That being said, then all websites on the web should be deemed public by default,
What are you, a lawyer? Your view opens the door to endless litigation. Websites on the web ARE public, just as are IP addresses. You can't prevent someone from going to a web-site. However you CAN secure your website from unauthorized access. In the case you propose, it would be a "crime" to commit a typo and end up on the "wrong" page. In my case, just visiting the page won't get you the information I don't want you to see. You have to actively try to break into the site in order to get to it. Thus I can prove malicious intent.
Just like it's a lot easier to convince a court that you were justified in shooting the armed burglar who jumped a fence, smashed your window and defeated the alarm system of your house. A lot easier than convincing them that the guy who strayed off the sidewalk 12 inches onto your un-fenced lawn deserved a bullet in the head.
An unlocked door also doesn't mean you have the right to open it either.
However, leaving your "secret info" in a public place, like say, the MIDDLE OF THE STREET, does not entitle you to any form of protection.
No door was opened. The internet by definition is PUBLIC. That is the PURPOSE of the internet. If you create a website and put information on it that requires no authentication or other sort of credentials to access it, you have placed said information in the PUBLIC. Otherwise all search engines are repeatedly "hacking" every single site on the web. You know that there's a file called robots.txt that you can use to limit access from spiders. And you know there's something called a "password" to protect sensitive information.
Not only is it inexcusable that a public office would commit such an act of negligence as putting (presumably) sensitive information in a place where it can be accessed by anyone, they compound their ignorance by trying to go after people who stumble across it. There have been a lot of ridiculous things happening in Australia lately, but this one takes the cake.
No I'm sorry, it's my fault - there's no limit to password length. The password must contain AT LEAST 4 letters AND 4 characters. I just didn't type it very well.
This article was not worth the five minutes I spent reading it.
Congratulations on being the only person on slashdot to actually read an article!
Seriously, it's never impossible to get compromised, but security has come a long way, what with tokens and forced password changes every 30 days and forced complex passwords (at least in my bank - must be 4 digits and 4 letters, no vowels and no consecutive/repeated digits). To log in I need both my password which is entered by a java "keyboard" that randomizes the keys every time, and my token. It will take more than just a keylogger to get into my account.
Yep, and the "Olympic Movement" is given special rights under US Laws
It used to be that hosting olympic events was a money-maker for the cities involved. However recently data shows that towns that host Olympics are actually losing out. I don't agree with "special privileges" for anyone, but it's understandable to see how they can happen where there is a source of income for the state. But when the state is trying to "protect" something that is actually costing tax payer dollars, it's time to repeal laws (or repeal the damned state).
If this guy wanted to use the Canadian law exemption, he should have also put in a block (which is available to the big guys like the NBC and MLB) that made sure his stream was only available in Canada. He'd have no liability there, but he's breaking copyright law in the USA
I'm sorry to hear that your map only contains Canada and the USA, however I must point out that there are quite a few more countries in the world and the draconian US copyright laws don't apply in them.
Unless you have data which shows something to the contrary, don't dismiss it out of hand, just like you (clearly) don't accept it on their word.
On the contrary, we live in an age where moral decadence is rampant even among professionals. Where well known drug companies create sock puppet "peer reviewed" magazines, with the sole purpose of "publishing" favorable studies for their drugs. Where "climate experts" leave out any inconvenient truth that contradicts the trend they are trying to "prove". Where "expert witnesses" in court turn out to be frauds and lie under oath.
No, today is a time when you must especially dismiss reports like this out of hand. And there are several reasons:
I doubt the CEO of any company would proudly announce how much money his company "lost" due to "cyber-attack" (yes look at us we're vulnerable/we're idiots!). It's none of Symantec's business.
Their categories are meaningless. Please explain the difference between Cyber-attacks, "Traditional criminal activities" and (of course it had to be there) "terrorism"? These are all separate categories according to their survey. Apparently 10% of all companies surveyed have been the victims of "terrorism". This does not correlate well with, say, the evening news.
They claim that on average companies are losing $2 million per year EACH. Yet the majority of companies (71%) are experiencing "no cyber attacks" or "just a few cyber attacks". Clearly these tiny attacks must be devastating.
Another section claims that 29% of respondents claim "significant" or "slight" increase in "attacks" in the past year. What they leave out is that this means 71% of respondents think there is "no increase" or some sort of "decrease". Oops.
Frankly, if you don't know how to think, you get swindled by lies like this. Symantec is out to sell "security" and in order to do that, they are willing to make you think that they are the only ones who can prevent your business from being ruined ($2 million dollars/year/large enterprise, or at least that's how they want it to sound) and that you are surrounded by enemies.
This is like the MPAA/RIAA claiming that "piracy" is costing their respective industries "billions" of dollars. Seriously - if you can't spot the conflict of interest you need to turn in your critical thinking hat.
This is just marketing to increase sales of their "security" products. In fact if you go to the actual PDF linked to in the article it looks suspiciously like a sales brochure, presenting the "problem" and at the end showing how Symantec is the "solution".
Let me guess... next you want me to hit you as hard as I can?
What, there's no size difference between say "Coke" and "Pepsi"? Or "McDonalds" and "Burger King"? Clearly there are 500 companies on the Fortune 500 list. Some are near the top, and some are near the bottom. This one is near the top.
Afterwards the pieces of M$ should be given to the free software movements so interoperability can be acheived.
I know you're trolling, but that's the problem. You want everyone to switch to linux, and then you expect interoperability to be developed. It's not going to happen. The interoperability must come first, and then and ONLY then will linux even be considered for anything more than running the servers.\
Linux is like the DVORAK keyboard - apparently it was/is faster and apparently the layout was more "well thought out" than QWERTY. However you can't expect the whole world to suddenly switch unless there is a clear decisive advantage to investing hours of training and downtime to transition to the new standard. Dvorak is only "marginally" better than QWERTY - and even that small margin in speed is disputed, so it ends up being just not worth the up front cost of switching and retraining.
The same for linux. Yes it has come far. Yes ubuntu can be run by just about anyone. Yes there are similar apps available in linux. However by design, by omission and due to copyright/patent laws, they are different enough to require substantial investments in switching. Also very few of them have ALL the features available in current Windows software. And big business is showing you that even at X hundred dollars/product cycle, Microsoft products (and products designed only for Windows) are still "cheaper". It's not enough to "clone" current Windows software in linux. Something has to be made that is CLEARLY BETTER. Until then linux will remain the toy OS for nerds, or the stable OS quietly running things in the background invisible to Joe Average.
I'm the husband of a senior exec in a Fortune 500 company which will remain nameless (but you use their products every day anywhere in the world - it's a big one) I have noticed that they still use Windows XP and IE 6. Although my better half isn't in the IT department I have made this observation to her and the apparent reason is that IT is "waiting" to upgrade to Windows 7 (ie, they skipped Vista entirely) and they plan on doing "all the upgrades at the same time". The internet browser is not the key feature for their staff anyway (what really gets used is office and outlook 2007 plus a custom "IM" program). In fact, large chunks of the internet are blacklisted by the IT department. You just can't get there from the company VPN which is the only way to connect on the "company laptop" (good thing they don't know about "Ubuntu" so my wife and I can skype each other when she travels).
My understand is that it's not "ignorance" that is holding back the switch - rather the economic problems set back upgrades of company hardware that were planned for last year and have been pushed forwards to 2011 and the tech boys decided that if they're going to upgrade they'll do everything at once, including the browser.
Re:Good luck getting it repealed now
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The reality here is the only thing this asshole was try to fight for was the right to be a tax cheat.
Just like your founding fathers. After all, excessive TAX was the REASON for the revolt - or at least the one put forward in school books. Oh wait, were you trying to make a different point with your comment? Were you trying to say that the founding fathers were somehow "good terrorists" and this guy is a "bad one" because he had tax issues?
You picked a bad example, guy. However if you look at history, (excessive) taxation in times of ludicrous government excesses (or failure to address the problems in the economy) is usually what sets the stage for revolt. We're not there yet, but Slack is a sign that the barometer is falling and a storm is coming.
Re:Good luck getting it repealed now
on
Our Low-Tech Tax Code
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Call it what you will. You push people hard enough and eventually they start pushing back. I see an interesting future for the US - the "land of the free" where 12 year olds are arrested for writing on school desks. Very interesting indeed. Will they still be terrorists when they are fighting and dying for your rights?
it will look like the government can be swayed by terrorism.
Nah, it was just a tax paying citizen making his complaint heard. No need to label him a "terrorist". He didn't want Israel out of Palestine, or fellow terrorists released from jail, etc. His "manifesto" isn't a manifesto, it's a suicide note. Sure, turn him into something evil if you want, but he was a desperate guy 50 years old staring a bleak future in the face in the land of opportunity, and he decided he didn't want to live it.
but it is rather apparent that to be noticed by government
Speaking of which, I notice an uncanny lack of reporting over this incident. It exploded across the internet, but not really through the formal news channels. CNN, which covered the plane crash of a fighter jet into a residential neighborhood for DAYS with live footage, etc, only mentioned the crash briefly in their reports and on their website had only one small link that took you to the story.
But oh God, Tiger Woods just farted so let's dedicate a good 25% of each hour to THAT.
It's hard to avoid thinking that the government somehow "asked" the press to downplay this, and the press is complying. Just like you never really hear about the WARS anymore... This is the New World Order. Hell if it wasn't for the internet, all the news we'd get would be about Angelina, Brad and Tiger.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it a waste of my time to point out that the UK has had a Bill of Rights since 1689 thus predating the American version by some 100 years.
Not to mention the Magna Carta, written into law in 1215... no I think the UK doesn't need to adopt any laws from rebel colonies.
That being said, then all websites on the web should be deemed public by default,
What are you, a lawyer? Your view opens the door to endless litigation. Websites on the web ARE public, just as are IP addresses. You can't prevent someone from going to a web-site. However you CAN secure your website from unauthorized access. In the case you propose, it would be a "crime" to commit a typo and end up on the "wrong" page. In my case, just visiting the page won't get you the information I don't want you to see. You have to actively try to break into the site in order to get to it. Thus I can prove malicious intent.
Just like it's a lot easier to convince a court that you were justified in shooting the armed burglar who jumped a fence, smashed your window and defeated the alarm system of your house. A lot easier than convincing them that the guy who strayed off the sidewalk 12 inches onto your un-fenced lawn deserved a bullet in the head.
An unlocked door also doesn't mean you have the right to open it either.
However, leaving your "secret info" in a public place, like say, the MIDDLE OF THE STREET, does not entitle you to any form of protection.
No door was opened. The internet by definition is PUBLIC. That is the PURPOSE of the internet. If you create a website and put information on it that requires no authentication or other sort of credentials to access it, you have placed said information in the PUBLIC. Otherwise all search engines are repeatedly "hacking" every single site on the web. You know that there's a file called robots.txt that you can use to limit access from spiders. And you know there's something called a "password" to protect sensitive information.
Not only is it inexcusable that a public office would commit such an act of negligence as putting (presumably) sensitive information in a place where it can be accessed by anyone, they compound their ignorance by trying to go after people who stumble across it. There have been a lot of ridiculous things happening in Australia lately, but this one takes the cake.
No I'm sorry, it's my fault - there's no limit to password length. The password must contain AT LEAST 4 letters AND 4 characters. I just didn't type it very well.
LOL - modded troll because, er, someone disagrees with you. How DARE YOU not believe in global warming? Hehehe
This article was not worth the five minutes I spent reading it.
Congratulations on being the only person on slashdot to actually read an article!
Seriously, it's never impossible to get compromised, but security has come a long way, what with tokens and forced password changes every 30 days and forced complex passwords (at least in my bank - must be 4 digits and 4 letters, no vowels and no consecutive/repeated digits). To log in I need both my password which is entered by a java "keyboard" that randomizes the keys every time, and my token. It will take more than just a keylogger to get into my account.
So I take it you watch car/motorcycle races just for the crashes, too?
Yep, and the "Olympic Movement" is given special rights under US Laws
It used to be that hosting olympic events was a money-maker for the cities involved. However recently data shows that towns that host Olympics are actually losing out. I don't agree with "special privileges" for anyone, but it's understandable to see how they can happen where there is a source of income for the state. But when the state is trying to "protect" something that is actually costing tax payer dollars, it's time to repeal laws (or repeal the damned state).
It's not exactly a shining-star moment in the Olympics. I'm sure they'd prefer people forgot about it and moved on.
Yes it's much easier to pay lawyers to try to shut everyone up than actually fix a dangerous track that has injured several other athletes.
If this guy wanted to use the Canadian law exemption, he should have also put in a block (which is available to the big guys like the NBC and MLB) that made sure his stream was only available in Canada. He'd have no liability there, but he's breaking copyright law in the USA
I'm sorry to hear that your map only contains Canada and the USA, however I must point out that there are quite a few more countries in the world and the draconian US copyright laws don't apply in them.
The only problem with the cat was they have 9 lives. No wonder we always kept getting live cats when we opened the box.
so Symantec compiles a report from the business' which use it's product and claim 100% have had a cyber loss, how is this a good thing for symantec?
Good one. That is waaaayyy over the head of the marketing people who created er sorry compiled this "report"...
If only we could do that with politicians....
Well apparently adding Sarah Palin to your ballot will undo most of your political votes, too.
Unless you have data which shows something to the contrary, don't dismiss it out of hand, just like you (clearly) don't accept it on their word.
On the contrary, we live in an age where moral decadence is rampant even among professionals. Where well known drug companies create sock puppet "peer reviewed" magazines, with the sole purpose of "publishing" favorable studies for their drugs. Where "climate experts" leave out any inconvenient truth that contradicts the trend they are trying to "prove". Where "expert witnesses" in court turn out to be frauds and lie under oath.
No, today is a time when you must especially dismiss reports like this out of hand. And there are several reasons:
I doubt the CEO of any company would proudly announce how much money his company "lost" due to "cyber-attack" (yes look at us we're vulnerable/we're idiots!). It's none of Symantec's business.
Their categories are meaningless. Please explain the difference between Cyber-attacks, "Traditional criminal activities" and (of course it had to be there) "terrorism"? These are all separate categories according to their survey. Apparently 10% of all companies surveyed have been the victims of "terrorism". This does not correlate well with, say, the evening news.
They claim that on average companies are losing $2 million per year EACH. Yet the majority of companies (71%) are experiencing "no cyber attacks" or "just a few cyber attacks". Clearly these tiny attacks must be devastating.
Another section claims that 29% of respondents claim "significant" or "slight" increase in "attacks" in the past year. What they leave out is that this means 71% of respondents think there is "no increase" or some sort of "decrease". Oops.
Frankly, if you don't know how to think, you get swindled by lies like this. Symantec is out to sell "security" and in order to do that, they are willing to make you think that they are the only ones who can prevent your business from being ruined ($2 million dollars/year/large enterprise, or at least that's how they want it to sound) and that you are surrounded by enemies.
Can anyone tell me what a "brand-related risk" might be for security professionals
Presumably that would be "not buying Symantec security products".
This is like the MPAA/RIAA claiming that "piracy" is costing their respective industries "billions" of dollars. Seriously - if you can't spot the conflict of interest you need to turn in your critical thinking hat.
This is just marketing to increase sales of their "security" products. In fact if you go to the actual PDF linked to in the article it looks suspiciously like a sales brochure, presenting the "problem" and at the end showing how Symantec is the "solution".
Amazing how posts get modded insightful even though they take no time to explain their possition.
The mod system shares the same flaw as democracy: Morons also have a vote.
Good thing you had back ups. Right?
Let me guess... next you want me to hit you as hard as I can?
What, there's no size difference between say "Coke" and "Pepsi"? Or "McDonalds" and "Burger King"? Clearly there are 500 companies on the Fortune 500 list. Some are near the top, and some are near the bottom. This one is near the top.
Afterwards the pieces of M$ should be given to the free software movements so interoperability can be acheived.
I know you're trolling, but that's the problem. You want everyone to switch to linux, and then you expect interoperability to be developed. It's not going to happen. The interoperability must come first, and then and ONLY then will linux even be considered for anything more than running the servers.\
Linux is like the DVORAK keyboard - apparently it was/is faster and apparently the layout was more "well thought out" than QWERTY. However you can't expect the whole world to suddenly switch unless there is a clear decisive advantage to investing hours of training and downtime to transition to the new standard. Dvorak is only "marginally" better than QWERTY - and even that small margin in speed is disputed, so it ends up being just not worth the up front cost of switching and retraining.
The same for linux. Yes it has come far. Yes ubuntu can be run by just about anyone. Yes there are similar apps available in linux. However by design, by omission and due to copyright/patent laws, they are different enough to require substantial investments in switching. Also very few of them have ALL the features available in current Windows software. And big business is showing you that even at X hundred dollars/product cycle, Microsoft products (and products designed only for Windows) are still "cheaper". It's not enough to "clone" current Windows software in linux. Something has to be made that is CLEARLY BETTER. Until then linux will remain the toy OS for nerds, or the stable OS quietly running things in the background invisible to Joe Average.
I'm the husband of a senior exec in a Fortune 500 company which will remain nameless (but you use their products every day anywhere in the world - it's a big one) I have noticed that they still use Windows XP and IE 6. Although my better half isn't in the IT department I have made this observation to her and the apparent reason is that IT is "waiting" to upgrade to Windows 7 (ie, they skipped Vista entirely) and they plan on doing "all the upgrades at the same time". The internet browser is not the key feature for their staff anyway (what really gets used is office and outlook 2007 plus a custom "IM" program). In fact, large chunks of the internet are blacklisted by the IT department. You just can't get there from the company VPN which is the only way to connect on the "company laptop" (good thing they don't know about "Ubuntu" so my wife and I can skype each other when she travels).
My understand is that it's not "ignorance" that is holding back the switch - rather the economic problems set back upgrades of company hardware that were planned for last year and have been pushed forwards to 2011 and the tech boys decided that if they're going to upgrade they'll do everything at once, including the browser.
The reality here is the only thing this asshole was try to fight for was the right to be a tax cheat.
Just like your founding fathers. After all, excessive TAX was the REASON for the revolt - or at least the one put forward in school books. Oh wait, were you trying to make a different point with your comment? Were you trying to say that the founding fathers were somehow "good terrorists" and this guy is a "bad one" because he had tax issues?
You picked a bad example, guy. However if you look at history, (excessive) taxation in times of ludicrous government excesses (or failure to address the problems in the economy) is usually what sets the stage for revolt. We're not there yet, but Slack is a sign that the barometer is falling and a storm is coming.
Call it what you will. You push people hard enough and eventually they start pushing back. I see an interesting future for the US - the "land of the free" where 12 year olds are arrested for writing on school desks. Very interesting indeed. Will they still be terrorists when they are fighting and dying for your rights?
it will look like the government can be swayed by terrorism.
Nah, it was just a tax paying citizen making his complaint heard. No need to label him a "terrorist". He didn't want Israel out of Palestine, or fellow terrorists released from jail, etc. His "manifesto" isn't a manifesto, it's a suicide note. Sure, turn him into something evil if you want, but he was a desperate guy 50 years old staring a bleak future in the face in the land of opportunity, and he decided he didn't want to live it.
but it is rather apparent that to be noticed by government
Speaking of which, I notice an uncanny lack of reporting over this incident. It exploded across the internet, but not really through the formal news channels. CNN, which covered the plane crash of a fighter jet into a residential neighborhood for DAYS with live footage, etc, only mentioned the crash briefly in their reports and on their website had only one small link that took you to the story.
But oh God, Tiger Woods just farted so let's dedicate a good 25% of each hour to THAT.
It's hard to avoid thinking that the government somehow "asked" the press to downplay this, and the press is complying. Just like you never really hear about the WARS anymore... This is the New World Order. Hell if it wasn't for the internet, all the news we'd get would be about Angelina, Brad and Tiger.