Disqus - Latest Comments for HazDat

Re: OT: Verizon — Oh no you di’nt!

Jeff M. Fischbach — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:33:04 -0000

=======================================
To sign up for Facebook, follow the link below: http://www.facebook.com/r.p... =======================================

Hi,

The following person invited you to be their friend on Facebook:

Jeff M. Fischbach (Invite sent: Feb 26, 2012)

Facebook is a great place to keep in touch with friends, post photos, videos and create events. But first you need to join! Sign up today to create a profile and connect with the people you know.
Thanks,
The Facebook Team

To sign up for Facebook, follow the link below: http://www.facebook.com/r.p...
=======================================
This message was sent to If you don't want to receive these emails from Facebook in the future, please follow the link below to unsubscribe. http://www.facebook.com/o.p... Facebook, Inc. Attention: Department 415 P.O Box 10005 Palo Alto CA 94303

Re: OT: Verizon — Oh no you di’nt!

Jeff M. Fischbach — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:06:55 -0000

=======================================
To sign up for Facebook, follow the link below: http://www.facebook.com/r.p... =======================================

Hi,

The following person invited you to be their friend on Facebook:

Jeff M. Fischbach (Invite sent: Feb 26, 2012)

Re: OT: Verizon — Oh no you di’nt!

Jeff M. Fischbach — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:11:05 -0000

Hi,

Jeff M. Fischbach is inviting you to join Facebook.

Once you join, you'll be able to connect with the Jeff M. Fischbach Page, along with people you care about and other things that interest you.
Thanks,
Jeff M. Fischbach

To sign up for Facebook, follow the link below: http://www.facebook.com/p.p...
You are receiving this email from Jeff M. Fischbach. Jeff M. Fischbach has sent you this message through Facebook. If you no longer want to receive messages through Facebook, click the link below. http://www.facebook.com/o.p... Facebook, Inc. Attention: Department 415 P.O Box 10005 Palo Alto CA 94303

Re: OT: Verizon — Oh no you di’nt!

Jeff M. Fischbach — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:07:57 -0000

Hi,

Jeff M. Fischbach is inviting you to join Facebook.

Once you join, you'll be able to connect with the Jeff M. Fischbach Page, along with people you care about and other things that interest you.
Thanks,
Jeff M. Fischbach

Re: OT: Verizon — Oh no you di’nt!

Jeff M. Fischbach — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:07:56 -0000

Hi,

Jeff M. Fischbach is inviting you to join Facebook.

Once you join, you'll be able to connect with the Jeff M. Fischbach Page, along with people you care about and other things that interest you.
Thanks,
Jeff M. Fischbach

Re: OT: Verizon — Oh no you di’nt!

Jeff M. Fischbach — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:07:56 -0000

Hi,

Jeff M. Fischbach is inviting you to join Facebook.

Once you join, you'll be able to connect with the Jeff M. Fischbach Page, along with people you care about and other things that interest you.
Thanks,
Jeff M. Fischbach

Re: Nokia Bubbles lets you intelligently unlock your N8 in a pop

Jeff M. Fischbach — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 16:39:09 -0000

I've been waiting for Google to do a lot of things for a long time. Seems they like to wait for a developer to do it first, and then buy the company.

I agree that Nokia isn't stupid. But, use-patents are very hard to enforce. If they were easy, Windows wouldn't have a "recycle bin" because Apple patented the trash can (and wasted money trying to enforce it). For that matter, Android phones would be answering themselves in your pocket. I believe Apple patented the "swipe to answer". So, I guess Apple could probably sue Nokia, if they wanted to waste their money.

//Jeff @ http://HazDat.com

Re: Nokia Bubbles lets you intelligently unlock your N8 in a pop

Jeff M. Fischbach — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 10:01:13 -0000

I give it a week before something like this hits the Android marketplace.

//Jeff @ http://HazDat.com

Re: PirateBox - David Darts Wiki

Jeff M. Fischbach — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 00:53:47 -0000

Actually, Truecrypt will let you store an encrypted logical container within an existing logical drive -- eliminating the need for two. But, that probably doesn't solve the problem of unsolicited illicit uploads. It hides them. But I've had several cases where a screen-shot of the directory from a remote user was enough to convict, when the evidence couldn't be decrypted. The safest bet is still to make it a transmission model (read-only). Though I realize that really restricts the utility.

I'd love, however, to see "common carrier" put to the test in this model. Effectively arguing that the use of the device is similar to that of an ISP hosting files. That, of course, isn't going to work if the owner offers or solicits copywriten or illicit material.

// Jeff @ http://HazDat.com

Re: Egypt comes back online, has a ton of unread feeds to catch up on

Jeff M. Fischbach — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:17:55 -0000

A few years ago I couldn't imagine American travelers accepting an x-ray or a pat-down. I couldn't imagine AT&T allowing warrantless wiretaps. I couldn't imagine banks sharing my financial information without my permission. Today, I have a much bigger imagination.
//Jeff @ http://HazDat.com

Re: Egypt comes back online, has a ton of unread feeds to catch up on

Jeff M. Fischbach — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 14:28:37 -0000

Question is, have US citizens learned anything from the outage when it comes to our own "kill switch"?
Jeff @ http://HazDat.com

Re: PirateBox - David Darts Wiki

Jeff M. Fischbach — Sun, 30 Jan 2011 09:45:29 -0000

I can see lots of legitimate uses & alternate configurations. My only suggestion: Either restrict write privileges, or use a secure stick. You never know what someone (law enforcement?) Might upload, leaving you literally holding the bag.

Jeff @ http://HazDat.com

Re: Review: Posting on the move with TBlogger

Jeff M. Fischbach — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 10:29:28 -0000

I do quite a bit of Hazdat.com blogging on my HTC Touch Pro. I believe that I've achieved 90% efficiency, compared to my laptop. That said, quite often I'll update my posts with additional resources from a laptop--but, only after they've been published.

Re: Wi-Fi security — gone in 60 seconds, AGAIN.

Jeff M. Fischbach — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:57:49 -0000

I agree, it is a fascinating discussion. Especially for me, in that--if there was a "win"--I'd rather it supported "openness". In other areas of technology, that's a concept I evangelize.

Unfortunately, I can't do anything to prevent an asteroid strike. I'm helpless. If you can--no matter how small the probability--I wish you would. If not for your sake, then for mine.

Living in fear sucks. And, it makes no statistical sense. For instance, I've had one car accident in the last 22 years. I don't put on my seat belt every time I get in the car--before I start the engine--because it's the law, or because I have a statistical probability of getting in an accident. My good driver discount says otherwise. (Though, one might argue that, statistically, I'm due.) I put one on because I'm afraid of what might happen if I don't. Murphy's Law would suggest, the DAY I don't. Likewise, safety was my number one concern when purchasing a family car. Though, one might argue--given my driving record--my money might have been better spent elsewhere.

I suppose, if the odds favored an accident, no one would even sell me insurance. The bet favors the house. Yet, I have more-than-adequate coverage--not because the law says I have to, or because it's paid off in the past, but because, IF something happened, I could loose my house. So far, I've lost money on the investment--and I'm glad it has worked out that way.

The good news is, the "state-of-the-art" wireless security, WPA2--has not yet been cracked. At least, not that anyone is bragging about. So, for now, those who want to live in fear, can, with relative confidence.

Though I would never advise leaving a Wi-Fi router "open", I will tell you what I would do IF I was hell-bent on providing service to the neighborhood (or, say, my customers in a small retail establishment). Mind you, this is just a theory. I would lock-down my own router, assign "keys" to my own computers, and enable logging. Then, I would attach an unsecured, "open" router to the DMZ (an isolated port on the router that should not intermingle with the other computers inside the network). I would also enable logging, and name the router something like "Guest". Then, should there be a problem, I would volunteer those logs to law enforcement (AFTER CONSULTING AN ATTORNEY), and advise investigators, in writing, VIA MY ATTORNEY, of the configuration.

Minus the "open" part, it's something I've done when I have guests on my network, just to prevent any cross-contamination. I like my friends, but I don't know where their laptops have been. It not only allows you to play Robin Hood with your broadband, but also provides plausible deniability with your ISP because of the hot-spot's name (SSID). As far as the ISP is concerned, you forgot to disconnect when your guests left. It's not a half-bad insurance policy, if you want to live on the edge.

Re: Wi-Fi security — gone in 60 seconds, AGAIN.

Jeff M. Fischbach — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 20:14:38 -0000

OK, I want to live on your planet. It sounds nice, and civil (and probably filled with Macs). A place where everyone gives you the benefit of the doubt, and takes logic into consideration before litigation. Sounds a little bit like Sesame St.

I think the discrepancy between our positions is actually a small one--because, what you propose is an ideal to which I ascribe. Here's the minor chasm, as I see it: I believe you're coming from the standpoint of, will I ever ACTUALLY be convicted? The irony of this position is that, it is one that seems to be common among both the most, and least, educated defendants I've met over the last 15-odd-years.

The problem is, most of the defendants I've met lost everything they had--jobs, savings, friends, spouses--long before they were ever acquitted or convicted. Even the wealthy ones. Many, long before the investigation was completed. Most people have to mortgage their houses to pay for a defense. I'm talking about well before any kind of trial. Which, by the way, can take years to get to.

Actually, (and I know this because I examine the evidence,) more often, these days, people get investigated for the theft of their own cars--especially if they're found unlocked. And, your insurance company won't usually pay, if they're found without evidence of forced entry.

Yes, you can be indicted, even if your computer is clean. The network traffic is enough to indict. Not because I say so, but because I've had plenty of cases where the computers weren't even seized. And, some of those defendants did prison time. Some pre-conviction and some post.

That time you spend "convincing the jury" will cost you tens-of-thousands-of-dollars. And, remember, the time to "lawyer-up" is when they start asking questions, not later. Pleanty of my cases involve "Just tell us your side of the story" statements. Not good.

Bottom line, you play the lottery. If your number doesn't get pulled, you're in good shape. As long as you don't live near a place that gets traffic, like a major street, or public park, you're chances are lessened, I suppose. I love my neighbors. Maybe, even enough to risk the wrath of my cable company's TOS. I've handed out my house key to a neighbor before. I'd likely hand out my WPA shared key (password) to the same ones, if they needed it.

If I WERE a gambler, I'd bet on the house. But, I wouldn't use my house as collateral. I think you're taking a small statistical risk with a huge potential loss, and little upside.

Re: Wi-Fi security — gone in 60 seconds, AGAIN.

Jeff M. Fischbach — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:07:09 -0000

I hear what you're saying. As a matter of fact, I was very much involved with some of the early efforts to establish public metropolitan Wi-Fi networks, and even took early-adopter interest in private efforts like Fon (http://www.fon.com/en/info/.... I'm a licensed Ham Radio operator (KC6ZCF), so I have enjoyed the fruits of a shared, open, cooperative network. In an ideal world, I'm with you. I think your probability model is probably solid, but I think you vastly underestimate the implications of ending up on the loosing end of the statistic.

I'd be lying if I said that I didn't have a stake in the outcome either way. Part of my job is to educate and advise, based on the trends that I'm seeing. They don't support the ideal. Service provider subpoenas, and warrant requests are increasing year-over-year. It's become about as easy a prosecution as they come, which would support the trend.

I think that the sugar analogy is flawed. First, no one actually "borrows" a cup of sugar, like no one borrows a cigarette. They ask. You give. It's consumed. The end-product goes through another shared network. If the neighbor's kid came by and ASKED to use your Wi-Fi, and you allowed it, that might be more analogous to the sugar scenario. After all, your neighbors aren't returning the bandwidth they consume. But, that's presuming that the Wi-Fi was yours to give. You paid for a certain amount of sugar. It's yours to give away. Chances are that the Terms of Service that you have agreed to with your ISP don't allow you to give away their bandwidth to your neighbors.

I only bring that up because it's your ISP that will be cooperating with law enforcement. It's hard to imagine that, after they find out that you were cutting into their profits by serving your neighbors broadband, that they're going to incentivized to provide aid to your defense. In fact, having worked for the defense, I can tell you that they will do everything, short of violating the same TOS to aid in your prosecution--even if you didn't intentionally open your network.

But, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that your ISP is one that welcomes the spirit of sharing--explicitly. Returning to the sugar analogy: What you're really doing is leaving the front door open so that your neighbors, or anyone else passing by, can come in a take some sugar. Moreover, you're putting out a neon sign that invites them to do so. Then, when a crime occurs on your property, you show law enforcement the neon sign, and the open door, and ask that they, and a jury of your peers, understand and accept the likelihood (plausible denyabillity) that it was someone else.

I get those cases from time to time. A jury is typically apt to accept the government's assertion that you were running a crack house. I also get the open-wi-fi cases. The jury is typically apt to accept the government's assertion that you were directly, knowingly invovled, or aiding in any crime that occurs on your network--if for no other reason than, there's no one else to investigate and charge. (Not that the kid next door wouldn't make a great character witness in a sex crimes case.)

There are, after all, there are almost 200 million drivers in the U.S., and only around 6 million accidents a year. Those are good odds. With only 20,000 people sued by--and a 100% success rate for--the RIAA, and less than 700,000 Americans on sex offender registries (many for images that traversed their computer networks), I suppose you could take your chances--for the betterment of your neighborhood.

Re: http://hazdat.com/492

Jeff M. Fischbach — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:15:00 -0000

I think you're read is absolutely right. I have a feeling their hides are covered legally. But, not necessarily with the subscribers and potential purchasers. It's starting to look like "prē" stands for "pre-bankruptcy".

Re: tumbléo

Jeff M. Fischbach — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:20:21 -0000

Nice! Love TheOnion. Gotta re-post this on HazDat.com. Thx Leo!