Temporary insanity would be a pretty reasonable defense in that situation. I'd be willing to extend it to the entire town considering what just happened to the community, is someone wanted to organize some vigilante justice.
But It would create a nice precedent for a counter suit. Go after the lawyer that filed the suit against the Pirate party. And after the guy who ordered him to do it, and so on. If the Pirate party members can be personally responsible, then why not their accusers. Sue them for slander, perjury,.... Then do the same thing the next time Pirate Bay receives a DMCA request for something that is clearly in the public domain - sue the lawyers. MAD only works if the side that is attacked is willing to fire back.
So all the Pirate party needs to do is hold a secret ballot about shutting down a proxy? As long as at least one person votes Yes they will all be in the clear, since you can't prove it was their actions that 'broke' the law.
- malware has access to the uncle's address book stored on a remote server - malware sends the uncle an email based on information gathered from his account - uncle clicks the links and installs the malware on his own machine
So, if you have to always be ready to change providers with a few days notice and have the people to manage that shift, what's the point of even using the cloud? For the same cost you could run your own machines and IT department.
And in the time when you're without service? Let's say Oracle offers you a new contract, and you say no. They then cut your service the next day, since you're in a contract 'dispute'. Sure you can buy the necessary hardware then, but it will still mean a downtime of at least a few days.
But isn't that just a symptom of what's also happening in the government? Politicians vote for all manner of expensive programs (both corporate and social welfare), but don't vote for taxes that would pay for them. Are they personally then stuck with the debt that accumulates? Or do they get to spread out the responsibility to the entire country?
And you might consider them a special case, since they were elected. But let's look at their accountability for the promises they make to GET elected. Many politicians make a 180 on many subjects as soon as they get into office. And who are they accountable to? The most that may happen to them is that they don't get reelected in a few years. Imagine if we had trials for people that break election promises, with the jury composed of everyone that voted for a person. I'm quite sure that would solve problem of people not voting.
Why shouldn't the people show the government what they think of them? If our government insists on treating the electorate like they were a bunch of morons, why bother asking questions that you know will just be answered by a bunch of political platitudes. At least in this case the answer might be funny.
My guess is that any investigation into this security SNAFU would end up uncovering a memo stating something like 'We've finished securing the network using the full $10.25 granted by congress. Please dedicate more funds next year.' After that any investigation would suddenly find itself without funds and be quickly shut down.
You get drunk and hit someone with your car. Are you also responsible for the careful search of all the other roads in your state, since it's possible you've also hit someone else so they might be lying in a ditch somewhere?
He's responsible for what he DID - break into a computer, not really a major crime when you think of it. He's not responsible for the costs of checking if he did anything else. Once it's been revealed that the system had crap security, that check should have been done anyway - how many other hackers might have exploited the same security holes before McKinon?
Shouldn't all that work be done anyway? If they had an insecure system, then it might have been hacked by others before and after McKinon. So why should he bare all the blame for it?
Well the contract isn't truly forced on you. You (well at least most people) don't pay taxes in your childhood. By the time you're expected to start earning money (and thus paying taxes) you're perfectly capable of leaving the country. So by staying you implicitly agree to the contract. Or you could decide to not abide by the contract, but in that case the rest of society (represented by the government) is also not obligated to abide by them - so why shouldn't they throw you in jail? With no social contract might makes right, just like with all other species on the planet.
But why are taxes the only part of the social contract that people want to not apply to them? They still expect the protection of all their 'rights', but object to their 'obligations'. Why don't they move to a place where society has broken down (Somalia from what I hear) and live there?
This guy would be a great example of one of the few good ways of using all of those terrorism laws the US has been passing. Lock him up without a trial or contacts with the outside world for a few decades. It would be perfectly legal after all, so he'd be OK with it.
Considering the complete lack of compassion or shame exhibited by most CEOs, my guess is that that's already happened. But I for one welcome our new flesh covered robot overlords.
Slashdot Mirror
Temporary insanity would be a pretty reasonable defense in that situation. I'd be willing to extend it to the entire town considering what just happened to the community, is someone wanted to organize some vigilante justice.
Well the problem is that his followers would declare it a show of support by the general public.
But It would create a nice precedent for a counter suit. Go after the lawyer that filed the suit against the Pirate party. And after the guy who ordered him to do it, and so on. If the Pirate party members can be personally responsible, then why not their accusers. Sue them for slander, perjury,.... Then do the same thing the next time Pirate Bay receives a DMCA request for something that is clearly in the public domain - sue the lawyers.
MAD only works if the side that is attacked is willing to fire back.
So all the Pirate party needs to do is hold a secret ballot about shutting down a proxy? As long as at least one person votes Yes they will all be in the clear, since you can't prove it was their actions that 'broke' the law.
There is a third option - Uncle's account hacked.
- malware has access to the uncle's address book stored on a remote server
- malware sends the uncle an email based on information gathered from his account
- uncle clicks the links and installs the malware on his own machine
So, if you have to always be ready to change providers with a few days notice and have the people to manage that shift, what's the point of even using the cloud? For the same cost you could run your own machines and IT department.
Or Oracle suspends your account a few days after they offer you your new contract, if they decide to treat your silence as a dispute.
If only she had bought more guns, she could then have protected herself against him.
And in the time when you're without service? Let's say Oracle offers you a new contract, and you say no. They then cut your service the next day, since you're in a contract 'dispute'. Sure you can buy the necessary hardware then, but it will still mean a downtime of at least a few days.
But isn't that just a symptom of what's also happening in the government? Politicians vote for all manner of expensive programs (both corporate and social welfare), but don't vote for taxes that would pay for them. Are they personally then stuck with the debt that accumulates? Or do they get to spread out the responsibility to the entire country?
And you might consider them a special case, since they were elected. But let's look at their accountability for the promises they make to GET elected. Many politicians make a 180 on many subjects as soon as they get into office. And who are they accountable to? The most that may happen to them is that they don't get reelected in a few years. Imagine if we had trials for people that break election promises, with the jury composed of everyone that voted for a person. I'm quite sure that would solve problem of people not voting.
Why shouldn't the people show the government what they think of them? If our government insists on treating the electorate like they were a bunch of morons, why bother asking questions that you know will just be answered by a bunch of political platitudes. At least in this case the answer might be funny.
They already fixed that on the Endor variant (they just had a lousy slow contractor building it).
My vote is that they add an exterminator or two to the crew. I hear the first Death Star had quite a pest problem in it's garbage compactors.
Aren't there laws in the UK that allow holding 'suspected terrorists' for as long as they want? So not getting charged may not mean much.
I'm the guy behind the screen (terrible skin condition) shouting the orders at everyone. So who are you? The scientist or the engineer?
My guess is that any investigation into this security SNAFU would end up uncovering a memo stating something like 'We've finished securing the network using the full $10.25 granted by congress. Please dedicate more funds next year.' After that any investigation would suddenly find itself without funds and be quickly shut down.
And yet, the UK prosecutor isn't charging him with anything. Could all that 'damage' have been made up by the US?
You get drunk and hit someone with your car. Are you also responsible for the careful search of all the other roads in your state, since it's possible you've also hit someone else so they might be lying in a ditch somewhere?
He's responsible for what he DID - break into a computer, not really a major crime when you think of it. He's not responsible for the costs of checking if he did anything else. Once it's been revealed that the system had crap security, that check should have been done anyway - how many other hackers might have exploited the same security holes before McKinon?
Shouldn't all that work be done anyway? If they had an insecure system, then it might have been hacked by others before and after McKinon. So why should he bare all the blame for it?
I guess the wrong thing wasn't illegal then. At least not in the place where he did it.
Sure I do, I run a secret international organization that fights against aliens.
Well the contract isn't truly forced on you. You (well at least most people) don't pay taxes in your childhood. By the time you're expected to start earning money (and thus paying taxes) you're perfectly capable of leaving the country. So by staying you implicitly agree to the contract. Or you could decide to not abide by the contract, but in that case the rest of society (represented by the government) is also not obligated to abide by them - so why shouldn't they throw you in jail? With no social contract might makes right, just like with all other species on the planet.
But why are taxes the only part of the social contract that people want to not apply to them? They still expect the protection of all their 'rights', but object to their 'obligations'. Why don't they move to a place where society has broken down (Somalia from what I hear) and live there?
This guy would be a great example of one of the few good ways of using all of those terrorism laws the US has been passing. Lock him up without a trial or contacts with the outside world for a few decades. It would be perfectly legal after all, so he'd be OK with it.
Considering the complete lack of compassion or shame exhibited by most CEOs, my guess is that that's already happened. But I for one welcome our new flesh covered robot overlords.
So Apple isn't allowed to sell iPhones outside the US then? Or is this restriction limited to people without hordes of lawyers?