champu

Do you think the McLellands were killed by a family member or friend?

Trollers gonna troll.

Well, I think lawrocket has made his point clear both here in summary and at length in the Dorner thread and, yes, I agree with him. In order to create laws to dip further into privacy with the goal of declaring more people unfit to own firearms, I think you'd have to amend the constitution. And when we say that it's not the second amendment that we're referring to. rehmwa, on the other hand, apparently didn't make his point clear based on your response. When he said, "assumption that the only solution is a legal one" he didn't mean, "...in contrast with an illegal one." he meant, "...in contrast to where without any additional laws, the people in the lives of some of these killers went further to get them help (to potentially include having them committed) before they snapped." It can be discomforting to hear people essentially say, "I don't know what the solution is, but I know it involves more laws." (only carrying a hammer, everything looking like nails, etc.)

Who? Show us the post that backs up your claim here. Scroll up. See Lawrocket. I'm actually having trouble finding where lawrocket said he didn't think Loughner was/is insane. Recently he listed him amongst examples of insane people to contrast with murderers that didn't appear to be insane. And why say "some" if you just meant lawrocket? Or is this thread just about him (i.e. another poster)?

154 round in 5 minutes? Is this supposed to be extreme? Rather more than you could achieve with the muzzle loaders the authors of the 2nd Amendment were familiar with. I seriously doubt they envisaged a firearm that could kill 26 people in 5 minutes. Is this post of yours part of Operation: Abundant Clarity?

The worst I've had is road rash from skidding to a stop using my shins on dried, low-cut, desert weeds while wearing swoop shorts. For those in arable areas: think toughness of corn right after it's been cut, only much smaller and more densely spaced. It sucked. I didn't want to swoop for a while. But it gave me time to think about things besides just sight pictures, set ups, and rates of turn. I don't want to be the guy that over-analyzes your photos, but I see a lot of buildings and asphalt. When you get back to it, I would scope the property for places you could set up a course that would be a little more forgiving, both if you make contact with the ground a little sooner than planned, or if you have to stop turning a little sooner than planned.

Would the standards of conspicuousness brought up in browse-wrap cases apply to TOS violations as an extension of CFAA? What I'm getting at is if the person is an AT&T customer, then the court may rule that he or she had been reasonably put on notice of the terms of service through the process of creating an account. However, if the person was not an AT&T customer, and they went poking around at urls, one might be able to make an argument that the portion of the terms of service that said "using this site is subject to you not poking around" was not presented in a conspicuous fashion.

I think we're on the same page. What I was trying to do in my examples is throw out some situations where law enforcement tried to enforce such a law, or tried to do their jobs with this law on the books, and see where things could go pear-shaped. I don't think police are going to try to hold a seller responsible for a person they sold a gun to's actions, but I can definitely see a politician coming along and telling everyone he or she is "gonna get tough on delinquent sellers." only to go around harassing people who don't keep good records and share them readily. What I think may not be clear, as evidenced by people suggesting I be gagged, is that any record kept of a private sale is still just that, private. This wouldn't empower cops to go around demanding sale records from everyone and if you're missing one, "well, take his card, oh and the rest of the guns here." There's no paperwork that follows a firearm around to be "out of order" which is a key feature of this approach, and there's no searchable database or list that results, which is another.

I was not familiar with the Aaron Swartz case, thank you. I'm inclined to agree with your post.

Here's the text of 18 U.S.C. SS 1030 with, I believe, the relevent subsections being (a)(2)(C), (e)(2)(B), and (e)(6) Here's the text of rfc2616 sec11 per the World Wide Web Consortium, the standards body behind web browsers and servers. So, if there was an authetication step which he completed, and he then used the credentials from that authentication to obtain other information on the system, then I think there's a solid argument that he's in violation. If AT&T did not implement any form of authentication before allowing access to the information, and you still want to call this guy guilty, then the subject line of this thread becomes true.

People want a lot of things. I would argue that if you put something in an unassigned, publicly accessible* locker, and don't lock it, you don't have reasonable expectation that it will be there when you get back. Sounds misanthropic. Is true. *note that the gym isn’t even a perfect example because presumably you have to have a membership to get to the locker room… let’s make it a locker in a bus station.

I can see that perspective. I'm still surprised that people would consider opening all the lockers and dumping out the contents to be appropriate behavior. I'm pretty sure that such behavior would earn someone an ass-kicking if they were to do that in the "real" world. Don Well, when they're done kicking his ass (and serving any resulting sentences for assault) what they should do is reflect on their choice not to use a lock. As I suggested in post #24, kicking the ass of people that do things like that does absolutely nothing to protect your stuff. Maybe you didn't know locks existed, or maybe (like in the OP) a third party was putting your stuff in lockers with no locks and not teling you. Either way, your reaction should focus on buying a lock and using it because the guy who opens up locker 173 and just walks off with the contents isn't going to hang around for an ass-kicking.

it's excellent this is pretty much the process I proposed (without the photos). But I'm good if it doesn't require reporting my name on the sale. (it's none of the government's business how many or what guns I buy - but the seller can personally track or not track who they sell to. That's his business and his private records.) cleared to buy - should include proof of gun safety training/experience - IMHO Well, I like it to, but there are problems with it as I point out in my example scenario 4. If you recover a gun and the manufacturer tells you it was made after the law went into effect then that's one thing, but we're talking about a really long time constant to get to that point. If you're in law enforcement and you're dealing with a guy who you think is selling guns to people with no cards, and one of them turns up in a crime, how do you prove that he sold the guy the gun after the law went into effect? Do you trust the guy who you've arrested for using the gun in a crime? Do you try to piece together the details of what was probably a cash transaction? Or do you send in an undercover officer as someone without a card and hope he slips up? And, more importantly, if you're a law abiding citizen who began checking for cards for all sales as soon as it was mandated, how do you get the law enforcement guy off your back when he or she comes asking about a gun you sold a while ago? Maybe you have good records and maybe you don't, but it shouldn't be on you to make a case that you didn't do anything wrong. I don't think these are non-starters, but I think these two cases of grandfathered transactions need to be addressed up front, and in doing so people need to be comfortable with the idea that this will only help fix the problem eventually.

I think I have a better analogy for you. You keep bringing up this "lock" and I want to be clear that no one with any business being in the computer security industry considers obscurity to be any kind of lock. Picture, instead, you go to a gym and they have a few hundred lockers. Most of them are empty. You put your stuff in the 173rd locker and don't put a lock on it because, "what are the odds someone is going to look in that locker?" Everybody else does the same. Then someone comes along and goes through all the unlocked lockers, takes the contents out and puts them on the ground in front of the lockers and stands back and calls everyone idiots.

So, suppose we went with a federal "cleared to buy" card/certificate/whatever that you could get by filling out a form and passing a background check. It would last one year, could be renewed easily (maybe even online, where an updated background check could be run and then they send you a new card) and with it you could buy zero guns or several guns. Card is presented by the buyer to the seller for any transaction, and seller makes a copy of the buyer's card. (could be as simple as placing the card next to the firearm with the serial number showing and taking a photo with a smartphone. The transaction doesn't need to be reported to anyone. Okay, sounds pretty good (I think), now what... Someone commits a crime with a gun. Nobody gets hurt so the DA says, "hey tell you what... you tell me who sold you the gun and I'll push for a lighter sentence." guy tells him who he bought it from. Police go to the named person and say, "hey, you sold a gun to a guy who used it in a crime, do you have a record of him having a cleared-to-buy card? 1) guy says, "yeah" and presents it. It checks out, police now have to leave him alone. 2) guy says, "never heard of 'em and I've never seen that gun in my life." Police now have the option to go to the manufacturer and try and put together a story that shows that said person has, in fact, seen that gun in his life. If they can, and he has, then they can try and arraign him. 3) guy says, "I sold that gun, but it wasn't to who you say used it." and guy shows police a picture of the 3rd party who presented the cleared-buy-card. Police now have to leave seller alone, third party is now in hot water. 4) guy says, "Yeah, but I sold it to him before all this ID stuff started, so I have no record of it..." er...

Hitler had an Argus.

I think the precedent sucks either way. On one hand, we can't go prosecuting people for "conspiracy to access a computer without authorization" because they go directory diving*. On the other hand, SQL injection attacks are essentially "just typing a url into a web browser and viewing what comes back from the server as it was programmed by the owner to do." I doubt many would argue the latter isn't crossing a line. In any event, thinking we can make progress towards solving the information assurance problems our country has (in both the private and public realms) by just "giving enough of these little fuckers serious jail time" is as boneheaded as making customer personal data available via an unauthenticated GET query. * for the uninitiated, directory diving is when someone embeds an image in a forum with something like "www.mywebsite.com/images/example.jpg", and you type "www.mywebsite.com/images/" into your web browser and look at what else they have stored there (assuming they don't have -Indexes set to block directory listings.)

agree - but someone has to pay for all these things. So what it really means is that the voters are being sold a scam that, if they were smarter about it, they wouldn't really want it, or a lot of other 'services' I do find it amusing when people around here plop down poll results that say things like "X% of people in favor of something [that has no discernable negative impact on them.]" and pretend as though there's any altruism to be found therein.

I think the Nobel Committee really needs to stop handing out peace prizes...

Yeah my reaction to the video wasn't, "what an idiot..." but rather, "what a ripoff..." A friend of mine had that book and I read it several years ago (before I started skydiving actually.) I remember the whole thing being pretty silly.

You consider someone firing a gun when they don't understand what it is to be advocating guns? Couldn't they just be advocating loud noises? edited: verbs are good. Who says they don't understand it? Did Lanza not understand his mother's guns? Did Loughner not understand his guns? did Cho not understand his guns? You just make excuses. I make no excuses for anyone. You just tried to collapse the hypothetical on three specific people but you violated its terms. In any event, this discussion is stupid. Not everyone who fires a gun is "advocating" guns in any meaningful way, or in any way comparable to those who advocate responsible gun ownership, and who are against restrictions with serious unaddressed implementation problems. And if a child or a mentally ill person doesn't even understand what a gun is gets a hold of one and fires it, it would be very unfortunate, but it wouldn't be gun advocacy.

You consider someone firing a gun when they don't understand what it is to be advocating guns? Couldn't they just be advocating loud noises? edited: verbs are good.

Anyone...? Sure. At the time they are using the gun they are certainly advocating for its use. Action speaking louder than words... What about a mentally ill person or a child who doesn't understand what they're holding? or a convicted felon? They would still fit into the catch-all mold that kallend was trying to create, and so kinda misses my point. He thinks it's funny that people who are outspoken in favor of gun rights can be referred to with the same term as people who commit crimes with guns, even if it means ignoring context or what it is about guns that either person is advocating. I think it's funny that he has overlooked the group of people he complains the most about regarding their access to guns.

Anyone...? Sure. At the time they are using the gun they are certainly advocating for its use. Action speaking louder than words... What about a mentally ill person or a child who doesn't understand what they're holding?

Anyone...?