He rolled th dice and they came up badly for the guy. People are in jail for things I wouldn't agree are fair lengths of time. This guy did more than just post boob pics, he harassed by phone, broke interstate wiretap, and was made an an example of. He'll get out sooner, if he survives prison, no guarantee of that. But, if you don't want to be one of those people in jail crying, "I shouldn't be here!" then don't break laws. No sympathy for this guy here.
Or, maybe things like the "quality of life" are actually not as important as we think they are.
That would depend on what your definition of 'quality of life' is. For some it's having material possessions. Others, helping fellow humans or animals. Might mean discovering the unknown for some. Or to be happy. Some take a lifelong pursuit of the divine. Whatever floats your boat.
People then thought that what they wrote on especially expensive, meant to last a very long time material was very, very important information. They took great strides to ensure those writings would be preserved for future mankind. Now that's us who can benefit from whatever can be discerned from it. Perhaps taking a smug, dismissive attitude that today we know far more than they knew then might turn out to be very short sighted on our part. Why not wait until their meaning is fully known and understood before taking such a superior stance?
For something this minor, one year would've been sufficient. Maybe also slap him with some fines and community service and what have you to really drive the point home that people's privacy, celebrity or not, shouldn't be violated like this.
10 years is just going to turn the "hacker" into a hardened criminal by the time he finally gets out.
Also, who thinks he only got this harsh of a sentence because the victims were celebrities? *raises hand*
Why does the IRS go after celebrities? It is higher recognition, more people will hear about it, more people will know they will be harshly punished if they cheat on their taxes. Overkill for this hacker? May be he got made into an example to others.
the verge: "You agree that a business may pay Instagram to display your photos in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions without any compensation to you."
That sentence was added to Instagram's terms of service yesterday, sparking widespread outrage —the most panicked analysis claims Instagram just gave itself permission to sell everyone's photos at will. Even the least icky hypothetical scenarios being tossed around are completely icky: your parents leave a comment on a photo of your kid, and five minutes later, they're looking at an ad for a new life insurance policy featuring that same intimate photo of their grandchild. Is this really the future of Instagram? Well, in a way. But it's a lot more like Facebook's current "sponsored post" system than anything else —there's no way Instagram can up and sell your photos to anyone, and advertisers are fairly limited in what they can do with those photos. Here's what's going on. "There's no way Instagram can sell your photos to anyone" Instagram's new terms of service, which go into effect on January 16th, clearly state that your photographs and associated information (like location data) can be promoted by companies without anyone notifying you about the transaction. It's not even hidden in legalese —it's right there in black and white:
"To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/ or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you." http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean
'it is not our intention to sell your photos' is not the same as "We won't ever sell your photos". History make a note before this is erased from yourself.
In no way does this mean we won't change our minds tomorrow. Suckers!
Yeah, but this guy did more than even a 'harmless' hack. They got him on wiretap laws, personally calling and harassing the victims... A simple harmless hack wouldn't get you that much time. Not right now, but laws may get changed in the future, and that might make a harmless hack that invades someones expectation of privacy into a felony, if it isn't one now (IANAL).
If you can break into my car and make exact copies of the stuff inside without depriving me of those things, and then put the window back exactly as you found it - have at it.
Thanks, where do you park?
I would still be committing the crime of b&e, breaking and entering, for which you would have the legal right to prosecute me for. First I'd need to obtain a notarized statement from you saying you allow me to do these things. Without that statement from you, it'd still be illegal.
And the pics and videos of you and your wife/girlfriend in various stages of undress (performing certain acts) that I copied from your car and posted them on the internet, that's okay with you too, right? Just asking.
Except that the gov't could confiscate the photos out of your gmail box without a warrant.... so the parallel only seems to apply when it involves some poor schmuck embarrassing wealthy beautiful people.
And that wouldn't be 'fair', would it. Lemme' clue you into a little factoid, life 'aint fair and neither is there always equity in the justice system. There are lots of guys doing time in prison saying, "But it's not fair! that I got a longer sentence. My crime wasn't as bad!" And you know what, he's still gotta complete his sentence living every day in fear for his life and well being until the day he gets released. Cameron Douglas is doing 9 and a half years on drug charges, and he's the son of one of the most famous actors in the world, and he just got seriously injured from a jailhouse hit. The lesson is, know the law, then don't be an asshole that breaks that law, whether you agree with that law or not. Or take your chances, spin that wheel and hope you won't get caught. It's your life, not mine your gambling with. What you think is right and what's reality in present day life aren't the same. Be smart or be in jail,(or worse).
Then I should have the right to break into your car and take what I want, because I know how to work a rock that can break your window. Hacking is criminal for a reason, and the courts are catching up to proper sentences for tech crimes. This is a high profile case, which will usually get a longer sentence to discourage others. Hey, IMO murder should be life w/o parole every time, but some get out after a couple years. Justice isn't always equal. And this sentence is meant to 'send a message' to any future hackers to not do the crime if you can't do the time. Ask Michael Douglas's son how much fun jail is...
"Michael Douglas' son had his leg and finger broke in prison, according to the Huffington Post. Cameron Douglas is serving a nine-and-a-half year prison sentence on drug charges. The 34-year-old is recovering from his injuries after a New York crime boss reportedly put a $100 bounty on his head. According to the New York Post, getting beat up is payback for Douglas being a "rat," a title he may have earned after his psychiatrist accidentally revealed Cameron once testified against his drug suppliers. Nice one, doc. "He broke his femur, which is hard to snap, and had to have a rod inserted," an anonymous source told the Post. "He told health services staff that he hurt them playing handball. You don't break a femur playing handball." Maybe if you're playing with a cannon ball." http://www.mercurynews.com/entertainment/ci_22215182/hicks-michael-douglas-son-allegedly-beat-up-prison
PcMag report: Samsung, maker of the uber popular Galaxy S III smartphone, has overtaken Nokia for the first time in 14 years to become the top phone maker of 2012, according to new data from IHS iSuppli. Samsung is expected to account for 29 percent of worldwide cell phone shipments, up from 21 percent in 2011, when it nabbed the No. 2 spot in the market. Meanwhile, Nokia's share this year will drop from 30 percent to 24 percent this year. Nokia had held the top spot in the mobile phone market since 1998.
Thanks to its winning strategy, Samsung is projected to again take the No. 1 spot in the smartphone market this year, after beating out Apple by just one percentage point of market share in 2011, according to IHS iSuppli. This year, Samsung will widen its lead, accounting for 28 percent of global smartphone shipments, compared to Apple's 20 percent. "Samsung made significant gains in both the high end as well as the low-cost market with its Galaxy line of smartphones," IHS iSuppli said. "This diversified market approach has allowed Samsung to address a larger target audience for its phones than Apple's limited premium iPhone line." http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413347,00.asp
I'm not quite clear why anyone thinks that putting things online in any capacity is safe from prying eyes, particularly if they're a celebrity. I don't defend the actions of these "hackers" (pfft), but the photo owners should be smart enough to take some precautions or find someone that can help them do it.
People who aren't tech-savvy shouldn't get damaged because of it. Would you want your grandmother to have her social security money to get stolen from her, then tell her she deserves what she got? "Shoulda' been bhind a firewall Gramma! That'll learn you!" Sheesh!
Further proof celebs are fucking dumb. This guy wasn't a "real hacker".
Well, he'll be going to a real prison with real criminals -- Slashdot's whinging about what is a hacker, a cracker, or a script kiddie is irrelevant.
He's hardly a criminal mastermind, but what he did was still illegal.
As illegal as breaking and entering into someone's home and stealing photos from a bedroom safe. Good to hear that the court system sees hacking for the serious crime it really is. Someone with a talent for computing shouldn't be given free license to break into someone elses devices and steal, and then provide some lame 'War Games' "it was just some innocent hacking" defense. 10 years will give him time to wonder if maybe he shouldn't play like some kind of untouchable omnipotent God at a keyboard. I look forward to hearing of more tough sentences in the future.
The Pink in Pink Floyd Syd Barrett, of English progressive rock band Pink Floyd, came up with the band's name by juxtaposing the first names of Anderson and North Carolina bluesman, Floyd Council. [3] Barrett noticed the names in the liner notes of a 1962 Blind Boy Fuller album (Philips BBL-7512). The text, written by Paul Oliver, read: "Curley Weaver and Fred McMullen, (...) Pink Anderson or Floyd Council -these were a few amongst the many blues singers that were to be heard in the rolling hills of the Piedmont, or meandering with the streams through the wooded valleys."
from the PCMag link above: "Among the considerations, "the Court further found that though there was some evidence of loss of market share, Apple had not established that Samsung's infringement of Apple's design patents caused that loss," Judge Koh said. On the damages front, Apple argued that $1.05 billion alone was not enough, but Judge Koh was not convinced. "Apple's licensing activity makes clear that these patents and trade dresses are not priceless, and there is no suggestion that Samsung will be unable to pay the monetary judgment against it," she wrote. "Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor favors Samsung." http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413334,00.asp
You are correct. From the NY Times linked article: "In my article last week about the impending demise of Ebb and Flow, I noted, "Unfortunately, since the action will happen on the dark side of the Moon, there will be nothing for earthlings to see." About a gazillion people, including Robert Kirshner, a Harvard astronomy professor, wrote in to ask, "Didn't you mean to write 'far side' and not 'dark side'?" The more annoyed wrote: "Dark Side of the Moon??? Come on now. You know that is not correct! You completely blew a potential teaching moment, to educate the public that the **FAR** side of the Moon is **NOT** dark! Instead you perpetuated yet another scientific misconception. No wonder we are facing a crisis in science literacy in the U.S. The New York Times can and should do better!" Except I really meant, "dark side" -the side of the Moon facing away from the Sun. What was confusing to many was a remembered tidbit about the Moon, that there is always one face towards Earth, and the other always out of view, and they presumed that the crashes will be on the far side and therefore blocked from view. If that were the case, "far side" would be correct.
A smaller number of readers wondered why the spacecraft will crash when the maneuvering fuel runs out. The Moon has no atmosphere and therefore there is no friction to slow them down. But the Moon's gravity is uneven and the orbit is not perfectly circular. Without periodic course adjustments, it will become more chaotic and elliptical, and the ellipse will intersect with the surface of the Moon -i.e., crash."
Ageeed, Instagram has succumbed to the social disease that is Facebook. Just never trust any app or cloud service with your personal files, be they your photos, docs, mp3s, text/rmails etc. If you forever lose them because you didn't back them up on multiple hard/flash drives you have noone to blame but yourself.
BTW, does Instagram give user's a cut of their profits???
Slashdot Mirror
He rolled th dice and they came up badly for the guy. People are in jail for things I wouldn't agree are fair lengths of time. This guy did more than just post boob pics, he harassed by phone, broke interstate wiretap, and was made an an example of. He'll get out sooner, if he survives prison, no guarantee of that. But, if you don't want to be one of those people in jail crying, "I shouldn't be here!" then don't break laws. No sympathy for this guy here.
These were made of a combination material including metal. Sealed in clay pots.
Or, maybe things like the "quality of life" are actually not as important as we think they are.
That would depend on what your definition of 'quality of life' is. For some it's having material possessions. Others, helping fellow humans or animals. Might mean discovering the unknown for some. Or to be happy. Some take a lifelong pursuit of the divine. Whatever floats your boat.
People then thought that what they wrote on especially expensive, meant to last a very long time material was very, very important information. They took great strides to ensure those writings would be preserved for future mankind. Now that's us who can benefit from whatever can be discerned from it. Perhaps taking a smug, dismissive attitude that today we know far more than they knew then might turn out to be very short sighted on our part. Why not wait until their meaning is fully known and understood before taking such a superior stance?
For something this minor, one year would've been sufficient. Maybe also slap him with some fines and community service and what have you to really drive the point home that people's privacy, celebrity or not, shouldn't be violated like this.
10 years is just going to turn the "hacker" into a hardened criminal by the time he finally gets out.
Also, who thinks he only got this harsh of a sentence because the victims were celebrities? *raises hand*
Why does the IRS go after celebrities? It is higher recognition, more people will hear about it, more people will know they will be harshly punished if they cheat on their taxes. Overkill for this hacker? May be he got made into an example to others.
That sentence was added to Instagram's terms of service yesterday, sparking widespread outrage —the most panicked analysis claims Instagram just gave itself permission to sell everyone's photos at will. Even the least icky hypothetical scenarios being tossed around are completely icky: your parents leave a comment on a photo of your kid, and five minutes later, they're looking at an ad for a new life insurance policy featuring that same intimate photo of their grandchild. Is this really the future of Instagram? Well, in a way. But it's a lot more like Facebook's current "sponsored post" system than anything else —there's no way Instagram can up and sell your photos to anyone, and advertisers are fairly limited in what they can do with those photos. Here's what's going on. "There's no way Instagram can sell your photos to anyone" Instagram's new terms of service, which go into effect on January 16th, clearly state that your photographs and associated information (like location data) can be promoted by companies without anyone notifying you about the transaction. It's not even hidden in legalese —it's right there in black and white:
"To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/ or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you." http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean
'it is not our intention to sell your photos' is not the same as "We won't ever sell your photos". History make a note before this is erased from yourself.
In no way does this mean we won't change our minds tomorrow. Suckers!
Yeah, but this guy did more than even a 'harmless' hack. They got him on wiretap laws, personally calling and harassing the victims... A simple harmless hack wouldn't get you that much time. Not right now, but laws may get changed in the future, and that might make a harmless hack that invades someones expectation of privacy into a felony, if it isn't one now (IANAL).
If you can break into my car and make exact copies of the stuff inside without depriving me of those things, and then put the window back exactly as you found it - have at it.
Thanks, where do you park?
I would still be committing the crime of b&e, breaking and entering, for which you would have the legal right to prosecute me for. First I'd need to obtain a notarized statement from you saying you allow me to do these things. Without that statement from you, it'd still be illegal.
And the pics and videos of you and your wife/girlfriend in various stages of undress (performing certain acts) that I copied from your car and posted them on the internet, that's okay with you too, right? Just asking.
The "fruity submitter's" wife would like me to inform you that, quote, "He's all the man I need." :-)
Except that the gov't could confiscate the photos out of your gmail box without a warrant. ... so the parallel only seems to apply when it involves some poor schmuck embarrassing wealthy beautiful people.
And that wouldn't be 'fair', would it. Lemme' clue you into a little factoid, life 'aint fair and neither is there always equity in the justice system. There are lots of guys doing time in prison saying, "But it's not fair! that I got a longer sentence. My crime wasn't as bad!" And you know what, he's still gotta complete his sentence living every day in fear for his life and well being until the day he gets released. Cameron Douglas is doing 9 and a half years on drug charges, and he's the son of one of the most famous actors in the world, and he just got seriously injured from a jailhouse hit. The lesson is, know the law, then don't be an asshole that breaks that law, whether you agree with that law or not. Or take your chances, spin that wheel and hope you won't get caught. It's your life, not mine your gambling with. What you think is right and what's reality in present day life aren't the same. Be smart or be in jail,(or worse).
Then I should have the right to break into your car and take what I want, because I know how to work a rock that can break your window. Hacking is criminal for a reason, and the courts are catching up to proper sentences for tech crimes. This is a high profile case, which will usually get a longer sentence to discourage others. Hey, IMO murder should be life w/o parole every time, but some get out after a couple years. Justice isn't always equal. And this sentence is meant to 'send a message' to any future hackers to not do the crime if you can't do the time. Ask Michael Douglas's son how much fun jail is...
"Michael Douglas' son had his leg and finger broke in prison, according to the Huffington Post. Cameron Douglas is serving a nine-and-a-half year prison sentence on drug charges. The 34-year-old is recovering from his injuries after a New York crime boss reportedly put a $100 bounty on his head. According to the New York Post, getting beat up is payback for Douglas being a "rat," a title he may have earned after his psychiatrist accidentally revealed Cameron once testified against his drug suppliers. Nice one, doc. "He broke his femur, which is hard to snap, and had to have a rod inserted," an anonymous source told the Post. "He told health services staff that he hurt them playing handball. You don't break a femur playing handball." Maybe if you're playing with a cannon ball." http://www.mercurynews.com/entertainment/ci_22215182/hicks-michael-douglas-son-allegedly-beat-up-prison
Thanks to its winning strategy, Samsung is projected to again take the No. 1 spot in the smartphone market this year, after beating out Apple by just one percentage point of market share in 2011, according to IHS iSuppli. This year, Samsung will widen its lead, accounting for 28 percent of global smartphone shipments, compared to Apple's 20 percent. "Samsung made significant gains in both the high end as well as the low-cost market with its Galaxy line of smartphones," IHS iSuppli said. "This diversified market approach has allowed Samsung to address a larger target audience for its phones than Apple's limited premium iPhone line." http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413347,00.asp
I'm not quite clear why anyone thinks that putting things online in any capacity is safe from prying eyes, particularly if they're a celebrity. I don't defend the actions of these "hackers" (pfft), but the photo owners should be smart enough to take some precautions or find someone that can help them do it.
People who aren't tech-savvy shouldn't get damaged because of it. Would you want your grandmother to have her social security money to get stolen from her, then tell her she deserves what she got? "Shoulda' been bhind a firewall Gramma! That'll learn you!" Sheesh!
Well, he'll be going to a real prison with real criminals -- Slashdot's whinging about what is a hacker, a cracker, or a script kiddie is irrelevant.
He's hardly a criminal mastermind, but what he did was still illegal.
As illegal as breaking and entering into someone's home and stealing photos from a bedroom safe. Good to hear that the court system sees hacking for the serious crime it really is. Someone with a talent for computing shouldn't be given free license to break into someone elses devices and steal, and then provide some lame 'War Games' "it was just some innocent hacking" defense. 10 years will give him time to wonder if maybe he shouldn't play like some kind of untouchable omnipotent God at a keyboard. I look forward to hearing of more tough sentences in the future.
Samsung is going to pull that billion right back out by raising prices on iDevice components for which they are currently the sole source.
'If' Samsung ever has to pay. We have years to go for the appeals process to wind down.
Naming it after Christa McAuliffe seemed a bit inappropriate.
Ooo-ooh! That was 'dark' side of the moon humour.
I've read that Nasa decided to crash them on 'the far side' so as not to risk contamination of the 'historic sites' from previous missions.
This one.
From your Wiki link:
The Pink in Pink Floyd Syd Barrett, of English progressive rock band Pink Floyd, came up with the band's name by juxtaposing the first names of Anderson and North Carolina bluesman, Floyd Council. [3] Barrett noticed the names in the liner notes of a 1962 Blind Boy Fuller album (Philips BBL-7512). The text, written by Paul Oliver, read: "Curley Weaver and Fred McMullen, (...) Pink Anderson or Floyd Council -these were a few amongst the many blues singers that were to be heard in the rolling hills of the Piedmont, or meandering with the streams through the wooded valleys."
from the PCMag link above: "Among the considerations, "the Court further found that though there was some evidence of loss of market share, Apple had not established that Samsung's infringement of Apple's design patents caused that loss," Judge Koh said. On the damages front, Apple argued that $1.05 billion alone was not enough, but Judge Koh was not convinced. "Apple's licensing activity makes clear that these patents and trade dresses are not priceless, and there is no suggestion that Samsung will be unable to pay the monetary judgment against it," she wrote. "Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor favors Samsung." http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413334,00.asp
Here you go, grouchy can't google it myself AC's... http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413334,00.asp
That's when I got a good feeling about her ability to remain fair and impartial.
...and "The Far Side" should not be confused with Gary Larson's retired comic strip. http://www.google.com/search?q=the+far+side+gallery+gary+larson&hl=en&safe=off&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=DojQUNrLEOe80QHsg4HoBQ&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=480&bih=295
A smaller number of readers wondered why the spacecraft will crash when the maneuvering fuel runs out. The Moon has no atmosphere and therefore there is no friction to slow them down. But the Moon's gravity is uneven and the orbit is not perfectly circular. Without periodic course adjustments, it will become more chaotic and elliptical, and the ellipse will intersect with the surface of the Moon -i.e., crash."
BTW, does Instagram give user's a cut of their profits???