'NSA addition to ifconfig'

Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig' by nickpsecurity on Saturday May 28, 2016 @02:12PM (#11792635)

It's the same. You claimed you had a specific identity. From there, one might look at the specific identity, the evidence behind the claim, and any specific laws. Far as government employees, just claiming to be one might be enough to get you charged. I don't know the case law on it, though, so there could be nuances that protects you in some situations.

Note: An example would be doing it in a fictional movie. I'm sure that's safe as the claim is clearly BS.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig' by vonklaus on Saturday May 28, 2016 @05:22PM (#11793592)

hahaha i am not 100% sure. However, in terms of starbucks, you could probably respond with, write Abraham Lincoln, on my cup. Thus what you have said is technicaly simply a command but not a claim.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig' by nickpsecurity on Saturday May 28, 2016 @05:43PM (#11793679)

"But, Mr Vonklaus, isn't it true that issuing a command that implicitly creates an idenfity itself an act of identification? Or did you expect us to believe they delivered it to Abe Lincoln himself?!"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:'NSA addition to ifconfig' by theoh on Sunday May 29, 2016 @05:50PM (#11798391)

The theory of "speech acts" goes into this kind of question. In certain contexts, merely saying something does amount to an action. Marriage vows are a familiar example.

[ Parent | on HN ]