251–256 of 256 posts
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We’ll it’s interesting in this case, because technically speaking a peace treaty was never signed and North Korea is in the state of war with the United States. So is it really a crime to attack a hostile state?
Dude will be awarded his countries highest civilian award for contribution to his motherland. /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That this article exists it a manifest of his failed OpSec... if you are a hacker and you are popular for it, you aren't doing a good job.
Indeed... I've came across a few hackers in my life and not a single one of them wanted to be known / seem as one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Indeed, inalienable rights cannot by definition be granted; they can only be recognized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That doesn't follow. The right to own something does not imply the right to use it. That's like saying "The right to own a pair of pants does not mean you have the right to wear them." or "The right to own that Rembrandt doesn't mean you have the right to look at it". What, if not to use or consume an item, is the purpose of ownership at the fundamental level? > The Constitution does not and cannot bestow inalienab…
Or like saying that "The right to own a car does not mean that you have the right to drive it". Or even "The right to own a car does not mean that you have the right to drive through red lights". The fact that you can own something does not mean that you have the right to use it indiscriminately. In this case (if we consider them "digital arms") I don't see how using it for retribution (rather then self defense) woul…
This is exactly how it works (in the USA) currently. You can legally own a car, yet be unable to drive it legally (if you are not a licensed driver).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or like saying that "The right to own a car does not mean that you have the right to drive it". Or even "The right to own a car does not mean that you have the right to drive through red lights". The fact that you can own something does not mean that you have the right to use it indiscriminately. In this case (if we consider them "digital arms") I don't see how using it for retribution (rather then self defense) woul…
> Or like saying that "The right to own a car does not mean that you have the right to drive it". This is exactly how it works (in the USA) currently. You can legally own a car, yet be unable to drive it legally (if you are not a licensed driver).
And even if you don't have a drivers license it can be perfectly legal to drive your car on your own property (hack your own computers) but not to drive on public roads / private property where the owner has not consented to you driving (hacking someone elses computer without their ok), but if they are ok with it it's perfectly legal (like for instance pentesting). Context matters.