devnul3
devnul3 on Hacker News
You think Snowden, GG, wikileaks, etc toe the government line?
Bug bounties are a PR problem if handled badly. If handled well, bug bounties say "look at all of the ways we've made our product more secure". Put another way, do you think Google is less secure or more secure because of their engagement with security researchers?
Your statements carry with them the implicit assumption that "anything you want to do" and what you do to make a living aren't the same thing. For some they are.
This is entirely untrue and extremely dangerous. It is very possible to love what you do for a living (I do). Some of us find "true freedom" in tricking people into paying us to do things we would gladly pay to be allowed to do.
I've heard the "occasionally is nothing, repeatedly is stalking" argument on here repeatedly and (ianal but I know some) this is inaccurate. There are two requirements for a charge of stalking: willfully and repeatedly, and criminal intent.[0]
In other words, I can follow you all i want as long as I'm not trying to be stealthy, or I can be as stealthy as I want as long as I don't follow you repeatedly.
[0] http://koehlerlaw.net/assault-theft/stalking/
We call it the US Postal service.
The key phrase there was"non publicly traded company". By definition, non publicly traded companies don't have (stock) market capitalization, which is the value of all outstanding shares (stock).
Inertia == force. Just sayin'
And to more directly address your first question, no, their goal wouldn't be to instil terror. That's never the goal, merely the method.
This is why the subject gets clouded, terrorists _goals_ are to achieve change. Their _method_ is to do this by insilling terror.
if you're in the ambulance, or think you might be, and are refused access to life-saving medicine, you will be terrified.
Terrorism is using force or the threat of force against a population to achieve political or economic goals. That is chapter and verse what Anon is doing with these threats.
There are (obviously) degrees of terrorism. Hitting buildings with planes isn't the same as sending a few letters with anthrax in them. But both are terrorism.
Try not to take this personally, but in this context there's apparently not as much difference as you seem to think. Neither of you (as evidenced by your question) knew enough about DNS to fully understand the implications of what the article was saying. At best you knew enough to know what question to ask.
My point is actually that there's no reason average users need to know this stuff. Any more than there's a need for them to know what a CV boot is on their car. They know if the car makes a weird noise going around corners, call a mechanic. They know if they get errors on "teh Googlez", to call their ISP.
A protest becomes terrorism when it prevents access to vital services (eg "picketing" a hospital and not allowing ambulances in/out)
Did you seriously just ask how the web works, then complain about ignorant people who don't know how the web works...?
What does hackers using DDoS to knock a service offline have to do with it being free/open? Everything isn't about SOPA/ACTA/et al...
It's not about "can't afford it", it's solely about "doesn't fit their business model".
This is in great, big letters on Mozilla's home page:
"
We Are Building a Better Internet
And we’re dedicated to keeping it free, open and accessible to all.
"