Its digital content. Its not tangible. If you hack in and do no harm and alert me of the vulnerability, who gives a crap, legally speaking. If you hack in and accidentally wipe my server, then you are liable. We shouldn't punish risky behavior, we should punish consequences of those actions. Additionally, you compared hacking a server with rape which I wholeheartedly disagree with. It's one of the worst analogies I have ever heard. Seriously, not even close.
I am saying in this case the law is wrong. Hacking into a system and letting the company know about it is good. Hacking into a system and destroying there database is bad. Blindly applying a law without hearing the circumstances of the case is moronic and does not constitute justice.
Assault is defined as the threat of bodily harm that reasonably causes fear of harm in the victim. That is a crime. You are hurting a person. You can even kill someone with a weak heart. The day you can teach a computer to feel fear, I'll change my tune.
What the hell are you blathering about? There are people out there whose intentions are nefarious: serial killers, rapists, bank robbers, politicians, etc. To say everyone always has the best intentions is either incredibly naive or ridiculously stupid.
But then some bad things happen with the best of intentions. That is the whole point of the saying.
I don't think you understand software, nor does the government. No one gets hurt with white hat hacking. Comparing it to rape is like comparing a snow cone to a blizzard. External security audits are the best way to find vulnerabilities, and when the results are given to you for free, it's even better. The law hasn't caught up with technology in this case yet. Jailing good people who are trying to help is a bad idea, period. That's why there are things like the Good Samaritan law and stand your ground laws that protect people who are trying to do the right thing.
They start with bundles of wires; then next, it's the airplanes in the sky. Before long, they put one of those things in space and point it at the earth. Then we have a James Bond villainesque situation going on. I always thought Google was evil, but now we know just how evil!
Software Development. We have a whole different team for coming up with design and layout called marketing. Its also a job sector with almost complete gender neutrality. Now if one of my software devs, guy or girl, suggests our SOAP service return its response in pink, I'd be thoroughly upset.
From my many years of experience in this game (software development), the biggest factor for finding someone with a different perspective is looking for someone who didn't come from a programming background. I've worked with people who were past accountants, lawyers, economists, doctors of various fields, mathematicians, and they found themselves in software. These people tend to be the ones with unique perspectives. Sex, age, race, religion have not been useful indicators of any kind.
In reality, when looking at a pool of candidates, you do not single out the women because you need "a different perspective." You hire the person qualified to do the job. Singling out women for preferential treatment is the definition of sexist.
Really? What a fool you are. To the OP's point whats the difference in saying we need more black programmers or more Buddhist programmers? Its irrelevant to the task at hand. You just need more programmers. Who cares if the are female or not. Being the senior developer on my team, my opinion goes a long way in hiring new team members. I don't look for sex, race or religion. I focus on talent and attitude.
Funny enough, you are the misogynist for implying women should be the hiring focus of IT teams.
You do realize the amount spent on roads is so small that calling it a drop in the bucket isn't even a good analogy. No need to raise taxes. Just build one less F-35.
I've said this before but I'll continue to point it out, we do not have a tax problem. We have a spending problem.
I said if you said no to both, not either or. And if you had said no to both, you would have been a pretty bad "progressive leftest." Regardless of whether or not some conservatives agree with you, the idea of having social programs and laws targeting the less fortunate, is a progressive leftist ideology. But, you answered in the affirmative, so it's really a non-issue.
Not to further the argument, but you labeled yourself "progressive left" and thus generalized your own ideologies. I only asked those questions to clarify your stance, for my benefit.
You don't believe that suicide is wrong and should be illegal? You don't believe there should have been some sort of support system in place for this woman to get help? If you answered no to these two questions you probably are not a progressive leftist.
There is a major difference between academic knowledge and practical application. I say this because I still see many developers (I do code reviews where I work and help aspiring developers outside of work) who completely ignore what they learned and just go about solving the problem the fastest way. You are right in saying there is no excuse, but that doesn't make people code better and it doesn't make this particular vulnerability malicious.
SQL Injection is still the number one vulnerability in most software. Most developers straight out of school have no idea how to protect against it. Many seasoned developers are not security focused, so also not security conscious, and simply miss the vulnerability.
I weep for the future. We have an entire generation reaching adult hood that is so sheltered and coddled they cannot function as adults. It's all: they are not medicated enough, or medicated too much, or not held enough as a child, or not enough attention from the teacher. But, god forbid that anything is actually their responsibility. It's not long before micro aggressions and trolling are made illegal; That we seek out "problems," like why don't more women play rugby or why are there not more male OB\GYN's or why don't Latinas play more frisbee golf, proactively.
So here is my crazy idea: lets hold the stupid driver, going 107 mph in a 55, responsible.
But don't let common sense step in. Why set up another whole set of rules and regulations for fining those who have done nothing wrong? Our current legal system handles those who break personal property or hurt people just fine by holding them legally and financially responsible.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you see that picture? I nearly went blind. Why would anyone want to look at that.
Its digital content. Its not tangible. If you hack in and do no harm and alert me of the vulnerability, who gives a crap, legally speaking. If you hack in and accidentally wipe my server, then you are liable. We shouldn't punish risky behavior, we should punish consequences of those actions. Additionally, you compared hacking a server with rape which I wholeheartedly disagree with. It's one of the worst analogies I have ever heard. Seriously, not even close.
I am saying in this case the law is wrong. Hacking into a system and letting the company know about it is good. Hacking into a system and destroying there database is bad. Blindly applying a law without hearing the circumstances of the case is moronic and does not constitute justice.
Assault is defined as the threat of bodily harm that reasonably causes fear of harm in the victim. That is a crime. You are hurting a person. You can even kill someone with a weak heart. The day you can teach a computer to feel fear, I'll change my tune.
What the hell are you blathering about? There are people out there whose intentions are nefarious: serial killers, rapists, bank robbers, politicians, etc. To say everyone always has the best intentions is either incredibly naive or ridiculously stupid.
But then some bad things happen with the best of intentions. That is the whole point of the saying.
I don't think you understand software, nor does the government. No one gets hurt with white hat hacking. Comparing it to rape is like comparing a snow cone to a blizzard. External security audits are the best way to find vulnerabilities, and when the results are given to you for free, it's even better. The law hasn't caught up with technology in this case yet. Jailing good people who are trying to help is a bad idea, period. That's why there are things like the Good Samaritan law and stand your ground laws that protect people who are trying to do the right thing.
They start with bundles of wires; then next, it's the airplanes in the sky. Before long, they put one of those things in space and point it at the earth. Then we have a James Bond villainesque situation going on. I always thought Google was evil, but now we know just how evil!
Software Development. We have a whole different team for coming up with design and layout called marketing. Its also a job sector with almost complete gender neutrality. Now if one of my software devs, guy or girl, suggests our SOAP service return its response in pink, I'd be thoroughly upset.
From my many years of experience in this game (software development), the biggest factor for finding someone with a different perspective is looking for someone who didn't come from a programming background. I've worked with people who were past accountants, lawyers, economists, doctors of various fields, mathematicians, and they found themselves in software. These people tend to be the ones with unique perspectives. Sex, age, race, religion have not been useful indicators of any kind.
Seriously, do it already.
In reality, when looking at a pool of candidates, you do not single out the women because you need "a different perspective." You hire the person qualified to do the job. Singling out women for preferential treatment is the definition of sexist.
Really? What a fool you are. To the OP's point whats the difference in saying we need more black programmers or more Buddhist programmers? Its irrelevant to the task at hand. You just need more programmers. Who cares if the are female or not. Being the senior developer on my team, my opinion goes a long way in hiring new team members. I don't look for sex, race or religion. I focus on talent and attitude.
Funny enough, you are the misogynist for implying women should be the hiring focus of IT teams.
You do realize the amount spent on roads is so small that calling it a drop in the bucket isn't even a good analogy. No need to raise taxes. Just build one less F-35.
I've said this before but I'll continue to point it out, we do not have a tax problem. We have a spending problem.
That's better than windows 8's:
hover on right side,
click on settings,
select power settings,
select off.
But, that still beats windows 10. I have yet to find a power button there. Its ok though; my computer shuts off nightly with automatic updates.
I said if you said no to both, not either or. And if you had said no to both, you would have been a pretty bad "progressive leftest." Regardless of whether or not some conservatives agree with you, the idea of having social programs and laws targeting the less fortunate, is a progressive leftist ideology. But, you answered in the affirmative, so it's really a non-issue.
Not to further the argument, but you labeled yourself "progressive left" and thus generalized your own ideologies. I only asked those questions to clarify your stance, for my benefit.
Most doctors, architects and engineers are trying to make the world a better place. Lawyers on the other hand...
I think it was just a poor way of saying in 21-25 years.
Here is a Lamprey eel brain in a robotic body back from 2000. We are making progress.
She turned me into a newt! ...I got better...
Well you replied yes to the second question and thus are likely a progressive leftist, so that fits neatly into both of our points.
You don't believe that suicide is wrong and should be illegal? You don't believe there should have been some sort of support system in place for this woman to get help? If you answered no to these two questions you probably are not a progressive leftist.
There is a major difference between academic knowledge and practical application. I say this because I still see many developers (I do code reviews where I work and help aspiring developers outside of work) who completely ignore what they learned and just go about solving the problem the fastest way. You are right in saying there is no excuse, but that doesn't make people code better and it doesn't make this particular vulnerability malicious.
SQL Injection is still the number one vulnerability in most software. Most developers straight out of school have no idea how to protect against it. Many seasoned developers are not security focused, so also not security conscious, and simply miss the vulnerability.
I weep for the future. We have an entire generation reaching adult hood that is so sheltered and coddled they cannot function as adults. It's all: they are not medicated enough, or medicated too much, or not held enough as a child, or not enough attention from the teacher. But, god forbid that anything is actually their responsibility. It's not long before micro aggressions and trolling are made illegal; That we seek out "problems," like why don't more women play rugby or why are there not more male OB\GYN's or why don't Latinas play more frisbee golf, proactively.
So here is my crazy idea: lets hold the stupid driver, going 107 mph in a 55, responsible.
But don't let common sense step in. Why set up another whole set of rules and regulations for fining those who have done nothing wrong? Our current legal system handles those who break personal property or hurt people just fine by holding them legally and financially responsible.