Assuming that the intrusion was accidental, you have given three options for consideration:
1) ignore the whole thing and hope nobody audits the logs.
2) Report the problem ethically, and risk being arrested for criminal hacking, and being drummed up as some dread pirate roberts of the hacking world, because some prosecutor has a hardon for being officious.
3) Report the problem as a zero day and get paid for it, and use the money to evade prosecution-- know that people WILL have their data stolen and exploited, but that further use of the exploit will be stopped.
There's no ethical conundrum with this last point. Giving that information to a third party is devoid of almost any intention to practice ethics at all, and the only interest it serves is one's own desire to profit at other people's expense. If you get caught, expect some prison time.
That leaves option 1 and 2. Consider option 1, where you have a chance of getting found out even if you don't admit to what you did... while even if what you did was accidental, choosing to ignore the problem and hope it goes away may create to other people that you are trying to conceal your activities, may suggest to other people that your activities were deliberate, and thus hurting you even more if they found out. Although this option costs you the least in the best case, it also has considerable legal penalties if things should go south on you... and you have no control over just how bad they might get.
Option 2 is probably the most ethically desirable option, assuming no real harm was done (or any harm was negligibly minor, and you have offered restitution for it), even though it has a distinct non-zero possibility of turning out unfairly for you. Bearing in mind that if they decided to prosecute you anyways,, especially if they are pushing for penalties that are utterly disproportionate to the damage that was actually done when you have openly tried to apologize for it (and offered resitution for the minor damages that were done), then *THEY* are the ones being assholes. While you have no control over how ethically other people may behave, you still *DO* have control over your own actions, and how other people may unethically react to you should not override your willingness to practice ethical behavior... choosing to do otherwise is subjugating your own will to do only what those around you might want or expect, making you effectively a kind of slave to others, some of whom might even choose to exploit that fact. At the very least, admitting what had happened up front, explaining how it happened and what you were actually trying to do would not leave anyone with any basis to *rationally* conclude that the intrusion was actually malicious in intent. This should be apparent in court, and any actual legal penalties that might ensue are almost certain to be far milder than the legal consequences for either of the other two options, assuming you were caught. Ideally, if no harm was truly done, then no charges will be pressed at all, and everyone lives happily ever after.
This is basically changing the terms of a rental tenancy agreement while the lease is still in effect, and will not be met without penalty for the landlord.
Only if there was sufficient basis to have concluded that you could not have possibly left your cell phone somewhere that you were not. Since cell phones are not generally surgically attached, that's not very likely.
People can only do the right thing, when it is safe for them to do the right thing.
Perhaps... but even not being safe to go out and actively do the right thing does not mean it should be acceptable to do something to harm or to exploit somebody else... which even at best, is still what these people are doing.
I would suggest a very pronounced difference here is that you weren't interested in causing any harm to them, financial or otherwise. Can't exactly say that about these guys here, can you?
I would suggest that it may very well be that the desire to at least offer a pretense that they have the best interests of the victim in mind... when in fact, if they genuinely had had their best interests at heart, they would not have chosen to deliberately break the law and hack into their system in the first place, and certainly not hold the details of how they did so for ransom.
Nobody's forcing the hackers to hold the data hostage.... they could, if they really were so inclined to do things on the up-and-up, resorted to doing *LEGAL* things instead of breaking the law. The only reason they could ever somehow feel forced to sell or distribute the data in the event that they didn't get paid for the service of knowing how the hack was accomplished is because they broke the bloody law in the first place. In fact, the only logical reason I can think of for them to do things illegally at all is because the profit incentives might be better, so it is far more likely that profit is the incentive for the action than any genuine desire to improve security.
Sheesh.... talk about blaming the victim for a crime.
I didn't suggest that computer trespass was akin to murder though, did I? *YOU* were the one who brought up that comparison. I suggest only that computer trespass is akin to things such as fraud and theft, which is also what selling the data to someone else would be.
Like seriously anyone can possibly be expected to believe that?
If the person is willing to break the law and hack into somebody else's computer without permission, why the heck would they have any compunction about lying about not releasing the data? They've already showed willingness to ignore what the law requires them to do (or not do), so there is no reason to believe that they would not release the data.
... when they remove the headphone jack, and even though the numbers may be quite high, I suspect even this number will be relatively small compared to the number of Apple fans that will eagerly flock to it, chomping at the bit to purchase Apples next shiny new toy.
Apple probably won't even miss the people who will move to other brands because of this design decision.
They do download it but do not necessary store the entire thing at any time. A stream buffer size may be fixed in length, and no more than that amount of data is ever seen on disk at a given time. As content is played from the buffer, more content can be downloaded by the receiver, using a ring buffer strategy. This is generally accepted as the difference between streaming and downloading even though there is no difference in the bits that are bring sent, and no way for the sender to necessarily tell the difference unless the recipient somehow communicates that information to the sender.
First, I am talking about being an *energy* superpower. Not just "superpower". They are two very different things. Canada is nowhere near being a superpower, and never has been.
Further, while I can't really dispute that the label of "energy superpower" may perhaps be a bit subjective, but it's at least a fair point to make that it has been referred to as such in the news, and by media, numerous times in the past 10 to 15 years. Heck, even the wikipedia page on "energy superpower" mentions Canada in the first paragraph. I know from memory I've seen the term in news articles as well. Remember also, I am talking historically here, not implying anything about current trends or making any kind of projections about what will happen. Indeed, as world demand for oil falls, Canada's status as such will invariably disappear.
It may have escaped your attention that Canada supplies more than 40% of all US oil imports. You don't think that's leverage? At least historically speaking... the only thing that would keep it from being so is reducing dependency on oil in the first place.
Canada has been no less than in the top ten, worldwide, for oil exports for quite some time. Yes, it is not an exaggeration to say that Canada has been an energy superpower... but as the demand for oil drops, that status will invariably change.
One, it would also require that all hockey players get different skates, since the blades are usually made of steel, and are ferromagnetic.
Two, the induced current in coils in the ice would also create heat, and would be liable to melt the ice, preventing them from playing on that surface.
the facts would prove the point far better than any moderation.
They would.... if you provided some. Indeed, that your post has been modded up from the default level suggests that facts would *HAVE* to say far more than moderation... since the only factual thing I could find in your post is what I've quoted, above.
Sure... discussed here. In comments, by commenters, and not article submitters... and with no other reputable sources to back them up. Much like the comment to which I responded, above.
Before I made the above comment, for what it's worth, I put the words "e ink", "licensing", "expensive" into Google, to cross check before I hit submit, and the search revealed no information that I could find anywhere that is relevant to how e-ink IP is being kept artificially high priced... and I went through about the first several pages or so before I gave up. It's entirely possible I wasn't using the right combination of keywords to get a lot of matches, but I would have expected *something* to have come up in the first 60 or so that I checked. But I got zilch.
So perhaps before you decide to accuse me of not doing research, you should perhaps check and see what information is actually out there to support the claim.
So yeah.... it looks like a conspiracy theory by all accounts that I can see. By all means, however.... I would invite you to respond and provide reputable citations to back up what you are talking about, if you are able to dig them up.
No... all it would mean is that trading bitcoin would not constitute money laundering any more than anything else that somebody thinks may be worth real money.
You'd still get hung up by the fact that knowingly engaging in transactions that involve illegal goods or services is still illegal. Any absence of legal consequences that you might notice would be primarily by virtue of not getting caught, not because it is actually legal.
That's a fair assessment... but what I object to is people choosing to take issue with this particular case just because it happens to revolve around the matter of choosing to abort or not. What they are doing here is absolutely no different than any other kind of targeted ad.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming that the intrusion was accidental, you have given three options for consideration:
There's no ethical conundrum with this last point. Giving that information to a third party is devoid of almost any intention to practice ethics at all, and the only interest it serves is one's own desire to profit at other people's expense. If you get caught, expect some prison time.
That leaves option 1 and 2. Consider option 1, where you have a chance of getting found out even if you don't admit to what you did... while even if what you did was accidental, choosing to ignore the problem and hope it goes away may create to other people that you are trying to conceal your activities, may suggest to other people that your activities were deliberate, and thus hurting you even more if they found out. Although this option costs you the least in the best case, it also has considerable legal penalties if things should go south on you... and you have no control over just how bad they might get.
Option 2 is probably the most ethically desirable option, assuming no real harm was done (or any harm was negligibly minor, and you have offered restitution for it), even though it has a distinct non-zero possibility of turning out unfairly for you. Bearing in mind that if they decided to prosecute you anyways,, especially if they are pushing for penalties that are utterly disproportionate to the damage that was actually done when you have openly tried to apologize for it (and offered resitution for the minor damages that were done), then *THEY* are the ones being assholes. While you have no control over how ethically other people may behave, you still *DO* have control over your own actions, and how other people may unethically react to you should not override your willingness to practice ethical behavior... choosing to do otherwise is subjugating your own will to do only what those around you might want or expect, making you effectively a kind of slave to others, some of whom might even choose to exploit that fact. At the very least, admitting what had happened up front, explaining how it happened and what you were actually trying to do would not leave anyone with any basis to *rationally* conclude that the intrusion was actually malicious in intent. This should be apparent in court, and any actual legal penalties that might ensue are almost certain to be far milder than the legal consequences for either of the other two options, assuming you were caught. Ideally, if no harm was truly done, then no charges will be pressed at all, and everyone lives happily ever after.
This is basically changing the terms of a rental tenancy agreement while the lease is still in effect, and will not be met without penalty for the landlord.
OUGHT to, perhaps... but does it?
Not much recourse if it doesn't, and no competing providers have such terms either.
Only if there was sufficient basis to have concluded that you could not have possibly left your cell phone somewhere that you were not. Since cell phones are not generally surgically attached, that's not very likely.
Perhaps... but even not being safe to go out and actively do the right thing does not mean it should be acceptable to do something to harm or to exploit somebody else... which even at best, is still what these people are doing.
I would suggest a very pronounced difference here is that you weren't interested in causing any harm to them, financial or otherwise. Can't exactly say that about these guys here, can you?
I would suggest that it may very well be that the desire to at least offer a pretense that they have the best interests of the victim in mind... when in fact, if they genuinely had had their best interests at heart, they would not have chosen to deliberately break the law and hack into their system in the first place, and certainly not hold the details of how they did so for ransom.
[nt]
Nobody's forcing the hackers to hold the data hostage.... they could, if they really were so inclined to do things on the up-and-up, resorted to doing *LEGAL* things instead of breaking the law. The only reason they could ever somehow feel forced to sell or distribute the data in the event that they didn't get paid for the service of knowing how the hack was accomplished is because they broke the bloody law in the first place. In fact, the only logical reason I can think of for them to do things illegally at all is because the profit incentives might be better, so it is far more likely that profit is the incentive for the action than any genuine desire to improve security.
Sheesh.... talk about blaming the victim for a crime.
I didn't suggest that computer trespass was akin to murder though, did I? *YOU* were the one who brought up that comparison. I suggest only that computer trespass is akin to things such as fraud and theft, which is also what selling the data to someone else would be.
Like seriously anyone can possibly be expected to believe that?
If the person is willing to break the law and hack into somebody else's computer without permission, why the heck would they have any compunction about lying about not releasing the data? They've already showed willingness to ignore what the law requires them to do (or not do), so there is no reason to believe that they would not release the data.
Apple probably won't even miss the people who will move to other brands because of this design decision.
They do download it but do not necessary store the entire thing at any time. A stream buffer size may be fixed in length, and no more than that amount of data is ever seen on disk at a given time. As content is played from the buffer, more content can be downloaded by the receiver, using a ring buffer strategy. This is generally accepted as the difference between streaming and downloading even though there is no difference in the bits that are bring sent, and no way for the sender to necessarily tell the difference unless the recipient somehow communicates that information to the sender.
Further, while I can't really dispute that the label of "energy superpower" may perhaps be a bit subjective, but it's at least a fair point to make that it has been referred to as such in the news, and by media, numerous times in the past 10 to 15 years. Heck, even the wikipedia page on "energy superpower" mentions Canada in the first paragraph. I know from memory I've seen the term in news articles as well. Remember also, I am talking historically here, not implying anything about current trends or making any kind of projections about what will happen. Indeed, as world demand for oil falls, Canada's status as such will invariably disappear.
You don't think being unable to ever go home again isn't a consequence?
Only if you had *REALLY* short players. Hockey rink ice is only about an inch thick.
It may have escaped your attention that Canada supplies more than 40% of all US oil imports. You don't think that's leverage? At least historically speaking... the only thing that would keep it from being so is reducing dependency on oil in the first place.
Not by itself, no... but I would think accounting for more than 40% of the US's oil imports probably would.
Canada has been no less than in the top ten, worldwide, for oil exports for quite some time. Yes, it is not an exaggeration to say that Canada has been an energy superpower... but as the demand for oil drops, that status will invariably change.
Two problems with that:
One, it would also require that all hockey players get different skates, since the blades are usually made of steel, and are ferromagnetic.
Two, the induced current in coils in the ice would also create heat, and would be liable to melt the ice, preventing them from playing on that surface.
They would.... if you provided some. Indeed, that your post has been modded up from the default level suggests that facts would *HAVE* to say far more than moderation... since the only factual thing I could find in your post is what I've quoted, above.
Sure... discussed here. In comments, by commenters, and not article submitters... and with no other reputable sources to back them up. Much like the comment to which I responded, above.
Before I made the above comment, for what it's worth, I put the words "e ink", "licensing", "expensive" into Google, to cross check before I hit submit, and the search revealed no information that I could find anywhere that is relevant to how e-ink IP is being kept artificially high priced... and I went through about the first several pages or so before I gave up. It's entirely possible I wasn't using the right combination of keywords to get a lot of matches, but I would have expected *something* to have come up in the first 60 or so that I checked. But I got zilch.
So perhaps before you decide to accuse me of not doing research, you should perhaps check and see what information is actually out there to support the claim.
So yeah.... it looks like a conspiracy theory by all accounts that I can see. By all means, however.... I would invite you to respond and provide reputable citations to back up what you are talking about, if you are able to dig them up.
At what point will this kind of recursion cause a stack overflow?
No... all it would mean is that trading bitcoin would not constitute money laundering any more than anything else that somebody thinks may be worth real money.
You'd still get hung up by the fact that knowingly engaging in transactions that involve illegal goods or services is still illegal. Any absence of legal consequences that you might notice would be primarily by virtue of not getting caught, not because it is actually legal.
That's a fair assessment... but what I object to is people choosing to take issue with this particular case just because it happens to revolve around the matter of choosing to abort or not. What they are doing here is absolutely no different than any other kind of targeted ad.