Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Whomp, Feb 22, 2011.
Cyber crime needs to be treated just like crime and punishments need to be just as severe.
The effect on society, of the cyber crimes Anoynmous are doing, fall something between littering, petty theft and graffiti.
The amount of resources needed to catch all the culprits are quite big.
No sane taxpayer would want feds spend the resource that could be used to catch few serial killers, couple of violent heroin dealing gangs and maybe some corrupt politicians who have siphoned hundred or two million $ tax payer money - on catching bunch of cybervigilantes.
Off topic: The US already "tested" a power outage about 4 years ago that left states from Michigan to New York without power for 3 days, and life goes on.
Off topic a little less: The internet now consist of things from Home control to cellphones to traffic lights; there is a lot more at stake, if the government cannot keep up with criminals.
On an individual level, it seems Anon just wants people to know how insecure things are.
Three days is annoying, three months is extremely dangerous
I don't have much sympathy for the guy, an incompetent security professional provoking hackers is in line with an incompetent police officer wandering into a crack house and provoking some armed dealers.
It's pretty easy to run a cost/benefit analysis on security procedures. If security breach event has a 1% chance of happening per year, and costs 10 hours for a user to clean up, that user should spend no more than 1 second per day to eliminate the chance of that security breach happening.
What about where the damage caused could never be replaced? That's the principle behind insurance - I know when I sign an insurance deal that I will pay more money than I will be paid in making a claim, but if I were to ever need the payout then its value would be more than just the number of pounds that I was paid because of its timing; it may cost half as much as I pay the insurer over however long to replace my car, but were I to actually be involved in an accident I may not be able to get hold of that much money quickly without taking out a loan.
What about it? Once you have important data backed up on hard drives, tapes and optical media, in several different cities, data loss due to hacking becomes a non-issue, data loss due to hacking becomes a non-issue, and you're only left with restoring backups, and damage control of released data.
Not me this is direct and straight to the point. This title is way up my street. These types of thread titles and alarmist headliners are awesome too^
Not data loss so much as the revalation of information that the victim would rather be kept secret; and then both the financial implication of losing business information and the other implications of personal information being revealed. 'Damage control' in those instances is difficult, if not impossible.
Identity theft..... two edged sword.
Sure, but a cost/benefit analysis is still the way to go.
I suspect that if information is held, such that losing said information would be disastrous, efforts into reducing the amount of held information and reducing the impact of loss before said loss happens has a better return on time investment than certain security procedures.
ie. Car dealership - holds SINs in-house from people who've supplied them, in order to run credit checks for financing car purchases.
Expensive solution: Pay a consultant to keep system and SINs secure.
Easy solution: Don't store SINs.
That's a stupid deal because people don't care to have a look, maybe except if you're somebody. The government and the police, however, are much more likely to.
By the same logic, not unless you're a criminal.
That is very naive.
There's sixty million of us. Do you think the government can seriously be bothered to check what everyone's doing beyond the obvious? That's a bit paranoid. Besides, I wouldn't care if they were, because I trust my government to govern responsibly. I don't trust everyone I meet to act responsibly.
I'm not paranoid, but I don't trust the government with the contents of my private life, including my computers. I don't trust them to govern responsibly either - because they don't.
Not what I mean at all.
I mean that all memes must be forced, because it relies on the "in group" to sustain them. Its not like they sustain themselves, floating through some social aether.
Irrelevant. Forced memes differ from actual memes in that they are objectively unfunny. Very few forced memes become real memes; Seaking never did (or will), Milhouse was never in the running, and (L-L-)Lunajacking was only ever fringe. YMMV, but desu is really the only successfully forced meme.
If they are objectively unfunny, they tend to not spread though. Unless it is because they aren't funny, which would be humor from the lack of humor.
Plus, I don't think a meme is required to be funny in the first place. Whats so funny about Downtown for President?
Separate names with a comma.