Never keep sensitive data that you don't need, overwrite it, then delete.
Also, you should burn all the clothes you haven't worn in over a week (you obviously don't need that many clothes), not have a junk drawer, and while you're at it, delete any data on your system with an access time older than 3 months. Also, delete sarcasm.sys
I think he's (badly) trying to say that you shouldn't repurpose media that was used for sensitivie info without sanitizing it.
(A little old to be called "script kiddies", BTW.)
It has nothing to do with age, it's about the skill level required to do what they do.
... but if you think about it it actually make sense. The fact that the terms are inaccurate is immaterial. She could have told them [a realistic explanation]. Would they have understood any more?
If Finance ask you about backups, do you tell them about cron jobs and the difference between differential and full backups? No, you tell them it's daily and hosted off site...
Oversimplifying or glossing over things is perfectly fine, deliberate misinformation is reprehensible and only causes future problems. The level of detail you go into should vary for the target audience, but never the accuracy. Obviously, talking about a TV show - where everything from law and medicine to the operation of cars is usually completely flawed - is one thing, but I'd definitely never defend the idea of deliberately miseducating people IRL just because you don't think they'd understand. That's how people were taught the improper terms and processes they'll misuse in the future. For example, the layman could probably understand something like "I used a specialized software package to exploit a security hole that let me get into their system and then take it over."
So what you're implying is that if you would visit China and criticize the Chinese government, you ought to get extradited from another country to China "for questioning" if the Chinese authority want you? And you wouldn't consider this harrassment or try to fight against it?
Objectively, provided there's enough evidence to make somebody a suspect, yes, they should absolutely, positively be questioned during a legitimate criminal investigation. That's the whole point of whistleblowing, that position or power doesn't mean you shouldn't be held accountable for wrongdoing. Stop trying to make an emotional appeal against reason, your argument here is "you shouldn't face questioning for a crime if you think it's just because they're 'harassing' you". "But what if it was you?" isn't a point, it's a fallacy.
You do realize that what Assange could be accused for in Sweden does not count as rape or any other crime in all other countries of Europe, the US, and in fact in practically all countries of the world? That the reason he is being wanted for questioning is because he would very likely not be extradited to Sweden if he was wanted for the actual "crime", since sleeping without condome is not generally punishable by UK law?
Are you actually arguing that you shouldn't be held accountable for a crime committed in one country, if it isn't illegal in others? That's ridiculous. So is the idea that they're only extraditing him because it's for questioning and not yet prosecution, the fact that they're willing to obviously speaks volumes in disagreement. That doesn't make any sense, at all. They know what the case is about, there's zero reason to believe they'd extradite someone for investigation but not prosecution, it would be completely ass-backwards. If they thought the case was serious enough and strong enough to extradite him for questioning, then there's no doubting whatosever that they'd do it for an indictment.
There are numerous other oddities in this case. Did you know that Assange was...
Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes. People know this stuff. Some of your reasoning is kind of flawed, though.
While Interpol's involvement was questionable, your wikipedia cut-and-paste of what they "normally do" is not the limitation of what they can do. The operative part of that summary is that it started with "primarily works on", or in your copy, "normally works on". Do you really think "rape" investigations go international often enough to make that list? They assist in international criminal investigations. This is a criminal investigation into someone who's travelled to another country. It's uncommon and seems beneath them, but it isn't against any rules and it doesn't defy logic. The questionable part is that they're forbidden from getting involved in political crimes, but as much as the conspiracy theorists might argue that's why this criminal investigation exists, it's not directly and explicitly relevant - even if it is the motivation behind pusuing the crime, that doesn't mean the crime didn't occur.
And it certainly isn't any surprise that a prosecutor who didn't want to prosecute would be replaced with one who did.
As for the video conferencing, while it may be questionable that the prosecutor didn't want to compromise, it's much more questionable that a suspect would refuse to come back for questioning. It's also difficult, if not outright stupid, to question a suspect when they're outside of your jurisdiction, let alone in another country with different laws, rights and legal processes.
Cue the authoritarian douchebags who are hoping that no one will notice that the guy hasn't even been charged yet.
Cue the conspiracy theorists who don't realize you don't have to be. You can be extradited for questioning, you don't often charge somebody before you've questioned them.
likely circumventing security
What kind of "security" would be circumvented by installing a different web brower?
The kind that uses security templates and group policy to control browser settings and preferences? You know, basic enterprise IT administration tools.
Especially when IE, especially 6, is by far the most-exploited/exploitable browser still in common usage
Policies that restrict the use of browsers to IE6 (or 7) are, if not anal, misguided at best and harmful at worst.
Even looking the entire way up this comment tree, no one mentions IE6. I'm not even talking about IE7 in particular, just the general concept that not letting your employees install whatever web browser they want isn't "anal", it's common sense and standard practice. But playing along, you'll find that there are settings and restrictions that address the vastly overwhelming amount of those vulnerabilities, which is why it's handy to use the aforementioned security controls to keep your users from being able to do the dumb things that cause problems, like run unsigned code, install software willy-nilly, etc. Most of those vulnerabilities get exploited because Joe Schmoe doesn't know or care how to address them, not because they're impossible to mitigate.
Upgrading to a different browser, on the other hand, is what most people do quite regularly. Usuallly it involves a few minutes at most.
And remember all the outrage when a lot of web banking sites
Well, so far I've heard at least 2 different interpretations of the amendment - you say it updates a "grossly outdated law," although you fail to mention how, and someone else claims it adds harassment to the current standard for libel and slander. Considering the discrepancy between people who claim to understand how this law is being amended, I believe my skepticism regarding its necessity is valid.
Is taking 5 minutes to read it really asking that much?
Considering that I'm not British, and thus couldn't give less of a damn what laws their government passes, yes, yes it is.
So you think it's unnecessary because you don't understand something you refuse to read?
Here's an example of a law done right:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Note how the writer does not specify what is meant by "papers and effects;" this is to mean that the law is all encompassing regarding those items, so it doesn't matter if your "papers" are actual, physical paper or digital documents stored on a physical medium, they're both covered (FYI, this particular gem was written a good 250 years before the advent of flash drives, yet they are still covered).
You do realize that's the Fourth Amendment, right? You're citing an amendment as support of your argument that good laws shouldn't need to be amended? But let's play along. There are innumerable federal/state laws and legal precedent that detail what is and isn't considered probable cause, reasonable search and siezure, exceptions, etc. These things are all explicitly defined at lower levels, a constitutional right is the broad concept that more specific legal code must comply with. Detailed, granular laws about what does and doesn't make for legitimate search and seizure most definitely exist, the Fourth Amendment is not the beginning and the end of all legal code regarding it.
Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.