"No, hacking implies that the system was not in your control, and was taken over nefariously or by other non legal means"
Yes, I am perfectly aware that this is what many people think "hacking" means now. I'm simply unwilling to stop fighting the battle against this corruption of the term. At least until we have a new term that can replace the traditional meaning of "hacking".
You're trying to inject logic into a well-established idiom like "dog eat dog". The idiom may not make literal sense (few idioms do), but that's what it is nonetheless.
The history of this idiom is particularly interesting and explains your observation of its biological inaccuracy:
Canis caninam non est is an old Latin proverb that translates to dog will not eat dog. The modern version, seen first in the 1930’s, is a play on the old one, suggesting that society had turned so vicious, that dog is now capable of eating dog.
[F]rom an operational standpoint, it takes about two years to fully utilize and integrate a discovered vulnerability.
Wait a minute. The two years the authors are talking about is not the time to develop a new attack, it's the time it takes from once they have code in hand that performs the attack.
Two years? That seems like an incredibly long time. I've never worked for or with a company that would consider that acceptable.
My problem with the TPP is not the free trade part (which the TPP does little to address, in my opinion). It's the corporate sovereignty part that makes it completely unacceptable to me.
"Twitter et al. should let ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other groups roam freely everywhere they see fit, leverage the power to broadcast their message, potentially to millions of people, all around the world, with each tweet, with each video, with each Facebook post,"
Twitter, as well as all the other private platforms, can do what it likes.
However, I am very opposed the idea that censoring propaganda, etc., is a good and desirable thing. It's the direct opposite of that.
If Twitter (or whoever) is shutting down accounts because they're abusive, consist of violent threats, etc., then I congratulate them.
If, however, they are shutting down accounts that don't do these things but are instead run by "terrorists" or are used for recruitment, propaganda, or any other protected speech, then I condemn them.
I'm certain not against Bitcoin at all, but PayPal does have at least one advantage over it: if something goes wrong, you can theoretically sue PayPal.
Twitter can do what it wants, obviously, but I'm very uncomfortable with this business about "deleting terrorist accounts". How are they determining what counts as worthy of deletion? Twitter isn't saying, but they admit that it's a bit of a "know it when you see it" thing:
As we mentioned in February, and other companies and experts have also noted, there is no one “magic algorithm” for identifying terrorist content on the Internet.
Also, they seem to be combining two entirely different things: accounts which advocate violence, and accounts which appear to be supportive of terrorist groups. I'm OK with the former -- it's usually very clear when someone is urging violent action -- but I'm not OK with the latter. What counts as "supportive"? What counts as a "terrorist group"?
What ensures that people won't be silenced just because they express strong criticism of their government, or because they were engaging in discussion about a terrorist group?
On the post: Woman Sues After Police Destroy Her Home During 10-Hour Standoff With The Family Dog
It's proven once more
On the post: Recording Industry Whines That It's Too Costly To Keep Copyright Terms At Life Plus 50, Instead Of Life Plus 70
Re: Too confusing you say?
The lack of mandatory registration makes the copyright system unworkable and unfair regardless of the specific copyright term lengths.
In my opinion, that was why they pushed so hard to remove the mandatory registration that we used to have.
On the post: Woman Sues After Police Destroy Her Home During 10-Hour Standoff With The Family Dog
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Federal Election Commission To Crack Down On 'Deez Nuts' As Presidential Candidate
Re: Re: Unintended consequences
On the post: Australian Law Enforcement Hacked US Users' Computers During Child Porn Investigation
Re: Re: Re: No hacking, just good police work
Yes, I am perfectly aware that this is what many people think "hacking" means now. I'm simply unwilling to stop fighting the battle against this corruption of the term. At least until we have a new term that can replace the traditional meaning of "hacking".
Here's an excellent essay about the tradition meaning of the word: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/meaning-of-hack.html
On the post: Woman Sues After Police Destroy Her Home During 10-Hour Standoff With The Family Dog
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The history of this idiom is particularly interesting and explains your observation of its biological inaccuracy:
http://barkpost.com/origins-strange-dog-expressions/
On the post: Why The NSA's Vulnerability Equities Process Is A Joke (And Why It's Unlikely To Ever Get Better)
Two years?
Wait a minute. The two years the authors are talking about is not the time to develop a new attack, it's the time it takes from once they have code in hand that performs the attack.
Two years? That seems like an incredibly long time. I've never worked for or with a company that would consider that acceptable.
I'm actually disappointed.
On the post: Federal Election Commission To Crack Down On 'Deez Nuts' As Presidential Candidate
Unintended consequences
On the post: Uber Wasting No Time: Launching Test Of Self-Driving Cars
Re: Re: Re: I like to drive
On the post: Australian Law Enforcement Hacked US Users' Computers During Child Porn Investigation
Re: No hacking, just good police work
On the post: With Republicans Backing Away From TPP, Does It Still Have Any Chance?
Re:
On the post: Twitter Suspends Hundreds Of Thousands Of Terrorist Accounts, Gives Everyone Its 'Quality Filter'
Re: Seriously Mike?
Twitter, as well as all the other private platforms, can do what it likes.
However, I am very opposed the idea that censoring propaganda, etc., is a good and desirable thing. It's the direct opposite of that.
If Twitter (or whoever) is shutting down accounts because they're abusive, consist of violent threats, etc., then I congratulate them.
If, however, they are shutting down accounts that don't do these things but are instead run by "terrorists" or are used for recruitment, propaganda, or any other protected speech, then I condemn them.
On the post: Twitter Suspends Hundreds Of Thousands Of Terrorist Accounts, Gives Everyone Its 'Quality Filter'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hold On... We May Actually Be In For A THIRD Oracle/Google API Copyright Trial
The Neverending Story
On the post: With Republicans Backing Away From TPP, Does It Still Have Any Chance?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gun Control by Treaty
Yes, the treaty was secret while being hammered out, and that's bad. But that's also the past and is only of academic interest.
Now, we can all read the thing -- and I can't find anything in it that is even remotely like "backdoor gun control". Can you?
On the post: Remember Claims That Cord Cutting Was On The Ropes? It's Actually Worse Than Ever
Re: Cord Cut Prospects
Why not just buy a DVR?
On the post: PayPal Stops A Payment Just Because The Payee's Memo Included The Word 'Cuba'
Re:
On the post: PayPal Stops A Payment Just Because The Payee's Memo Included The Word 'Cuba'
Re: Re:
On the post: Uber Wasting No Time: Launching Test Of Self-Driving Cars
Re: I like to drive
I just have problems with the expense of owning and maintaining a machine that I don't use most of the day.
On the post: Twitter Suspends Hundreds Of Thousands Of Terrorist Accounts, Gives Everyone Its 'Quality Filter'
Very uncomfortable
Also, they seem to be combining two entirely different things: accounts which advocate violence, and accounts which appear to be supportive of terrorist groups. I'm OK with the former -- it's usually very clear when someone is urging violent action -- but I'm not OK with the latter. What counts as "supportive"? What counts as a "terrorist group"?
What ensures that people won't be silenced just because they express strong criticism of their government, or because they were engaging in discussion about a terrorist group?
Next >>