The crux of the matter is the fact that Weev knew the information was confidential but published it anyway.
What he "knew" shouldn't be relevant. What should be relevant is whether he had a contractual obligation to keep the data private or confidential.
There is a big difference between finding something on a sidewalk and brute forcing millions of ID possibilities at a server
There won't be when people like you are done.
and is not trying to hide behind legitimate security researchers. He could have done it the right way but he decided he wanted the publicity and did it the wrong way.
That kind of reasoning, too, ends up with licensing requirements and restrictions on professions that should have none of that.
Weev seems to have been a jerk, but he isn't the problem; people like you are: people who are trying to protect the people who are responsible for exposing this kind of data in the first place.
A necessary condition for a computer crime should be the evasion of some access control. Identifiers are not an access control measure. The principle you espouse, namely that people have an obligation to keep confidential information of third parties confidential, is a bad one. If we adopted that, everybody constantly would have to second guess whether some piece of information might be confidential or not.
A white hat would notify the company. A black hat would publish the information. Weev did the latter and is therefore a black hat.
And in doing so, white hats are aiding the continued privacy abuses of AT&T. As I was saying: in the absence of effective legal remedies, it's only embarrassing disclosures and scandals that might cause companies like AT&T to change their ways. Your white hats are about as moral as Saruman.
How's the US textile manufacturing business doing these days? US TV's and other electronics?
No better than buggy whip manfuacturers. What's your point? US manufacturing is still doing better than ever before, and it's making higher value products, while third world nations make the cheap stuff.
I wouldn't. Why would I? $1b is enough to spend the rest of my life on the lap of luxury, while having plenty of resources leftover to spend in any cause I considered worthwhile, be it charity
I.e., you would behave like the people you call "the elites". They aren't "cheating", they are fully convinced that they are benefiting humanity, whether it's Gates, the Koch brothers, Soros, or George Lucas.
Cheating when you're winning is the domain of people with severe psychological problems, not Joe Average. It is also extremely irrational.
As I was saying: you need to take off your tinfoil hat. The world isn't full of elites that are out to get you, the world is full of rich, dumb Joe Averages who use their billions to try to help people and screwing up.
If you ever get a billion dollars, do us all a favor and don't spend it on charity or trying to help people; instead, invest it and found more companies.
Then the answer would be to make all third party/less-than-FT employment, including staffing agencies, a conscious choice that has to compete with a direct-hire default - for any skill level.
Employers will simply want to outsource all this crap because implementing it is costly, risky, and complicated. I don't understand what you mean by "the answer"; there is no answer to that.
That, and you also seem to be interested in illegals enough to not want to verify employment.
I think the US should do what most other civilized countries do: citizens and residents get secure physical ID cards. These physical ID cards can and should be used for verifying elegibility for employment, voting, banking, and benefits on the spot. If you don't have one or your status doesn't authorize your for something, you shouldn't be able to do it. There does not need to be a centralized database or electronic verification.
I don't think he had any obligation to notify them. Computer crime should require circumvention of at least some access control. If a company puts private data on the Internet without access control, the company should be fully liable for all consequences of their actions.
The term refers (here) to high prices charged by a coercive monopoly. Book publishers and "independent" book stores were, for many years, coercive monopolies.
they were charging what they thought the market could bear, and if people bought them at that price, they were right. That's how you run a business
And a free market also requires that buyers try make rational decisions. Part of a rational buying decision is not just whether price and utility match up in the right way, but also whether the seller is charging you more than he would in a competitive market. If they do, it's rational for you not to buy until the market becomes more competitive.
That's why pointing out that independent book stores were "price gouging" (i.e., coercive monopolies) is a relevant and important piece of information for buyers and voters, in particular if those voters might be foolish enough to attempt to perpetuate these coercive monopolies through government regulation.
It isn't the "progressives" that mandated e-verify, that was all conservatives trying to keep the brown people from working and voting.
Immigration reform bill has been pushed by a bipartisan group. And Democrats are just as hostile towards immigration as Republicans. And conservatives aren't concerned so much with working and voting (everybody likes cheap nannies and fruit pickers), they are concerned with all these people getting government benefits that they never paid for, and they do.
The real disconnect on e-verify is that it isn't needed at all: we don't need a big, centralized database of who is authorized to work, simple hardcopy proof of citizenship or work permit would suffice for establishing the right to work to an employer. And hardcopy proof of citizenship should also be enough, and required, for government services and voting, because people who aren't citizens shouldn't receive either, "brown" or not.
And if the progressives had their way and there with universal health care (instead of the republican RomneyCare plan) then the hiring and firing employees would be that much simpler; a whole category of paperwork and costs... gone.
True, but the even higher taxes that would result from it would simply cause them to outsource overseas outright.
"Nah?" Where did I say that Republicans were different?
The elites don't want pure capitalism or pure socialism
Please take off your tinfoil hat and stop believing in conspiracy theories. This isn't about "them" or "the elites", this is simply people behaving rationally. If you got $1b in your account tomorrow, you'd be behaving exactly the same way, and you're no elite either.
There is no "decline in manufacturing"; manufacturing in the US is bigger than ever before, it's just that other sectors have grown even faster.
As for temp workers, what do you expect? The more difficult the government makes it to hire and fire workers and the more paperwork and cost is associated with hiring/firing, the more employers will simply hand off the risk of hiring to other companies. Obamacare and e-Verify will cause even more employers to rely on temp agencies.
Downloading so many addresses may well have been necessary to demonstrate the seriousness of the problem. He could have gotten a list of a few hundred examples simply by doing Google searches and crawls; it would have been meaningless.
Banks and their high-frequency trading is just trying to take a cut out of the market before anyone else gets a chance. Why should trading institutions have privileged access to the market to pad out their own bottom line and skim the money off before everyone else can?
Of course they shouldn't. But they have those privileges courtesy of government regulations, regulations which make it next to impossible for new competitors to enter the market and offer cheaper and better service. Financial regulations prevent some fraud, but it also perpetuates this system that rips off people on a massive scale.
Obama got a second term because he had a highly effective organizing and propaganda machine, and because he lied over and over again and told everybody what they wanted to hear.
These guys want some drooling idiot version of anarcho-capitalism where if the bank rips you off from your life savings that's your problem.
Instead, Obama and progressives want some drooling idiot version of a "social market economy", which in practice means ineffective regulation, the occasional sacrificial lamb for propaganda purposes, and complete protection of these cozy little fraudulent oligopolies from competition through onerous regulation.
I can't speak for Mitt, but what I want is to get rid of these bloated exchanges and replace them with cut-throat competitors. But that's not going to happen as long as people like Obama impose so much regulation that only his wealthy and well-connected donors can afford to offer financial services and financial regulators come down on any upstart competitor like a ton of bricks.
Recommendations for literature are that in Q11, students read Faust I, another play and a novella, and in Q12 they read two more 20th century novels. And then you fancy yourself an educated person who has no need ever to take another class in the humanities, ever.
In history, Q11 and Q12 gives up any pretense of teaching historical facts and deteriorates into simple indoctrination. http://www.isb-gym8-lehrplan.de/contentserv/3.1.neu/g8.de/index.php?StoryID=26818 As far as I can tell, actual US history is never taught in the Gymnasium, instead in Q12, teachers pick out a number of tidbits to justify the view that the US is an imperialist superpower in decline.
Well, it's been interesting to figure out where your kind of ignorance and prejudice comes from: it's simply a reflection of Germany's mediocre school system and curriculum.
6 - Why?
I wasn't sure you actually read at all; which ones?
0, I'm currently more interested in the 1930 area
So which literature of the 1930's do you recommend? Don't worry, I read German (in addition to a handful of other languages).
My grandfathers generation got punished rightfully for it's crimes in WW2
Ah, a German, I suspected as much. Still haven't worked through your issues with your past, have you?
More by education
If you studied science or engineering in Germany, you likely have taken no university-level courses at all in literature, history, arts, economics, political science, or social science. Germany has become a country of Fachidioten, like you yourself seem to be.
Tell me, how many non-fiction books on subjects in the humanities or social sciences have you read over the last 12 months? How many fiction books written before 1900?
Ah bigotry - and that from the land of the "free" and "religious stoneagers"...
Oh, do keep going, it's so amusing. Usually, the next accusation from people like you is over the Indians or slavery, and the exploitation of workers and US poverty, yadda yadda yadda. You just keep demonstrating your utter ignorance of both European and US politics and history.
Well the us-mask finally falls with each additional revelation on their behaviour. Good for the world.
Finally? What do you mean by "finally"? People like you have been railing against the US for two centuries and our supposed crimes for two centuries. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, the Pope... you're in "good" company.
By the way, open a European newspaper these days; you'll see that it is slowly coming out that European governments and politicians knew and participated in NSA spying, but that they wanted the NSA to cover their asses. But I forget: you don't actually read; you don't have to, you're European! You're cultured by heritage!
Books are less available in Europe when you are not rich?
Yes: average book prices are higher than in the US (and in some countries fixed by law), and incomes are considerably lower.
In Europe many people read - its not like the bleeding US where many cant even read...
In Europe... many people are apparently arrogant and ignorant pricks like you who think their bigotry amounts to facts and who fancy themselves educated on account of their nationality.
An avid reader pays hundreds or thousands of dollars a year in overhead for the "service" of having publishers pre-select, in a completely non-personal way, books for them. For that kind of money, you can hire a personal book consultant and shopping assistant.
and the stupid will still bemoan the unfairness and cost of it.
That's 1000 adults and probably not even a representative sample. Nearly 1/3 of those polled are undecided. The poll really shows that Americans haven't made up their mind yet.
Amazon was losing money for many years in the beginning, and isn't all that profitable today. If Amazon can achieve market dominance against established stores, clearly there must be many more players in the market who can do the same thing to Amazon. Furthermore, for online or digital distribution of books, it doesn't take much to compete with Amazon.
Right now, we just have two generations of price gouging, monopolistic business models (independent bookstores and megastores) having their lunch eaten by a cheap and convenient online store. If, in the future, there is a real, demonstrable problem, then we can go about fixing it, but certainly not by giving the business back to people who have been screwing us for years.
Slashdot Mirror
What he "knew" shouldn't be relevant. What should be relevant is whether he had a contractual obligation to keep the data private or confidential.
There won't be when people like you are done.
That kind of reasoning, too, ends up with licensing requirements and restrictions on professions that should have none of that.
Weev seems to have been a jerk, but he isn't the problem; people like you are: people who are trying to protect the people who are responsible for exposing this kind of data in the first place.
A necessary condition for a computer crime should be the evasion of some access control. Identifiers are not an access control measure. The principle you espouse, namely that people have an obligation to keep confidential information of third parties confidential, is a bad one. If we adopted that, everybody constantly would have to second guess whether some piece of information might be confidential or not.
And in doing so, white hats are aiding the continued privacy abuses of AT&T. As I was saying: in the absence of effective legal remedies, it's only embarrassing disclosures and scandals that might cause companies like AT&T to change their ways. Your white hats are about as moral as Saruman.
No better than buggy whip manfuacturers. What's your point? US manufacturing is still doing better than ever before, and it's making higher value products, while third world nations make the cheap stuff.
I.e., you would behave like the people you call "the elites". They aren't "cheating", they are fully convinced that they are benefiting humanity, whether it's Gates, the Koch brothers, Soros, or George Lucas.
As I was saying: you need to take off your tinfoil hat. The world isn't full of elites that are out to get you, the world is full of rich, dumb Joe Averages who use their billions to try to help people and screwing up.
If you ever get a billion dollars, do us all a favor and don't spend it on charity or trying to help people; instead, invest it and found more companies.
Employers will simply want to outsource all this crap because implementing it is costly, risky, and complicated. I don't understand what you mean by "the answer"; there is no answer to that.
I think the US should do what most other civilized countries do: citizens and residents get secure physical ID cards. These physical ID cards can and should be used for verifying elegibility for employment, voting, banking, and benefits on the spot. If you don't have one or your status doesn't authorize your for something, you shouldn't be able to do it. There does not need to be a centralized database or electronic verification.
I don't think he had any obligation to notify them. Computer crime should require circumvention of at least some access control. If a company puts private data on the Internet without access control, the company should be fully liable for all consequences of their actions.
The term refers (here) to high prices charged by a coercive monopoly. Book publishers and "independent" book stores were, for many years, coercive monopolies.
And a free market also requires that buyers try make rational decisions. Part of a rational buying decision is not just whether price and utility match up in the right way, but also whether the seller is charging you more than he would in a competitive market. If they do, it's rational for you not to buy until the market becomes more competitive.
That's why pointing out that independent book stores were "price gouging" (i.e., coercive monopolies) is a relevant and important piece of information for buyers and voters, in particular if those voters might be foolish enough to attempt to perpetuate these coercive monopolies through government regulation.
Immigration reform bill has been pushed by a bipartisan group. And Democrats are just as hostile towards immigration as Republicans. And conservatives aren't concerned so much with working and voting (everybody likes cheap nannies and fruit pickers), they are concerned with all these people getting government benefits that they never paid for, and they do.
The real disconnect on e-verify is that it isn't needed at all: we don't need a big, centralized database of who is authorized to work, simple hardcopy proof of citizenship or work permit would suffice for establishing the right to work to an employer. And hardcopy proof of citizenship should also be enough, and required, for government services and voting, because people who aren't citizens shouldn't receive either, "brown" or not.
True, but the even higher taxes that would result from it would simply cause them to outsource overseas outright.
"Nah?" Where did I say that Republicans were different?
Please take off your tinfoil hat and stop believing in conspiracy theories. This isn't about "them" or "the elites", this is simply people behaving rationally. If you got $1b in your account tomorrow, you'd be behaving exactly the same way, and you're no elite either.
There is no "decline in manufacturing"; manufacturing in the US is bigger than ever before, it's just that other sectors have grown even faster.
As for temp workers, what do you expect? The more difficult the government makes it to hire and fire workers and the more paperwork and cost is associated with hiring/firing, the more employers will simply hand off the risk of hiring to other companies. Obamacare and e-Verify will cause even more employers to rely on temp agencies.
Say "thank you" to Obama and progressivism.
You don't seriously believe most journalists are capable of doing that sort of thing?
Downloading so many addresses may well have been necessary to demonstrate the seriousness of the problem. He could have gotten a list of a few hundred examples simply by doing Google searches and crawls; it would have been meaningless.
Of course they shouldn't. But they have those privileges courtesy of government regulations, regulations which make it next to impossible for new competitors to enter the market and offer cheaper and better service. Financial regulations prevent some fraud, but it also perpetuates this system that rips off people on a massive scale.
Obama got a second term because he had a highly effective organizing and propaganda machine, and because he lied over and over again and told everybody what they wanted to hear.
Instead, Obama and progressives want some drooling idiot version of a "social market economy", which in practice means ineffective regulation, the occasional sacrificial lamb for propaganda purposes, and complete protection of these cozy little fraudulent oligopolies from competition through onerous regulation.
I can't speak for Mitt, but what I want is to get rid of these bloated exchanges and replace them with cut-throat competitors. But that's not going to happen as long as people like Obama impose so much regulation that only his wealthy and well-connected donors can afford to offer financial services and financial regulators come down on any upstart competitor like a ton of bricks.
When consumers spend money on services that are more cheaply handled by robots, that doesn't generate wealth, it generates poverty.
It's only "bad" because you don't like change. Economically, it's clearly good overall.
That was true a century ago. Today it's a lowest common denominator for a school system that more than 1/3 of Germans attend. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abitur_in_Bayern_(G8)
Recommendations for literature are that in Q11, students read Faust I, another play and a novella, and in Q12 they read two more 20th century novels. And then you fancy yourself an educated person who has no need ever to take another class in the humanities, ever.
In history, Q11 and Q12 gives up any pretense of teaching historical facts and deteriorates into simple indoctrination. http://www.isb-gym8-lehrplan.de/contentserv/3.1.neu/g8.de/index.php?StoryID=26818 As far as I can tell, actual US history is never taught in the Gymnasium, instead in Q12, teachers pick out a number of tidbits to justify the view that the US is an imperialist superpower in decline.
Well, it's been interesting to figure out where your kind of ignorance and prejudice comes from: it's simply a reflection of Germany's mediocre school system and curriculum.
I wasn't sure you actually read at all; which ones?
So which literature of the 1930's do you recommend? Don't worry, I read German (in addition to a handful of other languages).
Ah, a German, I suspected as much. Still haven't worked through your issues with your past, have you?
If you studied science or engineering in Germany, you likely have taken no university-level courses at all in literature, history, arts, economics, political science, or social science. Germany has become a country of Fachidioten, like you yourself seem to be.
Tell me, how many non-fiction books on subjects in the humanities or social sciences have you read over the last 12 months? How many fiction books written before 1900?
Oh, do keep going, it's so amusing. Usually, the next accusation from people like you is over the Indians or slavery, and the exploitation of workers and US poverty, yadda yadda yadda. You just keep demonstrating your utter ignorance of both European and US politics and history.
Finally? What do you mean by "finally"? People like you have been railing against the US for two centuries and our supposed crimes for two centuries. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, the Pope... you're in "good" company.
By the way, open a European newspaper these days; you'll see that it is slowly coming out that European governments and politicians knew and participated in NSA spying, but that they wanted the NSA to cover their asses. But I forget: you don't actually read; you don't have to, you're European! You're cultured by heritage!
Yes: average book prices are higher than in the US (and in some countries fixed by law), and incomes are considerably lower.
In Europe ... many people are apparently arrogant and ignorant pricks like you who think their bigotry amounts to facts and who fancy themselves educated on account of their nationality.
An avid reader pays hundreds or thousands of dollars a year in overhead for the "service" of having publishers pre-select, in a completely non-personal way, books for them. For that kind of money, you can hire a personal book consultant and shopping assistant.
There, fixed it for you.
And how is that different from what we have right now?
European people are always furious at the US, they just pick a different issue to be furious about every year. It's pointless and boring.
That's 1000 adults and probably not even a representative sample. Nearly 1/3 of those polled are undecided. The poll really shows that Americans haven't made up their mind yet.
Amazon was losing money for many years in the beginning, and isn't all that profitable today. If Amazon can achieve market dominance against established stores, clearly there must be many more players in the market who can do the same thing to Amazon. Furthermore, for online or digital distribution of books, it doesn't take much to compete with Amazon.
Right now, we just have two generations of price gouging, monopolistic business models (independent bookstores and megastores) having their lunch eaten by a cheap and convenient online store. If, in the future, there is a real, demonstrable problem, then we can go about fixing it, but certainly not by giving the business back to people who have been screwing us for years.