...they took tens of millions of medical records too, which they weren't entitled to...
Actually, from RTFA, it appears they were entitled to them. From the article:
...defendants [IRS thugs] threatened to ‘rip’ the servers containing the medical data out of the building if IT personnel would not voluntarily hand them over,” the complaint states...
By giving them the servers, the IT personnel effectively waived the fourth amendment protection. As painful as it might have been to watch, the IT personnel should have said "NO! I do not consent to you taking the servers." rather than hand them over. If the IRS thugs then did rip them out, now you have a fourth amendment violation.
It's the same thing if a cop tells you to empty your pockets/purse/backpack etc on the hood of a car. The proper response is "I don't consent to searches." and do nothing. The cop may do it anyway, and you shouldn't resist if they do, but now you have an illegal search, which puts you in a better positon in court.
The post above was modded funny, but maybe it's true. It could be that the FBI's supposed "struggle" isn't one at all. Could they have already figured out how to penetrate it and are releasing this misinformation in hopes of snaring more people who now think it's safe? Remember, cops, including the FBI can legally lie to you, and have no hesitation about doing so.
Actually, considering the service packs do contain a supplemental EULA, they do alter it further. Well, you do have a choice, accept the alterations, or allow criminals to take over your computer. Kind of like paying protection money, except the money is your rights.
One in a million instead of one in two millions. I guess it would still not overload the average office clerk to double check that many people. Yes, it would be a nuisance, but a minor one...officials should be informed that a negative on a biometric scan is NOT necessarily a proof that the person is not who he claims to be.
Unfortunately, the number of times this will happen legitimately is still low enough when it it happens, the person who's iris has changed will automatically be assumed to be a scammer or criminal. If it happens fairly regularly, as some have suggested, then negative scans are just going to be assumed to be false negative, and there will be some simple procedure to "fix" it that criminals can exploit.
...It boggles the mind that some would step so clearly out-of-bounds and risk something exactly like this...
Not really. It's that corporate (or government) shield thing. The people directly responsible aren't paying to defend the lawsuit, and they won't pay a single penny of any damages that may be awarded. They certainly won't do a single day of jail time if they are found to have broken some law. At best, they may get some extra training and be reassigned.
Since there is no real risk, they have no reason not to step out-of-bounds.
...any control message it receives to a known port on any computers it can find...
That's something the original article doesn't mention: Is the listening port on an infected computer static or not? If it's static, then a simple, and therefore quick, nmap scan of an IP space will reveal possible infected hosts on a network. You'd need to do further investigation to weed out the false positives, but it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a fingerprinting query to further narrow it down. Depended on how well it's set up, just looking for nginx Web servers may be enough to get a good idea of infected machines.
If it's random, then look for port scans coming from infected machines. Still would be some false positives, but you can narrow down the list fairly quickly.
If the listening port changes daily, hourly, etc. based on a formula, then you'll need to reverse the formula. And it would have to be based on a formula for the other nodes to find it without the noise of a port scan. But once you do reverse it, then you're effectively back to the static port scenario.
...Our divorce lasted longer than the pre-filing marriage - and this without kids or any significant property at stake...
If it helps any, I've been through that first hand too. You're not alone. In my case, the judge twisted the knife even more. My last grandparent died, one I was close to, right before my court date. Never mind the court had already reset the date 3 times (ex had nothing to do with it). I asked for a reset so I could attend the out of state funeral (Ohio, I'm in TX, so it's not a short trip). Judge refused. Then, very late in the day before the funeral, the judge changes the date anyway. Too late for me to make it to the funeral (which was early in the morning). I hate the judge for that more than all the other ways she screwed me over.
...i give my SMBs Comodo Internet Security which is free for BOTH home and business use and works great..
While I do use Comodo myself, don't think for a second that it's anti-virus engine is very good. It's not. If you want a good AV scanner, go with Kaspersky or Bitdefender, although neither are free:(.
Where Comodo shines it's defense plus engine, which let's you know that something suspicious is going on. Answer properly the pop-ups, and nothing will get through. But that's the key, "Answer properly". I don't believe the average computer user can do that.
...Maybe someone can tie it [HJT] in with the signatures for Housecall or clamAV...
I can tell you that from my testing, relying on clam is extremely risky. I'd love to recommend a FOSS solution, but I'm submitting stuff it misses virtually every time I find malware and test clam against it.
Besides, if you really did forget your long passphrase, no time in jail will likely 'make you remember'...
True, but what matters is the judge's opinion. If he (or she) thinks you're faking, you're doing time in jail. Actually, I've seen judges that would throw you in jail even if they did believe you just as a power trip or they just don't like you for ___ (fill in excuse). No, these people shouldn't be judges, but they are and that's the reality. Probably what happened to Chadwick.
The problem is the judge can throw you in jail for contempt to "give you time to remember". One guy spent 14 yrs in jail for contempt (H. Beatty Chadwick). In his case, according to Wikipedia, he was jailed "solely on the word of Chadwick's wife".
...As long as the law reasonably "promote[s] the Progress of Science and useful Arts," it's probably Constitutional, even if there would be a better way to achieve that goal...
Except it doesn't. The creator has already been paid to create the work. Going back and paying him (or her) again isn't going to magically create more works. Others will probably make the arguments for me that long copyright (and patents) can actually inhibit progress, so I'll skip those. This law wasn't intended to promote progress. It was intended to line some Congressman's pockets with "campaign contributions."
This is great, but the problem is the FDA has these rules about medical devices and the testing and requirements and redtape you have wade through before this device can be legally used in a medical environment.
My sarcasm detector is on the fritz, so I can't tell, but just in case...This is a common MO for car burglars according to Houston PD. They aren't really on the cell phone. They're walking around looking for stuff in cars to steal. Again, it's walking around the parking lot, not walking to or from the parking and store.
According a Houston PD officer in the auto thefts division, the worst place you can put something is on the floor of passenger back seat. That's the first place someone looking to do a smash and grab looks.
Also be aware of someone walking around the parking lot (near cars) that appears to be talking on a cell phone. That's a definite "take it with me or leave" red flag.
It was not meant as condescending, merely as an observation. She didn't even consider one until 3 of her friends got one, then all of a sudden, she HAD to have one. There are numerous other examples.
And perhaps they are looking for the next bright shiny, must have item. If everyone has one, it isn't as special anymore. Fads come and go.
Now whether or not the iphone IS a fad is another question I'll not try to answer. Personally, I've played with my wife's iphone and just can't see why people are so crazy about them. Overpriced and not very flexible IMHO. But maybe it's peer pressure. I've always been rather resistant to it, while my wife is at the other end of the spectrum.
...no one can (yet) stop you writing in anyone's name on an election ballot...
Having worked in Texas elections, I can tell you this isn't really true, at least in Texas. While you can write any name you want, only names on the list of write-in candidates will be counted. So if you write in Mickey Mouse, and he's not on the list, that vote won't be counted.
While I like, and use, Sumatra myself, anyone thinking to replace Adobe with it should be warned it does NOT contain a browser plug-in for reading PDFs. Some sites (*cough*State of Texas*cough*) are coded so they don't work right if you lack the plug-in.
...Of course if you've got No-script or Ad Block, you're probably fine...
Ad Block I love (actually adblock plus), but I've tried No-Script and don't have it any more. It's a great idea, but for most people, it's just too much work. Too many sites don't work properly without javascript. It's stupid and it's wrong, but that's the reality on the web. You wind up just disabling no-script before too long because yet another site doesn't work properly and you're tired of making an exception for every site, or in my case, get tired of the [quite understandable] complaints.
...The patent system and the copyright system require that holders of such must protect and defend their own material...
True, for now. The danger is Congress hasn't truly represented the people for quite some time, and instead represents those with money. This means those with money, like the RIAA, can have the law changed. That's the real danger.
...because you have no idea when they might act out their fantasies for real...
I remember watching a show, Penn and Teller IIRC, where they stated the states with the highest porn consumption had the lowest rates of sexual assault, and the states with the lowest porn consumption had highest rates of sexual assault. They did admit that this isn't proof the two are related, but you have to wonder.
If looking at child porn prevents someone from actually hurting a child, then while the production of the porn was a bad thing, some good can come out of that act. And if some good can come out of it, should we stop the distribution? Punish the producers yes, the ones doing real, physical harm. But is it right to needlessly endanger another child?
I'm beginning to think it is something like organ donation. The best organ donors are young, healthy people who should, by all rights, still be alive. They are the ones killed by accident or crime. If it's a crime, the criminal is (or should be) punished, but the fruits of that crime, usable organs, are not illegal to donate to help save the lives of others.
It could be that you want to connect to someone else's SMTP server, not running your own. Blocking port 25 prevents that, forcing the user to find an alternative port. Admittedly, that alternative is usually encrypted, so overall this is a good thing.
And how do they get experience when no one wants to employ them? I speak from personal experience. I have both a BS (U of MD) and a Masters (Texas A&M) in Chemical Engineering, and I graduated (both times) to unemployement. I must have sent out close to 1500 resumes. Got 3 interviews and didn't get hired for any of them. Did some time working in law enforcement, and now am underemployed as a computer tech. My degrees were worthless. Part of that was the economy when I graduated, and a large part of it was my school's placement offices sucked. For my BS, only 6 out of 22 had job offers, and at least 1 was as a salesman, not an engineer.
I currently have a neighbor in the same boat. He has a BS in Chem. Engr and works as a DBA because he couldn't get a job in engineering too. He's already told me he doesn't want either of his kids going into engineering. The job market sucks.
We don't have a shortage. We merely need to give the ones we have an opportunity.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, from RTFA, it appears they were entitled to them. From the article:
...defendants [IRS thugs] threatened to ‘rip’ the servers containing the medical data out of the building if IT personnel would not voluntarily hand them over,” the complaint states...
By giving them the servers, the IT personnel effectively waived the fourth amendment protection. As painful as it might have been to watch, the IT personnel should have said "NO! I do not consent to you taking the servers." rather than hand them over. If the IRS thugs then did rip them out, now you have a fourth amendment violation.
It's the same thing if a cop tells you to empty your pockets/purse/backpack etc on the hood of a car. The proper response is "I don't consent to searches." and do nothing. The cop may do it anyway, and you shouldn't resist if they do, but now you have an illegal search, which puts you in a better positon in court.
FBI SMASH TOR!
The post above was modded funny, but maybe it's true. It could be that the FBI's supposed "struggle" isn't one at all. Could they have already figured out how to penetrate it and are releasing this misinformation in hopes of snaring more people who now think it's safe? Remember, cops, including the FBI can legally lie to you, and have no hesitation about doing so.
Actually, considering the service packs do contain a supplemental EULA, they do alter it further. Well, you do have a choice, accept the alterations, or allow criminals to take over your computer. Kind of like paying protection money, except the money is your rights.
One in a million instead of one in two millions. I guess it would still not overload the average office clerk to double check that many people. Yes, it would be a nuisance, but a minor one...officials should be informed that a negative on a biometric scan is NOT necessarily a proof that the person is not who he claims to be.
Unfortunately, the number of times this will happen legitimately is still low enough when it it happens, the person who's iris has changed will automatically be assumed to be a scammer or criminal. If it happens fairly regularly, as some have suggested, then negative scans are just going to be assumed to be false negative, and there will be some simple procedure to "fix" it that criminals can exploit.
Not really. It's that corporate (or government) shield thing. The people directly responsible aren't paying to defend the lawsuit, and they won't pay a single penny of any damages that may be awarded. They certainly won't do a single day of jail time if they are found to have broken some law. At best, they may get some extra training and be reassigned.
Since there is no real risk, they have no reason not to step out-of-bounds.
That's something the original article doesn't mention: Is the listening port on an infected computer static or not? If it's static, then a simple, and therefore quick, nmap scan of an IP space will reveal possible infected hosts on a network. You'd need to do further investigation to weed out the false positives, but it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a fingerprinting query to further narrow it down. Depended on how well it's set up, just looking for nginx Web servers may be enough to get a good idea of infected machines.
If it's random, then look for port scans coming from infected machines. Still would be some false positives, but you can narrow down the list fairly quickly.
If the listening port changes daily, hourly, etc. based on a formula, then you'll need to reverse the formula. And it would have to be based on a formula for the other nodes to find it without the noise of a port scan. But once you do reverse it, then you're effectively back to the static port scenario.
If it helps any, I've been through that first hand too. You're not alone. In my case, the judge twisted the knife even more. My last grandparent died, one I was close to, right before my court date. Never mind the court had already reset the date 3 times (ex had nothing to do with it). I asked for a reset so I could attend the out of state funeral (Ohio, I'm in TX, so it's not a short trip). Judge refused. Then, very late in the day before the funeral, the judge changes the date anyway. Too late for me to make it to the funeral (which was early in the morning). I hate the judge for that more than all the other ways she screwed me over.
While I do use Comodo myself, don't think for a second that it's anti-virus engine is very good. It's not. If you want a good AV scanner, go with Kaspersky or Bitdefender, although neither are free :(.
Where Comodo shines it's defense plus engine, which let's you know that something suspicious is going on. Answer properly the pop-ups, and nothing will get through. But that's the key, "Answer properly". I don't believe the average computer user can do that.
I can tell you that from my testing, relying on clam is extremely risky. I'd love to recommend a FOSS solution, but I'm submitting stuff it misses virtually every time I find malware and test clam against it.
We shouldn't allow such complex laws that we need lawyers.
We wouldn't need lawyers to interpret the laws if we didn't elect lawyers to write them.
Besides, if you really did forget your long passphrase, no time in jail will likely 'make you remember'...
True, but what matters is the judge's opinion. If he (or she) thinks you're faking, you're doing time in jail. Actually, I've seen judges that would throw you in jail even if they did believe you just as a power trip or they just don't like you for ___ (fill in excuse). No, these people shouldn't be judges, but they are and that's the reality. Probably what happened to Chadwick.
The problem is the judge can throw you in jail for contempt to "give you time to remember". One guy spent 14 yrs in jail for contempt (H. Beatty Chadwick). In his case, according to Wikipedia, he was jailed "solely on the word of Chadwick's wife".
Except it doesn't. The creator has already been paid to create the work. Going back and paying him (or her) again isn't going to magically create more works. Others will probably make the arguments for me that long copyright (and patents) can actually inhibit progress, so I'll skip those. This law wasn't intended to promote progress. It was intended to line some Congressman's pockets with "campaign contributions."
This is great, but the problem is the FDA has these rules about medical devices and the testing and requirements and redtape you have wade through before this device can be legally used in a medical environment.
I read it as the star was dying and it engulfed the planets. Now the star is dead and shrunk back down, and they found some planets are still there.
My sarcasm detector is on the fritz, so I can't tell, but just in case...This is a common MO for car burglars according to Houston PD. They aren't really on the cell phone. They're walking around looking for stuff in cars to steal. Again, it's walking around the parking lot, not walking to or from the parking and store.
According a Houston PD officer in the auto thefts division, the worst place you can put something is on the floor of passenger back seat. That's the first place someone looking to do a smash and grab looks.
Also be aware of someone walking around the parking lot (near cars) that appears to be talking on a cell phone. That's a definite "take it with me or leave" red flag.
It was not meant as condescending, merely as an observation. She didn't even consider one until 3 of her friends got one, then all of a sudden, she HAD to have one. There are numerous other examples.
Everyone has the iPhone," he said.
And perhaps they are looking for the next bright shiny, must have item. If everyone has one, it isn't as special anymore. Fads come and go.
Now whether or not the iphone IS a fad is another question I'll not try to answer. Personally, I've played with my wife's iphone and just can't see why people are so crazy about them. Overpriced and not very flexible IMHO. But maybe it's peer pressure. I've always been rather resistant to it, while my wife is at the other end of the spectrum.
Having worked in Texas elections, I can tell you this isn't really true, at least in Texas. While you can write any name you want, only names on the list of write-in candidates will be counted. So if you write in Mickey Mouse, and he's not on the list, that vote won't be counted.
While I like, and use, Sumatra myself, anyone thinking to replace Adobe with it should be warned it does NOT contain a browser plug-in for reading PDFs. Some sites (*cough*State of Texas*cough*) are coded so they don't work right if you lack the plug-in.
...Of course if you've got No-script or Ad Block, you're probably fine...
Ad Block I love (actually adblock plus), but I've tried No-Script and don't have it any more. It's a great idea, but for most people, it's just too much work. Too many sites don't work properly without javascript. It's stupid and it's wrong, but that's the reality on the web. You wind up just disabling no-script before too long because yet another site doesn't work properly and you're tired of making an exception for every site, or in my case, get tired of the [quite understandable] complaints.
True, for now. The danger is Congress hasn't truly represented the people for quite some time, and instead represents those with money. This means those with money, like the RIAA, can have the law changed. That's the real danger.
I remember watching a show, Penn and Teller IIRC, where they stated the states with the highest porn consumption had the lowest rates of sexual assault, and the states with the lowest porn consumption had highest rates of sexual assault. They did admit that this isn't proof the two are related, but you have to wonder.
If looking at child porn prevents someone from actually hurting a child, then while the production of the porn was a bad thing, some good can come out of that act. And if some good can come out of it, should we stop the distribution? Punish the producers yes, the ones doing real, physical harm. But is it right to needlessly endanger another child?
I'm beginning to think it is something like organ donation. The best organ donors are young, healthy people who should, by all rights, still be alive. They are the ones killed by accident or crime. If it's a crime, the criminal is (or should be) punished, but the fruits of that crime, usable organs, are not illegal to donate to help save the lives of others.
It could be that you want to connect to someone else's SMTP server, not running your own. Blocking port 25 prevents that, forcing the user to find an alternative port. Admittedly, that alternative is usually encrypted, so overall this is a good thing.
And how do they get experience when no one wants to employ them? I speak from personal experience. I have both a BS (U of MD) and a Masters (Texas A&M) in Chemical Engineering, and I graduated (both times) to unemployement. I must have sent out close to 1500 resumes. Got 3 interviews and didn't get hired for any of them. Did some time working in law enforcement, and now am underemployed as a computer tech. My degrees were worthless. Part of that was the economy when I graduated, and a large part of it was my school's placement offices sucked. For my BS, only 6 out of 22 had job offers, and at least 1 was as a salesman, not an engineer.
I currently have a neighbor in the same boat. He has a BS in Chem. Engr and works as a DBA because he couldn't get a job in engineering too. He's already told me he doesn't want either of his kids going into engineering. The job market sucks.
We don't have a shortage. We merely need to give the ones we have an opportunity.