Is see this as being ripe for abuse. The first time this goes live, someone is going to link a hashtag of something innocuous (like #wintercoat) to something expensive, and lots of people won't realize the mistake until they read their monthly bill and see a charge for $2000 on it. I can't imagine the system will last more than a day once people start complaining.
In this case, I imagine a seller creating a short hastag, ala bit.ly, that is used a pointer to the item itself. So the hashtag would be something like #q9iHH8, not the long string you just posted.
DHS doesn't enforce bribery laws so the answer would be no in this instance. However, they could seize the devices if they "suspected" they contained illegal material (eg, kiddie porn, pirated movies, etc.).
> Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.
What's unhealthy about homosexuality or BDSM? And why do you get to define what "healthy" and "unhealthy" are when it comes to sexual expression? Maybe I think your prudishness is more a threat to my children's well being than seeing a man have sex with another man, should I be able to censor your views?
My guess would be that anyone in his maternal line or born from either of his sisters have known gravesites. Since his was the only unknown one, a simple process of elimination would prove it's him.
Those are local emergencies, those are immediate emergencies. If you can't get the terminology for emergency events correct why should anyone take your advice on what is the ideal tool for reporting emergencies?
Then make your argument about guns being obtained legally, not whether the person who uses the gun is a legal gun owner. Those are slightly different things and is the source of the confusion and debate here.
You've obviously never filled out an ATF form. One of the questions is "do you sell drugs or use them" (or words to that effect). Lying on the form is a felony. So yes, if you're a drug dealer, irrespective of whether you've ever been imprisoned, you can't legally possess a firearm.
He could have gone through the "proper channels," and, since a middle manager somewhere would need to be embarrassed, he'd still be up shit creek without a paddle.
You clearly don't know how AT&T's internal policies work, then. My personal experience says, if you go through proper channels, they are very receptive to problem reporting.
He could have did what he did, publicly humiliated AT&T and made the 114,000 individuals affected acutely aware that AT&T had failed them.
See eldavojohn's link to a Wired article for why this isn't what his motivation was, at all. He wasn't looking out for those customers, he just wanted to embarrass AT&T.
OR, he could have done nothing.
That's not the final option; he could've kept those addresses to himself and sold them, and any other personally-identifying information, to others, which is exactly what his IRC conversations suggest he was going to do before sending them to Gawker.
This guy is definitely no Aaron Swartz and does not deserve our sympathy, at all.
You think that because rights can be, and are, infringed by others, then those rights must come from others. I disagree; rights predate a government, we form governments to protect those rights. And governments that fail to do so should be abolished.
You're also ignoring the point that rights still need to be safeguarded and protected, even though they predate the government.
This will be my last post in this thread so let me make it abundantly clear: rights cannot be taken away, even if your ability to exercise those rights can be. And when someone tries to take away your freedom to exercise your rights, you have to stand up and possibly use violence to protect them. But that doesn't mean they're mere privileges that come from a group. Thinking that way means you have no inherent right to have those rights and they should be subject to the whims of some group or other. That's fascist, and I will never agree with that line of thinking. I strongly suspect you hold this line of thinking due to some misunderstanding of the terms being used, and sincerely hope you will educate yourself on the nature of natural rights by reading Locke, Jefferson, and Thoreau. That would at least be a start.
That's pretty damning even if only a portion of it is true. Talking about doing this for financial gain via shorting? Selling the list to others for a profit for phishing? These guys don't have an ethical bone among them, and Auernheimer's protestations of innocence and being picked on just make him sound like a sociopath now.
Grabbing 114,000 bits of personally-identifying information and publishing it through Gawker is malicious. He could've just grabbed a handful and contacted AT&T to say "Hey, you've got a bug". That would've been responsible and ethical, and it's not what he did.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think he belongs in Federal prison, this should've been a civil matter resulting a relatively small loss of income for a few years. But he's not a perfect innocent. Randall Schwatz is a much example of that, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
Is see this as being ripe for abuse. The first time this goes live, someone is going to link a hashtag of something innocuous (like #wintercoat) to something expensive, and lots of people won't realize the mistake until they read their monthly bill and see a charge for $2000 on it. I can't imagine the system will last more than a day once people start complaining.
In this case, I imagine a seller creating a short hastag, ala bit.ly, that is used a pointer to the item itself. So the hashtag would be something like #q9iHH8, not the long string you just posted.
It's not slashdot.co.us it is? The .com TLD is international.
.co.us is for the government of the State of Colorado, dumb ass. And go read the FAQ.
If this were slashdot.cn your observation would have merit. But it's not, so it doesn't.
In that case, yeah, that would be a huge help. It would slow down getting into your account, of course, but I think the trade off would be worth it.
DHS doesn't enforce bribery laws so the answer would be no in this instance. However, they could seize the devices if they "suspected" they contained illegal material (eg, kiddie porn, pirated movies, etc.).
So now your bank information is only as secure as your text or email account? No thanks, that's a tragedy waiting to happen.
> Some of us want our kids to grow up in a world where only healthy behaviors exist.
What's unhealthy about homosexuality or BDSM? And why do you get to define what "healthy" and "unhealthy" are when it comes to sexual expression? Maybe I think your prudishness is more a threat to my children's well being than seeing a man have sex with another man, should I be able to censor your views?
What kind of luddite asks for something like this in the first place?
Same here, which is why I think it's a horrible idea for the government to do this.
I've been queued for years waiting for that.
My guess would be that anyone in his maternal line or born from either of his sisters have known gravesites. Since his was the only unknown one, a simple process of elimination would prove it's him.
This is merely postulating, but seems reasonable.
^are local^aren't local^
Those are local emergencies, those are immediate emergencies. If you can't get the terminology for emergency events correct why should anyone take your advice on what is the ideal tool for reporting emergencies?
In a local emergency, our cell phones have a better chance of working than the land line
That is patently false. Landlines have been proven to be far more resilient to local emergencies than cell phones dozens of times.
Why would Amazon partner with BlackBerry when they already have their own phone coming to market.
Then make your argument about guns being obtained legally, not whether the person who uses the gun is a legal gun owner. Those are slightly different things and is the source of the confusion and debate here.
> So what if you bought the guns before you did that?
That's an idiotic question. If you haven't broken a crime yet there's no way you can lie about not having done so.
You've obviously never filled out an ATF form. One of the questions is "do you sell drugs or use them" (or words to that effect). Lying on the form is a felony. So yes, if you're a drug dealer, irrespective of whether you've ever been imprisoned, you can't legally possess a firearm.
Funny, the Battle of Athens happened after April 9, 1865, so clearly the ammo box was an effective tool against tyranny long after that date.
He could have gone through the "proper channels," and, since a middle manager somewhere would need to be embarrassed, he'd still be up shit creek without a paddle.
You clearly don't know how AT&T's internal policies work, then. My personal experience says, if you go through proper channels, they are very receptive to problem reporting.
He could have did what he did, publicly humiliated AT&T and made the 114,000 individuals affected acutely aware that AT&T had failed them.
See eldavojohn's link to a Wired article for why this isn't what his motivation was, at all. He wasn't looking out for those customers, he just wanted to embarrass AT&T.
OR, he could have done nothing.
That's not the final option; he could've kept those addresses to himself and sold them, and any other personally-identifying information, to others, which is exactly what his IRC conversations suggest he was going to do before sending them to Gawker.
This guy is definitely no Aaron Swartz and does not deserve our sympathy, at all.
You think that because rights can be, and are, infringed by others, then those rights must come from others. I disagree; rights predate a government, we form governments to protect those rights. And governments that fail to do so should be abolished.
You're also ignoring the point that rights still need to be safeguarded and protected, even though they predate the government.
This will be my last post in this thread so let me make it abundantly clear: rights cannot be taken away, even if your ability to exercise those rights can be. And when someone tries to take away your freedom to exercise your rights, you have to stand up and possibly use violence to protect them. But that doesn't mean they're mere privileges that come from a group. Thinking that way means you have no inherent right to have those rights and they should be subject to the whims of some group or other. That's fascist, and I will never agree with that line of thinking. I strongly suspect you hold this line of thinking due to some misunderstanding of the terms being used, and sincerely hope you will educate yourself on the nature of natural rights by reading Locke, Jefferson, and Thoreau. That would at least be a start.
That's pretty damning even if only a portion of it is true. Talking about doing this for financial gain via shorting? Selling the list to others for a profit for phishing? These guys don't have an ethical bone among them, and Auernheimer's protestations of innocence and being picked on just make him sound like a sociopath now.
Grabbing 114,000 bits of personally-identifying information and publishing it through Gawker is malicious. He could've just grabbed a handful and contacted AT&T to say "Hey, you've got a bug". That would've been responsible and ethical, and it's not what he did.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think he belongs in Federal prison, this should've been a civil matter resulting a relatively small loss of income for a few years. But he's not a perfect innocent. Randall Schwatz is a much example of that, IMO.
Just another good reason to get a transfer to the Netherlands!