Pro@programming.dev to memes@lemmy.worldEnglish · 24 天前Another Tea memeprogramming.devexternal-linkmessage-square97fedilinkarrow-up1407arrow-down151
arrow-up1356arrow-down1external-linkAnother Tea memeprogramming.devPro@programming.dev to memes@lemmy.worldEnglish · 24 天前message-square97fedilink
minus-squareFizz@lemmy.nzlinkfedilinkarrow-up20arrow-down1·23 天前4chan wouldnt be it. Maybe breachfourms om the darkweb. Then you can go on the clear web and pretend to be a random user who happened to see the post and then post that somewhere.
minus-squareSprocketfree@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up29arrow-down1·23 天前Why? Nothing the user that accessed this did was illegal. Like here’s an open s3 bucket… Can’t prosecute me for that.
minus-squaredb2@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up21arrow-down1·23 天前Security through obscurity has unfortunately been a successful argument in the past.
minus-squarebrandon@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12·edit-223 天前https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz for a specific example. While he committed suicide before it was resolved it does show the kind of hammer that can be brought down from accessing public info
minus-squareouthouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up11·23 天前This one wasnt about conditions or acys though. Swartz actually had legal ‘legitimate’ access to that publically funded data. He was being attacked for exposing the law to the people, they saw it lije like translating the bible out of latin, but even more devastating to power.
minus-squareSprocketfree@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·23 天前Yea, that was some copyright bullshit.
4chan wouldnt be it. Maybe breachfourms om the darkweb.
Then you can go on the clear web and pretend to be a random user who happened to see the post and then post that somewhere.
Why? Nothing the user that accessed this did was illegal. Like here’s an open s3 bucket… Can’t prosecute me for that.
Security through obscurity has unfortunately been a successful argument in the past.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz for a specific example. While he committed suicide before it was resolved it does show the kind of hammer that can be brought down from accessing public info
This one wasnt about conditions or acys though.
Swartz actually had legal ‘legitimate’ access to that publically funded data.
He was being attacked for exposing the law to the people, they saw it lije like translating the bible out of latin, but even more devastating to power.
Yea, that was some copyright bullshit.
yeah but why even give them the chance to try