181–190 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NK's capabilities are vastly overblown. Calling it a "bear" is part of their disinformation strategy, just like Russia. You're amplifying their propaganda.
NK's capabilities are vastly overblown. Calling it a "bear" is part of their disinformation strategy, just like Russia. Calling it a "bear" is utilizing the common expression "Don't poke the bear," not an assessment of North Korea's abilities.
PSA: Whether bare knuckle boxing or global hacking, always remember the first rule of Fight Club.
---
looselipsinkships
loose lip sink ships
loose lip sinks hips
loose lips ink ships
loose lips inks hips
> “I want them to understand that if you come at us, it means some of your infrastructure is going down for a while.” Doing that is one thing, and certainly won't increase your personal safety. Doing that and telling the western press to embarrass them is insanely stupid. Kim Jong-un is widely believed to have ordered the assassination of his half-brother. And you want to threaten the infrastructure of his country? T…
It's not infrastructure. He attacked a few propaganda sites aimed at outside audiences. He didn't get into their internal network, which is sealed off from the Internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do bear in mind that the way this interpreted under US law is considered by most non-Americans to be completely bonkers, and is only sustained by strong, uncompromising activist pressure. I doubt the NRA would organize a picket to defend your right to run PGP.
No offense but why would I care at all what a non-American thinks? They are not governed by this law and so have 0 say in what it should be since it is not a rights violation. I am only sorry you all live with such a lack of a basic right and find it normal. From the other perspective: gun rights are under constant attack from fearmongering media and I find that bonkers. All it takes is one (1) psycho POS shooting up…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if the reds start parachuting down over your community you should just sit pretty lest you interfere with your military’s operations? The equivalence is not a false one in my eyes because a cyberattack against a US national’s systems should be seen as an attack on a US national’s property.
So that guy downloaded some random "hacking tool" a friend of his found, and no shit it had a backdoor. He was never directly targeted by the North Koreans.
What do they mean "north korea hacked him" ? Does NK hire hackers? How is it possible for NK to have competent hackers?
Is it not potentially their mistake in the first place? They opened themselves to becoming exploited via social engineering. And if that is the real reason why, they were not really hacked. So can we stop using the term "hacked" so ambiguously?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of the US wars since WWII have been formally declared wars. They're still wars. The conflict with North Korea ended with an armistice, not a formal treaty. The armistice intended for peace treaty discussions to start 3 months later... and they never really did. The US, UN Command, and North Korea are still operating under a temporary cease-fire that's now basically 70 years old. (I don't think South Korea even s…
If you're technically not at war then you can't at the same time be technically still at war. Neither side declared war against the other or is currently acting like they are at war, thus they aren't at war.
> acting like they are at war, thus they aren't at war
It matters legally that you are technically at war even if you aren't acting like it. It allows the specific wartime actions.
South Korea this matters and the UN as well. North Korea is actively sanctioned as a result of not being at peace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not being able to use arms absolutely is an infringement of the right to bear them. I mean, how would it be different if we claimed that you can own a gun but not shoot it? One point that gets lost about the 2nd Amendment is that it should be considered an inalienable right. Meaning, it cannot be diminished by any law of man. Consequently, most of the gun laws can be viewed as fundamentally unconstitutional, and any…
> Not being able to use arms absolutely is an infringement of the right to bear them. That doesn't follow. The right to own something does not imply the right to use it. > One point that gets lost about the 2nd Amendment is that it should be considered an inalienable right. Meaning, it cannot be diminished by any law of man. Consequently, most of the gun laws can be viewed as fundamentally unconstitutional, and any a…
I would have advised him to stay quiet about this. Not out of fear of the North Koreans, but out of fear of our own security agencies seeing the activity as interfering in international relations. Also the vagueness of our hacking laws probably make what he did a crime. But I also am immensely proud that we have people willing to take things into their own hands when needed. Also, I feel like the 2nd amendment should…
Encryption was considered a weapon previously, which resulted in an export ban. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_...