It's basically looking for a needle in a haystack, but for a router, the haystack is a lot smaller than on a full OS.
Any code affecting normal operation speeds would also be easier to spot - additional packet inspection can incur a noticable hit on a device that prides itself on passing packets as quickly as possible and allowing as many simultaneous connections as possible.
A Billion dollar security firm won't sign up for a $120 per year service to see the data behind the breach?
A billion dollar security firm won't sign up for a $120 per year service per site to not see the data behind the breach, but to be given an unsubstantiated statement of whether they allegedly are affected or not.
Why would they? That would just be opening up for all kinds of protection rackets.
Could be worse:
- Here, my $120, what's going on with this?
- You're affected. Change your password, goodbye.
- But, hey, my web site doesn't have any passwords, how can it be affected?
- Yes, you're affected, goodbye.
Until they pony up some evidence, this sounds like scam much like the cold callers who tell you you have a virus.
I guess no two eyes are the same, that goes for one person's eyes too.
True. Having two left eyes or two right eyes would be awkward.
That's just what Jesus said, sir.
It reminds me of a televangelist who was a teetotaler. When confronted with Jesus having made wine out of water, his response was "Yes, we know about this, but we do not like it".
Religion can justify or condemn pretty much anything, so the only rational thing to do is to take religion out of the equation. It certainly should not influence our laws.
"Make people not do bad things" is a golden goose. Nobody has yet come up with a way to make that actually happen.
Nobody.
I don't know whether you speak out of ignorance, stupidity, contrariness or misplaced belief, but the above is a big fucking lie.
There are lots of programmes that makes people not do bad things. They're called preventative measures, and includes programmes like free methadon for heroin addicts, poverty reduction, incentives to hire ex-cons, psychological and psychiatric assistance programmes, and much more. And they do work - crime rates and recidivism goes down.
If you look at things in black and white and think that if it doesn't stop 100% of the crime it's ineffective, you refuse to see the big picture. It doesn't have to. If leads to a measurable improvement, it does reduce the number of crimes committed and suffering victims.
If that isn't your goal, you're part of the problem, not the solution.
While you're sitting dreaming of ways to stop people from doing bad things would you rather there were no penalty for crime, or have I myself now misrepresented your views?
Can you even help yourself from doing that?
Prison sentences serve multiple purposes:
- Deterrence.
Studies show that the length and severity of the sentence is only effective up to a certain point. No one will abstain from doing a crime because they risk 40 years in jail instead of 12. In some cases, too harsh mandatory or customary sentencing has a detrimental effect. A good example is child molestation, where the super-long sentencing causes children to not report their parents, because they don't want to see people they love go to jail for the rest of their lives. They endure instead, and become more traumatized. Another example is capital punishment. When that is in place, it is in the interest of a criminal to kill witnesses and police, because it won't make the sentencing any harder, but will make it more likely they get away with it.
Yes, deterrence works. Up to a point. Based on that factor, the sentencing here in the US is far too long for the maximal effect.
- Prevention
While in prison, the opportunity to commit the same crime as arrested for is low. This has an effect when the recidivism risk is high. But the way it is used in the US is not based on statistics, but on fucking feelings. The crimes with the highest recidivism rates get shorter sentencing than the ones with lower recidivism rates. So it's obviously not a main concern. Many other countries split the sentencing between the actual punishment and an additional detainment, which is meant to be for preventative reasons. A few even factor in the risk of recidivism.
- Rehabilitation.
It is in society's best interest that a convicted criminal returns to society as a productive member; the sooner, the better. Most Western countries try to use the time criminals spend incarcerated in preparing them for returning to a normal life, not to "reward" the criminal, but because it greatly reduces recidivism and costs to everyone. In the US, there's pretty much no rehabilitation, and the number of ex-convicts who return to crime is astonishingly high compared to the rest of the world.
- Revenge.
It doesn't undo the crime, and drags those exacting revenge down to the same level as the criminal. It certainly doesn't make the criminal any more inclined to become a happy member of society. Few countries now support this, and almost all that do, do it for religious reasons.
Yes, sentencing is necessary when someone is caught for a crime. But the sentencing needs to be rational, and not based on feelings. And better yet is to reduce the number of people sentenced by reducing the risk of crime before it happens. I know, alien concept, and you won't get your righteous rocks off as much by reading about caught perps.
how, exactly, does one fingerprint a tax-evader or speeder's email?
Sales receipts for out-of-state purchases can be fingerprinted, and compared to use tax declarations. And this has indeed come up too, in a slightly more limited way. At least one state have asked some online retailers to be Bcced on all sales receipts.
Key words like "evaded" and "90mph" may be set up to trigger manual inspection. Bayesian filtering can be used for more than catching spam.
Why a criminal should receive hundred of thousand of dollars in "help" while other people who, in my mind are much more worthy, don't have access to a basic quality life? Why reward criminals?
Because you're helping society, not just the individual. By helping the individuals, the amount of crime goes down. Or do you mean that the cost of rehabilitation and prevention means more to you than the children getting molested? Cause that's what you appear to be saying.
You choose to believe pedophiles suffers from a mental illness. Why? What is your real reason for that. You don't have any kind of scientific basis to proclaim that. So why believe that? Do you know your head enough to know the answer?
One of the large factors in child molestation is paedophilia, which is classified as a clinical perversion, much like necrophilia, zoophilia and others. That's certainly a mental health condition. No-one wakes up one day and says to him/herself "I think I will start lusting after prepubescent children". If that factor can be reduced by offering medical assistance to those who need and want it, without the current stigma, it would lead to a reduction in child molestations. That's the goal.
Other factors can probably be reduced too, including poverty (there is a correlation), repressed sexuality (legalize prostitution), ignorance and superstition (public education), and other treatable medical problems. Any given thing does not have to work on all cases - it's the sum, and how it works on society as a whole that's important.
Did you know that one of the biggest risk factors for becoming a child molester is having been abused as a child? By reducing the number of atrocities happening now, you help break a vicious cycle, and reduce it even more for the next generation.
The hard truth is that there is no realistic solution to the root cause of these problems. Do you really think that if there were, we wouldn't be already doing that?
I see a distinct unwillingness to even consider it, and much less invest money and resources on it. People appear to want to string up molesters and not reduce the risk of people becoming or staying molesters. Just look around in this thread, and you see plenty of examples.
Reality is, some people are just wired wrong, and need to be purged from society, be it prison, desert island or lethal injection. Caring for them doesn't solve anything, and doesn't stop them from doing what they do. If "caring" for them makes you feel good, you should probably spend more time caring for their victims instead.
The difference between you and I is that I don't want there to be any victims to care for. I want solutions for the root cause, not reactionary "solutions" which seems to be all you can imagine.
How do you propose to "help" them? I believe there is no effective way to "help" such people beyond castration.
Why do you believe that? We used to believe that the only cure for "female" non-physical illnesses was hysterectomy.
How about we put some funding into figuring out why this happens and how we can stop it? If it saves just a few children from ever being assaulted, that would be a big plus in my book.
In other words, you have sympathy for all people except those who go to church.
Trust me, I have plenty of sympathy for them. The greater the delusion and the greater damage it causes, the more tragic it is, and the more sympathy I have. Those who molest the minds of not just one or two, but entire generations of children are truly those I feel the most sorry for. Like child molester might believe in and justifies their actions with "child love", these sad individuals believe in "god love" and that it justifies crippling a child's mind (and often body) like they themselves were crippled.
It is tragic, and I would do anything to offer them help so this can stop.
Again, I think the best thing we can do is ask ourselves "why" - find the root cause for why people turn into monsters. What happens in people's brains, and how can we offer (not force, but offer) our assistance?
Saying a child molester needs help is far worse than saying he needs to be put out of society. You are basically saying we must manipulate and change people who do not conform to our ways against their will. You don't want kill or imprison Orwell's Winston, you want to destroy his personality so he becomes a "good" citizen of Oceania. You don't want to imprison Burgess's Alex, you want to "cure" him of his violent tendencies so he can become useful to society.
You think anyone who does not conform to your morale standard is "sick" and needs help? You're arrogant, egocentric and intrinsically extremely manipulative. You condescendingly show "sympathy", but you have absolutely no respect. You say child molesters suffer from a mental illness? Strange, isn't what some people are saying about gays?
Note that I never said anything about forcing anyone to conform. That's all in your head, not mine. What I want to see is us being able to offer the best help and rehabilitation possible, not just revenge and de-facto life sentences.
And a question that needs to be answered was the picture mailed to him, or did he upload it. Did he actually send it to anyone.
True, but note that even if it was sent from his account, that does not necessarily mean that he did it.
Who else had, or could have access to his credentials? Would any of them have a motive for framing him?
A Google employee bypassing the authentication would be trivial.
And if on parole, there's also the possibility that the conditions required that he provide the user name and password to all online accounts. Which again would make it trivial for a number of people.
How about a landlord, or others with access to his computer, if passwords were saved or written down?
Not so trivial, but far from uncommon is someone getting access to the account through hacking (especially if he re-used his password from elsewhere) or through social engineering.
The key is to not jump to conclusions. Nor should we forget the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Yes it's good that pedophiles get hurt
Why, exactly, is it good that pedophiles get hurt?
Pedophilia is a perverse sexual orientation, like zoophilia, coprophilia and many others, but does not imply that the afflicted has or will abuse children. There's a greater risk, but we do not wish to punish people for being a greater risk, do we? If so, it would be good if we hurt all male relatives, who by far pose the greatest risk for a child being molested.
If we want to stop child molestations, I think what we need to do is look at why some people do the heinous deeds, and figure out how to stop people from flipping over.
Somehow I get the feeling that many would be sad if that happened, because then they wouldn't have anyone to string up and exact revenge on.
But in my opinion, one child molested is one too many, and no matter how much you flog pedophiles, it won't reduce the problem.
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."
