Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 

gzt

10264 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1578


  Reply # 1112992 21-Aug-2014 17:32
Send private message

ajobbins: Before returning it to the owner they write down the credit card details before sending a shaming all office email calling out the owner for their poor security in leaving their wallet in a common area, and advising they now have the persons credit card number.

This wallet analogy is not useful at all. It is more like a bag containing credit card details for multiple parties. None of which belong to the owner of the bag. The owner of the bag was clearly negligent leaving the bag in a public place. And someone finding the bag clearly has no business looking at every single aspect of the contents.

ajobbins: Before returning it to the owner

So was the bag in this case eventually returned to the sole possession of the owner? I had thought not, I had not heard about this part.

929 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 39


  Reply # 1113046 21-Aug-2014 18:18
Send private message

It is like the election campaign has been cancelled and substituted



Many times when large companies have unintentionally published material on their websites they have then claimed the people who accessed it by guessing URLs were "hackers".

gzt

10264 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1578


  Reply # 1113048 21-Aug-2014 18:28
Send private message

URL guessing is different technically again. That did not happen as far as I know.

Awesome
4811 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1062

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1113090 21-Aug-2014 19:18
Send private message

gzt: So was the bag in this case eventually returned to the sole possession of the owner? I had thought not, I had not heard about this part.


In either case, information was 'copied' it wasn't stolen. This isn't theft, so it can't be 'returned' as such. At best, all 'copies' can be handed over to the rightful owner, or destroyed - however there is a difficulty in establishing that actually happened. Eg. if Whale Oil goes and says he deleted the information he copied, how can you be sure he did, or didn't make other copies before deleting the first one?

In my analogy, the return of the wallet is more like the the owner regaining control/security of the information, preventing further loss. A bit like labour will have gone and secured the website once they learned what happened.

Analogies are difficult when you are talking about information, as it's hard to equate them to physical things that can't be (easily) copied/replicated. To be clear, I don't agree with the use of the term 'theft' in this case, let's call it unauthorised copying. Theft deprives the owner of possession, copying things does not.




Twitter: ajobbins


JWR

739 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 237


  Reply # 1113110 21-Aug-2014 19:40

ajobbins:
gzt: So was the bag in this case eventually returned to the sole possession of the owner? I had thought not, I had not heard about this part.


In either case, information was 'copied' it wasn't stolen. This isn't theft, so it can't be 'returned' as such. At best, all 'copies' can be handed over to the rightful owner, or destroyed - however there is a difficulty in establishing that actually happened. Eg. if Whale Oil goes and says he deleted the information he copied, how can you be sure he did, or didn't make other copies before deleting the first one?

In my analogy, the return of the wallet is more like the the owner regaining control/security of the information, preventing further loss. A bit like labour will have gone and secured the website once they learned what happened.

Analogies are difficult when you are talking about information, as it's hard to equate them to physical things that can't be (easily) copied/replicated. To be clear, I don't agree with the use of the term 'theft' in this case, let's call it unauthorised copying. Theft deprives the owner of possession, copying things does not.


Thinking of this copying in terms of 'theft' is a totally wrong way to to look at IMO.

I look at it in terms of leverage/blackmail.



Awesome
4811 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1062

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1113119 21-Aug-2014 19:49
Send private message

JWR:

Thinking of this copying in terms of 'theft' is a totally wrong way to to look at IMO.

I look at it in terms of leverage/blackmail.



Copying is the means, leverage/blackmail is the end.




Twitter: ajobbins


gzt

10264 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1578


  Reply # 1113181 21-Aug-2014 22:26
Send private message

gzt:
ajobbins: Before returning it to the owner they write down the credit card details before sending a shaming all office email calling out the owner for their poor security in leaving their wallet in a common area, and advising they now have the persons credit card number.

This wallet analogy is not useful at all. It is more like a bag containing credit card details for multiple parties. None of which belong to the owner of the bag. The owner of the bag was clearly negligent leaving the bag in a public place. And someone finding the bag clearly has no business looking at every single aspect of the contents.

ajobbins: Before returning it to the owner

So was the bag in this case eventually returned to the sole possession of the owner? I had thought not, I had not heard about this part.

ajobbins: In either case, information was 'copied' it wasn't stolen. This isn't theft, so it can't be 'returned' as such. At best, all 'copies' can be handed over to the rightful owner, or destroyed - however there is a difficulty in establishing that actually happened. Eg. if Whale Oil goes and says he deleted the information he copied, how can you be sure he did, or didn't make other copies before deleting the first one?

Yes I agree. You cannot be 100% sure in practice. The best you can do is get a court order for the deletion/destruction and agreement on that. Alternatively just an agreement on that is almost as good in practice. It is the nature of it that you must trust the agreement has been fully actioned. It appears the Labour Party believed they got an assurance on that from the National Party.

My question still stands, did the Labor Party seek or obtain a similar assurance from Slater after all the song and dance of the exposure was over?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.