Let's say YOU (a US citizen) draw a picture of the prophet Muhammad. You post it to the interwebs. Some people in Iran look at your picture. The police in Iran arrest them, then also issue a warrant for your arrest. They also file the paperwork requesting the USA extradite you to Iran.
Now, should you just go, and face your charges, or should you resist extradition?
Let's review some of the circumstances: 1) You never visited the country that accuses you 2) that country has a bad record of over-exaggerated punishments for the crime at hand 3) You are a citizen, and live and work in another country, which is where you committed the alleged crime. 4) It seems like the accusing country has an irrational vendetta against you, and is also trying to shut down your business, seize all your assets, and tar you with a propaganda campaign.
Wow, that all also matches Kim Dotcom's situation! I guess the right choice for both of you would be to resist extradition, and try to face the more reasonable legal system of the country where you are, where you live, and where you committed the alleged crimes.
Re: Re: Re: Re: There's an Element of BS to This "Hack"
"Did you even both to read the Wired article? If what they claim is true, NO prior access is needed at all"
Did you not read what I read? I don't believe their claim.
If that claim WERE true, they would not have demonstrated on their own Jeep. They would have made their point by telling the wired reporter "Just rent ANY 2014 Jeep when you arrive in Chicago."
But they didn't. They supplied the car.
Perhaps they didn't hack a random vehicle because it isn't safe? Nope, that is not consistent with their know actions: The fact that they demonstrated on a public interstate shows that, for them, safety concerns are trumped by a dramatic news story.
When an owner modifies his own car, it's really more of a "mod" than a "hack". This news story headline would be more honest if it read "Guys Mod Their Car To Be Partially Remote Controllable".
I admit, I don't have a whole lot of proof to back up my claim, but then again, they haven't supplied much either. And given their record of sensationalizing this type of thing, I'll bet money that it's an exaggeration.
That Prius was completely opened up, and they were patched in with wires and laptops. It was basically a farce to think that the average person could fall victim. How many real victims have turned up in the two years since? Zero. So these guys lack credibility to me when they try to start a panic. I see clickbait.
That said, there are legit aspects to their findings. The weak separation of entertainment system and CANbus is important. That is what Chrysler will rush to patch. They are legit black hat hackers for finding that.
But the remote aspects are just fear-mongering. The hack wasn't done remotely. It was done in the car, then they went remote to control it. The part that scares people is their cars being remotely hacked from China, Russia, or Nigeria. That is not a revealed possibility.
...Imagine "Dear good sir. I, a Prince of Lagos, have taken control of your car. If you would like it returned to you, please wire $5000 to this bank account. May the good lord bless you, as I'm sure you are a good person." That is scary, but didn't happen...yet.
Also, I agree that car security is very important, and like most security, not adequate. Most big companies (and gov't) seem to rely on "Security through arrogance", which is one step weaker than "Security by anonymity".
These two hackers and the author strike me much as the lead-in to the 6 o'clock news: "What's in your car that might kill you? Stay tuned to find out."
The Jeep appears to belong to the hackers. So they had complete access prior to the Wired reporter arriving.
If they go into their own Jeep, modify the systems through an open port like the OBDII, then remote connect to the car, is that really "hacking into" someone's car?
I mean, my car has a app. If I have full access to the car, I can link the app to the car. Now I can honk the horn, activate the AC, open the sunroof from anywhere in the world. It's considered a feature.
People have been able to "hack" vehicles in this remote way for decades, so long as they had prior access. What about cutting the brake lines, or attaching a bomb that is remotely detonated. I could remotely activate a solenoid that shuts off fuel supply -- all on a 1920-2015 non-connected car?
This hack demo is theater. It would be far more frightening if they didn't have prior full access to the vehicle.
Now, I agree that there should be stronger security, and better firewalls between the entertainment and mechanical side. But this Wired story teaches us nothing...other that fear mongering grabs attention.
"they want us to believe that Snowden was such a genius that he was the only person capable"
Who is they? Nobody claims this.
Snowden was one of many who had access to the data. But he was the only one with the integrity to sacrifice his well-being and freedom so that the people could know what its government was doing. THAT is why only he came forward.
"nobody thought to do it before him"
Many probably did. But when you think about it, you think "Oh, shit, I will lose my job. What else? Hmmm...My boss tells me it's OK, just shut up. I have reported constitutional violations, but senior people told me to just carry on. If I leak it, my own government will come after me, possibly to kill me. I will be a pariah in my own country. Many will paint me as a villain. Everyone will search all my past for any vices and publicize them. I will never be safe, never return to my home."
Is it a surprise it takes a hero to choose the constitutional option?
If he were working for the Russians, Why TF would he have leaked anything at all. He would have just handed it to the Russians, and given them a monopoly on the information. Information is power, right?
Who DID he give the information to? The People. Power to the people? Hmmm. Sounds like a hero to me.
Re: Re: The Cost Is Not Really Out Of Line, But There Is Too Much Focus On High-End Service For A Few People.
I've worked on some research reports on video editing companies, and their data transport demand.
The pro post-production media shops almost all locate around (within hundreds of yards from) the key telecom "peering points" like One Wilshire Blvd. in Los Angeles. They do this because they want to tap in "mainline" that bandwidth. Also, that proximity allows upgrading with minimal trenching.
Re: Re: You'll need additional in house networking equipment
"Or you can have multiple people in a household using for 4k video" -- not really.
JohnnyRotten's point is that your existing wifi router, switches, Cat 5 wires, and NIC cards may all be inadequate to handle the speed - or even to share it to multiple PCs.
Even with mulitple PCs doing 4K, the bottleneck could still be the "in house networking equipment". Which, as said, isn't Comcast's fault.
I have my house wired at pretty much cutting edge, and it's 1 Gbps infrastructure. Few homes are wired for more. Actually, not "wired", but "cabled" is probably the operative word, since it would be in-wall fiber as the next step over Cat 6 Gig ethernet.
Sounds to me like this service is for show, not for actual sales. Fiber to the Press Release, as Karl wrote.
Re: By the way: Bitcoin is not backed by any substance, nor actually traceable, can be remotely deleted, and subject to fraud.
Others have noted that any FIAT currency, like the US$ is also faith-based.
But with bitcoin, the ability to print more is removed. The decision structure is distributed, not subject to the whim of a fed or central banker.
And I'd add that a lot of people want to go back to the "gold standard", but the value of even gold is faith based. Think about it - what fn use is gold? You can't eat it or build a house with it, so the only reason it has value is that we all agree that it is valuable. Diamonds are the same - a fake scarcity and marketing campaign has given us the impression this carbon is inherently valuable. It's not.
Rural citizens clamoring for universal service have every reason to do so. But for the most part:
- the contrast between our pitiful urban broadband speeds haven't been that different from your pitiful rural speeds.
-The contrast between our 1-2 providers hasn't been that different from your 0-2 providers.
NOW, if city slickers got 1GB connections, and you still had your lame satellite connection...well, then, you'd have a real case to argue that you are relatively disadvantaged, and need some love from the FCC and Universal Service Fund. Rural areas will always get broadband enhancements AFTER the urban areas. It will be through demanding gov't intervention that economically unattractive regions get upgraded.
But also, if ruralites get to enjoy the open spaces, less traffic, fresh air, less noise from neighbors, less crime, less graffiti, less litter, etc....Well, you also get to enjoy fewer shops, fewer services, slower broadband, etc. Has it ever been any different for humanity?