591–600 of 702 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Setting five police cars on fire is an act of domestic terrorism. That's not in any way a normal protest action.. That's what the prosecutor will argue.
The Boston Tea Party was an act of domestic terrorism. It's hard to determine whether an act is right or wrong without a good duration of hindsight.
I mean, unless you're trying to be funny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> expecting a level of security that can prevent children, literal children, from walking right through it Well, that's your problem.
Oh believe me, I am under no illusion about that fact. My point is that the average user is completely unaware of it and Twitter, like most other companies, has gone to great lengths to obscure this material fact from their users and stockholders. If they told their users and stockholders, in no uncertain terms, the level of security they actually provide, which is massively different than what the users and stockhol…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that better security practices are advisable, but you're victim-blaming. Twitter wasn't 'asking for it', and neither were the individuals who lost bitcoins; the 'hackers' intentionally perpetrated deceptions, misrepresentations, and fraud against both Twitter and the general public. If you compare what these three did to a white-collar crime, the dollar amount was small, but the behavior was egregious.
The push against "victim blaming" is not about removing any possible role a victim would have in their victimhood. It is about destigmatizing victimhood and not blaming victims for things that are out of their control or that any other reasonable person would do. Let's imagine a situation in which someone breaks into my house and steals my TV. I deserve a decent amount of blame if I left my front door wide open befor…
Should we blame women for dressing provocatively if they are raped? Should a murder victim be afforded less justice if they were walking around in a bad neighborhood? A crime isn’t a crime if the potential criminal chooses not to act. The ease of committing the crime should have no relevance. Someone doesn’t just accidentally walk into your unlocked house and steal a TV. It’s a choice and blaming the victim is simply wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Setting five police cars on fire is an act of domestic terrorism. That's not in any way a normal protest action.. That's what the prosecutor will argue.
Setting five police cars on fire is punk rock, not "domestic terrorism" Setting cars on fire is not an act of spreading terror. It is an act of defiance
do you see how you sound
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I felt a sting reading that too. He hit the idiot computer kid jackpot and did idiot computer kid things with it. Not saying no consequences, but damn.
Idiot kid things would be having Obama tweet "I think @Kelly2003 should go to the prom with Clark". If you're old enough to run a send back scam, you should know it's wrong.
Should a 17 year old lose prime years of his life? Is there a better way to educate/reform the person?
If you say "Well in this other instance, the book got thrown at so-and-so". To this, I would ask, does that make it right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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. That is exactly my point. There are tons of crimes that basically anyone can do. If you said instead: people whose houses are set on fire by an arsonist should be liable for poor security, at the very least you'd not be taken very seriously. There…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Setting five police cars on fire is an act of domestic terrorism. That's not in any way a normal protest action.. That's what the prosecutor will argue.
The Boston Tea Party was an act of domestic terrorism. It's hard to determine whether an act is right or wrong without a good duration of hindsight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A year or two and return the money. It's not like he tried to break into a nuclear plant. It is a messaging app, mostly nonsense.
... with the ability to move trillion dollar markets and potentially start riots or wars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To illustrate this point, I doubt you'd have any sympathy for Twitter if they had been sending their passwords over http This is probably off-topic, but companies shouldn't even be sending the passwords over HTTPS; passwords should be hashed client-side and then the hash should be sent to the server (preferably over HTTPS).
Can you elaborate on how this makes things more secure (assuming HTTPS) Surely if the server accepts a client side hash of a password, then the hash has become the password
1. Api gives user a fixed salt.
2. User types password into input.
3. Client hashes and sends hash to server.
4. Server has another salt and uses the client sent hash to hash it again.
5. This final hash is compared what is in the database.
This way server never has knowledge of the original PW and it's never sent over the network. This reduces for instance the chance of password getting logged in the service etc.
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.
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.