Not an Electronic Rodent’s Techdirt Profile

hammy

About Not an Electronic Rodent




Not an Electronic Rodent’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 27th, 2016 @ 1:08pm

    Re:

    There is also the failure of the PD's to check to see if there is open WiFi when they get the location.
    Or any WiFi for that matter. It's not like secured WiFi is particularly hard to break into and I would imagine a 1/2 tech-savvy criminal would prefer the police give them fair warning by breaking down a neighbour's door instead.

  • Sep 22nd, 2016 @ 6:22am

    A cunning plan

    Totally a brilliant idea - assuming you're an Italian politician of course:
    Step 1 / Pass really stupid law outlawing mockey.
    Step 2 / Use really stupid law to sue anyone who points out it's a really stupid law because they're mocking your work.
    Step 3 / Profit!

  • Sep 20th, 2016 @ 10:16am

    Re:

    how is this legal?
    "Because we, and many large corporations like us, all of whom have way more money than an entire nation full of you will make in a lifetime bought a law that says it is, that's why. You don't expect elected representatives to listen to people about laws, do you?"

  • Sep 17th, 2016 @ 5:04am

    You really want to say that?

    He also doctored his performance evaluations and obtained new positions at NSA by exaggerating his resume and stealing the answers to an employment test. In May 2013, Snowden informed his supervisor that he would be out of the office to receive treatment for worsening epilepsy. In reality, he was on his way to Hong Kong with stolen secrets.
    Sooooo, you claim you promoted the guy based on a forged resume? And he got away because he claimed he was ill? Sound like what you're really claiming is that, as an intelligence agency, your intelligence gathering and counter-espionage skills are so woefully inadequate as to be unable to spot ploys about as advanced as "I didn't hand in my homework 'coz the dog ate it", and "I'm sorry I can't come to work this Monday, I've got a 24 hour virus"

  • Sep 15th, 2016 @ 8:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Penalties

    The answer is to vote in politicians who won't be bought but good luck with finding them.
    Therein lies the issue - In order for a politician to get in a position to be elected to anything important, chances are they've already been bought.

  • Sep 13th, 2016 @ 10:21am

    Or...

    But in just a week or so, we've seen examples of how two of the biggest studios in Hollywood can't even figure out their own takedown notices properly.
    Paramount Studios: "We can, too, figure it out, it's simple... But we don't have to bother! Why? Because f*ck you, cash-cows, that's why!"

  • Sep 12th, 2016 @ 11:00am

    Re: Re: Re:

    In the same way that there's no difference between brandishing a firearm at someone and dropping a predator missile on their house, right?

  • Sep 12th, 2016 @ 10:56am

    Does that suggest.....?

    IAN(even slightly)AL, but that sounds to me like some intrepid litigator ought to gather together a bunch of people who have been screwed over by the CFAA and take a run at it. I imagine there's unlikely to be a shortage of candidates for plaintiffs...

  • Sep 12th, 2016 @ 8:59am

    Re: Re:

    An interesting counter-point, but I tihnk there's a distinction to be made in the state's exercise (read abuse, IMO) of its power.
    Indeed. Possibly one of the hardest lines to draw - Logically, there has to be a line where stupid/assholish behaviour crosses into actual abuse worthy of punishment by law, but it's nothing you could ever point to, except on a case-by-case basis.

    On the other hand, IMO the abuse of a position of power over someone to intimidate or harass is is good step towards crossing that line - especially by agents of the Government...

  • Sep 9th, 2016 @ 1:15am

    Re:

    The reference and the use of assets in that manner seems futile and risky, unless of course you are hoping to get a whole bunch of exposure online for the results through sites like Techdirt and Torrent Freak.
    Or maybe they were fans and there was something Mario-related that inspired them to create something new.... you know... like normal people.

    Creation is always based on "someone else's work" and most normal people don't even consider the insane over-reach that has become "derivative works" until they run face-on into it.

  • Aug 31st, 2016 @ 2:19pm

    Re:

    A = B
    C = B
    so: A = C

    or:
    Theft = Bad
    Copying = Bad
    so: Theft = Copying
    Your problem is your maths is off;
    Theft = Bad
    Copying = {Good,...,Bad}
    so: Theft <> Copying

    See?

  • Jul 28th, 2016 @ 9:38am

    Re: Re: immediately disqualified

    That would disqualify all major party candidates of the last 100 years (and a majority before that).
    I must have missed the part where that would be a bad thing?

  • Jul 25th, 2016 @ 5:51am

    Re:

    we need to cut out the bad parts to save the system
    I think you meant, "Cut out the bad parts and rebuild the entire system from first principles", there, but I agree with the sentiment. Courts ought to be essentially open and even-handed instead of covering up systemic corruption and biased in favour of the rich and powerful.

  • Jun 11th, 2016 @ 5:09am

    Re: It's Obama

    I am wondering which party figures it out first... that supporting a lying politician gets everyone no where.
    Apart from getting everyone elected to office and/or in a position to negotiate favourable laws and "trade" deals to make themselves and cronies even more of the already ludicrous money they already control, you mean? Of course it doesn't get "normal" people anywhere, but they don't count, do they?

  • Jun 9th, 2016 @ 7:17am

    Close, but...

    No, Edward Snowden had not sparked a global debate about privacy
    Well he's sort of right, in that aware people in the UK knew privacy was being screwed long before Snowdon and attempted to debate it... but the UK Government response has always been similar to the rest of his tirade - i.e. sticking his fingers in his ears and going "La, la la la la! I'm not listening!"

  • Apr 23rd, 2016 @ 2:24am

    Re: Would you like a border sham? Would you like it Sam-I-am?

    Where "border" includes international airports, so by far the majority of the U.S., and particularly the majority of its citizens, are not under the protection of the Bill of Rights these days.
    Doesn't even need to include airports to be outrageous... A quick look suggests that an area over 5x the size of the entire United Kingdom is encompassed by "100 miles from the actual border".

    According to the ACLU, the "border" exemption applies to approx 2/3 of the US population! (~200 million people!)

    From this side of the pond it increasinly looks like the US government is like: "Oh, yeah... the Constitution... fabulous document... in the abstract. Let's just not have it apply to actual people, right?"

  • Apr 15th, 2016 @ 5:26am

    What the (*&%*&%$*&%(*^^)%$%$!!!!!

    Not sure how the hell you get a trademark on "No.3" when Pimms No.3 has been around on and off since about 1851.... Trademark law is dumb.

  • Apr 1st, 2016 @ 5:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Only part of the problem

    Not only do they not (or at least, none of the major ones I know of), but they make it a point to tell you very clearly that they don't, and if anyone calls to claim otherwise, don't talk to them.
    But UK banks, credit card companies, insurance companies and others do and if you complain about it, the answer is basically "tough shit".

  • Mar 31st, 2016 @ 3:38pm

    Re: Re: Only part of the problem

    My bank has never, not once, called my and requested a password. In fact, my bank has (obnoxiously) often sent me emails telling me they cannot access my password, and will never request it on a phone call or email
    Yeah, that's what they say and as far as your online password that's correct. However, phone bank services etc often use a "password" as shorthand, or sometimes certain characters of a passphrase. Failing that, they will usually verify your identity with personal details such as DOB, mother's maiden name etc... in the case of insurance, sometimes make/model/reg of vehicle.

    All this I have no problem with.... except when they phone you and request this kind of info, which (I suppose US banks may not), UK banks etc do all the time.

    And no, I don't give out that kind of information... I find the call centre number independently and ring them back to discuss whatever it is so I can be sure I'm actually talking to the company they claim to be.... I've even complained about the practice and got told "Well that's just how we do it and we have to prevent fraud" - basically a "We're doing it to cover our ass, not yours"

    My point is that this kind of practice conditions most people to simply answer this kind of question to (at least) anyone that they think they have a trust relationship with. People putting their password into the site of a "trusted brand" is hardly surprising considering.

  • Mar 31st, 2016 @ 10:58am

    Only part of the problem

    Whatever the list of password do's and don'ts are, that list must certainly include something about not simply typing your passwords into online search fields for fun.
    The saddest bit is that, stupid though it is, people are largely conditioned to accept this kind of social engineering attack (Yes I know it wasn't an attack, but it may as well have been!).

    How often to banks/credit card companies/insurance companies ring you up and demand you "verify" your identity by handing over all sorts of personal info and/or passwords? Basically the same thing.

    As for password security.. well :
    Obligatory XKCD

More comments from Not an Electronic Rodent >>