4 ms·
im sure most of us immediately see the fallacy to be revealed. i think TFA summed it up such as: "It would be hard to imagine, for example, that a court in re
by rolph 4y ago
im sure most of us immediately see the fallacy to be revealed.
i think TFA summed it up such as:
"It would be hard to imagine, for example, that a court in response to alleged wrongdoing would blindly issue a search warrant or an order based solely on a street address without caring if that address was for a single family home, a six-unit condo building, or a high rise with hundreds of separate units. But those sorts of practices with IP addresses appear to be rampant."
- themusicgod1 4y agoIt's not hard for anyone who lived through the 90's/early naughts to imagine the US or other legal systems completely diverging from proportional action on computer 'crime', especially when large corporate interests are involved. The archives of Off the Hook are full of such examples https://2600.com/offthehook/ https://2600.com/offthehook/
- rolph 4y agoi love breadcrumbs; thanx. i hungaround on astalavista quite a lot when it was the thing.
- johnchristopher 4y agoWell, swatting is a thing.
- CJefferson 4y agoHowever, a court will issue a search warrant for the entirety of a shared house, as there is no external way to distinguish which time are used by who from the outside. The problem with this article I have is it says "no IP banning" without, as far as I can see, suggesting an alternative which will work well in practice. DNS blocking can work, but requires hiring every DNS server, a major undertaking. Laws are no help if one country wants to block access to a server in another country.
- lionkor 4y agoJust because there is no alternative, doesn't justify the means. If they cannot figure out a way to block malicious actors, they cant just randomly block every second request - though that would also work just as well. Malicious people would just try again, and the collateral often wont. Same result.