back to article Hacking Trump: Can we not label web vandalism as 'terrorism', please?

American politics are something of a national sport in Canada. No matter who runs for either side, Canadians throw popcorn at the screen and try to pretend our choices are any better. We debate the relative merits of the boob tube's highest stakes biennial reality TV soap opera. Things can get heated, sometimes, but we enjoy …

  1. Mark 85 Silver badge

    For comparison...

    This isn't without precedent.. Ross Perot did reasonably well in the polls also. But, I think both he and Trump do/did well only because of their entertainment value. When the election actually hits, the two parties will have their way with us. So... enjoy the show, toss all the popcorn you like and clean it up in the morning. Politics as usual will return.

  2. Mage Silver badge
    Coat

    So what is the penalty for spray can graffiti?

    Did they do it in French too? It's breaking an extra Canadian law if you only deface in English?

    1. Preston Munchensonton

      Re: So what is the penalty for spray can graffiti?

      Well, the fine is bigger if you include French, but it isn't twice as big as the English part.

    2. Steve Knox

      Re: So what is the penalty for spray can graffiti?

      Did they do it in French too? It's breaking an extra Canadian law if you only deface in English?

      Obligatory:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDGkQiwh_qg

  3. Lysenko

    It is simply direct "fair comment"...

    If you are running for President of the USA then you are aiming to be CiC of a nuclear armed military. The fact that you're too incompetent to ensure that your own web site is passably secure is directly relevant to your candidacy.

    It isn't a question of expecting the follically challenged a$$hat to know how to secure it himself: the point is that a guy punting at one of the biggest Executive Management jobs on Earth either didn't think to delegate the task to someone capable of doing the job properly or has such a breathtaking lack of self awareness and common sense that he never imagined he would be a target! Either way, I wouldn't want the security of any country in such hands.

    This hack is simply "investigative journalism".

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It is simply direct "fair comment"...

      The fact that you're too incompetent to ensure that your own web site is passably secure is directly relevant to your candidacy.

      Oh puhleeze, that's ridiculous. So the next time this guy gets a flat tire he's clearly unable to lead the army? I'm not a fan of Mr Trump other than he's scaring the whole collection of Washington cliques senseless because he's not beholden to anyone, but to take the state of his website as "evidence" for anything is ridiculous. That is at best evidence that the corporate security review policy needs fixing, but it says little about the guy himself. It doesn't need to - he's doing plenty of that talking himself..

      If you want to check what he can do for the US it appears the guy has recovered several times from bankruptcy. Well, ironically, that strikes me as a perfect match for the country. As for his statements, painfully, I see that expressed as a general trend for the nation as well. Doesn't like foreigners - well, what is the US name for foreigners again? Aliens? I'm not sure he's really that prejudiced or he's just playing to the public (probably the former, but he's not stupid) but his current poll results show he's certainly someone to worry about.

      I cannot see vested interests allowing him anywhere near the presidency and the US voting system (being electronic) is already rigged so I don't see it happen. But I find the frantic, panicky attempts to find something to shut him up or slow him down massively amusing - popcorn-worthy, so to speak.

      1. MonkeyCee Silver badge

        Re: It is simply direct "fair comment"...

        Trump isn't scaring a number of cliques. He's scaring the GOP, since if he actually stands (rather than another vanity run) he'll split enough of the vote to cause them problems down the road.

      2. Lysenko

        Re: It is simply direct "fair comment"...

        >>That is at best evidence that the corporate security review policy needs >>fixing

        Quite. It needs fixing. Who "presided" over it not being fixed? The point about being President is you are supposed to see threats coming BEFORE something nasty happens. Any fool (even Trump) can delegate the task of fixing screw ups after the event.

        "I may not be able to secure my web site but I'll sure as hell secure the borders!!" ...Yeah, right, now about that bridge I've got for sale....

        As for scaring the Establishment: the only people with anything to fear are the Republicans. Trump is unelectable, but if he goes 3rd party he could do the same thing Perot did to Bush I by cornering the wingnut vote and thus handing the Presidency to Clinton II.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: It is simply direct "fair comment"...

          The point about being President is you are supposed to see threats coming BEFORE something nasty happens.

          Uhhhh....what? Presidents aren't psychic. They're human. And fallible. And they screw up just as often as any other fallible human being. Their advisers are fallible human beings relying on other fallible human beings for their intelligence and assessments and so on down the chain.

          Presidents don't have to see around corners. They have to be able to accept the responsibility that when they fuck up people die. Sometimes a lot of people. They need to be able to live with that, to do the best they can to prevent it and to make amends when they inevitably do fail.

          1. Lysenko

            Re: It is simply direct "fair comment"...

            >>Uhhhh....what? Presidents aren't psychic. They're human. And fallible.

            Which one requires psychic powers:

            1) Being self aware enough to know that you are widely despised?

            2) Being aware that internet hackery is "a thing" and you need to have competent staff working security for you to prevent it?

            This isn't a question of being able to see round corners, it is a question of not running (for President) round corners with your eyes closed because you had no idea there could possibly be a brick wall there or you were too distracted by your hair transplant to pay attention to the obvious risks.

            As for being able to live with yourself when your mistakes kill people, that is dead [sic] easy. Ask any sociopath.

        2. Rick Brasche

          Re: It is simply direct "fair comment"...

          or worse, somehow, he gets elected.

          as a "rabid right winger" , gun totin' evil white conservative, Trump scares me. I expect something resembling diplomacy in a President. Don't need some A hole mouthing off and p*ssing off our enemies AND allies more than current and previous regimes already have done!

          Save the A hole action for the general public, I say. Government doesn't need to do my intolerant commenting for me! :P

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It is simply direct "fair comment"...

      same can be said for any politically-funded organization. Faking a hack, and calling those who "did it" "extremists" as a fundraising/attention wh0ring stunt should also be allowed to backfire

      http://www.infowars.com/hackers-behind-planned-parenthood-breach-accuse-company-of-faking-second-attack-to-provoke-donations/

  4. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    Broken polling system and "terrorism"

    "But, I think both he and Trump do/did well only because of their entertainment value"

    Nope, Perot did well because the people running against him were utter horses asses. People that voted for the main two parties generally were like "I don't have any choice I have to pick one" even though, no, you don't, you can vote third party or independent. Trump, I have no idea why, I find it impossible to take him seriously, but I don't take the effective 1 party system the US has seriously anyway.*

    *My pet theory on why is the broken polling, combined with this dangerous and corrosive view that one is "throwing away" their vote if they vote for who they actually want to be in office, if they aren't in one of the two main parties. (Doubly odd, because these same people who won't vote 3rd party because "they're throwing their vote away, they have no chance of that winning" will have NO qualm voting for a main party candidate that can't possibly win in their district.. like voting democrat in a 70% republican county, or vice-vera) . I've been polled twice -- the first time, I said i was voting 3rd party and the person on the phone admitted they had NO WAY to put that choice into their system, they asked if they could put "undecided". I pointed out, no, I'm not undecided, I'm not choosing either one. The *2nd* time I was polled, the call was like "dial 1 for (some jerk), dial 2 for (some other jerk), dial 3 for undecided, dial 9 for 3rd party", and when I dialed 9 it said "that choice is invalid" and hung up. Needless to say, this then results in polls falsely claiming 100% vote for one of the two main parties or undecided, and then the "throwing the vote away" people feel like they MUST vote for one of those two... I've heard too many people complain "both candidates are assholes" to think they would REALLY vote for them if they weren't forced into thinking they have no choice.

    ====================

    Needless to say, when some of these "anti-terrorism" laws were passed, people said the feds would probably push claiming all kinds of crap that is not terrorism is terrorism in order to abuse this law, since terrorism wasn't defined in these bills. And this is what has been happening... not as quickly as some had feared, but the "terrorism creep" is nevertheless happening relentlessly. Calling some web page vandalism "terrorism" lets the powers that be potentially use all kinds of powers that would be illegal for them to use otherwise, and gets the public into a panic to extend the feds further powers (whether those powers would be useful or not in that specific instance, it then builds precedent to use those powers later.)

    1. Mark 85 Silver badge

      @Henry Wertz1 Re: Broken polling system and "terrorism"

      I don't disagree with you on Ross Perot's numbers, etc. However, the man didn't take himself too seriously during the campaign. His sole purpose for running was to thwart Bush as he had a major personal feud with the man. And lets face it... nothing was as entertaining as one of his infomercials that ran for a half-hour or an hour (depending on where you were). Remember: "a large sucking sound"?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A crime is a crime

    All hackers should be executed.

    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: A crime is a crime

      All internet trolls should be executed. Anonymous ones should be executed, revived, then executed again.

      Isn't this a fun game?

    2. Hollerith 1

      Re: A crime is a crime

      Dear AC, if you are going to troll, first at least read the article, so you can troll wittily. If not able to do that, perhaps thinking first about how your post will stack up alongside those of grown-ups. I can't even be irritated -- just a sigh of FFS.

      1. Michael Strorm

        Re: A crime is a crime

        @Hollerith 1; Or maybe she's a more subtle troll than she first appears and intentionally did that to provoke an annoyed response like yours...? :-)

  6. L05ER

    see: The Patriot Act

    Not sure if the provision got renewed but... There was a part of the patriot act that defined an attack on a *private* network as a terrorist act.

    The reason they chose to specify private, I suspect, is crony capitalism. It would have made the RIAA and its goons... terrorists for their attacks on the various *public* P2P networks of the day.

    Expect more of this as the powers that be seek control over the digital realm... They will vilify anyone capable of defending themselves against big brother.

  7. Teiwaz Silver badge

    Danger of forgetting the meaning of 'terror'...

    By bandying the label at any act which doesn't involve greed,lust or the other usual 'sins'.

    In this case the only groups promoting 'terror' are those that throw this term around hoping to promote their agendas by increasing the fear level of society.

    So if you want to find terrorists look no further than those looking to make the population uneasy and fearful by declaring unrelated criminal and political acts as 'acts of terror'.

  8. FrogInABlender

    Thanks ... well said.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    TED talk

    Thank you for pointing to Monica Lewinsky's interesting TED talk; thoughtful and thought-provoking, measured, reasoned, calm, and unexpected. Then, of course, it made me wonder why it was unexpected - and the realisation that that's part of the point. More importantly, Ms. Lewinsky explains clearly the problems with a culture that allows profit from public shaming. What she does not say is that the problem predates the Internet / WWW (when "newspapers" can print what they want and not have to print retractions with the same exposure, the problem already exists): the Internet does, however, make it far easier, and magnifies effects.

    Worth a listen.

    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: TED talk

      I never got why anyone hated on her in the first place. I still don't understand her vilification by the masses. I mean, I get that the hyper-religious crazypants loonytunes sector would hate her irrationally, but they're rarely more than 25-30% of a given population. That entire nations turned on her blew me away.

      So I guess it didn't come as much of a surprise that she had thoughtful, considered, intelligent and insightful things to say. She's older, wiser, and went through the crucible. That changes everyone to whom it happens.

      What blew me away is how good a public speaker she is. She had a very rare command of the crowd. I found the TED talk absolutely captivating, and I have nothing but immense professional and personal respect for that lady. Top class, that one.

      1. Grikath

        Re: TED talk

        There's many reasons Monica Lewinsky was vilified, for many different angles. Ultimately, she (and Clinton) commited the ultimate sin in breaking the 13th Commandment.

        In the end.. As the saying goes: If you got a man by the balls.. And she, by all accounts, had the President of the United States by his nibbly bits. Incidentally making her, at least for a short while, putatively the most powerful woman on earth.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: TED talk

          There's many reasons Monica Lewinsky was vilified, for many different angles.

          I can't see a single reason why anyone sane would want to vilify her.

          Ultimately, she (and Clinton) commited the ultimate sin in breaking the 13th Commandment.

          A) That is nobody's business except Mr. and Ms. Clinton and (Mr?) and Ms. Lewinsky.

          B) All religions are lies told in order to control the masses.

          C) The Abrahamic religions are collectively particularly vile and stupid

          D) The application of rules by Abrahamic adherents is inconsistent and utterly irrational

          E) See: A!

          It isn't the nation's business whom their leaders sleep with any more than it is the nation's business whom its citizens sleep with. And if, for some irrational and insane reason you believe you deserve to have control over the sex and sexuality of your leaders (and you don't!) then the blame and fault clearly lies on the individual in the position of power, not the young lady swept up in a seemingly fairy tale romance.

          If you got a man by the balls.. And she, by all accounts, had the President of the United States by his nibbly bits. Incidentally making her, at least for a short while, putatively the most powerful woman on earth.

          And, so...what? Why does that matter? The President of the United States of America is so weak that he is instantly felled by the amazing supervagina of a random 22 year old intern? All rational thought dribbled out his penis and this magically also made every one of his advisers completely in capable of simply tying him to a chair or sitting on him if he started going too far off the rails?

          Puh-lease. I'm led around by my dick more than just about any man on Earth. I find it incredibly hard to think when there's a pair of sexy jumblies in my face and I don't appear to be overly discriminating about whom I find attractive. I'm still perfectly capable of drenching Captain Winkie in happy fun times and separating that from the need to go forth and make command decisions.

          And I have ADHD! That brings with it an impulsiveness penalty and means I reach decision fatigue sooner than the average male. So no, I don't believe the supervagina theory. Not even a little.

          So I'm right back to "I think the people who vilify that lady are fucking loonytunes."

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: TED talk

            And she, by all accounts, had the President of the United States by his nibbly bits

            Colour me wrong, but if I remember rightly, he was NOT president at the time ?

          2. Vic

            Re: TED talk

            It isn't the nation's business whom their leaders sleep with any more than it is the nation's business whom its citizens sleep with

            That's not entirely true.

            As the leader of a nation, anything that might open a leader up to blackmail puts the whole nation in the firing line; as such, the nation does have some business knowing what that leader is up to.

            Vic.

            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

              Re: TED talk

              As the leader of a nation, anything that might open a leader up to blackmail puts the whole nation in the firing line; as such, the nation does have some business knowing what that leader is up to.

              That we have a culture where "who you sleep with" is somehow black mail is the fucking problem. Not who someone sleeps with. There is no reason for whom you choose to sleep with to be black mail.

              The only people who have any right to know who the president sleeps with are his family, the family of his partners and the secret service (as it is their job to protect all parties). Period.

              1. Vic

                Re: TED talk

                That we have a culture where "who you sleep with" is somehow black mail is the fucking problem

                If we are going to live in a generally-monogamous society - as most, but not all, seem to claim to want - then sleeping with someone who is not your currently-designated partner is going to end up being cause for blackmail. That's the point about blackmail - it covers any topic you'd rather not come to light.

                The only people who have any right to know who the president sleeps with are his family, the family of his partners

                So if the President sleeps with someone other than his wife, his family has a right to know? That will likely lead to difficulty in that family, so said President will probably not want them to know. And straightaway, you have a blackmail situation.

                Vic.

                1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                  Re: TED talk

                  If we are going to live in a generally-monogamous society - as most, but not all, seem to claim to want - then sleeping with someone who is not your currently-designated partner is going to end up being cause for blackmail. That's the point about blackmail - it covers any topic you'd rather not come to light.

                  Except that the only reason for him not to want it to come to light is that his political opponents would use it against him in bullshit politics involving religious whackjobs and their backwards-ass beliefs. Dollars to doughnuts Hillary knew, didn't care, or had made her peace with it. The lady is exceptionally bright and knew what she was getting into when she married someone that ambitious.

                  For that matter, I'm pretty sure Hillary has played the field herself. She's had more than ample opportunity, and good on her if she did for living life.

                  So if the President sleeps with someone other than his wife, his family has a right to know? That will likely lead to difficulty in that family, so said President will probably not want them to know. And straightaway, you have a blackmail situation.

                  Yes, I think his family have a right to know. You know, a lot of marriages are open these days. And a lot of marriages are marriages of convenience. Especially those amongst people in positions of power. I think it's really narrow minded to think that spouses of those involved would be so "crushed" by the "betrayal" of sowing one's oats that the whole thing constitutes blackmail.

                  Adultery has been going on since the beforetime. And it's time we realised that monogamy just isn't what we're coded for. Some people want it. Fine. Bully for them. But those who live a life that's a bit wider in scope should be able to do so without it becoming political ammunition or cultural blackmail.

                  If the spouse (or the kids) have a problem with you sleeping around that's between you and them. it's no business of the public at large.

                  1. Vic

                    Re: TED talk

                    Except that the only reason for him not to want it to come to light is that his political opponents would use it against him in bullshit politics

                    No, that's bollocks. In just about any functional marriage, each partner would be properly fucked off about the other cheating on them. Sure, you can find me exceptions - but those are very much outliers. Marriages are substantially always damaged when infidelity occurs.

                    Dollars to doughnuts Hillary knew, didn't care, or had made her peace with it

                    Well, that is different from what she claimed at the time. I infer nothing from that.

                    You know, a lot of marriages are open these days.

                    Run the numbers. Look at the *fraction* of marriages that are truly open. It's a statistical insignificance. Most marriages where there is infidelity end in divorce in a relatively short space of time. Whether that's healthy or not is for someone else to decide - but it is a fact.

                    I think it's really narrow minded to think that spouses of those involved would be so "crushed" by the "betrayal" of sowing one's oats that the whole thing constitutes blackmail.

                    I am incredulous that you've written that. Look at the history of failed marriages - a vast proportion are due to infidelity. I cannot believe you are naive enough to believe that more than a handful would not care about an extra-marital affair; substantially all cuckolds/cuckqueens really do care, and I am frankly astonished that you could believe anything else.

                    Vic.

                    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                      Re: TED talk

                      No, that's bollocks. In just about any functional marriage, each partner would be properly fucked off about the other cheating on them. Sure, you can find me exceptions - but those are very much outliers. Marriages are substantially always damaged when infidelity occurs.

                      Sorry, but nope. Marriages have moved past the bizarre religious ideals of monogamy for a great many people. Maybe not the majority, but a very significant number.

                      Run the numbers. Look at the *fraction* of marriages that are truly open. It's a statistical insignificance. Most marriages where there is infidelity end in divorce in a relatively short space of time. Whether that's healthy or not is for someone else to decide - but it is a fact.

                      I don't know where you're getting your numbers. They certainly don't line up with any I've seen. Now, infidelity is the most frequently listed reason for divorce, but it has been repeatedly noted in research surrounding divorce that most of those relationships were about done anyways, and the infidelity (or claims thereof, in many cases it's hard to verify) are used to deal with legal issues surrounding divorce and/or to milk the ex-spouse dry.

                      I am incredulous that you've written that. Look at the history of failed marriages - a vast proportion are due to infidelity. I cannot believe you are naive enough to believe that more than a handful would not care about an extra-marital affair; substantially all cuckolds/cuckqueens really do care, and I am frankly astonished that you could believe anything else.

                      Your inability to see beyond your own prejudices is your own problem, sir. I have actually researched this topic at quite some length. The number of marriages that don't fail after infidelity are actually quite high. The number of marriages in which infidelity is tacitly (if not openly) tolerated is also a lot higher than you seem to think.

                      What's more, when marriages do dissolve it is rare that it is anywhere near so simple as "X found out Y was cheating on them and divorce ensued". A) Usually there are all sorts of reasons why the infidelity occurred in the first place that boil down to "marriage in trouble". B) Infidelity is quite often tacitly (if not openly) tolerated until something else in the relationship goes rather wrong.

                      You seem to personally believe quite strongly in monogamy. That's fine, but I think you need to realize that not only has that not always been the case, people in our culture are a lot more diverse in their attitudes and approaches to marriage than you are portraying.

                      What's more, you still haven't laid out a rationale for why the fact that some individuals choose to be obsessed with monogamy gives them the right to care whether or not others are, or to pressure those others regarding their marital habits.

                      To be quite blunt about it, poking your nose into the bedchambers of others uninvited should be of itself illegal, no matter who the individuals in the bedchambers are.

                      You will not convince me otherwise.

                      1. Vic

                        Re: TED talk

                        Marriages have moved past the bizarre religious ideals of monogamy for a great many people

                        Bullshit. A *tiny* number of people accept infidelity. The vast majority do not.

                        infidelity is the most frequently listed reason for divorce, but it has been repeatedly noted in research surrounding divorce that most of those relationships were about done anyways

                        That's a real "pope shitting in the woods" statement; if the relationship were not "done", the infidelity would not have occurred. You are conflating the event with the causation...

                        Your inability to see beyond your own prejudices is your own problem

                        This isn't my prejudice - this is simply how life is. Most married people - the huge majority of them - would be royally fucked off if their partner decided to shag someone else. Like I said earlier, you can assuredly find a couple of examples where this isn't the case, but what you cannot do is to find any statistically significant number of such examples, because they don't exist. This isn't prejudice - this is simply talking to people. I talk to a lot of people. I can guarantee to find more examples of people who wouldn't want their partners to shag someone else than you can of those who would - and I'm happy to put money on that.

                        I have actually researched this topic at quite some length. The number of marriages that don't fail after infidelity are actually quite high. The number of marriages in which infidelity is tacitly (if not openly) tolerated is also a lot higher than you seem to think.

                        So post numbers, if you have research. Cite evidence. I can guarantee that most marriages have at least one partner who would rather the other not shag others.

                        You seem to personally believe quite strongly in monogamy

                        You have no fucking idea what I believe. Personally, I'm not fussed about monogamy - but I recognise that I am in a very tiny minority. The vast, huge, enormous majority does believe in monogamy.

                        What's more, you still haven't laid out a rationale for why the fact that some individuals choose to be obsessed with monogamy gives them the right to care whether or not others are, or to pressure those others regarding their marital habits.

                        C'mon, Trevor, you're really not that dense. It goes like this:-

                        - Partner A is with Partner B.

                        - Partner A wants Partner B to be monogamous.

                        - Partner B shags Partner X

                        - Partner A is now pissed off.

                        Seeing as how Partners A and B have made vows to each other about being monogamous, Partner A has some grounds for being pissed off, and some reason to try to cause Partner B to stay true to those vows by not shagging others. That's all there is - it's a broken promise. You might not care about that. I might not care about that. But the enormous majority of people in relationships really do care about that.

                        To be quite blunt about it, poking your nose into the bedchambers of others uninvited should be of itself illegal, no matter who the individuals in the bedchambers are.

                        Bullshit. If your partner is shagging someone else, you should have the right to poke your nose into that.

                        You will not convince me otherwise.

                        Yes, I've seen your closed-minded attitudes before. Your mail server setup was bollocks, and you didn't handle my saying so very well. You might like to think about why the rest of the world might occasionally disagree with you; they can't all be wrong all of the time.

                        Vic.

                        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                          Re: TED talk

                          We're going to have to agree to disagree. I believe you are projecting your own personal beliefs and morals out and thinking "everyone" agrees with them. Maybe "everyone" your particular geo does, but yoru statements don't reflect measurements of changing opinions.

                          More to the point, your arguments are functionally moralistic. "The world should be allowed to pry into interpersonal relationship issues because sex is involved and one person in a relationship might have an issue with how the other person conducts their affairs." That's bullshit. Bullshit of the highest order. If ti was an argument about wearing sandals versus sneakers nobody would try to say that anyone else had a right to listen in.

                          And yes, I am not going to listen to you on this. You are arguing from a position of prejudice rooted in nothing more than an ardent affirmation of sterotypes and your belief that others share your views. I've actually done a fair amount of research into this topic - and recently - as part of some large studies I'm engaging in on cultural differences in western nations.

                          Your social mores here are absolutely not shared by everyone. More to the point those who don't share your views on this are not some extreme fringe minority, they are a substantial - though not yet majority - % of the population. Even in the United States.

                          As religious influence wanes, so does puritanism about sex. And as puritanism about sex wanes so does the belief that people outside your immediate relationships deserve to know who you are having sex with.

                          And you know what? That is the moral truth of things. Religion used sex to control populations for generations. It is not in any way moral to continue with this, or to try to keep sex and sexuality titillating and taboo.

                          So no, you won't be convincing me. Mostly because your arguments stem from a sense of morality that I simply don't share...and I have done enough research to know that there are millions of others across the western nations who feel as I do. My moral and ethical viewpoint on this is emphatically not uncommon.

                          It may not be the majority view (yet), but it is shared by enough people that it cannot be considered invalid. So I'll stick to my original affirmation: the nation has no business in the bedroom of its elected officials, nor does the nation have any business in the bedrooms of the people.

                          And I'll fight against any attempt to make (or keep) our society one of puritanical voyeurism. If you wish to think ill of me for that, you go right ahead.

                          1. Vic

                            Re: TED talk

                            I believe you are projecting your own personal beliefs and morals out

                            Then you have entirely failed to read what is in front of you, preferring instead to subject us all to your own prejudice.

                            I am not projecting my morals, because my morals are irrelevant to this. All I'm saying is that the vast majority of people really do give a shit if their partner starts shagging someone else. If you believe otherwise, there is something seriously wrong with you. Let's have a show of hands - if anyone's still reading: let us know if you would mind if your partner started screwing around.

                            More to the point, your arguments are functionally moralistic. "The world should be allowed to pry into interpersonal relationship issues because sex is involved and one person in a relationship might have an issue with how the other person conducts their affairs."

                            That's not my argument at all. Once again, you're responding to the voices in yer heid, rather than what's actually been posted. What I said is that someone screwing around is liable to be blackmailed, and a nation has a right to know if its President has been compromised. Such compromise might be sexual - as was the start of this discussion - but could be many other things as well. This is why Profumo quit - he hadn't really done anthing particularly wrong, but he could be manipulated. So he resigned.

                            And yes, I am not going to listen to you on this

                            You do surprise me.

                            You are arguing from a position of prejudice rooted in nothing more than an ardent affirmation of sterotypes and your belief that others share your views.

                            No I am not. Read what I've posted - go on, look at the words. I'm not interested in what you *think* I might be talking about - you seem to have a significant problem with comprehension. I'm not arguing anything moral here - I'm just stating that the majority of people care if their partner fucks someone else. Such behaviour is commonly seen; you are claiming that most people do not care. That's an extraordinary claim, and it requires proof. I notice that you have not furnished any.

                            I've actually done a fair amount of research into this topic

                            Well, I'm tempted to call bullshit on that - but as you seem to be deliberately misinterpreting the words in front of your face, it's real hard to tell what exactly is the topic you're trying to argue. If you think this is a moral argument - you're just wrong. Nowhere have I said anything about what is right or wrong. All I've said is that most people would object to come home to find the wife knocking off Dave from Number 26. If you want to disprove that - cite evidence. You can't.

                            More to the point those who don't share your views on this are not some extreme fringe minority, they are a substantial - though not yet majority - % of the population.

                            A substantial percentage of the population doesn't care that the other half is bonking everyone else? Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Provide evidence. You can't.

                            As religious influence wanes, so does puritanism about sex

                            And no-one is being either religious or puritanical. *You* introduced the whole moral argument as a strawman. It's irrelevant, since it is not an argument anyone else has placed here. Your insistence that I am arguing it is simply bizarre; that's not my argument, it never was, it likely never will be, since I don't really care about that. I'm simply arguing pragmatism.

                            And I'll fight against any attempt to make (or keep) our society one of puritanical voyeurism.

                            And no-one is trying to do that. What I'm saying is that a President liable to compromise should be recognised as such. I don't care who he screws - not my business. What I care about is that the country can get sold out to cover such an affair.

                            If you wish to think ill of me for that, you go right ahead.

                            No, I'll just think ill of you for your idiotic strawman arguments, your failure to cite evidence to shore up your crazy assertions and your oft-repeated technique of snowing your opponents with verbiage when you have no case. I'll pity you for your lack of comprehension; I don't know if English is your native tongue.

                            Vic.

  10. veti Silver badge

    Alarm and despondency

    Historically, the people who've banged on endlessly about online security have been - not by coincidence - those who were looking to make a living out of selling it.

    That means that everyone - users, network owners, the media - have all been taking advice on this subject from people who have a vested interest in talking it up. There is no-one who has a business model based on constructing a fair, balanced description of online "threats". There are only "people who want us scared too silly to count the money we're about to throw at them".

    That, I'm convinced, is the reason why every little incident like this gets described in the most incendiary language possible. If the T-word hasn't been used yet, I'm damn' sure it's been described as an "attack", which itself is pretty alarmist language. If someone applies spray-paint to a roadside billboard, is that called an "attack"?

    So thank you for this, it's a long overdue attempt to start a reasonable discussion on the subject.

    1. Teiwaz Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: Alarm and despondency

      "every little incident like this gets described in the most incendiary language possible. "

      And you can apply that to almost any topic in the last twenty five years (possibly longer, I'd just come out of puberty, so I might not have been paying attention before that).

      Anybody 'banging on' about any topic, you can be sure their either want your money, your vote or your outrage...

      A compelling reason to just ignore everything and everybody really....

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Alarm and despondency

      Historically, the people who've banged on endlessly about online security have been - not by coincidence - those who were looking to make a living out of selling it. [..]

      That, I'm convinced, is the reason why every little incident like this gets described in the most incendiary language possible.

      Ah, but don't forget the removal of any relevant context. We DO need better security, but, ironically, much of that is driven by the behaviour of people who use the word "security" when really meaning "control". The reality is that we're technically not in a bad shape. It could be better, but it certainly could be worse as well - I recall a time in the early days of Linux where your average Slackware distro would have so many holes that there was actually no real point in setting a root password, so we've come a long way - if it wasn't for total and utter f*ckwits seeking to damage that progress because they want to legalise their stalking habits. Naturally, any sane person would not willingly condone stalking (only when you gently coax them into it like Facebook does), so the fear factor has to be turned to 11. If voters were rational when they voted, a lot of these idiots would never be in office.

      As for the hate culture, Monika Lewinsky called it well. It makes money. Even more accurately, it makes money by encouraging the worst amongst us to be as evil as they can be, because pain and outrage sell. Newspapers don't sell well with feel good stories, they sell on misery. Has a newspaper ever paid for good news about celebrities or people that have accidentally found themselves in the spotlights? No, they pay for the squalid details, they pay for data that enables jealousy and schadenfreude to play its part in sell, sell, sell, read all about it, sell.

      This is not news, but maybe I'm one of the few that actively avoids news like that. Hidden film of royalty being naked or being coaxed into Hitler salutes when nobody had yet worked out what a monster he was? Not interested. Celebrity couple having a fight and planning a divorce? I feel sorry for them, not interested in being the people that make it worse. Naked pictures that escaped of, well, anyone? I feel sorry for them, but no thanks, I'm not interested.

      Boring? Maybe. But decent. For some of us, being a decent person still matters. Maybe, just maybe it matters to you to. You're human, so you'll make mistakes - it is what makes us human. It is your choice if you want to live in a world where any mistake can screw up your life, or in a world where we can laugh about it and think about the time we screwed up ourselves and only had to cope with some good natured ribbing from friends, instead of a whole world piling in as if they are so perfect themselves.

      The time to make that choice is *right now*. And have a beer.

  11. Captain DaFt

    Just Trump doing his part

    In every major American election, the biggest fear is that people will pay attention to how candidates are selected, and what plans they have once in office.

    So every major election has its designated clown, whose purpose is to be so distracting that the press and people spend all their time poring over his/her antics and leave the political machinery to quietly machinate in peace until the proper to time to unveil the real "choices" that have been chosen for the next four years.

    So far, Trump has been excellent at the job.

  12. LucreLout Silver badge

    What I don't understand....

    ....is how America can claim to be a democracy when they once again rail road themselves into a choice between Bush and Clinton [1]. The only change being which Bush and which Clinton. Is there no sense that perhaps these families have had more than enough influence on American politics to date and that there needs to be some fresh thinking?

    Political dynasties do nothing to further democracy. The country should not be the family business.

    [1] - Ok, there's other candidates currently in the running, but this is almost certainly how things will end.

    1. Lysenko

      Re: What I don't understand....

      Despite all the frothing at the mouth in the 18th century about the tyranny implicit in a hereditary monarchy America has always been relatively comfortable with hereditary oligarchy.

      Couple that with economic Darwinism and an interpretation of the 1st Amendment that allows the media to be bought, corrupted and essentially compelled to broadcast unlimited private "party political broadcasts" and you have a recipe for the recreation of a pseudo-monarchy, albeit with two power blocks vying for supremacy - pretty much like any other civil war (Yorkists vs. Lancastrians, Stewarts vs. Hanoverians, Cavaliers vs. Roundheads etc).

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What I don't understand....

      What I don't understand is how America can claim to be a democracy

      You could have stopped right there. That ship sailed a loooong time ago..

  13. lukewarmdog

    Can't they claim..

    It was just free penetration testing.

    Incidentally that is what Clinton should have claimed.

    1. Teiwaz Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Can't they claim..

      > "It was just free penetration testing.

      Incidentally that is what Clinton should have claimed."

      Remind me, which Clinton are you referring to again?

  14. keithpeter
    Coat

    Those sheds...

    I decided to stop using Wordpress to publish a personal Web site some years ago because the time I spent upgrading the scripts was greater than the time I spent writing the Web pages.

    At some point, I decided to use wget to pull down html versions of all the pages, removed the Wordpress scripts and deleted the MySQL tables and then the database itself, then uploaded the static .html files in place (same URLs as I had a .htaccess rewrite thing to produce sane URLs). Result has a much lower cross section for attack - less of a shed on the prairie, more of an earth closet with a padlock on the door. Something like a few hours work including the downloading bit. I recollect a bit of a search and replace to make the links in the pages relative.

    Should some sysadmin not package up a set of scripts that can do this fairly automatically, release on git, and then propagandise politicians and other notables to get their techs to run it over legacy sites? Could we make that a bit of a campaign?

    Coat: being too sensible?

  15. Jamie Jones Silver badge

    Not just the internet..

    Whilst UK politicians rally fast and loose with the term 'terrorist' (to intentionally scare the populace), in America, it seems to be used by many who simply don't know what it means.

    Someone commits murder in the community, and isn't caught? Residents terrified. Ergo, terrorist.

    Ditto, women scared to go out at night when there's a rapist on the loose? they're terrified. Ergo, terrorist.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019