At the very end of the article: Garfinkel has learned his lesson. As an undergrad at MIT in the 1980s, he failed to sanitize his own hard drive before returning a computer to his father. His father was able to read his personal journal.
Graelin writes: I can never understand this stuff. You want to give "poor developing countries" internet access? Don't you think we should spend more time actually developing these places before we start laying in the luxuries? (Remember, the Internet is not some god given right, it's a Luxury.)
In the same way that an article of clothing can either be considered a luxury (eg; furs coats) or a necessity (eg; longjohns in Fairbanks), internet access can be viewed as either a luxury (eg; a good game of UT2003) or a necessity (access to the largest single repository of mankind's knowledge).
Aside from the jokes that will stem from that last bombastic statement, just because we use it for primarily entertainment purposes does not mean that's all there is to be had. Internet access means not only the ability to communicate and share ideas (linux comes to mind) but also makes political oppression much, much harder to pull off. If you're a wannabe dictator, you want your citizenry stupid, quiet and weaponless.
alanshot writes:
"what ever happened to "if it aint broke, dont fix it?" I dont see why we were having such a problem using our feet so as to need us to use our hands for brakes/gas.
I think the general idea here, much like the argument for alternate keyboard layouts, is that the original configuration for a car's controls is not the most efficient, ergonomic or intuitive.
Whether you agree with this notion or not is another matter.
Danse writes: "Was the site somehow more secure before the hacker defaced it? Should I have been comfortable giving them my credit card info? Of course not. All the hacker did was highlight the insecurity. Kind of like spraypainting "Wal-Mart's credit card machines are insecure!!"
Fair point, but my distinction is not that the intruder has shown the site to be insecure, but that someone of unknown intent now has or possibly has your info.
There is a difference between a person who puts on a demonstration of how to bypass a Master lock and a guy who is actually in your house when you get up for a glass of water at 3AM. Yeah, he might be there in a proof-of-concept capacity, but you don't know.
You're allowed to shoot the latter, but not the former. Well, where I live, anyway. =)
If somebody writes on a store wall, you have no reason to assume that their credit card machine is now trojaned. It's a non sequiter.
If someone defaces a website, it is quite reasonable to assume that if the intruder has managed to obtain privelages sufficient to change the front page, they could very well have obtained privileges sufficient to compromise your credit card data.
deepchasm writes, in part: "Taking advantage of a security hole is like robbing a house no lock on the door - IT IS WRONG - but noone tries to sue the thief for the cost of buying a lock. Instead, the thief gets punished for stealing."
Hm. Good point. I'll have to give that some thought and get back to you.
jdreed1024 writes: " Here's a novel idea - let the punishment be the same as in real life. If you deface a website, you get the same punishment as you would for spray-painting the front of an office building."
On its face, that looks reasonable, but it stops being similar once you scratch the surface.
As others have pointed out in previous replies, graffiti has a very specific threat to the business (eg, virtually none). The relevant question (money) becomes clear when you compare these two questions:
1) If you show up at your local store and find that someone graffiti'd the wall, would you still buy something there, or would you get in your car and leave?
2) If you hit a website for a retailer and find that someone graffiti'd their front page, would you still buy something there, or would you go someplace else?
Coming from a person who has both an interest in network security (me) and graffiti (again, me), I have to point out that graffiti and network intrusion don't really overlap and here is why:
When a person writes on a wall (or a "reach"), the owner of the shop might show up and go, "oh crap" and they might very well pay someone a few bucks to cover it up or perhaps do it themselves. The artists' intention is clear -- to throw up some paint and that's it. The paint isn't going to seep into the wall and ruin everything inside, however. It isn't going to pick up the cash register and run off. It isn't going to take every customer's credit information.
When someone breaks into a system -- regardless of their motivations -- the breakee does not know what the intruder has in mind. Maybe it is benign, maybe it isn't, but there is no room to "let it slide." It must be treated as a malicious attack and thus computers must be shut down, customers/students lose services, huge costs in time and effort can and will be expended to purge the system of the problem which often involves what might very well be overkill -- like reinstalling a system or a number of systems because you Don't Know and you can't afford to leave loose ends.
Graffiti and network intrusion would be analagous if and only if graffiti caused the same sort of response. It doesn't.
And in case you're curious as to why I'd be into graf, checkoutthesesites.
EBN was doing this stuff, much better, I might add, in the early 90's.
I qualify that slightly because afaik, it might even be some or all of the founding members of EBN that are behind GNN. Their original stuff, however, was far more deft and sarcastic. This 11-minute clip was fairly boring bore none of the medium-bending antics of the previous group.
We all have ideas about what the future is going to be like. But almost without fail, I am corrected in one direction; Jennifer Government, sprawl and caste.
I can almost guarantee this will be modded down for lack of recognition. How about:
Cornelius: "I feel so guilty sending her to do the dirty work. I know she was made to be strong but she's also so fragile... So human. You know what I mean?" Bartender: [shaking head]
From the link you posted, Bob Massa (of SearchKing) writes: " If you take your web presence seriously, and accept that the words research.yale.edu means something, doesn't that put a responsibility on you to be open-minded and fair? To at least try to report objectively?"
This guy is almost as whiny as the Bernard Shifman twit! If you look at what was written, it says, basically, "this is a loser of a case and a waste of SearchKing's money." In other words, James Grimmelmann doesn't talk to Google either, he simply looks at the case on its merits and proclaims it is a loser.
I guarantee that if James stood on the opposite side of the fence it would be Massa proclaiming him a genius.
An AC (aren't they all?) wrote: "The founding fathers also weren't at risk of being thrown in jail indefinitely without a trial due to the PATRIOT and Father^H^H^H^H^H^HHomeland security acts."
My attraction to open source -- outside of the Stallman-esque "it's inherantly better by virtue of it being open" argument -- is due to the features it offers that Windows does not. Namely, the ability to customize my desktop to near-absurd levels and an extremely powerful command-line interface.
MacAndrew writes: "Ironically, it's the ACLU that would flip out if political calls were barred. (First Amendment, I mentioned this above) They are currently part of a group ranging from them to the NRA, contesting the campaign finance reform law's restrictions in political advertising."
I'd be very surprised if the ACLU came out against not exempting politicians from this law (though I don't agree with the ACLU on everything, who does?). There is a vast difference between the right to speak (which you have) and the right to be heard (which you do not have).
Why the HELL are nonprofits and politicians, of all things, exempt?
I mean...I'm not stupid. Perhaps I shouldn't be asking "why." I know why. I should be asking "who let them?" There are three categories of people I don't want calling my house and they've exempted two of them.
I know what charities exist and if I want to give to them, I will. The ACLU, in fact, got my $35 on January 1st.
In the current economic climate, this is sort of like having a "100 Best Girls to Have Sex With" list. Yeah, Alyssa Milano might very well be on it but she's not hiring, so who cares?
Slashdot Mirror
Think nothing of it.
Think about it. The little robot arm would go to incise and it would get:
If it made the right decision, no problem. But if it does something like
I'm not sure they needed to re-invent the wheel here...
At the very end of the article:
Garfinkel has learned his lesson. As an undergrad at MIT in the 1980s, he failed to sanitize his own hard drive before returning a computer to his father. His father was able to read his personal journal.
Ouch.
andbutso writes:
"Now there is just going to be stupid shit like LAN parties out in the middle of the desert."
Burning Man II, Gibbing Boogaloo
I deserve whatever moderation I get for that.
Graelin writes:
I can never understand this stuff. You want to give "poor developing countries" internet access? Don't you think we should spend more time actually developing these places before we start laying in the luxuries? (Remember, the Internet is not some god given right, it's a Luxury.)
In the same way that an article of clothing can either be considered a luxury (eg; furs coats) or a necessity (eg; longjohns in Fairbanks), internet access can be viewed as either a luxury (eg; a good game of UT2003) or a necessity (access to the largest single repository of mankind's knowledge).
Aside from the jokes that will stem from that last bombastic statement, just because we use it for primarily entertainment purposes does not mean that's all there is to be had. Internet access means not only the ability to communicate and share ideas (linux comes to mind) but also makes political oppression much, much harder to pull off. If you're a wannabe dictator, you want your citizenry stupid, quiet and weaponless.
"what ever happened to "if it aint broke, dont fix it?" I dont see why we were having such a problem using our feet so as to need us to use our hands for brakes/gas.
I think the general idea here, much like the argument for alternate keyboard layouts, is that the original configuration for a car's controls is not the most efficient, ergonomic or intuitive.
Whether you agree with this notion or not is another matter.
Danse writes:
"Was the site somehow more secure before the hacker defaced it? Should I have been comfortable giving them my credit card info? Of course not. All the hacker did was highlight the insecurity. Kind of like spraypainting "Wal-Mart's credit card machines are insecure!!"
Fair point, but my distinction is not that the intruder has shown the site to be insecure, but that someone of unknown intent now has or possibly has your info.
There is a difference between a person who puts on a demonstration of how to bypass a Master lock and a guy who is actually in your house when you get up for a glass of water at 3AM. Yeah, he might be there in a proof-of-concept capacity, but you don't know.
You're allowed to shoot the latter, but not the former. Well, where I live, anyway. =)
You're missing the point.
If somebody writes on a store wall, you have no reason to assume that their credit card machine is now trojaned. It's a non sequiter.
If someone defaces a website, it is quite reasonable to assume that if the intruder has managed to obtain privelages sufficient to change the front page, they could very well have obtained privileges sufficient to compromise your credit card data.
deepchasm writes, in part:
"Taking advantage of a security hole is like robbing a house no lock on the door - IT IS WRONG - but noone tries to sue the thief for the cost of buying a lock. Instead, the thief gets punished for stealing."
Hm. Good point. I'll have to give that some thought and get back to you.
jdreed1024 writes:
" Here's a novel idea - let the punishment be the same as in real life. If you deface a website, you get the same punishment as you would for spray-painting the front of an office building."
On its face, that looks reasonable, but it stops being similar once you scratch the surface.
As others have pointed out in previous replies, graffiti has a very specific threat to the business (eg, virtually none). The relevant question (money) becomes clear when you compare these two questions:
1) If you show up at your local store and find that someone graffiti'd the wall, would you still buy something there, or would you get in your car and leave?
2) If you hit a website for a retailer and find that someone graffiti'd their front page, would you still buy something there, or would you go someplace else?
Coming from a person who has both an interest in network security (me) and graffiti (again, me), I have to point out that graffiti and network intrusion don't really overlap and here is why:
When a person writes on a wall (or a "reach"), the owner of the shop might show up and go, "oh crap" and they might very well pay someone a few bucks to cover it up or perhaps do it themselves. The artists' intention is clear -- to throw up some paint and that's it. The paint isn't going to seep into the wall and ruin everything inside, however. It isn't going to pick up the cash register and run off. It isn't going to take every customer's credit information.
When someone breaks into a system -- regardless of their motivations -- the breakee does not know what the intruder has in mind. Maybe it is benign, maybe it isn't, but there is no room to "let it slide." It must be treated as a malicious attack and thus computers must be shut down, customers/students lose services, huge costs in time and effort can and will be expended to purge the system of the problem which often involves what might very well be overkill -- like reinstalling a system or a number of systems because you Don't Know and you can't afford to leave loose ends.
Graffiti and network intrusion would be analagous if and only if graffiti caused the same sort of response. It doesn't.
And in case you're curious as to why I'd be into graf, check out these sites.
EBN was doing this stuff, much better, I might add, in the early 90's.
I qualify that slightly because afaik, it might even be some or all of the founding members of EBN that are behind GNN. Their original stuff, however, was far more deft and sarcastic. This 11-minute clip was fairly boring bore none of the medium-bending antics of the previous group.
Multinational. Multinational.
Yeah, I'm afraid.
We all have ideas about what the future is going to be like. But almost without fail, I am corrected in one direction; Jennifer Government , sprawl and caste.
*sigh
Food Patch? How about a Laid Patch?
I can almost guarantee this will be modded down for lack of recognition. How about:
Cornelius: "I feel so guilty sending her to do the dirty work. I know she was made to be strong but she's also so fragile... So human. You know what I mean?"
Bartender: [shaking head]
If you beowulf them do you get an AA meeting?
From the link you posted, Bob Massa (of SearchKing) writes:
" If you take your web presence seriously, and accept that the words research.yale.edu means something, doesn't that put a responsibility on you to be open-minded and fair? To at least try to report objectively?"
This guy is almost as whiny as the Bernard Shifman twit! If you look at what was written, it says, basically, "this is a loser of a case and a waste of SearchKing's money." In other words, James Grimmelmann doesn't talk to Google either, he simply looks at the case on its merits and proclaims it is a loser.
I guarantee that if James stood on the opposite side of the fence it would be Massa proclaiming him a genius.
An AC (aren't they all?) wrote:
"The founding fathers also weren't at risk of being thrown in jail indefinitely without a trial due to the PATRIOT and Father^H^H^H^H^H^HHomeland security acts."
Right. They were at risk of being shot.
My attraction to open source -- outside of the Stallman-esque "it's inherantly better by virtue of it being open" argument -- is due to the features it offers that Windows does not. Namely, the ability to customize my desktop to near-absurd levels and an extremely powerful command-line interface.
I don't see anything at all in the Constitution that provides you the guarantee of an audience, so I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree here.
But thanks for the good reply. Not enough of those. My big complaint. =)
MacAndrew writes:
"Ironically, it's the ACLU that would flip out if political calls were barred. (First Amendment, I mentioned this above) They are currently part of a group ranging from them to the NRA, contesting the campaign finance reform law's restrictions in political advertising."
I'd be very surprised if the ACLU came out against not exempting politicians from this law (though I don't agree with the ACLU on everything, who does?). There is a vast difference between the right to speak (which you have) and the right to be heard (which you do not have).
Why the HELL are nonprofits and politicians, of all things, exempt?
...I'm not stupid. Perhaps I shouldn't be asking "why." I know why. I should be asking "who let them?" There are three categories of people I don't want calling my house and they've exempted two of them.
I mean
I know what charities exist and if I want to give to them, I will. The ACLU, in fact, got my $35 on January 1st.
In the current economic climate, this is sort of like having a "100 Best Girls to Have Sex With" list. Yeah, Alyssa Milano might very well be on it but she's not hiring, so who cares?
Thanks, that helps much.
gpinzone writes:
"That's the price you pay for living in a "free" society. Deal with it...the founding fathers did."
<div class="sarcasm">
Yeah, because the founding fathers never would have done anything under, say, a pseudonym.
</div>