51–60 of 90 posts
I used to tell my son that there will always be work for computer security specialists and that he should go for that. This makes me wonder about my advice.
So a security researcher who was angry about getting raided and hit with a CFAA accusation after an unauthorized access of private medical data started doxxing the FBI agent responsible on Twitter. And in response the FBI is requesting information about the Twitter users that were part of the conversation. Doesn't seem quite as sensational once you know the backstory. The author is right that the charges aren't the s…
No one is pretending that it couldn't meet the bar. It doesn't in my opinion, but that's not the point. The point is that Ken et. al. were not harassing anyone.
Seems relevant. The allegations are that he was harassing the family on FB.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First definition of "dox" that came up for me on google: > search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent. Sounds appropriate, doesn't it? If you still disagree, here's a thought experiment: If someone were searching and posting that info about you, or anyone else reading this very thread, wouldn't we call that doxxing?
Isnt it private information only if its not plastered all over facebook and Google? How is it doxxing if the information is willfully exposed by the person online? Isnt it then just linking the results of a Google search? Doxxing usually involves posting information that person is trying to hide. If theyre posting it online themselves, it hardly counts as doxxing
Doxxing is a bit more than just posting information someone’s trying to hide. It’s identifying that person to basically aid in harassment. If the doxxers provide private info to aid in the harassment, even better (for the doxxers/harassers), but the doxxing doesn’t need to be private info to b doxxing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So he downloaded a list of files. That's like going in the door, opening the refrigerator (or filing cabinet) and making an inventory. The list itself could have private and protected information.
An ftp client downloads a list of files as soon as you connect. It's the same as fat fingering a website in your browser. Are you saying I should go to jail if I type the wrong website, it loads, and it turns out that site was supposed to be "private"? My browser downloaded the home page and all the files on it. What if I click the wrong wifi network and use it all day without noticing? Should I get charged for "unau…
I see this all the time in technology: people come up with contrived counterexamples to expose some non-existent flaw in the legal system that they get really defensive about. The legal system isn’t like a computer. If you really did make a mistake, that should become obvious in the ideal case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An ftp client downloads a list of files as soon as you connect. It's the same as fat fingering a website in your browser. Are you saying I should go to jail if I type the wrong website, it loads, and it turns out that site was supposed to be "private"? My browser downloaded the home page and all the files on it. What if I click the wrong wifi network and use it all day without noticing? Should I get charged for "unau…
> Are you saying I should go to jail if I type the wrong website No, I'm not saying anyone should go to jail. The person in question did not do this by mistake though. In general I'm in agreement with you. I'm just making sure we don't mix analogies. Looking through an open door is not the same as connecting to an FTP server and getting list of files.
The law needs to be at the same standard as real life. For example the police can search your belongings unless they're locked, then you need a warrant. If you've got a service wide open on the internet with no security it shouldn't be a crime just because somebody found it.
The difference between doors and locks is that going through real life doorways is a lot different than connecting to a service. On the internet the act of connecting to it gives you access to the inside, there's no second act of walking in.
It's like an open door that throws a copy of it's contents at anyone that finds it.
I can't even anymore. If this story is anywhere near true -- and I have no reason to believe it is not -- then what the hell do we as citizens DO about it? How can we put an end to ridiculous infringements on rights and wasteful use of resources? It certainly starts with voting for representatives that won't allow thus, but damn. There aren't a lot of good choices out there. And even if there are, how do we fix the i…
A violent uprising looks to be the only way. The problem is that it's against the mightiest military humanity has ever seen. Now watch me get subpoenaed for this...
I can't even anymore. If this story is anywhere near true -- and I have no reason to believe it is not -- then what the hell do we as citizens DO about it? How can we put an end to ridiculous infringements on rights and wasteful use of resources? It certainly starts with voting for representatives that won't allow thus, but damn. There aren't a lot of good choices out there. And even if there are, how do we fix the i…
The problem isn't the government, it's the "citizens." We're a society of cowards, who are afraid of everything and want the government to do something about it. E.g. crime rates are at historic lows, but more than half of Americans say that they worry a "great deal" about crime: http://news.gallup.com/poll/190475/americans-concern-crime-c... . It's not getting any better, it's probably getting worse. We're not that…
I'd add an addendum that confuses me and adds to the problem at hand; not only is there a culture of fear, there isn't even the empiricism to ask for accountability. No one seems to be asking what the outcomes of these various efforts are, and a handwavey "we've caught SOME people despite ruining the lives of others and catching millions in a massive dragnet" seems to be enough for many electorates.
I had written a much longer response, but I can be more concise to summarize as: "I think there are other incentives that serve to worsen the fear"; our election process and media finance structure are two components of this. I have no good ideas on how to decouple all of these without throwing out various babies with the bathwater, but right now the fear seems to benefit the status quo and is thus going to be rather hard to displace, especially alongside an often shaky education system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not true that crime rates are at historic lows, particularly violent crime which is over double the 1960 rate: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/dueling-claims-on-crime-tre... But if you are in the Chicago area, you should know that like wealth, crime is incredibly unevenly distributed. There are communities that have effectively zero risk of violent crime, and communities within 30min drive that have violent crime ra…
>Not[e] true that crime rates are at historic lows, particularly violent crime which is over double the 1960 rate: Which ignores the context of the data that while still double the 1960 rate, it is also half the peak 1991 rate , and has generally been decreasing since then. The murder rate is similar to the early 1960's, after it's peak in the 70s/80s. I have nothing to disagree with your comment on Chicago, which so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are you saying I should go to jail if I type the wrong website No, I'm not saying anyone should go to jail. The person in question did not do this by mistake though. In general I'm in agreement with you. I'm just making sure we don't mix analogies. Looking through an open door is not the same as connecting to an FTP server and getting list of files.
I'm saying that unauthorized access shouldn't apply to things that are trivial to access even by mistake. The law needs to be at the same standard as real life. For example the police can search your belongings unless they're locked, then you need a warrant. If you've got a service wide open on the internet with no security it shouldn't be a crime just because somebody found it. The difference between doors and locks…
Unless you're intending to make the argumet that accessing those files is the same as you leaving all of your personal belongings on the street, I'm not seeing any differences.
> For example the police can search your belongings unless they're locked, then you need a warrant.
The police need a warrant, I [an individual] do not. By your argument, I can come to your house and go through all of your things just because you left the door unlocked.
> If you've got a service wide open on the internet with no security it shouldn't be a crime just because somebody found it.
I don't think anyone here is saying it is. The argument is it's illegal to search through the data made available by that service without permission.
> It's like an open door that throws a copy of it's contents at anyone that finds it.
It's really not. Here's an exercise: Name a protocol used on the Internet that does NOT make a distinction between connecting and the client requesting information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm saying that unauthorized access shouldn't apply to things that are trivial to access even by mistake. The law needs to be at the same standard as real life. For example the police can search your belongings unless they're locked, then you need a warrant. If you've got a service wide open on the internet with no security it shouldn't be a crime just because somebody found it. The difference between doors and locks…
> The law needs to be at the same standard as real life. Unless you're intending to make the argumet that accessing those files is the same as you leaving all of your personal belongings on the street, I'm not seeing any differences. > For example the police can search your belongings unless they're locked, then you need a warrant. The police need a warrant, I [an individual] do not. By your argument, I can come to y…
Well, you just can't legally break into and search my locked property at all; it's true that the remedy for a police violation (the exclusionary rule) doesn't apply to a private violator of property rights in this way, but that's because regular civil and particularly criminal process is available, without governmental immunities and, at least in theory, without the conflict of interest that arises when government law enforcement agents pursuing law enforcement evidence are the ones violating property rights.