I work as a software developer and getting devices correctly configured can be hard. Just bricking them is dumb. It would be nice if they got smart, configured it correctly, and changed the password to their own. Many people are of the "plug and play" variety. If the gadget can just plug in and start working they are happy.
I know it is easy to say people are too stupid, but my mother just turned 80. She doesn't want to learn about URL's, browsers, IP addressing, and so on. If her router would just plug in and she can get on "The Internet" she is happy.
Since these hackers are so smart they can hack in and brick the routers and other gadgets, why not fix them? Apply the patches and then secure the router with a new ID and password. Make it a random password and secure it in a database so that they can go back and apply updates as necessary.
Most likely the IOT owners will never even know they were hacked. If they do a reset so that they can gain some control, they will at least have an updated and patched system. Make it even better, include a custom patch that will force a password entry, even if they forget the password they put in, it won't be a default one. Especially don't let them use one from the books (like password, 1234, and etc.).
Since I live near the coast of the Chesapeake Bay, am I in the country or not? Or am I in that nebulous 100 to 103 mile "Constitution Free" zone (that is still governed by US law but not the constitution)?
How can someone that is covered by US law that is granted by the power of the constitution not be covered by the constitution when it comes to the non-LEO rights?
OK, let me get this straight, a state AG filing a headline getting lawsuit. That means there is an election coming soon and the taxpayers are going to pay for the AG name recognition to get the AG elected to something. What did I miss?
The way trade deals are supposed to work are as a non-zero sum game where everybody is better off. Since they are discussing it as a "who wins" situation, then they are approaching it from the wrong perspective. Of course, it would really help if it were a trade deal and not a "how can my big legacy company lock in more profits for the next decade" deal.
In a real trade deal, citizens would come out the winners, not the huge conglomerate companies. But we know that won't be happening with Trump involved.
I'm willing to work on that. Pay me what I deserve for working on the impossible and a budget for 100 of my closest friends to work on it and we will. I mean after all, if we self-identify as nerds and are going to get thrown, we at least deserve a big enough salary for being impugned with labels and sent off to work on an impossible problem.
The FBI is leaking like a sieve in this case because this is how Comey is "controlling the narrative". That is what is becoming important in the law enforcement community. Seeking justice is not as important as controlling the narrative and getting a conviction.
The interesting thing about automotive legislation is that so far goals are set instead of methods. That allows room for innovation to still meet the goals without being overbearing. For example, an MPG goal was set and some automakers changed the frame and bodywork to make them lighter but still safe, others improved the engine to get higher conversion rate from fuel to available energy.
I've heard a saying that a boat is just a hole in the water that you keep throwing money in. This Cyberwar is just going to be another "war" like the war on drugs, where our tax dollars are going to disappear down a dark hole, never to be seen again (well except as some corporate executives private jet).
Once it starts (and I'm guessing that it already has, Stuxnet anybody) it will never end. It will just be talking points, secret interpretations of secret laws and a very big bill for taxpayers. There will never ever be the part of the story that says "The End".
Now instead of all that trouble with trials, just sue someone out of the country that won't show up for the trial (how can they actually be in jurisdiction) and get a default judgement against a bunch of un-involved third parties who have to submit to the judgement. That's going to fill up the courts very soon. Just wait until the thin-skinned president finds out that this work.s The US courts are going to be filled with all kinds of suits against people in Turkey to force down the content he doesn't like. Easy-peasy and no actual trial to worry about.
From the excerpts is sounds like what he is going to require shortly is that in some way, IoT merchandize is going to need to be registered (and some small but perpetually increasing fee paid to DHS) before it can be offered for sale.
This will cover the cost of all of the time it takes DHS personnel to make PR announcements. After all, businesses have no vote, so if a new business tax is passed people tend to be happy because they don't have to pay it (isn't that a joke), so the new law gets passed and we end up paying the tax with higher prices for every product sold anyway.
Again, why are the police worried about an ambush from a false signal and not a true one?
Because, while exercising their god complex they have veered so far from the truth they have forgotten what the truth is, and yet, have not formed a fully detailed backstory yet for their lies.
Also, because, convictions are now better than prevention. If the crimes would be prevented because the purported criminals knew that the NYPD would be able to catch them because of they advanced technology they could employ, then arrest rates would decline, conviction rates would decline there would be less need for so many NYPD police running around.
Heaven forbid, that would mean a smaller budget and less prestige. We can't have that, now can we?
This is one of those cases where they don't want prevention, they want convictions. It is curious how there is so much talk about preventing crime, but here, where if everyone "knew" (which they have for decades), how easy it is to listen in on every electronic communication, then it would prevent crimes from happening. But no, they want convictions, not prevention, so let's just keep hiding the "means and methods" because if criminals know this, they might not commit crimes. Wow, their illogic is making my head hurt.
Maybe (or at least I hope) the FCC is giving the big ISPs enough rope to hang themselves here.
And, another big maybe, the FTC is going to EVENTUALLY step in because of the false advertising. How many times are we going to have to go down the road that "unlimited" means one thing and it is not what is being delivered? Can the ISP's just rewrite the definition of words the way that law enforcement does to get anything they want?
Or, maybe this is the same as the "best effort" that LEO's make when they stop somebody on a made up law just to create probable cause.
I threw out a suggestion as part of a conversation. My point was that their chosen option of "boom, your dead" is not supposed to be an acceptable choice in the United States. It rings of the approach of "Judge Dredd" days approaching.
What other suggestions do you have other than "boom, your dead" option they chose. Something less lethal is what I had in mind. A military response is not supposed to be the first choice. Negotiations or wait him out (no food, no sleep will eventually make him slow and stupid).
Maybe even send in a big box of flash-bangs to blind and deafen him before sending in the "troops" would work.
He was cornered and contained by a large force of police. Where was he going to go, what was he going to do.
The bomb on a robot was a stupid and embarrassing idea and the police are no longer on that slippery slope, they are running as fast as they can down the hill into dangerous territory with no stop in sight.
OK, so sleeping gas may not be it, but what have you got?
OK, I can understand a desire to terminate the situation as soon as possible. However; why couldn't they load up the robot with tear gas or sleeping gas instead of a bomb. This might inconvenience anyone nearby that got a dose of gas, but at least then nobody gets dead and there is a WHOLE LOT less explaining to do.
I guess the new police as military troops need to kill not capture the enemy (I mean suspect).