The official claim is that they intentionally took the site down as they found a security issue while trying to mitigate the DDoS. Not exactly inspiring confidence.
Source? I saw they said: http://help.census.abs.gov.au/...
Just after 7.30pm, the following confluence of events occurred:
A fourth denial of service attempt
A large increase in traffic to the website with thousands of Australians logging on to complete their Census
A hardware failure when a router became overloaded
Occurrence of a false positive, which is essentially a false alarm in some of the system monitoring information.
i.e. no security issue. Their systems got overloaded, melted down, and flagged an alert for a possible issue that didn't exist, so they shut it down.
Nothing, aside for that it's a distributed attempt to get service, not denial attempt, so probably even more effective at clogging the system. They spent about AU$400,000 on load testing (Should've been more than enough).
Evidently they didn't do the load testing properly. If they can't get that right how can anybody expect them to secure personal data properly.
Yet they're forcing mandatory retention of personal data.
They don't want to admit this was wasted money, and their IT guy said "With this many people trying to fill it out at once it's just like a DDOS attack!" so they've just gone with it.
By claiming it's a DDOS it just proves even more that they can't secure anything. How can they be trusted to keep sensitive data if they can't get something so basic functioning properly?
My first part was a little bit tongue in cheek. half a million to a company that specialises in such should have been enough but clearly wasn't.
However you seem to be harping on the security of the data - There was no "security breach" - No one got access to their systems. They simply got overloaded (blew up a router, etc) and shut it down because it simply wasn't robust enough. But zero security issues. Keeping a server up and running and able to support a predictive load is one thing, security of data is another thing entirely. Those responsible for the server being able to handle the traffic have nothing whatsoever to do with those ensuring the security of the data.
Then again, don't trust anyone to keep any data secure and you'll be better off. Government requires we submit this data - and it can - so either fill it out and suck it up, pay the fine, or leave the country, but never assume perfect security.
What's the difference between a DDoS attack and 4 million people all trying to submit their census all at the same time?
Nothing, aside for that it's a distributed attempt to get service, not denial attempt, so probably even more effective at clogging the system. They spent about AU$400,000 on load testing (Should've been more than enough). They don't want to admit this was wasted money, and their IT guy said "With this many people trying to fill it out at once it's just like a DDOS attack!" so they've just gone with it.
Maybe he wouldn't have minded being outed as much if he hadn't be in Saudi Arabia at the time it was revealed.
Then he should focus on bringing Saudi Arabia down... oh, they're richer than he is. Next best tantrum target? Oh, that newspaper who reported a fact. He sure stomped that journalist down.
BS gawker ruined average peoples lives and got what they deserved. They are the ultimate example of an ugly bully who got cocky and took on the wrong guy. A jury of our peers made this decision and they did the right thing.
Gawker did nothing deserving of this. They did not "ruin average peoples lives". Sure, that sex tape was not something I needed or even wanted to see, (I actually still haven't seen it, don't need to, reading about it is enough for me)
I explained why the walled garden was actually an advantage over the alternative in this case.
No, you stated there is a walled garden, defined roughly what that meant (which I think is an argument as to why it is a disadvantage) then acted like it was the opposite.
I'm a little fuzzy on how allowing further tuning below the company level is a disadvantage, as opposed to the walled garden
The walled garden for the most part is a technical user pet peeve. For most a contained device that offers predictable performance, stability and continued OS support is far more important. That's been their bread and butter since the beginning.
You said something, in a reply to my post, but it was some rhetoric, and didn't clarify anything at all to me.
GP is right, All the vendors market to the guys wearing stars
GP can only be partially right.
Are you actually surprised that the Apple product out performed the Android device? I know I'm not. The devices simply aren't competing on the same level. IOS is for Apple's device only. It's fine tuned for its hardware and vice versa. Android is tailored for devices and fine tuned by the manufacturer. This is a clear disadvantage for the platform.
My 2 cents!
I'm a little fuzzy on how allowing further tuning below the company level is a disadvantage, as opposed to the walled garden....
Why can't your other replies be this level-headed? See, you admit Bossland hasn't broken any laws (at least in as far as the information available), which means -- GASP -- we actually agree on this point and there was no reason for us to argue in the first place. Funny how that works, isn't it? And yes, the outcome will be quite interesting, no matter which way it goes. My money's on Bossland's owners simply deciding to ignore it and never setting foot in the US for the rest of their lives. After all, it's a civil matter and civil extradition treaties aren't a thing (yet; thankfully).
I never claimed bossland has broken any laws.... where did I do that? Unless I was pointing out that they've broken US laws in which case I was also acknowledging that they don't operate out of the US.) The legal system is decades behind this sort of issue.
It's already pretty clear bossland is going to try to just ignore it, they've been doing that for years. But I don't care what bossland _do_ I care about what the courts do. What bossland 'does' has no relevance here.
And of course you are thankful that people in one country can't be punished for their offences to another country. You're a lawyer.
It's that kind of attitude that leads to all our international wars - When you can't prosecute someone for stealing your IP/whatever and costing you money, well, what's left to you? Funny how that works, isn't it?
If Blizzard fail to shut down bosslands activity this way, I'd expect them to sue the german government itself, and progress from there.
OK, are we still talking about black market drug companies or not? Changing your version of the definition does indeed rended my issue with black market drug companies moot. Congratulations.
Considering that I made the original mention of drug companies, after Calydor mentioned doping, and neither he nor I said anything about black market drug companies. Yes, I did mention black market drugs, but any prescription drug solt outside of a licensed pharmacy fits that definition. You're the one who changed the definition, I merely shifted it back.
Still unclear? are we talking about black market drug companies, or not?
I did check out the site, and also read about the suit, etc... the program access overwatches protected game code through methoes explicitly prohibited mbyt the licencing agreement to generate their overlay.
It doesn't "access the code", it accesses the areas of the system's RAM the game uses for data storage. Try again.
Yup, and what's in that protected memory they decrypt and modify? Oh, yeah, game code. It's a bit complicated, funnily enough, but that's what the courts are there to decide. You've made it clear you don't know what you're talking about already, however
You can keep on saying that bossland isn't doing anything wrong
I could, if that's what I were saying at all. What I'm saying, however, is that they're not doing anything illegal. I'm sure you can figure out the difference and how it is key to this discussion.
No, I've been saying all along that bossland is wrong, that the legal system isn't capable of handling international intellectual property rights, and that Bliz has just cause to take them to court and establish a precedent.
You seem to think that Blizzard has no merit, period, and should let bossland do as they please. It's laughable, but now I know you're apparently a lawyer, I see why you're on this path
(that's OK, I'm a programmer, I'm pretty sure you're not)
You fail pretty badly at logic for a supposed programmer. You seem to be pretty sure about a lot of things; this is just one more you're wrong about. In addition, I have a legal background, which also qualifies me to comment (with authority) on legal matters.
Now it comes clear, you have a lawyers mind.
As for my logic, I'm still waiting for you to illustrate a single flaw in it, however now I know you're a lawyer I understand that you merely obfuscate what you don't understand, and are trying to jam your personal ideas of what it should be onto it. I can't criticise you for it really, it's what works in the courtroom.
It also explains why you're continuing to fight a losing argument even when you are wildly unqualified
The rest of the diatribe the two quotes above came from is irrelevant, as it's based on an entirely incorrect premise.
You keep making statements like this.... I know it's a good court tactic, but this is a forum and you're going to have to back up your statements with something. I know you won't, because you can't, but it'd be nice if you at least tried
Oh, The US legal system is horrible, most legal systems are, but they're the best we have, and one of the few avenues open to Blizzard.
But, Bossland has broken now laws and committed no civil infractions, so it will be a tough road for them.
It's going to be a tough road regardless. As for if Bossland has broken any laws, clearly they have, they just are outside of those laws jurisdiction (as those laws were created in and for a time where this kind of predatory business practices weren't even conceived)
Fortunately it doesn't matter that it's going to be tough (btw, you're a lawyer, how many "easy" cases like this do you come across? I'd have figured they're all tough, regardless of if laws are broken or not) cause this kind of thing is part of doing business, and Blizz has some good lawyers. So good on them, lets hope that there's justice at the end (wait, you're a lawyer, justice isn't relevant to you)
Of course they'll take it, and while noone thinks the USA governs Germany, I'm pretty sure most here have a decent understanding of trade partnerships, and what happens when 2 countries don't get along.
Right, and the US and EU have no problems exchanging criminals for trial; however, this is a civil matter and we still (thankfully) don't have civil extradition agreements in place. Imagine that, someone anywhere in the world being allowed to bring suit against you in their home country and you having to travel, at your own expense, to defend yourself. Jurisdictional borders exist for a reason.
Indeed they do, and that's where it gets complicated (how can you not realise this as a lawyer?!?) - if bossland was only doing business with german citizens and hacking german made games, then no worries, let germany sort it out, but bossland is doing business internationally, and hacking foreign software.
You still think that just because they're in germany they should get a free pass?
Look at Cuba, think they'll pull the same stuff this time round?
That was the result is armed conflict, not civil disagreements between US and Cuban businesses. Totally not relevant here.
Totally relevant as an example of what one country can do to another if they piss it off. But of course you'll focus on the reason for that particular embargo and claim that negates relevance, no surprise there, keep on with your misdirection
Projection of what? You keep making these little comments, but never offer any substance to them.
You were projecting your head-placement habits onto me. Clearly, you had it firmly stowed when you wrote this reply. I see a second reply, as well.. that should be fun.
I was projecting my ignorance of software development and hacking onto you? Is that what you mean? Or merely pointing out what you confirmed with the above reply: You don't know about software, you're a lawyer. What you care about is what can be argued in court to protect your clients, regardless of truth or fairness. (See how when I make statements I qualify them with logic and reasoning (which you don't need to agree with, but can't even provide your own) - try it out, we might get somewhere. So far all you've done is bluster and say "no that's wrong", please try to add something next time, you're not giving me much to work with here)
I went through and read the actual suit since as usual the summary is garbage. Blizzard is 90% blowing smoke here, but the claims that actually have some merit are:
1. Intentional interference with contractual relations: since cheating is against the EULA, they are facilitating other people violating EULAs. 2. Since the cheat makers themselves were violating the EULA by developing/testing cheats, they were thus infringing copyright.
The rest of the claims require some major mental gymnastics, like claiming that when the cheat modifies the workings of the game (unclear as to whether it actually does that, or just reads memory and creates on overlay), it constitutes a derivative work. But the claims that do have merit are actually a pretty crafty end run.
However, the implication of #2 is that if someone cheats at a game, they are on the hook for piracy. Pretty scary precedent especially in situations where it's not 100% clear what constitutes a cheat.
Oh, you're dead on the lawsuit details are smoky at best, but I see that as part of the legal system as a whole, and in particular an archaic legal system trying to solve problems in a world of international digital goods and services that are traded and sold between such legal systems, etc... There's more gymnastics required than I have the patience or inclination to unravel
And yeah, the judge on this is going to need to be very careful what precedent is set, however i think it's pretty clear that there's a problem here, and I would love to think that there's the possibility of a good precedent being set here, one that protects creators and their creations from this sort of abuse, in the international community. (But odds are it won't)