I agree with that -- because, really, how can we police them all the time?

The only real solution is to educate kids on good internet practices -- and most parents aren't using them either, nor know what to do, or what to teach.

There is a vacuum here and nature or spam will fill it.

As someone who is fairly tech savvy, it's getting harder for me to detect the scams. Just forwarded a decent sounding job opportunity because I knew someone it fit, and then noticed the same text for a different company -- because I've got a "tar baby" email account. All that stuff that I have to sign up for goes to the junk account and that one gets spammed. If I get a "job opportunity" there -- it's bogus. It's funny because if I didn't have a spam account, I wouldn't have seen the duplicate job with the same text -- and it's just luck because I don't read the spam for more than a second to identify its pattern.

But obviously she liked the power more than she disliked the job conditions, and intended to ignore the job conditions anyway.

True of absolutely everyone in Washington.

Blah, blah, blah. You say that as if they are the first politicos to try and work around rules.

If you are going to refer to all the controversy surrounding ethics with the Clintons, do try and keep in mind that except for fooling around with his secretary, Bill Clinton and Hillary have never been found guilty of any of the charges.

So they had 5 court cases with a Federal Prosecutor, over a couple decades of bad press asking loaded questions, and furor over a tempest in a teapot like Benghazi.

Maybe the Clintons are not trying to be secretive, so much as paranoid. Maybe they worry that they might suddenly get an email saying; "Sent $100,000 to pay for Benghazi attack to Michelle Obama" in their sent email box.

By the time a forensic computer specialist can find the source of the doctored email, the Clintons will be defending themselves from another baseless claim.

Do you not remember who made all these different claims and why you aren't remembering that someone lied to you, but you remember that the Clintons are so corrupt?

I'm not supporting Hillary and I won't be voting for her, but she's just smart when dealing with Republicans -- not corrupt.

Maybe they just want to receive their emails and know that in the past, DNC servers and systems have been hacked. It's ingenious to say that their private system is automatically less secure than the government servers unless someone is an email security specialist and has knowledge of the two systems -- I'm sure someone on Slashdot will weigh in on this. ;-)

Perhaps with the record of Karl Rove and his operatives activities on Democratic servers -- I can definitely understand the Clinton's reticence to be on these same servers they've plagued. Doing the business of the state pre-supposes that all your communications are looked at by friendlies; not that everything you do is looked at in terms to set you up.

I can imagine a scenario where someone from the political opposition can read that you have a meeting with so and so, and can use that against you in some manner. As benign as changing the time of a meeting to making a fraudulent email and leaking it to the press.

Anything can happen if someone else with ill will controls the mail server.

Better to whether the small storm of criticism later, than be naive and pretend that political operatives won't do again what they've done to you in the past.
http://www.dispatch.com/conten...
Anyone remember Mike Connell? http://www.democracynow.org/20...
Former hackers were hired to create the original Diebold voting machines; http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
>> and Anonymous claimed they stopped the voting machines from being manipulated in the last election -- sounds like a quiet political cyber war is going on.

I'm sure to people not involved in politics, they think these are paranoid ramblings like Ross Perot claiming that the Bush crowd was pulling dirty tricks, tapping his conversations, and altering photos of his daughter; http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10...

Ross Perot is a man who used his own money and put is own neck on the line to retrieve kidnapped employees. Like him or not, he seems a bastion of integrity compared to the average politician.

Oh, and let's not forget that the RNC emails went missing;
http://freepress.org/article/a...
Rove's went missing;
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04...
And Iron Mountain lost emails -- and since their whole business model is storing sensitive data is probably one of the few things they've EVER lost;
http://fcw.com/articles/2014/0...

I'm not saying this to excuse a politician from not being transparent -- but I'd think we need to address the fact that dirty tricks are going on, and we need to make sure there are no man-in-the-middle attacks and manipulations of data.

I'd say "citation needed" but we only have rumor, innuendo and your word that the NSA is actually serious about going after real threats.

In the arena of creating laws based upon possible worst-case scenarios -- this one has to rank somewhere.

I agree with this. For most of criminal law, we judge based upon the INTENT of the DEFENDANT. The state of mind of the aggrieved party should be irrelevant unless the attacker knows it and that goes along with intent and premeditation.

"If I'm terrorized -- you must be a terrorist" is no way to run a civilization. A cynical person might believe that was the intent of the "stand your ground laws" and other shenanigans when large corporate groups like ALEC lobbied for them. What's wrong with self defense laws? It's not perfect, but should err on the side of; "Don't shoot people unless you have to."

FaceBook may be the group that puts an end to this because it will KILL THEIR BRAND. Just as the police seem to target "urban" locations over suburban for drug raids -- targeting Facebook social party announcements will cause people to create their parties on other platforms.

And we have to ignore the fact that drug addiction has been proven to be more the result of having an empty life over properties of the drug.

While I don't want my kids getting involved in the drug scene, or have risky behaviors, I'd say it's clear that people have better lives and contribute more to society if they are NEVER CAUGHT by law enforcement. Experiment with drugs, move on, sell some to a friend and eventually grow out of it -- eventually become a well paid contributing member of society and a hypocrite while figuring your own kids will never do that kind of thing -- perfectly healthy compared to "ex con" status.

Having a bunch of domain names is no sign of "investment" or "savvy" -- it's having a few bucks at the right time.

Not sure if these people have to pay the wholesale renewal price of $15 or not, but it seems to me that you shouldn't be able to squat on names of websites not in use, or vaguely sounding like a website you have in use. I can understand "donaldtrumpbadhair" as a domain Donald Trump might reserve.

I predict we will soon have intelligent agents who take care of our internet connections, and the naming will be moot for all but the most visible web domains. Then the battle will be over the "processing of content" as the agents digest information and present it to the user. We can see this in the case of SIRI on the iOS platform -- it can get you right to your target without much of a glance at all the intervening marketing. The internet will become more and more of a service platform -- just as software is becoming.

Then someone is going to patent the patterns of connections. Maybe we'll have pattern squatters.

Apple pays out 67%. That's on Gross.

If they were to perhaps, talk about the expense of promotion, servers, and the fact that all the toys for Whack-A-Mole ended up in lawsuits, they could use Hollywood accounting. It would still be 67%, but of the net -- which means cab fair instead of money to buy the Limo.

I don't except that Programming is "Bigger than Hollywood" until we have people saying they are programmers while the bulk of their income comes from waiting tables, and I have to sleep with my Employer to get a job interview.

I WISH the process were that simple.

Yeah but can we all just agree that connecting some of these systems to the internet or a wireless network is a bad idea?

I want a person who sees one screen with internet access, makes a decision, and presses a physical button on the controls for the nuclear power plant.

So auto driving cars are great -- can be secured, but let's not be cavalier about "other things are computer controlled" -- there's going to be iPhone software that tweaks the car and that means 100X more access by script kiddies to mayhem.

Nobody said "the science is done" -- they said; "the alarm has been sounded."

A fire alarm goes off in your house -- do you wait for the research to be conclusive or do you look for smoke, get a fire extinguisher, call 911, leave the building or do something useful to deal with it? The research into; "what do we do, the alarms are going off?" Is underway.

Know, you are talking about an exploit that could be affecting 60% of Android phones vs. "a potential" of affecting iOS but no proof and you point out "but if there was a problem you'd have no options".

Sounds like someone in a campaign defending a corrupt and incompetent politician with the potential that the other candidate could start Armageddon based on them not doing anything to prevent Armageddon.

There are orders of magnitude better security on Bitcoins then there are on our electronic voting systems. They were designed in the first place by two hackers Rove got out of prison. They had three "Access databases" one for query, one that was used to submit the vote, and a third with no particular reason given. Any reason other than fraud to have three databases in a simple voting system and any REASON why a touch screen device is so expensive and flakes out so often? If Banks had these problems they'd lose billions at ATMS; they don't, so the only reason is fraud or incompetence.

I'd say that government agencies or very advanced hackers working for the mob took out some bitcoin companies with my first suspect being governments as it challenges the bankers they work for.

I already know I vote on a totally hackable system and it's just honest enough to be plausible. Pay no attention to Max Cleland's vote flipping in the last few minutes of the election.