also have little sympathy for criminals - as long as the law that was broken was just, fair, non-discriminatory, placed citizen interests above corporate
I have a problem with this last part. The citizen interest over corporate. We are talking about a situation where a private citizen screwed over a corporate entity...Now it is easy to say "ahh screw the megacorporation" but that mega corporation employs people. In this case the law does not to consider the private consumer over the corporate - it needs to punish the private consumer for screwing over someone/thing else.
Copyright law affects everyone for good or bad. I can create something and copyright it JUST like a big corporation can. The law applies to me just as equally as to them. But without getting into an argument if copyright is right or wrong (and this is not the thread for it really) - presently it is the law and we are discussing penalties.
This would be less discriminatory than our Federal income tax system
Your a Republican aren't you?
We are talking about penalties for breaking the law - i have no sympathy. It sucks for the person who has to sell his life - but he shouldn't have started an uploading fest.
In my opinion, no single entity should be able to monopolize on an idea
So whats the incentive for a company to spend millions of dollars and years of research if they cnanot get exclusive rights to make their money back and a profit?
I am not trying to protect any criminals nor condone any criminal activities. I am merely suggesting that fines should be based upon the ability to pay; the rich should pay enough to feel the fine, the poor should feel like they have been fined but not cause extreme personal financial problems.
In this society, those would be discriminatory laws and not allowed. Because someone is rich they have to pay more then someone who is poor? That is unfair and absurd in our way of life.
Now half the battle of a lawsuit is getting the money. So you may sue a family for 100k and win, but if the family does not have that money they can't pay it - and you don't necessarily go to jail because you CANT pay, you go to jail if you refuse to pay. Also, judges sometimes adjust monetary penalties on a case-by-case.
In the end, the person who did the uploading broke the law - and in cases such as this, I would safely say that almost all of us know it is illegal to upload music.
I would love to do a $15/upload but it is very hard, if not impossible, to tell how much a person has uploaded.
I am happy with the rules. You are not happy with the rules. Why should I propose to change something I do not want to change? Why don't YOU propose your rules changes.
Why is 150k per song ludicrous? They are breaking the law...and who knows - maybe they are estimating they gave out each song 100 times (not too unreasonable) and there are penalty costs.
Basing a fine on a percentage of a persons annual income and credit score is a better idea.
No I do not think so. First this can be so abused. Second what if the person doesn't have an income or they are making 10k a year. What they are supposed to pay a few hundred bucks? And, not to mention, our society legal system does not work that.
You are trying to protect the criminal here - and I hope you are not saying it is OK to upload/download songs that are not public domain music.
Pilot, Co-pilot, navigator
Emergency sensors for planes that get close
Ground control
And then you have the other plane which has the same thing going for him...
These two groups of people are supposed to stay (if following their flight plans) far from each other. There is little reason for them to get within a mile of each other let alone touching each other.
In an autombobile you have one moron driving and another in some other car. Both morons want to have the right of way
First, it's possible to make a fair use defense based on your ownership of the CD or DVD.
"Your honor, yes I know I allowed 5000 people to download music from my computer...but I own the original CD" holds up CD "so it falls under the fair use law."
Then the kids defense attorney rises "Your honor, as you can see, we would like to plead mental insanity. This kid is a fucking moron."
While I dislike the RIAA/MPAA just like the next/.'er, I wholly disagree with this story writers pricing assessment. Part of being sued and penalized for doing something bad is paying a penalty fee. For example: If a company wronged you and you were injured. You do not just sue them for your medical bills (boy does the health insurance industry wish this was the case) - you sue them for more money above and beyond.
So while we hate the stupid prices, and the DRM's - I at least cannot say it is morally right to give the music I bought to strangers on the internet (or to download them).... As such when they sue - yes they can sue for more. I do not know how much is more valid - but $5/month is not an acceptable price.
Though the RIAA/MPAA is suing uploaders, not downloaders.
Very true, but there is always a good way and a not-so-good way of doing things.
If you are firing a bad employee - try to do it in a nice way...at the very least when he comes back with his sub-machine gun he will say "Oh this guy was nice to me, he was only doing his job, so I think i will let him live...well i will only take his leg out since he did fire me."
1. Continue complaining. Find different avenues, something might change.
2. Go to the public. If it is important enough there are plenty of reporters who are interested in juicy material - especially when it is to protect the "little-guy"
3. I do not recommend this. Likely outcome is you get in trouble. Do you want to go through a lot of litigation - perhaps sit in jail and/or get lots of fines? Not to mention you still may not change the system.
Society wants things fixed. Society also wants us to obey the laws. They believe what the media tells them. If the people you hacked spin it right you could be made out to be a terrorist!!!
Suppose you could rewrite the laws the way you want them, with the goal to ensure the safety of everyone's data. What laws would you make?
With regards to this topic. No i would not (as suggested by others) fine/arrest the sys admin. That is lame. It is very very rare where smoeone gets arrested for not doing their job and being GROSSLY negligent. It is almost impossible to get put in jail for an honest mistake. But there are so many laws to modify...in the end - you hacked into a private companies system. Thats against the law. In the end you broke into classified gov't databases - that is federally against the law. You may have honest intentions - but we are not mind readers and do not know this. Not to mention you may have been compromised and do not know this.
Technically they can give your start/end date and your title. Nothing more or less. Now with your title the HR people looking to hire you can find out what your job entails so they might give your listed job duties.
I do honestly think that off the record comments happen - but it is chancy. If a company gets caught, god help them.
Statistics put things into good perspective. Without them, you might be comparing apples to pears instead of apples to apples.
Using totally random numbers, but a good example:
There are 100 car accidents a year. But there are 10,000 car rides per year.
There are 10 plane accidents a year. But there are 100 plane rides per year.
WHich would you prefer to do drive a car or fly in a plane? W/O statistics a person would say fly, as there are less accidents... with statistics I would rather drive a car as there is a better chance that I will live.
TO reiterate, these numbers are totally made up. Get over it.
Well if you don't screw over your employees when you fire them, then they probably won't screw you over. I mean, there is a nice way of doing everything. Give the person two weeks severence (at least), give them good references, be nice about it....yea they will be upset (who wouldn't be if they get fired) but at least it will reduce the chance of them wanting vengeance upon you.
You are presuming that deterring an honest person from getting in to demonstrate the existence of a weakness will prevent a dishonest person from getting in to exploit the weakness. That is a fallacious presumption.
Speaking of assumptions, where on Gods green Earth did you get this assumption from? Where did I say that preventing a good somaritan from entering will prevent a malicious hacker?
However, if the retrieval was made by an honest person
And how do you know they are honest? Because they told you so? If they were so honest why didn't they go through the proper channels. I am sure if something like this happend to you, you would be in an uproar.
Here's a deal: I'll support prison time for honest hackers if you'll support prison time for negligent sysadmins
Now your just being plain old silly. That and you are assuming they are negligent which may not be the case. Just because a system is not perfect,doesn't mean the people are negligent.
applaud the honest hackers
For breaking the law? No, if they were "honest" they would have gotten permission to go through the proper channels. If after trying again and again and again they were ignored they could go to the press.
You have to answer those questions before you can determine a reasonable penalty
I do not have to answer those questions, his defense attorneys need to show those. But in all honesty, it doesn't matter. Nowhere in the law does it say "if the sys admin was negligent it is acceptable." Sorry, nope, notta. Not to mention (again), just because a system gets hacked does not mean it had poor security measures. It could have fine security measures - but nothing is hack proof...I would expect someone on/. to realize this.
Many, many examples demonstrate the fallacy of your statement
No that is false. There is always a way...the last resort is to go to the press. At no point should breaking the law be an excuse - you are putting yourself in jeapardy, ruining your credibility, and compromising data (again who is to say you are not hacked).
Publicity risks informing dishonest people who would abuse the weakness
You go to the people "hey your system is flawed." They ignore you over and over, so you give them warning "hey if you don't listen to me, i am going to the press." They have warning - they can even pull the plug on their system. Besides, you do not have ot give the schematics to the vulnerability when you go to the press - just give them enough news so they can report it. then when the organization calls you, you give them the schematics...THEN claim your reward.
Obviously we do not agree on this topic, so lets agree to disagree.
If they get sole rights to the entire series i might be getting xbox opposed to ps3...I went to PS because of FF. Then again, if FF x-2 is anything like XI then i might just screw the series which I have played since the very first game on the NES
I should have clarified this, but I was a student computer tech at the time. It was my job to fix the school computers, and I went and told them about severe security problems they had. I thought I was doing a good thing and fulfilling my job responsibilities when I notified them of the issues.
So I didn't sign form RX12512 and submit RFC 14125. So what? I was a tech, and it was my job to fix the computers. I felt it was my responsibility to expose flaws in their system and to fix things the right way, instead of just wiping the drive and imaging it again.
W/o knowing their end of the situation (what was their reasoning? I would imagine with disciplinary action they would have to give some kind of reasoning), that does sound bogus, and in situations like this I would advocate a lawyer (if you were in HS then have parents get a lawyer, or find a pro-bono advocate lawyer who wants his face in the papers for trying to right the wrongs done to an innocent kid).
Hacking that damages nothing, loses no data, does not publish private data and causes no economic loss, should at most be a fine-and-community-service misdemeanor, it should not be a jail-time felony
So you hope no damage happen. Again, how would you feel if someone got a hold of YOUR personal information? How would you feel if someone got the specs to a nuclear device and its codes? Hacking into national defense systems is a flat out serious offense even if you do not believe so
Especially when it is clear that the hacker's only purpose was to expose a real problem that might have been used by others to do real damage
So lets imagine this scenario. A hacker is caught for breaking into the DoD. He has system files. He gets caught (I guess the system wasworking somewhat) and he says "Oh I was only doing this to prove your system is not 100% secure" then they slap him on the wrist with a minor fine and let him go home? And who is to say he is not working for a terrorist and gave them the information.
Sorry, you simply cannot persuade me to believe that breaking the law in the name of helping a company out is the way to go. If someone follows the proper channels there is always a legitimate way...to say there is not is flat out bogus... there is always a way. If person A doesn't listen, go to B, and if he doesn't then C and so forth. If it is that important to your "cause" then you will find someone to eventually listen.
Slashdot Mirror
also have little sympathy for criminals - as long as the law that was broken was just, fair, non-discriminatory, placed citizen interests above corporate
I have a problem with this last part. The citizen interest over corporate. We are talking about a situation where a private citizen screwed over a corporate entity...Now it is easy to say "ahh screw the megacorporation" but that mega corporation employs people. In this case the law does not to consider the private consumer over the corporate - it needs to punish the private consumer for screwing over someone/thing else.
Copyright law affects everyone for good or bad. I can create something and copyright it JUST like a big corporation can. The law applies to me just as equally as to them. But without getting into an argument if copyright is right or wrong (and this is not the thread for it really) - presently it is the law and we are discussing penalties.
This would be less discriminatory than our Federal income tax system
Your a Republican aren't you?
We are talking about penalties for breaking the law - i have no sympathy. It sucks for the person who has to sell his life - but he shouldn't have started an uploading fest.
In my opinion, no single entity should be able to monopolize on an idea
So whats the incentive for a company to spend millions of dollars and years of research if they cnanot get exclusive rights to make their money back and a profit?
I am not trying to protect any criminals nor condone any criminal activities. I am merely suggesting that fines should be based upon the ability to pay; the rich should pay enough to feel the fine, the poor should feel like they have been fined but not cause extreme personal financial problems.
In this society, those would be discriminatory laws and not allowed. Because someone is rich they have to pay more then someone who is poor? That is unfair and absurd in our way of life.
Now half the battle of a lawsuit is getting the money. So you may sue a family for 100k and win, but if the family does not have that money they can't pay it - and you don't necessarily go to jail because you CANT pay, you go to jail if you refuse to pay. Also, judges sometimes adjust monetary penalties on a case-by-case.
In the end, the person who did the uploading broke the law - and in cases such as this, I would safely say that almost all of us know it is illegal to upload music.
I would love to do a $15/upload but it is very hard, if not impossible, to tell how much a person has uploaded.
Just because an organization supports patents does not mean they support every patent created. Thats just silly.
remember that kid?
Well you know what, I was always fucking tired of being the first one knocked out at dodge ball. So THERE!
I am happy with the rules. You are not happy with the rules. Why should I propose to change something I do not want to change? Why don't YOU propose your rules changes.
What can I say, I am a metric kind of guy living in a metric kind of world.
Why is 150k per song ludicrous? They are breaking the law...and who knows - maybe they are estimating they gave out each song 100 times (not too unreasonable) and there are penalty costs.
Basing a fine on a percentage of a persons annual income and credit score is a better idea.
No I do not think so. First this can be so abused. Second what if the person doesn't have an income or they are making 10k a year. What they are supposed to pay a few hundred bucks? And, not to mention, our society legal system does not work that.
You are trying to protect the criminal here - and I hope you are not saying it is OK to upload/download songs that are not public domain music.
But in an airplane you have:
Pilot, Co-pilot, navigator
Emergency sensors for planes that get close
Ground control
And then you have the other plane which has the same thing going for him...
These two groups of people are supposed to stay (if following their flight plans) far from each other. There is little reason for them to get within a mile of each other let alone touching each other.
In an autombobile you have one moron driving and another in some other car. Both morons want to have the right of way
First, it's possible to make a fair use defense based on your ownership of the CD or DVD.
"Your honor, yes I know I allowed 5000 people to download music from my computer...but I own the original CD" holds up CD "so it falls under the fair use law."
Then the kids defense attorney rises "Your honor, as you can see, we would like to plead mental insanity. This kid is a fucking moron."
While I dislike the RIAA/MPAA just like the next /.'er, I wholly disagree with this story writers pricing assessment. Part of being sued and penalized for doing something bad is paying a penalty fee. For example: If a company wronged you and you were injured. You do not just sue them for your medical bills (boy does the health insurance industry wish this was the case) - you sue them for more money above and beyond.
So while we hate the stupid prices, and the DRM's - I at least cannot say it is morally right to give the music I bought to strangers on the internet (or to download them).... As such when they sue - yes they can sue for more. I do not know how much is more valid - but $5/month is not an acceptable price.
Though the RIAA/MPAA is suing uploaders, not downloaders.
Well thats good enough reason for me to go to my boss for medical leave. Especially since I walk to work each day.
Given all else the same the only difference is the numbers...percentages help alot.
Very true, but there is always a good way and a not-so-good way of doing things.
If you are firing a bad employee - try to do it in a nice way...at the very least when he comes back with his sub-machine gun he will say "Oh this guy was nice to me, he was only doing his job, so I think i will let him live...well i will only take his leg out since he did fire me."
I see three options:
1. Continue complaining. Find different avenues, something might change.
2. Go to the public. If it is important enough there are plenty of reporters who are interested in juicy material - especially when it is to protect the "little-guy"
3. I do not recommend this. Likely outcome is you get in trouble. Do you want to go through a lot of litigation - perhaps sit in jail and/or get lots of fines? Not to mention you still may not change the system.
Society wants things fixed. Society also wants us to obey the laws. They believe what the media tells them. If the people you hacked spin it right you could be made out to be a terrorist!!!
Suppose you could rewrite the laws the way you want them, with the goal to ensure the safety of everyone's data. What laws would you make?
With regards to this topic. No i would not (as suggested by others) fine/arrest the sys admin. That is lame. It is very very rare where smoeone gets arrested for not doing their job and being GROSSLY negligent. It is almost impossible to get put in jail for an honest mistake. But there are so many laws to modify...in the end - you hacked into a private companies system. Thats against the law. In the end you broke into classified gov't databases - that is federally against the law. You may have honest intentions - but we are not mind readers and do not know this. Not to mention you may have been compromised and do not know this.
and possibly if I was eligible for re-hire
Thats positive or negative.
Technically they can give your start/end date and your title. Nothing more or less. Now with your title the HR people looking to hire you can find out what your job entails so they might give your listed job duties.
I do honestly think that off the record comments happen - but it is chancy. If a company gets caught, god help them.
Statistics put things into good perspective. Without them, you might be comparing apples to pears instead of apples to apples.
Using totally random numbers, but a good example:
There are 100 car accidents a year. But there are 10,000 car rides per year.
There are 10 plane accidents a year. But there are 100 plane rides per year.
WHich would you prefer to do drive a car or fly in a plane? W/O statistics a person would say fly, as there are less accidents... with statistics I would rather drive a car as there is a better chance that I will live.
TO reiterate, these numbers are totally made up. Get over it.
Well if you don't screw over your employees when you fire them, then they probably won't screw you over. I mean, there is a nice way of doing everything. Give the person two weeks severence (at least), give them good references, be nice about it....yea they will be upset (who wouldn't be if they get fired) but at least it will reduce the chance of them wanting vengeance upon you.
You are presuming that deterring an honest person from getting in to demonstrate the existence of a weakness will prevent a dishonest person from getting in to exploit the weakness. That is a fallacious presumption.
/. to realize this.
Speaking of assumptions, where on Gods green Earth did you get this assumption from? Where did I say that preventing a good somaritan from entering will prevent a malicious hacker?
However, if the retrieval was made by an honest person
And how do you know they are honest? Because they told you so? If they were so honest why didn't they go through the proper channels. I am sure if something like this happend to you, you would be in an uproar.
Here's a deal: I'll support prison time for honest hackers if you'll support prison time for negligent sysadmins
Now your just being plain old silly. That and you are assuming they are negligent which may not be the case. Just because a system is not perfect,doesn't mean the people are negligent.
applaud the honest hackers
For breaking the law? No, if they were "honest" they would have gotten permission to go through the proper channels. If after trying again and again and again they were ignored they could go to the press.
You have to answer those questions before you can determine a reasonable penalty
I do not have to answer those questions, his defense attorneys need to show those. But in all honesty, it doesn't matter. Nowhere in the law does it say "if the sys admin was negligent it is acceptable." Sorry, nope, notta. Not to mention (again), just because a system gets hacked does not mean it had poor security measures. It could have fine security measures - but nothing is hack proof...I would expect someone on
Many, many examples demonstrate the fallacy of your statement
No that is false. There is always a way...the last resort is to go to the press. At no point should breaking the law be an excuse - you are putting yourself in jeapardy, ruining your credibility, and compromising data (again who is to say you are not hacked).
Publicity risks informing dishonest people who would abuse the weakness
You go to the people "hey your system is flawed." They ignore you over and over, so you give them warning "hey if you don't listen to me, i am going to the press." They have warning - they can even pull the plug on their system. Besides, you do not have ot give the schematics to the vulnerability when you go to the press - just give them enough news so they can report it. then when the organization calls you, you give them the schematics...THEN claim your reward.
Obviously we do not agree on this topic, so lets agree to disagree.
If they get sole rights to the entire series i might be getting xbox opposed to ps3...I went to PS because of FF. Then again, if FF x-2 is anything like XI then i might just screw the series which I have played since the very first game on the NES
I should have clarified this, but I was a student computer tech at the time. It was my job to fix the school computers, and I went and told them about severe security problems they had. I thought I was doing a good thing and fulfilling my job responsibilities when I notified them of the issues. So I didn't sign form RX12512 and submit RFC 14125. So what? I was a tech, and it was my job to fix the computers. I felt it was my responsibility to expose flaws in their system and to fix things the right way, instead of just wiping the drive and imaging it again.
W/o knowing their end of the situation (what was their reasoning? I would imagine with disciplinary action they would have to give some kind of reasoning), that does sound bogus, and in situations like this I would advocate a lawyer (if you were in HS then have parents get a lawyer, or find a pro-bono advocate lawyer who wants his face in the papers for trying to right the wrongs done to an innocent kid).
I can finally get that diamond sword and diamond full plate armor. W000T!
Now if I could only lose an extra 70 lbs and KEEP it off I could ensure that I always fit into my diamond full plate.
Hacking that damages nothing, loses no data, does not publish private data and causes no economic loss, should at most be a fine-and-community-service misdemeanor, it should not be a jail-time felony
So you hope no damage happen. Again, how would you feel if someone got a hold of YOUR personal information? How would you feel if someone got the specs to a nuclear device and its codes? Hacking into national defense systems is a flat out serious offense even if you do not believe so
Especially when it is clear that the hacker's only purpose was to expose a real problem that might have been used by others to do real damage
So lets imagine this scenario. A hacker is caught for breaking into the DoD. He has system files. He gets caught (I guess the system wasworking somewhat) and he says "Oh I was only doing this to prove your system is not 100% secure" then they slap him on the wrist with a minor fine and let him go home? And who is to say he is not working for a terrorist and gave them the information.
Sorry, you simply cannot persuade me to believe that breaking the law in the name of helping a company out is the way to go. If someone follows the proper channels there is always a legitimate way...to say there is not is flat out bogus... there is always a way. If person A doesn't listen, go to B, and if he doesn't then C and so forth. If it is that important to your "cause" then you will find someone to eventually listen.
LOL :)
:D
Philadelphia
And as soon as logitech gets back to me about my MX 1000 Laser mouse that is not recharging.