7 - sue them for false arrest and defamation of character.
I'm no lawyer, but I cannot for a second imagine you winning a lawsuit for defamation of character in which an alarm goes off and the police are called.
By the way, IIRC, while the store cannot search you, they do have the "Shopkeeper's Right" to detain you if they suspect shoplifting, provided (obviously) that they promptly notify the police. The "problem" is that the risk of wrongly detaining you becomes a huge legal liability for them, so no one with a clue would detain you unless they were absolutely sure they were right.
Granted, your variable usage suggests that my (admittedly lacking) knowledge of the US legal system might not even apply to you.
I know the generally-accepted rule is that, in public, you can take photos of people. (Of course, "homeland security" trumps this right. The commercial use of photos is also generally not permitted: I can't take a picture of someone and use them in advertising.)
In most cases, if you're in public, you can't complain that I took a picture of you without permission. Why isn't audio the same? Or is it?
I can understand a private institution making its own rules that one must abide by, but what's the general law? Can I record you while you and I are walking down the street?
I go to a school that provides laptops as part of the tuition.
I'm not sure if it's an actual law or just college policy, but they've been very clear in informing us that, before recording a class, we must obtain explicit permission from the professor.
Of course, I don't know anyone who routinely records classes.
So showing the court a picture of their security camera will get you off the hook?
What these people were doing might call attention to the issue, but I think they went too far. People aren't going to read this and think, "I never thought that I was being watched everywhere I went." They're going to point and laugh, thinking, "These guys are nuts! Taking stealth picture of cameras?"
But 9 years in prison for it? You could easily spend less time than that for a violent felony.
And if, as might be the case, the sentence was due not to sending mail, but due to using open relays / forging headers... We already have laws against fraud and the like.
I despise spammers, but this guy's going to spend 3,287 days behind bars. For annoying people.
"I'm grading this as hype until I see some independent support."
How is that different from saying, "I won't believe it until I become a victim?" This isn't a wild claim, it's a vulnerability that just isn't being enough for this guy to call it a serious problem.
Is it not a problem if there are no exploits (yet), but the vulernability is still there?
He sent the results to his sysadmin, with a note asking the sysadmin to implement crack system-wide, and was promptly reprimanded.
If you were cracking passwords on my box, I'd reprimand you too.
Kind of like saying, "I dropped by your house yesterday, and you left your back door unlocked!" You think you're helping me to secure my house, I think you're a creep who broke into my house.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be pointing out security holes. Just that, if you're on my box, don't go probing for holes.
Out of curiousity, do you have any idea how they got your information? If they stole one of your cards, it could have been anywhere you used it. But they had two of your cards.
(This is discussed a bit on his first post about it, but my question isn't answered.)
I'm surprised at just how perfectly this all worked out.
They happened to remember who picked up the order, based on the number? Perhaps the time (6AM), or what they ordered, was somewhat distinct, so I can see it. This is incredibly lucky.
The people at the hotel seemed abnormally helpful as well; I really wouldn't have been that surprised if they said, "Nope, don't know," and went about their business. Instead, they called employees at home. He just happened to get someone who knew exactly who they were, and their room number. They just happened to have used something with a traceable billing address.
Just as they were identified, they happened to come down.
Having your credit card stolen is unlucky, but if it ever happens to me, I hope I'm as lucky as this guy!
Our favorite music is owned and operated by an industry who cares more about money than music.
Isn't that pretty much the definition of a business? If the industry cared about making good music, but didn't care about making money, they wouldn't last long.
Not that I support the RIAA. But I think the primary focus of any business is making money.
I used to hate Macs; pre-OSX I was convinced they were complete garbage. My next computer will probably be a Mac. I do own an iPod, but it wasn't the iPod that convinced me to switch; it was seeing that OS X is based on UNIX, and that it looks incredibly spiffy, and that it's stable, and....
Have you ever been face-to-face with their 30" Cinema? It's the most amazing thing I've ever seen.
People rarely look much like their photo. The lighting's different. You shaved. You changed your hair. You went tanning. You've got a hat or whatnot on. You started wearing glasses.
It's better than nothing, definitely. Someone of a completely different build / gender / ethnicity couldn't steal your card. But you'll run into the same thing with signatures: if I steal your card, and look kind of like you, it'll probably be accepted.
From looking at the sample text from the two sites (the page, and Google's cache of it), it looks like they're pretty clearly doing what's alleged.
What I don't understand is why they're doing it that way. Have there not been a few cases before where Google admitted the ability to manually boost the rank of sites? (Unfortuantely, specific details are escaping me at the moment... But I swear this has been covered here.)
Why doesn't Google simply make itself the first match? This just seems like a convoluted, Rube Goldberg hack: have Google's webpage return something different if Google views it, so that Google will rank Google's page more highly.
The sad thing is... No. I read this and looked it over a few times. I thought you were making a point that it parallel kernel releases or something.
The thing is that, as a versioning system, it's perfectly legitimate.
Only as an ordinary number is there a problem, such as on that chart. (0.2 after 2.8 should be 3.0, not 2.10 -- that's 2.1, which is halfway between 2.0 and 2.2)
Slashdot Mirror
7 - sue them for false arrest and defamation of character.
I'm no lawyer, but I cannot for a second imagine you winning a lawsuit for defamation of character in which an alarm goes off and the police are called.
By the way, IIRC, while the store cannot search you, they do have the "Shopkeeper's Right" to detain you if they suspect shoplifting, provided (obviously) that they promptly notify the police. The "problem" is that the risk of wrongly detaining you becomes a huge legal liability for them, so no one with a clue would detain you unless they were absolutely sure they were right.
Granted, your variable usage suggests that my (admittedly lacking) knowledge of the US legal system might not even apply to you.
I know the generally-accepted rule is that, in public, you can take photos of people. (Of course, "homeland security" trumps this right. The commercial use of photos is also generally not permitted: I can't take a picture of someone and use them in advertising.)
In most cases, if you're in public, you can't complain that I took a picture of you without permission. Why isn't audio the same? Or is it?
I can understand a private institution making its own rules that one must abide by, but what's the general law? Can I record you while you and I are walking down the street?
I go to a school that provides laptops as part of the tuition.
I'm not sure if it's an actual law or just college policy, but they've been very clear in informing us that, before recording a class, we must obtain explicit permission from the professor.
Of course, I don't know anyone who routinely records classes.
Funny, for $40,000 a year, I don't!
So showing the court a picture of their security camera will get you off the hook?
What these people were doing might call attention to the issue, but I think they went too far. People aren't going to read this and think, "I never thought that I was being watched everywhere I went." They're going to point and laugh, thinking, "These guys are nuts! Taking stealth picture of cameras?"
Now you have to approach each one with, "is this the real deal, or some bs-generated thing?"
Well, had it not been for congestion control, the evaluation of papers might never have occurred.
It appears to have 4 GigE ports as well.
Frankly, 4 GigE ports, router functionality (100 Mbps uplink, though?), wireless, and a web interface for $120 doesn't sound that bad.
Oh, and blue LEDs.
if used with cell phones it could give the user a little more privacy, and the rest of us a little more peace and quiet."
But you'd look like a lunatic walking around moving your mouth but not talking?
I hate spam. It's really abnoxious.
But 9 years in prison for it? You could easily spend less time than that for a violent felony.
And if, as might be the case, the sentence was due not to sending mail, but due to using open relays / forging headers... We already have laws against fraud and the like.
I despise spammers, but this guy's going to spend 3,287 days behind bars. For annoying people.
While I don't think I'm in the clear because of this, I feel better protected from the (unwashed ;)) internet.
I did the same for a while. However, I was always under the impression that it was bad practice to query the root servers directly.
My few dozen DNS lookups a day probably had a negligable effect, but tens thousands of people like me could be problematic.
Is this, in fact, regarded as poor practice, or is it considered acceptable to query the root servers directly?
"I'm grading this as hype until I see some independent support."
How is that different from saying, "I won't believe it until I become a victim?" This isn't a wild claim, it's a vulnerability that just isn't being enough for this guy to call it a serious problem.
Is it not a problem if there are no exploits (yet), but the vulernability is still there?
Don't click that link! I clicked it and got a really nasty porn site.
April Fools is over, guys. Let's stop with these fake stories.
When does an April Fools joke become libel? I can't see Encyclopedia Britannica seeing the humor in this one.
He sent the results to his sysadmin, with a note asking the sysadmin to implement crack system-wide, and was promptly reprimanded.
If you were cracking passwords on my box, I'd reprimand you too.
Kind of like saying, "I dropped by your house yesterday, and you left your back door unlocked!" You think you're helping me to secure my house, I think you're a creep who broke into my house.
I'm not saying people shouldn't be pointing out security holes. Just that, if you're on my box, don't go probing for holes.
Out of curiousity, do you have any idea how they got your information? If they stole one of your cards, it could have been anywhere you used it. But they had two of your cards.
(This is discussed a bit on his first post about it, but my question isn't answered.)
I'm surprised at just how perfectly this all worked out.
They happened to remember who picked up the order, based on the number? Perhaps the time (6AM), or what they ordered, was somewhat distinct, so I can see it. This is incredibly lucky.
The people at the hotel seemed abnormally helpful as well; I really wouldn't have been that surprised if they said, "Nope, don't know," and went about their business. Instead, they called employees at home. He just happened to get someone who knew exactly who they were, and their room number. They just happened to have used something with a traceable billing address.
Just as they were identified, they happened to come down.
Having your credit card stolen is unlucky, but if it ever happens to me, I hope I'm as lucky as this guy!
Our favorite music is owned and operated by an industry who cares more about money than music.
Isn't that pretty much the definition of a business? If the industry cared about making good music, but didn't care about making money, they wouldn't last long.
Not that I support the RIAA. But I think the primary focus of any business is making money.
I used to hate Macs; pre-OSX I was convinced they were complete garbage. My next computer will probably be a Mac. I do own an iPod, but it wasn't the iPod that convinced me to switch; it was seeing that OS X is based on UNIX, and that it looks incredibly spiffy, and that it's stable, and....
Have you ever been face-to-face with their 30" Cinema? It's the most amazing thing I've ever seen.
People rarely look much like their photo. The lighting's different. You shaved. You changed your hair. You went tanning. You've got a hat or whatnot on. You started wearing glasses.
It's better than nothing, definitely. Someone of a completely different build / gender / ethnicity couldn't steal your card. But you'll run into the same thing with signatures: if I steal your card, and look kind of like you, it'll probably be accepted.
...a source who instructed the network on viral advertising told Wired News."
Did anyone read this and think that this story itself was "viral advertising" for "the source who instructed the network"?
From looking at the sample text from the two sites (the page, and Google's cache of it), it looks like they're pretty clearly doing what's alleged.
What I don't understand is why they're doing it that way. Have there not been a few cases before where Google admitted the ability to manually boost the rank of sites? (Unfortuantely, specific details are escaping me at the moment... But I swear this has been covered here.)
Why doesn't Google simply make itself the first match? This just seems like a convoluted, Rube Goldberg hack: have Google's webpage return something different if Google views it, so that Google will rank Google's page more highly.
Yeah, but they run Linux.
The gnome.org site is apparently having a devil of a time keeping up with the bandwidth.
Give the CoralCache a try. Nice and speedy for me.
The sad thing is... No. I read this and looked it over a few times. I thought you were making a point that it parallel kernel releases or something.
The thing is that, as a versioning system, it's perfectly legitimate.
Only as an ordinary number is there a problem, such as on that chart. (0.2 after 2.8 should be 3.0, not 2.10 -- that's 2.1, which is halfway between 2.0 and 2.2)