12 ms·

This guy is a (hobbyist?) security researcher who responsibly alerts companies of vulnerabilities. However are his actions of downloading the no fly list and o

This guy is a (hobbyist?) security researcher who responsibly alerts companies of vulnerabilities. However are his actions of downloading the no fly list and offering to share with journalists legal? Or does that cross into overreach and criminal activity?

munk-a 4y ago
The fact that they can do it so casually means there's a problem journalists need to know about.
easrng 4y ago
it isn't a guy and it uses it/its pronouns.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ripdog 4y ago
  What? "It" identifies as an inanimate object? This neopronoun thing really is getting absurd.
  - tbossanova 4y ago
    Absurd? Maybe, but I’d hate a life without any absurdity.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    I agree with you on this, but I feel a need to note that "it" refers to non-persons, not just inanimate objects. It's perfectly normal to refer to animals as "it", and it is also quite common to use it for babies (and even more common for fetuses). Not that this makes it any less weird to ask to be referred as "it", mind you.
    - ripdog 4y ago
      Thanks for the correction, you're quite correct.
    - jupp0r 4y ago
      I've also seen it being used to refer to aliens. What's wrong with letting people choose their pronouns?
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        Letting people choose whether to be referred to as men, women, or neutral (perhaps using neo-pronouns or singular them/they) is perfectly fine. But re-purposing existing words with other meanings is not. And "it" has a very specific meaning, one that just doesn't apply to conscious adult people. If I asked to be called "the object" that would not be a reasonable request, anymore than asking to be referred to as "it". And particularly for "it" and other objectifying language, it has the huge problem that it makes other people uncomfortable. Especially those who overhear without being aware of your preference (imagine sending an email to a new client with text like "in my absence, contact my colleague X, it will assist you, it is an expert").
- arp242 4y ago
  This is downvoted, but the homepage really does say "hello i am maia arson crimew (it/she)". I'd feel uncomfortable referring to anyone as "it" though, as there are some connotations with that :-/
  - kazinator 4y ago
    Why do we only get to choose our pronouns? I want to choose my prepositions: in, up and above. Also, my conjunctions are: however, moreover, and whereupon.
    - _cenw 4y ago
      Because we already arbitrarily assign different pronouns to different people, usually based solely on their appearance, and there is no harm in letting people pick which type of gendered (or less gendered, in the binary sense) association they'd rather have.
      - yencabulator 4y ago
        There's an easier fix for that, instead of having to memorize everyone's "unique" preference (xy/xor/xeps), change the language to avoid the issue. "They" for everyone is the only logical evolution. My native language doesn't have a he/she differentiation..
        mrguyorama 4y ago
        You don't have to memorize shit. When you refer to someone and they tell you "I prefer pronoun X" just use that pronoun for the rest of the interaction. If you interact with them regularly or they are important to you somehow, you will remember, the same as you remember a pet name or nickname or screenname. If you forget and interact with them again they will remind you. They will likely not be angry if you forget occasionally, and using their chosen pronouns will please them and endear them to you. They only get hurt if you obviously do it on purpose. It's literally identical to the concept of learning someone's name, yet humans largely don't have a problem with that.
- kristofferR 4y ago
  Guys doesn't refer to men anymore, it's now a neutral word that can refer to both genders.
  - greenhorn360 4y ago
    So how many guys have you slept with? It's not neutral but guys like to pretend it is.
    - peteforde 4y ago
      This is a genuinely clever reply. I do wonder what a linguist would suggest about these two uses, though. English is a language in which context often changes outcomes.
      - refurb 4y ago
        It’s clever if you’ve never heard of context.
        lightmyst 4y ago
        It's not clever if you've never heard a joke.
    - Chris2048 4y ago
      It's neutral referring to groups, not individuals. If you approach a group and say "How are you guys?" it doesn't imply an all-male group.
    - mst 4y ago
      Depends which register of english. If I'm in a mixed group down the pub I won't at all be surprised if somebody (usually female) walks up to the table and says "hey guys" as a greeting, intending to include male, female and enby members of said group. If I'm on the internet I'm not going to try and use "guys" as gender neutral because I fully expect I'd be misunderstood by a decent percentage of people reading if I did. So I wouldn't say people are necessarily pretending, it's entirely possible they're just used to it being neutral and forgetting that for a bunch of people it very much isn't. That's socially though - when talking about people I've slept with, I acknowledge I'd expect people to read 'guys' as only referencing the male-identified ones. Though I'm more likely to use 'dudes' for that purpose myself, because confusion around 'guys' can go in both directions.
- pelasaco 4y ago
  Interesting to see in which prison "it" will land
culi 4y ago
I think you're confused. The main person in the OP is crimew. The Daily Dot article talks about her in the first few paragraphs but towards the end they talk about a different security researcher that came across the same-ish list from a different source
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
qbasic_forever 4y ago
The laws around digital access to networks are archaic and very broad, they were mostly defined in the 80s and 90s. I believe any unauthorized access (i.e. not having consent from the owner/operator) to a private network is technically a crime. Even if the Jenkins server was open, I bet finding and using the S3 credentials would have crossed the line of the law. Those S3 buckets are private and if you didn't have permission to access them, even if you have the credentials because you found them elsewhere, you could be breaking the law.
- account-5 4y ago
  Regards the archaic laws I'm not convinced, they tend to just parallel real world crimes. For example if you parallel it to the real world then the crime of trespass covers the Jenkins server situation (you can trespass on land that is open and easy to access) and you still commit a crime if you enter a house where you found the key on the floor outside the door, which covers the S3 situation.
  - asdfghjkuytrf 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    Trespass doesn't get you bent over in the shower of a federal prison. CFAA violations do.
    - account-5 4y ago
      Yes there's clearly a discrepancy regarding punishments but the point I was making was about the initial crimes. I'm also not saying I agree either; certainly a lot of the punishments for crimes in America seem disproportionate to the offences commited.
  - janmo 4y ago
    Just accessing could also be seen as just looking through the window. And the lack of safety as a lack of curtain. Trespassing implies a presence, this could be seen as installing some software or code to maintain access on a system. Now let's imagine the OP went to the airline office and found that the door was open, on a desk there was a printed version of the nofly list, he takes a picture of each page and leaves. He would face 20 times less prison time.
logifail 4y ago
> downloading the no fly list and offering to share (This is a genuine question) but where's the actual value in having this list? I'm afraid I regard it as yet another piece of security theatre. Full disclosure: my passport always fails to scan at the UK Border automated gates. I had a discussion this week with yet another border agent after getting another "seek assistance" message and having to queue for a manual check. I pushed for more information on why, for the last couple of years, it refuses to scan. He suggested it's because I have very common first and middle names (although my surname is not common at all), so let's say I'm called Alice Bob MacQuaffle, someone called Alice and/or Bob is "on a list" somewhere. I would bet a substantial sum there is no-one on any terrorist watch list called MacQuaffle. This sounds like someone approved a ridiculously broad match, meaning anyone called Alice and/or Bob is inconvenienced every single time they go near a border. I would prefer to be safe when travelling just like the next guy, but matching watch lists using common first names ... only .... really?
- japanman425 4y ago
  It’s trivial to change your name in the UK so this is bonkers.
- autoexec 4y ago
  We can be pretty sure it's not to protect anyone. Anybody too dangerous to allow on an airplane should probably be behind bars. What it does accomplish is letting the government punish people without justification let alone a trial and with pretty much no transparency or consequences when innocent people end up being hurt by it. I imagine that's a power which is hard to surrender, and 'we the people' haven't exactly been insisting that they give it up either.
  - maccard 4y ago
    > Anybody too dangerous to allow on an airplane should probably be behind bars. Someone who the US deems a danger but isn't in the US would fit this criteria.
    - 4y ago
herbst 4y ago
I digged a little into this and to my understanding did she never actually 'hack' but just used publicy open data in a smart way which apparently is not illegal under swiss law.
nailer 4y ago
The guy is a woman. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_arson_crimew https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_arson_crimew
dang 4y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34446878 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34446878.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

munk-a 4y ago

The fact that they can do it so casually means there's a problem journalists need to know about.

easrng 4y ago

it isn't a guy and it uses it/its pronouns.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ripdog 4y ago
What? "It" identifies as an inanimate object? This neopronoun thing really is getting absurd.
- tbossanova 4y ago
  Absurd? Maybe, but I’d hate a life without any absurdity.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  I agree with you on this, but I feel a need to note that "it" refers to non-persons, not just inanimate objects. It's perfectly normal to refer to animals as "it", and it is also quite common to use it for babies (and even more common for fetuses). Not that this makes it any less weird to ask to be referred as "it", mind you.
  - ripdog 4y ago
    Thanks for the correction, you're quite correct.
  - jupp0r 4y ago
    I've also seen it being used to refer to aliens. What's wrong with letting people choose their pronouns?
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      Letting people choose whether to be referred to as men, women, or neutral (perhaps using neo-pronouns or singular them/they) is perfectly fine. But re-purposing existing words with other meanings is not. And "it" has a very specific meaning, one that just doesn't apply to conscious adult people. If I asked to be called "the object" that would not be a reasonable request, anymore than asking to be referred to as "it". And particularly for "it" and other objectifying language, it has the huge problem that it makes other people uncomfortable. Especially those who overhear without being aware of your preference (imagine sending an email to a new client with text like "in my absence, contact my colleague X, it will assist you, it is an expert").
arp242 4y ago
This is downvoted, but the homepage really does say "hello i am maia arson crimew (it/she)". I'd feel uncomfortable referring to anyone as "it" though, as there are some connotations with that :-/
- kazinator 4y ago
  Why do we only get to choose our pronouns? I want to choose my prepositions: in, up and above. Also, my conjunctions are: however, moreover, and whereupon.
  - _cenw 4y ago
    Because we already arbitrarily assign different pronouns to different people, usually based solely on their appearance, and there is no harm in letting people pick which type of gendered (or less gendered, in the binary sense) association they'd rather have.
    - yencabulator 4y ago
      There's an easier fix for that, instead of having to memorize everyone's "unique" preference (xy/xor/xeps), change the language to avoid the issue. "They" for everyone is the only logical evolution. My native language doesn't have a he/she differentiation..
      - mrguyorama 4y ago
        You don't have to memorize shit. When you refer to someone and they tell you "I prefer pronoun X" just use that pronoun for the rest of the interaction. If you interact with them regularly or they are important to you somehow, you will remember, the same as you remember a pet name or nickname or screenname. If you forget and interact with them again they will remind you. They will likely not be angry if you forget occasionally, and using their chosen pronouns will please them and endear them to you. They only get hurt if you obviously do it on purpose. It's literally identical to the concept of learning someone's name, yet humans largely don't have a problem with that.
kristofferR 4y ago
Guys doesn't refer to men anymore, it's now a neutral word that can refer to both genders.
- greenhorn360 4y ago
  So how many guys have you slept with? It's not neutral but guys like to pretend it is.
  - peteforde 4y ago
    This is a genuinely clever reply. I do wonder what a linguist would suggest about these two uses, though. English is a language in which context often changes outcomes.
    - refurb 4y ago
      It’s clever if you’ve never heard of context.
      - lightmyst 4y ago
        It's not clever if you've never heard a joke.
  - Chris2048 4y ago
    It's neutral referring to groups, not individuals. If you approach a group and say "How are you guys?" it doesn't imply an all-male group.
  - mst 4y ago
    Depends which register of english. If I'm in a mixed group down the pub I won't at all be surprised if somebody (usually female) walks up to the table and says "hey guys" as a greeting, intending to include male, female and enby members of said group. If I'm on the internet I'm not going to try and use "guys" as gender neutral because I fully expect I'd be misunderstood by a decent percentage of people reading if I did. So I wouldn't say people are necessarily pretending, it's entirely possible they're just used to it being neutral and forgetting that for a bunch of people it very much isn't. That's socially though - when talking about people I've slept with, I acknowledge I'd expect people to read 'guys' as only referencing the male-identified ones. Though I'm more likely to use 'dudes' for that purpose myself, because confusion around 'guys' can go in both directions.
pelasaco 4y ago
Interesting to see in which prison "it" will land

culi 4y ago

I think you're confused. The main person in the OP is crimew. The Daily Dot article talks about her in the first few paragraphs but towards the end they talk about a different security researcher that came across the same-ish list from a different source

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

qbasic_forever 4y ago

The laws around digital access to networks are archaic and very broad, they were mostly defined in the 80s and 90s. I believe any unauthorized access (i.e. not having consent from the owner/operator) to a private network is technically a crime. Even if the Jenkins server was open, I bet finding and using the S3 credentials would have crossed the line of the law. Those S3 buckets are private and if you didn't have permission to access them, even if you have the credentials because you found them elsewhere, you could be breaking the law.

account-5 4y ago
Regards the archaic laws I'm not convinced, they tend to just parallel real world crimes. For example if you parallel it to the real world then the crime of trespass covers the Jenkins server situation (you can trespass on land that is open and easy to access) and you still commit a crime if you enter a house where you found the key on the floor outside the door, which covers the S3 situation.
- asdfghjkuytrf 4y ago
  [flagged]
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  Trespass doesn't get you bent over in the shower of a federal prison. CFAA violations do.
  - account-5 4y ago
    Yes there's clearly a discrepancy regarding punishments but the point I was making was about the initial crimes. I'm also not saying I agree either; certainly a lot of the punishments for crimes in America seem disproportionate to the offences commited.
- janmo 4y ago
  Just accessing could also be seen as just looking through the window. And the lack of safety as a lack of curtain. Trespassing implies a presence, this could be seen as installing some software or code to maintain access on a system. Now let's imagine the OP went to the airline office and found that the door was open, on a desk there was a printed version of the nofly list, he takes a picture of each page and leaves. He would face 20 times less prison time.

logifail 4y ago

> downloading the no fly list and offering to share (This is a genuine question) but where's the actual value in having this list? I'm afraid I regard it as yet another piece of security theatre. Full disclosure: my passport always fails to scan at the UK Border automated gates. I had a discussion this week with yet another border agent after getting another "seek assistance" message and having to queue for a manual check. I pushed for more information on why, for the last couple of years, it refuses to scan. He suggested it's because I have very common first and middle names (although my surname is not common at all), so let's say I'm called Alice Bob MacQuaffle, someone called Alice and/or Bob is "on a list" somewhere. I would bet a substantial sum there is no-one on any terrorist watch list called MacQuaffle. This sounds like someone approved a ridiculously broad match, meaning anyone called Alice and/or Bob is inconvenienced every single time they go near a border. I would prefer to be safe when travelling just like the next guy, but matching watch lists using common first names ... only .... really?

japanman425 4y ago
It’s trivial to change your name in the UK so this is bonkers.
autoexec 4y ago
We can be pretty sure it's not to protect anyone. Anybody too dangerous to allow on an airplane should probably be behind bars. What it does accomplish is letting the government punish people without justification let alone a trial and with pretty much no transparency or consequences when innocent people end up being hurt by it. I imagine that's a power which is hard to surrender, and 'we the people' haven't exactly been insisting that they give it up either.
- maccard 4y ago
  > Anybody too dangerous to allow on an airplane should probably be behind bars. Someone who the US deems a danger but isn't in the US would fit this criteria.
  - 4y ago

herbst 4y ago

I digged a little into this and to my understanding did she never actually 'hack' but just used publicy open data in a smart way which apparently is not illegal under swiss law.

nailer 4y ago

The guy is a woman. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_arson_crimew https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_arson_crimew

dang 4y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34446878 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34446878.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]