Capitalism is the only reason *anything* is cheap. Capitalism is when then the market (read you & I) control the price, not a central groverening authority. A monopoly is what you are thinking of. As long as there is competition in the marketplace the prices wil alway be as low as they can be.
That explains why AT&T and Verizon are locked in a constant war of giving customers more services for less cost, right?
The problem with the "competition will fix everything" capitalist model is that it eschews reality in favor of wishful thinking.
Still, I wouldn't mind living in an age where you can "pirate" a 60" sony bravia tv and keep it secret by not connecting it to the internet (like some hacks for game consoles nowadays).
Wouldn't it make more sense to just not print the part that phones home?
Regardless of whether the dad acted illegally or not, the evidence will be admissible. The two crimes are not explicitly related. If I break into someone's house and discover a murder in progress, I can still testify as a witness to the murder.
As long as he did it as a private citizen, I would agree.
The point at which he began "flashing his FBI credentials," per TFA, is when he crossed the line, IMO.
4) The parent did his part in trying to remove the software prior to the return of the laptop. As matter of fact, he did more than he was expected to do - he went to the computer service shop and asked them to remove the software. Past that point the continued existence of the software is not his fault.
The fact that he continued to monitor the account, and subsequently took action based on the information he received on said account without notifying the school, indicates to me that the parent failed due diligence when it came to removing the offending program.
Plus, I don't buy the whole "oops, I was accidentally spying on you" line.
If not, it's fair to assume you've never heard of DBAN; however, if your income is based in an industry for whom re-imaging computers is standard practice, having not heard of DBAN is a nigh unforgivable offense (and a damn good reason to avoid your shop in the future).
Not at all. There are a great many things that exist. Very few people have heard of every single one of them.
Strawman - we're not talking about laymen, here, we're talking about "professional" system builders.
In terms of commonality, DBAN is to system restoration as the hammer is to carpentry. Would you hire a carpenter who's never heard of a hammer to renovate your bathroom?
I guarantee that somewhere there's a tool that could make your job a bit easier that you also have never heard of.
Perhaps, but it's probably not a tool that's been used almost daily by people in my field for over a decade.
I was wiping hard drives for years for my non-profit org by booting to Linux and using dd in a loop before someone on Slashdot asked my how come I wasn't just using DBAN. I use it now, but like everyone, including you, there was a time when I had never heard of it.
Then you've got one up on the morons in TFA, since they obviously did none of the above when "wiping" the laptop.
What's the "legal grey area" answer for installing malware on someone else's machine?
There is none, installing software on a school-provided laptop is legal. At most it is breach of contract if the school has a policy against it, but that is a civil matter.
As I understood it, spyware is not software in a legal sense.
Oblig: IANAL.
If there was intent to damage or to spy on someone other than the child, that would be a different matter.
Intent hasn't been a requirement for a conviction in the US for some time now. Just ask the thousands of people who have been convicted of 'resisting arrest' as a sole charge.
You would think that an FBI agent would be well-versed enough in law to know that it is a felony for a private citizen to place malicious software on someone else's property.
Or that doing so would render any 'evidence' gathered by said illegal action inadmissable.
I'm gonna laugh my ass off when/if the school has the agent prosecuted for illegally tampering with a secured computer system.
Kicking in a door is illegal as a private citizen and is not something you would expect a private citizen to do. Installing software to monitor his kid's activities is something perfectly legal and well within the realm of what a private citizen might be expected to do. As with many laws, there's a gray area that you have to actually use your brain to determine if something is reasonable or not. There's no slippery slope no matter how much you tilt your head.
Slight problem with that explanation - it wasn't his laptop, it was the schools.
What's the "legal grey area" answer for installing malware on someone else's machine?
Shouldn't the shop that supposedly "re-imaged" it busted for fraud? One also might wonder why an FBI agent is using internal FBI resources to "scrub" a non FBI machine that isn't part of an investigation. Finally, these morons don't know about DBAN???
I've been a Slashdotter for 15 years and I had never heard of DBAN until reading your comment and Googling it.
Yea, but do you run a computer repair shop?
If not, it's fair to assume you've never heard of DBAN; however, if your income is based in an industry for whom re-imaging computers is standard practice, having not heard of DBAN is a nigh unforgivable offense (and a damn good reason to avoid your shop in the future).
If we decide to have any at all - with the seemingly never ending parade of anti-freedom, pro-surveillance, pro-excessive punishment policy that gets legislated into place day after day, I'm not sure I want my progeny to have to deal with such a world.
Financial security means approximately squat when you live on a prison planet.
They would always comment about how, when couples back-in-the-day got married, the first thing on their list of wants was children. Now, the list of wants usually starts with a house, two cars, living in a nice neighborhood, better insurance, a bigger TV, a good living room set... One's take on the matter: "America's so selfish nowadays it doesn't deserve children."
I suppose "One's" never stopped to consider that maybe those Americans who make fiscal security a priority over popping out offspring do so for the benefit of said potential offspring.
Sure, the wife and I could have had kids as soon as we got married - and those kids would have grown up in abject poverty as a result. Instead, we decided to focus on getting financially stable first, so any children we do end up having get a better start than either of us did.
Sounds to me like "One's" is the person who doesn't deserve to procreate.
So someone has the courtesy to run an open WiFi node and you screw them by dumping a Tor exit node on their connection. Or better yet, Grandma calls technical support at her ISP because the "internet isn't working" and the first thing the ISP's technical support does is have her do a hardware reset of her WiFi router, erasing it to factory defaults (happened to my parents), and then after determining it was a cable modem problem, never walks her through setting up the WPA2 with a password again (which her dutiful relatives did for her at Christmas). Now you're going to dump a Tor exit node on there so she gets a visit from the police? Nice.
First off - calm down.
I'm not talking about your granny or neighbor who's "nice enough" (read: stupid enough) to leave their home network unsecured - I was talking about places like coffee shops, fast food chains, retail stores, etc. I thought that was pretty obvious, my bad for assuming you would see it.
Side note: Where the heck do you get the whole "granny calling tech support" B.S. from? For the record (and apparently, your piece of mind), those ISP provided wifi routers typically have built in default passwords (typically written on a sticker on the device), so even if she did a factory reset, chances are it only resets the router back to the factory password, and does not leave the wifi unsecured. If this actually happened to your granny, I'd recommend taking it up with her ISP.
Back to the point - why would (American) cops bust in and raid someone who runs an exit node, anyway? That would be like arresting the owner of a toll road because someone else used it to transport illegal drugs.
Set it up so that if a certain encrypted file isn't updated manually at certain intervals, the entire system self-immolates.
Realistically, though, I've been thinking about building inconspicuous, low-power Tor exit servers that I can dead-drop in places with open wifi. That way, exits can be operated with a minimal threat of legal ramifications for anyone (plausible deniability on the part of the wifi provider).
To that end - anybody know where I can bulk order small form factor, inexpensive low-power computers that are battery pack/solar power friendly?
Slashdot Mirror
Negatory - Microsoft provides "clean install" ISOs for many Windows 7 versions through their Digital River partner.
All you (should) need is a valid product key and you're good to go.
Use a bunch of Rasberry Pi boards with fi-fi dongles?
Considered it, a bit pricey @ ~$40-50 per complete unit.
I was hoping to keep the hardware costs down in the sub-$25/unit neighborhood.
Capitalism is the only reason *anything* is cheap. Capitalism is when then the market (read you & I) control the price, not a central groverening authority. A monopoly is what you are thinking of. As long as there is competition in the marketplace the prices wil alway be as low as they can be.
That explains why AT&T and Verizon are locked in a constant war of giving customers more services for less cost, right?
The problem with the "competition will fix everything" capitalist model is that it eschews reality in favor of wishful thinking.
Also - I have a Bravia. Good hardware, but the software for it is pure shite.
Save the headaches and print yourself a Samsung.
Still, I wouldn't mind living in an age where you can "pirate" a 60" sony bravia tv and keep it secret by not connecting it to the internet (like some hacks for game consoles nowadays).
Wouldn't it make more sense to just not print the part that phones home?
Probably easier for them to just have it lumped together as 'thoughtcrime' and prosecuted as such.
doubleplus ungood.
Just wait until the MegaCorps© figure out that being able to 3D print our own electronics means we don't need them anymore.
Regardless of whether the dad acted illegally or not, the evidence will be admissible. The two crimes are not explicitly related. If I break into someone's house and discover a murder in progress, I can still testify as a witness to the murder.
As long as he did it as a private citizen, I would agree.
The point at which he began "flashing his FBI credentials," per TFA, is when he crossed the line, IMO.
4) The parent did his part in trying to remove the software prior to the return of the laptop. As matter of fact, he did more than he was expected to do - he went to the computer service shop and asked them to remove the software. Past that point the continued existence of the software is not his fault.
The fact that he continued to monitor the account, and subsequently took action based on the information he received on said account without notifying the school, indicates to me that the parent failed due diligence when it came to removing the offending program.
Plus, I don't buy the whole "oops, I was accidentally spying on you" line.
Not from an American LEO, anyway.
Yea, but do you run a computer repair shop?
If not, it's fair to assume you've never heard of DBAN; however, if your income is based in an industry for whom re-imaging computers is standard practice, having not heard of DBAN is a nigh unforgivable offense (and a damn good reason to avoid your shop in the future).
Not at all. There are a great many things that exist. Very few people have heard of every single one of them.
Strawman - we're not talking about laymen, here, we're talking about "professional" system builders.
In terms of commonality, DBAN is to system restoration as the hammer is to carpentry. Would you hire a carpenter who's never heard of a hammer to renovate your bathroom?
I guarantee that somewhere there's a tool that could make your job a bit easier that you also have never heard of.
Perhaps, but it's probably not a tool that's been used almost daily by people in my field for over a decade.
I was wiping hard drives for years for my non-profit org by booting to Linux and using dd in a loop before someone on Slashdot asked my how come I wasn't just using DBAN. I use it now, but like everyone, including you, there was a time when I had never heard of it.
Then you've got one up on the morons in TFA, since they obviously did none of the above when "wiping" the laptop.
What's the "legal grey area" answer for installing malware on someone else's machine?
There is none, installing software on a school-provided laptop is legal. At most it is breach of contract if the school has a policy against it, but that is a civil matter.
As I understood it, spyware is not software in a legal sense.
Oblig: IANAL.
If there was intent to damage or to spy on someone other than the child, that would be a different matter.
Intent hasn't been a requirement for a conviction in the US for some time now. Just ask the thousands of people who have been convicted of 'resisting arrest' as a sole charge.
No one cares about Linux and Retina support because Retina is Apple and no one uses Linux that cares about Retina/Apple.
A hypothesis which is proven false by virtue of the question it is a response to.
Jackass.
They can't unless you provide the system image from the MFG or have your own system image, or have your own software discs, licenses, etc.
... or they download the generic Windows ISOs from Microsoft, which can be activated with any valid key.
That's what I do, anyway.
You would think that an FBI agent would be well-versed enough in law to know that it is a felony for a private citizen to place malicious software on someone else's property.
Or that doing so would render any 'evidence' gathered by said illegal action inadmissable.
I'm gonna laugh my ass off when/if the school has the agent prosecuted for illegally tampering with a secured computer system.
Yeah.
Don't you mean,
yyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeAAAAAAAA!!!!!
?
Kicking in a door is illegal as a private citizen and is not something you would expect a private citizen to do. Installing software to monitor his kid's activities is something perfectly legal and well within the realm of what a private citizen might be expected to do. As with many laws, there's a gray area that you have to actually use your brain to determine if something is reasonable or not. There's no slippery slope no matter how much you tilt your head.
Slight problem with that explanation - it wasn't his laptop, it was the schools.
What's the "legal grey area" answer for installing malware on someone else's machine?
Shouldn't the shop that supposedly "re-imaged" it busted for fraud? One also might wonder why an FBI agent is using internal FBI resources to "scrub" a non FBI machine that isn't part of an investigation. Finally, these morons don't know about DBAN???
I've been a Slashdotter for 15 years and I had never heard of DBAN until reading your comment and Googling it.
Yea, but do you run a computer repair shop?
If not, it's fair to assume you've never heard of DBAN; however, if your income is based in an industry for whom re-imaging computers is standard practice, having not heard of DBAN is a nigh unforgivable offense (and a damn good reason to avoid your shop in the future).
Dear BPI:
We refer you to the response given in Arkell v. Pressdram.
Good day.
If we decide to have any at all - with the seemingly never ending parade of anti-freedom, pro-surveillance, pro-excessive punishment policy that gets legislated into place day after day, I'm not sure I want my progeny to have to deal with such a world.
Financial security means approximately squat when you live on a prison planet.
They would always comment about how, when couples back-in-the-day got married, the first thing on their list of wants was children. Now, the list of wants usually starts with a house, two cars, living in a nice neighborhood, better insurance, a bigger TV, a good living room set... One's take on the matter: "America's so selfish nowadays it doesn't deserve children."
I suppose "One's" never stopped to consider that maybe those Americans who make fiscal security a priority over popping out offspring do so for the benefit of said potential offspring.
Sure, the wife and I could have had kids as soon as we got married - and those kids would have grown up in abject poverty as a result. Instead, we decided to focus on getting financially stable first, so any children we do end up having get a better start than either of us did.
Sounds to me like "One's" is the person who doesn't deserve to procreate.
So someone has the courtesy to run an open WiFi node and you screw them by dumping a Tor exit node on their connection. Or better yet, Grandma calls technical support at her ISP because the "internet isn't working" and the first thing the ISP's technical support does is have her do a hardware reset of her WiFi router, erasing it to factory defaults (happened to my parents), and then after determining it was a cable modem problem, never walks her through setting up the WPA2 with a password again (which her dutiful relatives did for her at Christmas). Now you're going to dump a Tor exit node on there so she gets a visit from the police? Nice.
First off - calm down.
I'm not talking about your granny or neighbor who's "nice enough" (read: stupid enough) to leave their home network unsecured - I was talking about places like coffee shops, fast food chains, retail stores, etc. I thought that was pretty obvious, my bad for assuming you would see it.
Side note: Where the heck do you get the whole "granny calling tech support" B.S. from? For the record (and apparently, your piece of mind), those ISP provided wifi routers typically have built in default passwords (typically written on a sticker on the device), so even if she did a factory reset, chances are it only resets the router back to the factory password, and does not leave the wifi unsecured. If this actually happened to your granny, I'd recommend taking it up with her ISP.
Back to the point - why would (American) cops bust in and raid someone who runs an exit node, anyway? That would be like arresting the owner of a toll road because someone else used it to transport illegal drugs.
What to teach Spaun: that it was intelligently designed, or evolved from its predecessors?
Why not both?
Agree to disagree.
Set it up so that if a certain encrypted file isn't updated manually at certain intervals, the entire system self-immolates.
Realistically, though, I've been thinking about building inconspicuous, low-power Tor exit servers that I can dead-drop in places with open wifi. That way, exits can be operated with a minimal threat of legal ramifications for anyone (plausible deniability on the part of the wifi provider).
To that end - anybody know where I can bulk order small form factor, inexpensive low-power computers that are battery pack/solar power friendly?
is that some kind of gen-X sexual reference?
Sweet Jeebus, I sure hope not...