The internet works on default allow policy as a mater of technical fact. That the law doesn't know that is a problem with the law.
However, my account information page, including my email address, is not accessible to you
Exactly, because slashdot is smart enough to hide personal information behind a password. If slashdot was not that smart, then by your argument navigating to your account page would be illegal for me to do. How is it just for the exact same action on my part to become criminal just because the remote website is run by idiots?
Most people don't go around trying to find holes in security, and taking information they know isn;t meant for them by spoofing other people
There was no hole in security because there was no security at all. Nothing was broken into and no one was spoofed. All he did was request URLs.
What's the point of that? Aren't window decorations going to be client side? So applications decide on their own what they look like, whether they want to obey window manager settings, etc.
It's not a warehouse, it's a website. The internet works on default allow policy. Assuming anything else makes it a crime to access slashdot.org without specific written authorization.
Requesting an URL with a specific user ID in the URL isn't "spoofing other people's identity". I'm not spoofing your identity when I visit slashdot.org/~BasilBrush, and weev wasn't spoofing anyones identity either.
Default allow is the only workable policy for the public internet. Requesting URLs must be unequivocally legal, or the internet simply doesn't function.
In this case Mr. Auernheimer did intend to obtain addresses that were *only going to be exposed to someone deliberately looking for them* and therefore he is afoul of the law.
The law prohibits unauthorized access. Not unlikely access. No authorization control means access is authorized.* The deliberate ignorance of the prosecutors and jury notwithstanding.
*Assuming anything else breaks the entire internet irrevocably.
No, these are no exception. Jailbreaking should be an affirmative defense for the manufacturor in liability cases, but jailbreaking in and of itself should not be illegal.
Under the DMCA, it is illegal to circumvent an access control mechanism, which unlocking a phone is. Even if you own your phone, it is illegal to unlock it.
That was shorthand for "Google could buy the companies that comprise the RIAA". e.g. the RIAA "big three" are Sony Music Group, UMG, and Warner. I could only find market capitlization for Warner (1.3bn), but the entirety of Sony (not just the music group) is valued at 16bn. Google has $50bn cash on hand.
Our property is our property, and we should be able to do with it as we please. Further, breaking encryption is just math. Prohibitions on any sort of math amounts to thought crime. They want to make it illegal to figure things out.
The standard excuse for all this bad policy is that without DRM, our music, movies, and video gaming industries would collapse. I say, let them. It's just entertainment, which is a surprisingly small part of the economy (Google could buy the RIAA outright easily). Much better to let that happen than to enshrine bad policy as law for decades to come. And I'm willing to bet that people will find ways to entertain themselves anyway.
I'd really like to get back to a time where if you searched for a keyword in quotes, it was guaranteed to exist in the text of that page. I often find myself on pages that not only lack the exact query, but Google's cache lacks the query too, so you can't blame it on pages changing during inbetween updates.
No Google, I don't care if you think I misspelled it, that's what the quotes are for. No, I don't care if it's in the meta tags either. Give me my exact query in the text of the page, or nothing.
This is all just part of the process in getting it to the Supreme Court where they will be rubberstamped. And then no one can ever challenge their constitutionality again.
This still requires some sort of coordination before the fact through a secondary communication channel. Can you imagine if the post office and phone company worked that way? There has to be a better solution.
The significant difference between blocking email and blocking jabber requests is that when you find that your jabber request is blocked, you can ask the person on the Google side to send you a request from their end, and from then on you can communicate with them.
What happens if everyone implements this policy of denying all foreign requests?
Come on. Deglaze the pan with a nice wine. The Maillard reaction adds complexity to the burny little brown bits, and so does the fermentation of the grapes. A1, Heinz 57, or ketchup are abominations, I agree. But a quick pan sauce tastes great, and can be really good on your side dishes too.
Slashdot Mirror
The internet works on default allow policy as a mater of technical fact. That the law doesn't know that is a problem with the law.
However, my account information page, including my email address, is not accessible to you
Exactly, because slashdot is smart enough to hide personal information behind a password. If slashdot was not that smart, then by your argument navigating to your account page would be illegal for me to do. How is it just for the exact same action on my part to become criminal just because the remote website is run by idiots?
Most people don't go around trying to find holes in security, and taking information they know isn;t meant for them by spoofing other people
There was no hole in security because there was no security at all. Nothing was broken into and no one was spoofed. All he did was request URLs.
Will KDE 5 be ported to Wayland?
What's the point of that? Aren't window decorations going to be client side? So applications decide on their own what they look like, whether they want to obey window manager settings, etc.
It's not a warehouse, it's a website. The internet works on default allow policy. Assuming anything else makes it a crime to access slashdot.org without specific written authorization.
Requesting an URL with a specific user ID in the URL isn't "spoofing other people's identity". I'm not spoofing your identity when I visit slashdot.org/~BasilBrush, and weev wasn't spoofing anyones identity either.
Default allow is the only workable policy for the public internet. Requesting URLs must be unequivocally legal, or the internet simply doesn't function.
Obviously he just wants to spend more time with his family.
A public facing web server with no authorization controls is a public display.
Any country where insulting the leader is illegal should be absolutely off the list for any freedom loving individual.
A world where you get divided into upper class and lower class on factors beyond your own control should scare just about anyone.
Welcome to Earth.
Market cap is close enough for the purposes of this discussion.
In this case Mr. Auernheimer did intend to obtain addresses that were *only going to be exposed to someone deliberately looking for them* and therefore he is afoul of the law.
The law prohibits unauthorized access. Not unlikely access. No authorization control means access is authorized.* The deliberate ignorance of the prosecutors and jury notwithstanding.
*Assuming anything else breaks the entire internet irrevocably.
So? If I find your personal information on public display in the library, what does it matter how long it took to find it?
The Steubenville convictees are legally juveniles.
Where as weev is simply emotionally juvenile.
Damn. Guess I better switch hobbies.
But what is the argument suggesting?
We are suggesting that requesting an URL is not a crime.
No, these are no exception. Jailbreaking should be an affirmative defense for the manufacturor in liability cases, but jailbreaking in and of itself should not be illegal.
It's NOT illegal to unlock your phone.
Under the DMCA, it is illegal to circumvent an access control mechanism, which unlocking a phone is. Even if you own your phone, it is illegal to unlock it.
That was shorthand for "Google could buy the companies that comprise the RIAA". e.g. the RIAA "big three" are Sony Music Group, UMG, and Warner. I could only find market capitlization for Warner (1.3bn), but the entirety of Sony (not just the music group) is valued at 16bn. Google has $50bn cash on hand.
Our property is our property, and we should be able to do with it as we please. Further, breaking encryption is just math. Prohibitions on any sort of math amounts to thought crime. They want to make it illegal to figure things out.
The standard excuse for all this bad policy is that without DRM, our music, movies, and video gaming industries would collapse. I say, let them. It's just entertainment, which is a surprisingly small part of the economy (Google could buy the RIAA outright easily). Much better to let that happen than to enshrine bad policy as law for decades to come. And I'm willing to bet that people will find ways to entertain themselves anyway.
I'd really like to get back to a time where if you searched for a keyword in quotes, it was guaranteed to exist in the text of that page. I often find myself on pages that not only lack the exact query, but Google's cache lacks the query too, so you can't blame it on pages changing during inbetween updates.
No Google, I don't care if you think I misspelled it, that's what the quotes are for. No, I don't care if it's in the meta tags either. Give me my exact query in the text of the page, or nothing.
Why anyone would attribute booze or dogs, or imagine that somehow we were fucking cattle before we started to drink
Yeah, usually the cattle fucking comes after we start to drink.
This is all just part of the process in getting it to the Supreme Court where they will be rubberstamped. And then no one can ever challenge their constitutionality again.
This still requires some sort of coordination before the fact through a secondary communication channel. Can you imagine if the post office and phone company worked that way? There has to be a better solution.
The significant difference between blocking email and blocking jabber requests is that when you find that your jabber request is blocked, you can ask the person on the Google side to send you a request from their end, and from then on you can communicate with them.
What happens if everyone implements this policy of denying all foreign requests?
Nuclear plant please.
Come on. Deglaze the pan with a nice wine. The Maillard reaction adds complexity to the burny little brown bits, and so does the fermentation of the grapes. A1, Heinz 57, or ketchup are abominations, I agree. But a quick pan sauce tastes great, and can be really good on your side dishes too.
Power of suggestion can be a powerful thing.
You're not kidding.