Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #159496 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-16 10:37 -0600 |
| Last post | 2016-02-19 12:55 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 317 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 10:37 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 09:54 -0800
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-16 19:41 +0100
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 21:11 +0100
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-17 02:16 +0100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 22:05 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 23:35 +0100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:13 +1100
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-17 04:53 +0100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 04:21 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 17:24 +1100
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 15:07 +0100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:02 +0000
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 08:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:02 +0000
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 08:01 +0000
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 18:07 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-17 14:01 -0500
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 18:09 -0800
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-17 20:45 -0700
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-17 22:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-18 11:16 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:44 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 15:00 +1100
Re: Ransomware Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-02-18 02:12 +0000
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-17 22:47 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 15:10 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 21:29 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:56 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 23:15 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 18:35 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-18 17:58 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 13:44 +1100
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-17 20:44 -0800
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 08:03 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:14 -0600
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 19:10 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-18 20:13 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 15:26 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:26 +0000
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 14:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 18:21 -0500
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 23:32 -0500
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:34 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 19:59 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 07:25 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:30 -0600
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-20 10:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:25 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 13:26 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:16 +1100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 13:22 +1100
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-19 17:36 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:01 +1100
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-20 16:26 -0800
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-21 13:52 -0800
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-21 18:51 -0500
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:18 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 15:03 +1100
Re: Ransomware Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-02-20 16:12 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 15:59 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:59 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 14:36 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 17:01 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 18:54 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 19:48 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-20 16:20 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 18:17 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:53 -0800
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 21:33 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:23 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 14:48 +1100
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:56 -0800
Re: Ransomware Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-19 23:18 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:35 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:12 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-20 15:33 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:11 +1100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 18:43 -0700
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 20:00 -0800
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 01:51 -0700
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 19:40 -0800
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:46 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-18 23:55 -0600
Re: Ransomware mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-19 10:48 +0000
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:56 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:50 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:29 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-19 16:54 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 17:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-20 08:30 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-20 15:29 +0000
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-20 10:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-20 11:03 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 16:14 -0600
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 16:27 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 09:49 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:29 +1100
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 18:53 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:42 +1100
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 14:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:24 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:53 +1100
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 18:15 +0000
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 17:55 -0800
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 11:19 -0500
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 11:46 -0500
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-18 18:01 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 14:36 -0500
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 11:23 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-19 09:28 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:19 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-18 11:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-18 10:24 -0700
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-18 12:27 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:22 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-19 00:07 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 18:34 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:41 -0500
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-19 07:43 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:13 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-19 08:01 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:50 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-18 13:34 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:34 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:33 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 21:04 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 13:46 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:34 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:47 +1100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-02-18 11:03 -0500
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-18 19:21 +0000
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-18 20:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-18 21:19 +0000
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 13:48 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-19 14:12 +0000
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 09:54 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:29 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 10:42 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-21 15:48 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:43 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:55 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:53 +1100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-23 13:13 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-24 04:49 +1100
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-21 19:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 16:19 +0000
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 18:08 -0800
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-19 18:18 -0800
Re: Ransomware mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-19 18:10 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-02-19 21:43 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 09:52 +1100
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-19 16:53 -0800
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 18:37 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:32 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:13 -0600
Re: Ransomware Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-02-16 17:57 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 14:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 03:42 +0000
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-17 08:05 +0000
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-17 12:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name,invalid> - 2016-02-17 15:21 +0100
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-17 07:38 -0700
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 18:07 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 12:10 -0600
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:34 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-18 12:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-16 12:49 -0800
Re: Ransomware Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-02-16 16:55 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-16 17:31 -0600
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 16:11 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:26 +1100
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:19 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-17 12:05 -0600
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 17:58 -0600
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 18:41 -0700
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 18:39 -0800
Re: Ransomware Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-16 16:44 -0400
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-16 15:30 -0600
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 00:20 +0100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-17 18:48 -0500
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@Last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 16:46 +0100
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-18 11:06 -0800
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 14:43 -0500
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-18 14:06 -0600
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 15:48 -0500
Re: Ransomware "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-18 15:36 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:30 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-18 19:38 -0500
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:43 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-19 00:51 +0100
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 13:45 +0000
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-19 15:00 +0100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 07:01 -0700
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-19 10:16 -0500
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 11:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 11:19 -0700
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-19 18:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 12:54 -0700
Re: Ransomware Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-02-20 17:46 -0800
Re: Ransomware JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 15:08 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-23 16:01 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 21:24 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:58 +1100
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-19 13:40 +0000
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:06 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 10:11 +1100
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 21:44 +0100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:13 +1100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-19 17:08 +0100
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:41 +1100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 09:35 +0100
Re: Ransomware Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-21 10:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 16:48 +0100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-21 18:40 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 01:53 +0100
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 18:36 -0700
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 00:12 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 09:37 +0100
Re: Ransomware Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-22 09:17 -0500
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 15:29 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-22 09:42 -0500
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 15:52 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-02-22 10:23 -0500
Re: Ransomware using libc scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-22 17:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 20:29 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-22 19:38 +0000
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 21:31 +0100
Re: Ransomware using libc Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-22 17:17 +0000
Re: Ransomware using libc Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 14:41 -0600
Re: Ransomware using libc Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 22:07 +0100
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-22 09:16 -0700
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 17:21 +0100
Re: Ransomware Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-02-22 09:34 -0700
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 11:11 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 18:25 +0100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 15:15 -0600
Re: Ransomware Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-02-22 22:28 +0100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-22 21:46 -0600
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:05 +1100
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:31 +1100
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-18 13:56 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-19 14:24 +0000
Re: Ransomware "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 05:16 +1100
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-19 17:09 -0600
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 03:55 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:56 +0000
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-22 14:07 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 07:15 +1100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 18:30 -0500
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-23 01:49 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 13:09 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-23 13:03 +1100
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 13:12 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:29 -0500
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 13:35 -0600
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-20 09:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 07:30 -0700
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 11:11 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 04:05 +1100
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-21 11:55 +0000
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-21 14:04 +0100
Re: Ransomware Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-21 13:57 +0000
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-21 23:28 +0000
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:34 +1100
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 03:32 +1100
Re: Ransomware Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-21 12:14 -0600
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 07:47 +1100
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-17 14:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-02-17 15:20 -0600
Re: Ransomware scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-17 21:31 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-18 08:23 +0000
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-18 11:42 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:23 -0500
Re: Ransomware Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-02-18 11:43 -0600
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:48 -0500
Re: Ransomware hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-16 17:04 -0800
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:42 +1100
Re: Ransomware Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 04:17 +0000
Re: Ransomware Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-17 04:08 -0400
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:04 +0000
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:38 -0500
Re: Ransomware Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-18 13:38 +0100
Re: Ransomware "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 17:57 -0500
Re: Ransomware "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:24 +1100
Re: Ransomware usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-02-17 23:03 +0000
Re: Ransomware Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-17 16:43 -0800
Re: Ransomware jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-02-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Ransomware Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 12:55 -0600
Page 7 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 16 Next page →
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 11:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <na4quh$3qg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #159640 |
On 17/02/2016 11:44 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:41:01 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass > wrote: > >> Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI >> expects Apple to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. >> I think I come down on the side of privacy, but the other side has >> some valid arguments too. > > In this particular case, my opinion favors privacy. > > But what happens if national security is threatened? Suppose the > feds had a phone which contained plans of an impending attack, and > accessing those plans would save significant lives? > It is never a one off. The same technology that solves that problem will enable someone to take a dollar out of ever bank account or compromise identity, free speech and other freedoms like Lawrence said, "The end never justifies the means. ever" In the 70's I spent quite a bit of time looking at personal privacy as the technology for computer networks was starting to evolve. Every counter case to personal security had some form of criminal element. Any loss of personal security meant a victory for criminal interests. This is probably the best reason to make security with no compromises. w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 10:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <9nrbcb5h4fgrm07ume23rvkitbis4egj6l@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #159640 |
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:44:29 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:41:01 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > >> Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI expects Apple >> to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I come down >> on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid arguments too. > >In this particular case, my opinion favors privacy. > >But what happens if national security is threatened? Suppose the feds >had a phone which contained plans of an impending attack, and accessing >those plans would save significant lives? Its unknown what is on the phone. So, I think saving lives takes precendence over privacy. The owner of the phone is dead. -- JimP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 11:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <na4shh$75g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #159679 |
On 18/02/2016 11:19 AM, JimP wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:44:29 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >> But what happens if national security is threatened? Suppose the feds >> had a phone which contained plans of an impending attack, and accessing >> those plans would save significant lives? > > Its unknown what is on the phone. So, I think saving lives takes > precendence over privacy. The owner of the phone is dead. > The real question is does it take precedence over MY privacy? w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 18:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160218180116.4a3fbcc1bf50b7d488b37c8d@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #159682 |
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:46:35 -0500 Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > On 18/02/2016 11:19 AM, JimP wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:44:29 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > > >> > >> But what happens if national security is threatened? Suppose the feds > >> had a phone which contained plans of an impending attack, and accessing > >> those plans would save significant lives? > > > > Its unknown what is on the phone. So, I think saving lives takes > > precendence over privacy. The owner of the phone is dead. > > > The real question is does it take precedence over MY privacy? Well that depends: Are you planning terrorist attacks ? Are you suspected of planning terrorist attacks ? Is anyone you know planning terrorist attacks ? Is anyone you know suspected of planning terrorist attacks ? Is anyone you're suspected of knowing planning terrorist attacks ? Is anyone you're suspected of knowing suspected of planning terrorist attacks ? Repeat with accused in place of suspected, and once again with capable in the same place and maybe a few more variations. Hopefully somewhere down the resultant list privacy wins. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 14:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <na56fc$ogj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #159702 |
On 18/02/2016 1:01 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:46:35 -0500 Walter Banks > <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > >> On 18/02/2016 11:19 AM, JimP wrote: >>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:44:29 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com >>> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> But what happens if national security is threatened? Suppose >>>> the feds had a phone which contained plans of an impending >>>> attack, and accessing those plans would save significant >>>> lives? >>> >>> Its unknown what is on the phone. So, I think saving lives takes >>> precendence over privacy. The owner of the phone is dead. >>> >> The real question is does it take precedence over MY privacy? > > Well that depends: > > Are you planning terrorist attacks ? Are you suspected of planning > terrorist attacks ? Is anyone you know planning terrorist attacks ? > Is anyone you know suspected of planning terrorist attacks ? Is > anyone you're suspected of knowing planning terrorist attacks ? Is > anyone you're suspected of knowing suspected of planning terrorist > attacks ? > > Repeat with accused in place of suspected, and once again with > capable in the same place and maybe a few more variations. Hopefully > somewhere down the resultant list privacy wins. > There are many parallels between privacy and free speech. Free speech too has down sides and there are limited cases where unlimited free speech has consequences. All free speech has responsibilities associated with it. As soon as there is any compromise in security and privacy and security we all lose. w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 11:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160219112304.79a7b3f6bd0983f912004ddb@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #159711 |
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:36:06 -0500 Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > On 18/02/2016 1:01 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:46:35 -0500 Walter Banks > > <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > > > >> On 18/02/2016 11:19 AM, JimP wrote: > >>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:44:29 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com > >>> wrote: > >> > >>>> > >>>> But what happens if national security is threatened? Suppose > >>>> the feds had a phone which contained plans of an impending > >>>> attack, and accessing those plans would save significant > >>>> lives? > >>> > >>> Its unknown what is on the phone. So, I think saving lives takes > >>> precendence over privacy. The owner of the phone is dead. > >>> > >> The real question is does it take precedence over MY privacy? > > > > Well that depends: > > > > Are you planning terrorist attacks ? Are you suspected of planning > > terrorist attacks ? Is anyone you know planning terrorist attacks ? > > Is anyone you know suspected of planning terrorist attacks ? Is > > anyone you're suspected of knowing planning terrorist attacks ? Is > > anyone you're suspected of knowing suspected of planning terrorist > > attacks ? > > > > Repeat with accused in place of suspected, and once again with > > capable in the same place and maybe a few more variations. Hopefully > > somewhere down the resultant list privacy wins. > > > > There are many parallels between privacy and free speech. Free speech > too has down sides and there are limited cases where unlimited free > speech has consequences. All free speech has responsibilities associated > with it. As soon as there is any compromise in security and privacy and > security we all lose. In practice there are no absolute rights they are all conditional, the question is always how to set up and evaluate the conditionals. It is never a simple issue, all the simple answers are wrong. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 09:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <na78qr$1p0a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #159777 |
On 19/02/2016 6:23 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:36:06 -0500 > Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: > >> On 18/02/2016 1:01 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:46:35 -0500 Walter Banks >>> <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 18/02/2016 11:19 AM, JimP wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:44:29 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But what happens if national security is threatened? Suppose >>>>>> the feds had a phone which contained plans of an impending >>>>>> attack, and accessing those plans would save significant >>>>>> lives? >>>>> >>>>> Its unknown what is on the phone. So, I think saving lives takes >>>>> precendence over privacy. The owner of the phone is dead. >>>>> >>>> The real question is does it take precedence over MY privacy? >>> >>> Well that depends: >>> >>> Are you planning terrorist attacks ? Are you suspected of planning >>> terrorist attacks ? Is anyone you know planning terrorist attacks ? >>> Is anyone you know suspected of planning terrorist attacks ? Is >>> anyone you're suspected of knowing planning terrorist attacks ? Is >>> anyone you're suspected of knowing suspected of planning terrorist >>> attacks ? >>> >>> Repeat with accused in place of suspected, and once again with >>> capable in the same place and maybe a few more variations. Hopefully >>> somewhere down the resultant list privacy wins. >>> >> >> There are many parallels between privacy and free speech. Free speech >> too has down sides and there are limited cases where unlimited free >> speech has consequences. All free speech has responsibilities associated >> with it. As soon as there is any compromise in security and privacy and >> security we all lose. > > In practice there are no absolute rights they are all conditional, > the question is always how to set up and evaluate the conditionals. It is > never a simple issue, all the simple answers are wrong. > When I was looking seriously into personal privacy issues there was at the time a widely held comment, "Privacy violations only occurred if one had a reasonable expectation of privacy and it was violated" What has been happening is expected right of privacy has moved from public places to private places. Communication privacy since 911 has changed, to "we didn't listen in only kept track who he was talking to". Personally I think the security of the IPhone has already been weakened by even suggesting the operating system can be updated without the password/security check. w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 05:19 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dip4lmFtvkuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159795 |
"Walter Banks" <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote in message news:na78qr$1p0a$1@gioia.aioe.org... > On 19/02/2016 6:23 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 14:36:06 -0500 >> Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >> >>> On 18/02/2016 1:01 PM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >>>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:46:35 -0500 Walter Banks >>>> <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 18/02/2016 11:19 AM, JimP wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:44:29 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But what happens if national security is threatened? Suppose >>>>>>> the feds had a phone which contained plans of an impending >>>>>>> attack, and accessing those plans would save significant >>>>>>> lives? >>>>>> >>>>>> Its unknown what is on the phone. So, I think saving lives takes >>>>>> precendence over privacy. The owner of the phone is dead. >>>>>> >>>>> The real question is does it take precedence over MY privacy? >>>> >>>> Well that depends: >>>> >>>> Are you planning terrorist attacks ? Are you suspected of planning >>>> terrorist attacks ? Is anyone you know planning terrorist attacks ? >>>> Is anyone you know suspected of planning terrorist attacks ? Is >>>> anyone you're suspected of knowing planning terrorist attacks ? Is >>>> anyone you're suspected of knowing suspected of planning terrorist >>>> attacks ? >>>> >>>> Repeat with accused in place of suspected, and once again with >>>> capable in the same place and maybe a few more variations. Hopefully >>>> somewhere down the resultant list privacy wins. >>>> >>> >>> There are many parallels between privacy and free speech. Free speech >>> too has down sides and there are limited cases where unlimited free >>> speech has consequences. All free speech has responsibilities associated >>> with it. As soon as there is any compromise in security and privacy and >>> security we all lose. >> >> In practice there are no absolute rights they are all conditional, >> the question is always how to set up and evaluate the conditionals. It is >> never a simple issue, all the simple answers are wrong. >> > > When I was looking seriously into personal privacy issues there was at the > time a widely held comment, > > "Privacy violations only occurred if one had a reasonable expectation of > privacy and it was violated" What has been happening is expected right of > privacy has moved from public places to private places. Communication > privacy since 911 has changed, to "we didn't listen in only kept track who > he was talking to". > > Personally I think the security of the IPhone has already been weakened by > even suggesting the operating system can be updated without the > password/security check. It can't be updated without the password/security check without wiping the contents of the phone if the phone has been locked by the owner.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 11:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <na4ti3$46u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #159640 |
On 2/17/2016 10:44 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:41:01 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > >> Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI expects Apple >> to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I come down >> on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid arguments too. > > In this particular case, my opinion favors privacy. > > But what happens if national security is threatened? Suppose the feds > had a phone which contained plans of an impending attack, and accessing > those plans would save significant lives? > The feds will always make that claim, whether or not it is true. How do you tell when they're lying?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 10:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <788089138.477508905.421975.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159685 |
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > On 2/17/2016 10:44 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:41:01 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: >> >>> Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI expects Apple >>> to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I come down >>> on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid arguments too. >> >> In this particular case, my opinion favors privacy. >> >> But what happens if national security is threatened? Suppose the feds >> had a phone which contained plans of an impending attack, and accessing >> those plans would save significant lives? >> > The feds will always make that claim, whether or not it is true. How > do you tell when they're lying? > Their lips are moving? <g> Actually it's probably true "a lot", but tne problem is they don't know where to stop and there's no one to control them. Many people place security over privacy. Fir me it's a theoretical issue, since I don't do anything they would care about if they read it. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 12:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1cbac319-3fee-4813-a31a-49903bfec82a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #159687 |
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12:24:42 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > ... Fir me it's a theoretical > issue, since I don't do anything they would care about if they read it. One of the problems with those in authority (police, prosecutors, federal agents, management, corporate security, etc.) is that they're looking for a way, any way, to nail you for an offense. That is their job. So, what you think is a totally innocent message might be--to the police--evidence that you were present at the scene of a crime, or somehow connected to offenders. That puts you at risk. The New York Times takes an interest in this sort of thing and from time to time reports on how innocent people get arrested and jailed for reasons such as this. Other people get arrested after a routine traffic stop because of bad information in a computer saying they're a fugitive. I know people who were falsely accused of a crime. It cost them time away from work, as well as thousands of dollars in legal fees to clear their names at trial, not to mention incredible stress and worry. Sometimes they go after people on the fringes, that is, those who might have had knowledge of improper activity but didn't report it. So, if one of your co-workers is stealing from the company, you could get in trouble for not failing to report it, even if you had no knowledge of it. Some might argue, "well the system worked, they were innocent and found not guilty". But it's wrong to put someone through the stress and expense of a trial. Obviously, this does not mean the cops will be busting down your door tonight and seize your computer and personal records. It is unlikely. But sh** happens and innocent people do get hurt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 10:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <din22dFds3gU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159716 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:1cbac319-3fee-4813-a31a-49903bfec82a@googlegroups.com... > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12:24:42 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > >> ... Fir me it's a theoretical >> issue, since I don't do anything they would care about if they read it. > > One of the problems with those in authority (police, prosecutors, federal > agents, management, corporate security, etc.) is that they're looking for > a way, any way, to nail you for an offense. That is their job. Like hell it is with the police, prosecutors and federal agents. Their job is actually to catch and punish criminals. > So, what you think is a totally innocent message What I know is a totally innocent message. > might be--to the police--evidence that > you were present at the scene of a crime, > or somehow connected to offenders. And they have to prove that, beyond reasonable doubt. > That puts you at risk. Bullshit. > The New York Times takes an interest in this sort of thing and from > time to time reports on how innocent people get arrested and jailed > for reasons such as this. Other people get arrested after a routine > traffic > stop because of bad information in a computer saying they're a fugitive. And by definition they eventually work out that they aren't, otherwise it wouldn't make it to a newspaper story. And that doesn't happen by looking at the person who is stopped at a routine traffic stop with their phone anyway. > I know people who were falsely accused of a crime. It cost them time > away from work, as well as thousands of dollars in legal fees to clear > their names at trial, not to mention incredible stress and worry. Not because of something on their phone. > Sometimes they go after people on the fringes, that is, those who > might have had knowledge of improper activity but didn't report it. Not by snooping in phones they don't. > So, if one of your co-workers is stealing from the company, you could get > in trouble for not failing to report it, even if you had no knowledge of > it. Not if you have no knowledge of it, and nothing to do with what is being discussed, WHAT THEY CAN GET OUT OF YOUR PHONE. > Some might argue, "well the system worked, they were > innocent and found not guilty". But it's wrong to put > someone through the stress and expense of a trial. Fuck all ever end up with a trial. > Obviously, this does not mean the cops will be busting down > your door tonight and seize your computer and personal records. And they won't find a thing if they do that. > It is unlikely. But sh** happens and innocent people do get hurt. At such a microscopic frequency that it makes the news when it happens, because it is so rare. And STILL nothing to do with what is in your phone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 00:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <na6bas$f49$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #159734 |
On 2/18/2016 5:22 PM, hgww wrote:
>
>
> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
> news:1cbac319-3fee-4813-a31a-49903bfec82a@googlegroups.com...
>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12:24:42 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> ... Fir me it's a theoretical
>>> issue, since I don't do anything they would care about if they read
>>> it.
>>
>> One of the problems with those in authority (police, prosecutors,
>> federal
>> agents, management, corporate security, etc.) is that they're
>> looking for
>> a way, any way, to nail you for an offense. That is their job.
>
> Like hell it is with the police, prosecutors and federal agents.
>
> Their job is actually to catch and punish criminals.
Maybe in Australia. In the US, it's to catch people that, if they can
be convicted, will be termed "criminals". Most cases never go to
trial, they're plea bargained. ("You claim you're innocent, but if
you're convicted you can get 10 years. You'll get a public defender
who's defending 200 other people at the same time, so he may have a
hard time remembering who you are, much less anything about your case.
Plead guilty and we can give you six months.") And if it does go to
trial, it's very common for police to lie on the witness stand. If
they're caught lying, it is extremely rare that any punishment will
follow. (The prosecutor would have to charge them, and he works with
them every day, he depends on cops to make him look good. And... it
can be dangerous to make an enemy of a cop.)
>> So, what you think is a totally innocent message
>
> What I know is a totally innocent message.
What you know is irrelevant. What's relevant is what someone else can
be convinced of.
>
>> might be--to the police--evidence that
>> you were present at the scene of a crime,
>> or somehow connected to offenders.
>
> And they have to prove that, beyond reasonable doubt.
No, the prosecutor is supposed to prove that. At your trial, at which
time you may have sat in jail for a year because you couldn't make the
bail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 18:34 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dinus6Fk9iaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159764 |
"Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message
news:na6bas$f49$1@dont-email.me...
> On 2/18/2016 5:22 PM, hgww wrote:
>>
>>
>> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
>> news:1cbac319-3fee-4813-a31a-49903bfec82a@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12:24:42 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... Fir me it's a theoretical
>>>> issue, since I don't do anything they would care about if they read
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> One of the problems with those in authority (police, prosecutors,
>>> federal
>>> agents, management, corporate security, etc.) is that they're
>>> looking for
>>> a way, any way, to nail you for an offense. That is their job.
>>
>> Like hell it is with the police, prosecutors and federal agents.
>>
>> Their job is actually to catch and punish criminals.
>
> Maybe in Australia.
No maybe about it, and that is true in all of the great democracies too.
> In the US, it's to catch people that, if they can be convicted, will be
> termed "criminals".
BULLSHIT.
> Most cases never go to trial, they're plea bargained.
BULLSHIT.
> ("You claim you're innocent, but if you're convicted you can get 10 years.
> You'll get a public defender who's defending 200 other people at the same
> time, so he may have a hard time remembering who you are, much less
> anything about your case. Plead guilty and we can give you six months.")
They don’t do that with everyone.
> And if it does go to trial, it's very common for police to lie on the
> witness stand.
BULLSHIT.
> If they're caught lying, it is extremely rare that any punishment will
> follow. (The prosecutor would have to charge them, and he works with them
> every day, he depends on cops to make him look good. And... it can be
> dangerous to make an enemy of a cop.)
Even sillier than you usually manage. There
have been plenty of convictions of cops.
>>> So, what you think is a totally innocent message
>> What I know is a totally innocent message.
> What you know is irrelevant. What's relevant is what someone else can be
> convinced of.
And they can't be convicted of anything
when it is a totally innocent message.
>>> might be--to the police--evidence that
>>> you were present at the scene of a crime,
>>> or somehow connected to offenders.
>> And they have to prove that, beyond reasonable doubt.
> No,
Yep.
> the prosecutor is supposed to prove that. At your trial, at which time you
> may have sat in jail for a year because you couldn't make the bail.
People like us can always make bail for charges like that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 05:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3130bb7d8762d3df989f95@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #159766 |
In article <dinus6Fk9iaU1@mid.individual.net>, hgww@gmail.com says... > > "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message > news:na6bas$f49$1@dont-email.me... > > On 2/18/2016 5:22 PM, hgww wrote: > >> > >> > >> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message > >> news:1cbac319-3fee-4813-a31a-49903bfec82a@googlegroups.com... > >>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12:24:42 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: > >>> > >>>> ... Fir me it's a theoretical > >>>> issue, since I don't do anything they would care about if they read > >>>> it. > >>> > >>> One of the problems with those in authority (police, prosecutors, > >>> federal > >>> agents, management, corporate security, etc.) is that they're > >>> looking for > >>> a way, any way, to nail you for an offense. That is their job. > >> > >> Like hell it is with the police, prosecutors and federal agents. > >> > >> Their job is actually to catch and punish criminals. > > > > Maybe in Australia. > > No maybe about it, and that is true in all of the great democracies too. > > > In the US, it's to catch people that, if they can be convicted, will be > > termed "criminals". > > BULLSHIT. > > > Most cases never go to trial, they're plea bargained. > > BULLSHIT. According to the United States government, 90-95 percent of both federal and state court cases are resolved through plea bargaining. <https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf> (see the paragraph on page 1 below "BACKGROUND"). However you shout BULLSHIT to statements that are demonstrably true and assert that an iPhone 5s contains no memory chip, so it's clear that you're making it up as you go and I for one am not interested in wasting more time on your posts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 07:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <diokgaFpq7fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159773 |
"J. Clarke" wrote: > According to the United States government, 90-95 percent of both federal > and state court cases are resolved through plea bargaining. > <https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf> > (see the paragraph on page 1 below "BACKGROUND"). I live in a county with a population of over 500K and I was on jury duty a few years ago. A bunch of people would congregate in a big room every day for five days; we were the jury pool. During the entire week three actual juries were convened when last minute plea bargaining didn't produce a result. That's less than one crime per seven day week in a pretty big city and I think that supports the 90-95% statistic. .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 16:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <abHxy.5421$hN1.596@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #159780 |
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes: >"J. Clarke" wrote: > >> According to the United States government, 90-95 percent of both federal >> and state court cases are resolved through plea bargaining. >> <https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf> >> (see the paragraph on page 1 below "BACKGROUND"). > >I live in a county with a population of over 500K and I was on jury duty a >few years ago. A bunch of people would congregate in a big room every day >for five days; we were the jury pool. During the entire week three actual >juries were convened when last minute plea bargaining didn't produce a >result. That's less than one crime per seven day week in a pretty big city >and I think that supports the 90-95% statistic. . > The one homicide case on which jury I got assigned was dismissed the morning of the first day - due to plea bargin. OTOH, when I lived in Los Angeles county (Pasadena), I was on a panel twice a day until I got selected for a Jury (hit-n-run case). It was a very busy courthouse downtown (but a uncomfortable bus ride through east LA to get there), circa 1986.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 08:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <diolhlFq2g5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159773 |
People wrote things: > In article <dinus6Fk9iaU1@mid.individual.net>, hgww@gmail.com says... >> >> "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message >> news:na6bas$f49$1@dont-email.me... >> > On 2/18/2016 5:22 PM, hgww wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1cbac319-3fee-4813-a31a-49903bfec82a@googlegroups.com... >> >>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12:24:42 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> ... Fir me it's a theoretical >> >>>> issue, since I don't do anything they would care about if they read >> >>>> it. >> >>> >> >>> One of the problems with those in authority (police, prosecutors, >> >>> federal >> >>> agents, management, corporate security, etc.) is that they're >> >>> looking for >> >>> a way, any way, to nail you for an offense. That is their job. >> >> >> >> Like hell it is with the police, prosecutors and federal agents. >> >> >> >> Their job is actually to catch and punish criminals. >> > >> > Maybe in Australia. >> >> No maybe about it, and that is true in all of the great democracies too. >> >> > In the US, it's to catch people that, if they can be convicted, will be >> > termed "criminals". >> >> BULLSHIT. >> >> > Most cases never go to trial, they're plea bargained. >> >> BULLSHIT. > > According to the United States government, 90-95 percent of both federal > and state court cases are resolved through plea bargaining. > <https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf> > (see the paragraph on page 1 below "BACKGROUND"). > > However you shout BULLSHIT to statements that are demonstrably true and > assert that an iPhone 5s contains no memory chip, so it's clear that > you're making it up as you go and I for one am not interested in wasting > more time on your posts. I usually ignore anything that Rod posts, his posts are either obvious or out past the thee sigma point. I just noticed he really went off the rails in that last BULLSHIT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 04:50 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dip2v2FthuaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #159773 |
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.3130bb7d8762d3df989f95@news.eternal-september.org... > In article <dinus6Fk9iaU1@mid.individual.net>, hgww@gmail.com says... >> >> "Dave Garland" <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote in message >> news:na6bas$f49$1@dont-email.me... >> > On 2/18/2016 5:22 PM, hgww wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1cbac319-3fee-4813-a31a-49903bfec82a@googlegroups.com... >> >>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12:24:42 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> ... Fir me it's a theoretical >> >>>> issue, since I don't do anything they would care about if they read >> >>>> it. >> >>> >> >>> One of the problems with those in authority (police, prosecutors, >> >>> federal >> >>> agents, management, corporate security, etc.) is that they're >> >>> looking for >> >>> a way, any way, to nail you for an offense. That is their job. >> >> >> >> Like hell it is with the police, prosecutors and federal agents. >> >> >> >> Their job is actually to catch and punish criminals. >> > >> > Maybe in Australia. >> >> No maybe about it, and that is true in all of the great democracies too. >> >> > In the US, it's to catch people that, if they can be convicted, will be >> > termed "criminals". >> >> BULLSHIT. >> >> > Most cases never go to trial, they're plea bargained. >> >> BULLSHIT. > > According to the United States government, 90-95 percent of both > federal and state court cases are resolved through plea bargaining. > <https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf> > (see the paragraph on page 1 below "BACKGROUND"). Not in the sense of his original NEVER GO TO TO TRIAL. They are almost entirely plea bargains where the case does go to trial. > However you shout BULLSHIT to statements that are demonstrably true None of those are. > and assert that an iPhone 5s contains no memory chip, I said it contains no REMOVABLE memory chip. > so it's clear that you're making it up as you go Easy to claim. > and I for one am not interested in wasting more time on your posts. Your problem, as always.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 21:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <na5ddp1eub@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #159687 |
On 2016-02-18, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote: > Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote: > >> On 2/17/2016 10:44 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 8:41:01 PM UTC-5, Peter Flass wrote: >>> >>>> Look at the current Apple vs. FBI dustup. Apparently the FBI expects Apple >>>> to develop code to break the encryption on an iPhone. I think I come down >>>> on the side of privacy, but the other side has some valid arguments too. >>> >>> In this particular case, my opinion favors privacy. >>> >>> But what happens if national security is threatened? Suppose the feds >>> had a phone which contained plans of an impending attack, and accessing >>> those plans would save significant lives? >>> >> The feds will always make that claim, whether or not it is true. How >> do you tell when they're lying? > > Their lips are moving? <g> Actually it's probably true "a lot", but tne > problem is they don't know where to stop and there's no one to control > them. Many people place security over privacy. Fir me it's a theoretical > issue, since I don't do anything they would care about if they read it. "... he slipped the coronet casually back atop his head. Only for a while, of course. A very little while. He pledged himself solemnly that there would definitely be no question about that. He would wear it just long enough to clean up all the loose ends - just that long and not one second longer, he pledged, and he knew as he pledged it that he lied." -- Frederik Pohl: A Plague of Pythons -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web