He was no "allowed" to see the data. And there was no web page with a button that said "Download lots of addresses". He went searching through a directory structure that had not been secured in error. We know he knew he was not supposed to have access, and the security hole was a mistake because he went to a news site with the story.
Security holes do not give anyone legal permission to access. Any more than locks on buildings being left unlocked grant anyone legal permission to enter.
He broke the law, knowingly. And he is certainly guilty.
The length of the sentence seems a bit severe though.
It's illegal. He knew he wasn't supposed to have access to the data - we know that becuase he went to journalists with the story. He took the data, nevertheless, and sent the stolen data to others.
It's a crime. No matter how you want to describe it. Nor how much you could imagine yourself doing the same thing.
There's not much point in contrasting the sentences of two completely different crimes, particularly when one concerns juveniles, and the other doesn't.
Maybe the Steubenville case sentences aren't severe enough. That still has no bearing on this computer misuse case.
Yes it was his fault. He was trafficking in stolen property. And of course he stole it in the first place. The newspaper might also have committed a crime, but that doesn't mean he didn't.
It was very clearly NOT intended to compete with Dropbox.
Dropbox's primary use is to have a common online data store between multiple people, so they can share files. It's designed to look like a shared drive, both to users and to Apps.
iCloud is specifically for keeping data synchronised between multiple Apple devices owned by a single person. It's designed to hide the implementation, such that only developers have to think about how it works.
Some Apps are better off using Dropbox, and some are better off using iCloud. It depends entirely on what the purpose of putting the Apps data in the cloud is.
No. I believe Google is an awful company that steps far over the line of stalking people. I don't use any of their sites. Except for the occasional time when someone sends me a link to a video. And in those cases I'd prefer they did it in another way.
Slashdot
Of course. And Slashdot offers me a no ads option, which I use. So they don't expect any income from me. Clearly my contributions are worth something to them.
Webcomics other then xkcd Yahoo Online news sites such as the SMH (ones that don't have paywalls) Free online games
No. And my general news site is the BBC which is financed by UK TV licensed holders, not advertising.
Social Networks such as Facebook
Yes. But Facebook has other revenue streams, such as taking a cut of online apps. But if lack of advertising killed Facebook, I'd happily go to wherever the majority of people transfer to (other than Google+). I haven't looked closely, but I believe DIaspora is free. Maybe that would replace it. Or maybe another commercial one that can find a different revenue model.
Like most people I'm resistant to subscriptions, preferring no cost when it's available. But I have subscribed on occasion. I don't believe any of the site you mention would need or be able to support a subscription as high as $10-20 per month though. That's certainly far more than they are getting per user currently from advertising.
And Apple's goal is to make a profit. And they are by far the most successful of the phone manufacturers at doing that. Samsung for example spends 10 times as much on marketing as Apple does, and that all comes out of the profit they make.
If you grew up in a town with one dominant employer, and this employer had a policy with which you did not agree, where would you find the money to relocate to another town?
"Technically" there was never a war to end. That was the first "police action" (non-declared "war") for the U.S.
Theres no such thing as a "police action" in the territory of a foreign state, against the wishes of that foreign state. It's an act of war. A declaration of war isn't needed, actual warfare is enough to show it's a war. But that doesn't apply to the end of war, because without a peace treaty it's impossible to say that hostilities have stopped rather than just paused.
Hahaha. Especially that last sentence. It's a hoot. HAVE you seen the recent "tourist" films smuggled out of North Korea? Or reading the stories of other visitors there?
That's not a cultural reason FOR the split. That's a result of the split. Effect, not cause. West and East Germany were also very different in the period from the end of WWII to the reunification. So it's not a reason not to reunify.
South Korea wants nothing to do with the North, and most of the people in S.K. are grateful for the intervention of the U.S.
Well, that's what the propaganda in your country says anyway.
If you're talking about adblocking, the 'proper' place is at your visual cortex where images are processed -- and I know I'm alone in that unpopular view. Blocking ads is like throwing a soda can out a car window in that if one person does it, it's not a problem and it appears to benefit them modestly.
You are certainly in the minority. Most people's view of that analogy would be that the can being thrown out of the window is the advert, and that the spoiled environment that is the result is like the spoiled web that is a result of heavy advertising.
I do not accept that the internet needs third party advertising. Nor that the internet without it (and thus a loss of revenue for some site operators) would be worse.
There was an internet before widespread advertising. Some people run a site as a hobby. Some organisations run sites because they want to spread an idea, or need to get information out there. Commercial organisations will still want to run their own web-sites, whether they sell from them, or just as a communications tool. There are lots of reasons why the internet won't die without advertising.
A lot of sites with heavy advertising don't even have good content. They are only there to make money from adverts, so they steal content, or just link to what other sites have put out, or publish PR verbatim.
There's absolutely nothing to stop people trying to make money with third party advertising, and I wouldn't want any official body trying to outlaw them. But equally I see nothing wrong with blocking them so that I don't have to see them, or waste bandwidth on them. If the result is that there are less people that can make a profit from selling advertising, then I say "hurray!"
There's propaganda on both sides. "The Axis of Evil"? It dates from just after 911. Despite the fact that there was no axis (treaties) between Iraq, Iran and the DPRK. And despite the fact that none of those countries had anything to do with 911.
The DPRK position is that the war is still ongoing. And technically they are right. There was no end of the war called, and no peace treaty.
DPRKs claim that Korea is one nation is also the reasonable one. The only reason it was split was due to a political problem between the USA and the Soviets. There is no Korean cultural reason for the split.
The question of who should run a reunified Korea is an open one. It the reason for the war starting in the 50s, and it's the reason it's still ongoing. And still, the true barrier to it happening is political differences between the USA and another "commie" superpower - China.
It's easy to see why the DPRK reasonably consider it all the USA's fault.
I have to disagree. Most of the formats I see developed this way end up horrible messes because they hire a whole bunch of consultants to do the work.
Then that is outsourcing to the private sector. Which is the opposite of what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting standards created by employees of public sector organisations.
We have of course seen plenty of good open standards created by universities and publicly funded scientists. Much of the internet is built on it.
TCP/IP - DARPA. HTML - CERN. SMTP, DNS and lots of other Internet standards = University of South California etc.
And yes, it has to be "standards" and not just "open" to be suitable for use by the public sector. Otherwise you could be almost as stuck with OOS implementations as you can be with proprietary ones. If OOXML had evolved with an open source Word Processor, it would be just as overblown and impenetrable. And whilst you would at least have the advantage of going back to the source, that is no substitute for having a reasonably sensible format with documentation.
For generations now they have been constantly inundated with propaganda about how the United States is the epitome of evil, and apparently the majority actually believe it.
Lets face it, if you had to pick a country to play The Empire in Star Wars, the USA would definitely be it.
Slashdot Mirror
He was no "allowed" to see the data. And there was no web page with a button that said "Download lots of addresses". He went searching through a directory structure that had not been secured in error. We know he knew he was not supposed to have access, and the security hole was a mistake because he went to a news site with the story.
Security holes do not give anyone legal permission to access. Any more than locks on buildings being left unlocked grant anyone legal permission to enter.
He broke the law, knowingly. And he is certainly guilty.
The length of the sentence seems a bit severe though.
It's illegal. He knew he wasn't supposed to have access to the data - we know that becuase he went to journalists with the story. He took the data, nevertheless, and sent the stolen data to others.
It's a crime. No matter how you want to describe it. Nor how much you could imagine yourself doing the same thing.
You think a juvenile being caught, prosecuted and serving a prison sentence, and being put on a sex offenders register is "emboldening"?
What a weird point of view. It seems totally divorced from reality.
There's not much point in contrasting the sentences of two completely different crimes, particularly when one concerns juveniles, and the other doesn't.
Maybe the Steubenville case sentences aren't severe enough. That still has no bearing on this computer misuse case.
Yes it was his fault. He was trafficking in stolen property. And of course he stole it in the first place. The newspaper might also have committed a crime, but that doesn't mean he didn't.
We have convicted rapists and murderers that seem to get off with lighter sentences
Bullshit. Murderers are never sentenced to less than 41 months prison.
That's similar to saying: I didn't break into the house. The door was unlocked, and turning the handle granted me access.
Up to now, no crime has been committed.
Then I took copies of the householders bank account details, his photos, his passwords...
Now it's a crime.
The criminal in question, took 114,000 email addresses that he knew he had no right to. And then passed them on to others.
There's no doubt it's a crime.
It was very clearly NOT intended to compete with Dropbox.
Dropbox's primary use is to have a common online data store between multiple people, so they can share files. It's designed to look like a shared drive, both to users and to Apps.
iCloud is specifically for keeping data synchronised between multiple Apple devices owned by a single person. It's designed to hide the implementation, such that only developers have to think about how it works.
Some Apps are better off using Dropbox, and some are better off using iCloud. It depends entirely on what the purpose of putting the Apps data in the cloud is.
Google Gmail
No. I believe Google is an awful company that steps far over the line of stalking people. I don't use any of their sites. Except for the occasional time when someone sends me a link to a video. And in those cases I'd prefer they did it in another way.
Slashdot
Of course. And Slashdot offers me a no ads option, which I use. So they don't expect any income from me. Clearly my contributions are worth something to them.
Webcomics other then xkcd
Yahoo
Online news sites such as the SMH (ones that don't have paywalls)
Free online games
No. And my general news site is the BBC which is financed by UK TV licensed holders, not advertising.
Social Networks such as Facebook
Yes. But Facebook has other revenue streams, such as taking a cut of online apps. But if lack of advertising killed Facebook, I'd happily go to wherever the majority of people transfer to (other than Google+). I haven't looked closely, but I believe DIaspora is free. Maybe that would replace it. Or maybe another commercial one that can find a different revenue model.
Like most people I'm resistant to subscriptions, preferring no cost when it's available. But I have subscribed on occasion. I don't believe any of the site you mention would need or be able to support a subscription as high as $10-20 per month though. That's certainly far more than they are getting per user currently from advertising.
And Apple's goal is to make a profit. And they are by far the most successful of the phone manufacturers at doing that. Samsung for example spends 10 times as much on marketing as Apple does, and that all comes out of the profit they make.
Off topic.
There is no limit to the paranoia of Fandroids.
If you grew up in a town with one dominant employer, and this employer had a policy with which you did not agree, where would you find the money to relocate to another town?
Off topic.
"Technically" there was never a war to end. That was the first "police action" (non-declared "war") for the U.S.
Theres no such thing as a "police action" in the territory of a foreign state, against the wishes of that foreign state. It's an act of war. A declaration of war isn't needed, actual warfare is enough to show it's a war. But that doesn't apply to the end of war, because without a peace treaty it's impossible to say that hostilities have stopped rather than just paused.
Hahaha. Especially that last sentence. It's a hoot. HAVE you seen the recent "tourist" films smuggled out of North Korea? Or reading the stories of other visitors there?
That's not a cultural reason FOR the split. That's a result of the split. Effect, not cause. West and East Germany were also very different in the period from the end of WWII to the reunification. So it's not a reason not to reunify.
South Korea wants nothing to do with the North, and most of the people in S.K. are grateful for the intervention of the U.S.
Well, that's what the propaganda in your country says anyway.
Nice. Is this something that could be done with a Raspberry Pi?
It's the boss's prerogative to delegate deciding what restrictions to put on company computers. Don't like it? Don't work there.
What computer language is this? I think I want to try it.
If you're talking about adblocking, the 'proper' place is at your visual cortex where images are processed -- and I know I'm alone in that unpopular view. Blocking ads is like throwing a soda can out a car window in that if one person does it, it's not a problem and it appears to benefit them modestly.
You are certainly in the minority. Most people's view of that analogy would be that the can being thrown out of the window is the advert, and that the spoiled environment that is the result is like the spoiled web that is a result of heavy advertising.
I do not accept that the internet needs third party advertising. Nor that the internet without it (and thus a loss of revenue for some site operators) would be worse.
There was an internet before widespread advertising. Some people run a site as a hobby. Some organisations run sites because they want to spread an idea, or need to get information out there. Commercial organisations will still want to run their own web-sites, whether they sell from them, or just as a communications tool. There are lots of reasons why the internet won't die without advertising.
A lot of sites with heavy advertising don't even have good content. They are only there to make money from adverts, so they steal content, or just link to what other sites have put out, or publish PR verbatim.
There's absolutely nothing to stop people trying to make money with third party advertising, and I wouldn't want any official body trying to outlaw them. But equally I see nothing wrong with blocking them so that I don't have to see them, or waste bandwidth on them. If the result is that there are less people that can make a profit from selling advertising, then I say "hurray!"
There's propaganda on both sides. "The Axis of Evil"? It dates from just after 911. Despite the fact that there was no axis (treaties) between Iraq, Iran and the DPRK. And despite the fact that none of those countries had anything to do with 911.
The DPRK position is that the war is still ongoing. And technically they are right. There was no end of the war called, and no peace treaty.
DPRKs claim that Korea is one nation is also the reasonable one. The only reason it was split was due to a political problem between the USA and the Soviets. There is no Korean cultural reason for the split.
The question of who should run a reunified Korea is an open one. It the reason for the war starting in the 50s, and it's the reason it's still ongoing. And still, the true barrier to it happening is political differences between the USA and another "commie" superpower - China.
It's easy to see why the DPRK reasonably consider it all the USA's fault.
I have to disagree. Most of the formats I see developed this way end up horrible messes because they hire a whole bunch of consultants to do the work.
Then that is outsourcing to the private sector. Which is the opposite of what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting standards created by employees of public sector organisations.
We have of course seen plenty of good open standards created by universities and publicly funded scientists. Much of the internet is built on it.
TCP/IP - DARPA.
HTML - CERN.
SMTP, DNS and lots of other Internet standards = University of South California etc.
And yes, it has to be "standards" and not just "open" to be suitable for use by the public sector. Otherwise you could be almost as stuck with OOS implementations as you can be with proprietary ones. If OOXML had evolved with an open source Word Processor, it would be just as overblown and impenetrable. And whilst you would at least have the advantage of going back to the source, that is no substitute for having a reasonably sensible format with documentation.
A missile defence system on the pacific coast of the United States is going to do nothing to help South Korea or Japan.
The Democrats have been saying for the past 30 years would not work?
I'm no expert, but my money will be on it having advanced a little since 1983.
For generations now they have been constantly inundated with propaganda about how the United States is the epitome of evil, and apparently the majority actually believe it.
Lets face it, if you had to pick a country to play The Empire in Star Wars, the USA would definitely be it.
Marking a *profit*...
Making a product by supplying a product is "greed" now is it, comrade?