Well, you were stealing.
Ultimately, Sgt. Ford did make the decision to pursue the theft charges, but the decision was based on Mr. Kamooneh having been advised that he was not allowed on the property without permission.
I know it isn't fair to read TFA, but there you go. The man was warned previously by the school that he could not park his car on the tennis court, and he did it anyway. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure I could find some statutes that he violated.
You need to carry the passport not to get into Canada but to return to the U.S.:
"Beginning in June 2009, all U.S. citizens will have to present a passport or other secure document that denotes identity and citizenship when entering the U.S. from Canada."
So what was the outlet there for? If it's on a public building but not meant for public use, it should have been secured, either by locking it or having it shut off inside the building. Actually, the drinking fountain comment is a good point. Obviously, a drinking fountain is there for public use. But what if it's just a faucet? Is getting a drink from a drinking fountain okay, but not a faucet? Is charging a phone okay, but not a car? Where is the line here?
Exactly where the company chooses to draw it, in most production companies taking one chocolate off the production line and with you home is a firing offense even if it's worth five cents. Things that are provided for work (materials, tools, services, products, whatever) are there to let everyone do their job, any other incidental use you might want it for is up to their acceptable use policy. Would a network manager accept that people connected their own devices to the internal networks to siphon off a few bytes of the Internet connection to check their mail? I very much doubt that unless you work in a BYOD workplace or have guest networks set up specifically for that purpose.
Most employers tend to take a reasonable approach on marginal costs (browsing the Internet, private call on work phone, printing two pages or making five photocopies, charge your cell phone) because being an ass works both ways but strictly speaking they could put me in a secure compartmentalized zone and deny me bringing almost anything in and out except myself and the clothes on my back. Of course then I'd say I'm working for paranoid nuts and not Top Secret military systems and find myself a sane employer, but it'd be totally legal. But I have worked on systems that simply didn't have Internet access, go to special terminals if you need it.
So how far could you go in the absence of any written policy, oral approval, signs or any other obvious indications? Well there's implied permission, if they offered parking spaces and those parking spaces had EV chargers on them (like one per space) I'd take permission to park to also imply permission to use the chargers. But if there just happens to be a socket in the parking lot so anyone working there could run a power tool, I'd say you don't have that. It could be things that are so commonplace that you wouldn't ask, like using the bathroom if you already have legitimate business in the building. Charging your car isn't that though.
I think they're technically correct, though I'm a repeat offender of "accidental theft of ballpoint pen" and if the law was applied to the fullest I'd have way more than three strikes. I think it's mostly because siphoning off gas to power your car is generally recognized as a crime, siphoning off electricity to do the same sounds equivalent. It doesn't sound like something you could do without at least some form of permission. It's all fairly relative though, if EVs become common it might be commonly understood that sockets are there for charging them and you'd need to explicitly deny it. But that's ten, twenty years from now and not today.
Can you get budget to hire a security penetration tester? There are companies which will do penetration testing and then give you a report documenting all of the vulnerabilities they found. With that in hand you have a much stronger case to convince management to fix the problem because now it is a highly qualified security expert that has documented explicit problems.
Now multiply $5 by the number of people willing to steal power and you see why we need to crack down. Same reason you give $100 fine to someone for littering. It's way disproportionate, but if everyone does it we have a big fat mess.
Fine. Get a law passed to that effect.
Link to Original Source
Markey's letter, dated December 2, cites recent reports of "commands...sent through a car's computer system that could cause it to suddenly accelerate, turn or kill the breaks," and references research conducted by Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek on Toyota Prius and Ford Escape. (http://illmatics.com/car_hacking.pdf) and presented at the DEFCON hacking conference in Las Vegas.
"Today's cars and light trucks contain more than 50 separate electronic control units (ECUs), connected through a controller area network (CAN)...Vehicle functionality, safety and privacy all depend on the functions of these small computers, as well as their ability to communicate with one another," Markey wrote.
Among the questions Markey wants answers to:
+ What percentage of cars sold in model years 2013 and 2014 do not have any wireless entry points?
+ What are automakers' methods for testing for vulnerabilities in technologies it deploys — including third pressure technologies? Markey asks specifically about tire pressure monitors, bluetooth and other wireless technologies and GPS (like Onstar).
+ What third party penetration testing is conducted on vehicles (and any results)?
+ What intrusion detection features exist for critical components like controller area network (CAN) busses on connected vehicles?
A member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee (http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/), Markey is a longtime privacy advocate. He rose from the House to become the junior Senator from Massachusetts after winning a special election in June to replace Sen. John Kerry, who left office to become President Obama's Secretary of State."
Link to Original Source
This punishment is typical of the fearful reaction the powerful and established have to the new. They know very well that new things can disrupt existing power structures. They persuade themselves that the status quo is good and must be defended vigorously. They practically go on a holy crusade against evil, and this justifies the ridiculously harsh punishments. There's hardly any group worse than a pack of powerful idiots thinking they've been wronged and getting all worked up with righteous wrath.
More should be done to check this kind of extremity. But what?
I don't buy this notion of forcing the accused to pay $183,000 because that's what the victim spent on security consultation. Apart from the thought that the accused shouldn't be responsible for actions not under his control, how is anyone to know if that's a fair price, and hasn't been padded and run up? And, shouldn't they have spent some money anyway on security? If a burglar enters a home that doesn't have locks, should he have to pay for locks and a lifetime of security system monitoring at $30/month?
I don't see that a DoS attack is a matter for the law at all. Maybe it should be treated as a technical issue, something that can be resolved with a few tweaks to the server configurations of the targets, or maybe improvements to Internet Protocol. Also, people have a right to protest, and a right to gather. Maybe a DDoS could be viewed as a form of gathering.
D=P*S-B, or Deterrence = (Probability of getting caught) * (Severity of punishment) - Benefit.
Since very few participants in a DDoS get caught, the punishment must be severe to have much deterrence.
The actualy formula for deterrence (0 - expected utility) is: Deterrence = (Probability of getting caught) * (Severity of punishment) - (Benefit) * (1 - (Probability of getting caught)).
This doesn't actually work for three reasons:
- 1. People are bad at estimating probabilities, so low probs get rounded to zero.
- 2. People don't like to think bad things, so the more severe the punishment, the less likely the potential criminal is to imagine it being applied to him - robbing it of much or all of its power.
- 3. If you are hated, for example because you are perceived to be an unjust tyrant who hands over disproportionate punishments to compensate for incompetent police, the Benefit will go up, since people want to oppose you.
Even ancient Rome, where conservatives demanded criminals be crucified and bleeding-heart liberals merely fed them to lions, never ran out of them.
Another way this is misleading is that the lifetime of debt slavery - what the $183,000 amounts to - is not considered the punishment. 2 years probation is the punishment; $183,000 is "damages". Thus what we have here is an example of a rather nasty loophole in the law, where the main part of a punishment is not subject to normal lawmaking process but is rather ordered by the judge on a case-by-case basis. This leads to exactly this kind of perversions.
Compare: if my dog took a dumb in your lawn, would I be quilty and should I clean it up? Absolutely. If you then spent $183,000 to dog-proof your yard, should I pay for it? Of course not, that's crazy. Except that's exactly what happend here.
So, in one sentence, you substitute your own pet biases for the scientific findings of TFA, and go right back to the fact far fewer women choose IT careers must by a fault of society.
The scientific finding of TFA is that women and men have their brains wired somewhat differently. The idea that this might have a causal relationship between skill differences is a hypothesis. So is the idea that the different wiring is caused by biology rather than upbringing, as the BBC article explicitly states. The idea that this explains career choices is pure speculation on the part of the submitter. And the amount of people who rushed to accept such speculation as proof that there's no sexism in IT strongly suggests that there is plenty of sexism in IT.
Whether the society in general is at fault for the failures of one of its subcultures is another question.
The guy who pulled the trigger is still fully responsible for where that bullet went flying. Being part of a DDoS is more like being part of a riot, even if you catch one rioter you don't usually don't make that one person pay for all the damage the mob did. But then again it's the same country that'll slap one person with million dollar fines for sharing a couple CDs online because piracy is such a big problem. If they applied the same logic to speeding, you'd probably go in the electric chair if you get caught.
I don't know about anybody else, but I think a DDoS is a form of censorship. A website provides information, effectively making it speech. Even if it is speech you disagree with, you should let it be.
On the flip-side what are the penalties for preventing someone from speaking the real world? Shouting down someone giving a speach? Pulling down flyers? Vandalizing a billboard? A crowd blocking entrance to a movie? Seem like misdemeanors at worst to me.
If a political DDOS is analogous to censorship then the penalties also need to match.