To be honest, if the choice is going to be between using crypto that the Russian (or Chinese, etc.) government can break and crypto the US government can break, I'd lean toward the Russian.
I suspect the balance will come with time -- eventually, the vast majority of people will have embarrassing things about them floating around the interwebs. When that point is reached, people won't really care about the embarrassing things everyone has floating around the interwebs.
There are other ways of handling it, too. Personally, I've been active on the internet for so long -- since before it was open to the public -- that I have plenty of such embarrassing stuff. However, I also maintain multiple online identities so that I can have different identities for different sorts of activities. "John Fenderson" is one such identity.
This doesn't give me anonymity since I've been maintaining these identities consistently for decades, and it wouldn't take more than a day or two to figure out what they all are and what my legal identity is. Nonetheless, it does enhance my privacy in that most people don't care enough to put in the effort.
My children and many of their friends routinely do very similar things, for very similar reasons. The kids today are working this stuff out. It's us old farts that have a problem.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think the court ruled correctly
Remember, I'm talking about what I understand the court is saying in this particular case. I'm not talking about the larger issue that would encompass things like ToS of services you are using.
The larger issue is much murkier, and is one that I suspect you & I are on the same page of.
"make this an issue about violating a business process"
No, not violating a business process so much as misusing the property of another.
If your computer is old enough, it's possible that your wifi hardware is on an expansion card and you could just remove the card. That would be the easiest thing to do.
If not, then my advice (as a fellow paranoid who does security-related development work) is just to disable it in the BIOS if possible.
While it is true that there exist exploits that can alter your BIOS settings, they're very rare -- and ordinary software has no chance of being able to change that setting. That stuff all happens at a level below the operating system itself, and is largely insulated from it.
In the end, though, this is a question of how secure you feel comfortable with. There is no such thing as perfect security no matter what, and the greater the level of security, the greater the inconvenience of it. Ultimately we all have to determine what level of security fits our individual situations.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think the court ruled correctly
Ack, I ended too soon.
"What about an employee who creates passwords and disseminates them to his colleagues on a regular basis for legitimate business reasons? "
Whether or not that's OK depends on the employer's policies. For instance, at my last employer the policy was that all credential sharing was prohibited (and a firing offense) under any circumstances. There is never a legitimate business reason to do so.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think the court ruled correctly
"Who determines who owns what?"
In this case, ownership was very clear. This was about an account provided by the employer to provide access to the employer's machines for the employer's purposes. The employer owned everything.
Are you asking about a normal computer rather than one embedded in your car? Then yes. The easiest way is to disable the hardware in the BIOS (which is pretty much as good as physical disconnection), but if you want to physically disconnect it, that is also possible.
The exact thing to do depends on your computer. Laptops are usually easiest. On my laptop, for instance, there's an access panel that reveals the antenna connection (usually two snap connectors) for the wifi. It can easily be unplugged and reconnected later if you wish. I've had laptops that didn't have such easy access, but opening the case completely reveals the connection.
The solution is clear. Disconnect the antenna that your car is using to talk over the cell network. There are readily available instructions for all sorts of car models on the internet.
"You flat out cannot buy more than a 15 day supply at once(well I supposed you might with a prescription from a doctor)"
In my state, a doctor's prescription is required for any amount. It's a big enough problem that a lot of allergy sufferers I know have friends out of the US buy it and mail it to them.
I understand, but I don't really see how this ruling has much to do with violating a ToS. It has to do with an employee misusing his employer's property.
Unless I misunderstand the court's ruling, they did not rule broadly that sharing passwords is a crime, but ruled that in this particular instance, the password sharing happened as part of an effort to intentionally bypass controls intended to keep the person out.
It seems pretty much the same as if you have a a key to your workplace and lent it to someone who was specifically prohibited from access.
That seems sensible and logical to me, and doesn't seem to comment on the more usual password-sharing events such as sharing your personal email password with a friend.
If your company lets you use a company car, you don't own it and you have no say as to its use beyond what the company allows. If you loan the car to someone else or otherwise use it in a way the owner of the car prohibits, then you have committed the crime of "unauthorized use of a motor vehicle". (Although the person you loaned the car to did not commit a crime unless he was aware that you did not have the authority to lend it to him.)
The counterargument is very weak, though. Legislators who want to incorporate standards could simply require that any such standards must be available to the public at no cost.
If a standard-creating entity wants their standard to have the force of law, then they have to provide a license that accomplishes royalty-free, unrestricted public access.
If no such third-party standard is available under suitable terms, then legislators must develop their own set of standards that are.
No "taking" is required to accomplish the public good.
On the post: Putin Says All Encryption Must Be Backdoored In Two Weeks
Re:
On the post: Should A Court Allow A Case To Disappear Entirely Because The Person Regrets Filing It?
Re: Re: Unexpected problems of the modern age
There are other ways of handling it, too. Personally, I've been active on the internet for so long -- since before it was open to the public -- that I have plenty of such embarrassing stuff. However, I also maintain multiple online identities so that I can have different identities for different sorts of activities. "John Fenderson" is one such identity.
This doesn't give me anonymity since I've been maintaining these identities consistently for decades, and it wouldn't take more than a day or two to figure out what they all are and what my legal identity is. Nonetheless, it does enhance my privacy in that most people don't care enough to put in the effort.
My children and many of their friends routinely do very similar things, for very similar reasons. The kids today are working this stuff out. It's us old farts that have a problem.
On the post: Putin Says All Encryption Must Be Backdoored In Two Weeks
As the old adage goes...
On the post: Appeals Court Says That Sharing Passwords Can Violate Criminal Anti-Hacking Laws
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think the court ruled correctly
The larger issue is much murkier, and is one that I suspect you & I are on the same page of.
"make this an issue about violating a business process"
No, not violating a business process so much as misusing the property of another.
On the post: Police Slowly Waking Up To Fact That Vehicle Network Security Is A Joke To Hackers, Thieves
Re:
If not, then my advice (as a fellow paranoid who does security-related development work) is just to disable it in the BIOS if possible.
While it is true that there exist exploits that can alter your BIOS settings, they're very rare -- and ordinary software has no chance of being able to change that setting. That stuff all happens at a level below the operating system itself, and is largely insulated from it.
In the end, though, this is a question of how secure you feel comfortable with. There is no such thing as perfect security no matter what, and the greater the level of security, the greater the inconvenience of it. Ultimately we all have to determine what level of security fits our individual situations.
On the post: Apple's IP Lawyers May Force YouTube MacBook Repair Videos Offline Over Schematic
Re: Re: Wait a sec...
Most people cannot afford to have lawyers sitting around.
On the post: Appeals Court Says That Sharing Passwords Can Violate Criminal Anti-Hacking Laws
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think the court ruled correctly
"What about an employee who creates passwords and disseminates them to his colleagues on a regular basis for legitimate business reasons? "
Whether or not that's OK depends on the employer's policies. For instance, at my last employer the policy was that all credential sharing was prohibited (and a firing offense) under any circumstances. There is never a legitimate business reason to do so.
On the post: Appeals Court Says That Sharing Passwords Can Violate Criminal Anti-Hacking Laws
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think the court ruled correctly
In this case, ownership was very clear. This was about an account provided by the employer to provide access to the employer's machines for the employer's purposes. The employer owned everything.
On the post: Police Slowly Waking Up To Fact That Vehicle Network Security Is A Joke To Hackers, Thieves
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Police Slowly Waking Up To Fact That Vehicle Network Security Is A Joke To Hackers, Thieves
Re:
The exact thing to do depends on your computer. Laptops are usually easiest. On my laptop, for instance, there's an access panel that reveals the antenna connection (usually two snap connectors) for the wifi. It can easily be unplugged and reconnected later if you wish. I've had laptops that didn't have such easy access, but opening the case completely reveals the connection.
On the post: Appeals Court Says That Sharing Passwords Can Violate Criminal Anti-Hacking Laws
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think the court ruled correctly
On the post: Police Slowly Waking Up To Fact That Vehicle Network Security Is A Joke To Hackers, Thieves
Re:
On the post: 'Circumstances' So 'Exigent' Narcotics Agents Could Have Watched 'Gone With The Wind' And Had Time To Spare
Re:
In my state, a doctor's prescription is required for any amount. It's a big enough problem that a lot of allergy sufferers I know have friends out of the US buy it and mail it to them.
On the post: 'Circumstances' So 'Exigent' Narcotics Agents Could Have Watched 'Gone With The Wind' And Had Time To Spare
Once every 2 weeks is nothing
I go through more than that just for my own personal use during allergy season.
On the post: Appeals Court Says That Sharing Passwords Can Violate Criminal Anti-Hacking Laws
Re: Re: I think the court ruled correctly
On the post: Appeals Court Says That Sharing Passwords Can Violate Criminal Anti-Hacking Laws
I think the court ruled correctly
It seems pretty much the same as if you have a a key to your workplace and lent it to someone who was specifically prohibited from access.
That seems sensible and logical to me, and doesn't seem to comment on the more usual password-sharing events such as sharing your personal email password with a friend.
On the post: Appeals Court Says That Sharing Passwords Can Violate Criminal Anti-Hacking Laws
Re: Re:
If your company lets you use a company car, you don't own it and you have no say as to its use beyond what the company allows. If you loan the car to someone else or otherwise use it in a way the owner of the car prohibits, then you have committed the crime of "unauthorized use of a motor vehicle". (Although the person you loaned the car to did not commit a crime unless he was aware that you did not have the authority to lend it to him.)
That's been the law for very, very long time.
On the post: Judge Responds To Open Records Request By Having Requester Indicted, Arrested
Re: Re:
On the post: Senate Funding Bill For State Dept. Asks It To Figure Out Ways To Stop Bad People From Using Tor
Re:
On the post: Standards Body Whines That People Who Want Free Access To The Law Probably Also Want 'Free Sex'
Re: Devil's Advocate
If a standard-creating entity wants their standard to have the force of law, then they have to provide a license that accomplishes royalty-free, unrestricted public access.
If no such third-party standard is available under suitable terms, then legislators must develop their own set of standards that are.
No "taking" is required to accomplish the public good.
Next >>