Utterly Clueless’s Techdirt Profile

wbormann

About Utterly Clueless

I work in IT Security and mainly work on Authentication and Authorization problems.



Utterly Clueless’s Comments comment rss

  • Feb 12th, 2013 @ 6:53am

    Two Reasons Why ... (as William)

    There's two reasons why there will be pushback:

    1. This poorly written law is a great hammer to deploy against cyber activists that run afoul of the government, and the government will not give up this hammer easily.

    2. It is going to be very hard to fix this bill. Defining unauthorized access is a lot like defining what is pornographic. I see a lot of smart people struggling with this issue.

    At this point I'd urge patience (that means you, Anonymous!). We still need to see the MIT report, the Justice Department has to answer some questions from some important Congress Critters, and (hopefully) there will be some public testimony.

  • May 25th, 2012 @ 5:46am

    Cached links from Google in Bing? (as William)

    Any possibility this result in Bing was actually an old (pre-takedown) result from Google that was subsequently cached by Bing?

    Wouldn't that be rich irony!

  • Apr 8th, 2012 @ 5:50am

    Re: Re: Civil Court Case VS Criminal Court Case (as William)

    I'm big on "what is done" and not is "what is said/written." Let's focus on what the prosecution is doing, specifically, what they're proposing here.

    I'm just an ordinary fellow that really believes the idea that in a criminal case the accused is really "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." FYI: that happens when a jury, not "ANONYMOUS COWARD," says "GUILTY!"

    I've also witnessed what happens in a computer forensic investigation. We're talking PB of data here. Is it credible the prosecution could go through that quantity of data and do a competent investigation in a matter of days? I'd say no, unless there were hundreds (maybe thousands) of expert criminal forensic technicians, knowledgeable in the setup and operation of the cloud that used to be MegaUpload, able to work in a carefully coordinated manner for weeks, maybe months.

    I get it that the content producing industry, and artists of all sorts, think this guy is horrible and needs to rot in jail forever. If I were the victim of a crime I'd expect the state to seek justice for me.

    But justice must be fairly attained and not by compromising the faith that the people have in the legal system. I don't see how you can keep the faith if you don't preserve all the data and afford even an evil infringer the right to a defense. The basic requirement to that end is paying the $9K/day to save the data that used to be MegaUpload.

    And this simple fact is why I think the case is collapsing. If the government believed they had all the data they needed to get a "beyond a reasonable doubt" conviction they'd pay the money (by taking it out of the seized assets of MegaUpload). But the state doesn't want to do that even if "child pornography" is present.

    Like I said, I'm big on "what they do" and not "what they say." Given this, it sure looks like the government has doubts about their case.

  • Apr 7th, 2012 @ 6:23am

    Civil Court Case VS Criminal Court Case (as William)

    It's hard not to sympathize for Kim Dotcom. His company has been branded as a criminal enterprise and he's facing serious prison time. His business has been destroyed, never to return.

    It is hard to sympathize with the US Justice Department and their prosecutors. The cost of crony capitalism is coming home to roost. Their case is likely collapsing around them, and they found that out when they started looking at the data on the server. Now their reputations are on the line.

    I'd like to suggest to the justice department their first duty is to the integrity of the system. Pay to preserve all the data and afford Mr. Dotcom the ability to defend himself. That way, if you win, you win for all of us. Swallow hard, and man-up to the fact there's more at stake here than just putting a guy in jail.

    I'd like to suggest to the rest of the voting citizens of the country that it is time to think about how we will go about interrupting the relationship established by our business community (here, the [MP|RI]AA) with our legislative and executive branch. Frankly, the only answer I see is to vote against every incumbent (no matter what the party) in the upcoming elections.

  • Sep 22nd, 2011 @ 4:24am

    Re: It doesn't matter... (as William)

    You've got to be kidding. Google's search results are opinions derived from a clever algorithm. Last time I checked, opinions are protected speech, unless, of course, you want to "trim a little fat off the first amendment to the Constitution."

    Also, we know why Schmidt went and not Sergy and Larry. I suspect the other two would have stood up, given "the best legislators money can buy" the middle finger, and said something of the ilk "see you in court."