Far too many companies seem to require college degrees for this type of work, even if it is obvious that the person knows what they are doing (at least, that is one of the requirements on many of their websites). Why must you waste your time on a worthless college degree if you already know what you're doing? Insane.
Not much. All of which can easily be recovered. It's not like their accounts will never recover. I'm just saying that $100 per message is too much.
"Don't like it, think before you do it."
So we should just swamp everyone who commits a single crime with fines that are so high that they can never be paid off so the person can never recover?
I said the spam was similar to all of the other worthless messages sent around on Facebook. In that, it was worthless as well. Still, if there must be a fine, it definitely shouldn't be $100 per message.
So, because you don't like him, he should get an outrageous fine? $100 per message? Really? It's just worthless spam, similar to all of the worthless messages sent on Facebook all the time.
$100 per message harm? Please. This is absolutely insane. Sure, spam is annoying, but to even do so much as take him to court is absolutely absurd. What's also annoying is people who post useless things (read: 99% of the users) on websites such as Facebook, and they use up bandwidth as well.
"If his spam sent ranged in the 10+ billion messages amount, well then the fine per message doesn't look so unreasonable, does it?"
$100 per message. It still looks unreasonable no matter what.
"I'm going to continue to believe you have something to hide!"
Yet, you still have no evidence.
"Encryption is hiding things from plain sight"
Yes, from corrupted, money-hungry people from the RIAA/MPAA. What good is the encryption if they can just force you to give up the password for their own idiotic reasons or you'll go to jail?
What's the point of the encryption if some money-hungry RIAA/MPAA goon (just an example) can simply force you to give it up or you'll go to jail? What happened to privacy? If they have no evidence that he even has it, then they have no case.
"Good path on the way of becoming a police state on one hand, on another hand it's an example of a police state in action."
No, it's a good way to catch criminals. Why are you so against this? What are you hiding? Innocent people don't need to hide things! The government will never abuse their powers in any way, shape, or form, so there's no need to worry about that.
"which will result in them getting a crypto team in to crack the password"
Good luck on that when they have a powerful password and a strong encryption software. I think this could've been avoided altogether if he just used something like a hidden volume.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if that is true, it is highly useful for even 'legal' activities. There was no reason to ban this app.
"But you shouldn't think that game programming alone will give you steady income"
Really? I was under the impression that it paid fairly well. What do you consider a "steady income"?
Far too many companies seem to require college degrees for this type of work, even if it is obvious that the person knows what they are doing (at least, that is one of the requirements on many of their websites). Why must you waste your time on a worthless college degree if you already know what you're doing? Insane.
The "per message" fine was also too much.
"How much damage is that to you?"
Not much. All of which can easily be recovered. It's not like their accounts will never recover. I'm just saying that $100 per message is too much.
"Don't like it, think before you do it."
So we should just swamp everyone who commits a single crime with fines that are so high that they can never be paid off so the person can never recover?
"Well, they're punitive damages"
No, I'm pretty sure it's $100 per spam message plus $100 extra in punitive.
"How is a $300 littering on highways fine proportional to the harm caused, when they make a convict pick it up for free anyway?"
That is a bit too much. However, this isn't even a physical object.
I said the spam was similar to all of the other worthless messages sent around on Facebook. In that, it was worthless as well. Still, if there must be a fine, it definitely shouldn't be $100 per message.
"Apart from stealing a load of bandwidth"
Alright, but $100 per message is simply too much.
"he conned passwords out of users and then fraudulently accessed their accounts"
When are these idiots who were stupid enough to get 'conned' going to see that money, then? Sounds like they were the ones who were 'damaged'.
So, because you don't like him, he should get an outrageous fine? $100 per message? Really? It's just worthless spam, similar to all of the worthless messages sent on Facebook all the time.
"if the damages are proportional to the harm caused"
How is $100 per spam message proportional to the imaginary harm caused? That's insane.
"A spam message does cause harm"
$100 per message harm? Please. This is absolutely insane. Sure, spam is annoying, but to even do so much as take him to court is absolutely absurd. What's also annoying is people who post useless things (read: 99% of the users) on websites such as Facebook, and they use up bandwidth as well.
"If his spam sent ranged in the 10+ billion messages amount, well then the fine per message doesn't look so unreasonable, does it?"
$100 per message. It still looks unreasonable no matter what.
"he did 100-200 worth of damage 4.37 million times"
What damage did he do? What possible damage can a Facebook message have?
What damages? What damage was done by this guy?
"The RIAA aren't the police."
No, but they're rich and powerful.
"Furthermore, who said they didn't have any evidence?"
I said "if."
Such as?
"I'm going to continue to believe you have something to hide!"
Yet, you still have no evidence.
"Encryption is hiding things from plain sight"
Yes, from corrupted, money-hungry people from the RIAA/MPAA. What good is the encryption if they can just force you to give up the password for their own idiotic reasons or you'll go to jail?
What's the point of the encryption if some money-hungry RIAA/MPAA goon (just an example) can simply force you to give it up or you'll go to jail? What happened to privacy? If they have no evidence that he even has it, then they have no case.
What's the problem!? You never told us!
That's what I was thinking. That or, as others said, claim he forgot the password in the first place. It's too late now, though.
"Good path on the way of becoming a police state on one hand, on another hand it's an example of a police state in action."
No, it's a good way to catch criminals. Why are you so against this? What are you hiding? Innocent people don't need to hide things! The government will never abuse their powers in any way, shape, or form, so there's no need to worry about that.
"which will result in them getting a crypto team in to crack the password"
Good luck on that when they have a powerful password and a strong encryption software. I think this could've been avoided altogether if he just used something like a hidden volume.
"a jury isn't necessarily going to believe that you've suddenly conveniently 'forgotten it'."
He could say he hasn't used it in quite some time.
"But I don't think it's a problem that the state can, with good reason, compel you to decrypt it"
Too much room for corruption, especially with organizations such as the RIAA/MPAA around. People with an agenda will definitely abuse that.
Couldn't he have used a hidden volume or something? They wouldn't have even known it was there. Truecrypt offers the option to do that, I believe.
"That's why we have IPv6, which can grow for at least another century before there might conceivably be a problem."
But isn't there trillions of possible addresses in IPv6? I don't think would run out of those for a long, long time.