neither Auernheimer nor his co-conspirator Spitler performed any “essential conduct element” of the underlying CFAA violation
If that's not a 'not guilty' by a court that's not passing actual judgement, I don't know what is.
He did so by tricking AT&T's servers into thinking he was someone other than himself.
That doesn't mean UNauthorized.
he knew he wasn't entitled to access the information.
And yet there's no legal requirement for 'entitlement'. Just unauthorized access.
Again, there was no authorization process in AT&T's system, so he could NOT have accessed without authorization. AT&T's systems were set up with explicit full authorization in place. Everybody can access everything. Just enter the code.
Well, not me, but the appeals court certainly did. This paragraphy is on page 10 of the ruling:
The charged portion of the CFAA provides that “[w]hoever . . . intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains . . . information from any protected computer . . . shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.” 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C). To be found guilty, the Government must prove that the defendant (1) intentionally (2) access edwithout authorization (or exceeded authorized access to) a (3)protected computer and(4) thereby obtained information
Then his paragraph is on page 12 of the ruling:
Because neither Auernheimer nor his co-conspirator Spitler performed any “essential conduct element” of the underlying CFAA violation or any overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy in New Jersey, venue was improper on count one.
I guess you're smarter than them.
Also, if passing a phone identifier to a query of a web server could access all this information, is that really a 'protected computer'? I'd say no.
'deliberate actions' don't meet the definition of illegal behavior though.
They had to be 'accessed without authorization'. Sending different ICC-ID codes is NOT authorization. It's just a query. There was no actual authorization in place, and thus NO ACTUAL LAW WAS BROKEN.
Makes a HUGE assumption that the average GA speed is 150 mph. Given that most business class jets (which are in GA) can cruise at about Mach.5+, that seems very low.
Make it 250mph.
Now GA rates are only 4x driving.
Make it 350mph.
Now GA rates are 3x.
And you're still only talking about ~5 fatalities for every 100,000,000 miles flown. You know, four thousand trips around the equator. Somebody dies every one thousand laps around earth. Not surprising.
All I'm saying is if we're going to be 'stopping evil', how about we finish up in our own country first before we force our military, and the taxes that pay for it, into someone else's business.
Slashdot Mirror
Not in Linux.
That's a mix of 2/3 read, 1/3 write.
With just pure read, it's 123k IOPS.
With just pure write, it's 43k IOPS.
Tortured Tapir.
This. People just don't get this.
Typical smallish RAID array is 16 drives.
RAID 5 IOPS for 7.2k drives - 675
RAID 5 IOPS for 15k drives - 1642
RAID 5 IOPS for SSD drive - 84,211
http://www.thecloudcalculator....
In an environment running lots of small disk IO, like having a VM or fifty, only one of the above will give you good performance.
Man, I wish I was a scientist.
So I could be bought off by the Koch brothers.
Shit, if that's more than 20x, I'll eat one.
Nicer, my ass.
That doesn't answer siddesu's question at all.
Unfortunately, that's always the end result of having ads pay for journalism. At some point, there's always a conflict. And money will always will.
Also, that's a big "if" (screening causes cancer). I'm guessing the MD was trying to make a point about stupid anti-medical opinions.
Which tails very nicely into this conversation.
And a shit search bar.
And half assed access to settings.
I guess you haven't heard that the phrase 'spaghetti code' was invented for Windows 95.
So 'exceeding authorized access' isn't breaking access?
I said going through an unlocked AND open door wasn't B&E. Didn't mention trespassing or that it was legal.
Read again, illiterate fuck.
Please let us know what authorization scheme was broken.
Or what AT&T put into place to ensure authorization was occurring.
Except that the law *requires* authorization be broken.
If your door is unlocked AND open, it's not B&E.
Uh, yeah, the law works perfectly pedantically. Sorry for your obvious ignorance.
neither Auernheimer nor his co-conspirator
Spitler performed any “essential conduct element” of the
underlying CFAA violation
If that's not a 'not guilty' by a court that's not passing actual judgement, I don't know what is.
He did so by tricking AT&T's servers into thinking he was someone other than himself.
That doesn't mean UNauthorized.
he knew he wasn't entitled to access the information.
And yet there's no legal requirement for 'entitlement'. Just unauthorized access.
Again, there was no authorization process in AT&T's system, so he could NOT have accessed without authorization. AT&T's systems were set up with explicit full authorization in place. Everybody can access everything. Just enter the code.
Well, not me, but the appeals court certainly did.
This paragraphy is on page 10 of the ruling:
The charged portion of the CFAA provides that
“[w]hoever . . . intentionally accesses a computer without
authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby
obtains . . . information from any protected computer . . . shall
be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.” 18
U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C). To be found guilty, the Government
must prove that the defendant (1) intentionally (2) access
edwithout authorization (or exceeded authorized access to) a
(3)protected computer and(4) thereby obtained information
Then his paragraph is on page 12 of the ruling:
Because neither Auernheimer nor his co-conspirator
Spitler performed any “essential conduct element” of the
underlying CFAA violation or any overt act in furtherance of
the conspiracy in New Jersey, venue was improper on count
one.
I guess you're smarter than them.
Also, if passing a phone identifier to a query of a web server could access all this information, is that really a 'protected computer'? I'd say no.
Often, the legal consequences are what makes it so obvious that the law should be broken.
'deliberate actions' don't meet the definition of illegal behavior though.
They had to be 'accessed without authorization'. Sending different ICC-ID codes is NOT authorization. It's just a query. There was no actual authorization in place, and thus NO ACTUAL LAW WAS BROKEN.
Hm. $250k per week is 'only' $13M per year.
Lots of CEOs in CA make that. In fact, all of the 100 highest paid CEOs make that.
http://www.aflcio.org/Corporat...
It must be good to be a gangsta.
Sometimes, laws need to be broken.
Read that any way you want.
Actually AT&T exposed the emails.
Good data, with one exception.
Makes a HUGE assumption that the average GA speed is 150 mph. Given that most business class jets (which are in GA) can cruise at about Mach .5+, that seems very low.
Make it 250mph.
Now GA rates are only 4x driving.
Make it 350mph.
Now GA rates are 3x.
And you're still only talking about ~5 fatalities for every 100,000,000 miles flown. You know, four thousand trips around the equator. Somebody dies every one thousand laps around earth. Not surprising.
All I'm saying is if we're going to be 'stopping evil', how about we finish up in our own country first before we force our military, and the taxes that pay for it, into someone else's business.
And we've got a long fucking way to go.
And us non-syrians are just the people for it!
/bigfuckingsarcasm
How about we stop being the world's police.
Like if the rear camera in newer cars fails, and you can't drive them anymore?
It's a front facing camera, not an integral part of the drive train.