Because true geeks not only know what they are, they also independently discovered them at the age of five before going on to solve Fermat's last theorem on a piece of toilet paper.
I hope your entire $9 Billion isn't spent on buying pigeons. Think of the costs of housing them, feeding them, training them, and then if they last less than the 10 years the satellites last, you need replacement pigeons (once again requiring training etc). Then, devices for them to carry the information, such as thumb drives, plus hardware to attach these to the pigeons. In the long run though, large amounts of data over short distances would be a lot quicker.
Ask someone from Surabaya Indonesia. The name of the city means Shark Crocodile (or Crocodile Shark... I forget which), because when it was founded they saw a shark and a crocodile fighting/eating each other.
... I'll hit square three times fast and then hold it down! Then they'll be sorry!!! Bwahahahahaaaa! Then again, I could change games and use Cryptos anal probe on them! Bwahahahahahaaa!
Technically all those things are considered criminal offences already whether performed on-line or off. They're covered by anti-discrimination / Harassment / hate speech laws etc (we have no blasphemy laws, but anyone making blasphemous comments are usually prosecuted under the anti-discimination laws for vilification). Most forums based in WA would probably have those things listed in their AUP just to cover their own butts. I know of a case which was thrown out of court for wasting the courts time because it was petty (someone screaming abuse at a political speaker - the politician had them arrested by the police). I would say that any case coming before a judge where the abuse/rudeness/profanity etc was nothing out of the ordinary would most likely also get thrown out (the precedent has already been set).
Nothing in the way that the law is written applies to accessing confidential information,...
The law specifically covers unlawful access. This is not necessarily CRACKING as the article claims:
she was convicted for common cracking
. She was actually convicted for using the system beyond her authority. This law goes both ways. The police cannot come to your house and go through your computers without a warrant. If they do turn up and start accessing your computers without a warrant and without your permission you can sue them under the same law.
WA Pol have an AUP which is specifically designed to cover the illegal and unauthorised use of their system for confidential / classified material etc. It is there to protect people from officers using it illegally to get information that can be used to black mail people, or other illegal activities, etc.
If you read the conviction it specifically says:
17 It was common ground before the magistrate that the unlawful use in this case was in s 440A(2)(b).
ie she used it beyond what she was authorised to use it. The proof of this was in her emails
'Chucky, Kiralee just rings. Give me her name and date of birth, and I'll look up the IR and send you the information you need to contact the kids. So this is a point where she hasn't made any investigations at all. The first correspondence is, 'Give me the details and I will send you the name and address.' So at that point of time she can't have had any, shall we say, concerns, one would think, about - she wasn't aware, hadn't done any investigations, she was just told obviously from that, that he wanted to find out the location of the children, and she said, 'Yeah, sure. Give me the information, name and address, and I'll find it for you.'
In other words, she was going to give this guy the info he wanted and if you read on you find out that he hadn't even told her at this stage that he'd heard his wife had died. He'd just asked for his kids address, and she was going to look it up and give it to him.
So at that point of time, she did not have any of that information, because she hasn't accessed it, and the primary purpose, in my view, was to locate where the children are so that he could get the children back.
As I said previously, the police drum this information into you that you're not allowed to access this sort of info for personal use. In this case it was very obvious it was for personal use. I think the judge got it right that she knew she was accessing this information and she wasn't authorised to do so.
Now, imagine that the guys wife was still alive and the guy wanted this information in order to go kill his wife and kids. That's the reason police have strict protocols to follow etc. If something had of happened slashdot would be whinging the police and the judiciary system didn't follow the law and were to blame.
Now, looking at the breadth at which it applies, it means that no one, not even the police are allowed onto my or your (or anyone else's) systems without a warrant or the owners specific permissions.
As far as systems that people use are concerned, such as forums, social networks etc, if someone was to crack slashdot in order to get everyones personal information, under this law they can be persecuted. Such as the guy who recently did it for Facebook looking for girls nude pictures.
If someone invents an AUP that's so convoluted that it makes it impossible to use their site, it is pretty much the same as them refusing you access anyway. If they change the AUP on you, you still have recourse under the law. The law requires you to know the Criminal Law (ie the bit about you not being allowed to access things you have not been given authorisation to access). It doesn't require that you learn every AUP off by heart. So, if by some stupid chance a forum suddenly changes their AUP on
I worked for WAPol (West Australian Police) up until 3 years ago (almost to the day! 3 Years and four days), and the police make it very clear to their employees that they aren't allowed to use the Police Database etc for looking up info that isn't related to a case they're working on.
It's not considered 'cracking' either. Unlawful use just means the person was using it for something other than their work, and when you have the sort of information the police database has on people you will know why you can't use it for personal, friends or family use. I have a vague recollection of an officer who got into trouble years ago for looking up information on his ex-partner and her new boyfriend. I also have a recollection of a lot of police officers getting in trouble for looking up a notorious criminals details when they had nothing to do with his case.
The summary/article is spreading FUD concerning something which has been the case for many, many years, and any Police employee (whether an officer or not) knows the consequences of.
It would be interesting to know what sort of information the officer was getting for their friend. "Doing a search of the police database for a friend' sound harmless enough till you put it into context of the information that's available. It's not like they were searching a dating service database for harmless info on what people like to do on dates or something, the officer was searching something with criminal records, peoples locations/addresses/phone numbers etc. and information you wouldn't want to be getting around, especially if you're trying to start a new life after screwing up badly, or if you're wanted by a gang for informing on them, or if you're in hiding from your ex-partner who you have an AVO against. This sort of information is dynamite against anyone and that's why it's restricted and pretty well monitored for who is accessing what. The 'friend' would only have asked for this info if it was stuff they couldn't obtain through a legitimate source, and if they can't get it legitimately then you wonder what sort of information they are after. On top of that, the officer involved would have known the risks involved, because they pretty much drum it into you that you can't access the database for anything other than a case you're working on, so what was so important that the officer felt they could risk their job for?
Seen it happen. When I was a network engineer (a long time ago), we needed a new laptop to be able to use to go directly plug into hubs, switches routers etc. We had a contractor working with us and he was always using his own laptop rather than the PC supplied by our work (because the desktops were shite), and the response was the Networks could use the contractors laptop for any remote work we needed to do. The fact that the contractor was using it instead of the work PC was beyond the point, the managers saw a laptop and decided they had free reign to do what they liked with it, even though the knew it was the contractors personal property.
I'd rather resign than let the company dictate to me who can and can't use my personal property and what I can and can't do with it. And for the record, we never did get that laptop we so desperately needed. About a year after I resigned the contractor did too and his laptop went with him. So the networking department was left without a laptop.
Same company wanted us running the network at a Gig, but wouldn't buy us Hubs/Switches that ran at a Gig because they said when we could get the 10/100's running at 1 Gig they'd buy us the 1 Gig equipment.
I can just see this sort of thing breeding more incompetence and laziness amongst managers.
I agree. You could even use old punch cards and store the contents of a pirated movie that way and put them in a large box and send them any where in the world. Australia now has dogs that are trained to sniff out illegal DVD's and CD's etc, but I doubt they'd pick up anything wrong with a box full of punch cards.
I have read US politicians have used the term 'Espionage' in reference to Assange. If the US Government holds these same views he may just end up being shot as a spy or sent to Gitmo. The lawyers can use this point however to secure an assurance from the court that Assange will not be handed over to Sweden till they get the assurance from Sweden that they in turn will not hand Assange over to the US, and will only be tried in Sweden and then either set free or held in Swedish custody.
Australia did something similar where they refused to send 'The Honeymoon Killer' back to Alabama unless they agreed not to impose the death penalty on him.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot to press SQUARE as many times as you can whilst holding down the R1 button ... or something.
Because true geeks not only know what they are, they also independently discovered them at the age of five before going on to solve Fermat's last theorem on a piece of toilet paper.
... it was called ... um ... cars!
As long as you don't redesign every second week I'll be happy.
... to remotely control our Space Chimps!!!
I hope your entire $9 Billion isn't spent on buying pigeons. Think of the costs of housing them, feeding them, training them, and then if they last less than the 10 years the satellites last, you need replacement pigeons (once again requiring training etc). Then, devices for them to carry the information, such as thumb drives, plus hardware to attach these to the pigeons. In the long run though, large amounts of data over short distances would be a lot quicker.
Ask someone from Surabaya Indonesia. The name of the city means Shark Crocodile (or Crocodile Shark ... I forget which), because when it was founded they saw a shark and a crocodile fighting/eating each other.
In this country, first you get the computing power, then you get the money, then you get the women!!!
... I'll hit square three times fast and then hold it down! Then they'll be sorry!!! Bwahahahahaaaa! Then again, I could change games and use Cryptos anal probe on them! Bwahahahahahaaa!
I hid my bicycle under all those copies of Catcher in the Rye that I bought. They'll never suspect me!!!
Technically all those things are considered criminal offences already whether performed on-line or off. They're covered by anti-discrimination / Harassment / hate speech laws etc (we have no blasphemy laws, but anyone making blasphemous comments are usually prosecuted under the anti-discimination laws for vilification).
Most forums based in WA would probably have those things listed in their AUP just to cover their own butts.
I know of a case which was thrown out of court for wasting the courts time because it was petty (someone screaming abuse at a political speaker - the politician had them arrested by the police). I would say that any case coming before a judge where the abuse/rudeness/profanity etc was nothing out of the ordinary would most likely also get thrown out (the precedent has already been set).
Nothing in the way that the law is written applies to accessing confidential information, ...
The law specifically covers unlawful access. This is not necessarily CRACKING as the article claims:
she was convicted for common cracking
. She was actually convicted for using the system beyond her authority.
This law goes both ways. The police cannot come to your house and go through your computers without a warrant. If they do turn up and start accessing your computers without a warrant and without your permission you can sue them under the same law.
WA Pol have an AUP which is specifically designed to cover the illegal and unauthorised use of their system for confidential / classified material etc. It is there to protect people from officers using it illegally to get information that can be used to black mail people, or other illegal activities, etc.
If you read the conviction it specifically says:
17 It was common ground before the magistrate that the unlawful use in this case was in s 440A(2)(b).
ie she used it beyond what she was authorised to use it. The proof of this was in her emails
'Chucky, Kiralee just rings. Give me her name and date of birth, and I'll look up the IR and send you the information you need to contact the kids. So this is a point where she hasn't made any investigations at all. The first correspondence is, 'Give me the details and I will send you the name and address.' So at that point of time she can't have had any, shall we say, concerns, one would think, about - she wasn't aware, hadn't done any investigations, she was just told obviously from that, that he wanted to find out the location of the children, and she said, 'Yeah, sure. Give me the information, name and address, and I'll find it for you.'
In other words, she was going to give this guy the info he wanted and if you read on you find out that he hadn't even told her at this stage that he'd heard his wife had died. He'd just asked for his kids address, and she was going to look it up and give it to him.
So at that point of time, she did not have any of that information, because she hasn't accessed it, and the primary purpose, in my view, was to locate where the children are so that he could get the children back.
As I said previously, the police drum this information into you that you're not allowed to access this sort of info for personal use. In this case it was very obvious it was for personal use. I think the judge got it right that she knew she was accessing this information and she wasn't authorised to do so.
Now, imagine that the guys wife was still alive and the guy wanted this information in order to go kill his wife and kids. That's the reason police have strict protocols to follow etc. If something had of happened slashdot would be whinging the police and the judiciary system didn't follow the law and were to blame.
Now, looking at the breadth at which it applies, it means that no one, not even the police are allowed onto my or your (or anyone else's) systems without a warrant or the owners specific permissions.
As far as systems that people use are concerned, such as forums, social networks etc, if someone was to crack slashdot in order to get everyones personal information, under this law they can be persecuted. Such as the guy who recently did it for Facebook looking for girls nude pictures.
If someone invents an AUP that's so convoluted that it makes it impossible to use their site, it is pretty much the same as them refusing you access anyway. If they change the AUP on you, you still have recourse under the law. The law requires you to know the Criminal Law (ie the bit about you not being allowed to access things you have not been given authorisation to access). It doesn't require that you learn every AUP off by heart. So, if by some stupid chance a forum suddenly changes their AUP on
I worked for WAPol (West Australian Police) up until 3 years ago (almost to the day! 3 Years and four days), and the police make it very clear to their employees that they aren't allowed to use the Police Database etc for looking up info that isn't related to a case they're working on.
It's not considered 'cracking' either. Unlawful use just means the person was using it for something other than their work, and when you have the sort of information the police database has on people you will know why you can't use it for personal, friends or family use. I have a vague recollection of an officer who got into trouble years ago for looking up information on his ex-partner and her new boyfriend. I also have a recollection of a lot of police officers getting in trouble for looking up a notorious criminals details when they had nothing to do with his case.
The summary/article is spreading FUD concerning something which has been the case for many, many years, and any Police employee (whether an officer or not) knows the consequences of.
It would be interesting to know what sort of information the officer was getting for their friend. "Doing a search of the police database for a friend' sound harmless enough till you put it into context of the information that's available. It's not like they were searching a dating service database for harmless info on what people like to do on dates or something, the officer was searching something with criminal records, peoples locations/addresses/phone numbers etc. and information you wouldn't want to be getting around, especially if you're trying to start a new life after screwing up badly, or if you're wanted by a gang for informing on them, or if you're in hiding from your ex-partner who you have an AVO against. This sort of information is dynamite against anyone and that's why it's restricted and pretty well monitored for who is accessing what. The 'friend' would only have asked for this info if it was stuff they couldn't obtain through a legitimate source, and if they can't get it legitimately then you wonder what sort of information they are after. On top of that, the officer involved would have known the risks involved, because they pretty much drum it into you that you can't access the database for anything other than a case you're working on, so what was so important that the officer felt they could risk their job for?
Great! Spent my life making sure I never had worms, and now the freakin' things are kewler than Elvis and Philip J Fry!!!
iLawyer.
I bet it's favourite saying is,'Kiss my 24 carat solid gold @$$, meat bag!!!'
iLawyer: Let's sue them for one billion and one dollars.
Client: Why not one billion and two dollars?
iLawyer: Don't be stupid. You know there's no such thing as a two!
Merlot.
Maybe it's an iCock Nano.
Seen it happen. When I was a network engineer (a long time ago), we needed a new laptop to be able to use to go directly plug into hubs, switches routers etc. We had a contractor working with us and he was always using his own laptop rather than the PC supplied by our work (because the desktops were shite), and the response was the Networks could use the contractors laptop for any remote work we needed to do. The fact that the contractor was using it instead of the work PC was beyond the point, the managers saw a laptop and decided they had free reign to do what they liked with it, even though the knew it was the contractors personal property.
I'd rather resign than let the company dictate to me who can and can't use my personal property and what I can and can't do with it. And for the record, we never did get that laptop we so desperately needed. About a year after I resigned the contractor did too and his laptop went with him. So the networking department was left without a laptop.
Same company wanted us running the network at a Gig, but wouldn't buy us Hubs/Switches that ran at a Gig because they said when we could get the 10/100's running at 1 Gig they'd buy us the 1 Gig equipment.
I can just see this sort of thing breeding more incompetence and laziness amongst managers.
Think happy thoughts. Think Happy Thoughts. "It was good that you did that. Putting malcontents in the cornfield is good."
I hope someone can put that motto in Latin.
I agree. You could even use old punch cards and store the contents of a pirated movie that way and put them in a large box and send them any where in the world. Australia now has dogs that are trained to sniff out illegal DVD's and CD's etc, but I doubt they'd pick up anything wrong with a box full of punch cards.
*Clicks ruby slippers together.*
Dorothy: There's no place like home. No place like home. No place like home. OH, NO! It's not working, Toto!
Tin Man: Here, let me help you Dorothy with these multi touch gestures!
Dorothy: Get your Friggin' hands off my boobs, Tin Man! You freakin' heartless bastard!
At last something that can get a lone slashdotter into orbit!
I have read US politicians have used the term 'Espionage' in reference to Assange. If the US Government holds these same views he may just end up being shot as a spy or sent to Gitmo. The lawyers can use this point however to secure an assurance from the court that Assange will not be handed over to Sweden till they get the assurance from Sweden that they in turn will not hand Assange over to the US, and will only be tried in Sweden and then either set free or held in Swedish custody.
Australia did something similar where they refused to send 'The Honeymoon Killer' back to Alabama unless they agreed not to impose the death penalty on him.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/26/3076919.htm
I believe I've read the words 'Espionage' thrown around. They can shoot foreign nationals for being 'spies'.