I could understand recommending some sort of full disk encryption product to protect confidential information on their computers, but Tor was designed for something different: anonymous browsing. Why would judges need that as part of their professional duties?
Will the "supersmart mouse" be smarter than a human? If no, how would it be dangerous? If so, wouldn't that be a potentially useful thing to have around?
Nothing is a deal breaker for Trump fans. Trump could rape the father of one of his supporters and the supporter would cheer. Or at least blame Hillary.
People like Trump supporters are nothing new. This is from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (Act I Scene2):
"Three or four wenches, where I stood, cried 'Alas, good
soul!' and forgave him with all their hearts: but
there's no heed to be taken of them; if Caesar had
stabbed their mothers, they would have done no less."
I went so far as to look into the IRS Criminal Investigation manual, and I will admit it was a challenge to take it all in. But I found it quite curious that the IRS were the ones who initiated this investigation. (see page 21 of https://www.justice.gov/usao-n... ) Not much more is said about it, but I have to question why was the IRS investigating a torrent site? Is it because someone running it may have been in the US, and may have been profiting from it? That is the only thing I can think of, but that leads to all kinds of other questions.
Apparently one of the charges against him is money laundering and that falls under the purview of the IRS. Remember, they put Al Capone away for tax evasion.
The original source of the money doesn't have to be illegal to trigger money laundering laws. It's the act of hiding transactions from the government (which may be otherwise legal or illegal) which is illegal. Even making repeated deposits or withdrawals in amounts just under $10,000 to avoid reporting requirements counts as money laundering even if there was no illegal activity involved in procuring the money.
If Slashdot doesn't condone piracy, maybe Slashdot shouldn't categorize stories involving Torrent sites (which host both legal as well as infringing material) under the "piracy" category and show the skull and crossbones icon. It made sense for the original story since copyright charges were filed by the U.S. government and so there was a connection to copyright infringement, but simply alerting users to the availability of torrent sites should not be tagged under piracy, at least if Slashdot doesn't want to give the appearance of condoning piracy.
We just saw an article explaining how China had just outlawed ad-blockers.
Does this mean China can accuse the maker of ad-blocking software with a major crime, and require that person to be extradited to China for trial?
Only if he's arrested in another country where ad blockers are illegal. Presumably aiding and abetting copyright infringement is illegal in Poland as well as in the United States.
In a fair economic situation every company would have total access to a competitor's data. That way they can price compete while both having all the information. In an unfair system what does it mean to cheat? Is it to the players' benefit that all the data is kept secret? After all if all know the truth the pay might be much higher.
The problem with your argument is there is a often a monetary value to information. Man hours have to be spent to collect and analyze this data. If it all has to be shared with competitors, there'd be no incentive for businesses to spend the resources to create that information in the first place.
By filing a patent, the techniques are all now publicly available, including to the designers of torrent clients. With these techniques made public, it won't be long before a new generation of torrent software is available which can circumvent those techniques.
This may be good advice in a relatively free country where people are allowed to criticize their government as well as investigate bad behavior by those in power, but in many countries in the world people don't have those freedoms which we take for granted. People living in oppressive regimes may need to rely more on technological means to protect their rights to organize and to criticize their government. An essential part of a participatory democracy is that people can be critical of their government, and if we want more countries to follow that model, people need to be free to exchange ideas without fear of reprisal.
People don't realize this, but about a hundred years ago when people switched from pocket watches to wrist watches, they were clever enough to realize that future models would feature motion sensors and people would do their banking at electronic cash dispensing machines. Hence the tradition of wearing watches on the left hand.
If the new owner of the domain puts anything up at tplinklogin.net, especially a fake login/phishing page, couldn't they be sued by TP-Link for trademark infringement?
You should never spend more than 20% of you annual income on a car. Median income in the US is ~$50,000 per year. So half the US population can only afford a are of $10,000. Good luck finding a new car at that price.
Where did you get the 20% figure? I typically spend about half my annual income on a new car. I start saving for my next car shortly after I buy one.
Or maybe anti social dorks shouldn't make it so that entertainment requires banking level security to keep these losers from ruining the fun for everyone else. The fault lies with the cheats not the manufacturers.
That would be a perfectly valid philosophy in a situation with a small population of people that know each other. Most people are honest, and most people don't want to be the jerk that screws things up for everybody. But that kind of thinking doesn't scale to large populations, especially where the "anonymity" of the Internet is concerned. There are people in the world, admittedly a small minority, that actually enjoy making life miserable for others. And if you have a sufficiently large population, it will include some of the those people. So building software with proper security shouldn't be limited just to banks.
Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofing their games. If cheaters can so easily ruin the game for others, then they should perhaps design their games more robustly. Imagine if banking systems worked this way: they only way your bank can protect money in your account is to launch lawsuits at "cheat sites" which tell people how to steal money from other people's accounts. If their systems were designed that poorly, no one would have any money left in their bank accounts. Perhaps similar security practices should be applied to game design.
I read the article and it looks like this exploit merely allows offline brute forcing of the password. Now, of course, many people choose short passwords on their portable devices, but if you choose a password with sufficient entropy (at least 100 bits, or better yet, 128) you should be safe from this attack. Note: that would require a fairly long and random alphanumeric password.
They need to lie and say they are black or lie about their zip code in order to see if there is any disparate treatment. They can't do this with the CFAA as it is technically illegal, since they are lying about their identity.
Why can't these researchers simply hire some black people? Why do they need to commit fraud to do their research? And if I'm offering an online service or business, why should I be compelled to offer my computing resources to assist in your research, noble though your research goals may be?
So, if you're in the business of pirating movies by filming them at movie theaters, why would you buy an iPhone? Why not simply by an Android or some other phone or camera? What incentive would there be for companies like Samsung or others to license this technology from Apple in the first place?
...extremists are busy creating new FB accounts and smothering them with cat pics and lolz.
That's exactly what the U.S. Customs agents are counting on. They're hoping that the unsavory characters they want to keep out will create fake Facebook and Twitter accounts and they're also hoping that these people will be stupid enough to create these same accounts from the same IP address used to create and update their real accounts.
(And because getting a commodore 64 to boot over a network was.... traumatic)
Traumatic? I would have thought impossible. Please explain how one sets up a Commodore 64 to "boot over a network". I grew up with a C64 and I don't remember any such capability. There was a serial port which could support up to a 1200 baud modem as I recall, but no capability to boot over the modem. In fact, the computer's "operating system" (essentially a BASIC interpreter) was in the ROM memory, and didn't even need to boot from the disk.
We can all stop pretending we have any privacy. I like the idea of a doctor having access no matter where I am.
That's easy to say when you're relatively healthy, and doctor visits have been for routine things like throat infections, a broken arm, maybe an appendix out, but you might feel differently if you're diagnosed with a mental illness, an awkward venereal disease, or something else you'd like to keep private. Once you agree to this scheme, it might be hard to get out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I could understand recommending some sort of full disk encryption product to protect confidential information on their computers, but Tor was designed for something different: anonymous browsing. Why would judges need that as part of their professional duties?
Will the "supersmart mouse" be smarter than a human? If no, how would it be dangerous? If so, wouldn't that be a potentially useful thing to have around?
Nothing is a deal breaker for Trump fans. Trump could rape the father of one of his supporters and the supporter would cheer. Or at least blame Hillary.
People like Trump supporters are nothing new. This is from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (Act I Scene2):
"Three or four wenches, where I stood, cried 'Alas, good
soul!' and forgave him with all their hearts: but
there's no heed to be taken of them; if Caesar had
stabbed their mothers, they would have done no less."
I'm sure the defense will raise this. All this article talks about is what the prosecution alleges.
I went so far as to look into the IRS Criminal Investigation manual, and I will admit it was a challenge to take it all in. But I found it quite curious that the IRS were the ones who initiated this investigation. (see page 21 of https://www.justice.gov/usao-n... ) Not much more is said about it, but I have to question why was the IRS investigating a torrent site? Is it because someone running it may have been in the US, and may have been profiting from it? That is the only thing I can think of, but that leads to all kinds of other questions.
Apparently one of the charges against him is money laundering and that falls under the purview of the IRS. Remember, they put Al Capone away for tax evasion.
OK, but what made them illegal?
The original source of the money doesn't have to be illegal to trigger money laundering laws. It's the act of hiding transactions from the government (which may be otherwise legal or illegal) which is illegal. Even making repeated deposits or withdrawals in amounts just under $10,000 to avoid reporting requirements counts as money laundering even if there was no illegal activity involved in procuring the money.
If Slashdot doesn't condone piracy, maybe Slashdot shouldn't categorize stories involving Torrent sites (which host both legal as well as infringing material) under the "piracy" category and show the skull and crossbones icon. It made sense for the original story since copyright charges were filed by the U.S. government and so there was a connection to copyright infringement, but simply alerting users to the availability of torrent sites should not be tagged under piracy, at least if Slashdot doesn't want to give the appearance of condoning piracy.
We just saw an article explaining how China had just outlawed ad-blockers.
Does this mean China can accuse the maker of ad-blocking software with a major crime, and require that person to be extradited to China for trial?
Only if he's arrested in another country where ad blockers are illegal. Presumably aiding and abetting copyright infringement is illegal in Poland as well as in the United States.
In a fair economic situation every company would have total access to a competitor's data. That way they can price compete while both having all the information. In an unfair system what does it mean to cheat? Is it to the players' benefit that all the data is kept secret? After all if all know the truth the pay might be much higher.
The problem with your argument is there is a often a monetary value to information. Man hours have to be spent to collect and analyze this data. If it all has to be shared with competitors, there'd be no incentive for businesses to spend the resources to create that information in the first place.
By filing a patent, the techniques are all now publicly available, including to the designers of torrent clients. With these techniques made public, it won't be long before a new generation of torrent software is available which can circumvent those techniques.
How many people in the US have to die before we realize that private ownership of guns is terrible idea?
You don't need a gun. If you have one, you can dispose of it at any police station, no questions asked.
Although there may be some merit to what you say, I fail to see what it has to do with a password reuse tool.
This may be good advice in a relatively free country where people are allowed to criticize their government as well as investigate bad behavior by those in power, but in many countries in the world people don't have those freedoms which we take for granted. People living in oppressive regimes may need to rely more on technological means to protect their rights to organize and to criticize their government. An essential part of a participatory democracy is that people can be critical of their government, and if we want more countries to follow that model, people need to be free to exchange ideas without fear of reprisal.
People don't realize this, but about a hundred years ago when people switched from pocket watches to wrist watches, they were clever enough to realize that future models would feature motion sensors and people would do their banking at electronic cash dispensing machines. Hence the tradition of wearing watches on the left hand.
If the new owner of the domain puts anything up at tplinklogin.net, especially a fake login/phishing page, couldn't they be sued by TP-Link for trademark infringement?
You should never spend more than 20% of you annual income on a car. Median income in the US is ~$50,000 per year. So half the US population can only afford a are of $10,000. Good luck finding a new car at that price.
Where did you get the 20% figure? I typically spend about half my annual income on a new car. I start saving for my next car shortly after I buy one.
Or maybe anti social dorks shouldn't make it so that entertainment requires banking level security to keep these losers from ruining the fun for everyone else. The fault lies with the cheats not the manufacturers.
That would be a perfectly valid philosophy in a situation with a small population of people that know each other. Most people are honest, and most people don't want to be the jerk that screws things up for everybody. But that kind of thinking doesn't scale to large populations, especially where the "anonymity" of the Internet is concerned. There are people in the world, admittedly a small minority, that actually enjoy making life miserable for others. And if you have a sufficiently large population, it will include some of the those people. So building software with proper security shouldn't be limited just to banks.
Maybe they should work harder at cheat-proofing their games. If cheaters can so easily ruin the game for others, then they should perhaps design their games more robustly. Imagine if banking systems worked this way: they only way your bank can protect money in your account is to launch lawsuits at "cheat sites" which tell people how to steal money from other people's accounts. If their systems were designed that poorly, no one would have any money left in their bank accounts. Perhaps similar security practices should be applied to game design.
I read the article and it looks like this exploit merely allows offline brute forcing of the password. Now, of course, many people choose short passwords on their portable devices, but if you choose a password with sufficient entropy (at least 100 bits, or better yet, 128) you should be safe from this attack. Note: that would require a fairly long and random alphanumeric password.
They need to lie and say they are black or lie about their zip code in order to see if there is any disparate treatment. They can't do this with the CFAA as it is technically illegal, since they are lying about their identity.
Why can't these researchers simply hire some black people? Why do they need to commit fraud to do their research? And if I'm offering an online service or business, why should I be compelled to offer my computing resources to assist in your research, noble though your research goals may be?
Why the f*ck are we still wasting this gas on such stupid things as party balloons. Why wasn't this completely verboten years ago.
Verboten by whom? There is no worldwide helium police force.
So, if you're in the business of pirating movies by filming them at movie theaters, why would you buy an iPhone? Why not simply by an Android or some other phone or camera? What incentive would there be for companies like Samsung or others to license this technology from Apple in the first place?
...extremists are busy creating new FB accounts and smothering them with cat pics and lolz.
That's exactly what the U.S. Customs agents are counting on. They're hoping that the unsavory characters they want to keep out will create fake Facebook and Twitter accounts and they're also hoping that these people will be stupid enough to create these same accounts from the same IP address used to create and update their real accounts.
(And because getting a commodore 64 to boot over a network was.... traumatic)
Traumatic? I would have thought impossible. Please explain how one sets up a Commodore 64 to "boot over a network". I grew up with a C64 and I don't remember any such capability. There was a serial port which could support up to a 1200 baud modem as I recall, but no capability to boot over the modem. In fact, the computer's "operating system" (essentially a BASIC interpreter) was in the ROM memory, and didn't even need to boot from the disk.
That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
First, no it isn't. Secondly he didn't say it was IN the Constitution, he said it was part of the Military Oath of Enlistment.
We can all stop pretending we have any privacy. I like the idea of a doctor having access no matter where I am.
That's easy to say when you're relatively healthy, and doctor visits have been for routine things like throat infections, a broken arm, maybe an appendix out, but you might feel differently if you're diagnosed with a mental illness, an awkward venereal disease, or something else you'd like to keep private. Once you agree to this scheme, it might be hard to get out of it.