Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance... *YEAH!*
The feds also checked Swartz’s Facebook page, ran his name against the Department of Labor to figure out his work history, looked for outstanding warrants and prior convictions, checked to see if his mobile phone number had ever come up in a federal wiretap or pen register, and checked him against the records in a private data broker’s database.
I found this to be some nice insight to what initial procedure the FBI takes towards one of its citizens.
Or, as the FBI report put it, the public records were "exfiltrated."
The Government Printing Office abruptly shut down the free trial and reported to the FBI that PACER was "compromised," the FBI file reveals.
"AARON SWARTZ would have known his access was unauthorized because it was with a password that did not belonged [sic] to him," reads the FBI report summarizing the judiciary’s position.
Swartz says his script only ran on the library computer. It didnt use a password at all, but used the PACER authentication cookie set in the PC’s browser.
Also, for all of you "I have nothing to hide crowd" look how hard the FBI tried to imply this kid was a threat for sharing records that were not private or sealed. You think they will be any less forgiving on you? Granted the way he went about it was not the best approach, but it shows the FBI’s overzealous mentality to make an example out of you.
A five-year research programme, called Project Indect, aims to develop computer programmes which act as "agents" to monitor and process information from web sites, discussion forums, file servers, peer-to-peer networks and even individual computers
Fantastic, so after you are done rounding up all the teenagers posting with attitude and skinheads, how is this system going to help find competent threats?
Sure this will foil your low level moronic so called terrorist that happens to be down on his luck and just wants a group to blame for his own problems in life. However, I do not see this system giving any insight to groups that are smart enough to not say things on open systems or that are completely offline.
"They are providing a utility and frankly you should not be able to impose cascading rate increases without justifying them," Massa said. "What Time Warner is saying is not true and their own SEC filings show that.This is AIG-style greed.""
This point of view relies upon focusing on the rare but well-publicized cases that work like you described, and ignoring the majority of people who are actually decent. It's generally helpful to avoid letting your opinion be too influenced by media sensationalizing, although I understand it's difficult.
I do agree that most news outlets these days are sensationalistic and easily dismissed, however, I would not consider the bailout of Detroit, Wall Street and no bid contracts to major defense contractors "rare cases".
The reality is, you'll always have some percentage of assholes in the world, and no system you devise will ever get rid of them no matter how hard you try.
True. You will always have assholes in the system, but we do not need to reward them. The bar we measure them against should be raised, not lowered.
Being up in arms about it is all well and good, but it's essentially masturbation.
Considering this is Slashdot, one could say this about any aspect of this site. Does this mean we should not have the debate?
Geez, for some reason....there seems to be an almost inherit distaste for anyone with any type of wealth in this country these days. You almost seem to feel some level of vitriol anytime someone mentions people who make over $100K/yr and can afford something slightly 'nicer' than the people living in the projects.
The problem started when some people stopped believing that hard work, dedication, and pride in one's work are the way to get ahead in life. In other words, you earned your riches. Now what seems to be important is that you make as much money as quickly as possible with no regard to ethics, morals, or who you screw over.
I believe this is the reason people are so up in arms and rightfully so.
Looks more like 30% efficiency to me.
I don't know why they can't just tell you the percentage up front!
I think this is a good argument for an Internet license. You have to study for and pass a test before you are allowed to go online.