I wonder how many people actually paid.
3466 posts • joined 3 Sep 2007
I feel sorry when large companies do moves that seem so full of fail. I suppose they are doing their best, but it does seem so woefully inadequate...
Better than nothing I suppose. If a company has for policy to only buy HP, they will eventually buy those. But they have acted way too late to be significant players in any way.
Google keeps sending me e-mail to tell me they have awarded me millions in jackpot. And I didn't even have to work for it!
That said, they might want to raise the prizes if they really hope people with look for possible bugs. Hearing that the cash machine gave all of $14'000 in prizes sounds cheap. But maybe I'm too demanding.
I would not be surprised if the whole thing was just about "following the rules". I.e. they are absolutely unwilling to change the way things would be done if he was just Joe Nobody. It is quite likely that they would refuse interrogating him at his convenience, be it in the UK or by video. So, following the rules, they ask for extradition the way they would with anybody else.
In that case, all this grandstanding about rendition would be nothing but paranoia from his part. Of course, you have good reasons to be paranoid when you pissed off the US so much...
I hope he gets extradited, then receives a fine and a few months with probation, as one would expect for such conduct. I would be laughing long and loud.
Do these apps show the standard screens requesting for net access, GPS access, size of private parts, etc?
If they do, I believe Apple is quite safe... I doubt it can be claimed that Apple should check whether each request is reasonable with relation to the functionality of the app... And if crooked app makers sell user data, this is not exactly something that Apple can stop.
What happens when you push such a guard too far? Not much, it seems.
I remember hearing from the militia soldiers guarding embassies in Switzerland after 9/11. Their gun was sometimes loaded, but their instructions pretty much were that no matter what happened, they should not shoot. Now think carefully: What is the point of the gun being loaded in this case? Does it make for a more secure or a less secure world?
Assange must really regret not keeping it in his pants these days...
But whether he is Jim/Joe Leaks or not, I bet that Manning is regretting his compulsion to look cool on the web. Oh My God. Fifty years of your life for fifteen minutes of fame in a chat room.
It brings up True Lies' definition of kids: 10 seconds of joy, 30 years of misery.
I have no idea where it happened, but assuming that the theft* happened in Iraq, they were most certainly preoccupied with a lot of other stuff beside checking that the classified computer had the proper protocols and security enhancements installed. And as somebody said, if somebody has administrator access, it becomes really hard to stop him from doing whatever he wants, encrypted or not.
*Considering these documents are indeed classified, but technically in the public domain as far as copyright law is concerned (as they were written by US gov employees), I would contend that theft is an inadequate word.
The similarities are striking.
And, you know, I am not at all certain anymore that this is a set up... The reactions of the girls seem plausible. Especially the part about being convinced at the police station to press charges.
Though it is unlikely they ever imagined the explosion their accusation would create... Holy $#!7...
"I had never heard of the name Bradley Manning before it was published in the press"
I can well believe this, but it is not enough. If he ever sent a message saying something like:
"Mr. Anonymous contributor #1234, I believe you should be able to copy this classified info on a CD-ROM that you can disguise as a music CD of Lady Gaga, then put on earphones to pretend you are listening to it", then he is in trouble because he can be charged for conspiracy.
If on the other hand, he only ever wrote: "thanks for this information you want to send to us, I will set up a server for you", then he might be all right.
As for the SMS messages, I can believe it is a set up, but I can also believe he is embellishing more innocuous messages. After all, he has already exaggerated somewhat the 'crimes' uncovered by the cables.
Honestly, I wouldn't want to be the guy in charge of making these decisions at Amazon. No matter what they do, people will complain on both sides...
One might regret that they are not willing to make a stand and go "we will publish anything without censorship" but they are a business trying to make money, not a civil rights organization. Accordingly, they try to make everybody happy, even though this is clearly not possible.
Actually, I believe the Reg had already warned leaks seeker that malware pushers always ride on the wave of the currently fashionable, sometimes within minutes. I do not recall that anybody accused the Reg at the time of bowing to pressure from the US.
IE 9 beta: 99%
IE 8: 90%
Firefox 3.6: 19%
Safari 5: 11%
Chrome 6: 3%
This does look suspicious. I freely admit I have never studied the question, and I have no idea what techniques different browsers use, but I have trouble believing the results. Of course, the fact that Microsoft commissioned the study does not help any...
I would also be more interested if I was actually scared of getting malware from a web site, but I feel somewhat safe on my jobsian machine.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019