Two kids found a security flaw in one of those electronic billboards... and the company, DPC, gave them ipads and invited them to come talk about security.
...in Serbia.
What did the DPC have to say about the hacking?
“This has never happened before, but we appreciate the fact that these guys have, in a charming way, pointed us to this huge problem. Now it is clearer than ever that we need to protect ourselves better,” DPC’s manager Slobodan Petrovic commented.
and
According to DPC’s [the billboard company] manager the two students are lucky to be in Serbia, as things may have ended differently in other countries. “In more developed countries, these actions are unthinkable because of severe sanctions,” he said.
When did things get so out of hand, here in America?
Never have I felt more personally ashamed of my country and its government than the actions revolving around wikileaks and Bradley Manning. No action taken has been reasonable, thoughtful, or just; merely vindictive, cruel, and petty. It has become clear that those people who claim to represent us, who claim to support ideals of truth, justice, and liberty are no more than petty tyrants who know they have done wrong, and will trample the liberty of anyone who dares push back, who dares suggest that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, must also be visible to the people, not cloaked beneath "Classified".
I don't know what worries me more: that one day my daughter will return home from school and ask me why we let the government treat Bradley Manning so unjustly, or that she never knows his name, because the government sweeps this all under the rug, and the world forgets about a brave man who saw injustice and tried to stop it.
I am a veteran, and I personally believe that anyone who has sworn an oath to support and defend the US Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, should support Bradley Manning as the hero he is.
I think someone should make an app that restores the phone to default if a specific security pin/pattern is entered. So, I would have a pin to unlock my phone, and another one to wipe it.
Cop asks for the phone, wipe it quickly before handing it over. It probably wouldn't stop an in depth search of the phone hardware, but I bet it would stop their little hacking tool.
Is there a penalty for submitting false reports? Is the system automated?
Gee, it would be a shame if some anonymous group started submitting thousands of accusations at randomly chosen IP addresses, thus shooting the false positive ratio through the roof, and showing what a horrible, expensive, badly implemented idea this is. Why, in that event, you wouldn't be able to know what was a "real" accusation, and what was a false one, and the whole system would collapse.
However they should be held accountable because they played a fairly big role in putting a huge pressure upon Aaron and we can assume quite accurately that this was one of the factors that weighted in his decision to take his life.
Held accountable *how*? What law would you charge them with?
Every time I read an article about Canadian Copyright Trolls seeking mass IP addresses of ISP customers for allegedly downloading something illegally, I'm shocked that they have electricity in Canada.
That seems to be the general consensus. How do you feel about these fines, personally? (aka, not as a law student) It seems obvious to me that those fines weren't meant to exist in a world where copyright infringement is difficult to avoid; where an 8 year old can infringe on 1000's of works before breakfast for damn near no cost.
I think there needs to be an exception for personal use-- anywhere the infringing files aren't being sold directly. I know that idea makes a copyright maximalist's head explode, but it seems to be the only option that makes any sense. (Keeping in mind that you can legislate morality. See: US Prohibition)
If you want to make someone buy your non-scarce product instead of copying it from an unofficial source, you have to make them *want* to; you can't scare them into being a customer.
Right, but they're not asking for a hypothetical, are they? They're not saying "Well, if she was hit with the maximum, would it be constitutionally legal?" They're asking if there is a constitutional limit to the amount someone can be charged for copyright infringement. That's not hypothetical. They could very well say yes, but the amount be greater than what JT has to pay.
I think they now know that JT was a bad case to be a champion, so they're trying to get whatever they can out of it, so when the next case goes to court maybe a little more sanity can be used when figuring these amounts.
I think that's why they're asking their question, and not yours.
I don't know, they might be asking the right question. If they asked your question, if the damages in this case exceeded the limit, it could be viewed that their answer could only apply to this case.
If they ask if there's a limit at all, then it applies to everything, including this case.
Meanwhile...
Two kids found a security flaw in one of those electronic billboards... and the company, DPC, gave them ipads and invited them to come talk about security.
...in Serbia.
What did the DPC have to say about the hacking?
and
When did things get so out of hand, here in America?
Shame
Never have I felt more personally ashamed of my country and its government than the actions revolving around wikileaks and Bradley Manning. No action taken has been reasonable, thoughtful, or just; merely vindictive, cruel, and petty. It has become clear that those people who claim to represent us, who claim to support ideals of truth, justice, and liberty are no more than petty tyrants who know they have done wrong, and will trample the liberty of anyone who dares push back, who dares suggest that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, must also be visible to the people, not cloaked beneath "Classified".
I don't know what worries me more: that one day my daughter will return home from school and ask me why we let the government treat Bradley Manning so unjustly, or that she never knows his name, because the government sweeps this all under the rug, and the world forgets about a brave man who saw injustice and tried to stop it.
I am a veteran, and I personally believe that anyone who has sworn an oath to support and defend the US Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, should support Bradley Manning as the hero he is.
Re: I guarantee you they won't get a thing from mine.
You can further thwart the police by not having a house to search, by living on the streets. That'll show them.
Hint: you're missing the point, old timer.
Re: I wonder if there'd be a market for...
I think someone should make an app that restores the phone to default if a specific security pin/pattern is entered. So, I would have a pin to unlock my phone, and another one to wipe it.
Cop asks for the phone, wipe it quickly before handing it over. It probably wouldn't stop an in depth search of the phone hardware, but I bet it would stop their little hacking tool.
Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
Make an account: Problem solved.
Anonymity works both ways.
Re:
Is there a penalty for submitting false reports? Is the system automated?
Gee, it would be a shame if some anonymous group started submitting thousands of accusations at randomly chosen IP addresses, thus shooting the false positive ratio through the roof, and showing what a horrible, expensive, badly implemented idea this is. Why, in that event, you wouldn't be able to know what was a "real" accusation, and what was a false one, and the whole system would collapse.
It would be just horrible, I say.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Name one right that copyright grants an author that he can't do without copyright.
Note: Avoid "rights" that take away someone else's right.
Re:
However they should be held accountable because they played a fairly big role in putting a huge pressure upon Aaron and we can assume quite accurately that this was one of the factors that weighted in his decision to take his life.
Held accountable *how*? What law would you charge them with?
Re: Re: Interesting!
The Hopper: Some bigwig CEO doesn't want you to have it, so you know you need it.
It's aboot freedom?
Every time I read an article about Canadian Copyright Trolls seeking mass IP addresses of ISP customers for allegedly downloading something illegally, I'm shocked that they have electricity in Canada.
;-)
Re:
Maybe I'm confused. How can it be a natural right if it requires a government for it to exist?
Perhaps I don't understand what a natural right is, but I thought it was a right that needed no government to give it.
Re: Re: As a general rule
It's obvious that he means that we shouldn't make decisions when we're all emotionally polarized.
Unless you knew that, and just wanted to dismiss his perfectly valid point.
Re: A question
Postal, and Postal 2?
Re: Re:
They also provide tools for protecting a market, and are especially useful for reigning in small agile innovative companies ...
You don't say? Well, that sounds exactly like what we want! Something to slow down innovative companies!
Holy Shit
Move over, Religion! Intellectual Property is the new imaginary thing that people believe in without any data or critical thinking!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
can't legislate morality*
Edit function for Christmas, Mike? Oh! Make it something you have to pay for, like the Crystal Ball thingamajig.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That seems to be the general consensus. How do you feel about these fines, personally? (aka, not as a law student) It seems obvious to me that those fines weren't meant to exist in a world where copyright infringement is difficult to avoid; where an 8 year old can infringe on 1000's of works before breakfast for damn near no cost.
I think there needs to be an exception for personal use-- anywhere the infringing files aren't being sold directly. I know that idea makes a copyright maximalist's head explode, but it seems to be the only option that makes any sense. (Keeping in mind that you can legislate morality. See: US Prohibition)
If you want to make someone buy your non-scarce product instead of copying it from an unofficial source, you have to make them *want* to; you can't scare them into being a customer.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're thinking too transiently.
Death. Any infraction, no matter how small, results in being put to death. There, no more crime!! /s
Re: Re: Re:
Right, but they're not asking for a hypothetical, are they? They're not saying "Well, if she was hit with the maximum, would it be constitutionally legal?" They're asking if there is a constitutional limit to the amount someone can be charged for copyright infringement. That's not hypothetical. They could very well say yes, but the amount be greater than what JT has to pay.
I think they now know that JT was a bad case to be a champion, so they're trying to get whatever they can out of it, so when the next case goes to court maybe a little more sanity can be used when figuring these amounts.
I think that's why they're asking their question, and not yours.
Re:
I don't know, they might be asking the right question. If they asked your question, if the damages in this case exceeded the limit, it could be viewed that their answer could only apply to this case.
If they ask if there's a limit at all, then it applies to everything, including this case.