21–30 of 51 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Additionally, software is eating much of the enterprise. By and large software makes companies more efficient. Lawyering makes them less. Adding hackers doesn't just protect the enterprise, it improves it.
The point of lawyers is not to make companies "more efficient," so that's a strange criticism of them.
Lol. The OP really doesn't understand what lawyers do all day. Running a a so-called 'hacking back' team isn't done lightly. And instigating an attack, hacking without the 'back', is just plain dangerous. I may not be the sort of lawyer that is sent to openly attack rivals via abusive legal process, but I do have a slide deck of hacking back stories that ended badly. One ends with a panicked call to an attorney after…
I think lawyers are still the new lawyers. One of the major benefits of society is to remove the need for individuals to keep their own firepower. You're allowed to defend yourself, but the goal is to make it so you can feel safe in a city of 8 million people with no more than a heavy bag, cell phone, or can of mace. In the digital world, you still need self-defense (network protections, strong passwords, small attac…
I think lawyers are still the new lawyers. One of the major benefits of society is to remove the need for individuals to keep their own firepower. You're allowed to defend yourself, but the goal is to make it so you can feel safe in a city of 8 million people with no more than a heavy bag, cell phone, or can of mace. In the digital world, you still need self-defense (network protections, strong passwords, small attac…
I think the article addresses this in both suggesting these attacks are more common in China (where lawyers from other countries tend to be notoriously ineffective) and in the hypothetical scenario that corporations grow in power to be above the law.
Lol. The OP really doesn't understand what lawyers do all day. Running a a so-called 'hacking back' team isn't done lightly. And instigating an attack, hacking without the 'back', is just plain dangerous. I may not be the sort of lawyer that is sent to openly attack rivals via abusive legal process, but I do have a slide deck of hacking back stories that ended badly. One ends with a panicked call to an attorney after…
Just to clarify, I am NOT suggesting companies should be hacking back :) I'm just pointing out a trend, which could continue to evolve.
This is something we as a community should probably have a conversation about. Too many people went to law school, and now they can't find jobs. Meanwhile, the "tech" (read: software) zeitgeist has enthusiastically taken up the mantle by proclaiming that everyone should learn to code and start making $100k. We're only devaluing our own work and setting unrealistic expectations by doing this.
A company who don't spend their effort on R&D and just cloning competitors technologies cannot dominate the market. A company which doesn't seriously concerns security deserve to die.
No worries at all.
I think this greatly overestimates the importance of IT and high technology in the modern economy. Outside of the pure tech companies that are well known on HN, most technology is used to facilitate the rest of whatever the company in question does. It isn't the business itself. Most economic value is due to labor and tangible products, and cyber attacks can only indirectly touch those. Cyber attacks are unfortunate,…
>It isn't the business itself. Neither is lawyering, that's his point. Lawyers do not (usually) create value, they protect it, same as the hackers he is talking about. >Cyber attacks are unfortunate, sure, but they're hardly all that damaging to the core operations of the organizations they affect, unless, of course, it's something like Stuxnet, where physical damage is done. The Sony hack: http://www.vanityfair.com/…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to clarify, I am NOT suggesting companies should be hacking back :) I'm just pointing out a trend, which could continue to evolve.
Except that it's not even a trend. Which companies hack back? Every major internet firm publicly disavows hacking back (much less launching offensive attacks) specifically because of the massive liabilities it could expose them to.
I think lawyers are still the new lawyers. One of the major benefits of society is to remove the need for individuals to keep their own firepower. You're allowed to defend yourself, but the goal is to make it so you can feel safe in a city of 8 million people with no more than a heavy bag, cell phone, or can of mace. In the digital world, you still need self-defense (network protections, strong passwords, small attac…