mylorse

Obviously. If the administrator locked access to matches, nothing could be burned. The admin is responsible for leaving matches open at the library, and allowing the librarian to do as they please.

How about mines?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6435769

You are welcome to critique, not harass⸮:

Exactly! In the United States, there are protections for that: Libel & Slander

Which is why he was convicted of. Harassment laws could also be implemented, depending on the jurisdiction.

Read above. Linked just in case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6435845

No, because AT&T is a open Business, which needs to be in business zones, following business statues, not personal computers connected to ISP servers. It's more like the brothel analogy I just made: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6435769

Correct, and thank you.

> If you visit and internet cafe and someone's forgotten to log out of their bank account and you fiddle with it, that's probably a crime.

That can be construed as impersonation without unauthorized access, which is in some jurisdictions is illegal.

But that is not what AT&T did, which is more like a open brothel with conference rooms and private bedrooms. They just let in anyone that looked in one type of attire, and had some numbered badge come into one of the reserved conference rooms. IoW, the security person did not ask for ID, or a password to enter. The fault lies on the brothel, not the visitor. For all we know, anyone could have come in looking with that attire, and a matching badge out of coincidence (maybe there was a costume party, who knows, still the brothel did not do a good job of securing the reserved conference rooms).

> No password, no HTTPS, no access controls at all. Who is responsible for the security breach? You or the bank?

The bank, they are not complying with the legal statues, and more than likely violating their own privacy policy, if any exist.

> I would argue that if there are no technological access controls in place, there is no such thing as "unauthorized access" You can't be unauthorized if there is no authorization. The default on the internet is "can access"

That is correct. In that analogy, it would be an open business, like store or malls. It follows jurisdictions of private properties, with some business statues, but overall, since it is an open-doors business, there are no authorization requirements.

> They're prosecuting him for the digital equivalent of walking down a street and taking pictures of houses which don't display numbers on their mailbox.

No. Like in the example above, they are charging him of wearing an attire with a numbered badge, and coming into the reserved conference room, and learning the attendants names or addresses (which should not be there in the first place, esp. with no security protocols). The worst they can charge him is for impersonation. However, what can incriminate him is if the pages he visited clearly displayed or linked the Term of Services or EULA, which does detail this scenario, and he violated it in some way.

Then that is a poor librarian. A good librarian should have just said:

400 BAD REQUEST

Whomever staffed that librarian, should interview or train their staff better.

Good thing I do not run Javascript, esp. when items are fetched from other domains:

http://postimg.org/image/3m9v8eyrx/

I wonder how many people are still naive, and just leave it JS on, no questions asked..

For those looking for the source:

http://wikileaks.org/IMG/html/wikileaks-dreamworks-memo.html

It might change, with all MiTM that occurs on the domain.

Google does not evil™

Thanks for the references.

I also noticed OP's article is nearly 3 years old, which says something. Time for open hardware schematics!

Mmmm, while it sounds interesting, I am surprised at several things they have not implemented:

1 CDN or mirror service to lessen the load. There are free ones:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network#Notab...

2. P2P software for distributing content across a mesh network between the multiple servers (e.g. Gnunet & Freenet). Distributed Filesystems also work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_distributed_file...

3. Other communication than Jabber. Proper recommended secure channels are SILC, OTR, and now Beta secushare:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SILC_%28protocol%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-the-record_messaging

http://secushare.org/

The VPN is nice although. I wish STOMP was used more instead of PYSC. I still love IRC. It would also be awesome if they had a mini USENET, that would sell me over to volunteer.

There's like so many, esp. libraries: http://libgen.info/ http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Subject:Computing

Can someone explain to me how these are different than Vuzix, and any other company after that?:

http://www.vuzix.com/augmented-reality/

PS and Yes, I understand the advertising potential after GG_AR. Maybe Vuzix should do the same, like Sony did against Microsoft on the E3 (PS4 vs Xboxone)

Relevant older post from a different source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6195996

No one should doubt that these devices are FCC complaint, if not, these companies could not sell in the USA:

http://www.arrl.org/part-15-radio-frequency-devices

> Note: Computer terminals and peripherals that are intended to be connected to a computer are digital devices.

However to ignore the fact the these proprietary CPUs do not have additional opcodes or techniques to read its users work is ludicrous. Here are some prime examples from Intel:

http://software.intel.com/sites/manageability/AMT_Implementa...

http://blogs.intel.com/technology/2011/01/intel_insider_-_wh...

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-tech...

AMD I have no evidence to support otherwise, but I would not doubt it.

What about the following encrytions⸮: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLAKE2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bcrypt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBKDF2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_forward_secrecy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrypt

older thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6146446

There's more in the TOS and in the privacy policy section that people would consider offensive consenting with. Well, those that are informed, know that google works straight for the DoD, since its inception.

How are these different than AMD Fusion boards already out there in the market, with x86-64 and virtualization?

Can anyone convince me why I should contribute to this project when I can already use the following?: [[bitmessage.org][Bitmessage]] [[freenetproject.org][Freenet with a chat client]] [[gnunet.org][GNUnet with chat]] [[i2p2.de][I2P-Messenger]] [[retroshare.sf.net][RetroShare]]

PS You could also apply a simple Icecast and/or MPD video stream under those proctols, even [[stomp.github.io][STOMP]].

So this is like CFEngine, a open source configuration management system?: http://cfengine.com/cfengine-code-editors

Why is this any different than Gnutella or I2P chat clients?