Then take it off the Internet to begin with. A grown woman tormented a 13-year old until she committed suicide. Why create case law criminalizing contract violations?
Perhaps this woman should be charged with 'child abuse', as "Child abuse is the physical, psychological or sexual maltreatment of children." (Ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse [wikipedia.org]). If this woman (or more likely if it was a man) was sexually enticing this girl then 'child abuse' charges would likely be filed. EXACTLY! Charge her with child abuse, or any of the stalking laws, or any of the other "protect the children" laws, but do not criminalize contract law. There are a multitude of laws which can be bent or twisted or re-read to apply to this case.
The charges brought against her are for a Terms of Service violation, which is being claimed falls under anti-hacking laws.
It doesn't matter to me what the back story is, what matters is the binding precedent that could be set, making it a criminal offense to sign up to a web service with anonymous or false credentials.
Who knows what Ms. Meier might have done with her life. She could've become a doctor, a pilot, or even a Slashdotter. But we'll never know. My bet is she would have kicked her own bucket over something else sooner or later.
there's essentially no difference between the random-looking binary data of an encrypted volume and the random-looking binary data of an executable which won't run. That's very false. Encrypted data is very close to random. Executables and DLLs aren't even remotely close. Open one up in your favorite hex editor, you'll see all sorts of cool things in plaintext.
Why destroy data, when it should be nearly as secure in encrypted form? If I was a not-nice interrogator, and I entered a password that caused the disk to grind away and erase everything... believe me, toes would start missing.
Many journals/newspapers/publications require the use of URL shortening as part of their style standards when the URL is longer than just a domain name.
They're looking for terrorists, remember? Anyone can be a terrorist. Engineers are terrorists. World of Warcraft players are terrorists. Heck, anyone who has committed the crime of not being a white christian who votes republican seems to be a terror suspect these days.
All customs has to do is say "I think you're a terrorist. Prove to me you aren't." I'm pretty sure none of the idiots in DHS grasp the concept of proving a negative.
There have been real cases of people crossing the border with illegal content (ie child porn) on their laptops. Do you think you are entitled to cross the border with child porn? In case you didn't know, child porn is illegal in many countries, including the USA. Oh leave off with the goddamned "save the children" regurgitation. Seriously, it's wearing on every intelligent person here.
You're launching into useless hyperbole. Everything can be harmful in excess. You seriously believed that I meant "if one is good, a billion is great?"
Your analogy makes no sense. So, you should just buy a firewall, and that's it? Or should you only have antivirus software, and that's it? Should you keep your admin password blank, because of the previously mentioned firewall? What is the one-stop answer to keep my network secure?
There is no one-stop panacea for security. Anyone who says otherwise is either a snake-oil salesman, or a massive liability to any company that hires them.
You can do that with group policy, but its very time-intensive. Basically, you whitelist your approved binaries by filename with a hash to ensure people don't just rename their game "explorer.exe"
Completely agreed. One of my sections experimented with the DISA gold disk one time, turning it on in "high security" mode, and it took us 3 days with RegMon and a grab bag of other utilities to revert the system to just basic usable mode. Office XP wouldn't even open correctly!
Weigh it depending on your needs. Prioritize, without putting any two factors on equal footing. What is more important and least important out of these three: secure data, catching an intruder who may have accessed secure data, or having regular users log on during a DOS attack?
That's one of the biggest hurdles today in security: striking a balance and prioritizing. Everyone can say "Usability and security are both important," but it takes time and thought to come up with a detailed analysis of the priorities during an actual attack.
The Windows XP guide is also available, though they also point to the MS guides since they have become very good. If nothing else, a quick glance through the services to disable can be helpful.
Slashdot Mirror
Then take it off the Internet to begin with. A grown woman tormented a 13-year old until she committed suicide. Why create case law criminalizing contract violations?
The charges brought against her are for a Terms of Service violation, which is being claimed falls under anti-hacking laws.
It doesn't matter to me what the back story is, what matters is the binding precedent that could be set, making it a criminal offense to sign up to a web service with anonymous or false credentials.
So, you fully support putting people in jail for violating "terms of service" agreements (essentially, an EULA)?
Dangerous DANGEROUS precedent to make yourself feel better about a depressed kid doing the inevitable
Then how, pray tell, do they expect to gain access to every computer in the world? A brigade of witch doctors?
Customs agents are real people, too. What if your wife's jealous ex-boyfriend becomes a customs agent?
You've visited the al-Jazeera website. You are now a material witness in a terrorism investigation. Enjoy the rendition, mister prisoner of war.
Why destroy data, when it should be nearly as secure in encrypted form? If I was a not-nice interrogator, and I entered a password that caused the disk to grind away and erase everything... believe me, toes would start missing.
Rubberhose, Truecrypt's stepbrother.
Many journals/newspapers/publications require the use of URL shortening as part of their style standards when the URL is longer than just a domain name.
They're looking for terrorists, remember? Anyone can be a terrorist. Engineers are terrorists. World of Warcraft players are terrorists. Heck, anyone who has committed the crime of not being a white christian who votes republican seems to be a terror suspect these days.
All customs has to do is say "I think you're a terrorist. Prove to me you aren't." I'm pretty sure none of the idiots in DHS grasp the concept of proving a negative.
Yes, they want the best diploma mill degrees money can buy
Who will no longer release vulnerabilities to the public or developers.
Which will create a less secure Internet.
Which will allow the botnets that are actually attacking our networks now to become even more effective over time.
Which will cause me to get more v1@gr@ spam.
Which will... wait... Viagra is a little blue pill... the USAF wears little blue outfits...
It all makes sense now.
You're launching into useless hyperbole. Everything can be harmful in excess. You seriously believed that I meant "if one is good, a billion is great?"
You are saying that layered security is idiotic, yet you don't support using only one layer. What's the magic number then, trollish AC?
Your analogy makes no sense. So, you should just buy a firewall, and that's it? Or should you only have antivirus software, and that's it? Should you keep your admin password blank, because of the previously mentioned firewall? What is the one-stop answer to keep my network secure?
There is no one-stop panacea for security. Anyone who says otherwise is either a snake-oil salesman, or a massive liability to any company that hires them.
You can do that with group policy, but its very time-intensive. Basically, you whitelist your approved binaries by filename with a hash to ensure people don't just rename their game "explorer.exe"
Ask and you shall receive...
Cisco Routers
Cisco Switches
Completely agreed. One of my sections experimented with the DISA gold disk one time, turning it on in "high security" mode, and it took us 3 days with RegMon and a grab bag of other utilities to revert the system to just basic usable mode. Office XP wouldn't even open correctly!
Weigh it depending on your needs. Prioritize, without putting any two factors on equal footing. What is more important and least important out of these three: secure data, catching an intruder who may have accessed secure data, or having regular users log on during a DOS attack?
That's one of the biggest hurdles today in security: striking a balance and prioritizing. Everyone can say "Usability and security are both important," but it takes time and thought to come up with a detailed analysis of the priorities during an actual attack.
The Windows XP guide is also available, though they also point to the MS guides since they have become very good. If nothing else, a quick glance through the services to disable can be helpful.