Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Fact check: LLNL isn't shut down (yet) (Score 1) 118

by 1729 (#45097885) Attached to: Fusion "Breakthrough" At National Ignition Facility? Not So Fast

Because the staff and management are contractors, not Fed employees, LLNL is not shut down. The Lab will begin shutting down next week (assuming the budget boondoggle continues), but until now has been fully staffed with the exception of a very small number of people directly employed by DOE.

Comment: Re:Private browsing (Score 1) 382

by 1729 (#44458451) Attached to: Surveillance Story Turns Into a Warning About Employer Monitoring

Google searches can be made over SSL. You could also tunnel to your home proxy server.

Unfortunately, a lot of employers perform MITM attacks to defeat SSL. I know my employer does. This creates a significant security risk, not the least because it trains employees to ignore certificate errors, but it's increasingly common.

Comment: Re:Rubbish (Score 1) 496

by 1729 (#43680263) Attached to: DoD Descends On DEFCAD

You really have no idea how bullets work, do you? The metal casings are for the bullets, not the guns. If you attempt to make a bullet with a plastic casing (you can't buy them), it will fail on the first shot. Not the second shot, not the third, the first. If you use plastic casings on a bullet, it will explode and you will fail. No debate.

Caseless ammunition already exists.

Comment: Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too (Score 3, Informative) 496

by 1729 (#43680245) Attached to: DoD Descends On DEFCAD

It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to seize on the Amendments to justify their own short-sighted, stupid, destructive, extremist and anarchist hankerings.

Of course there are limits to how far you can push your first-amendment rights; there have to be. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution and scroll down to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who formulated the clear and present danger test for free speech cases.

Thing is, Holmes was wrong in that case.

Comment: Re:Good (Score 2) 459

by 1729 (#43205519) Attached to: 41 Months In Prison For Man Who Leaked AT&T iPad Email Addresses

He didn't "break in". He sent requests to a publicly-accessible web server, and AT&T sent back private information.

Like sending "requests" to a publicly-accessible ATM using cards with other people's information on them, and then taking the money the bank "willingly" gives you.

Yeah, I totally see the difference between that and "breaking in" to an ATM.

No, that would be like to trying to impersonate people by guessing their passwords. In Weev's case, there was no authentication to circumvent.

Comment: Re:Good (Score 4, Informative) 459

by 1729 (#43205471) Attached to: 41 Months In Prison For Man Who Leaked AT&T iPad Email Addresses

Isn't a key element of the legal case that he also retransmitted the private information? He did not merely receive it.

From the court filing, it appears both charges are predicated on the notion that sending GET requests to an unprotected, publicly-accessible web server constitute unauthorized access under Title 18, Section 1030(a)(2)(C).

Comment: Re:Good (Score 4, Insightful) 459

by 1729 (#43205135) Attached to: 41 Months In Prison For Man Who Leaked AT&T iPad Email Addresses

Meatspace analogy :

If a bank didn't have a door on it's vault, or any forms of security whatsoever, would you walk in and take out all the money? Even if you proceeded directly to the local police department to report the security flaw and deliver the unguarded money, you'd find yourself in quite a bit of trouble.

Here's a better analogy: you send the bank self-addressed stamped envelopes, and they willingly send private information about their clients back to you in those envelopes.

Comment: Re:Good (Score 4, Insightful) 459

by 1729 (#43205101) Attached to: 41 Months In Prison For Man Who Leaked AT&T iPad Email Addresses

Nearly everything Weev does is malicious, but the question is: is it (or should it be) illegal? He was convicted of identity fraud and "conspiracy to access a computer without authorization". Think about that: requesting unprotected publicly-accessible webpages is "access[ing]" a computer without authorization". By that standard, anyone who uses the internet could be convicted of a crime.

If a camel is a horse designed by a committee, then a consensus forecast is a camel's behind. -- Edgar R. Fiedler

Working...