gloshuertos

8 ms·

1.
by gloshuertos 16y ago
Yes.
2.
by gloshuertos 16y ago
Clearly I meant that it was a murky area morally. Also I don't live in Florida. I also never said that I thought I was protected from prosecution, so I don't know why you're so eager to prove that I am.
3.
by gloshuertos 16y ago
Well, I never called myself a white knight, but that's beside the point. If someone breaks into your Facebook account, bad things can happen, but none that (directly) involve physical harm. If someone enters your home, they could easily ca
4.
by gloshuertos 16y ago
Yeah, it does need to be solved by the website. That doesn't change that users are vulnerable and don't know about it.
5.
by gloshuertos 16y ago
That was the single exception, and I agree that that was in a murky area.
6.
by gloshuertos 16y ago
Actually, whether or not I broke any laws (in the US) is not clear. I deliberately did not look at anything in their account while I was in it, so privacy was not actually compromised. The folks I recognized on my way out were people with
7.
by gloshuertos 16y ago
Wait a second. You're saying I shouldn't bash my employer on a public blog and then submit it to another public website? OMG Really you didn't dig deep enough. Googling my name pulls up an email with my current employer in it. I don't wor
8.
by gloshuertos 16y ago
Is a machine breaking into your account any less scary than a person doing it?
9.
by gloshuertos 16y ago
That's the point. It's empirical (albeit, not scientific) evidence that even when presented with the risks, users will still choose to do things that are dangerous.
10.
by gloshuertos 16y ago
Really? Users shouldn't be afraid of the consequences of something they believe to be benign? I didn't send Starbucks patrons home weeping to cry themselves to sleep. I fully concealed my identity in the same way an actual attacker would
11.
by gloshuertos 16y ago
Clearly, and I am at the mercy of the American justice system.
12.
by gloshuertos 16y ago
On many machines, MAC addresses can be changed. I obviously wasn't attempting to avoid detection since I posted about it under my real name, but anyone could pick up a $200 netbook, pay cash, walk into a Starbucks with sunglasses on, do th
13.
by gloshuertos 16y ago
In addition to the IP address per server problem and coordinating with CDNs, the CDNs often charge quite a bit more money for secure content.
14.
by gloshuertos 16y ago
I may have spent 2 hours in a Starbucks to do this, but I do actually have a life. Sometimes. So yeah, a bit much. Also: follow-you-home creepy instead of just creepy.
15.
by gloshuertos 16y ago
I absolutely agree on fault. My initial recommendation was for them to refrain from using Facebook at Starbucks until that happens -- regardless of fault, users are the ones that are vulnerable.
16.
by gloshuertos 16y ago
Unfortunately the few non-tech news sites that I've read have covered it with blatant disregard for the underlying cause. It's been Firesheep that's pointed at as the issue, not Facebook and Twitter and Amazon ad infinum.
17.
by gloshuertos 16y ago
This is exactly what I thought when I saw the same people still online -- which brought about the second round of messages. I hoped my frankness and lack of any links would make the message seem more sincere, but perhaps at this I failed.
18.
by gloshuertos 16y ago
If you walked by someone's house and their car was sitting in their driveway with all the doors wide open and a box of personal documents in the back seat, you'd probably knock on their door. If the car was still there after an hour, you'd
19.
Herding Firesheep in a NYC Starbucks: Do Users Care?(technologysufficientlyadvanced.blogspot.com)
131 points by gloshuertos 16y ago|145 comments