5 ms·

Not trying to justify Bradley's treatment in any way, but to put the other side... Is it not possible that wget was not authorized specifically because if woul

by alan_cx 13y ago

Not trying to justify Bradley's treatment in any way, but to put the other side... Is it not possible that wget was not authorized specifically because if would make copying lots of file easier and quicker? I mean, if I were in charge of sensitive data like that, it would be the sort of thing I want to consider. If legit use is no say a file by file basis, then only a select few would need some sort of batching tool. So, why make it easier? That fact that you can do it other ways, I see no reason to then just allow anything. We all still have locks on our doors, despite knowing a determined thief will defeat or circumvent them.

GhotiFish 13y ago
I see where you're going with this, but you're fixing that problem on the wrong end. If they want to rate limit with exceptions, they should rate limit with exceptions. Not insist all the clients limit themselves, with exceptions. Following your analogy, we all have locks on our doors, despite telling thieves not to steal our cars.
- jacalata 13y ago
  But we don't let thieves get out of a conviction just because somebody had easily bypassable or broken locks, either.
  - JanneVee 13y ago
    But it makes insurance harder to claim.
    - GhotiFish 13y ago
      And when they break your window because your lock was too good. WHAT DO YOU DO THEN? what were we talking about?
- victorf 13y ago
  Locks make a terrible analogy because servers are built to respond to public requests.
silentOpen 13y ago
If batch downloading is de facto fraud then the military should have been monitoring their HTTP logs for this suspiciously fraudulent signature and immediately stepped in to prevent the leak. That they had a mandate to secure sensitive data and failed in that task does not make Manning's actions fraudulent. Is security important to US military or not? Both having lax security at the time of breach and then severely punishing a leaker for using trivial tools does not inspire confidence in the competence of our military security.

by alan_cx 13y ago

GhotiFish 13y ago

I see where you're going with this, but you're fixing that problem on the wrong end. If they want to rate limit with exceptions, they should rate limit with exceptions. Not insist all the clients limit themselves, with exceptions. Following your analogy, we all have locks on our doors, despite telling thieves not to steal our cars.

jacalata 13y ago
But we don't let thieves get out of a conviction just because somebody had easily bypassable or broken locks, either.
- JanneVee 13y ago
  But it makes insurance harder to claim.
  - GhotiFish 13y ago
    And when they break your window because your lock was too good. WHAT DO YOU DO THEN? what were we talking about?
victorf 13y ago
Locks make a terrible analogy because servers are built to respond to public requests.

silentOpen 13y ago

If batch downloading is de facto fraud then the military should have been monitoring their HTTP logs for this suspiciously fraudulent signature and immediately stepped in to prevent the leak. That they had a mandate to secure sensitive data and failed in that task does not make Manning's actions fraudulent. Is security important to US military or not? Both having lax security at the time of breach and then severely punishing a leaker for using trivial tools does not inspire confidence in the competence of our military security.