The person who delays announcement of a security hole is allowing a bunch of people to get hacked. If a "security researcher" found the hole, you have to assume a black hat has as well. Make the announcement immediately, so those affected can take the affected systems offline immediately, or make other arrangements.
Failing to announce vulnerabilities immediately is a dick move that only protects the people that made the vulnerable product.
And how toxic are those pesticides to humans? That seems to be the 64 million bushel question no one is asking. Detectable levels of pesticides aren't necessarily toxic. There are detectable levels of arsenic and cyanide from natural sources in most of our bodies already. I'm not sure why I'd be concerned about mere detectable levels of pesticides.
BTW, I found a PDF of the original article from the Annals of Internal Medicine here.
And I still don't get why you aren't allowed to grab cell phones that are unencrypted but are allowed to grab laptops..what's the diff?
You're absolutely right. It should be completely legal to intercept cell phone signals that are broadcast in the clear. This will promote actual encryption of cell phone signals, which is better than legal protection in any case. It doesn't matter whether it's legal or illegal to eavesdrop on my phone if it's impossible.
The article in the NYT, directly from the author in question, is a primary source. Wikipedia has no problems using primary sources. What Wikipedia isn't is a primary source itself, nor should it be.
IMO, this is exactly how Wikipedia should work, with the exception that the unsupported statements about Anatole Broyard should have been removed when it was pointed out that they were unsupported.
Actually, it's the equivalent of finding socks in the dark.
Actually, it's not at all like finding socks in the dark. What you are suggesting here is hidden variable theory. The state of the sock(or quantum particle) is determined at the beginning of the experiment and hidden until the observation is made.
This is a convenient way to think about it, but inaccurate. It's a bit much to go into here, but Bell's theorem prohibits this possibility. Basically, if you angle the detectors you get an observed correlation between spins that differs from what is expected if the spins are predetermined.
Unfortunately KIO slaves don't really mount the devices on your filesystem. KDE fakes it, and copies the file to the local system. It does this transparently, but it will lead to surprises if you want to e.g. edit a large file in place over the network.
They don't necessarily get points deducted for catching the wrong person.
This is the real problem. If you've been falsely accused of a crime, removed from your home, and locked in a cage, then you've been victimized just as surely as if you were kidnapped. In such circumstances you deserve justice against your aggressor.
Sue the service provider for what? They can take down your content all they want according to the TOS
The trick is you have to pay them. Then they owe you service. If their TOS states that they can take your money and then take down your files at any time, that's a completely one sided contract which aren't typically ruled valid by the courts, even in the corporate USA.
There is a reason these takedown companies are all moving off shore. This way they avoid the perjury penalty for filing false reports. Who has time to fly to Paris to file perjury claims against this company on their home turf, in a French Court.
The perjury claim is effectively impotent anyway. The ONLY thing you have to attest to under penalty of perjury is that you represent a(not the) rights holder who's work is allegedly infringed. That's any rights holder and any work. If you represent Prince, you can have any file removed from the internet by claiming that it is a copy of Purple Rain, even if you do not have a good faith belief that it is, and you cannot be touched by a perjury charge.
If the authors aren't named, it's not a valid DMCA complaint. The real problem here is service providers taking down material without a valid complaint.
IIRC, the DMCA provides immunity for a service provider that takes down material persuant to a valid complaint. That implies that without a valid complaint, there would be a cause for action against the service provider. People need to start suing or there's no incentive for a service provider to obey the law.
If assault occurs, charge them with assault. Don't confuse the issue.
As for shoplifting itself, it's stealing. And fraud is stealing. There is no moral difference between the two. By the principle of proportional justice, if I steal $100 and get 30 days in jail, someone who steals $1,000,000 should get 300,000 days in jail. This would be far, far more just than the present situation where corporations can steal at will and get out of trouble by paying the justice department a small fraction of what they stole.
Slashdot Mirror
So when is Jitsi going to get an android port?
The person who delays announcement of a security hole is allowing a bunch of people to get hacked. If a "security researcher" found the hole, you have to assume a black hat has as well. Make the announcement immediately, so those affected can take the affected systems offline immediately, or make other arrangements.
Failing to announce vulnerabilities immediately is a dick move that only protects the people that made the vulnerable product.
"Responsible disclosure" is a completely disingenuous term. Full disclosure is the only responsible route.
And how toxic are those pesticides to humans? That seems to be the 64 million bushel question no one is asking. Detectable levels of pesticides aren't necessarily toxic. There are detectable levels of arsenic and cyanide from natural sources in most of our bodies already. I'm not sure why I'd be concerned about mere detectable levels of pesticides.
BTW, I found a PDF of the original article from the Annals of Internal Medicine here.
Any motivated amateur can do it, for free with standard hardware everyone has, and within a couple minutes of trying. It's readily accessible.
Sos Sosowski is famous?
3K doesn't sound so bad for a dinky flash app that he probably knocked out in a couple of weeks.
And I still don't get why you aren't allowed to grab cell phones that are unencrypted but are allowed to grab laptops..what's the diff?
You're absolutely right. It should be completely legal to intercept cell phone signals that are broadcast in the clear. This will promote actual encryption of cell phone signals, which is better than legal protection in any case. It doesn't matter whether it's legal or illegal to eavesdrop on my phone if it's impossible.
The article in the NYT, directly from the author in question, is a primary source. Wikipedia has no problems using primary sources. What Wikipedia isn't is a primary source itself, nor should it be.
IMO, this is exactly how Wikipedia should work, with the exception that the unsupported statements about Anatole Broyard should have been removed when it was pointed out that they were unsupported.
No, it's like saying that most everyone who has a WiFi capable computer typically has a packet analyzer readily available. Which is entirely true.
I think most people *do* have an expectation of privacy when they're receiving and sending email, surfing the net, etc.
They may have an expectation of privacy, but what matters is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Actually, it's the equivalent of finding socks in the dark.
Actually, it's not at all like finding socks in the dark. What you are suggesting here is hidden variable theory. The state of the sock(or quantum particle) is determined at the beginning of the experiment and hidden until the observation is made.
This is a convenient way to think about it, but inaccurate. It's a bit much to go into here, but Bell's theorem prohibits this possibility. Basically, if you angle the detectors you get an observed correlation between spins that differs from what is expected if the spins are predetermined.
So everyone will have to update to the fixed Firmware anyway or leave their bought games useless and unplayable.
Sounds like a great way to discourage a lot of people from paying for a lot of games.
Unfortunately KIO slaves don't really mount the devices on your filesystem. KDE fakes it, and copies the file to the local system. It does this transparently, but it will lead to surprises if you want to e.g. edit a large file in place over the network.
They don't necessarily get points deducted for catching the wrong person.
This is the real problem. If you've been falsely accused of a crime, removed from your home, and locked in a cage, then you've been victimized just as surely as if you were kidnapped. In such circumstances you deserve justice against your aggressor.
Sue the service provider for what? They can take down your content all they want according to the TOS
The trick is you have to pay them. Then they owe you service. If their TOS states that they can take your money and then take down your files at any time, that's a completely one sided contract which aren't typically ruled valid by the courts, even in the corporate USA.
There is a reason these takedown companies are all moving off shore. This way they avoid the perjury penalty for filing false reports. Who has time to fly to Paris to file perjury claims against this company on their home turf, in a French Court.
The perjury claim is effectively impotent anyway. The ONLY thing you have to attest to under penalty of perjury is that you represent a(not the) rights holder who's work is allegedly infringed. That's any rights holder and any work. If you represent Prince, you can have any file removed from the internet by claiming that it is a copy of Purple Rain, even if you do not have a good faith belief that it is, and you cannot be touched by a perjury charge.
If the authors aren't named, it's not a valid DMCA complaint. The real problem here is service providers taking down material without a valid complaint.
IIRC, the DMCA provides immunity for a service provider that takes down material persuant to a valid complaint. That implies that without a valid complaint, there would be a cause for action against the service provider. People need to start suing or there's no incentive for a service provider to obey the law.
I agree. I don't know why network browsers aren't typically included in desktop environments.
That's fair enough, as long as other thieves get the same treatment. Though I will add, there's nothing that's necessarily religious about morality.
Have you tried pyNeighborhood(GTK) or SMB4K(QT)
I've been using Linux on my desktop for 13 years now. It works just fine for me.
If assault occurs, charge them with assault. Don't confuse the issue.
As for shoplifting itself, it's stealing. And fraud is stealing. There is no moral difference between the two. By the principle of proportional justice, if I steal $100 and get 30 days in jail, someone who steals $1,000,000 should get 300,000 days in jail. This would be far, far more just than the present situation where corporations can steal at will and get out of trouble by paying the justice department a small fraction of what they stole.
You are a perfect example of the type of conspiracy theorist that the article is talking about. Congratulations for being so unwittingly on topic.
why aren't there antitrust proceedings against Amazon?
Because our justice system is thorougly corrupted to the point where corporations are simply above the law.