I believe that is correct. Payroll deposits to your account are already recorded with the IRS as part of the income tax process, but really aren't what they are looking for. What would be interesting here is if someone was being paid under the table in values less than $10,000, depositing the money, and at the end of the year declaring the money as income (as is required by law) and paying appropriate taxes, and still running afoul of this and having their money seized.
I've worked for places before (a long time ago,) that paid their employees with cash, but still reported to the IRS in the form of a W-2. I don't know of any that still pay cash, but I am sure there are a few small businesses that still do.
The ultimate goal of Copyright as stated in the US Constitution is "piracy".
The ultimate goal of Copyright as stated in the US Constitution is "sharing".
Piracy is discussed in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 10,) and the Constitution specifically states that Congress has the power to define and punish Piracy and other felonies on the high seas. As far as I am aware, Congress has not defined piracy to be copyright infringement. Also, the punishment for Piracy is usually up-to and including the death penalty.
I assume the heat from the water is what destroys the label??? If so, could that not be shielded?
My greatest concern (haven't really heard anything about the technology used except here,) would be how the label is destroyed? In the pre-2.0 versions, the foil is punctured (which has bothered me in the past considering the paint they use on the foil, and how much if any of the paint gets carried into the coffee. If they are destroying the label, what is the likelihood that the paint could end up in the coffee and what sort of a health concern would that introduce to the coffee (not that coffee isn't already a potential health concern.)
There is a lot of proprietary software that is excellent and not at all obnoxious. There's no reason not to support that.
*Now*. There is absolutely nothing preventing the proprietary software from being excellent and not at all obnoxious in the future, say when they get bought out or the developer takes the Microsoft Crack model and runs with it. (I have a lot of proprietary software, and very few of them have gone this way, but I've been burned.)
The real question isn't so much whether or not it's proprietary, but whether or not it's good, fit for purpose, and free of nasty behaviors. Open source software can fail on those points too, after all.
The only difference here is that with open source, you still have the source code and can fork at the moment the developer went wonky. Case in point, Observium or Nessus, both of which were open source up until the developer decided to close the source and kick all the other developers off the team. Observium was forked to LibreNMS, and Nessus became OpenVAS, and for the most part life went on. Trying to do that with a closed source/proprietary system can be far more difficult.
But otherwise, I totally agree with your sentiment. Use what works, but if you rely on closed source/proprietary software, realize that there is a huge risk you are taking relying on something that may disappear tomorrow (no matter how unbelievably small the chances are.)
Re: Re: "Tomorrowland" has always missed the mark...
As for trips to the moon and beyond Gene Cernan is disappointed that he is known as the last man to walk on the Moon.
Me too. I really wanted to set up a homestead up there.
But seriously. Our radio and visual telescopes are having a real problem with noise right now. We generate way too much of it, and even efforts to reduce and eliminate noise haven't been as effective. There are still tons of people out there with Sodium Vapor and Halogen lamps, brightening the night sky with light and radio noise pollution. Establishing a scientific base on the moon would allow for us to build huge radio telescopes and great regular telescopes, without the need of providing fuel and sending astronauts into LEO in order to fix them.
Having been to Disneyland recently, and having fond childhood memories of the place, it is amazing how dated and wrong most of the predictions "Tomorrowland" has made. We don't have flying cars, we don't have scheduled trips to the moon or Mars bases, and even a lot of their household "upgrades" have failed to materialize or become viable (though some have come true in ways that the futurists didn't even predict: robotic vacuum cleaners that are the shape and size of a small stack of plates versus the monstrosities they had on display.)
But our world has advanced in many ways they didn't dream of, such as fast and highly versatile computers that can fit into a Altoids tin, personal handheld communicators and/or ear-fitted communicators, safer highways, etc.
Looking for Tomorrowland for our future will never give us a good idea of what technology will exist, but it will (as sci-fi books and futurists have shown,) give us some indication of the cultural struggles and ethical implementations of that future technology being implemented. I am sure there were just as many people who went to Tomorrowland with the sense of dread of what the future may bring as those with the sense of awe and wonderment.
I guarantee, Mr. deGrasse-Tyson, that in the future, someone looking back fondly to today's predictions of the future will have the same view as we have looking back at the 50's when Tomorrowland first appeared. None of the technology we live by today appeared instantly...it grew in small steps. I remember when people complained about cell phones being too big and unwieldy just as much as they complain about them being too small now.
Further supporting the $1300 instead of $62: As an officer, why would you bother taking $62 from someone like that? $62 is in no way a suspicious amount of cash.
Certainly. Taking any money from anyone shouldn't be done unless the money is evidence for Drugs, Larceny, or Robbery (and even then, only if it is evidence.) Putting the money in your back pocket should never happen (or even keeping it in you hand.) The money should not have been removed until it could be placed in an evidence bag or under the control of several officers who could account for the collection and control of the evidence.
The article said they were responding to a report of a man with a gun. So frisking the guy is reasonable. But the cash is obviously not a gun. The officer really has no business taking it no matter how much is there. And the use of pepper spray is not defensible in that situation.
I read that too. The gun call would be grounds for a terry pat-down, in any city in the US. A terry pat-down does not involve the removal of any non-weapon items, and the officer can only remove an item to determine if it is a weapon. Stop and frisk apparently goes further than a terry pat-down, but even then, you are right, there is absolutely no reason why the money was seized.
While I don't condone the officer's behavior, I also have to question the individual who claimed to have $1300 in cash. Anyone can make up an arbitrary number like that in order to make this into a bigger issue than it is. Without proof that he had that money, such a recent cashed check or an ATM withdrawal slip, then there's no way for the suspect to prove that he had that money.
The article linked said it was the man's birthday. It is entirely possible that the $1300 was a gift. Not likely, but it is possible. Would be hard to show a receipt for a gift.
The stash of money shown in the clip appears to be all bills, nicely kept together, which he is slipping into his back pocket. Possible it was a collection of 5's and 1's, but I am not sure why anyone would stack 5's and 1's in such a nice bundle.
It is likely the police removed $62 from him, but it is equally likely, without proper accountability, that it was $1300.
I can see it now... Holland, Saturday night, a very stoned IT guy is watching Elysium...
Damn, I was thinking the same exact thing.
What is interesting is with Elysium, they had satellite tracking of John Carlyle, was able to see him from multiple angles via satellite. Had remote controlled, or at least remote managed robots along with hovering and quickly moving spy drones with defensive and offensive weaponry, and yet they still let him die even though he had the source code to reboot Elysium stuck in his head (wouldn't want that to get compromised by just anyone.) Those guys were there for quite some time, fighting with his robots, and long enough that the villain could be notified and picked up, yet the robot police cavalry never showed up. (Sure, the movie had a lot of holes, but I still loved it.)
Wonder if we could expect the same from this technology? "We would save you, but gosh darn, there are people far more wealthy than you that need saving. Please report to the police station once you are safe as we need to talk to you about some of the stuff you've been doing lately."
And if you wanted to contest the robbery, you'd have to take it up with the judge, somehow, but better hurry, because your former property was going on the selling block as of now.
I suspect that, now with only 233 domains showing up as owned by the domain seller, the property is gone now and this will only be solved by suing the parties involved (and you won't likely get your property back.) I haven't found any of the other 5000 domains, so I can't verify they've already been sold or not, but I suspect they may have been sold to other scammers.
Luckily my one .com wasn't part of this land-grab. But I had to make sure, since nobody has actually published a list of the 5000 domains grabbed. It would be interesting to see a list, but so far looking at the 233 up for sale on the domain sellers site, there is an awful lot of what looks like vanity and unrelated domains on there.
No, "my feeble excuse" is NIST and ISO standards the recommend/require in some cases deauthorization of unauthorized 802.11 traffic.
Citation please.
I am not aware of any NIST guidance that requires WIFI deauth packets be used. NIST SP 800-153 talks about using WIDPS only for monitoring. General NIST guidance is that rogue access points should physically be removed. PCI DSS does not say anything about deploying automated wifi containment, and section 11.1 talks about using IDS/IPS only for monitoring for rogues. The PCI DSS Information Supplement v2.0 talks about using containment, but only against devices that are connected to the CDE. It also recommends physical removal of rogue access points. "Many wireless IPS systems provide the ability to prevent clients from associating with an unauthorized AP or can disable an ad-hoc network. However, efficacy of these techniques varies widely, and while they can provide adequate temporary mitigation of the risk, unauthorized devices should be physically removed from the CDE as soon as possible" - https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/pdfs/PCI_DSS_Wireless_Guideline_with_WiFi_and_Bluetooth_082211. pdf, section 4.3.1.
And best practices are against you. Note, the last document is a CISCO best practices document, that specifically states "Note that it is critical to evaluate (or avoid altogether) rogue auto-containment, as there are potential legal issues and liabilities if left to operate automatically."
Jamming the airwaves is absolutely legal, as long as the FCC grants its specific approval, and the jammers stay within the authorized parameters set by the FCC license.
Re: Re: So what are you waiting for my comments...
This is hysterical and a point about I hope is automated stuff is, the comment I was complaining about was on point and made sens where as this was pure anger and it got though and the other didn't.
Don't take it personal...he isn't trying to stop terrorists, but Steve the spammer who keeps posting his "I love me" links. You look a lot like Steve, so the server gets confused and has to have a human look into whether you are Steve or just someone who looks like him. They usually get it sorted out pretty quickly.
Getting an account usually saves you the grief, because the server then knows that you probably aren't Steve, but then you have to worry about the guys with wrenches and crowbars going after you for your password (in case you ever forget yours, this will make a lot more sense...Mike pops up the XKCD security comic whenever you forget your password.)
On the other hand, how many scammers are offering their "free" wifi which can steal people's information?
Why should Marriott or anyone else care what is being done on anything other than their own WIFI? If someone sets up a "FreeMarriott" access point on their property, they can ask that person to leave, but they don't have any legitimate reason to care if someone sets up "FreeMarriott" in their personal vehicle sitting on a public street broadcasting next to the hotel (except maybe for use of Trademark.) What is worse, is that scammers don't need to create something called FreeMarriott to scam, all they really need to do is break into Marriott's poorly locked down computers or sit on their WIFI and sniff the unencrypted traffic and they are done.
If the hotel really wants to prevent this from happening, provide the user with a WPA2-PSK key to use to connect to the hotel wifi, or even set up RADIUS, create an account for the person checking in, and give them their own key to connect to the WIFI using WPA2-Enterprise, and call it a day.
There is no legitimate reason to use DEAUTH jamming; none. Not even for protecting your own WIFI. It is only used by heavy handed monopolists and petty bureaucrats.
If you described it as "our system sends out messages requesting that clients disconnect from the access point, which they are able to ignore"
This isn't something that you can easily, technically, ignore.
Ignoring DEAUTH packets is a violation of the RFC, and generally causes bad thingsTM to happen. How do you manage entering and leaving a WIFI cell without DEAUTH? How do you handle an access-point going off-line, switching channels, etc. And how do you handle trade-offs between access points. If your solution is to just ignore it, you are potentially performing a denial-of-service against your own connection, or causing harm to the WIFI network you are connected to.
There isn't any way to ignore DEAUTH packets using standard available drivers right now, though you could modify firmware/drivers to accomplish this. There is work being done on implementing real management frame authentication capabilities through 802.11w, though I am not aware of any equipment that currently provides this capability.
If I walk down the street asking people to hang up their phones, that doesn't make me a human cell phone jammer.
If you walk down the street asking people to hang up the phone, they still have a choice to ignore you, punch you in the face, etc. You aren't jamming their phone connection. With deauth packets, you are jamming their connection, and the FCC rightly doesn't like the jamming of public airwaves.
What would be really interesting, in a situation similar to this one, is what would have happened on the Hotel side if the people being jammed just turned around and jammed the hotel right back. Would the hotel be screaming for the cops to intervene when their WIFI network was taken down?
I'm pretty sure one of the top requirements to run for public office is a complete and utter inability to admit to having been wrong, on any topic, no matter how important or insignificant the matter is.
I know this is a shot in the dark, but you really don't know how spot on you are with this comment (or maybe you do.) This is the same San Diego District Attorney who *allegedly* (though the actual letter signed by her and with her letterhead has been published) wrote a recommendation for the son of a foreigner who is now under investigation for illegally contributing campaign contributions to local politicians (which may have included her, indirectly, through a SuperPAC) in exchange for favors.
Two of the TV stations near me offer live broadcast streaming of their content. You just go to the website and click the button that says "Watch TV" and you get a live stream of what is on that channel at that moment, with very little perceptible lag (I can run the stream on my computer and watch the TV and there may be as much as a couple milliseconds between the audio of both and the video is hard to see any difference.)
And I've not seen any issue with blackouts on the content. They may exist, but I am not watching the live stream when they occur to see them. The same commercials play, along with the same TV shows. The only problem is that you have to watch the content via a web-browser using a flash capable plugin.
Neither channel has sports on them, so that may be a different issue.
having to take a cab to the center in Atlanta summer heat is too much for many
I'd love to go to DragonCon, if it wasn't in Hot-Lanta.
Been there, done that. Like having a hacker conference in Las Vegas during the middle of the summer...not the smartest group of people (but then again, they are both extremely popular so someone must have done something right.)
On the post: IRS Also More Than Willing To Steal Money Under The Pretense Of Crime Fighting
Re: Re: So Wait
I believe that is correct. Payroll deposits to your account are already recorded with the IRS as part of the income tax process, but really aren't what they are looking for. What would be interesting here is if someone was being paid under the table in values less than $10,000, depositing the money, and at the end of the year declaring the money as income (as is required by law) and paying appropriate taxes, and still running afoul of this and having their money seized.
I've worked for places before (a long time ago,) that paid their employees with cash, but still reported to the IRS in the form of a W-2. I don't know of any that still pay cash, but I am sure there are a few small businesses that still do.
On the post: Copyright Maximalists And Lobbyists Insist 'Criminal Elements' Are A Part Of The Copyright Reform Effort [Updated]
Re: The devil is in the details.
The ultimate goal of Copyright as stated in the US Constitution is "sharing".
Piracy is discussed in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 10,) and the Constitution specifically states that Congress has the power to define and punish Piracy and other felonies on the high seas. As far as I am aware, Congress has not defined piracy to be copyright infringement. Also, the punishment for Piracy is usually up-to and including the death penalty.
On the post: Antitrust, DRM & Coffee: Is It Illegal For Keurig To Lock Down Its Brewers?
Re: Re: Re:
My greatest concern (haven't really heard anything about the technology used except here,) would be how the label is destroyed? In the pre-2.0 versions, the foil is punctured (which has bothered me in the past considering the paint they use on the foil, and how much if any of the paint gets carried into the coffee. If they are destroying the label, what is the likelihood that the paint could end up in the coffee and what sort of a health concern would that introduce to the coffee (not that coffee isn't already a potential health concern.)
On the post: Nintendo Bricks Wii U Consoles Unless Owners Agree To New EULA
Re: Re:
*Now*. There is absolutely nothing preventing the proprietary software from being excellent and not at all obnoxious in the future, say when they get bought out or the developer takes the Microsoft Crack model and runs with it. (I have a lot of proprietary software, and very few of them have gone this way, but I've been burned.)
The real question isn't so much whether or not it's proprietary, but whether or not it's good, fit for purpose, and free of nasty behaviors. Open source software can fail on those points too, after all.
The only difference here is that with open source, you still have the source code and can fork at the moment the developer went wonky. Case in point, Observium or Nessus, both of which were open source up until the developer decided to close the source and kick all the other developers off the team. Observium was forked to LibreNMS, and Nessus became OpenVAS, and for the most part life went on. Trying to do that with a closed source/proprietary system can be far more difficult.
But otherwise, I totally agree with your sentiment. Use what works, but if you rely on closed source/proprietary software, realize that there is a huge risk you are taking relying on something that may disappear tomorrow (no matter how unbelievably small the chances are.)
On the post: Neil deGrasse Tyson Attacks 'Startup Culture,' Demonstrates Lack Of Understanding About Innovation
Re: Re: "Tomorrowland" has always missed the mark...
Me too. I really wanted to set up a homestead up there.
But seriously. Our radio and visual telescopes are having a real problem with noise right now. We generate way too much of it, and even efforts to reduce and eliminate noise haven't been as effective. There are still tons of people out there with Sodium Vapor and Halogen lamps, brightening the night sky with light and radio noise pollution. Establishing a scientific base on the moon would allow for us to build huge radio telescopes and great regular telescopes, without the need of providing fuel and sending astronauts into LEO in order to fix them.
On the post: Neil deGrasse Tyson Attacks 'Startup Culture,' Demonstrates Lack Of Understanding About Innovation
"Tomorrowland" has always missed the mark...
But our world has advanced in many ways they didn't dream of, such as fast and highly versatile computers that can fit into a Altoids tin, personal handheld communicators and/or ear-fitted communicators, safer highways, etc.
Looking for Tomorrowland for our future will never give us a good idea of what technology will exist, but it will (as sci-fi books and futurists have shown,) give us some indication of the cultural struggles and ethical implementations of that future technology being implemented. I am sure there were just as many people who went to Tomorrowland with the sense of dread of what the future may bring as those with the sense of awe and wonderment.
I guarantee, Mr. deGrasse-Tyson, that in the future, someone looking back fondly to today's predictions of the future will have the same view as we have looking back at the 50's when Tomorrowland first appeared. None of the technology we live by today appeared instantly...it grew in small steps. I remember when people complained about cell phones being too big and unwieldy just as much as they complain about them being too small now.
On the post: NYPD Officer Takes Cash From Man During Stop-And-Frisk; Pepper Sprays Him When He Asks To Have It Returned
Re: Re: Re:
Certainly. Taking any money from anyone shouldn't be done unless the money is evidence for Drugs, Larceny, or Robbery (and even then, only if it is evidence.) Putting the money in your back pocket should never happen (or even keeping it in you hand.) The money should not have been removed until it could be placed in an evidence bag or under the control of several officers who could account for the collection and control of the evidence.
The article said they were responding to a report of a man with a gun. So frisking the guy is reasonable. But the cash is obviously not a gun. The officer really has no business taking it no matter how much is there. And the use of pepper spray is not defensible in that situation.
I read that too. The gun call would be grounds for a terry pat-down, in any city in the US. A terry pat-down does not involve the removal of any non-weapon items, and the officer can only remove an item to determine if it is a weapon. Stop and frisk apparently goes further than a terry pat-down, but even then, you are right, there is absolutely no reason why the money was seized.
On the post: NYPD Officer Takes Cash From Man During Stop-And-Frisk; Pepper Sprays Him When He Asks To Have It Returned
Re:
The article linked said it was the man's birthday. It is entirely possible that the $1300 was a gift. Not likely, but it is possible. Would be hard to show a receipt for a gift.
The stash of money shown in the clip appears to be all bills, nicely kept together, which he is slipping into his back pocket. Possible it was a collection of 5's and 1's, but I am not sure why anyone would stack 5's and 1's in such a nice bundle.
It is likely the police removed $62 from him, but it is equally likely, without proper accountability, that it was $1300.
On the post: Dutch IT Contractor Suggests Letting Police Have Direct Real-Time Access To All Of Your Devices... For Your Safety
Re:
Damn, I was thinking the same exact thing.
What is interesting is with Elysium, they had satellite tracking of John Carlyle, was able to see him from multiple angles via satellite. Had remote controlled, or at least remote managed robots along with hovering and quickly moving spy drones with defensive and offensive weaponry, and yet they still let him die even though he had the source code to reboot Elysium stuck in his head (wouldn't want that to get compromised by just anyone.) Those guys were there for quite some time, fighting with his robots, and long enough that the villain could be notified and picked up, yet the robot police cavalry never showed up. (Sure, the movie had a lot of holes, but I still loved it.)
Wonder if we could expect the same from this technology? "We would save you, but gosh darn, there are people far more wealthy than you that need saving. Please report to the police station once you are safe as we need to talk to you about some of the stuff you've been doing lately."
On the post: 5,000 Domains Seized Based On Sealed Court Filing; Confused Domain Owners Have No Idea Why
Re: Court approved robbery
I suspect that, now with only 233 domains showing up as owned by the domain seller, the property is gone now and this will only be solved by suing the parties involved (and you won't likely get your property back.) I haven't found any of the other 5000 domains, so I can't verify they've already been sold or not, but I suspect they may have been sold to other scammers.
Luckily my one .com wasn't part of this land-grab. But I had to make sure, since nobody has actually published a list of the 5000 domains grabbed. It would be interesting to see a list, but so far looking at the 233 up for sale on the domain sellers site, there is an awful lot of what looks like vanity and unrelated domains on there.
On the post: FCC Fines Marriott For Jamming Customers' WiFi Hotspots To Push Them Onto Hotel's $1,000 Per Device WiFi
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not at all surprised by that, given that they tend to want people to lie and hide the use of Stingray in court or court documents.
On the post: FCC Fines Marriott For Jamming Customers' WiFi Hotspots To Push Them Onto Hotel's $1,000 Per Device WiFi
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Citation please.
I am not aware of any NIST guidance that requires WIFI deauth packets be used. NIST SP 800-153 talks about using WIDPS only for monitoring. General NIST guidance is that rogue access points should physically be removed. PCI DSS does not say anything about deploying automated wifi containment, and section 11.1 talks about using IDS/IPS only for monitoring for rogues. The PCI DSS Information Supplement v2.0 talks about using containment, but only against devices that are connected to the CDE. It also recommends physical removal of rogue access points. "Many wireless IPS systems provide the ability to prevent clients from associating with an unauthorized AP or can disable an ad-hoc network. However, efficacy of these techniques varies widely, and while they can provide adequate temporary mitigation of the risk, unauthorized devices should be physically removed from the CDE as soon as possible" - https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/pdfs/PCI_DSS_Wireless_Guideline_with_WiFi_and_Bluetooth_082211. pdf, section 4.3.1.
And best practices are against you. Note, the last document is a CISCO best practices document, that specifically states "Note that it is critical to evaluate (or avoid altogether) rogue auto-containment, as there are potential legal issues and liabilities if left to operate automatically."
On the post: FCC Fines Marriott For Jamming Customers' WiFi Hotspots To Push Them Onto Hotel's $1,000 Per Device WiFi
Re: Re:
I'll just leave this right here.
On the post: Ferguson's Strategy Regarding Journalists: Charge Insane Fees For FOIA Requests
Re: Re: So what are you waiting for my comments...
Don't take it personal...he isn't trying to stop terrorists, but Steve the spammer who keeps posting his "I love me" links. You look a lot like Steve, so the server gets confused and has to have a human look into whether you are Steve or just someone who looks like him. They usually get it sorted out pretty quickly.
Getting an account usually saves you the grief, because the server then knows that you probably aren't Steve, but then you have to worry about the guys with wrenches and crowbars going after you for your password (in case you ever forget yours, this will make a lot more sense...Mike pops up the XKCD security comic whenever you forget your password.)
On the post: FCC Fines Marriott For Jamming Customers' WiFi Hotspots To Push Them Onto Hotel's $1,000 Per Device WiFi
Re: On the other hand
Why should Marriott or anyone else care what is being done on anything other than their own WIFI? If someone sets up a "FreeMarriott" access point on their property, they can ask that person to leave, but they don't have any legitimate reason to care if someone sets up "FreeMarriott" in their personal vehicle sitting on a public street broadcasting next to the hotel (except maybe for use of Trademark.) What is worse, is that scammers don't need to create something called FreeMarriott to scam, all they really need to do is break into Marriott's poorly locked down computers or sit on their WIFI and sniff the unencrypted traffic and they are done.
If the hotel really wants to prevent this from happening, provide the user with a WPA2-PSK key to use to connect to the hotel wifi, or even set up RADIUS, create an account for the person checking in, and give them their own key to connect to the WIFI using WPA2-Enterprise, and call it a day.
There is no legitimate reason to use DEAUTH jamming; none. Not even for protecting your own WIFI. It is only used by heavy handed monopolists and petty bureaucrats.
On the post: FCC Fines Marriott For Jamming Customers' WiFi Hotspots To Push Them Onto Hotel's $1,000 Per Device WiFi
Re: Re:
This isn't something that you can easily, technically, ignore.
Ignoring DEAUTH packets is a violation of the RFC, and generally causes bad thingsTM to happen. How do you manage entering and leaving a WIFI cell without DEAUTH? How do you handle an access-point going off-line, switching channels, etc. And how do you handle trade-offs between access points. If your solution is to just ignore it, you are potentially performing a denial-of-service against your own connection, or causing harm to the WIFI network you are connected to.
There isn't any way to ignore DEAUTH packets using standard available drivers right now, though you could modify firmware/drivers to accomplish this. There is work being done on implementing real management frame authentication capabilities through 802.11w, though I am not aware of any equipment that currently provides this capability.
If I walk down the street asking people to hang up their phones, that doesn't make me a human cell phone jammer.
If you walk down the street asking people to hang up the phone, they still have a choice to ignore you, punch you in the face, etc. You aren't jamming their phone connection. With deauth packets, you are jamming their connection, and the FCC rightly doesn't like the jamming of public airwaves.
What would be really interesting, in a situation similar to this one, is what would have happened on the Hotel side if the people being jammed just turned around and jammed the hotel right back. Would the hotel be screaming for the cops to intervene when their WIFI network was taken down?
On the post: TSA Kangaroo Court Rubber Stamps TSA Fining Guy Who Stripped Naked, Completely Dismissing Court Ruling Finding It Legal
Re:
Oh, don't worry Ninja, the TSA already thinks about the children that go to the airports.
On the post: San Diego District Attorney Issues Warning About Dangerous Spyware She Purchased & Distributed; But Still Stands By It
Re: Re: Accountability
I know this is a shot in the dark, but you really don't know how spot on you are with this comment (or maybe you do.) This is the same San Diego District Attorney who *allegedly* (though the actual letter signed by her and with her letterhead has been published) wrote a recommendation for the son of a foreigner who is now under investigation for illegally contributing campaign contributions to local politicians (which may have included her, indirectly, through a SuperPAC) in exchange for favors.
On the post: Not Just Consumers Cutting The TV Cord: Small Cable Companies Dropping TV Also
Re: Streaming is great, but live TV is key
Two of the TV stations near me offer live broadcast streaming of their content. You just go to the website and click the button that says "Watch TV" and you get a live stream of what is on that channel at that moment, with very little perceptible lag (I can run the stream on my computer and watch the TV and there may be as much as a couple milliseconds between the audio of both and the video is hard to see any difference.)
And I've not seen any issue with blackouts on the content. They may exist, but I am not watching the live stream when they occur to see them. The same commercials play, along with the same TV shows. The only problem is that you have to watch the content via a web-browser using a flash capable plugin.
Neither channel has sports on them, so that may be a different issue.
On the post: San Diego Comic-Con Fighting With Salt Lake City Comic Con Over Trademark
Re: Re: Re: Re: What Con?
I'd love to go to DragonCon, if it wasn't in Hot-Lanta.
Been there, done that. Like having a hacker conference in Las Vegas during the middle of the summer...not the smartest group of people (but then again, they are both extremely popular so someone must have done something right.)
Next >>