraq for example, one of our "weakest points" have been with convoys of supplies, many of the insurgent attack have been against those movements. Systems like these can be programed to follow (or lead) a convoy from point A to B, If they run into trouble the Strykers can be used aggesively to hunt down the attackers, with remote humans "manning the cannons" and taking over directional control.
Outside of the convoy these systems will be used to probe defenses and patrol perimeters. Later they will take the offensive lead in main Battle tanks. It's very telling that they are putting these systems in Styrkers first, it is a light tank, with many different design options, but it is not a primary weapons system.
I love Sci-fi as much as anyone, but I don't believe that we will hand over fire control any time in our lifetimes, however these systems will, over time, have more and more control over the "basic driving" up to forming basic formations to confont attackers (an that will take a long while).
In all fairness, Google might have a case. I doubt if the Hustler ad would have been protected speach, if the ad was for a real service which Hustler was trying to make money on, but used the "form and style" of someone else's copyrighted work. In other words (IANA constitutional lawyer), you can make a parody of anything, you can sell that parody, but you cannot use that "parody" to directly sell other items (from the parody itself). So while it's ok to have a boogle website, the seach functionality and the paid for links can only be "part of the joke" and must not be "functional". Of course from what I understand the search functionality of that site is pretty much a joke anyways.
I used that address all the time which would you rather type?
http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com
or
http://windowsupdate.com
Just think, you are one of the first hunter to see the virus. You examine the code, and "Damn, their going after SCO, COOOOOOOOLL, I hate those bastards, I'm not reporting it". Or a sys admin at an email gateway. Most guys are real pros but maybe, just maybe a few took a little extra time...
They say that it's one of the fastest spreading Virus to date, perhaps targeting SCO was the bump it needed.
At the very least sites such as Yahoo, etc. should add a water mark to captchas which indicate that they are to be used for the Yahoo email signup, perhaps even add a "report abuse to.." wording on it.
I think that he is going to try to load Linux on his Power Book. That's a followup story I'd like to see! I don't know if it is possiable, but he seemed to have trouble getting an wireless card running....
"Hey, I'm only seeing ugly people having sex!, guess I have to step up the quality of my work"
I would suggest that when you comment directly on anothers post that you use quotes or (at least) paraphase to (help) avoid confusion, but that is (of course) just a suggestion. I generally try to be a little more careful in finding the context, but that time I clearly missed an important part of the thread. Still, I believe that my comment stands out on it own, perhaps if I could edit it, I would acknowledge your sarcasm.
I am sorry that the comment would make you seem uninformed, when in reality you were trying to point out the foolish idea you were responsing to.
That's a good point, but the idea is to keep the bullet holes from getting anywhere near the person altogether. The big advantage of these screens is that they can be updated with real time information (assuming that they are network connected). Say one unit reports a sniper in a general area, another unit coming from a different road, could "see" that the other unit is reporting fire in the area, and be a little more cautious.
I'll say it again, for effect, any press is good press. I believe that it open up the public to more information on the subject. Perhaps SCO will start to lose it's stock value. Sure they will blame "Linux users" for the problem, but maybe the press will start showing stories on why they are so hated by the community. I guess that we'll see over the next couple of days...
IANA Patent Lawyer, but I believe that situation could be called a "derivative work". I belive that the complaints that most people have with patents are the "overly broad", "obvious progression", and the "prior art" ones. To the best of my knowledge these are all incorporated into the patent law currently (at least in the U.S.). The problem is how the patent office handles the applications, and when they do make mistakes (which seems to be all the time) they give the legal force to what are truly outrageous claims. Due to the cost of litigation many companies find themselves "behind the 8-ball" when served with an infringement suit.
I, on the other hand, suspect that Grammar Trolls, Spelling Trolls, and Format Trolls, often disagree with the posts they FLAME, but have nothing intelligent to say (at least on a particular subject). So rather than burst out with something truly useful (which apparently you can't) they try to disparage the author of the original post for his "great crimes against proper etiquette".
Thank you! for your intelligent addition to this discussion. Your comment was completely insightful and shows your great whit, a welcome breath of fresh air. Perhaps you should petition Slashdot to have the offending tag removed. Of course we only get a choice 14 tags to format our posts, and two of them create bold text (<STRONG> and <B>), so that would leave us with only 12 (4 of which you used, you format whore, you). I for one would like to see a tag which properly renders dripping sarcasm, for now I'll have to settle with italics. BTW, your over use of the <BR> tag offends me.
-- little to say, lots of space
Did you really need to use what amounts to a paragraph for every insult?
Here's a list of my own...
I did go "a little overboard" on my use of the bold tag (Damn did it again), but to post shit like your post is (to coin a term) lame.
Correction: Some Republican said that they told the Democrats, but they have no proof of it (or at least as far as I know at this time; perhaps you have seen proof the communications). According to the article, there is proof that a Republican staffer leaked Documents from that share to the media. It's one thing to browse somewhere that you shouldn't, it another to read documents that you know you have no right to read, and presenting those to the media in a effort to create news is definately over the top.
It amazes me that you say that I am "trying to manufacture a scandal where one does not exist", when it is clear that one does exist. Just the leaking of documents is a scandal of itself, the current Republican President has said himself that people who leak government information should be procecuted to the fullest extent of the law. From a follow-up article.
Yea, right nothing wrong here !, when a leading member of your party says something like that watch out
BTW, going Bold is a tool to help people clearly understand the point, much like using paragraphs so that the words don't all jumble together, or blockquotes to separate text, or lists to enumerate points. I am glad to hear that you were "almost" converted by my use of Bold words, it's very heartening to know that my carefully planned deception nearly worked - (note: SARCASM).
BTW, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, as you refer to it) pertains to archieved documents over 30 year old. Even then, certain documents (or parts of document) can be kept secret, and what is sent out is a paper blizard, which can take months even if you know what to look for. It (the FOIA) certainly doesn't allow anyone to see current materials. I would however suggest that you go the the Senate to assert what you believe to be your "right" and try, we'll miss you and your wisdom for 3 to 7 years.
However, somehow I don't believe that you will be convienced, of course if the shoe was on the other foot, I bet you would be calling it treason in a time of war.
It's obvious that the access was not innocent, it's silly to pretend otherwise, given the actions of the staffers. Just the other day, I jumped into a van of one of my co-workers, which looks very much the same as mine. It was completely innocent, but I as soon as I sat down, I realilized that "this is not my van" and got out. According to your logic, I would have the right to start searching through his property and then make public anything I want. Perhaps I could post an old paycheck stub, or his bank account number, all just becuase I "accidentally stumbled" onto them.
The Watergate break-ins were about political dirty tricks and elections (which is bad), but the "HackerGate" (if you will) is about the shaping of the Federal Bench. Far worse and longer lasting, hell the only reason why Bush(the younger) is President is because the Supreme Court was split 5 to 4. All Federal Judges are lifetime appointments.
Just because the security guard is asleep in the lobby doesn't mean you can root throught the office.
But that isn't exactly the same as well....That is why it is called an ANALOGY Sounds to me that you just wanted a platform for your anti-copyright agenda. Oh sure you say violating a copyright is wrong, "but it's not the same as theft". Perhaps you don't think that it's theft, but it is (sorry).
Just remember, ethics are for people who can't afford lawyers !
Some people consider this to be like Watergate, but I see it as far worse. The original Watergate crime was a single breakin relating to a political campain, this has to do with private internal discussion of Senators about matters of government. Ok, sure there might have been some real partisan politics mixed in, but the Republican staffers would have had to wade through a lot of messages to get to the parts they wanted to publish. I don't think that it's treason, but it's damn near.
I think that it would be best just to design a "space tug" with a big cage on the front, with a eye to letting the whole mess burn up.
IANAL, but I believe that the "standard laws relating to ships at open sea", if it's a derilict, you can do anything you want with it.