Maybe the university should shut down getting emails from whatever IP addresses these threats are coming from? Seems that would be basically the equivalent of taking out the remailer server, except that it doesn't have the collateral effects, and doesn't have the risks of the remailer being replaced.
I'm assuming the IP addresses are not random. If they were, taking out ONE remailer would not stop the threats.
And not only that, it is one that other mail servers have every right to refuse data or connections from if they want only communications which are fully traceable. Think about what objective exists by the FBI seizing a computer that was used (let's assume for sake of argument that this really was used in that way) to transmit these threats, but has no record of what was sent or where it came from. All it's doing is interrupting the ability to send anonymous mail. But specifically it interrupts the ability of the person making these threats from doing so. Is that a good idea? If it is, then why not configure the UofP computers to refuse connections from this or any other anonymous remailer. That should be just as effective. Why not just ignore the threats? These are all basically the same effect in that the threat maker is deprived of the communications.
What are the implications of ignoring a threat? The threat might represent a real danger. Maybe there is a real bomb... this time. Then ANY form of interrupting the communication represents the equivalent of ignoring the threat.
I don't know what the best solution is. But we are currently acting irrationally out of insane public policy. On the one hand by not communicating we risk danger. On the other hand by communicating we real idle threats. We are our own problem and we need to find a solution to that.
Making IT into a profit center means it will want to grow. It will want to get more out of its customers. Dividing departments this way is just stupid. IT should be an "accounted cost center". It's goals should including smartly cutting the costs for the IT needs of the whole company. The ONLY profit center should be sales. Even marketing should be a cost center.
... if he/she will fully respect the techies they hire to make the technical decisions. I'd rather it be that way. I hate playing guessing games with budgets.
Just because you are not mobile, why does that mean you should use wide-area air waves for internet access? The air waves are a finite resource that needs to be divided up. The more we can shift over to land based communications, the better.
OTOH, we need to push the carriers into making more smaller cells. That's what can increase the air wave bandwidth. But we can also do that ourselves by using Wifi to our landline internet connections.
Hey, I have an idea. Free landline internet to those that make their internet connection available to mobile users of the same carrier.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends. Are they calling you at the office (IMHO, a big "NO NO") or at home (am I on the "do not call list for cold call recruiting")?
One server can do quite a lot, especially if you ditch Windows and put BSD on there.
Maybe the university should shut down getting emails from whatever IP addresses these threats are coming from? Seems that would be basically the equivalent of taking out the remailer server, except that it doesn't have the collateral effects, and doesn't have the risks of the remailer being replaced.
I'm assuming the IP addresses are not random. If they were, taking out ONE remailer would not stop the threats.
bad edits ... "real idle" should be "risk idle".
And not only that, it is one that other mail servers have every right to refuse data or connections from if they want only communications which are fully traceable. Think about what objective exists by the FBI seizing a computer that was used (let's assume for sake of argument that this really was used in that way) to transmit these threats, but has no record of what was sent or where it came from. All it's doing is interrupting the ability to send anonymous mail. But specifically it interrupts the ability of the person making these threats from doing so. Is that a good idea? If it is, then why not configure the UofP computers to refuse connections from this or any other anonymous remailer. That should be just as effective. Why not just ignore the threats? These are all basically the same effect in that the threat maker is deprived of the communications.
What are the implications of ignoring a threat? The threat might represent a real danger. Maybe there is a real bomb ... this time. Then ANY form of interrupting the communication represents the equivalent of ignoring the threat.
I don't know what the best solution is. But we are currently acting irrationally out of insane public policy. On the one hand by not communicating we risk danger. On the other hand by communicating we real idle threats. We are our own problem and we need to find a solution to that.
Host it where? North Korea?
That or the government is the terrorist.
You make your own whenever you want.
... "stupid bank" is redundant.
Yes, that is not an arrestable offense. Just as we don't arrest people who leave their house unlocked.
There, fixed it for ya.
SDR for the win!
So, does that mean you are, or are not, helping to migrate ham radio from IPv4 to Ipv6?
Handles are for Anonymous Coward.
And you still haven't a Slashdot handle.
Making IT into a profit center means it will want to grow. It will want to get more out of its customers. Dividing departments this way is just stupid. IT should be an "accounted cost center". It's goals should including smartly cutting the costs for the IT needs of the whole company. The ONLY profit center should be sales. Even marketing should be a cost center.
Those are the companies that are already failing. Now we're gonna have a new crop of companies doomed to fail.
... if he/she will fully respect the techies they hire to make the technical decisions. I'd rather it be that way. I hate playing guessing games with budgets.
Just take those British children offline, along with their funny spelling.
Just because you are not mobile, why does that mean you should use wide-area air waves for internet access? The air waves are a finite resource that needs to be divided up. The more we can shift over to land based communications, the better.
OTOH, we need to push the carriers into making more smaller cells. That's what can increase the air wave bandwidth. But we can also do that ourselves by using Wifi to our landline internet connections.
Hey, I have an idea. Free landline internet to those that make their internet connection available to mobile users of the same carrier.
I don't know. Denial? Maybe it will just go away. Yeah right.
They real test is if they will want to replace Windows with Android for their PC back home.
But isn't the wide open Android market full of malware? What are they gonna do about that?
Is that the real TV on the wall right above the integrated (and redundant) furniture TV?
Free Market. Corporations love it until real people use it to their advantage.
There, fixed it for ya.
It's the crime of making a corporate CEO feel upset.