The computer science department is not teaching their students to write code without consideration of the environment of the Internet. At least nothing in this situation says they are.
What they are teaching is that it is unethical to run penetration testing against a system without permission. This philosophy is embodied in the ACM Code of Ethics, in section 2.8:
2.8 Access computing and communication resources only when authorized to do so.
Theft or destruction of tangible and electronic property is prohibited by imperative 1.2 - "Avoid harm to others." Trespassing and unauthorized use of a computer or communication system is addressed by this imperative. Trespassing includes accessing communication networks and computer systems, or accounts and/or files associated with those systems, without explicit authorization to do so. Individuals and organizations have the right to restrict access to their systems so long as they do not violate the discrimination principle (see 1.4). No one should enter or use another's computer system, software, or data files without permission. One must always have appropriate approval before using system resources, including communication ports, file space, other system peripherals, and computer time.
He got thanked for finding the flaw. He got expelled for pen testing someone else's system. Two different acts, two different issues.
Now I know you are posting just to see yourself posting. I'm the one who is telling Stilleto and others that it is illegal to block access to businesses and to trespass, etc. They're the ones with the endless "what if" and "how do you know I'm trespassing" and "what if I just say 'umm' a lot" arguments. They're arguing it isn't illegal to do that, and then they call it civil disobedience as if they know it is illegal.
They are going arrest you first and then collect evidence. Expect vidoe of you getting in line
They don't even need that much. The fact you are there is evidence you were there. A copy of the trespass notice is sufficient to prove you are there illegally.
And if they come back the next day and the next day and the next?
Then you have them arrested for breaking the law. It's illegal. It's called trespass. Try shoplifting at a Walmart and see how it works for yourself. Your picture goes up on the wall and the security team has you escorted off the property if you come back.
I really don't see what your point is.
Very simple. The fact that a mob CAN shut down a business doesn't mean it is legal for them do that, nor does it mean it is ethical or moral or right. It just means that they CAN do it.
Just like you could shoot up a classroom of children.
In response, the banks increased the number of stated income loans they made. That is racketeering.
No, that was following the rules that they were expected to operate under -- make owning your own home easier, not harder, even if that required that you make bad loans. Its part of the FDR "chicken in every pot" and "car in every garage" philosophy.
The tiny fact that the other poster forgets is that it is the attempt to eliminate the appearance of redlining that created this problem. If you look carefully, you might notice that some neighborhoods contain a higher percentage of lower income people than other neighborhoods. If you apply the same criteria for a loan to both neighborhoods, you will have a higher percentage of rejections from the lower income neighborhood. That would be used as proof of, you guessed it, redlining.
If you doubt that such simple statistics are how the government measures compliance with complicated laws, then you should look at Title IX. Schools are not evaluated on whether there are sufficient sports opportunities for boys and girls, they are measures on the percentages of participants. If 8% of the boys in a school participate in organized athletics, but only 4% of girls, the possibility that the girls really aren't interested is never considered. The difference is proof of a Title IX violation and the school is held accountable.
In order to bring those percentages up, they had to use simplified loan requirements like unverified income statements, or zero down, or very low interest ARMs.
And despite the implication the other poster made, it wasn't "McMansions" that were the cause of the housing crash. There aren't a ton of McMansions sitting empty or under foreclosure. It's middle and lower class houses that are the problem.
You and the few thousand people you called to come help you are "standing in line". You refuse to leave when the property owner tells you to. Yes, you are guilty of trespassing.
You come to the store with the intent to order something and then change your mind, it is unlikely that you will start spouting political slogans or protesting social injustice at the cashier, so when they tell you to leave, yes, you are trespassing.
By admitting that it is civil disobedience, you admit that you know you are breaking the law.
But are you really going to kick out every customer who goes "umm..." while ordering?
Kicking you out for trespass is not because you said "umm" while ordering, it is because you were not ordering anything to start with. It is disingenuous to ignore the real cause for the trespass complaint and claim it was "because someone just said 'umm'".
You basically don't grasp how civil disobedience works. This is exactly how it does.
Implicit in "civil disobedience" is "disobedience". Disobedience to what? THE LAW. So, you've just admitted that what you are doing is illegal.
How would you even write a law to make such practice illegal?
Easy. It's called "trespass". It's already a law.
I would go to great lengths to not provoke someone into or motivate someone to organizing such an attack.
In other words, the only people who have the right to free speech are those who say things you agree with. Otherwise, you'll organize a mob to come stop them from earning a living doing something completely unrelated to whatever opinion it is you don't like.
True, the manager could just say "All potential customers in this building must leave immediately." But that would sort of defeat the point of coming to work.
If a thousand people are waiting in line, about the time the tenth one spouts crap about marriage equality instead of conducting legitimate business, closing the business for the day becomes a good business model. Keeping the doors open because you think you have the right to block access of paying customers is creating a physical danger to everyone involved.
Face it. If a big mob of people wants to disrupt your business, they can do it.
Face it. The fact that a mob can do something doesn't mean that it is legal for them to do it.
The bankers were operating under the rules as implemented by the Senate Banking Committee and Mssrs. Frank and Christopher, who were explicit in saying that the system was not broken and did not need fixing, right up to the point that it failed.
When you demand that banks ignore all the risk indicators when making home loans, those risky loans have to go somewhere and they will, eventually, become a problem for everyone. The goal of everyone owning their own home was fine, but when the means was through relaxed credit requirements (like 0-down and low ARM and including income "credits" in the calculations) then the collapse was easily predictable.
It wasn't rocket science for me to predict that an ARM I was offered for my home loan would result in default when the balloon came due; it shouldn't have been a mystery when the balloons for other ARMs came due and people defaulted.
You fixed nothing. Those who want information to be free seldom limit that desire to information paid for exclusively by tax dollars. They also include things like music and movies and computer software produced by individuals and businesses.
I would tend to agree that taxpayer funded information should be free, with some limits. One is that information created under research grants should be first available to people being funded to do that research. That's an issue of keeping the funding available so the information can continue to be created.
If you are talking about those dongle things that show a token that you need to use to log in, then you are better off watching paint dry. Or need to get a life in the first place. Something that changes every five minutes just isn't that interesting.
At least while watching paint dry you might be entertained by a hapless fly that lands on the wet paint and then has to struggle to get free. If that kind of thing entertains you. Flies that land on the key dongle just fly away again.
The only way to break insane IP "rules"... is to crash the system.
Well yes, "crashing the system" is "breaking the rules."
What you want is to CHANGE the rules, and crashing the system is the last thing you want to do to accomplish that goal. If you "crash the system" then you are, in the legal and legislative system, part of the problem that the system must be reinforced to protect against. You are not going to be seen as part of the solution.
It's like protesting the 65MPH speed limit on the interstate highway by driving 90MPH. The legislature isn't going to say "this shows that we need to increase the speed limit", they are going to increase the budget for the state police so there are more cops to give out more tickets. Or protesting TSA rules about screening procedures by trying to sneak your way past all the screeners with a pocket knife, or smuggling in a prohibited item through the vendor access system. That just proves that there are dangerous people that TSA needs to protect us against, not that they are a failure that needs to be eliminated.
Information just wants to be free.
Information isn't a sentient thing, and thus has no "want" associated with it. YOU want information to be free, even information that other people spent money creating. That's an entirely different thing.
Passwords have been proven to be worthless on their own.
No, passwords have the potential for being bypassed, either through key loggers or social engineering. That doesn't make them worthless. For example, there is 0 chance that my password will be social engineered.
What we need is something like the banks use. Simple and very secure.
Oh, you mean something like a user id and password? That's what my bank uses. Why is that more secure than a user id and password for logging into anything else?
You want to login: enter you password and this token that changes every 5 minutes (or whatever) and voila.
I've seen those for military accounts someone I know has. Not for my bank.
We can start by offering this as an OPT in feature.
Which is why you can't get rid of password based security anytime soon. There is no reason why losing my phone should mean I can't log into my bank account.
Why would an outfit that is calling to steal your credit card data bother respecting a trivial law like the DNC list?
I had the guy on one of the ceaseless "credit service" calls actually tell me that I could trust him with my credit card info because it was illegal for him to abuse that data and he'd go to jail. I almost had a stroke I was laughing so hard.
Apparently you can search for lots of things on Facebook. For example:
Fearing the worst, I went to Facebook and tried searching for phone numbers. The first phone number I entered was from my own area code, made up prefix. It returned not one result, but a large number of results. People from Mexico, Indonesia, Greece, all over the world. Amazing, these people all have the same US phone number?
So I tried it with my own phone number. Again, a large number of hits, people from Mexico, Indonesia, Greece. Foreign countries like New Mexico, too. But I was not in the list. This is even more amazing. These people all have the same phone number I do, and I don't.
I think the fact that Facebook will find matches for phone numbers you enter into their search doesn't necessarily mean that those people have that phone number. Or that the number will accept SMS messages, spam or otherwise.
It may very well be a regulatory molecule that we don't know about and can't measure.
It may be due to molecules that are made up entirely of tachyons. Our normal aging is because there is a slight imbalance between our normal matter and tachyon physicality, leading to a slight shift towards what we view as "positive time".
Her condition comes from an almost exact balance between the two, thus a competition between normal matter aging in the normal direction and the FTL matter aging in reverse.
The Orkans (Mork and Mearth being the earthbound representatives) have the balance the other way, thus they age backwards.
No, she is the key to never developing past the physical or mental age of 5. Nobody said she'll never die. Five year olds can die, too.
And while she's got a lock on the physical age thing, many/. posters demonstrate the prior art that would prevent her from getting a patent on the mental part.
Even if they did, they'd still answer and say "I can't talk, I'm in the cinema... Really?...
How does that differ in any way from the ones who go "now see, she's going to hide under the bed and the kidnapper still finds her... that's not very realistic, there's no dust bunnies under that bed... oh, that had to hurt... I just love Liam Neeson, he's such a good actor. What was that movie he was in with what's his name? No, not him, I mean the one who was in that other movie with the guy from Rambo. Not Stallone...", who the theater owners never seem to care about stopping?
If you're going to break federal law like that, why not just shoot the bastards? I bet you'd have a zero percent recidivism rate after once, maybe twice, you did that.
Personally I don't mind, hate people using phones during any gig...
Yeah, you're rights are more important than anyone else's. How DARE someone want to be reachable in an emergency and still have a life?
"Any gig" makes you sound like a performer of some kind. Yes, I'd sure hate, as a performer, to have someone in the audience texting something like "Am seeing awsome performer, you gotta come see the act..." to their friends while I'm performing. How dare they! Of course, you probably don't have that problem. More like "this show sux, let's split lol".
You understood enough to complain about it, so I don't believe your lie that it makes no sense.
I told you exactly why it makes no sense. It makes no sense, so the coment that it doesn't is a reasonable statement.
So standing on the sidewalk is explicitly legal, but doing so near a door is explicitly illegal?
No, BLOCKING ACCESS is illegal whether you are standing on the sidewalk or standing someplace else. Next you'll make up some nonsense about how it is legal to breath but it suddenly becomes illegal if you do it while standing "near a door".
if you think it's handled unrealistically in fiction, correct it for us.
Right. I'll copy edit all the published works of fiction because YOU can't tell the difference between fiction and real life.
So, standing on the sidewalk in an inconvenient location is illegal.
You rode the little yellow bus to school, didn't you? The crime is blocking access to a business. That it was done while "standing on the sidewalk" is your red herring.
Have you ever seen an abortion clinic protest?
I have. That's why I know it is stupid to argue that the "blocking access" laws, either physical or electronic, should be repealed. That would just make it legal to do things that are now illegal, and that most people (you excepted, it appears) think shouldn't be allowed.
Whether they are arrested or not is not the issue.
Then your comment about sharing servers was just a typo? Everyone else here seems to be talking about Anonymous, you seem to be the only one who has limited himself to a completely off-topic interpretation of the discussion.
No, the topic was someone else complained about collateral damage.
This "collateral damage" was from attacks by Anonymous on people with whom they disagree, so you've now just admitted that the topic wasn't abortionists after all. You said that if they shared a server with "the murderers" that they deserved the same fate. Thus equating the difference of opinion with murder, and innocent bystanders of being as bad as murderers.
That your logic doesn't work,
I'm not the one who is talking about murderers and the servers and deserving the same fate, you are. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just forgot what you wrote and were too lazy to read you own posting to remember.
doesn't mean that there is actually anything wrong with the idea I was trying to illustrate, nor the manner in which I did.
If you can't see the problem in equating the targets of Anonymous and the people who share the servers with them with murder, then I don't doubt that you'd blame the messenger when your ridiculous position is pointed out.
If the original content doesn't have any value to you, why do you want it in the first place?
The value was added by the pirates, who went to the trouble of removing those things.
The pirates did not add anything to the content. Thus if the entire value to you is in the additions the pirates made, then we're back at the original content having no value.
In the DVD realm, I don't see what any pirates could add to the value. I never see any ads, and I pick which codecs and how compressed I want my digital copy to be. I rip a lot of videos that really suck because I tend to rip the entire set ("50 Mystery Movie Pack") and then decide what to watch. I wouldn't consider that I've added any value to any of the suck movies I've ripped just because they are in my chosen codec format and file size and don't have the ads I wouldn't see anyway. Those movies still suck.
Slashdot Mirror
What they are teaching is that it is unethical to run penetration testing against a system without permission. This philosophy is embodied in the ACM Code of Ethics, in section 2.8:
He got thanked for finding the flaw. He got expelled for pen testing someone else's system. Two different acts, two different issues.
Wow, you're starting to catch on. Congrats.
Now I know you are posting just to see yourself posting. I'm the one who is telling Stilleto and others that it is illegal to block access to businesses and to trespass, etc. They're the ones with the endless "what if" and "how do you know I'm trespassing" and "what if I just say 'umm' a lot" arguments. They're arguing it isn't illegal to do that, and then they call it civil disobedience as if they know it is illegal.
They are going arrest you first and then collect evidence. Expect vidoe of you getting in line
They don't even need that much. The fact you are there is evidence you were there. A copy of the trespass notice is sufficient to prove you are there illegally.
And if they come back the next day and the next day and the next?
Then you have them arrested for breaking the law. It's illegal. It's called trespass. Try shoplifting at a Walmart and see how it works for yourself. Your picture goes up on the wall and the security team has you escorted off the property if you come back.
I really don't see what your point is.
Very simple. The fact that a mob CAN shut down a business doesn't mean it is legal for them do that, nor does it mean it is ethical or moral or right. It just means that they CAN do it.
Just like you could shoot up a classroom of children.
just to relax some of the factors preventing loans to people who probably could pay them off.
That's just another way of saying "make risky loans". Those risky loans had to go somewhere.
In response, the banks increased the number of stated income loans they made. That is racketeering.
No, that was following the rules that they were expected to operate under -- make owning your own home easier, not harder, even if that required that you make bad loans. Its part of the FDR "chicken in every pot" and "car in every garage" philosophy.
The tiny fact that the other poster forgets is that it is the attempt to eliminate the appearance of redlining that created this problem. If you look carefully, you might notice that some neighborhoods contain a higher percentage of lower income people than other neighborhoods. If you apply the same criteria for a loan to both neighborhoods, you will have a higher percentage of rejections from the lower income neighborhood. That would be used as proof of, you guessed it, redlining.
If you doubt that such simple statistics are how the government measures compliance with complicated laws, then you should look at Title IX. Schools are not evaluated on whether there are sufficient sports opportunities for boys and girls, they are measures on the percentages of participants. If 8% of the boys in a school participate in organized athletics, but only 4% of girls, the possibility that the girls really aren't interested is never considered. The difference is proof of a Title IX violation and the school is held accountable.
In order to bring those percentages up, they had to use simplified loan requirements like unverified income statements, or zero down, or very low interest ARMs.
And despite the implication the other poster made, it wasn't "McMansions" that were the cause of the housing crash. There aren't a ton of McMansions sitting empty or under foreclosure. It's middle and lower class houses that are the problem.
You come to the store with the intent to order something and then change your mind, it is unlikely that you will start spouting political slogans or protesting social injustice at the cashier, so when they tell you to leave, yes, you are trespassing.
By admitting that it is civil disobedience, you admit that you know you are breaking the law.
But are you really going to kick out every customer who goes "umm..." while ordering?
Kicking you out for trespass is not because you said "umm" while ordering, it is because you were not ordering anything to start with. It is disingenuous to ignore the real cause for the trespass complaint and claim it was "because someone just said 'umm'".
You basically don't grasp how civil disobedience works. This is exactly how it does.
Implicit in "civil disobedience" is "disobedience". Disobedience to what? THE LAW. So, you've just admitted that what you are doing is illegal.
How would you even write a law to make such practice illegal?
Easy. It's called "trespass". It's already a law.
I would go to great lengths to not provoke someone into or motivate someone to organizing such an attack.
In other words, the only people who have the right to free speech are those who say things you agree with. Otherwise, you'll organize a mob to come stop them from earning a living doing something completely unrelated to whatever opinion it is you don't like.
True, the manager could just say "All potential customers in this building must leave immediately." But that would sort of defeat the point of coming to work.
If a thousand people are waiting in line, about the time the tenth one spouts crap about marriage equality instead of conducting legitimate business, closing the business for the day becomes a good business model. Keeping the doors open because you think you have the right to block access of paying customers is creating a physical danger to everyone involved.
Face it. If a big mob of people wants to disrupt your business, they can do it.
Face it. The fact that a mob can do something doesn't mean that it is legal for them to do it.
Unless you're a banker.
The bankers were operating under the rules as implemented by the Senate Banking Committee and Mssrs. Frank and Christopher, who were explicit in saying that the system was not broken and did not need fixing, right up to the point that it failed.
When you demand that banks ignore all the risk indicators when making home loans, those risky loans have to go somewhere and they will, eventually, become a problem for everyone. The goal of everyone owning their own home was fine, but when the means was through relaxed credit requirements (like 0-down and low ARM and including income "credits" in the calculations) then the collapse was easily predictable.
It wasn't rocket science for me to predict that an ARM I was offered for my home loan would result in default when the balloon came due; it shouldn't have been a mystery when the balloons for other ARMs came due and people defaulted.
I would tend to agree that taxpayer funded information should be free, with some limits. One is that information created under research grants should be first available to people being funded to do that research. That's an issue of keeping the funding available so the information can continue to be created.
maybe because then they'd have to pay more than the lowest-bid Bangalore-based web design company to build their web site.
My bank gets its web services from Intuit. Probably Intuit gets their services from Bangalore. They're ignorant of internet standards, in either case.
At least while watching paint dry you might be entertained by a hapless fly that lands on the wet paint and then has to struggle to get free. If that kind of thing entertains you. Flies that land on the key dongle just fly away again.
The only way to break insane IP "rules" ... is to crash the system.
Well yes, "crashing the system" is "breaking the rules."
What you want is to CHANGE the rules, and crashing the system is the last thing you want to do to accomplish that goal. If you "crash the system" then you are, in the legal and legislative system, part of the problem that the system must be reinforced to protect against. You are not going to be seen as part of the solution.
It's like protesting the 65MPH speed limit on the interstate highway by driving 90MPH. The legislature isn't going to say "this shows that we need to increase the speed limit", they are going to increase the budget for the state police so there are more cops to give out more tickets. Or protesting TSA rules about screening procedures by trying to sneak your way past all the screeners with a pocket knife, or smuggling in a prohibited item through the vendor access system. That just proves that there are dangerous people that TSA needs to protect us against, not that they are a failure that needs to be eliminated.
Information just wants to be free.
Information isn't a sentient thing, and thus has no "want" associated with it. YOU want information to be free, even information that other people spent money creating. That's an entirely different thing.
Passwords have been proven to be worthless on their own.
No, passwords have the potential for being bypassed, either through key loggers or social engineering. That doesn't make them worthless. For example, there is 0 chance that my password will be social engineered.
What we need is something like the banks use. Simple and very secure.
Oh, you mean something like a user id and password? That's what my bank uses. Why is that more secure than a user id and password for logging into anything else?
You want to login: enter you password and this token that changes every 5 minutes (or whatever) and voila.
I've seen those for military accounts someone I know has. Not for my bank.
We can start by offering this as an OPT in feature.
Which is why you can't get rid of password based security anytime soon. There is no reason why losing my phone should mean I can't log into my bank account.
www.donotcall.gov It actually works. Enjoy.
Why would an outfit that is calling to steal your credit card data bother respecting a trivial law like the DNC list?
I had the guy on one of the ceaseless "credit service" calls actually tell me that I could trust him with my credit card info because it was illegal for him to abuse that data and he'd go to jail. I almost had a stroke I was laughing so hard.
Apparently you can search for lots of things on Facebook. For example:
Fearing the worst, I went to Facebook and tried searching for phone numbers. The first phone number I entered was from my own area code, made up prefix. It returned not one result, but a large number of results. People from Mexico, Indonesia, Greece, all over the world. Amazing, these people all have the same US phone number?
So I tried it with my own phone number. Again, a large number of hits, people from Mexico, Indonesia, Greece. Foreign countries like New Mexico, too. But I was not in the list. This is even more amazing. These people all have the same phone number I do, and I don't.
I think the fact that Facebook will find matches for phone numbers you enter into their search doesn't necessarily mean that those people have that phone number. Or that the number will accept SMS messages, spam or otherwise.
It may very well be a regulatory molecule that we don't know about and can't measure.
It may be due to molecules that are made up entirely of tachyons. Our normal aging is because there is a slight imbalance between our normal matter and tachyon physicality, leading to a slight shift towards what we view as "positive time".
Her condition comes from an almost exact balance between the two, thus a competition between normal matter aging in the normal direction and the FTL matter aging in reverse.
The Orkans (Mork and Mearth being the earthbound representatives) have the balance the other way, thus they age backwards.
It's all easy if you know science.
She is the key to life eternal.
No, she is the key to never developing past the physical or mental age of 5. Nobody said she'll never die. Five year olds can die, too.
And while she's got a lock on the physical age thing, many /. posters demonstrate the prior art that would prevent her from getting a patent on the mental part.
Even if they did, they'd still answer and say "I can't talk, I'm in the cinema... Really?...
How does that differ in any way from the ones who go "now see, she's going to hide under the bed and the kidnapper still finds her ... that's not very realistic, there's no dust bunnies under that bed ... oh, that had to hurt ... I just love Liam Neeson, he's such a good actor. What was that movie he was in with what's his name? No, not him, I mean the one who was in that other movie with the guy from Rambo. Not Stallone ...", who the theater owners never seem to care about stopping?
Thought about installing a GSM and WiFi jammer?
If you're going to break federal law like that, why not just shoot the bastards? I bet you'd have a zero percent recidivism rate after once, maybe twice, you did that.
Personally I don't mind, hate people using phones during any gig...
Yeah, you're rights are more important than anyone else's. How DARE someone want to be reachable in an emergency and still have a life?
"Any gig" makes you sound like a performer of some kind. Yes, I'd sure hate, as a performer, to have someone in the audience texting something like "Am seeing awsome performer, you gotta come see the act..." to their friends while I'm performing. How dare they! Of course, you probably don't have that problem. More like "this show sux, let's split lol".
You understood enough to complain about it, so I don't believe your lie that it makes no sense.
I told you exactly why it makes no sense. It makes no sense, so the coment that it doesn't is a reasonable statement.
So standing on the sidewalk is explicitly legal, but doing so near a door is explicitly illegal?
No, BLOCKING ACCESS is illegal whether you are standing on the sidewalk or standing someplace else. Next you'll make up some nonsense about how it is legal to breath but it suddenly becomes illegal if you do it while standing "near a door".
if you think it's handled unrealistically in fiction, correct it for us.
Right. I'll copy edit all the published works of fiction because YOU can't tell the difference between fiction and real life.
So, standing on the sidewalk in an inconvenient location is illegal.
You rode the little yellow bus to school, didn't you? The crime is blocking access to a business. That it was done while "standing on the sidewalk" is your red herring.
Have you ever seen an abortion clinic protest?
I have. That's why I know it is stupid to argue that the "blocking access" laws, either physical or electronic, should be repealed. That would just make it legal to do things that are now illegal, and that most people (you excepted, it appears) think shouldn't be allowed.
Whether they are arrested or not is not the issue.
No, you are.
Then your comment about sharing servers was just a typo? Everyone else here seems to be talking about Anonymous, you seem to be the only one who has limited himself to a completely off-topic interpretation of the discussion.
No, the topic was someone else complained about collateral damage.
This "collateral damage" was from attacks by Anonymous on people with whom they disagree, so you've now just admitted that the topic wasn't abortionists after all. You said that if they shared a server with "the murderers" that they deserved the same fate. Thus equating the difference of opinion with murder, and innocent bystanders of being as bad as murderers.
That your logic doesn't work,
I'm not the one who is talking about murderers and the servers and deserving the same fate, you are. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just forgot what you wrote and were too lazy to read you own posting to remember.
doesn't mean that there is actually anything wrong with the idea I was trying to illustrate, nor the manner in which I did.
If you can't see the problem in equating the targets of Anonymous and the people who share the servers with them with murder, then I don't doubt that you'd blame the messenger when your ridiculous position is pointed out.
If it has ads and/or drm, it doesn't have value.
If the original content doesn't have any value to you, why do you want it in the first place?
The value was added by the pirates, who went to the trouble of removing those things.
The pirates did not add anything to the content. Thus if the entire value to you is in the additions the pirates made, then we're back at the original content having no value.
In the DVD realm, I don't see what any pirates could add to the value. I never see any ads, and I pick which codecs and how compressed I want my digital copy to be. I rip a lot of videos that really suck because I tend to rip the entire set ("50 Mystery Movie Pack") and then decide what to watch. I wouldn't consider that I've added any value to any of the suck movies I've ripped just because they are in my chosen codec format and file size and don't have the ads I wouldn't see anyway. Those movies still suck.