Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Chris Jacob
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/23/09
I do sympathize with him because he is a geek like many of us. But the "door" was not "open". The networks he hacked into were secured and he found a way to overcome the security.
This quite simply is illegal, he knew it, we all know it. He should have made more effort to conceal his identity if he didn't want to get caught.
But the point is he did not enter an open and unsecured system.
09/23/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
Also, "behind a network" means nothing.
Q.E.D. ;)
09/23/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
09/22/09
09/23/09
09/22/09
"Any firewall also ought to block the 'ports' [internet access points on a computer] used by Remotely Anywhere. On this basis, the costs claimed for are features that should have been there in the first place."
If you are going to install a program to control remotely, wouldn't you take the time to change the ports to something that wouldn't be flagged by a firewall? I mean, you can't claim to be a great cracker, and also say you were too dumb to stay under the radar.
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
@Avizzv92: not 97 million, 97 military computers.
I'm guessing he found something that looked like this:
dammit, how do i put pictures under the comments instead of above?
09/22/09
09/22/09
When you lose, if your death was in a manner pleasing to Ponies!, he will teach you the secret to put pictures beneath comments.
09/22/09
?
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
Or die.
09/22/09
However, did he find anything interesting is my question.
08/30/09
Total bullshit. Get on your legislators to block this asap. Then when you get home, go buy a gun, get some training and keep this country free.
Hope and change my ass.
08/29/09
08/29/09
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson
"Wisdom I know is social. She seeks her fellows. But Beauty is jealous, and illy bears the presence of a rival."
-Thomas Jefferson
"The daily advance of science will enable [the existing generation] to administer the commonwealth with increased wisdom." --Thomas Jefferson
"Every nation is liable to be under whatever bubble, design, or delusion may puff up in moments when off their guard." --Thomas Jefferson
"[It is] the people, to whom all authority belongs." --Thomas Jefferson
"The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to." --Thomas Jefferson
"Government being founded on opinion, the opinion of the public, even when it is wrong, ought to be respected to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson
"Opinions... constitute, indeed, moral facts, as important as physical ones to the attention of the public functionary." --Thomas Jefferson
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson
In closing...
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
08/28/09
There seem to be a few main misconceptions surrounding this bill that have many of you with you panties in a bunch. Let's go through them.
The first is that Obama himself introduced this idea and is requesting this power. There is nothing in this article that in any way indicates that he is involved with this, or even supports this. In fact, the only time he is referenced is in the picture. From this article alone, there is no basis (other than your own paranoia) to say Obama is trying to consolidate power in the Executive Branch or turn the country into scene out of 1984.
The second is that by passing this bill the president will be able to pull the plug on your internet access any time he/she wants to, thereby infringing on your Fist Amendment right to freedom of speech. Another is that this bill grants the Executive Branch the power to spy on your online activities. Again, had you read the article you would have noticed that these are not true. Your blog (unless you for some reason are posting US military secrets) is not "critical" private network, and is not in any way important to the security of the country, and as such it will not come under government control or scrutiny under this bill (although I'm sure it's a very interesting blog). Do not worry about your freedoms of speech, had Obama cared so much about people speaking out against him, he would have censored Fox News a long time ago, just as Bush would have censored, well, pretty much every major media outlet except Fox by the end of his terms.
The third, which is related to the second, is that this bill gives the president complete control over the internet, it's users, and it's information. Again, as those who read the article pointed out, this is not true. This bill proposes giving the president temporary, emergency control over select private servers in the case of an attack, similar to how the government can take emergency control of airports, TV stations, roads, cities, borders, etc., during a national security emergency (for example, the airports were closed for a week after 9/11). These are servers with information that is not government information but is deemed important to national security. Good examples would be data stored on the servers of defense contractors, financial institutions, companies who do government-sanctioned business in Iraq, or any other websites without a .gov at the end but still containing information potentially harmful in the hands of a hostile nation or group. It will not allow the president to deny you access to Gizmodo, /b/, RedTube, etc., and I honestly don't think that the government cares about restrictign your ability to post LOLcats on Facebook.
So I hope this clears a few things up. Please, stop saying Obama is "giving himself more power". This bill is sponsored by a Senator, the president has not expressed any opinion either way, and it's a long way, a long shot, and a lot of rewrites off from being a law. It won't cut off your access to the internet, unless you're tying to hack into servers filled with information pertinent to the security of the country, in which case I hope they do cut off your internet. It also won't let the government censor you or deny you access to certain websites because you disagree with them, as Twitter and YouTube tend to not be places for the storage of next-gen missile guidance systems. I'm not saying I support everything this bill entails, i still think it need a lot of clarification and specification, but generally I think it's a good idea for National Security measure in the 21st century.
08/28/09
I may have voted for him, but I certainly didn't vote him in to office so he could assume control over something such as this!
08/28/09
08/28/09