how-to block ads
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| Re: DOJ Bullying? Makes no difference. In a public forum I would easily challenge the ability to have such a scheme implemented and then easily compromise it. A handful of $20 USB thumb-style NICs makes it rather easy to change MACs that could be used with someone else's wireless network.
And if that were not enough, you could just continue to use one MAC/NIC and wardrive to do whatever malicious activity you wanted in the first place. Child pornography is a weak excuse because a lot of people do not have children.
Its a joke to sugest that CP is above all other things in concern by the Bush administration. And then they are trying to get ISP's to foot what will be a very large bill that most will not be able to afford.
And this isn't to stop Internet crimes like DDOS, pirating media, or even terrorism. DOJ doesn't even see that on their substantial-threat radar, but the other arm of the government thinks all terrorists use ONLY phones to communicate with. | |
|  
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Re: DOJ Bullying? I hope you didn't think I was supporting this measure. I was merely pointing out that the specter of Child Pornography was only raised to force ISPs (and politicians) into compliance with what the DOJ wanted. Child Pornography is disgusting and should be stopped, but a program like the one the DOJ is suggesting would be 1) prohibitively expensive, 2) highly intrusive to the privacy of the innocent, and 3) extremely likely to be abused (either by expanding the scope of the program beyond Child Pornography to "score a victory" for the program or by using the accumulated data to find some dirt on someone.)
--
-Jason Levine
My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com | |
| | 
AB
Premium
join:2006-04-04
Leesburg, VA
| Re: DOJ Bullying? said by Jason Levine  :I hope you didn't think I was supporting this measure. I was merely pointing out that the specter of Child Pornography was only raised to force ISPs (and politicians) into compliance with what the DOJ wanted. Child Pornography is disgusting and should be stopped, but a program like the one the DOJ is suggesting would be 1) prohibitively expensive, 2) highly intrusive to the privacy of the innocent, and 3) extremely likely to be abused (either by expanding the scope of the program beyond Child Pornography to "score a victory" for the program or by using the accumulated data to find some dirt on someone.) Amen, brother! Well said!
--
Why, yes! Certifiably so. Why do you ask? | |
| | | |
|
