Wally 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (3172) comment rss

  • On the post: Bad Move: Google Removes AdBlock Plus From Google Play Store

    Wally ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2013 @ 11:20am

    Re: Re:

    "What about the app developer that depends on the cash generated from those ads? They're losing money from something they created that you're using. What are you losing?"

    Since when has a developer ever wanted their product being intruded upon with advertising from another app?

  • On the post: Bad Move: Google Removes AdBlock Plus From Google Play Store

    Wally ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2013 @ 11:16am

    Re: Re:

    AdBlock Plus also blocks Google's in house adverting on their search engine results. It is fairly intrusive when you are doing actual research.

  • On the post: Awesome Stuff: Little Devices That Help You Out

    Wally ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2013 @ 05:25pm

    The Automatic Link device is basically OnStar which now uses cellular signals to transmit data.


    The password key flash drive can be made from any rudimentary thumb drive that has as little as 64 megabytes in storage and a google search will tell you how to make one. Some companies use such flash drives as an authentication method. Albeit to store passwords, but that's all. myKeyID seems to help in situations where biometrics are shrunk into a flash thumb drive-sized device into an entire multi-level authentication device:-) That is totally cool :-) The weakness only lays in the fact that the device uses BluTooth (may not be encrypted) and likely relies on batteries...good thing it's flash memory but I do somewhat question the security of a device that uses a physical connection to power on. It could introduce potentially malicious code into a computer. After all that's how stuxnet got out into the wild...

    Heat metal is the only probably the most interesting one and could help save on ever rising natural gas prices.

  • On the post: Bad Move: Google Removes AdBlock Plus From Google Play Store

    Wally ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2013 @ 10:57am

    More Google being Google.

    This is something quite interesting. It is believed (rather falsely)that AdBlockPlus hurts advertisers. It doesn't, it only registers a hit to the advertiser and not to the content. Non of your personal information is given other than the fact that someone "saw" the advertisements on a page.

    Now of course that being said there is no real justification for Google to remove AdBlockPlus from GooglePlay for Chrome or Android. The whole point of AdBlock Plus is to view a web page unhindered and cleanly. Facebook is a VERY good example of where you would want to block advertising. A lot of those advertisements seem like legitimate links to the passing eye, and they are made to look like Facebook's own ad space "Sponsored Links".

    The only reason I think Google is

  • On the post: No, The Death Of Google Reader Doesn't Mean 'Free' Doesn't Work

    Wally ( profile ), 16 Mar, 2013 @ 08:23am

    Well this is sort of sad that Google is ending the program, but at least most public domain works are availible.

    Hey just a side note....I have had some issues signing in.... something about a certificate issues on the sign-in page.

  • On the post: Reuters Editor Faces 10 Years In Prison Because Vandalism Is A Federal Crime When It Involves Computers

    Wally ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2013 @ 05:07pm

    Re: Re:

    The term "conspiracy" is also coupled with willful intent when an act is committed. The differences are quite clear on various terms. You can conspire to kill the president and if someone actually goes through with the plan and gets arrested and you get implicated..would you not be investigated by the Secret Service or the FBI?

    Leigh, the point is that Matthew Keys not only conspired to have the LA Times website defaced, but handed over his security credentials to hackers so that they could do it. That does not lawfully remove him from telling them to do it for him. He conspired with the hackers with full willful intentions of defacing the LA Times website. He might not have caused irreparable damage but he did block the constitutional rights of the LA Times by having hackers deface the site.

  • On the post: Reuters Editor Faces 10 Years In Prison Because Vandalism Is A Federal Crime When It Involves Computers

    Wally ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2013 @ 05:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    How about accessory to domestic assault and battery. So loosing your house, your wife, your kids is the only punishment you deserve??? I don't think so...the last time I checked, you would get arrested for that, tried and convicted for up to 7 years for it. But given your comment here:
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130314/17103322330/reuters-editor-faces-10-years-prison-because-vandalism-is-federal-crime-when-it-involves-computers.shtml#c1070

    I am not surprised one iota you have a bit of trouble understanding the basic fundamentals of the legal terms in conspiracy, accessory, willful intent, and constitutional rights.

  • On the post: Reuters Editor Faces 10 Years In Prison Because Vandalism Is A Federal Crime When It Involves Computers

    Wally ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2013 @ 04:50pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...

    You want to talk the US Constitution...fine, you've got it dude:

    The intent was malicious intent, and that is not covered freedom of expression

    That being said, it seems to me that people are wrongfully comparing this to the case of Aaron Swartz's rights being violated in the same sense of his activist activities. Please tell me when Aaron Swartz ever gained illegal access to a website's server only to deface a former employer's web page? Since when did Aaron Swartz ever to intend to hand over the information he gathered to the wrong people to be used against his former employer?

    Lets look at what Aaron Swartz's clear intentions were before we start making snap judgments and comparisons to Mr. Keys here....

    Aaron Swartz intended to release public domain information and documents that you had to pay JSTR or PACER to see the documents digitally. That is peaceably protesting and taking the extra step for the greater good of everyone.

    Matthew Keys intended to have hackers deface the web page of his former employer, the LA Times, with his security credentials.

    Which person had a better intent here??? Which person actually had a chance to defeat the charges stacked up on them?

    It is extremely evident that Matthew Keys violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act via direct second person accessory. There is no way in Hell that defacing the LA Times' website is an act of freedom of expression because when that happens, it violates the freedom of expression that the LA Times has a right to under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and simultaneously the freedom of the Press clauses therein.

    In short, his method was illegal according to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as he was second party to the act he willfully conspired with or hired/convinced others to deface the LA Times website, and he violated the very Constitutional rights rights of the LA Times by having their website defaced.

  • On the post: Reuters Editor Faces 10 Years In Prison Because Vandalism Is A Federal Crime When It Involves Computers

    Wally ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2013 @ 02:14pm

    Re: Spread the blame where it's due

    It is sloppy IT, but that does not constitute the actions Key's took.

  • On the post: Reuters Editor Faces 10 Years In Prison Because Vandalism Is A Federal Crime When It Involves Computers

    Wally ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2013 @ 02:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...

    I am aware of this now and I thank you.

    The thing is that Keys had intent to let others gain illegal access to Tribune's system. That in itself constitutes willful intent of harm which is still worth 10 years in accordance to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

    Why Reuters would even be crazy enough to keep Keys employed with them after all that in the first place is beyond me though. If I had a secretary that gave out client information (which is confidential by law) that pulled a stunt like that, he/she would be gone in a flash.

  • On the post: Reuters Editor Faces 10 Years In Prison Because Vandalism Is A Federal Crime When It Involves Computers

    Wally ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2013 @ 02:00pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...

    Thank you for pointing that out to me.

    I still think it constitutes 10 years in prison though...I refuse to budge on that point :-)

  • On the post: Reuters Editor Faces 10 Years In Prison Because Vandalism Is A Federal Crime When It Involves Computers

    Wally ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2013 @ 10:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The sentence is carried in it and not only that, Keys decided to provide security credentials for hackers to access Reuters' content control system. I don't know how that can't cary 10 years after looking through the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Punishment is typically justifiably doubled with potential harm to financial institutions...mostly due to the fact that they have a huge affect on the economy. But I guess missing my point seems to be a tad bit of a hobby.

  • On the post: Reuters Editor Faces 10 Years In Prison Because Vandalism Is A Federal Crime When It Involves Computers

    Wally ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2013 @ 10:13am

    Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...

    If you intend to kill someone, and they survive....that's legally considered attempted murder.

    Likewise, if you hand over your security credentials to the wrong people with the intent of harming your former employers by giving said wrong people access to the content control of your employer's entire website, and nothing happens...it's the same as if you had done it in accordance to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The reason the FBI hasn't indicted Keys on further charges is simply because nothing happened to constitue no more than 10 years in prison...ergo nothing happened so the potetial minimum of 10 years in prison is the direct result of only the intent of William Keys in harming Reuters.

    It was likely his intension because he got fired or let go and he was not happy about it. He had the motive to do it and that's why he was investigated.

  • On the post: Reuters Editor Faces 10 Years In Prison Because Vandalism Is A Federal Crime When It Involves Computers

    Wally ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2013 @ 10:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...

    The reason why it relates is that Keys put a financial news institution in harm's way. That is also a very clear violation of The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It shows his malicious intent.

  • On the post: Reuters Editor Faces 10 Years In Prison Because Vandalism Is A Federal Crime When It Involves Computers

    Wally ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2013 @ 09:55am

    Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...

    The "Rueters" "Routers" mixup is autocorrect from iOS6. That does not make me automatically open to criticism on my speculations on the case. Read some of the comments from the article to understand why I reacted the way I did.

    ""Reuters editor Matthew Keys has been indicted for letting some hackers into the content management system of his former employer, Tribune, after he was fired. "

    He didn't allow anyone in...he just handed them the passwords.....after he got fired..that sure as heck sounds like a disgruntled employee to me.

    The content management system reports the constant rise and fall of stocks and condities trades and prices....not just financial or business news.

  • On the post: Reuters Editor Faces 10 Years In Prison Because Vandalism Is A Federal Crime When It Involves Computers

    Wally ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2013 @ 09:46am

    Re: Re: Trolls just please shut up...here's why...

    Ok, Keys gave passwords of his previous employer (Rueters) over to Anonymous.

    A) I would like you to tell me how you think he got those passwords (I only speculated on "how" and not on whether or not he did hand the passwords over). Acquisition of those passwords by Keys is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Either way, even if the Rueters website was or was not hacked, he still illegally got passwords and handed them over. He had intent of harm by passing them over to Anonymous (whom quite admirably did not act upon his request).

    B) The trolls I speak of are the ones stating that by some weird reason his accessory to attempt harming a website (which of all things reports on economic financial situations and has customers and investors depending on said news) should get lessor charges.

    C) I did not mean to come off as smug, but there is a specific reason the FBI handled it the way they did and as Mike Mansick pointed out in the article, the FBI did something right in a stepping forward toward actual restraint in pressing charges in this case.

  • On the post: Reuters Editor Faces 10 Years In Prison Because Vandalism Is A Federal Crime When It Involves Computers

    Wally ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2013 @ 08:18am

    Re:

    For Point A) Computer Fraud And Abuse Act states that being a willful accessory to these sort of crimes is in fact punishable as if you were committing them yourself...and since when is hiring a hitman to kill someone or to do your dirty work not a crime?

    For Point B) What's been established by you is his motive. Your Point B implies that Keys is a disgruntled employee...and in my view (and that of the FBI aparently...who actually uses paychology to figure out motive while profiling a suspect) who handled the situation poorly and could have done something better than get a a website hacked.

    For Point C) The damage done was to the Ruter's web server...which not only handles stories but also does regular up to date stock reports. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act had this specifically in mind when it was drafted and hacking the site would have caused economic damage well over $5,000 for its customers.

    5 years for the social engeneering hack, 5 years for accessory to a crime which he organized and asked for.

  • On the post: Reuters Editor Faces 10 Years In Prison Because Vandalism Is A Federal Crime When It Involves Computers

    Wally ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2013 @ 08:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Though it should be noted that if it were a bunch of passwords from federal computer system, he would be facing 10 years and $5,000 for each offense and that would fall out of FBI jurisprudence and straight into the DOJ and the US Secret Service.

  • On the post: Reuters Editor Faces 10 Years In Prison Because Vandalism Is A Federal Crime When It Involves Computers

    Wally ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2013 @ 08:03am

    Re: Re: Re:

    To answer your question about whether or not he had to hack to obtain the passwords:

    There are many types of attacks for hacking and accquiring passwords. One in particular is a social engineering attack where you simply look over someone's shoulder to see what they are typing as a password. Another is a macro virus or a Trojan sent in an e-mail attachment that looks legitimate.

    Both are considered social engineering hacking attacks. My guess is that Keys had to have used the former to gain access illegally due to the fact that most IT admins can more easily detect the latter. The other key factor into this speculation on how Keys did it (as it has been clearly established he did do it with mal-intent) is that he's an editor and likely has a photographic memory.

    Hacking to get the passwords aside, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act basically says that if you are in the responsible second party of an event, you also get charged to the same extent as those persons carry out an attack based on the information given to them. Keys was also an accessory to the crime. Both of which are punishable for 5 years for each offense.

  • On the post: Shocker: Court Says National Security Letters Are Unconstitutional, Bans Them

    Wally ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2013 @ 02:56pm

    Good..now we could try to find how this will apply to Six Strikes:

    Mike Mansick, just curious as to what you think about what I am about to point out.

    I think this ruling may have a wonderfully significant negative impact on Six Strikes. The MPAA and RIAA find out what you have been downloading through a BitTorrent Client for Six Strikes. I have a gut feeling this is a process very similar to an NLS. They ask for your personal client information from your ISP citing that they have to look at it to make sure the content you downloaded is not illegal.

Next >>