Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This art
CSS is encryption, you raving dumbass.
The fact that some people cracked their encryption is no reason to avoid liability under the law. Circumvention of technological protection measures is activating when they keep cracking copy-protections and avoiding the practices that entertainment industry put in place to protect against unauthorised copying of the material. The current case is no different, it still deals with unauthorised access of the protected content. You cannot claim that the access wasn't unauthorised.
idiot leeches like you seem to think that using someone else's property for free should cause instant success?
I divide the group of people like this:
1) people like bill gates who are extreamly wealthy
2) people like minecraft's authors who got their software sold to group (1).
3) people like me who got a product ready, but aren't yet successful
4) people like you, who never got a product ready, but are very loudly announcing their excellence in the blogosphere
5) pirates and criminals deserve another group
6) murderers and robbers are in one group
7) war criminals who murdered thousands or millions of people
That's about the classification that should be used. Can you explain which level in the classification you're at? Maybe I need to lower your status, if you're not in the group (4) like I expect.
to fuel his pipe wet dreams of impossible enforcement?
You shouldn't call things impossible too early in the process. Nazis and holocaust was also possible, even though no-one really considers it useful. Giving stuff "impossible" -label shouldn't be done without careful consideration.
Yes, I'm referring to the people who have made successful careers in this type of media.
But then your group wouldn't include thousands of people. There isn't anyone (but criminals) who have managed to make successful careers out of copyrighted works all alone. Your claim that thousands of people can pull this off isn't actually true.
Given that your claim of the size of the group has turned out to be inflated claims, I call the bullshit and declared this issue already resolved (and I won)...
Sure, itch.io has thousands of people offering games, but how many successful careers are there in that group? People get money amounts of $2 etc from years and years of work, so the group where successful career didn't come from copyrighted works seems to be larger. (and thus I should be bullying your smaller group)
I think I'll place my bets on the future of the industry with the thousands of people creating software that generates billions of dollars in content
This only works if you somehow manage to include random collection of people into same group, but somehow still exclude me from the group. There isn't good reasoning why I should be excluded from the group of thousands of people creating software.
This construction of yours which excludes one person from larger group is called "bullying" and we don't really like it.
compare your inferior product to the better stuff that's already available from way more productive and talented people.
Sadly your more productive and talented people are running with outdated software, when they didn't bother to upgrade their technology stack to use more modern webassembly based bleeding edge tech stack. Basically the limits in their chosen computing environment means that they're locked into inferior solution forever, at least until they rewrite their whole code-base.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This article was
If this is awesome to you, then you're even more incompetent and ignorant than we thought
There's very low bar in the law for considering your hacking skills criminally awesome. It's enough that you explore to areas of technology which in unavailable to other people due to legal problems. Basically, there's 3 main ways how it could happen: 1) bypassing login systems 2) circumvention of technological protection measures, 3) copyright infringement
All of them has the aspect where the hacker needs to explore illegal areas simply to do their hacking operations.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This article was
Says the guy who doesn't know what encoding he uses, or given some comments here what the difference is between that and encryption.
The legal statues that make the hacking activity illegal, already activates when the info is being decoded from its encoded form. I.e. the protections that control the usage of the confidential material does not need to be bulletproof. Even if persistent hackers manage to crack the protections, the legal framework gives encoded information possibility to sue the violators of hacking laws. This is why distributing DeCss for cracking dvd disks is illegal activity, even though entertainment industry failed to protect their intellectual property from persistent hackers. You've yourself mentioned that all and any copy-protection mechanism is fundamentally crackable, so you cannot now reverse and demand usage of encryption. A mere encoding is enough to protect government's valuable intellectual property, and legal framework can handle the violations.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This article was serious
a clear indication that your level of computer literacy is sub-par.
But your computer literacy isn't any better when you cannot keep browser's view-source dialog and the commandline tricks doing base64 decoding as separate operations. If you truly think that base64 decoding is part of view-source operation, your computer literacy is worse than sub-par.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This article was seriously misunderstood
I don't understand what that has to do with your claim that it's illegal to read sensitive information the government published by mistake.
It has the following keywords: "to be seen or examined by any person except as provided by law"... This basically forbids external entities from seeing or examining the confidential material once govt makes a mistake.
otoh, I don't know where that thread continues in the law. The piece I pasted was really bradley manning is doing evil stuff -kind of piece, but it doesn't talk about julian assange. But it indicates the activity is illegal, but I don't know where assange's full ruleset is described in the law. But maybe you can follow the law dependencies and find the "seeing or examining" keywords and watch where they lead to?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This article was seriously misunderstood
Regardless, it doesn't matter one bit. If the government publicly publishes sensitive information in whatever format, it's they that are breaking the law, not the ones reporting the governments mistake.
This is where you're wrong. Since government had done their web page correctly by encoding the information, it's the hackers who get access to the information that are outside of the law. It's perfectly fine approach for government to use legal means (as opposed to technical barriers) to protect their content. And probably web page performance reasons are preventing using encryption, so the base64 stuff is enough for the content they're handling. The legal barrier still exist and anyone who can access the information inside those encoded boxes can be legally procecuted. This is exactly what they're doing, once people decode the information inside these confidential areas, they can be procecuted for hacking related laws.
But good luck decoding web pages without hacking techniques. You can try to do that in my https://meshpage.org/view.php the drag&drop data is base64 encoded, so good luck decoding it without hacking techniques.
Re: Re: Re: Re: This article was seriously misunderstood by trol
If you think viewing HTML for a web-page is "sophisticated hacking"
With view-source, you can only uncover encoded information. At that point, you don't even have information that the web site is handling SSN's.
The sophisticated hacking techniques are needed for 1) installing compiler 2) writing base64 or rot13 decoding routines or finding them from a library 3) compiling the software, 4) recognizing the encoded information format and then copy-pasting the encoded information to the software as input 5) examining the result and finding SSN's hidden within the feed.
Basically it's not so simple as clicking view-source.
Re: Re: This article was seriously misunderstood by trolls on in
Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524 (1989).
The current case isn't about newspaper reporters photographing police department's bulletin board. Instead sophisticated hackers are using view-source mechanism to uncover decoded data that contains SSN's after hackers decoded the information. The knowledge that the data contains SSN's is dangerous, given that only illegal hacking techniques can uncover that information. And as such, that information needs to be considered confidential, and thus not to be distributed outside of explicitly permissible area of the world. Any actions taken with the knowledge that data contains SSN's is illegal, including distributing the encoded or decoded data in dark web, passing any of the decoded SSN's to other parts of government services, or publishing the fact that the web site contains SSN's, linking the web site and the information that it contains SSN's, uploading/downloading the encoded or decoded data or simply any other ways of helping black hat hackers to obtain the SSN's. Basically even the techdirt discussion about the subject is illegal.
Confidential subject matter is special kind of stuff in the world, because information flow needs to be restricted when handling that material. While the damage already happened when newspapers published the info, any subsequent publications need to be carefully evaluated whether such information flow is necessary. Good plan is to place the information inside large wall of text, so that new readers of the material cannot find the relevant information and black hat hackers have trouble indentifying which part of the text wall contains the confidential material.
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This art
The fact that some people cracked their encryption is no reason to avoid liability under the law. Circumvention of technological protection measures is activating when they keep cracking copy-protections and avoiding the practices that entertainment industry put in place to protect against unauthorised copying of the material. The current case is no different, it still deals with unauthorised access of the protected content. You cannot claim that the access wasn't unauthorised.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're demanding other people to do things that you wouldn't do yourself?
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This art
This isn't true. The SSN numbers were probably behind logins when the data was generated/stored in the servers.
This definitely isn't true. Government simply doesn't authorize general public from accessing SSN numbers in bulk.
This might be true.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I divide the group of people like this:
1) people like bill gates who are extreamly wealthy
2) people like minecraft's authors who got their software sold to group (1).
3) people like me who got a product ready, but aren't yet successful
4) people like you, who never got a product ready, but are very loudly announcing their excellence in the blogosphere
5) pirates and criminals deserve another group
6) murderers and robbers are in one group
7) war criminals who murdered thousands or millions of people
That's about the classification that should be used. Can you explain which level in the classification you're at? Maybe I need to lower your status, if you're not in the group (4) like I expect.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re:
You shouldn't call things impossible too early in the process. Nazis and holocaust was also possible, even though no-one really considers it useful. Giving stuff "impossible" -label shouldn't be done without careful consideration.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But then your group wouldn't include thousands of people. There isn't anyone (but criminals) who have managed to make successful careers out of copyrighted works all alone. Your claim that thousands of people can pull this off isn't actually true.
Given that your claim of the size of the group has turned out to be inflated claims, I call the bullshit and declared this issue already resolved (and I won)...
Sure, itch.io has thousands of people offering games, but how many successful careers are there in that group? People get money amounts of $2 etc from years and years of work, so the group where successful career didn't come from copyrighted works seems to be larger. (and thus I should be bullying your smaller group)
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This only works if you somehow manage to include random collection of people into same group, but somehow still exclude me from the group. There isn't good reasoning why I should be excluded from the group of thousands of people creating software.
This construction of yours which excludes one person from larger group is called "bullying" and we don't really like it.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re: Re: Re:
Sadly your more productive and talented people are running with outdated software, when they didn't bother to upgrade their technology stack to use more modern webassembly based bleeding edge tech stack. Basically the limits in their chosen computing environment means that they're locked into inferior solution forever, at least until they rewrite their whole code-base.
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This article was
There's very low bar in the law for considering your hacking skills criminally awesome. It's enough that you explore to areas of technology which in unavailable to other people due to legal problems. Basically, there's 3 main ways how it could happen: 1) bypassing login systems 2) circumvention of technological protection measures, 3) copyright infringement
All of them has the aspect where the hacker needs to explore illegal areas simply to do their hacking operations.
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This article was
The legal statues that make the hacking activity illegal, already activates when the info is being decoded from its encoded form. I.e. the protections that control the usage of the confidential material does not need to be bulletproof. Even if persistent hackers manage to crack the protections, the legal framework gives encoded information possibility to sue the violators of hacking laws. This is why distributing DeCss for cracking dvd disks is illegal activity, even though entertainment industry failed to protect their intellectual property from persistent hackers. You've yourself mentioned that all and any copy-protection mechanism is fundamentally crackable, so you cannot now reverse and demand usage of encryption. A mere encoding is enough to protect government's valuable intellectual property, and legal framework can handle the violations.
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This article was serious
But your computer literacy isn't any better when you cannot keep browser's view-source dialog and the commandline tricks doing base64 decoding as separate operations. If you truly think that base64 decoding is part of view-source operation, your computer literacy is worse than sub-par.
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This article was serious
They also cannot do it if you fail to use those awesome hacking skills you as a blackhat hacker own....
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This article was seriously misunderstood
It has the following keywords: "to be seen or examined by any person except as provided by law"... This basically forbids external entities from seeing or examining the confidential material once govt makes a mistake.
otoh, I don't know where that thread continues in the law. The piece I pasted was really bradley manning is doing evil stuff -kind of piece, but it doesn't talk about julian assange. But it indicates the activity is illegal, but I don't know where assange's full ruleset is described in the law. But maybe you can follow the law dependencies and find the "seeing or examining" keywords and watch where they lead to?
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This article was seriously misun
If you had actually tried to decode the data from my web site, you'd have noticed that it's not actually base64 encoded. So you're a failure.
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This article was seriously misunderstood
This is where you're wrong. Since government had done their web page correctly by encoding the information, it's the hackers who get access to the information that are outside of the law. It's perfectly fine approach for government to use legal means (as opposed to technical barriers) to protect their content. And probably web page performance reasons are preventing using encryption, so the base64 stuff is enough for the content they're handling. The legal barrier still exist and anyone who can access the information inside those encoded boxes can be legally procecuted. This is exactly what they're doing, once people decode the information inside these confidential areas, they can be procecuted for hacking related laws.
But good luck decoding web pages without hacking techniques. You can try to do that in my https://meshpage.org/view.php the drag&drop data is base64 encoded, so good luck decoding it without hacking techniques.
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: This article was seriously misunderstood by trol
With view-source, you can only uncover encoded information. At that point, you don't even have information that the web site is handling SSN's.
The sophisticated hacking techniques are needed for 1) installing compiler 2) writing base64 or rot13 decoding routines or finding them from a library 3) compiling the software, 4) recognizing the encoded information format and then copy-pasting the encoded information to the software as input 5) examining the result and finding SSN's hidden within the feed.
Basically it's not so simple as clicking view-source.
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: Re: This article was seriously misunderstood by trolls on in
The current case isn't about newspaper reporters photographing police department's bulletin board. Instead sophisticated hackers are using view-source mechanism to uncover decoded data that contains SSN's after hackers decoded the information. The knowledge that the data contains SSN's is dangerous, given that only illegal hacking techniques can uncover that information. And as such, that information needs to be considered confidential, and thus not to be distributed outside of explicitly permissible area of the world. Any actions taken with the knowledge that data contains SSN's is illegal, including distributing the encoded or decoded data in dark web, passing any of the decoded SSN's to other parts of government services, or publishing the fact that the web site contains SSN's, linking the web site and the information that it contains SSN's, uploading/downloading the encoded or decoded data or simply any other ways of helping black hat hackers to obtain the SSN's. Basically even the techdirt discussion about the subject is illegal.
Confidential subject matter is special kind of stuff in the world, because information flow needs to be restricted when handling that material. While the damage already happened when newspapers published the info, any subsequent publications need to be carefully evaluated whether such information flow is necessary. Good plan is to place the information inside large wall of text, so that new readers of the material cannot find the relevant information and black hat hackers have trouble indentifying which part of the text wall contains the confidential material.
On the post: Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim
Re: Re: Re: Re: This article was seriously misunderstood by trol
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1905
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re:
I'm sending actual people to virtual reality very cheaply.
On the post: Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist
Re:
That's why it's significantly cheaper than what space-x can do.
Next >>