Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

O.mg Cable

shop.hak5.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 555 posts

Re: O.mg Cable

#521

Post by madengr »

teawrecks wrote: post #487
Fnoord wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, you can't work for the feds if you ever touch the ganja, which is ridiculous. Calling it 'ridiculous' removes the debate concerning the pros and cons on such rule. If you consider someone can become vulnerable if they're addicted (to anything, really) then it makes sense to be wary of a drugs addiction. Especially if the resource the person is addicted to is illegal. That being said, I'd find it reasonable if…

So you don't think any alcoholics work for the NSA?

Plenty of people have lost their clearances over drinking too much.

Re: O.mg Cable

#522

Post by apricot »

6177c40f wrote: post #365
thinkingemote wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real answer? Because these people are just like us, geeks, nerds, techies, early adopters. They are just the same people we live and work with. The film Enemy of the State (1998) was science fiction except with the parts where the techy operators were just normal nerds like us. That what was most scary part of the film not the (at the time fantastic) surveillance.

And let's not forget that many of them are probably browsing HN at this very moment. They could be you, they could be me!

hi

Re: O.mg Cable

#523

Post by worik »

caf wrote: post #364
worik wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheaper if the lock is broken. Locks (that are broken easily) are cheaper than doors, which are not hard to break and expensive to fix Who is going to pick a lock that is cheap and easy to break?

Even cheaper just to leave the door unlocked, I suppose.

The purpose of a lock is to keep honest people out.

Mēh. I have dogs.

Re: O.mg Cable

#524

Post by xwdv »

saltyfamiliar wrote: post #407
xwdv wrote: post #375

I fantasize all the time about buying stuff like this and using it for nefarious purposes. Unfortunately the only real legit use for it is boring security work. The best way to use this while avoiding big legal trouble would be to stalk a single target that would never have any idea they are being stalked and doesn’t have much resources to come after you legally. Maybe an ex-girlfriend or something.

Would they really need many resources to take legal action? What you're describing is illegal. They could simply call the police if they found you out.

Gotta prove it.

Re: O.mg Cable

#525

Post by chii »

epinephrinios wrote: post #484
_RPL5_ wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for one, the US government prevents private actors from buying all sorts of things. I am surprised that selling tools which potentially "enable cyber crime" hasn't triggered some overzealous regulator in DC yet. It seems like low-hanging fruit.

What prevents a criminal buying a chef's knife and committing a crime with it? I am surprised that selling tools which potentially "enable murder" hasn't triggered some overzealous regulator in DC yet. It seems like low-hanging fruit. /s Pro-authoritarian sentiment keeps going strong. Why is it so normalized these days?

while i do agree with the general sentiment, the technology has moved faster than the societal legislative process.

If you asked a reasonable person off the streets why bioweapons (like anthrax) should not be easily purchasable, they would completely agree and hence the legislature has made such things illegal.

But if you asked that same reasonable person off the street about miniature computers and electronic devices, they would probably not imagine that such uses are possible, nor would they deem it dangerous. They might even consider it useful! So legislation on such things cannot be set by societal expectations.

Re: O.mg Cable

#526

Post by chii »

jtsiskin wrote: post #516
hashkb wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is false. Most people will take advantage of any situation where they detect a low enough chance of consequences, regardleas of who is hurt. We act good because we don't want to be caught, embarrassed, or convicted and condemned. It's not that most people want to hurt others. It's just that most people care only for themselves. Source: reality.

I don’t think that is true. The ‘median’ person has empathy and care, and would not hurt someone even if they could be totally undetected - but there is a large skew, which makes this true for the ‘mean’ person and thus ‘reality’, if that makes any sense. As an example: a bowl of candy on Halloween with a “take 2 pieces only please” sign on it. Most people will only take 2. A few people will grab a handful. And one p…

if you look at the iterated version of your example, you will see that everyone will tend towards being the guy who grabs the whole bowl, or risk missing out on the candy.

Therefore, the parent poster's argument is actually true, even if the median person believes themselves to be empathetic.

Re: O.mg Cable

#527

Post by garmaine »

frickinLasers wrote: post #474
garmaine wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don't need psychiatric help Does that include regular old things like ADHD meds?

I don't know. I haven't worked in that system for many years. That said, it was more received wisdom than a written rule, and I was aware of exceptions who were prescribed more than ADHD meds.

We’ll I mean the ADHD meds I’m prescribed happens to also be a popular street drug, so I wouldn’t trust them to differentiate.

Re: O.mg Cable

#528

Post by rishav_sharan »

6177c40f wrote: post #365
thinkingemote wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real answer? Because these people are just like us, geeks, nerds, techies, early adopters. They are just the same people we live and work with. The film Enemy of the State (1998) was science fiction except with the parts where the techy operators were just normal nerds like us. That what was most scary part of the film not the (at the time fantastic) surveillance.

And let's not forget that many of them are probably browsing HN at this very moment. They could be you, they could be me!

This is the CiA. Hands up!

Re: O.mg Cable

#529

Post by wiether »

Fnoord wrote: post #482
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They could be you, they could be me! Couldn't be me: the private sector pays me waaaaaaaay more. Also, you can't work for the feds if you ever touch the ganja, which is ridiculous. Everyone I personally know in infosec leads a very... alternative west-coast lifestyle which is not conducive to career progression in an east-coast, button-down-shirt environment.

> Also, you can't work for the feds if you ever touch the ganja, which is ridiculous. Calling it 'ridiculous' removes the debate concerning the pros and cons on such rule. If you consider someone can become vulnerable if they're addicted (to anything, really) then it makes sense to be wary of a drugs addiction. Especially if the resource the person is addicted to is illegal. That being said, I'd find it reasonable if…

> if they're addicted (to anything, really)

Like caffeine ?

I'm almost sure they have coffee machines in there.

Re: O.mg Cable

#530

Post by IncRnd »

hanche wrote: post #426
IncRnd wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't accept that you have free will, than nothing you write or say has any meaning.

It may be possible to believe you don’t have free will, yet act like you do and to find meaning in life. After all, given how hard it is to even define “free will”, how can we know for sure whether we have it? Now recent research seems to indicate (note the weasel words) that we have less of this “free will” stuff than we like to think. Yet hopefully, if you dig a little deeper, we find something that qualifies as fr…

If you are capable of acting as if you have free will, that is the proof you have free will.
Post reply on HN