About 10 years ago I lost a small voltage test screwdriver on my way to a meeting with security management which was moved en route to a room inside the secure area of the terminal. No way to prepare for that.

That wasn't TSA though, that was their cousins in Australia.

That's a pretty rare case though, those guys are pretty good normally.

Unfortunately that practical advice goes beyond immoral. In many states it is illegal to produce a device or code that allows unauthorized access, in the others, facilitating a crime is bad juju. Selling that code will not be viewed in the best light and will destroy any chance of a defense based on lack of intent. Lord only knows what will happen if you sell your exploit to a guy, who sells it to a guy with terrorist ambitions. Talking to a CERT about it seemed like a good idea. Also it is high time universities stepped up and provided support to their students/researchers. Government talks a lot about public private partnerships in the war on cybercrime, this would be a good place to start.

I think that everyone on /. more or less has a good understanding of the terms, it is the media that simplifies the environment to write shorter headlines.
To clarify:
Hackers are those that delight in taking something apart and putting it back together again, either in its original form or with some modification to improve the thing in their point of view. Hackers was at one stage those who enjoyed pranks between universities, so there is an implied cheekiness in the execution of this experimental interaction with things. In the information realm, taking something apart to see how it works often involves finding out how to do that. Exploiting a flaw is analogous to taking the screws out of something to get the cover plate off. If a hacker broke into your house it would design a tool for doing so, disassemble your lock and put it back together again or find a weakness in the design of the lock that allows it to be opened without the key.

Script kiddies are those who are interested in getting into things, but either aren't interested in or able to take things apart themselves. The find tools that will work and need only enough understanding to roughly match a tool to a thing. There is a level of juvenile immaturity in this, like a child disassembling a radio with a hammer to find what is inside, with no thought as to how it might be reassemble or if this tool might cause permanent damage. If a script kiddie broke into your house they would break your lock with a Jimmie bar and probably spray paint a tag on your wall.

More recently we have criminals who will find / buy the tools to get into something for selfish gain. They may buy the understanding from a hacker, a duplicated key, or use a script kiddie type tool and find some way to monetize it


Neither of the first two implies malicious intent, however they may break the law in their pursuit of either learning something or showing their ability to affect their environment.

Would anyone modify these definitions in anyway ?

The actions of the victim in no way justify the actions of the criminal. Now if the sign had said "Please test drive", that would be authorization and no crime would have taken place.

Living in the actual Republic of Korea, let me assure you that you are not a pedant. The difference between the two Korea's is pretty significant.

Basing a critique of a term on its earliest use is beyond ludicrous. The concept of cyberspace is with us because we needed it and couldn't find anything better to define the phenomenon. Smart people well versed in the matter have debated this very point for a long time and we haven't yet found a more apt or useful word to explain the body of communication that traverses the Internet but is not limited to its technology. It is not the virtual reality dream of yesterday but it is a real environment with properties that differ from other realms. The idea of theft must redefined where taking something of value does not deprive the owner of its use. The impact of intrusion, harassment, and contraband all change in this arena of continual communication. Mr Lind seems to believe that the Internet is owned by governments and the have the ability to control it in much the same way they control traffic. We need the word cyberspace so that countries can seperate the laws for the Internet so that they can be uniform globally, not clouded by local legal systems. Each country trying to do it on their own is why we are in this mess. No country can regulate the Internet but by creating a common operating environment it can regulate itself.

If you get a bunch of expert debaters and politicians, then ask them to make decisions about a complex and sensitive matter that they have no idea about, they are going to ask someone who knows a little more than them. They are going to be more able to listen to the louder voices among those who know more. It may just be that the loudest voices on the planet belong to Americans. I mean American companies.

That data looks pretty safe to me, I mean, what could possibly go wrong ...


In all seriousness though if these amendments are too ludicrous they won't go past proposals, and if they do they will struggle to make it to domestic legislation.
we hope.

I have a white name. I live in Asia. I therefore (of course) am looking for Asian singles.

That doesn't worry me. It is when the ads are very specific to me, but unrelated to what I am searching for that gets my neck hairs standing up.

When I look up "flowers", and the ads are for electronics its like the Internet is thinking, "who are you kidding, you read /. ".

Not on that rail network they aren't. QR has been struggling to make ends meet for a while, the go card system was supposed to improve the situation by reducing ticketing costs and reducing staffing requirements at smaller platforms. They don't have the money to invest in facial recognition software. The left bag systems would probably be running on the live feeds but the cameras don't have the resolution to pick out faces and track them through the system, it would be a major upgrade. As the system stands. They would have to do facial recognition the old fashioned way, by going back through the recorded feeds and looking at them. In TFA they say that they have footage from the bus where the card was used, bus dvrs are standalone and aren't suitable for facial recognition.

So Negative !

Phrase it like: "This bill is not of interest to the public, so we are allowing them to not see it"

So was that typo due to the Q and A keys being adjacent or because of you thinking of a word beginning with 'q' or because you were imagining the location of the 'q' key by thinking of the qwerty layout. Are these typos due to a failure in digital agility or some kind of Freudian finger slip ?

No one else noticed that the study was done by a marketing professor from a Business School. A survey of 512 people (quite a small number really) found that those people who use the Internet on a daily basis also preferred chocolate to granola, couldn't be bothered doing complicated puzzles, and maintained a lower balance on their credit card. Therefore, using the Internet makes you a stupid, fat, poor asshole. Perhaps this isn't the most conclusive study of the lowering of inhibitions or the generation of conflict online. What it looks like to me is a well timed grab for publicity just before the business department submits its request for funding for next year.

It would be easier again perhaps (given the level of technical skill they appear to have) to throw the alleged brick into the hard disk repeatedly.

Obligatory XCKD
Security

Some of us still read the Subject lines.
So that read:
On the Subject of my ass: If I want it preserved, I'll copy it to local storage or upload it to the cloud if I so choose. Other than that, if I hit the wipe button there better be smoke coming from it.

Which was a little disturbing, but it was followed by the eminently sensible:

If I wanted it "preserved" I wouldn't be wiping it out in the first place.

Which I will now unfortunately have pop into my mind every time I throw used paper into the bowl.