| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20030619204541.GA14494@eiv.com> From: smcmahon at eiv.com (Shawn McMahon) Subject: Destroying PCs remotely? On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 02:45:51PM -0400, JT said: > > the sunset clause, which they are attempting. Also, are you under some > dilusion that there are a finite number of "bad" people out there. You think Are you under the dElusion that there are an infinite number of people capable and willing to perform large-scale terrorist acts? If so, please explain why they don't happen daily, and where the infinite number of people are stored. (Hint: "everywhere".) > you can just eradicate them all? You believe that if they are captured they > pose no threat? Oh boy....you really do live in some sort of dreamworld. Yes, I believe that no further terrorist acts have been committed by the folks we're holding in lockup in Guantanamo Bay. If you have some evidence as to the attacks they've committed since being locked up, I'll be glad to look at it. Further, I believe that no further terrorist acts have been committed by the ones we've killed. If you have some evidence as to the attacks they've committed since being killed, I'll be glad to look at it. > It's a pity you can't stay on the argument at hand which had to do with > remotely destroying someones pc for copyright infringement. Please relate > that to 9/11 for me somehow cause I see no correlation. My comment about the You referenced the Patriot Act as being an example of wrongdoing on Hatch's part. Are you honestly trying to say that this is not a point open to debate, and further that anyone involved in the discussion should have "just known" that it wasn't open for debate? > patriot act was to demonstrate Hatch's past history, in no way did I relate > it to 9/11. The fact that you didn't relate it does not make it not related. > It's already been proven that the reason 9/11 happened was > due > to a breakdown in intel. communication between departments. Please explain Yes; and part of what the Patriot Act does is make it LEGAL for those departments to communicate in the necessary ways. It wasn't before. > continues to provide a false sense of security. They've already demonstrated > within 1 month of 9/11 that another plane could be taken easily, so it would > seem you are not so safe. Exactly why we needed reforms of the laws regarding how we defend ourselves. You'll note that there have been no more successful large-scale attacks, despite the presence of more attackers. You'll further note that we've been capturing and/or killing the tangoes in literally record numbers. And, for the "it's not temporary" folks, have let quite a few people go after it was determined that they no longer posed a clear and present threat. -- 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/20030619/3008bb07/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists