181–190 of 397 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The source for that article was a single cop in a single country (Spain) making an off-handed comment. The way it’s been spun as a universal concept in Europe by all of the Android blogs is misleading.
Would you predict that GrapheneOS will still be completely legal in 10 years in Spain?
I don’t know if you watched those videos but even if he did commit a crime the marshals are way way over the line when they arrest him.
That's par for the course in America
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weev 'violated' the CFAA for incrementing a GET request, with his overturned conviction only for wrong jurisdiction. So the government has put us in a position where it's hard to take the CFAA seriously. We also know from prosecutions in other statutes that the government will often prosecute a a broad crime with many separate sub-definitions of the various way you can break it, then refuse to tell you under which su…
What does "incrementing a GET request" mean?
[flagged]
The part that should really enrage you is the way people will selectively understand this based on whether they agree or disagree with the context. If some electronics repair guy repairing vehicle ECUs in bulk who doesn't ask questions but has an inkling that they're gonna get used for emissions laws violations got rolled up on by the feds for refusing to go out of his way to help them out HN would find all sorts of…
For whatever it's worth, the Reddit story here says that the federal courts used "fraudulent warrants to jail my husband again". Maybe! The other side of that story, via PACER, is a detailed parole violation warrant (you can hear the marshal refer to it in the video); the violations in that warrant: 1. Admitting to using cannabis during supervised release 2. Failing to make scheduled restitution payments and to coope…
OK, I think I found the original thing Rockenhaus was convicted of. Back in 2014, Rockenhaus worked for a travel booking company. He was fired. He used stale VPN access to connect back to the company's infrastructure, and then detached a SCSI LUN from the server cluster, crashing it. The company, not knowing he was involved, retained him to help diagnose and fix the problem. During the investigation, the company figu…
I knew people like that, that where unnable to put their lifes togheter until they where fully medicated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good grief. This is also part of the reason why I have a pact with my coworkers: if I’m terminated, kill my access immediately and universally, and I’ll do the same for them. I don’t even want to have the ability to look at stuff anymore. Remove any shred of possibility that I could get into shenanigans later.
That shouldn't require a pact, that should be part of the standard check list for ending employment. (The list is longer for those who have root, but it should still be a list.)
Then, if something breaks down the road, there’s no temptation for them to wonder if I had anything to do with that weird failure.
(And obviously, don’t freaking hack your ex employers! But also don’t even leave the impression that you could.)
It's very important to get the official source on this one. Husband was legally restricted and being monitored by the FBI, so he decided to go install a VM to bypass the monitoring. It's not so much bravery against authority as it is hubris that got him 3 years. https://rockenhaus.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/U.S.-v.-Ro...
Wouldn't the monitoring software capture any application's network activities, including a client for a Remote VM? I'm imagining something like Wireshark?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The CFAA isn't super complicated. It basically boils down to: Don't fuck with other people's shit if they don't want you to.
Are you a lawyer by chance? I seem to remember cases or interpretations of the CFAA in which even guessing the username password combo of "admin:admin" would violate the act, resulting in teenagers or children being caught up in cYbEr FrAuD
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the U.S. and much of the rest of the civilized world, you have rights. This includes the right to not self-incriminate (in the U.S. that's the 5th amendment). In general, except for very specific and limited circumstances, U.S. state and federal government actors cannot compel speech (telling your encryption keys is compelled speech). The U.K. is fast sliding down the slope to being a dystopian police state. The i…
I just saw that president Trump is thinking about prescribing 'Antifa' as a terrorist organisation and saying that he's 'not sure' their 1st amendment rights should apply. I'd be a little more concerned about the state of US at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weev 'violated' the CFAA for incrementing a GET request, with his overturned conviction only for wrong jurisdiction. So the government has put us in a position where it's hard to take the CFAA seriously. We also know from prosecutions in other statutes that the government will often prosecute a a broad crime with many separate sub-definitions of the various way you can break it, then refuse to tell you under which su…
> We also know from prosecutions in other statutes that the government will often prosecute a a broad crime with many separate sub-definitions of the various way you can break it, then refuse to tell you under which sub-definition you're being charged, meaning you have no way to know if the jury even were unanimously convicting for the same thing and no way to know what you're even defending against. Could you give s…
Navy sailor was convicted of possessing machine guns and destructive devices.
The ATF for example put back together de-milled RPGs, which could be a destructive device
However the statute says the following:
(2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and (3) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
But the state didn't tell him under what definition he was charged, so they didn't know if they were defending against the collection of parts the ATF took (falls under 3), or against the weapon the ATF claimed it was after they put the parts together (which falls under 2).