full-disclosure - Destroying PCs remotely?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <00c001c335c0$08ea6d80$6e01a8c0@tekwiz>
From: ptourvi1 at twcny.rr.com (JT)
Subject: Destroying PCs remotely?

Well he could have said anything other than copyright violator, I still
would not change my view. Yes, spam is horrid, but nobody should have the
right to just up and destroy something because they THINK they are right.
Besides that, as many people have noted, it also has to do a lot with even
enabling a technology like that. It wouldn't be two days before some person
figured out how to mass kill machines. We have too many laws as it is. It's
already illegal to violate copyright yet we keep adding more laws. Now we
contradict ourselves by having fair use on one side, but DMCA on the other,
and to make a fair use copy of some stuff, you HAVE to go around copy
protection thus violating the DMCA. It's getting scary out there.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com 
> [mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com] On Behalf Of 
> Shawn McMahon
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 12:29 PM
> To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Destroying PCs remotely?
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:49:44PM +0100, John.Airey@...b.org.uk said:
> > 
> > Your constitution says (Amendment V) "No person shall ... 
> be deprived of
> > life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". 
> > 
> > How you can have due process when any warnings will be on 
> the PC that has
> > been destroyed? Unless of course you find out the person's 
> address. If you
> 
> You can't.  But off-the-cuff comments essentially wishing doom on
> people you don't like aren't violations of the Constitution.  When we
> make them against spammers, we view it as justifiable 
> frustation.  When
> Hatch makes them against copyright violators, folks come out of the
> woodwork spewing venom.  Some of them, ironically, calling for the
> destruction of his PC without due process.  Hatch wasn't introducing a
> bill, he was bitching about people doing something illegal that he
> personally disagrees with, and that has a potential direct 
> effect on him
> since he holds some copyrights.
> 
> If he'd said "spammer" instead of "copyright violator" we'd all be
> cheering him on.  Instead, you're making statements like "people like
> him give Christians a bad name", which is really ironic in an email
> signed with an anti-Evolution sig.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Shawn McMahon     | Let every nation know, whether it wishes 
> us well or ill,
> EIV Consulting    | that we shall pay any price, bear any 
> burden, meet any
> UNIX and Linux	  | hardship, support any friend, 
> oppose any foe, to assure
> http://www.eiv.com| the survival and the success of liberty. - JFK
>