Bah.
And I have a monopoly on providing consulting services. The only way to get services from me is to do business with me.. so I haev a monopoly on myself.
No.. I would not be wrong. What if those services are renewed on a monthly bassis, as @home is? They are under no obligation to continue to provide you with service.
As a contractor, I am under no obligation to continue my contracts at the end of each period.
Yes.. they probably have to refund him his money...
But *every individual* and *every company* has the right to refuse service. The right to free association means I have the right to NOT associate with you.
I am not required to get a court order to stop you from raping my dog in my front yard; I can go out there and MAKE you stop. I do not have to wait for a court to 'tell me' that what you are doing is illegal.
Not that I'm implying you are a dog rapist or anything.... I don't even know you;)
The service is alright because, if you look at history, when we canucks get shitty service from large providers we are *swift* at legislating them back to doing what we *want* them to do. Seriously.
So they know it's in their best interests to serve the people nicely.
That's funny, because when I called @home and nicely explained that they had a problem with my cable modem... they fixed it promptly and politely.
@home is also *not a single entity*. Shaw@home (Calgary, Alberta, Canada) tends to be VERY good. Polite and informed tech support. Sure you have to repeate yourself a few times if you are one of those rare people who actually understand what goes on inside a cable modem.... but still, they do well.
This depends greatly on where he got these documents.
If he knew the company had designated them 'confidential' or 'not for public release' or whatever, then damn straight.
Oh.. and who says *anyone* is requird to do business with you if they don't want? Hey.. @home has *THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE*. Just like I do in my own business.
Hey.. I run a consulting business. Does that mean that if someone wants to be my client, but then badmouths me, I have to continue providing him service? I think not.
Oh yeah. And on the ISP side.... it is *correct* for technical support to assume that all problems are on the users end, because 99.9% of problems *are* on the users end.
That's right up there with 'the Internet is too distributed; it's not centralized enough, and so it's doomed, because it's not commercially viable.'
and
'Linux? It's not viable. Free software is not commercially viable'
Yeah. peer2peer is 'doomed'. Right. It's only going to get better, not worse.
Damn, though, don't you hate the buzzword? peer2peer? p2p? (that used to mean/point to point/)...... it's just inventive ways of sharing files!
Can that be the end of the stupid 'Mir is crashing' 'oh wait it's not after all!' stories? It's not intersting anymore.
If they run out of cash, it falls out of the sky. Period. Every time they run out, they say it's gonna fall. Every time someone gives them money, it stays in orbit longer.
Hold on. I'm not talking about some company 'certifying' someone on their products; that's fine and dandy: the people who know the product the best (those that make it) are stating who is and is not certified by them to have a certain level of knowledge about the product.
This is VERY different than professional certifications for things like engineering and medicine and law. Those are not tied to a 'product' or a company.
Yes, it does. Bugtraq is in no way aiding and abetting a criminal act.
Just as the crowbar salesman does not ask you what you are doing with the crowbar, neither does bugtraq ask you waht you are doing with the information.
Anyone who tried to say bugtraq was knowingly aiding hackers would get shot down terribly.
Certainly, the possibility for someone to interpret it as a violation is there.. but it wouldn't fly.
Funny.. but I'm serious.
It is not the CEO's job to know all the details about how the internals of computers and crap work. That's why he hires 'information technology' people (who most commonly, especially the younger ones, just like to bitch how those that hired them are 'stupid').
They hire IT people because they KNOW they need them.
Correct me if I'm wrong..But having the water doesn't so much give you a 'boost', as slow down the rate at which the compressed source is depleted, allowing longer acceleration time. The overlal energy released will be the same, exactly. Water does not compress.
If you use one of those rockets with no water, all the air comes out 'pop' just like that. with water, it takes considerably longer. In both cases, there is the same amount of energy expended.
Try explaining that to your CEO some day. Tell him how he's a 'retard' because he doesn't encrypt all his data.
He will promptly fire you because, as the IT guy, it is YOUR job to inform him that he should be encrypting his data, as well as telling him how, or doing it for him.
1) Keep all sensitive information on servers (you should do this anyway, to back it up properly)
2) Have strict controls as to who can handle backup tapes. Use a bank safe deposit box.
3) Keep server room locked.
4) How about some building security? How did someone gain access to the CEO's office in the first place?
I think she's overstating the fact. Perhaps because she also does not like the law...
Aiding and Abetting, though IANAL, probably must be MUCH closer tied to the actual crime. THe fact that your brand of crowbar was used to break into a building does NOT make you criminal. Neither does the fact that techniques in your book on weapons practice were used to kill someone.
Now, if someone came and said 'I"m breaking into that house over there. Can you recommend a good crowbar?' and you sold him your top of the line crowbar.. you are 'aiding and abetting'.
Same for hackers I suppose. Remember this....
One can only be 'aiding and abetting' if a crime happens!
THe reason for these contributory laws are to discourage the crime more effectively. ie: today, they can only charge the person who actually did the hacking (if that). The person who paid him and is standing next to him probably can't be charged. Under this law, he could (as he could with any other crime)>
WE license physicians because, as a society, we don't want people DYING because they were duped into using a non-approved physician. we do it to obtain some sort of level of awareness about skills, when LIVES are at stake.
Lawyers too. Engineers. All for the same reasons (lawyers may not protect your life physically, but they protect your freedom to do things)
We do not license McDonald's workers, farm workers, or grass cutters. I do not see any need to license 'network administrators'. Why should we?
Yes.. laws against 'hacking' should be made. Penalties for 'computer tresspassing' are all it should amount to.
As for exploits being published? As a seriuos sysadmin, I *DEMAND* access to this information, as I've always had.
Now.. if they want to make these things *potentially* illegal, you know, like how a crowbar can be a 'break & enter device' if you are caught breaking and entering with it.. that may be acceptable. But mere posession of information? Good luck.
I'd just say 'jesus freak! go away'...
but I have to admit... that one always bugged me.
It's becomign *SO* true of the digital age what with signed keys and all... eventualy, transactions of money will not be allowed without someone elses permission.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah.
And I have a monopoly on providing consulting services. The only way to get services from me is to do business with me.. so I haev a monopoly on myself.
Right.
And cable companies do not have a monopoly on internet access provisioning.
No.. I would not be wrong. What if those services are renewed on a monthly bassis, as @home is? They are under no obligation to continue to provide you with service.
As a contractor, I am under no obligation to continue my contracts at the end of each period.
Yes.. they probably have to refund him his money...
;)
But *every individual* and *every company* has the right to refuse service. The right to free association means I have the right to NOT associate with you.
I am not required to get a court order to stop you from raping my dog in my front yard; I can go out there and MAKE you stop. I do not have to wait for a court to 'tell me' that what you are doing is illegal.
Not that I'm implying you are a dog rapist or anything.... I don't even know you
Ahh! But They do not have a monopoly on *internet access*, and that's the point.
The service is alright because, if you look at history, when we canucks get shitty service from large providers we are *swift* at legislating them back to doing what we *want* them to do. Seriously.
So they know it's in their best interests to serve the people nicely.
That's funny, because when I called @home and nicely explained that they had a problem with my cable modem... they fixed it promptly and politely.
@home is also *not a single entity*. Shaw@home (Calgary, Alberta, Canada) tends to be VERY good. Polite and informed tech support. Sure you have to repeate yourself a few times if you are one of those rare people who actually understand what goes on inside a cable modem.... but still, they do well.
This depends greatly on where he got these documents.
If he knew the company had designated them 'confidential' or 'not for public release' or whatever, then damn straight.
Oh.. and who says *anyone* is requird to do business with you if they don't want? Hey.. @home has *THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE*. Just like I do in my own business.
Hey.. I run a consulting business. Does that mean that if someone wants to be my client, but then badmouths me, I have to continue providing him service? I think not.
Oh yeah. And on the ISP side.... it is *correct* for technical support to assume that all problems are on the users end, because 99.9% of problems *are* on the users end.
That's right up there with 'the Internet is too distributed; it's not centralized enough, and so it's doomed, because it's not commercially viable.'
/point to point/)...... it's just inventive ways of sharing files!
and
'Linux? It's not viable. Free software is not commercially viable'
Yeah. peer2peer is 'doomed'. Right. It's only going to get better, not worse.
Damn, though, don't you hate the buzzword? peer2peer? p2p? (that used to mean
A celeron 700 is a 'low-end' system? Christ..
My celeron 450 still does me fine, even for new games. Starting to get a bit sluggish on the new ones...
Can that be the end of the stupid 'Mir is crashing' 'oh wait it's not after all!' stories? It's not intersting anymore.
If they run out of cash, it falls out of the sky. Period. Every time they run out, they say it's gonna fall. Every time someone gives them money, it stays in orbit longer.
That about sums it up.
Hold on. I'm not talking about some company 'certifying' someone on their products; that's fine and dandy: the people who know the product the best (those that make it) are stating who is and is not certified by them to have a certain level of knowledge about the product.
This is VERY different than professional certifications for things like engineering and medicine and law. Those are not tied to a 'product' or a company.
Yes, it does. Bugtraq is in no way aiding and abetting a criminal act.
Just as the crowbar salesman does not ask you what you are doing with the crowbar, neither does bugtraq ask you waht you are doing with the information.
Anyone who tried to say bugtraq was knowingly aiding hackers would get shot down terribly.
Certainly, the possibility for someone to interpret it as a violation is there.. but it wouldn't fly.
Funny.. but I'm serious.
It is not the CEO's job to know all the details about how the internals of computers and crap work. That's why he hires 'information technology' people (who most commonly, especially the younger ones, just like to bitch how those that hired them are 'stupid').
They hire IT people because they KNOW they need them.
He's only a PHB if he refuses to listen.
The original VMWare beta rocked on even the way plex86 is today.
I'm not knocking plex86.. it's a great project.
But it was not built as a 'vmware killer'. It was simply build as a cool project.
And it's not an emulator.
No flaw. Fuel-air explosions are very real and very deadly.
Correct me if I'm wrong..But having the water doesn't so much give you a 'boost', as slow down the rate at which the compressed source is depleted, allowing longer acceleration time. The overlal energy released will be the same, exactly. Water does not compress.
If you use one of those rockets with no water, all the air comes out 'pop' just like that. with water, it takes considerably longer. In both cases, there is the same amount of energy expended.
glad I don't live in your country...
I've *never* seen this.
Try explaining that to your CEO some day. Tell him how he's a 'retard' because he doesn't encrypt all his data.
He will promptly fire you because, as the IT guy, it is YOUR job to inform him that he should be encrypting his data, as well as telling him how, or doing it for him.
1) Keep all sensitive information on servers (you should do this anyway, to back it up properly)
2) Have strict controls as to who can handle backup tapes. Use a bank safe deposit box.
3) Keep server room locked.
4) How about some building security? How did someone gain access to the CEO's office in the first place?
They shoudl go back to geographic. Period.
Ditch ALL generic TLDs.
Leave it regional.
I think she's overstating the fact. Perhaps because she also does not like the law...
Aiding and Abetting, though IANAL, probably must be MUCH closer tied to the actual crime. THe fact that your brand of crowbar was used to break into a building does NOT make you criminal. Neither does the fact that techniques in your book on weapons practice were used to kill someone.
Now, if someone came and said 'I"m breaking into that house over there. Can you recommend a good crowbar?' and you sold him your top of the line crowbar.. you are 'aiding and abetting'.
Same for hackers I suppose. Remember this....
One can only be 'aiding and abetting' if a crime happens!
THe reason for these contributory laws are to discourage the crime more effectively. ie: today, they can only charge the person who actually did the hacking (if that). The person who paid him and is standing next to him probably can't be charged. Under this law, he could (as he could with any other crime)>
Kind of makes sense.
They 'can't' because it's STUPID.
WE license physicians because, as a society, we don't want people DYING because they were duped into using a non-approved physician. we do it to obtain some sort of level of awareness about skills, when LIVES are at stake.
Lawyers too. Engineers. All for the same reasons (lawyers may not protect your life physically, but they protect your freedom to do things)
We do not license McDonald's workers, farm workers, or grass cutters. I do not see any need to license 'network administrators'. Why should we?
Yes.. laws against 'hacking' should be made. Penalties for 'computer tresspassing' are all it should amount to.
As for exploits being published? As a seriuos sysadmin, I *DEMAND* access to this information, as I've always had.
Now.. if they want to make these things *potentially* illegal, you know, like how a crowbar can be a 'break & enter device' if you are caught breaking and entering with it.. that may be acceptable. But mere posession of information? Good luck.
I'd just say 'jesus freak! go away'...
but I have to admit... that one always bugged me.
It's becomign *SO* true of the digital age what with signed keys and all... eventualy, transactions of money will not be allowed without someone elses permission.