Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | noob_slayer's commentslogin

According to some US Code, person means company [0]; so, we should avoid taking frustrations out on companies altogether?

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701


creepy


We've banned this account for posting unsubstantive comments and ignoring our request to stop. Continuing like this will get your main account banned as well, so please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


Any business transacting in dollars is not going to be a free enterprise in a free market.


It's data which belongs to the hacker(s) now, too, since Equifax made it publicly accessible.


> since Equifax made it publicly accessible

It was stolen, not made "publicly accessible". You or I could never have accessed it, it took a sophisticated team months to do it.

Don't forget the Yahoo! and Marriott breaches, both of which were considerably larger than the data "Equifax made [...] publicly accessible".


Stolen implies that Equifax lost possession of the data, which I don't think is the case.

It takes teams months to get to the moon too, but that doesn't mean it's not out there for anyone to access.


Data is considered stolen when it's duplicated without consent. Hence, "made publicly accessible" is incorrect. It was never "public"...people browsing the web couldn't have stumbled upon it, any more than people riding a train could accidentally have wound up on the moon.

The moon thing is a great analogy. Everyone knows the moon is there, but the process of getting to it is an enormous task beyond the reach of all but the most determined, skilled, and well-financed parties.


Have you tried buying anything with Bitcoin Cash? Currently the transaction fee is under 500 satoshi (about 1/5 of 1 US cent) to have your transaction included in the next block.


Because no one uses it, or not? Transaction prices are determined by supply and demand on Bitcoin Cash, too, AFAIK.


What about possible unknown unknown confounding factors?


It's actually a rip-off of the Ducktales movie.


Do you think terrorists identify with that word?


No, not unless they're insane. It looks more like they deliberately worded it to appeal to mentally retarded individuals suffering from persecutory delusions and the like. 'Terrorist Foiled' sounds better than 'Delusional Idiot Entrapped', especially when taxpayers are footing the bill.


You got a lot of downvotes, but the themes in your comment are, in fact, eerily close to reality, even though a lot of people wouldn't believe it.

The Intercept has a long-running series documenting the Security State prosecuting people for terrorism, who never were terorrists -- many are mentally ill people given plots and weapons by the FBI: https://theintercept.com/2017/09/03/the-fbi-pressured-a-lone...

See the full series and list of stories here: https://trial-and-terror.theintercept.com/


The legal requirements for entrapment are quite forgiving


When you take a polygraph you sign a document saying not to spread the actual questions asked. Specifically he's talking about the counter intelligence portion which is 4 questions centralized around things terrorists would do.


Hmm, if this is in connection with the US government, that would be a violation of Title 18 US Code 1001.


"identify" is a tricky word, because you might not think of yourself as an X, but you might see how someone might call you an X.

Also, some terrorists likely do, some maybe not.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: