Call it a "war on terror" if you like, I'll continue to consider it a "war on freedom".
Which is correct. One thing we have to understand is that with freedom of speech there comes a price.
In order to allow all points of view to be heard we have to accept that terrorists, peodophiles, facists and all the things we despise in society will also use these rights to further their own ends.
In the end if we try to limit the free speech of the most despicable people in society, we actually give government a method to limit everybody's free speech.
It is sad but true. To have our rights we have to accept the downside...
Cold fusion is impossible: it goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics
This is is of course presuming that what we understand now is correct and can never be altered.
A cynic might consider your comment akin to those made by those who persued Copernicus when he suggested something that broke all previous ideas apart!
We are of course, but children playing with pebbles on the beach when, the whole ocean lies before us.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, the open door analogy is basically lame because the problem here is not the crime but, society's response to the crime. A trespasser remains a trespasser. In computer crime, a trespasser can suddenly become an armed robber if the person whose property was invaded has enough political muscle.
Also there is a third party issue here too. One of the files he gained access to contained personal information of another person. Where is the New York Times' legal responsibility to protect the information that it holds from others in this whole discussion?
Or, to extend you analogy, if you borrow you friends laptop and then leave it in an unlocked car, do you not share some responsibility?
The law make distinctions between trespass, breaking and entry, armed robbery and so on.
The guy who wanders around your house is a trespasser not an armed robber. It seems here that a better analogy would be :
A guy walks in to your unlocked house, boasts about it and you insist that he prosecuted for the worst possible crime he *may* have committed, not the crime he did commit (to walk through an unlocked door).
I am not sure what he did at the New York Times can even be considered hacking.
So far as I can tell he set his web proxy to the address of the company infranet, surfed around that, downloaded some documents and used the information contained in these to get some more.
Whilst I don't approve of hacking per-se, I'd have to say that here, this is very little more than exposing a badly designed web site.
Imagine that you go to you Gas company's online web site, look at the URL and see your account number in it. You think to yourself, I wonder what would happen if I changed one of the digits. You do and lo and behold up pops all the information to another customer.
Now you can go for your 15 minutes of fame and ring up SecurityFocus or you can have a quiet word with the Webmaster of the Gas company - either way, you are not a hacker.
Re:Comparing linux software to windows
on
Gnumeric Turns 5
·
· Score: 1
Don?t see any reason why this should be modded down.
Surely the more interesting question is how many functions/features does Gnumeric have that Excel doesn't!
Time for Open Source to stop chasing the pack, then the battle is won.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is correct. One thing we have to understand is that with freedom of speech there comes a price.
In order to allow all points of view to be heard we have to accept that terrorists, peodophiles, facists and all the things we despise in society will also use these rights to further their own ends.
In the end if we try to limit the free speech of the most despicable people in society, we actually give government a method to limit everybody's free speech.
It is sad but true. To have our rights we have to accept the downside ...
This is is of course presuming that what we understand now is correct and can never be altered.
A cynic might consider your comment akin to those made by those who persued Copernicus when he suggested something that broke all previous ideas apart!
We are of course, but children playing with pebbles on the beach when, the whole ocean lies before us.
Learn some humility Sir, we do not know it all!
As I have pointed out elsewhere, the open door analogy is basically lame because the problem here is not the crime but, society's response to the crime. A trespasser remains a trespasser. In computer crime, a trespasser can suddenly become an armed robber if the person whose property was invaded has enough political muscle.
Also there is a third party issue here too. One of the files he gained access to contained personal information of another person. Where is the New York Times' legal responsibility to protect the information that it holds from others in this whole discussion?
Or, to extend you analogy, if you borrow you friends laptop and then leave it in an unlocked car, do you not share some responsibility?
The law make distinctions between trespass, breaking and entry, armed robbery and so on.
The guy who wanders around your house is a trespasser not an armed robber. It seems here that a better analogy would be :
A guy walks in to your unlocked house, boasts about it and you insist that he prosecuted for the worst possible crime he *may* have committed, not the crime he did commit (to walk through an unlocked door).
You need to think this line of argument through.
Essentially you arguing that it is never justifiable to break the law, irrespective of what good you may do by doing so.
Strikes me as a bad idea!
I am not sure what he did at the New York Times can even be considered hacking.
So far as I can tell he set his web proxy to the address of the company infranet, surfed around that, downloaded some documents and used the information contained in these to get some more.
Whilst I don't approve of hacking per-se, I'd have to say that here, this is very little more than exposing a badly designed web site.
Imagine that you go to you Gas company's online web site, look at the URL and see your account number in it. You think to yourself, I wonder what would happen if I changed one of the digits. You do and lo and behold up pops all the information to another customer.
Now you can go for your 15 minutes of fame and ring up SecurityFocus or you can have a quiet word with the Webmaster of the Gas company - either way, you are not a hacker.
Don?t see any reason why this should be modded down. Surely the more interesting question is how many functions/features does Gnumeric have that Excel doesn't! Time for Open Source to stop chasing the pack, then the battle is won.