Personally, I sincerely hope the FBI didn't raid this guys place because they "thought" he was a spokesman for anonymous when he wasn't even involved - that would just mean that the KGB (?) of the USA is out gunned by the out laws of the internet, and flat out embarrassing that as a country we are at the mercy of such an elite clueless power.
...and the FBI stored this super-secret database in-the-clear on a laptop
The operator of the laptop did that...
...so they secretly paid a 3rd party a big sum of cash to take a nasty PR hit
the same company who they are contracting with in regards to Public Relations
...knowing the public (excepting those unusually perceptive slashdotters) would buy he cover story since it's, you know, far more likely to have happened that way in the first place.
Isn't that the whole point to PR firms/departments/companies - to protect the organizations public perception?
Regardless of far you want to twist/stretch things - I'm still defaulting to the bad guys at fault (ie: the Feds
Also, don't stop with just installing systems on new hardware, thats easy - try to get your hands on the 'old' stuff that barely works, and I'm talking Pentiums - nothing in the last decade. back when I was a teenager, my mom was given around a dozen plus systems for a project she was working on, she tasked me with seeing what worked and what could be done with them. I was able to get around 7 systems fully working, only some had no drives. Between them all, I got into networking (obviously), diskless nodes, DNS, various services, the kernel/modules/configurations, etc.., etc.. Because the amount of resources I had to work with was very limited, I had to really do my homework to get everything going AND usable. A few years later, my first 'good' job I scored because I knew what some strange boot codes from LILO were when simply no one else did, and I could get the critical systems going again (I was contract initially) - I only knew that info from the countless issues I ran into on that old hardware, and getting it all working.
When it comes to your employer verifying that you can walk the walk, and not just talk the talk - it's done one of two ways, and sometimes both - they will either verify from word of mouth (previous employer/references) or during your 30 day/3month 'probation' period.
You can't have it both ways, either Apple thought up such an ingenious design (rectangle with rounded corners
I remember a ways back (10yrs?) when Comcast(?) decided that paying extra for Disney was not going to be an option anymore, instead EVERYONE would pay an extra $5/mo and get it for 'free' whether you wanted it or not - there was none of this grandstanding going on. Back then there was no competition (except geographically) for the distribution empire, now there is streaming in the likes of NetFlix and Amazon - so I'm starting to really wonder if the distributors are who is really being caught in the middle of all this, the content providers HAVE been catering to "their" customers the best they can (we just are not them) and 7 yrs (?) later, the content providers are asking for an increase on their product - with how lawsuit happy this great(?) nation has become, I could see that from the legal side alone.
I purchased ROKU a couple of years ago, afterwards with in a few months I was hardly flipping on the cable box (DirecTV - where I did have their high end package) - nothing was ever on, Im not a big sports fan, and everything else was either depressing news, reruns or some reality show. DirecTV continued to give me discounts left and right to stay with them - even at one point getting their services for free for about 6 months, after that and realizing I NEVER use their service anymore I pulled the plug. The customer service rep(s) fought valiantly for me as a customer, all the while claiming they have never heard of NetFlix/ROKU or Amazon streaming, although in the end lost..
This is the 2nd or 3rd time I've heard of these types of fights going on between the distributors and the providers in the last few years - could it be that the providers DO have legit reasons to raise their cost (I mean 7yrs later I would think there is some kind of increase) the distributors are seeing the writing on the wall - and simply getting scared? As someone else has mentioned, NetFlix already has a TON of kids shows on it, and for a mere drop in the bucket compared to cable/satellite - it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that the distributors are going to loose customers over this - and probably for good, its just a matter of how many, I mean how many are on the verge and have been thinking about it/testing the waters already?
...anyone is stupid enough to actually connect such critical infrastructure to the internet...
On a side note...
"The TSA released a statement Tuesday saying it explained to the family why additional security procedures were necessary and that agents didn't suspect or suggest the child was carrying a firearm."
So they did all this, not because the felt there was a potential threat - but because of why? Then you have this story as well where after the family was allowed through, the TSA spent an hour looking for them to force them back for a rescreening. Considering that they apparently dont do very well at actually finding potentially dangerous items (hell even my own Dad found he had a 4" blade on his carry on items he forgot about) the only 'reason' for all this is to keep the general populace in check and forced into submission?
FTFA: School Superintendent Greg Ohl said the district had not yet been served with the lawsuit and he withheld comment until he had more information.
"We're taken aback by it," he said.
I work for a fairly large web hosting company, and we used to police our selves - if during any routine investigation (as in if someone reported a problem with their account) and we found anything suspicious we would suspend if it was "seemingly" obvious, although two specific incidents changed our policy on that relatively quickly. The first had to do with a Microsoft Development edition of some sort - it turned out the customer was a reseller and had the full right to have that on his site for purchase/download. The second was with a small record label out of the UK, iirc, selling/offering their own goods. Both incidents highlighted the fact that we were not qualified to tell whether something was illegal or not - so we essentially backed completely off, and unless we get a DMCA notice or one sent to the customer - all we do IF we see something very, very suspicious and they are somehow in violation of our RUP/TOS - then we only send them a ticket, if they dont respond with in a given amount of time that is something else entirely.
The point being, is that just because something seems to be illegal - doesn't mean it is, you/we have NO idea if the customer in question has some kind of weird contract with the copyright holder and if they are in violation of it or not - THAT is up to a judge and/or contract attorney to decide, no one else. We see stuff all the time across our large fleet of servers, and the fact that internal communications between employees reflect this is only pointing out something interesting is all. Whether something is actually illegal or not, is a point of contract law - not mere speculation of someone NOT well versed in this.
The flip side of this issue is that the Internet is a VERY large place, and it's simply next to impossible to check every nook and cranny for your various IP'd material - which where logically the rights holders would try and force the providers to police them self, which as noted above is impossible as well.
Conclusion - simply trying to fit a square block (brick and mortar business model) into a round hole (cyber space) just does not fit
$2,398,000,000 (2.2% of est $109,000,000,000) 2011
$1,760,400,000 (2.7% of $65,200,000,000) 2010
$1,329,900,000 (3.1% of $42,900,000,000) 2009
$1,105,000,000 (3.4% of $32,500,000,000) 2008
$792,000,000 (3.3% of $24,000,000,000) 2007
$714,100,000 (3.7% of $19,300,000,000) 2006
$556,000,000 (4% of $13,900,000,000) 2005
$331,200,000 (4% of $8,280,000,000) 2004
$496,000,000 (8% of $6,200,000,000) 2003
$437,600,000 (8% of $5,470,000,000) 2002
$428,800,000 (8% of $5,360,000,000) 2001
$399,000,000 (5% of $7,980,000,000) 2000