This piece of craptacular legislation is almost as useless in preventing computer crime as the Patriot Act is in stopping terrorism.
A) For every security measure, there are three well-known ways around it, four attacks that exploit those weaknesses, five not-so-well known weaknesses, six hackers developing attacks to exploit the lesser-known weaknesses, and seven more hackers dissecting the code to find more weaknesses.
B) There will always be idiots who don't use proper computer security, no matter how many times their boxes get owned (or how many times fines are levied).
C) Most people use these security measures anyway - yeah, it'll stop the typical skriptkiddie attacks, but a determined hacker will find a way in, no matter what you do (unless you stay off the Internet). FFS, even the security-conscious-to-the-point-of-paranoia CIA/NSA/KGB/Mossad can't keep hackers out of the systems they connect to the 'Net, and they've got top-of-the-line security!
D) What's next, a law fining people for not having locked doors and burglar alarms on their houses "because it's an inducement to criminal activity"? Give me a fuckin' break!
All we need now is the World Licensing Association, and We'll pretty much be living in the Afternow.
(Seriously, though, Tales from the Afternow is a pretty good series. Plus, it's free [in both senses: no DRM and you don't have to pay for it] and licensed under the Creative Commons system.)
Well, I'd ship one to Dubya, witht he words "You're just like this box, Mr. President - full of s**t!" written on it in chunky black letters.
The next I'd send to Dick Cheney. The third, John Ashcroft, the fourth and fifth to whoever's in charge of the RIAA/MPAA, and so on down my "Long List of People who are Full Of S**t (TM)."
Whoever's in charge of this lawsuit, though, would definitely get one.
-Macavity
That could easily be modified by someone who had the know-how, like so:
Prior to review by supporter of an incumbent politician who's been paid to make sure the incumbent stays in office:
if(optChallenger)
challengerVote=challengerVote + 1
else if(optIncumbent)
incumbentVote=incumbentVote + 1;
else
msgBox("You stupid moron. Please choose one or the other before voting");
Hmm. Let's fix this so that Incumbent stays in office.
C:\evotecode> find "challengerVote";subst incumbentVote=>challengerVote
if(optChallenger)
incumbentVote=incumbentVote + 1;
else if(optIncumbent)
incumbentVote=incumbentVote + 1;
else
msgBox("You stupid moron. Please choose one or the other before voting");
There, much better.
C:\evotecode>compile
This technology doesn't prevent counterfeiting; it makes it easier to track who made a particular document.
Precisely. You can still counterfeit, say, a $20 bill on one of these high-end printers - but along with the counterfeited bill you get a bunch of dots that comprise a data pattern unique to the printer you printed them on. If they're picked up and traced back to you, you're busted.
Every document printed is watermarked, with no notice to the user. The possibilities of abuse are huge.
Very true. For example, I do flyering work for RantMedia in my area. Right now, I use a Lexmark Z700-series inkjet printer, as I don't really need high image quality (most of the flyers I make are pretty much text-only, with the occasional RantMedia logo).
However, if I were to upgrade to a high-quality color laser printer and the Feds snagged some of my flyers for a "terrorism" investigation, I'd be royally f00ked, even if I made photocopies of the high-quality originals.
At least knowing this exists if one does need anonymity one can avoid this technology.
Again, very true. After all, that's one reason why the Miranda Rights were established - so that citizens wouldn't be forced or tricked into incriminating themselves without warning. They ought to warn people that "this printer model encodes an identifying data pattern on all documents printed".
That's true - but you also have to take into account that it's far easier to reassemble a fractured Lego packet than it is to reassemble a fractured traditional packet.
I think I'm going to switch over to the Lego L-3500 computer system - my Traditional OAK-950 just can't hack it anymore.
Maybe with an open-source model for the government, we can get rid of the endemic corporate cronyism that's been the hallmark of American government since the Reagan years and return America to its roots - a government Of The People, By The People, and For The People (instead of a government Of Big Business, For Big Business To Screw The People In The Ass With No Lube)!
. . . I'd like to see Anthony Björne on the ballot, he'd probably make a better President than anyone else up there.
However, he's not, so the next best thing for me is John Kerry.
Now I don't want to turn this particular thread into a flamefest, but yeah, I'm a proud member of KULT Black Milk and I'm supporting Kerry - mainly because he's a human being, willing to admit his mistakes (such as his support for the war in Iraq, which he believes to be a colossal balls-up).
Bush, however, seems to be more along the lines of a machine or an amoeba (but I don't want to insult the amoeba) - stimulus, response, stimulus, response, "I am the President, I am infallible, I can do no wrong" (yeah, right!).
I never liked Bush when he first ran for office in 2000, and I like him even less now - hell, I have more respect for Saddam Hussein than I do for Bush!
Addendum - For heartless neo-conservatives like thelizman, let me clarify what I mean:
Yes, John Kerry has changed his mind - SO WHAT? People do that all the time, especially when they believe they've made mistakes (as Kerry believes he made one when he supported the war in Iraq).
Second, John Kerry was on the front lines in Vietnam - unlike Dubya, who a) didn't report on time and b) pulled strings to get a non-combat assignment with the Texas Air National Guard!
Third, Bush would do something even moreunconstitutional, by supporting a discriminatory Constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriages - and while Kerry himself doesn't approve of homosexuality, at least he's not forcing his views on an entire damn nation the way Bush would!
Fourth - and most important to me - Bush has completely fucked up the job market in this country with his ill-advised alterations to the tax code.
I could go on for hours, but those are the most important points for me. Call me a 'bleeding-heart liberal' if you want, but I say, "Better a bleeding heart than none at all!"
I'd rather do it WITHOUT losing our jobs to overseas markets and WITH my civil liberties intact, thankyouverymuch.
I hope you realize that what Bush did witht he USA PATRIOT Act and Department of Homelad Security is the exact same thing Adolf Hitler did with his Office of Reich Security in 1933.
Let's see . . . Bush hides out in the TXANG, Kerry risks his life in Vietnam.
Bush tries to pull a Hitler on us, Kerry's against it.
Bush would discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, and Kerry wouldn't.
Kerry wins three out of three - and Bush loses.
Bush gets nothing.
Good day.
Slashdot Mirror
This piece of craptacular legislation is almost as useless in preventing computer crime as the Patriot Act is in stopping terrorism.
A) For every security measure, there are three well-known ways around it, four attacks that exploit those weaknesses, five not-so-well known weaknesses, six hackers developing attacks to exploit the lesser-known weaknesses, and seven more hackers dissecting the code to find more weaknesses.
B) There will always be idiots who don't use proper computer security, no matter how many times their boxes get owned (or how many times fines are levied).
C) Most people use these security measures anyway - yeah, it'll stop the typical skriptkiddie attacks, but a determined hacker will find a way in, no matter what you do (unless you stay off the Internet). FFS, even the security-conscious-to-the-point-of-paranoia CIA/NSA/KGB/Mossad can't keep hackers out of the systems they connect to the 'Net, and they've got top-of-the-line security!
D) What's next, a law fining people for not having locked doors and burglar alarms on their houses "because it's an inducement to criminal activity"? Give me a fuckin' break!
And I'll look up into his cold, dead eyes, and wave to him, just like this!
*waggles fingers a la Vir Cotto*
No they're not - they're Plague Mice!
But I suppose that's a moot point - I know where my towel is!
Do YOU?
You forgot:
5) Nuke 'em till they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark!
All we need now is the World Licensing Association, and We'll pretty much be living in the Afternow.
(Seriously, though, Tales from the Afternow is a pretty good series. Plus, it's free [in both senses: no DRM and you don't have to pay for it] and licensed under the Creative Commons system.)
Hear hear!
It's not about stupid criminals or stupid government agencies, it's about the being able to have this conversation:
Government: What have you got to hide?
Me: Nothing, now fuck off until you have a fucking good reason to spy on me, capisce?
Just one word of advice . . . Don't screw with the Phantom Eight Six!
To quote Hermione Granger:
What. An. Idiot.
Absolutes have nothing to do with the case, mate - the truth is, all our factories are overseas.
All we produce here in the gool o'l U. S. of A. is . . .
RICH EXECUTIVES!
Well, I'd ship one to Dubya, witht he words "You're just like this box, Mr. President - full of s**t!" written on it in chunky black letters.
The next I'd send to Dick Cheney. The third, John Ashcroft, the fourth and fifth to whoever's in charge of the RIAA/MPAA, and so on down my "Long List of People who are Full Of S**t (TM)."
Whoever's in charge of this lawsuit, though, would definitely get one. -Macavity
My mistake, Wisconsinites.
Either way, no more jokes about people from Wisconsin and cheese from this quarter . . .
Unless they start making ballots out of cheese! *hides*
Indeed we do. It's about time the Commons were truly common again, instead of pseudo-common by way of corporate control.
Three cheers for Wisconsin! (And I promise to never again make jokes about Wisconsinians and cheese!)
That could easily be modified by someone who had the know-how, like so: Prior to review by supporter of an incumbent politician who's been paid to make sure the incumbent stays in office: if(optChallenger) challengerVote=challengerVote + 1 else if(optIncumbent) incumbentVote=incumbentVote + 1; else msgBox("You stupid moron. Please choose one or the other before voting"); Hmm. Let's fix this so that Incumbent stays in office. C:\evotecode> find "challengerVote";subst incumbentVote=>challengerVote if(optChallenger) incumbentVote=incumbentVote + 1; else if(optIncumbent) incumbentVote=incumbentVote + 1; else msgBox("You stupid moron. Please choose one or the other before voting"); There, much better. C:\evotecode>compile
This technology doesn't prevent counterfeiting; it makes it easier to track who made a particular document.
Precisely. You can still counterfeit, say, a $20 bill on one of these high-end printers - but along with the counterfeited bill you get a bunch of dots that comprise a data pattern unique to the printer you printed them on. If they're picked up and traced back to you, you're busted.
Every document printed is watermarked, with no notice to the user. The possibilities of abuse are huge.
Very true. For example, I do flyering work for RantMedia in my area. Right now, I use a Lexmark Z700-series inkjet printer, as I don't really need high image quality (most of the flyers I make are pretty much text-only, with the occasional RantMedia logo).
However, if I were to upgrade to a high-quality color laser printer and the Feds snagged some of my flyers for a "terrorism" investigation, I'd be royally f00ked, even if I made photocopies of the high-quality originals.
At least knowing this exists if one does need anonymity one can avoid this technology.
Again, very true. After all, that's one reason why the Miranda Rights were established - so that citizens wouldn't be forced or tricked into incriminating themselves without warning. They ought to warn people that "this printer model encodes an identifying data pattern on all documents printed".
Luke wants to know when the first X-Wing is going to be on the market.
Well, if we can't find John Connor, Kult will have to take on the killer robots.
*looks into bunker* Hey, Anthony! We got any active Deckers?
That's true - but you also have to take into account that it's far easier to reassemble a fractured Lego packet than it is to reassemble a fractured traditional packet.
I think I'm going to switch over to the Lego L-3500 computer system - my Traditional OAK-950 just can't hack it anymore.
Maybe with an open-source model for the government, we can get rid of the endemic corporate cronyism that's been the hallmark of American government since the Reagan years and return America to its roots - a government Of The People, By The People, and For The People (instead of a government Of Big Business, For Big Business To Screw The People In The Ass With No Lube)!
. . . I'd like to see Anthony Björne on the ballot, he'd probably make a better President than anyone else up there.
However, he's not, so the next best thing for me is John Kerry.
Now I don't want to turn this particular thread into a flamefest, but yeah, I'm a proud member of KULT Black Milk and I'm supporting Kerry - mainly because he's a human being, willing to admit his mistakes (such as his support for the war in Iraq, which he believes to be a colossal balls-up).
Bush, however, seems to be more along the lines of a machine or an amoeba (but I don't want to insult the amoeba) - stimulus, response, stimulus, response, "I am the President, I am infallible, I can do no wrong" (yeah, right!).
I never liked Bush when he first ran for office in 2000, and I like him even less now - hell, I have more respect for Saddam Hussein than I do for Bush!
Addendum - For heartless neo-conservatives like thelizman, let me clarify what I mean:
Yes, John Kerry has changed his mind - SO WHAT? People do that all the time, especially when they believe they've made mistakes (as Kerry believes he made one when he supported the war in Iraq).
Second, John Kerry was on the front lines in Vietnam - unlike Dubya, who a) didn't report on time and b) pulled strings to get a non-combat assignment with the Texas Air National Guard!
Third, Bush would do something even moreunconstitutional, by supporting a discriminatory Constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriages - and while Kerry himself doesn't approve of homosexuality, at least he's not forcing his views on an entire damn nation the way Bush would!
Fourth - and most important to me - Bush has completely fucked up the job market in this country with his ill-advised alterations to the tax code.
I could go on for hours, but those are the most important points for me. Call me a 'bleeding-heart liberal' if you want, but I say, "Better a bleeding heart than none at all!"
Warning - Republican Propaganda Detected! Initiate Quarantine Procedure Immediately!
See if you can find his article "Two Iraqs" - it gives a good example of the alternate universe that Bushites live in.
I mean, really - suicide bombings, homemade roadside bombs, a state of near-civil war, and they claim "everything is fine" in Iraq? I DON'T THINK SO!
I'd rather do it WITHOUT losing our jobs to overseas markets and WITH my civil liberties intact, thankyouverymuch. I hope you realize that what Bush did witht he USA PATRIOT Act and Department of Homelad Security is the exact same thing Adolf Hitler did with his Office of Reich Security in 1933. Let's see . . . Bush hides out in the TXANG, Kerry risks his life in Vietnam. Bush tries to pull a Hitler on us, Kerry's against it. Bush would discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, and Kerry wouldn't. Kerry wins three out of three - and Bush loses. Bush gets nothing. Good day.