and I am talking about a very specific example of someone who is guilty, but gets out on a technicality. Pick your paticular place where the cops screw it up, but in the example from the position I am arguing, the defendent IS guilty. Not talking about a confession just to end the interrogation.
Again, you can alter the scenario any way you like. Illegally obtained evidence. Illegal wiretap or video surveillance. Dead or scared witnesses. I am talking about someone who is guilty. An illegal wiretap of the defendant with s very unique quality to his voice (hole in his neck, who knows) actually comitting the murder. He did it, but the evidence that shows him doing it was obtained illegally. THe defendant took pictures of himself stabbing his victims with a mirror, clearly showing him doing the act, but the pictures were collected in an illegal search. The guy did it and there is no question, but the case cannot be prosecuted.
This guy, with all of this evidence, that all goes before a judge and gets hashed out like a trial. Except it can't hand down actual prison time. ANd it can't dictate where the dfendant can live, only where he can't live. SO he can pack his bags and move far away from where he comitted the crime and got his name in the papers and such.
The guy who IS guilty and there exists unuseable proof. Just because a piece of evidence is unusable in a court of law, that does not mean that it does not prove the defendant did the crime. It just does not meet the standard for the courtroom... and then only because of a violation of procedure.
That violation is why he doesn't go to prison. He gets out of that. He just doesn't get off completely free.
Can anyone say OJ? Criminal court, innocent. Civil court, Liable. This just is a database of civil proceedings just like that one.
I am not denying that he gets off because of a cop mistake, or series of screw ups. That does not take away from the fact that he is still guilty of the crime. Why should anyone who IS guilty of a crime, be allowed to get away completely scott free? In that case, it would be... "Ok sir, you did it, and we can't put you in jail. But we are going to track your movements and watch what you do and where you live, so you cannot do it again. You keep your freedom aside from that particular activity."
So it is like Prison Lite.
Someone who is guilty should not necesarily be able to get a "Get out of punishment Free" card. Just because the law does not currently allow for this, does not mean that it should not be changed to include it.
I can see where it can be abused. But since it would be a long, complicated, and specific process to be put on one of these registries, it would be HARD to abuse. It would do more good than harm. There are current questions whether or not prisons do more good than harm. If you had the choice between a 10 x 10 cell in a prison or picking almost anywhere in the country where you just have to keep a low profile (for your own good), most potential convicts would pick that criminal registry over actual prison.
he might have been swimming up behind it, with a fiml crew... while he was narrating about it's coloration or camoflague abilities, if we approached the torso with his head, that would put his chest well within a whip of that tail to the side. Possibly even straight up, if he was swimming directly over one, and it did the "speared foot" maneuver.
Hell, he dangled his child over crocs before. It must have looked exactly like the whole chickens they feed them. This was a man who wanted to go out exactly as he did. doing what he loved. He might have regretted the timing, but I think we all expected a croc to get him anyway. The stingray kinda came out of left field.
I'm not sure I want targetted ads for whatever I happen to be talking about with me and my friends, popping up in the sidebar of my next google search. Not all the time, anyway.
I'm not going to perform any terrorist activities, nor am I gonna encourage any terrorist activities. Just the opposite. But just talking about them can get snippets of my conversation put into a database, where later on, because I mentioned the words "terrorist" "bomb" "access" "motivation" "religion" and "plan" too much in a particular conversation, I go on a hot list to be placed under a microscope. It doesn't matter if I have nothing to hide. I did not reach out and say "Hey Government Entity, Look at ME!!! I need something from you, so you can pay attention to me now." I don't need governmental resourses and time spent on investigating me when they should be off investigating someone who is REALLY doing something wrong.
Except that if your child is molested, you do not believe that the legal system is set up properly if he gets away with it by not being caught, and manages to stay under the radar until the statute of limitations runs out.
THe example of a man with HIV having unprotected sex with partners without informing them, there is an action that should be criminal, since you are more than just gambling with another person's life. You are allowing someone to take vengeful, and lethal action against an unsuspecting public. Not unlike a man being angry at knowing he is going to die, and driving his truck through a crowd of happy people out of spite. The guy in the truck can be prosecuted and put away. The man with the HIV can't. Shouldn't the public be warned about this guy, so that they can make an informed decision as to whether or not the want to have sex with him, or even interact with him considering his view on other people?
Ok. COps deny a lawyer, because they are attempting to sweat a confession. Hours later, after filling him with coffe and water, they deny him use of the bathroom. They get their confession after hours of interrogation. But he requested a lawyer. No confession. He goes free. State cannot prosecute. State does NOT prosecute. This guy wins the criminal lottery and goes free?
In a case where an illegal wiretap is used to gain evidence, the defendant might be guilty as hell but can get off.
In a case where no positive ID can be made by any witness, and evidence was gathered under an improperly served warrant, or a warrentless search. Say, personal posessions of the victims, locks of hair, etc.
the parent lists several examples...
1)Maybe the key evidence linking him is inadmissible in court (but still reliable). 2)Maybe the statue of limitations has expired or there are jurisdictional problems. 3)Maybe the victim is unwilling to press charges or has fled. 4)Maybe what the person did is despicable but not criminal, e.g. someone with HIV who knowingly refuses to use protection or inform his/her partners.
"I say sort of because XP is neither stable nor network safe"
Can you expand on this please? I ask because there is a large difference between never being network safe, and not being network safe out of the box. Also, when you say XP is not stable, you are implying that it always crashes for everyone. I find that for me, on the one machine (out of 10 in the house) that I run XP on, it is rock stable and incredibly nework safe. It did not start that way on the fresh installation, but it is now.
I know that different distros of Linux are both stable and network safe, however, if you are creating a desktop environment, you start to hear a lot of people say "Linux is stable. X-windows is not." Then people start talking about how you have to tweak and recompile and make other alterations to fit Linux and make it rock stable for your hardware environment. ANd then, only if you have the right distribution, which noone can seem to agree on.
So if you have an install of Linux with X-windows that crashes occasionally, and an install of windows XP that crashes occasionally, why is one automatically better than the other? Don;t they both kind of suck for the average user in a desktop environment?
Personally I don't believe that any OS that is designed to provide an easy to use GUI for general use is perfect on the first install. Everything needs some attention. Once it gets the proper attention, Windows can be stable and safe. Oh, and the XP box in question hasn't needed to be rebooted since I finished my tweaking. No, that wasn't yesterday.
most likely I am wrong about the kiddie porn. It was an example based oupon theory, not fact.
I'm not opposed to the archiving PER SE, as much as I am opposed to the free access. If material that proves illegal activity is archived, then only those in a position to pursue and stop that activity should have access to it. A poor analogy would be that just because some people can use a gun responsibly, that does not mean that guns should be free and freely available. There should at the very least be a policy in place where if you insist that you MUST have access to the archives of illegal activity, you can be easily tracked down and held accountable for what you do with that information.
Being able to request that information be removed from the archive kind of defeats the purpose of archiving everything. Since that implies that some information should not be archived, isn't it now a mater of coming up with a standard definition of what is to be kept and what isn't? I know I could never make that list. I also know that the information on how to contact those selling stolen goods should not be kept in an easy place to access. This only encourages the sale of stolen goods. But with the creation of that standard list, there is no need for a removal policy.
The Yahoo thing... the hackers behind the phishing site, the ones attached to the yahoo email address, did their work from 4 IP addresses. Two out of Taiwan, and two out of Vietnam. Maybe Yahoo is currently working with authorities to track them down and arrest them. They have been in operation for a little while now, and they are collecting more victims as I type. The Yahoo address is still active, because yahoo does not reject communication attempts to that address. Now, Yahoo months ago was informed of a different phishing site, that was hosted on their server. Maybe the investigation is still pending, but I've been watching that site be updated again and again and again. Yahoo has the logs of all that activity. There has been more than enough time to shut it down. They do not. Now, both of these inactions on the part of Yahoo do not form a pattern. But they do indicate a tendency.
As far as that first paragraph is concerned... what are you doing on the internet then? Why are you not living on a piece of land where you eat what you grow, do not use anything that requires electricity, and everything else you are involved with was made with your own two hands? Why are you not living the life you say can be lived now? Of course, you only have your own two feet for transportation, although I suppose you could build a wagon and use a horse. Viking longships made it here across the Atlantic (with stops) so I suppose that you could get a few people together if you wanted to visit Europe. For someone who wants to think of securities that are better suited for the future, you seem to want to live a life that died out 2000 years or more ago.
I would embrace a world where there was no need for money, police, or governments. Unfortunately, nature proves that in such an environment, only the strong survive. The weak are culled from the herd. That would be great as far as over population is converned. However, what it would mean is that those who were willing and able to use force to get what they want, would do so. Society would quickly turn into collections of Dictatorships where the strongest and his cronies, ruled over peasants who grew the food and built the buildings. At best, we would be looking at serfdom for the masses, working pots of land that "belonged" to the local lord, who in this cas would be self-appointed. Essentially the same as the dictatorship, but the lord would be a nicer guy (I guess).
I would love a Star Trek type world where we worked as one, globally, without the petty concerns of corporations and individual profit. I hope we reach that. It will never happen instantaneously. There will be revolutions, and dark times between now and then. There are too many people now that use force to take what they want without earning it to just switch over to a system like the one you describe. Yes, it is currently an authoritarian type of society we live in. Do you know why? Because someone will always attempt to place themselves in charge. Someone will always try to place themselves above others. History teaches us that. If we forget or ignore history, we are doomed to repeat it.
Yes, I want convienence. So do you. You just want different convienent things than I do. So I ask you. Until new and better security measures are in place (not the ones you imagine, because you haven't imagined any specific ones yet), how do we handle the security situation now? Do we ignore it?
How do we get EVERYONE to climb aboard the bandwagon you wish the world to become? We can't agree on a religion. We can't agree on a language. We can't agree on the money that I would like to abolish. We can't agree on basic rules of conduct; basic human rights.
I'd like to see all weapons destroyed. How would that be accomplished? That would have to be part of the Utopia. They couldn't be destroyed anyway, until everyone agreed with the program. Because if we established this Utopia here in the USA, you can bank on the fact that another country would take advantage of the US now being defenceless, and commence with the slaughter. It doesn't matter if we cried out "We've changed! We aren't capitalists anymore!"
It would be great if everyone took their money out of paypal and banks, and destroyed their credit cards. That won't happen. You can wish and wish till you are blue in the face, but everyone would not do it. See paragraph about how we can't agree on anything. It is unfortunate that you do not understand a lot of what I have said. I am not really concerned with protecting the interests of corporations. I am interestd in protecting those people who are out here on the internet, but just do not KNOW enough to properly protect themselves. Unscrupulous individuals are looking to prey on them. I want to do what I can to reduce that as much as I can. You say it is better to do nothing, than to do the wrong thing. That is because you want socie
but it also means that if something criminal is revealed in the process of verifying the application, related to the information in the application, that they should be able to act and begin criminal proceedings.
In this particular case, because the FBI had a list of individuals they were in the process of investigating, and it was probable that some might have been attempting to use Educational Institutions to get education and entry to potential targets of opportunity... I would say they had good cause.
I mean, considering the pilots in the 9/11 disaster attended flight schools here in the US, and probably filled out FAFSA for assistance, the FBI don't want to get caught flatfooted again...
If you want money from the government to go to college, you must fill out an application honestly. The only way to know that you were honest on your application, is to check the answers.
So The government trusts you to fill out the application properly and honestly, then they double check. If you lie on the application, then YOU violated that trust.
If you fill out the application honestly, then you have nothing to fear if they check up on it. If you demand that they trust you and NOT check, then I guarantee it will turn out that you lied on the FAFSA form.
You can keep all of your secrets to your self. It's cool. Just don't expect to get any government money for college.
WHatever happened to trust you ask? I'm sure it went out the window after the first few people lied on their FAFSA applications. Or after the government handed out money to someone who could have easily afforded going to college, but just wanted the government to pay for as much of it as possible.
But for you to EXPECT government agencies not to communicate with each other... or for you to count on no intercommunication between government agencies... that is suspicious. What do you have to hide?
But filing a false claim in order to recieve government aid is a crime.
You know, I'd like you to quote me where I called you an obscene name... as opposed to my using words that you just did not like.
However, here's a phishing site I posted about at 8:50 this morning, EST. http://yahoo-security-dept.5u.com/ I posted about it here, because I wanted to show how Yahoo has taken no action in months, about the site that directs people there. Now, because I wanted to actually show the site, and because I wanted to give the "authorities" the time to do something, I have done nothing else.
Guess what? it's been over 10 hours. How many people have lost their Yahoo accounts in that time? You don't think that's a big deal? Some people use Yahoo legitimately, and even have it as their official contact email for things like their domains, their hosting accounts, and more. They lose their Yahoo account, they lose quite a bit more. And phishers have a new domain and hosting space to work from.
Time is of the essence when a phishing site is spotted. Every minute can mean more accounts and identities are stolen. How many people are now screwed because I did not notify the host about the site? My local FBI office knows about it though.
Why do you feel that it is not your duty to report a crime when you spot it?
I'm already on record here with my opinions and stance on phishing. Education, as has been pointed out in several comments, is key. The uninformed are the targets phishers seek. So how do you educate everyone on the internet? Most barely know more than "point and click" operation of their computer.
Paypal, for instance does not need your SSN, but by supplying it, you can earn 5% interest on the money sitting in your account. There are countless other legitimate examples.
How do you educate the world on a single issue, especially when there are more pressing issues that are higher on the global priority list? Hell, I bet most of you have a few friends on your instant messenger friends list, who still pass on those mass messages threatening to shut down the service if the message is not forwarded to everyone? All 4 of the biggies, Y!, AIM, MSN, and ICQ all state clearly in multiple places they will never do this... they will never send out a system wide message that has to be forwarded. Yet people still don't know this, even after 7 years. And those messages don't even look nearly as legitimate as some phishing sites.
no warrant is necessary because first and foremost, this is FAFSA.
That means Free Application for Federal Student Aid.
By filling out this application, you are giving the government permission to essentially pour over every detail you put in the application, to verify if it is true or not. That means everything. Anything suspicious or false means you could have the FBI knocking on your door, just based on the bad info.
FAFSA is not sent to some private organization. You are asking the government to put you under a microscope in order to determine how much money they will have to give you to pay for your education. You can't just say "Hey, give me money, but don't ask anything about me."
The FBI is already along for the ride while 14 million applications are combed over. This time, they just happened to be paying more attention, and were looking for specific people.
Like I said, we must use new, as yet invented methods of verification.
Nothing like ignoring the issue today, and thumbing your nose at everyone who won't agree with your view of the future. The problems are here and now... it doesn't matter if they are going to get worse in the future. We need a solution now.
"Sorry sir. I know you have cancer. Sorry, were not going to do anything for you, because we haven't found a cure yet. So go away, and we will let you know when a cure is available that will work without fail."
I notice you criticize, but provide nothing constructive. I get the impression that you have no clue whatsoever as to what these future security measures might be. How about a way to be able to implement these future security measures so that they encompas everyone, OOTB. Because those 17th century measures you loathe so much, will still be in place while your new 22nd century are being applied. Of course, as you like to point out human nature, what we REALLY see, is that these new fangled 22nd century security measures are put in place, they will be available to those who can afford them. Those who can't will be stuck at first with the old 17th century model... then they will be locked out completely.
I can easily say that we need this undeveloped and never thought of thing, and we need that never before thought of concept, and that out of the box idea. We need a lot of things. But for all your calling for people to start thinking of new ways of doing things, we need people with their feet firmly planted on the ground attacking the current issues. Because while you spend your time wrapped up in theoretical models, there are hundreds of people who have to live in the mundane to support you. Yes. The store employees, the restaurant workers, and everyone else who canot afford to be a dreamer living in the future. They are too busy living in the present.
If we don't pay enough attention to our problems NOW, there won't be a future to develop security procedures for.
I hope to god noone takes you seriously. That could be dangerous and even deadly. You want to act like an asshole who doesn't give a shit, you should expect to be called an asshole who doesn't give a shit.
I find your attempt to label me a vigilante to be offensive and obscene, especially when it was clear that I was not. That was when you lost ANY respect that I might have put in responses to you.
But by implying that I should just mind my own business and let it all be, well that is also obscene. Especially when the evidence is right in front of you that expecting someone else to solve the problem, is what allowed the problem to continue unchecked for so long.
People with your attitude are the reason why the forum I took down, was in operation for 5 years. All it took was a single email. One little email. You have put more effort into posting here, than it took to take down that forum. But you would rather direct your efforts into getting in the way and trying to stop OTHERS from doing what is right, than actually doing what is right yourself. People with your attitude are the reason why problems like this flourish.
Get your shotgun and blow them away. Let God sort them out. Hoo-rah!
That's your solution, not mine. I don't own a shotgun, nor will I ever. But when you need help, and noone gives a shit, you'll understand. You won't remember that I said it, but you will get it then. Not the help, of course. You are too efficient in spreading the apathy.
Acting without care is reckless and irresponsible. Whether it is archiving material without care and regard, or it is zooming by that broken down car on the highway in need of a good samaritan.
but it IS being reproduced. And it is still there on archive.org. And it is still there in Google's cache links. And companies like Yahoo refuse to do anything about the illegal activities they are being informed of, on their own servers and within their own userbase.
By your argument, if ABC puts on a television program for all to see (with just an antenna and an old black and white TV for example), then they really can't complain when someone else tapes the show and rebroadcasts it for all to see whenever they want.
Phishing is only an issue due to ineffective(and I believe intentionally) authentification employed by the financial institutions. And now we use that scam to suppress the flow. Make no mistake, it's the feeble security methods that make phishing so profitable, not the exposure of your information.
Ok, that is exactly what you said. Let's say that security has been beefed up so that in order to make a purchase, a fingerprint scan is required to prove the money you are spending is yours and does not belong to someone else. All a phisher has to do is to trick you into using HIS fingerprint scanner. Guess what? He just stole your identity. Like I said. Phishers rely on the ignorant and uneducated. It doesn't matter what security measures institutions use. If you buy something, you expose yourself to being scammed. Sometimes, even if you use cash. So since any security measures that institutions can implement, can be defeated by a phisher that is counting on their victim not knowing any better, it is not the fault of the institutions.
If I have EVERYTHING that I need to pretend to be YOU, and I go to a branch of your bank where none of the tellers have ever physically seen you... you are blaming the bank if I get your money? You do realize that with the right info, I can get your birth certificate. Once I have that, I can get a valid state ID with my photo and your info. The three physical identifiers on that birth certificate are Sex, Eye color, and Hair color. Now, if I don't match in all three, yeah, pretending to be you might be hard. But, people do get sex changes, wear colored contacts, and dye their hair. Ok, so that is pushing it, but not that far.
Info discarded in the trash and out of your control DOES have that power. Authorities use the tactic of looking for evidence in trash all the time. Some Identity thieves also search trash. Private Investigators do too. Whether or not your personal info SHOULD have that power is irrelevant. It currently does. And because people are people, and NO SECURITY MEASURE IS UNDEFEATABLE, personal info will always have power.
Your entire argument is flawed, in that you view the internet as a huge trash bin. You do.
Permission is not yours to give. Once you "discard" your info to the net, it is indeed in the public domain.
It isn't. Books are not "discarded" into a library. Books do not become public domain once they are included in a library. You are given permission to visit a web site, and enjoy it. You do not have the right to take what is there, and do whatever you want with it. Just because I have the ability to copy everything about a website (content, design, etc.) and slap a new domain name on it and call it my own, does not mean that it is right, or legal.
You might see Copyright as toothless. That's your opinion and your problem. But there has to be some kind of protection system in place that allows me to create something, and keep someone else with more resourses from just taking it away from me and deciding that it is ours. We aren't flying around in anti-grav sleds because large unscrupulous companies are keeping us in an automotove dark age... by abusing a good system. Copyright needs MORE strength to protect the individuals with good ideas and no resourses.
The hair on my head is mine until I say it isn't. Not until YOU say it isn't.
You are correct. I've been doing what I can to shut down phishers for a few years now. At first, like you and most people, I did nothing. The old "Let someone else handle it" attitude. Then, I did nothing. The old "The authorities will get them" attitude. Guess what? Nothing got done.
THen, I started observing the life span of some of the phishing sites I was directed to. The entire time I was observing, they continued to live and apparently thrive. I thought... Why has noone done anything? I thought... Where are the authorities?
My next step was to bring the phishing site to the attention of the major organizations that were being targetted. Companies like Paypal (there is a policy for reporting phishing sites at paypal), and Yahoo, ICQ, and others. Still nothing was done, and these sites stayed up.
So, that's when I fired off my first email to a host. BAM! the phishing site was removed within an HOUR of my email.
Now, maybe you are just too fucking apathetic for humanity's sake, but I'm not. You want to protect these phishers and scammers with your inactivity, and your ENCOURAGEMENT of other's inactivy, you go right ahead and continue to be a waste of space. You are the kind of person who will witness a pedestrian get hit by a car and ignore it, because you are sure that someone else will take care of it.
You are right that there are plenty of live forums that criminals use to pursue their illegal activities. I found one that had been in operation for YEARS until I stepped up and did something. That single example justifies my actions. In 5 years, noone did a thing to try to stop what was going on at that site. Not you, not your friends, not the "authorities".
I can't fucking believe you are actually giving me shit because I did something good, for people I don't even know. What the fuck is wrong with you? Who pisses in your cornflakes every morning?
I don't want to be judge jury and executioner. I don't just run around hacking hosts to pull down these sites. I do everything I can to follow all the appropriate protocols. First, I read the TOS/AUP of a host, not only to see their procedure for reporting abuse, but also to see if their TOS even covers the activity. Then I bring it to their attention. That is all it takes... in every case other than dealing with Yahoo. I don't judge their activity to be illegal or wrong. Someone else already did that. I don't listen to the phisher's point of view as to why they should be allowed to phish. We already know it's wrong. I'm not judge, jury, or executioner. I'm just no different than someone who watched an episode of America's Most Wanted, and called the hotline because I know where someone featured on the show is.
And I'm appalled that you can't tell the fucking difference. GO crawl back into your apathetic little hole, and keep praying to your genitals that "the powers that be" will make the world a rainbow bright my-little-pony place for you, while you do nothing.
If you do not already know exactly what to search for in these archives, you aren't going to find the evidence to lock anyone up. I only know about THIS particular individual because of the tracks he left behind after hacking my friend's host.
Now, you must have missed.. what.. HALF of my post that you replied to? The jerk in question posted in two forums, attempting to sell stolen credit cards. The free forum that was hosted by anyboard.net was up and running FOR 5 YEARS! Archive.org has got 2002, 2003, and 2004 in their archives. Over that time, it has been used by countless individuals to sell credit cards, number dumps, blank cards, stolen personal information, Egold trojans and more. The board only got yanked from the web after I found it in my search for this hacker.
5 years of illegal activity. SURE these people should be investigated and arrested. Officials and people who actually gave a shit didn't know where to look. But anyone who went to this board to get themseles a few THOUSAND credit card accounts, would be able to find it in the archives.
And don;t start thinking that those contact emails and Instant Messenger accounts can't possibly be any good after all this time in the archives. Yahoo has been notified and notified and notified to shut down the email address of at least one hacker. Yahoo does nothing. Not surprisingly, a lot of these resellers use Yahoo.
Slashdot Mirror
and I am talking about a very specific example of someone who is guilty, but gets out on a technicality. Pick your paticular place where the cops screw it up, but in the example from the position I am arguing, the defendent IS guilty. Not talking about a confession just to end the interrogation.
Again, you can alter the scenario any way you like. Illegally obtained evidence. Illegal wiretap or video surveillance. Dead or scared witnesses. I am talking about someone who is guilty. An illegal wiretap of the defendant with s very unique quality to his voice (hole in his neck, who knows) actually comitting the murder. He did it, but the evidence that shows him doing it was obtained illegally. THe defendant took pictures of himself stabbing his victims with a mirror, clearly showing him doing the act, but the pictures were collected in an illegal search. The guy did it and there is no question, but the case cannot be prosecuted.
This guy, with all of this evidence, that all goes before a judge and gets hashed out like a trial. Except it can't hand down actual prison time. ANd it can't dictate where the dfendant can live, only where he can't live. SO he can pack his bags and move far away from where he comitted the crime and got his name in the papers and such.
The guy who IS guilty and there exists unuseable proof. Just because a piece of evidence is unusable in a court of law, that does not mean that it does not prove the defendant did the crime. It just does not meet the standard for the courtroom... and then only because of a violation of procedure.
That violation is why he doesn't go to prison. He gets out of that. He just doesn't get off completely free.
Can anyone say OJ? Criminal court, innocent. Civil court, Liable. This just is a database of civil proceedings just like that one.
I am not denying that he gets off because of a cop mistake, or series of screw ups. That does not take away from the fact that he is still guilty of the crime. Why should anyone who IS guilty of a crime, be allowed to get away completely scott free? In that case, it would be... "Ok sir, you did it, and we can't put you in jail. But we are going to track your movements and watch what you do and where you live, so you cannot do it again. You keep your freedom aside from that particular activity."
So it is like Prison Lite.
Someone who is guilty should not necesarily be able to get a "Get out of punishment Free" card. Just because the law does not currently allow for this, does not mean that it should not be changed to include it.
I can see where it can be abused. But since it would be a long, complicated, and specific process to be put on one of these registries, it would be HARD to abuse. It would do more good than harm. There are current questions whether or not prisons do more good than harm. If you had the choice between a 10 x 10 cell in a prison or picking almost anywhere in the country where you just have to keep a low profile (for your own good), most potential convicts would pick that criminal registry over actual prison.
he might have been swimming up behind it, with a fiml crew... while he was narrating about it's coloration or camoflague abilities, if we approached the torso with his head, that would put his chest well within a whip of that tail to the side. Possibly even straight up, if he was swimming directly over one, and it did the "speared foot" maneuver.
Hell, he dangled his child over crocs before. It must have looked exactly like the whole chickens they feed them. This was a man who wanted to go out exactly as he did. doing what he loved. He might have regretted the timing, but I think we all expected a croc to get him anyway. The stingray kinda came out of left field.
Funny and sad. Sweet and sour. mmm. Chinese.
I'm not sure I want targetted ads for whatever I happen to be talking about with me and my friends, popping up in the sidebar of my next google search. Not all the time, anyway.
I'm not going to perform any terrorist activities, nor am I gonna encourage any terrorist activities. Just the opposite. But just talking about them can get snippets of my conversation put into a database, where later on, because I mentioned the words "terrorist" "bomb" "access" "motivation" "religion" and "plan" too much in a particular conversation, I go on a hot list to be placed under a microscope. It doesn't matter if I have nothing to hide. I did not reach out and say "Hey Government Entity, Look at ME!!! I need something from you, so you can pay attention to me now." I don't need governmental resourses and time spent on investigating me when they should be off investigating someone who is REALLY doing something wrong.
This one goes in the BAD file.
Except that if your child is molested, you do not believe that the legal system is set up properly if he gets away with it by not being caught, and manages to stay under the radar until the statute of limitations runs out.
THe example of a man with HIV having unprotected sex with partners without informing them, there is an action that should be criminal, since you are more than just gambling with another person's life. You are allowing someone to take vengeful, and lethal action against an unsuspecting public. Not unlike a man being angry at knowing he is going to die, and driving his truck through a crowd of happy people out of spite. The guy in the truck can be prosecuted and put away. The man with the HIV can't. Shouldn't the public be warned about this guy, so that they can make an informed decision as to whether or not the want to have sex with him, or even interact with him considering his view on other people?
Ok. COps deny a lawyer, because they are attempting to sweat a confession. Hours later, after filling him with coffe and water, they deny him use of the bathroom. They get their confession after hours of interrogation. But he requested a lawyer. No confession. He goes free. State cannot prosecute. State does NOT prosecute. This guy wins the criminal lottery and goes free?
In a case where an illegal wiretap is used to gain evidence, the defendant might be guilty as hell but can get off.
In a case where no positive ID can be made by any witness, and evidence was gathered under an improperly served warrant, or a warrentless search. Say, personal posessions of the victims, locks of hair, etc.
the parent lists several examples...
1)Maybe the key evidence linking him is inadmissible in court (but still reliable).
2)Maybe the statue of limitations has expired or there are jurisdictional problems.
3)Maybe the victim is unwilling to press charges or has fled.
4)Maybe what the person did is despicable but not criminal, e.g. someone with HIV who knowingly refuses to use protection or inform his/her partners.
"I say sort of because XP is neither stable nor network safe"
Can you expand on this please? I ask because there is a large difference between never being network safe, and not being network safe out of the box. Also, when you say XP is not stable, you are implying that it always crashes for everyone. I find that for me, on the one machine (out of 10 in the house) that I run XP on, it is rock stable and incredibly nework safe. It did not start that way on the fresh installation, but it is now.
I know that different distros of Linux are both stable and network safe, however, if you are creating a desktop environment, you start to hear a lot of people say "Linux is stable. X-windows is not." Then people start talking about how you have to tweak and recompile and make other alterations to fit Linux and make it rock stable for your hardware environment. ANd then, only if you have the right distribution, which noone can seem to agree on.
So if you have an install of Linux with X-windows that crashes occasionally, and an install of windows XP that crashes occasionally, why is one automatically better than the other? Don;t they both kind of suck for the average user in a desktop environment?
Personally I don't believe that any OS that is designed to provide an easy to use GUI for general use is perfect on the first install. Everything needs some attention. Once it gets the proper attention, Windows can be stable and safe. Oh, and the XP box in question hasn't needed to be rebooted since I finished my tweaking. No, that wasn't yesterday.
most likely I am wrong about the kiddie porn. It was an example based oupon theory, not fact.
I'm not opposed to the archiving PER SE, as much as I am opposed to the free access. If material that proves illegal activity is archived, then only those in a position to pursue and stop that activity should have access to it. A poor analogy would be that just because some people can use a gun responsibly, that does not mean that guns should be free and freely available. There should at the very least be a policy in place where if you insist that you MUST have access to the archives of illegal activity, you can be easily tracked down and held accountable for what you do with that information.
Being able to request that information be removed from the archive kind of defeats the purpose of archiving everything. Since that implies that some information should not be archived, isn't it now a mater of coming up with a standard definition of what is to be kept and what isn't? I know I could never make that list. I also know that the information on how to contact those selling stolen goods should not be kept in an easy place to access. This only encourages the sale of stolen goods. But with the creation of that standard list, there is no need for a removal policy.
The Yahoo thing... the hackers behind the phishing site, the ones attached to the yahoo email address, did their work from 4 IP addresses. Two out of Taiwan, and two out of Vietnam. Maybe Yahoo is currently working with authorities to track them down and arrest them. They have been in operation for a little while now, and they are collecting more victims as I type. The Yahoo address is still active, because yahoo does not reject communication attempts to that address. Now, Yahoo months ago was informed of a different phishing site, that was hosted on their server. Maybe the investigation is still pending, but I've been watching that site be updated again and again and again. Yahoo has the logs of all that activity. There has been more than enough time to shut it down. They do not. Now, both of these inactions on the part of Yahoo do not form a pattern. But they do indicate a tendency.
As far as that first paragraph is concerned... what are you doing on the internet then? Why are you not living on a piece of land where you eat what you grow, do not use anything that requires electricity, and everything else you are involved with was made with your own two hands? Why are you not living the life you say can be lived now? Of course, you only have your own two feet for transportation, although I suppose you could build a wagon and use a horse. Viking longships made it here across the Atlantic (with stops) so I suppose that you could get a few people together if you wanted to visit Europe. For someone who wants to think of securities that are better suited for the future, you seem to want to live a life that died out 2000 years or more ago.
I would embrace a world where there was no need for money, police, or governments. Unfortunately, nature proves that in such an environment, only the strong survive. The weak are culled from the herd. That would be great as far as over population is converned. However, what it would mean is that those who were willing and able to use force to get what they want, would do so. Society would quickly turn into collections of Dictatorships where the strongest and his cronies, ruled over peasants who grew the food and built the buildings. At best, we would be looking at serfdom for the masses, working pots of land that "belonged" to the local lord, who in this cas would be self-appointed. Essentially the same as the dictatorship, but the lord would be a nicer guy (I guess).
I would love a Star Trek type world where we worked as one, globally, without the petty concerns of corporations and individual profit. I hope we reach that. It will never happen instantaneously. There will be revolutions, and dark times between now and then. There are too many people now that use force to take what they want without earning it to just switch over to a system like the one you describe. Yes, it is currently an authoritarian type of society we live in. Do you know why? Because someone will always attempt to place themselves in charge. Someone will always try to place themselves above others. History teaches us that. If we forget or ignore history, we are doomed to repeat it.
Yes, I want convienence. So do you. You just want different convienent things than I do. So I ask you. Until new and better security measures are in place (not the ones you imagine, because you haven't imagined any specific ones yet), how do we handle the security situation now? Do we ignore it?
How do we get EVERYONE to climb aboard the bandwagon you wish the world to become? We can't agree on a religion. We can't agree on a language. We can't agree on the money that I would like to abolish. We can't agree on basic rules of conduct; basic human rights.
I'd like to see all weapons destroyed. How would that be accomplished? That would have to be part of the Utopia. They couldn't be destroyed anyway, until everyone agreed with the program. Because if we established this Utopia here in the USA, you can bank on the fact that another country would take advantage of the US now being defenceless, and commence with the slaughter. It doesn't matter if we cried out "We've changed! We aren't capitalists anymore!"
It would be great if everyone took their money out of paypal and banks, and destroyed their credit cards. That won't happen. You can wish and wish till you are blue in the face, but everyone would not do it. See paragraph about how we can't agree on anything. It is unfortunate that you do not understand a lot of what I have said. I am not really concerned with protecting the interests of corporations. I am interestd in protecting those people who are out here on the internet, but just do not KNOW enough to properly protect themselves. Unscrupulous individuals are looking to prey on them. I want to do what I can to reduce that as much as I can. You say it is better to do nothing, than to do the wrong thing. That is because you want socie
very good point.
but it also means that if something criminal is revealed in the process of verifying the application, related to the information in the application, that they should be able to act and begin criminal proceedings.
In this particular case, because the FBI had a list of individuals they were in the process of investigating, and it was probable that some might have been attempting to use Educational Institutions to get education and entry to potential targets of opportunity... I would say they had good cause.
I mean, considering the pilots in the 9/11 disaster attended flight schools here in the US, and probably filled out FAFSA for assistance, the FBI don't want to get caught flatfooted again...
it isn't even really a matter of mistrust.
If you want money from the government to go to college, you must fill out an application honestly. The only way to know that you were honest on your application, is to check the answers.
So The government trusts you to fill out the application properly and honestly, then they double check. If you lie on the application, then YOU violated that trust.
If you fill out the application honestly, then you have nothing to fear if they check up on it. If you demand that they trust you and NOT check, then I guarantee it will turn out that you lied on the FAFSA form.
You can keep all of your secrets to your self. It's cool. Just don't expect to get any government money for college.
WHatever happened to trust you ask? I'm sure it went out the window after the first few people lied on their FAFSA applications. Or after the government handed out money to someone who could have easily afforded going to college, but just wanted the government to pay for as much of it as possible.
But for you to EXPECT government agencies not to communicate with each other... or for you to count on no intercommunication between government agencies... that is suspicious. What do you have to hide?
But filing a false claim in order to recieve government aid is a crime.
Nope. No ranting. Just information.
You know, I'd like you to quote me where I called you an obscene name... as opposed to my using words that you just did not like.
However, here's a phishing site I posted about at 8:50 this morning, EST.
http://yahoo-security-dept.5u.com/
I posted about it here, because I wanted to show how Yahoo has taken no action in months, about the site that directs people there. Now, because I wanted to actually show the site, and because I wanted to give the "authorities" the time to do something, I have done nothing else.
Guess what? it's been over 10 hours. How many people have lost their Yahoo accounts in that time? You don't think that's a big deal? Some people use Yahoo legitimately, and even have it as their official contact email for things like their domains, their hosting accounts, and more. They lose their Yahoo account, they lose quite a bit more. And phishers have a new domain and hosting space to work from.
Time is of the essence when a phishing site is spotted. Every minute can mean more accounts and identities are stolen. How many people are now screwed because I did not notify the host about the site? My local FBI office knows about it though.
Why do you feel that it is not your duty to report a crime when you spot it?
I'm already on record here with my opinions and stance on phishing. Education, as has been pointed out in several comments, is key. The uninformed are the targets phishers seek. So how do you educate everyone on the internet? Most barely know more than "point and click" operation of their computer.
Paypal, for instance does not need your SSN, but by supplying it, you can earn 5% interest on the money sitting in your account. There are countless other legitimate examples.
How do you educate the world on a single issue, especially when there are more pressing issues that are higher on the global priority list? Hell, I bet most of you have a few friends on your instant messenger friends list, who still pass on those mass messages threatening to shut down the service if the message is not forwarded to everyone? All 4 of the biggies, Y!, AIM, MSN, and ICQ all state clearly in multiple places they will never do this... they will never send out a system wide message that has to be forwarded. Yet people still don't know this, even after 7 years. And those messages don't even look nearly as legitimate as some phishing sites.
no warrant is necessary because first and foremost, this is FAFSA.
That means Free Application for Federal Student Aid.
By filling out this application, you are giving the government permission to essentially pour over every detail you put in the application, to verify if it is true or not. That means everything. Anything suspicious or false means you could have the FBI knocking on your door, just based on the bad info.
FAFSA is not sent to some private organization. You are asking the government to put you under a microscope in order to determine how much money they will have to give you to pay for your education. You can't just say "Hey, give me money, but don't ask anything about me."
The FBI is already along for the ride while 14 million applications are combed over. This time, they just happened to be paying more attention, and were looking for specific people.
Nothing like ignoring the issue today, and thumbing your nose at everyone who won't agree with your view of the future. The problems are here and now... it doesn't matter if they are going to get worse in the future. We need a solution now.
"Sorry sir. I know you have cancer. Sorry, were not going to do anything for you, because we haven't found a cure yet. So go away, and we will let you know when a cure is available that will work without fail."
I notice you criticize, but provide nothing constructive. I get the impression that you have no clue whatsoever as to what these future security measures might be. How about a way to be able to implement these future security measures so that they encompas everyone, OOTB. Because those 17th century measures you loathe so much, will still be in place while your new 22nd century are being applied. Of course, as you like to point out human nature, what we REALLY see, is that these new fangled 22nd century security measures are put in place, they will be available to those who can afford them. Those who can't will be stuck at first with the old 17th century model... then they will be locked out completely.
I can easily say that we need this undeveloped and never thought of thing, and we need that never before thought of concept, and that out of the box idea. We need a lot of things. But for all your calling for people to start thinking of new ways of doing things, we need people with their feet firmly planted on the ground attacking the current issues. Because while you spend your time wrapped up in theoretical models, there are hundreds of people who have to live in the mundane to support you. Yes. The store employees, the restaurant workers, and everyone else who canot afford to be a dreamer living in the future. They are too busy living in the present.
If we don't pay enough attention to our problems NOW, there won't be a future to develop security procedures for.
I hope to god noone takes you seriously. That could be dangerous and even deadly. You want to act like an asshole who doesn't give a shit, you should expect to be called an asshole who doesn't give a shit.
I find your attempt to label me a vigilante to be offensive and obscene, especially when it was clear that I was not. That was when you lost ANY respect that I might have put in responses to you.
But by implying that I should just mind my own business and let it all be, well that is also obscene. Especially when the evidence is right in front of you that expecting someone else to solve the problem, is what allowed the problem to continue unchecked for so long.
People with your attitude are the reason why the forum I took down, was in operation for 5 years. All it took was a single email. One little email. You have put more effort into posting here, than it took to take down that forum. But you would rather direct your efforts into getting in the way and trying to stop OTHERS from doing what is right, than actually doing what is right yourself. People with your attitude are the reason why problems like this flourish.
That's your solution, not mine. I don't own a shotgun, nor will I ever. But when you need help, and noone gives a shit, you'll understand. You won't remember that I said it, but you will get it then. Not the help, of course. You are too efficient in spreading the apathy.
Acting without care is reckless and irresponsible. Whether it is archiving material without care and regard, or it is zooming by that broken down car on the highway in need of a good samaritan.
then fix it and send it back to google.
but it IS being reproduced. And it is still there on archive.org. And it is still there in Google's cache links. And companies like Yahoo refuse to do anything about the illegal activities they are being informed of, on their own servers and within their own userbase. By your argument, if ABC puts on a television program for all to see (with just an antenna and an old black and white TV for example), then they really can't complain when someone else tapes the show and rebroadcasts it for all to see whenever they want.
Ok, that is exactly what you said. Let's say that security has been beefed up so that in order to make a purchase, a fingerprint scan is required to prove the money you are spending is yours and does not belong to someone else. All a phisher has to do is to trick you into using HIS fingerprint scanner. Guess what? He just stole your identity. Like I said. Phishers rely on the ignorant and uneducated. It doesn't matter what security measures institutions use. If you buy something, you expose yourself to being scammed. Sometimes, even if you use cash. So since any security measures that institutions can implement, can be defeated by a phisher that is counting on their victim not knowing any better, it is not the fault of the institutions.
If I have EVERYTHING that I need to pretend to be YOU, and I go to a branch of your bank where none of the tellers have ever physically seen you... you are blaming the bank if I get your money? You do realize that with the right info, I can get your birth certificate. Once I have that, I can get a valid state ID with my photo and your info. The three physical identifiers on that birth certificate are Sex, Eye color, and Hair color. Now, if I don't match in all three, yeah, pretending to be you might be hard. But, people do get sex changes, wear colored contacts, and dye their hair. Ok, so that is pushing it, but not that far.
Info discarded in the trash and out of your control DOES have that power. Authorities use the tactic of looking for evidence in trash all the time. Some Identity thieves also search trash. Private Investigators do too. Whether or not your personal info SHOULD have that power is irrelevant. It currently does. And because people are people, and NO SECURITY MEASURE IS UNDEFEATABLE, personal info will always have power.
Your entire argument is flawed, in that you view the internet as a huge trash bin. You do.
It isn't. Books are not "discarded" into a library. Books do not become public domain once they are included in a library. You are given permission to visit a web site, and enjoy it. You do not have the right to take what is there, and do whatever you want with it. Just because I have the ability to copy everything about a website (content, design, etc.) and slap a new domain name on it and call it my own, does not mean that it is right, or legal.
You might see Copyright as toothless. That's your opinion and your problem. But there has to be some kind of protection system in place that allows me to create something, and keep someone else with more resourses from just taking it away from me and deciding that it is ours. We aren't flying around in anti-grav sleds because large unscrupulous companies are keeping us in an automotove dark age... by abusing a good system. Copyright needs MORE strength to protect the individuals with good ideas and no resourses.
The hair on my head is mine until I say it isn't. Not until YOU say it isn't.
You are correct. I've been doing what I can to shut down phishers for a few years now. At first, like you and most people, I did nothing. The old "Let someone else handle it" attitude. Then, I did nothing. The old "The authorities will get them" attitude. Guess what? Nothing got done.
THen, I started observing the life span of some of the phishing sites I was directed to. The entire time I was observing, they continued to live and apparently thrive. I thought... Why has noone done anything? I thought... Where are the authorities?
My next step was to bring the phishing site to the attention of the major organizations that were being targetted. Companies like Paypal (there is a policy for reporting phishing sites at paypal), and Yahoo, ICQ, and others. Still nothing was done, and these sites stayed up.
So, that's when I fired off my first email to a host. BAM! the phishing site was removed within an HOUR of my email.
Now, maybe you are just too fucking apathetic for humanity's sake, but I'm not. You want to protect these phishers and scammers with your inactivity, and your ENCOURAGEMENT of other's inactivy, you go right ahead and continue to be a waste of space. You are the kind of person who will witness a pedestrian get hit by a car and ignore it, because you are sure that someone else will take care of it.
You are right that there are plenty of live forums that criminals use to pursue their illegal activities. I found one that had been in operation for YEARS until I stepped up and did something. That single example justifies my actions. In 5 years, noone did a thing to try to stop what was going on at that site. Not you, not your friends, not the "authorities".
I can't fucking believe you are actually giving me shit because I did something good, for people I don't even know. What the fuck is wrong with you? Who pisses in your cornflakes every morning?
I don't want to be judge jury and executioner. I don't just run around hacking hosts to pull down these sites. I do everything I can to follow all the appropriate protocols. First, I read the TOS/AUP of a host, not only to see their procedure for reporting abuse, but also to see if their TOS even covers the activity. Then I bring it to their attention. That is all it takes... in every case other than dealing with Yahoo. I don't judge their activity to be illegal or wrong. Someone else already did that. I don't listen to the phisher's point of view as to why they should be allowed to phish. We already know it's wrong. I'm not judge, jury, or executioner. I'm just no different than someone who watched an episode of America's Most Wanted, and called the hotline because I know where someone featured on the show is.
And I'm appalled that you can't tell the fucking difference. GO crawl back into your apathetic little hole, and keep praying to your genitals that "the powers that be" will make the world a rainbow bright my-little-pony place for you, while you do nothing.
It's the only way to be sure.
If you do not already know exactly what to search for in these archives, you aren't going to find the evidence to lock anyone up. I only know about THIS particular individual because of the tracks he left behind after hacking my friend's host.
Now, you must have missed.. what.. HALF of my post that you replied to? The jerk in question posted in two forums, attempting to sell stolen credit cards. The free forum that was hosted by anyboard.net was up and running FOR 5 YEARS! Archive.org has got 2002, 2003, and 2004 in their archives. Over that time, it has been used by countless individuals to sell credit cards, number dumps, blank cards, stolen personal information, Egold trojans and more. The board only got yanked from the web after I found it in my search for this hacker.
5 years of illegal activity. SURE these people should be investigated and arrested. Officials and people who actually gave a shit didn't know where to look. But anyone who went to this board to get themseles a few THOUSAND credit card accounts, would be able to find it in the archives.
And don;t start thinking that those contact emails and Instant Messenger accounts can't possibly be any good after all this time in the archives. Yahoo has been notified and notified and notified to shut down the email address of at least one hacker. Yahoo does nothing. Not surprisingly, a lot of these resellers use Yahoo.