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]

From: smcmahon at eiv.com (Shawn McMahon)
Subject: Destroying PCs remotely?

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 11:03:03AM -0400, JT said:
> 
> overreacting because he didn't even propose it as a law....even though it
> would seem he is having hearings on the matter. I wonder what the process is

Yes, to anyone who hasn't read the news stories, and is working from
third-hand information that they didn't read for comprehension, it would
seem like he's having hearings on this matter.

For anybody actually following the story, it would seem like he made an
off-the-cuff comment in a hearing on the more general matter.

> exist until HE MADE IT UP!!  Maybe you believe we live in a republic, but as
> it stands, the government is controlled by big business and lobbying. Maybe

Exactly which business put a gun to your head and made you vote for him?
Or do you believe that they only do that to everybody else in the
country, just not you?

> First off, your Ben Franklin quote is backwards..second...the original quote

I had no Ben Frankling quote.  I had a Shawn McMahon quote.  Feel free
to use it.

> you're trying to use directly contradicts everything following it. The
> correct quote is "He who would give up essential liberties for temporary
> security shall have neither"  Let me translate that for ya cause it's a
> quote MY side uses to support our point anyways LOL- 
> 
> If we give up rights like the patriot act has us do in the hopes for some
> temp. security, we will have neither. Get it?

Wrong.  The Patriot Act doesn't strip ESSENTIAL liberties for TEMPORARY
security.  It inconveniences liberties for permanent security.

> That means MORE laws, stripping away MORE RIGHTS, in the name of SECURITY,
> is USELESS and WILL NOT WORK.

Franklin's entire adult life was spent writing laws to enhance
security, at the expense of liberty.  It's called "rule of law instead
of anarchy".  Temporarily keeping details of court-ordered wiretaps
secret, which is the primary objection that has been leveled at the
Patriot Act, isn't stripping essential liberty for temporary safety.
It's all still court-controlled and overseen by the Legislative branch,
just not made fully public as quickly.  Oooooo, I'm so scared, Big
Brother is keeping secrets from the enemy.  The horror.

If anything, it is likely to result in MORE oversight, and LESS abuse of
power, because law enforcement will be less tempted to cheat instead of
letting the bad guys find out what we're doing.

Removing the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater was a reduction
in liberty in the name of security.  I 100% support it.  Live with it.

-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20030619/8ad5c819/attachment.bin