Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So ... (Score 1) 84

by Yebyen (#46789447) Attached to: Samsung's Position On Tizen May Hurt Developer Recruitment

> Apple's first tablet was such a colossal failure that many, including me, predicted the same for their second attempt. I was definitely wrong.

The first tablet was the Newton, and that failed, then years later iPad. I definitely heard of the Newton and I think so did everyone else who was a Simpsons fan at the time:

Comment: Re:WTF?? (Score 1) 791

So, all I have to do to avoid being recorded while I beat the crap out of you, is to put some uninvolved innocents in the room with us and make sure they have a loud, unrelated conversation that you can't avoid recording at the same time I do it?

Just what do you think is the definition of Accessory? If those people are paid not to consent to the recording, would you consider them accessories or conspirators, then? Are you saying the kid should have gone around the room and obtained consent forms from everyone who wasn't actively helping the bully commit his assaults, then done his recording?

Comment: Re:What happens now? (Score 1) 148

by Yebyen (#46728073) Attached to: 'weev' Conviction Vacated

One has to wonder then, whose idea it was to charge him in New Jersey at all...

If there's a precedent already in the state court that it's not unauthorized access if there's no code or password stolen... and there's a pretty clear argument that the case doesn't even belong in New Jersey, how did we get here? Some three years of incarceration later!

(Obviously, the answer is that it's not a crime if a cop does it.)

Comment: Re:Not Odd At All (Score 1) 148

by Yebyen (#46727809) Attached to: 'weev' Conviction Vacated

I'll try a car analogy. If you're trying to drive to New Jersey and you're starting your trip in Ireland, it's not important that you don't have EZPass or any American money to pay the tolls. There's too much water in your engine by the time you reach the shore, assuming you didn't just run out of gas on the bottom of the ocean. You didn't fail to pay the roadway tolls in Jersey, since you never were in the state of New Jersey. So you don't go to jail for that.

Comment: Re:Not Odd At All (Score 1) 148

by Yebyen (#46727703) Attached to: 'weev' Conviction Vacated

It suggests (by way that no evidence was offered) that he is not guilty of unauthorized use of a code or password, which means he's not guilty of violating the precedent for the statute in NJ. It gives no opinion on whether or not this has any bearing on the federal charge under CFAA. The precedent cited is another NJ case, where the person on trial was a police officer who had a password and used it for reasons against internal policy. There was no password, but I believe the standards of the federal CFAA are actually much lower.

Comment: Re:What happens now? (Score 1) 148

by Yebyen (#46727407) Attached to: 'weev' Conviction Vacated

I haven't read the judgement (I am a good armchair lawyer though, have read lots of opinions and regurgitation of other peoples interpretation of the facts) but I am pretty sure that was a part of the New Jersey law, so in any retrial it would be irrelevant, since the standard is lower.

It would have probably been better for Weev if AT&T's servers actually were in New Jersey, since then this judges would be forced to say what they think about the NJ law as it applies to this case, which is pretty clearly what you said. The password or code - there was no such barrier to access, so no illegal access through forged authorization occurred.

This barrier requirement is part of the New Jersey law, and the threshold for abuse in the federal statutes is lower. Ah. Here, found it:
See State v. Riley, 988 A.2d 1252,
1267 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 2009) (p12 of the ruling)

Comment: Re:Not Odd At All (Score 1) 148

by Yebyen (#46727263) Attached to: 'weev' Conviction Vacated

...except that the situation you just described is the opposite of what happened.

The judges declined to give an opinion on whether or not any law was violated, they vacated the verdict in NJ because of a procedural violation that had taken place -- the venue the case was tried in was NJ, even though the events and parties (AT&T was not a plaintiff, so technically not a party... but the servers in question) were not any of them in NJ.

Comment: Re: No. (Score 2) 246

If you can go to the store and buy one, and put it on your network, and your network monitoring software can show you what it's doing, and it's unambiguously doing something that's easy for you to do, and makes it easy to get something that arguably ought to be a secret without your having performed any heavy duty rocket surgery...

It's public! Any of your customers can gain this knowledge without anything you didn't just plain give over to them! If responsibly disclosed and the company won't do anything about it, then they ought to be exposed. Now what is it that was exposed again? "Private" e-mail addresses?

Come on!

Comment: Don't use DNS (Score 1, Funny) 349

by larry bagina (#46456635) Attached to: Crowdsourcing Confirms: Websites Inaccessible on Comcast
Especially Comcast DNS. But Don't use DNS at all. The fact is you can skip DNS and use a /etc/hosts file. This isn't 1982 anymore, disks are huge and it only takes a couple hundred megabytes to host it. With a cron job to rsync it every hour you no longer need to worry about manually updating it either. (It's simple enough to pass the grandmother test!) For those rare cases where a name isn't in my hosts file, I just request the page using an email-to-web service.

% APL is a natural extension of assembler language programming; ...and is best for educational purposes. -- A. Perlis