The author seems to make no reference to information pimps like AllAdvantage (now defunct) who collected private information in the form of users' online habbits, instead focusing on relatively unverifiable data. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to find that the majority of slashdot readers always give their ZIP code as 90210. Just how valuable will my personal information be if the company interested in "purchasing" it has reasoned there to be a 90% of it's being inaccurate? I think the author needs to come back down to earth and spend more time examining the very real flaws in the collection process of personally identifiable information instead of fantasizing about an online market for bogus info.
It would seem that giving up physically secured machines in favor of a virtual security mechanism would exacerbate problems of classified data leaking out from alternate channels. I'd like to know how that is being addressed.
My most influential teacher would completely deviate from district's standard lesson plan. He'd bombard us with stories from his travels and cool facts from literary sources we would never have been exposed to. He stressed vocabulary that still impresses to this date and taught advanced math to those students who could handle it. He engaged the students in examples and kept the class fun. And can you guess who got the axe when it was decided that one teacher had to be let go? I suppose the administration didn't like his approach, but he sure inspired me. Thanks for goin' the extra mile Mr. M!
They (whoever they are) should arrange to have the winner(s) from the Forensic Challenge report on the Open Hack Challenge. The press from that would make one hell of a prize. That's the stuff dreams...err, careers are made of.
How is it proven that a company whose product is advertised in spam is the originator or even a conspiritor in sending the message out? Motive certainly isn't sufficient. It seems like they will have a hard time prosecuting companies who take the extra step in assuring plausible deniability before ordering (I have no recollection of that senator) unsolicited mailings.
What seems even more interesting though is that, were the government to take a really strong stance towards prosecution, "fake" spam campaigns would become that much more effective in damaging a company.
Slashdot Mirror
The author seems to make no reference to information pimps like AllAdvantage (now defunct) who collected private information in the form of users' online habbits, instead focusing on relatively unverifiable data. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to find that the majority of slashdot readers always give their ZIP code as 90210. Just how valuable will my personal information be if the company interested in "purchasing" it has reasoned there to be a 90% of it's being inaccurate? I think the author needs to come back down to earth and spend more time examining the very real flaws in the collection process of personally identifiable information instead of fantasizing about an online market for bogus info.
It would seem that giving up physically secured machines in favor of a virtual security mechanism would exacerbate problems of classified data leaking out from alternate channels. I'd like to know how that is being addressed.
My most influential teacher would completely deviate from district's standard lesson plan. He'd bombard us with stories from his travels and cool facts from literary sources we would never have been exposed to. He stressed vocabulary that still impresses to this date and taught advanced math to those students who could handle it. He engaged the students in examples and kept the class fun. And can you guess who got the axe when it was decided that one teacher had to be let go? I suppose the administration didn't like his approach, but he sure inspired me. Thanks for goin' the extra mile Mr. M!
They (whoever they are) should arrange to have the winner(s) from the Forensic Challenge report on the Open Hack Challenge. The press from that would make one hell of a prize. That's the stuff dreams...err, careers are made of.
How is it proven that a company whose product is advertised in spam is the originator or even a conspiritor in sending the message out? Motive certainly isn't sufficient. It seems like they will have a hard time prosecuting companies who take the extra step in assuring plausible deniability before ordering (I have no recollection of that senator) unsolicited mailings.
What seems even more interesting though is that, were the government to take a really strong stance towards prosecution, "fake" spam campaigns would become that much more effective in damaging a company.