261–270 of 702 posts
"Our European visitors are important to us. This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws." nice
Europeans should be impressed that American sites were so quick to comply with their well thought out and reasonable regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not doublespeak. What would you have the message say? It's a legacy site and they haven't finished implementing out-out-only / data-deletion / etc... I wouldn't assume malicious intent.
It's been quite awhile now since the GDRP protections have been around. If they haven't finished removing tracking by now, then they're lying when they say "your privacy matters to us". No, it doesn't. If it mattered, then you would act like it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also should any repercussions be considered against Twitter that a 17yo was able to gain access to the private messages of potentially some of the most important individuals in the world? 200 Million Americans could drive a car into a crowd. That doesn't make it any less bad for someone to do.
That is not the point that the parent comment is making, though. It's not whether it's bad for someone to commit this crime, it's whether Twitter should be held liable for such poor security practices that a 17 year old can hack them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having bad security is not criminal. If it was we wouldn't have a voting village at defcon cracked by pre-teens and there would be a lot more irresponsible CEO's in prison (so probably a better world).
Usually, the counterweight to bad security is the extremely-practical "Pests, assholes, or criminals ownz you." Which works on average.
In many types of businesses the cost of a security breach is "priced in" or not considered at all and they are gambling on it happening to their competitors (or not at all) instead of to them.
Hitting a 17yo with 30 felony charges feels a bit steep to me. Also should any repercussions be considered against Twitter that a 17yo was able to gain access to the private messages of potentially some of the most important individuals in the world? If a 17yo could do it, I'm sure a nation state could do it.
Having bad security is not criminal. If it was we wouldn't have a voting village at defcon cracked by pre-teens and there would be a lot more irresponsible CEO's in prison (so probably a better world).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The age of the attacker is irrelevant to Twitter's role in this story. However your underlying point still stands. If we want these types of attacks to stop, we can't just let all these companies off with a public embarrassment being the primary punishment. At a certain point we have to start calling it negligence when companies fall for these attacks and fail to have proper precautions in place to prevent them.
From memory, I recall the FBI did a study, and found that half of their employees would plug in a USB drive that they found on the ground in the parking lot. After training, that number was reduced to a quarter. If a security-focused government police agency is so vulnerable, it is unreasonable to expect perfection from a (less paranoid) company.
I think calling FBI "security-focused" is a bit too generous. They are essentially glorified police detectives, with greater authority and jurisdiction. I don't believe the average FBI agent is particularly competent, in terms of technical (i.e. computer) skill or knowledge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I don't blame the site at all. Another stupid rule from the EU preventing me from reading articles.
A man has a hotdog stand that he never cleans. One day, a health inspector comes by and tells him that unless he cleans his grill every day, he can’t keep selling hotdogs. The man shouts “I’ve never cleaned the grill in my life! It’s impossible, nobody does it! And who’s going to pay for the cleaner and the five minutes every day, me? No, I’ll just go sell my hotdogs somewhere else.” And he leaves. Later a regular co…
Anyone with Bitcoin Transaction knowledge, what's this de-anonymization of Bitcoins transaction?
>Today’s announcement proves that cybercriminals can no longer hide behind perceived global anonymity,” said Thomas Edwards, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Secret Service, San Francisco Field Office.
This reads like an Ad copy of a company that's against perceived anonymity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The age of the attacker is irrelevant to Twitter's role in this story. However your underlying point still stands. If we want these types of attacks to stop, we can't just let all these companies off with a public embarrassment being the primary punishment. At a certain point we have to start calling it negligence when companies fall for these attacks and fail to have proper precautions in place to prevent them.
From memory, I recall the FBI did a study, and found that half of their employees would plug in a USB drive that they found on the ground in the parking lot. After training, that number was reduced to a quarter. If a security-focused government police agency is so vulnerable, it is unreasonable to expect perfection from a (less paranoid) company.
Hitting a 17yo with 30 felony charges feels a bit steep to me. Also should any repercussions be considered against Twitter that a 17yo was able to gain access to the private messages of potentially some of the most important individuals in the world? If a 17yo could do it, I'm sure a nation state could do it.
He’s being treated a lot better than the adult defendants. He’s being charged in state court - specifically the state he resides in. The charges are being brought in San Francisco - which is thousands of miles from the where the other suspects live. Relative to the other defendants, he’s getting it easy. Yes, he’s technically facing life in prison. But it’s a prison near his home. He probably won’t get life in prison…
The release doesn't say that either thar he is being charged in state court or that he is not being charged in federal court. First it says why they won't tell you details of any federal charges—“With exceptions that do not apply to this case, juvenile proceedings in federal court are sealed to protect the identity of the juvenile”—then it says that the federal authorities have referred the juvenile to state authorities (without saying anything about action taken by the state authorities.)