>I know it's hard to believe, but women don't usually get sent to coding summer camp as teenagers. Our parents don't usually encourage us to take AP computer science, and our best friends aren't in CS and don't refer us for sweet internships at Microsoft and Google.
The implication is that this must be true for men; otherwise this is a complete non-sequitur.
Is Asperger's really a valid excuse for this sort of thing? People on the autism spectrum aren't incapable of understanding that actions can lead to consequences and that some things are wrong. Otherwise there would be an epidemic of autistic bank-robbers and murderers.
I will agree that it is bullshit thaw you can get extradited to a country you've never even been to and tried under their laws for committing a cyber-crime, though. He should remain in Britain for that reason alone. It's also pretty disgusting how if he had committed the exact same crime under the employment of the government they wouldn't have even filed charges.
In this case there wasn't even a real security vulnerability, just a spear-phishing attack. Organizations need to hold employees accountable for their own stupidity if they want to prevent this from happening. Any sane organization would fire an employee who gave a stranger keys to the office; falling for a phishing scam is the online equivalent of that.
> Any sane organization would fire an employee who gave a stranger keys to the office; falling for a phishing scam is the online equivalent of that.
No, they likely wouldn't fire someone unless they specifically had controls in place for that (eg. security clearance area). People "tailgate" at companies all the time.
In addition, the "value" of these records shot up dramatically once Russia was banned. The security was not stepped up to match.
The real problem is the fact that managers DO request passwords, access control changes, etc. via email, and they do it more often than people get phished. So, people learn to give out information rather than protect it.
The security vulnerability is very real. Should this same treatment be applied to the people who write code? If a software vulnerability allows an attacker into the business should that developer be fired? What if it's a UI bug that causes the company to lose sales. Should they be on the hook?
I think a more constructive reaction would be to say that phishing training is important and should be implemented or revised. In addition technical solutions should be investigated. Perhaps some of the infallible people who never fall for phishing attacks can automate part of their brilliance for the mere mortals.
It was very gray and cyan by default. Those which came after are better IMO. I grew up in the DOS-Win3-9x era. Even nostalgia can't overcome how ugly the oldies are in comparison.
I haven't been specifically saving URLs on this, but it's a pattern of behaviour that's been discussed at length on the internet more than once.
Given that, I'd effectively be googling and then picking the articles that best suited my current beliefs on the topic, so honestly you'd be better informed by googling and then reading until you have your own beliefs. (this is not meant to be a disguised lmgtfy, I genuinely think you'd come out worse informed if I tried)
Yeah and in North Korea I can't call Kim Jong Un a fat piece of shit, but I guess that's just a reasonable limit to North Korea's freedom of speech.
> In a German cinema you can't shout "The holocaust never happened"
This is a legitimate example of why Germany does not have freedom of speech. Regardless of how verifiable the Holocaust is or how offensive it is to deny that it happened, disagreeing with the government's version of history should not be a crime in a free society.
> In a US cinema you can't shout "Fire" if there is no fire
A fraudulent statement designed to disrupt society. You don't get arrested because what you said is untrue, you get arrested because you're legitimately trying to hurt people by causing a stampede and desensitizing them to fire warnings.
>"Kill all muslims"
A specific incitement of violence.
> "I just got a national security letter"
I don't like that this is illegal either, but it's a far cry from making it illegal to express certain opinions. And at least there's a fair amount of disagreement within the US as to whether it should be illegal, different jurisdictions have taken either side of this issue.
How is disagreeing with history any different than disagreeing with a fact, like whether nor not a theater is on fire.
Setting aside other exceptions, like liable, the rule in AngloAmerican law concerns inciting or otherwise causing imminent harm. What constitutes imminent harm has varied widely over the course of U.S. history. Many people were sentenced by courts under the Alien & Sedition Acts, the argument being that seditious speech _might_ lead to imminent harm. The same things happened over 120 years later when people handing out anarchist and communist leaflets were regularly thrown in jail with even less pushback by society.
These days the interpretation and application of imminent harm is much narrower than it has ever been, and indisputably ahistorical. The conception of free speech that Americans enjoy today didn't exist for most of the history of the country and likely most of the history of the world.
In the context of Germany's history, it's not obvious to me (and shouldn't be obvious to anybody who gives it serious consideration) that their standard is intrinsically, objectively inferior.
I happen to disagree with it, but I don't think it's unreasonable on its face. And I'll be the first to admit that my preference for the modern, American conception is largely a function of my being an American and having internalized certain normative judgments unique to not just this country, but unique to the post-WWII political and legal context and in many respects unique to the past couple of generations.
I just watched Trumbo. The US seems to have a pretty bad track record of protecting different political opinions. Seems like you bought the government’s version of history, too.
The NPD by the way is to this day allowed in Germany, they are just not allowed to openly demand the violent parts of Nazism, because denying the Holocaust is a fraudulent statement designed to disrupt society. You don't get arrested because what you said is untrue, you get arrested because you're legitimately trying to hurt people by causing a stampede and desensitizing them to the sanctity of life.
Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan aren't the only people whose privacy has been violated by Gawker, they're just the first ones to bite back. Thiel is a hero in my book.
I'll agree, but what gives me pause to call him a hero: he supports Trump. So, like a broken clock being right twice a day, I agree Thiel was right to sue and shut down Gawker, but I don't hold him in any special esteem.
"Around half the country" is an exaggeration. Even with a two-party system, in modern history no candidate has achieved the outright support of anything approaching half of the US population.
Consider that only a portion of the population is eligible and registered to vote, and even among them voter turnout is relatively low in this country. And then there's always a segment of undecided voters who just make a choice on election day, without supporting either candidate prior to that.
In this specific case, add to the math that Trump is doing poorly in recent polls, and is disliked by an unprecedented percentage of his own party.
Math aside, given the sheer number of disturbing, extreme things Trump has advocated over the past couple years... if Thiel supports Trump enough to give an endorsement at the GOP convention, this certainly seems to condone his behavior, which in my mind is a pretty extreme position.
What kills me about Gawker is their unrelenting hypocrisy.
They refused to take down the Hulk Hogan video saying it was their right to share. Then when "the fappening" hit, they started chastising anyone who even looked at the pictures saying that we should all respect people's privacy.
TBH it sounds like they're just using reverse psychology to get their brand trending and it's working really well because now I'm reading about them on HackerNews.
The implication is that this must be true for men; otherwise this is a complete non-sequitur.