Watching the video, I know exactly why the marshall did it (beside obvious relishing in his abuse of power), the female taking the video was clearly running her mouth the entire time, attempting to encite a reaction from the marshalls.
So what? Should we really be sending the message that you need to worry that these guys are ticking time bombs and just might go off at the least provocation? How about we expect them to act like civilized adults capable of controlling themselves like every other law abiding citizen? When they fail, either stick 'em on administrative duties and (re?)train them on the finer points of the law, or fire them. If you or I'd done this, we'd be in trouble. Why isn't he, and all the others who pull this, contrary to what their superiors have often explained to them, that it's perfectly legal to do what she was doing?
What kind of threat does one (even mouthy) woman with a cell phone pose to them? They're the ones who're armed to the teeth.
Too expensive, too unreliable, and creates a horrible PR mess when they fail. Ask Jimmy Carter. They only barely pulled off the Abottabad caper. They had to destroy one of the choppers when it crashed. They were damned lucky they didn't lose any seals. Imagine having to explain to all the Support Our Troops people that you'd actually killed some of them.
Yeah, because no one hated us and ran terror attacks against us before we started retaliating for the terror attacks they ran against us!
Oh, come on! The US has a *long* history of pulling dirty shit, long before drones made it so easy for them to do so. The US has been undermining democratically elected governments for at least a century, even while lieing through its teeth when caught red handed.
Certainly, they do. My point is that whether they watch ESPN or not is irrelevant to ESPN. They still get to charge for those ad impressions whether real or mythical. If they're split out of the base package, they only get to charge for those who do watch (buy) ESPN.
The various mega breaches in 2014 are ample evidence that whatever the industry and these researchers are doing is simply not working.
You're missing the point of the problem here. It's not necessarily that the security folk don't know what they're doing. It's that companies resent having to spend money on them. They want to buy politicians and gulfstream jets and lawyers. They don't want to hire us smelly geeks who can't even speak English considering the mumbo jumbo we babble on about. Sony has been hacked numerous times over the years because they despise "wasting" money on IT.
In your average corporation, IT is considered a cost center, as in a drain on the bottom line. How is something that enables the business to reduce costs and increase sales via connectivity and computerized efficiencies a drain on the business? They'd rather spend it on marketing and advertising, jet setting around the world getting face time with stakeholders and partners, while we run from problem to problem applying bandaid fixes to what we can of it before we have to run off to fix the next imminent disaster; lather, rinse, repeat.
They think we went through all that Y2K stuff as a scam, 'cause once 2000 rolled around, no disaster! Well, yeah, we fixed all that broken stuff, or at least all we could find of it! They don't believe us and still resent that we somehow pulled a fast one and got away with something sneaky and underhanded.
Yet we're just a bunch of too expensive, prima donnas, smelly, socially inept geeks who can't even converse with normal people.
Don't assume that just because a customer doesn't want to pay for ESPN, they don't want to watch it.
Don't assume that just because a customer doesn't watch ESPN, that the latter won't sell those non-existent ad impressions anyway.
I agree Verizon should lose here. They're welcome to buy their way out of the contract, or not renew at the end of it, much like those infamous Early Termination Fees ISPs charge their own customers. How they thought they could get away with this, I don't know. However, maybe this is just using Microsoft's old tactic of stealing somebody's tech, then paying up when they're busted for infringing.
Heard the one about the boxing match, where a hockey game broke out?
I'm one of said Canadians. They lost me a couple of decades ago when millionaire players went on strike against billionaire owners, and we suffered through about the next six months listening to the media hand-wringing, "Is there still enough time to salvage the season? If not, will the strike be over before the beginning of next season?" The owners insisted they were just trying to protect fans from rising ticket prices (chyaa, right). The players wailed about how short a typical player's career was. Well, where did they think Tim Hortons coffee shops came from?
I'd say it does violate it. "We may disclose ..." is not equal to "We will disclose ..."
So whether they disclose the information or not, it doesn't violate the policy.
"May" implies (to a reasonable person who understands what the word means) that it could happen under certain specific, hopefully extraordinary, circumstances. It's used by lawyers to cover their client's butt.
"Will" implies something entirely different; a certainty. At the very least it's misleading, and as a potential customer I'd be incensed that I was lied to by someone who's taking my money.
You're astonishing! It's like you're standing in a hole and can't for the life of you figure out why continuing to dig isn't getting you any closer to escaping from said hole.
Do you not even bother to read what we're writing about this, or do you just blindly hit reply and continue to spout your line, come hell or high water?
Good luck with those libel suits. You're obviously going to need it.
Re: Privatizing large scale utilities doesn't chainge their large-government prerequisite.
So far, as weve seen with cable, internet service and telecommunications, the problems with large industrial utilities and services don't go away when they are privatized. You still need regulatory oversight.
We have regulatory oversight now, yet as you say, we have problems with large industrial utilities and services. It appears that's not the solution to the problem, and we're all wasting time and money paying for it for no demonstrable benefit. A special clique within society is making out like bandits off it, but that appears to be the only benefit, if it can be called that.
The FBI should have been beating the doors down to United first and foremost without even having to speak to Chris Roberts.
I'd also want to be talking to the FAA about this. Did they know this situation exists? Why did they allow this system to even get into the air? They're supposed to be certifying stuff like this for commercial airlines.
Reading some of the reactions to this story, it feels oddly reminiscent of Tony Blair beating himself up for that boneheaded mistake of enacting FOI legislation. $DEITY forbid that we get to learn about the authorities falling down on the job. Wouldn't it obviously be better for everybody if we just stick our fingers in our ears and sing "La la la ..."?
I can understand why Roberts was detained. Looking at that tweet alone, it seems like a threat.
So, did the FBI immediately contact the plane and insist they put it on the ground tout suite? No, they just sat around and waited for it to land leaving how many potential lives in jeopardy, in the air and on the ground.
This is a fibbie, United, and Boeing cockup, and they should all be extremely grateful and seriously embarassed for their actions.
What makes you think the badguys haven't already found it and were about to use it to commit mass murder? It sounds to me like it was pretty easy to do, like something a curious kid could have done. Somebody could have already been offering to sell this on the black market. Now that it's out, the idea's (hopefully) worthless and he may have just saved thousands of lives for free.
Oh, I see it now, it's just like the aliens who are among us to study us being discrete so we all don't panic.
And then the cheap ass duck blind the aliens are provided turns out not to have enough redundancy built in and fails killing a few *and* lets the proto-Vulcans see what the aliens are doing, leading them to do an about face back to the Dark Ages (ST:TNG).
Yeah, this sort of thing was entirely impossible to foresee. The fibbies should be banging their heads on the wall for this and Boeing deserves to be forced to fix it for free. "Important people" should be fired for this cockup.
This also explains why it took them so long to allow passengers to access onboard WiFi, because somebody in the know knew it could be a disastrous thing to do because they just blindly assumed it would be done via the existing system that's handling critical flight operations processes.
When I first heard of this, I was astounded that they were doing all of this on just the one system. One pizza box server for each would have been the smart way to go. How could they justify not doing that way?
On the post: US Marshal Shuts Down Citizen Recording By Grabbing Phone And Smashing It On The Ground
Re:
So what? Should we really be sending the message that you need to worry that these guys are ticking time bombs and just might go off at the least provocation? How about we expect them to act like civilized adults capable of controlling themselves like every other law abiding citizen? When they fail, either stick 'em on administrative duties and (re?)train them on the finer points of the law, or fire them. If you or I'd done this, we'd be in trouble. Why isn't he, and all the others who pull this, contrary to what their superiors have often explained to them, that it's perfectly legal to do what she was doing?
What kind of threat does one (even mouthy) woman with a cell phone pose to them? They're the ones who're armed to the teeth.
On the post: The CIA Will Keep Killing Civilians With Drone Strikes Because The 'Rules' For Drone Strikes Aren't Actually Rules
Re: Re:
Too expensive, too unreliable, and creates a horrible PR mess when they fail. Ask Jimmy Carter. They only barely pulled off the Abottabad caper. They had to destroy one of the choppers when it crashed. They were damned lucky they didn't lose any seals. Imagine having to explain to all the Support Our Troops people that you'd actually killed some of them.
On the post: The CIA Will Keep Killing Civilians With Drone Strikes Because The 'Rules' For Drone Strikes Aren't Actually Rules
Re: Re:
Oh, come on! The US has a *long* history of pulling dirty shit, long before drones made it so easy for them to do so. The US has been undermining democratically elected governments for at least a century, even while lieing through its teeth when caught red handed.
On the post: ESPN Sues Verizon For Trying To Give Consumers What They Want
Re: Re:
Certainly, they do. My point is that whether they watch ESPN or not is irrelevant to ESPN. They still get to charge for those ad impressions whether real or mythical. If they're split out of the base package, they only get to charge for those who do watch (buy) ESPN.
On the post: FBI And United Airlines Shoot The Messenger After Security Researcher Discovers Vulnerabilities In Airplane Computer System
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opportunistic reporting
You're missing the point of the problem here. It's not necessarily that the security folk don't know what they're doing. It's that companies resent having to spend money on them. They want to buy politicians and gulfstream jets and lawyers. They don't want to hire us smelly geeks who can't even speak English considering the mumbo jumbo we babble on about. Sony has been hacked numerous times over the years because they despise "wasting" money on IT.
In your average corporation, IT is considered a cost center, as in a drain on the bottom line. How is something that enables the business to reduce costs and increase sales via connectivity and computerized efficiencies a drain on the business? They'd rather spend it on marketing and advertising, jet setting around the world getting face time with stakeholders and partners, while we run from problem to problem applying bandaid fixes to what we can of it before we have to run off to fix the next imminent disaster; lather, rinse, repeat.
They think we went through all that Y2K stuff as a scam, 'cause once 2000 rolled around, no disaster! Well, yeah, we fixed all that broken stuff, or at least all we could find of it! They don't believe us and still resent that we somehow pulled a fast one and got away with something sneaky and underhanded.
Yet we're just a bunch of too expensive, prima donnas, smelly, socially inept geeks who can't even converse with normal people.
On the post: ESPN Sues Verizon For Trying To Give Consumers What They Want
Re: Re:
Don't assume that just because a customer doesn't watch ESPN, that the latter won't sell those non-existent ad impressions anyway.
I agree Verizon should lose here. They're welcome to buy their way out of the contract, or not renew at the end of it, much like those infamous Early Termination Fees ISPs charge their own customers. How they thought they could get away with this, I don't know. However, maybe this is just using Microsoft's old tactic of stealing somebody's tech, then paying up when they're busted for infringing.
On the post: NHL Bans Use Of Periscope Streaming By Media During Warmups And Intermissions
Heard the one about the boxing match, where a hockey game broke out?
Zzzzzzzzzz ...
On the post: Motel Decides It Should Just Start Faxing All Guest Info To Local Police Every Night
Re: Re: Re: Re: privacy policy
"May" implies (to a reasonable person who understands what the word means) that it could happen under certain specific, hopefully extraordinary, circumstances. It's used by lawyers to cover their client's butt.
"Will" implies something entirely different; a certainty. At the very least it's misleading, and as a potential customer I'd be incensed that I was lied to by someone who's taking my money.
On the post: Compare And Contrast Prosecution And Sentences Of David Petraeus With Government Whistleblowers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Justice? No, "Just us, and our friends and cronies."
On the post: Motel Decides It Should Just Start Faxing All Guest Info To Local Police Every Night
Re: Re: privacy policy
Motel 6 is not a LEO.
On the post: Motel Decides It Should Just Start Faxing All Guest Info To Local Police Every Night
Re: Re: privacy policy
I'd say it does violate it. "We may disclose ..." is not equal to "We will disclose ..."
On the post: Designer Still Pursuing Bogus Takedown Of Periodic Table Of HTML Elements; Has No Idea How Copyright Works
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you not even bother to read what we're writing about this, or do you just blindly hit reply and continue to spout your line, come hell or high water?
Good luck with those libel suits. You're obviously going to need it.
On the post: Compare And Contrast Prosecution And Sentences Of David Petraeus With Government Whistleblowers
Re: Privatizing large scale utilities doesn't chainge their large-government prerequisite.
We have regulatory oversight now, yet as you say, we have problems with large industrial utilities and services. It appears that's not the solution to the problem, and we're all wasting time and money paying for it for no demonstrable benefit. A special clique within society is making out like bandits off it, but that appears to be the only benefit, if it can be called that.
On the post: FBI And United Airlines Shoot The Messenger After Security Researcher Discovers Vulnerabilities In Airplane Computer System
Re: A reasonable question for Reasonable Coward
I'd also want to be talking to the FAA about this. Did they know this situation exists? Why did they allow this system to even get into the air? They're supposed to be certifying stuff like this for commercial airlines.
On the post: FBI And United Airlines Shoot The Messenger After Security Researcher Discovers Vulnerabilities In Airplane Computer System
Re: Re: Sympathize with the feds on this one
On the post: FBI And United Airlines Shoot The Messenger After Security Researcher Discovers Vulnerabilities In Airplane Computer System
Re: Sympathize with the feds on this one
So, did the FBI immediately contact the plane and insist they put it on the ground tout suite? No, they just sat around and waited for it to land leaving how many potential lives in jeopardy, in the air and on the ground.
This is a fibbie, United, and Boeing cockup, and they should all be extremely grateful and seriously embarassed for their actions.
On the post: FBI And United Airlines Shoot The Messenger After Security Researcher Discovers Vulnerabilities In Airplane Computer System
Re: Dunno why they don't teach this (explicitly) in school...
On the post: FBI And United Airlines Shoot The Messenger After Security Researcher Discovers Vulnerabilities In Airplane Computer System
Re:
On the post: FBI And United Airlines Shoot The Messenger After Security Researcher Discovers Vulnerabilities In Airplane Computer System
Re: Re:
And then the cheap ass duck blind the aliens are provided turns out not to have enough redundancy built in and fails killing a few *and* lets the proto-Vulcans see what the aliens are doing, leading them to do an about face back to the Dark Ages (ST:TNG).
Yeah, this sort of thing was entirely impossible to foresee. The fibbies should be banging their heads on the wall for this and Boeing deserves to be forced to fix it for free. "Important people" should be fired for this cockup.
On the post: FBI And United Airlines Shoot The Messenger After Security Researcher Discovers Vulnerabilities In Airplane Computer System
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When I first heard of this, I was astounded that they were doing all of this on just the one system. One pizza box server for each would have been the smart way to go. How could they justify not doing that way?
Next >>