Publisher asks Google, AT&T to unmask network intruder
A federal judge has cleared the way for the publisher of GQ magazine to subpoena Google and AT&T in an attempt to learn the identity of a computer intruder who stole unpublished editorial content and posted it online. Sometime in September, an unknown thief accessed the computer network of Conde Nast and made off with more than …
Well, they won't know if is any good unless they try, will they. Or are you saying they shouldn't even do that?
Sounds like theft to me, so they need to follow up every lead.
You would think a hacker would use a zombie/hacked computer to cover his/her trail. There are millions of computers around the world that are part of bot-nets, and any hacker can use one of the computers to do whatever they want so that there's never a trail leading back to them.
Yep, highly lucrative thing that fashion industry is.
Highly sought-after material critcal to national security.
The perps should be found and dealt with by every measure the law has available to it.
Can't have those loose cannons sending out pictures a month early now can we?
Twat!
There.
1. This is at the moment likely to be a civil case (otherwise the police would be doing the reuests not Lawyers). So your muma & dada taxes will not be paying for this.
2. Are you condoning theft? Or hacking? What is it?
3. Tell you what, tell you parents to send there wages to a good cause, becuase after all, everything should be free, so why are they so greedy and work for money, they should do it for the good of mankind.
So when you leave school, feel free to work a 40 hour week and then when it comes to pay day, don't be to disapointed when your boss says, "oh sorry we gave your work away, so you haven't actually earnt a penny". See you next week.
Because the Conde Naste lawyers are too dumb to realize that the access was either from a Tor exit node, zombie or whatever. The probability that the hackers allowed their own IP address to be seen by the Conde Naste systems is between zero and none.
Easy enough. Use a public wi-fi connection, email addy is one of those free ones, no proof of ID required, and bingo, you've got a burn-phone-like blog. No way to trace the user. You'd imagine that a somewhat switched-on IP lawyer might have cottoned onto that one by now. Ho hum.
I'm pretty much there are other issues than the material being published. Theft maybe you condone that too, privacy even, if that matters to you.
Please leave your front door open tonight for visitors, we will only eat all your food, unwrap all your presents, have a good look at them, then decide that amongst us, that we don't want that cheap old tat, anyway, rummage through your private porn collection, and then ring the police, from your phone, complaining about the lack of security in your house, and how it's affecting the value of the neighbourhood.
Everyone else, Merry Xmas.
PS Santa is getting mighty pissed off with mince pies and sherry, how about a pint and a cornish pasty for a change?
While I agree that "hacking into" a magazine and publishing the content early isn't something which should be condoned it's hardly either theft or invasion of privacy.
Nothing was stolen -- the content is still sitting there on the hard drives of the magazine.
As far as is reported, privacy was not invaded because only magazine content was copied -- any information contained within the article would either be comment on public domain information, or information which was set to become public domain anyhow.
If someone hacked in to your PC and 'retrieved' a credit card number, surely they have stolen that information from you/invaded your privacy? This is exactly the same. What about stealing company secret by photocopying. Even though the originals are still present, the data has still been stolen. Exactly the same.
It's quite obviously theft of information, that at the time was not in the public domain, and had actual commercial value. The fact it was about to become public domain is irrelevant.
Much as I dislike the fashion/Lads mag industry, they are the victims of theft here.
So you would be willing to pay later for something you read elsewhere for free? To look at pictures that you had already seen? Very generous of you.
So if they did use those things? The law will investigate and find out. I am sure you are all correct, but then these people make mistakes. Like the son of the senator who published Sarah Palin's stuff. I am sure he thought he was being clever, until he left a trail.
The subpoena will reveal more details, which are then followed up until they get to the zombie's house or the internet cafe, who will then have to hand over any cctv or receipts.
This is the way crimes are investigated. You dont give up just because it is likely to end in failure. You wouldnt feel the same way if your stuff was stolen.
"condoned it's hardly either theft or"
Are you totally thick? Let me explain how Magazines work.
They PAY the writers, photgraphs, models, printers, designers, the landlors of the properties, the electric companies etc etc.
They then, now pay attention this is the difficult bit.
They then SELL the magazines.
If someone gives away the content, then they people may NOT pay to BUY the magazines (keeping up)
If no one pays the company for the magazines, then they can't PAY the above people.
Hopefully that is simple enough for you.
if someone else (lets say a competitor) brings out a magazine with similar stories and glossier photos, and people buy that, and thus don't buy this one, then isn't that also stealing? After all now someone has given people content, and "then they people may NOT pay to BUY the magazines (keeping up)
If no one pays the company for the magazines, then they can't PAY the above people." to use your argument.
Despite the wishes of big Content to make people believe so, people not buying what you've put out is NOT theft; it's called Free Market Economy.
Hopefully THAT is simple enough for YOU.
You are twisting the argument here. Another company that ALSO pays their Staff to produce SIMILAR content is called COMPETITION. Both companies are PAYING people to do the work, and then PAYING to publish and distribute their content and then SELL that content for $$.
You are mistaken that this is not Content providers trying to sue for lost sales, they are suing for someone who willfully stole their "news and opinions" their content, and gave it away for free, before they could even get their print version to the stands. That is just wrong, and theft, and you look like a freetard for defending them.
Lets try a different analogy to see if it gets through to you..... Tolkien writes the Hobbit, he plans to sell this story for money. Someone creeps into his house (or hacks his computer) and steals the content and publishes it on the internet for free. How is that any different, and how is that not theft. Tolkien deserves the right to have a chance to sell his work for profit, before anyone else can benefit from it. ( An yes the thieves are benefiting from having good content on their free site that makes them able to sell ads, get their message out, etc).
Yes there are other magazines out there, yes there are other fantasy stories, but they writers deserve to sell their product before someone steals it.
Now how long they should have an exclusive license on this content, once it has been released to public domain is another argument altogether. (10-20 years seems very long enough to me for a copyright holder to stop progress).
I spotted an intrusion attempt from a US ISP. Being bored I phoned them and complained. They found the address belonged to an infected MS server on their users public www rack, which in turn was being attacked/controlled by a different infected MS server in Europe, which in turn was being controlled by something in the East. It stopped before they could get further..
the one good thing that came out of it was the ISP instigated a new policy directive which ensured their users kept their web servers patches and protection updated under penalty of cessation.
-"the one good thing that came out of it was the ISP instigated a new policy directive which ensured their users kept their web servers patches and protection updated under penalty of cessation."
First, I believe you meant -INSTITUTED- (meaning to implement) not, "instigated" (meaning to prompt a process, or event).
And, second... this is NOT a "...good thing".
Both politicians, and private business-interests (I.E. Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPAA, etc.) are ABSOLUTELY-DESPERATE for ISPs to be able to control exactly what OSes, applications, "patches" and "updates", etc. ALL Internet-users MUST use and install (in fact, THAT is actually the primary original purpose of "Trusted Computing Initiative", now called the "NGSCB" by Microsoft). And, this scheme ISN'T about increasing "security"... its about CONTROL (plain and simple). This is especially bad since that actually means that external-interests will be able to FORCE us (as consumers, and Internet-users) to use, ONLY, -APPROVED- "Microsoft" (or, "Apple"... whose CONTROL-FREAK-ism has become so painfully-evident ) products (...since, most of the few remaining, MONOPOLY-CONTROLLED/OWNED ISPs in our area are very actively hostile to any other software, such as "Linux", and other "open-source" software). Furthermore, aside from being forced to use the most INSECURE software on the planet (I.E. MS-Windows... which we have personally experienced being repeatedly "hacked" despite being fully-patched, AND running the latest "antivirus" software, AND residing behind multiple "firewalls"... while, our "Linux" boxes have remained absolutely unscathed)... But, Microsoft (and those who have made agreements with them) will have the continual-ability to alter, spy-upon, and eliminate ANY features or control, that we use or may depend upon. ALL at the WHIM of INTERESTS with a proven history of animosity, and even, criminal-intent, towards the consumer/user. Not to mention the dangers of allowing Microsoft to "automatically" install "patches/updates", and alterations to our machines, without our testing and consent.
NO... NOT a... "good thing".
Look the IP address is 192.168.0.1
Go ahead, trace it!
Ooh, I know that guy, he's good. I keep catching him hacking into my computers.
Looks to me like he just forgot to add the "joke alert" icon
reads like like a real pi55 take to me
