ben509

Joined 9 years ago

Karma
4,046
Submissions
1,609
Member since
Dec 7
I'm an engineer presently working for Capital One Investing, prior work at AWS for the CloudHSM team, before that Novetta, and before that I did 6 years in the army.

I'm also working on the Tenet language; see https://tenet-lang.org/

Also at https://keybase.io/ben509

YdRK9Q3mIBRWsRBonHhJCsgLnurwJk9eHbw1Jg4wz9M

View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 5 years ago
Talk to a lawyer.
Comment · 5 years ago
Comment · 5 years ago
The CPU doesn't know what processes are, that's handled by the OS. So there still needs to be a fault.
Comment · 5 years ago
> because I am ... most likely to have a functional dishwasher and even if yours is better I am not going to buy one more.

Break the population into groups:

1. Have a working dishwasher / don't need one

2. Old dishwasher is failing, looking for a new one

3. Just bought a new dishwasher, it works great

4. Just bought a new dishwasher, going to return it

I suspect group 4 is who they're targeting.

Comment · 5 years ago
The main narrative is the usual war mongering. You're doing it in your post.

These are criminal actions, as they're not endorsed by the state.

But it doesn't have to reach the scale of war to be bad. The broader narrative is We Have To Do Something. And that Something is always grant the government more power. Why is it a good thing, for instance, that we're taking "unprecedented" steps?

The US has been dealing with ransoms, piracy, extortion since its founding. "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli," the latter was one of our first expeditions to deal with piracy.

As there is plenty of precedent for dealing with this stuff, we should be very skeptical when the government insists it needs new powers.

Comment · 5 years ago
Comment · 5 years ago
Same here. I send everything that is firstlast@gmail straight to junk.

> I also get a lot of email from idiots who don't know their own address

Holy crap there are a lot of them. I've got one bank sending me the dude's statements. He's also been on some interesting trips, seen all his hotel stays, etc.

Comment · 5 years ago
I've done that and called the counter option --for-real, but I'd like both args so runbooks can spell out:

    1. do-step-one --dry-run
    2. (do validation)
    3. do-step-one --real-run
    4. (do validation)
Many commandline parsing libraries assume you're doing booleans, and I think --dry-run and --no-dry-run is confusing. And, internally, you have a boolean flag so there's always the possibility of some code getting it backwards.

Internally, I'd like an enum flag that's clearly dry_run or real_run, so the guards are using positive logic:

    switch(run) {
      case dry_run:
        print("Would do this...");
      case real_run:
        do_real_thing();
    }
Comment · 5 years ago
Comment · 5 years ago
He's not understanding that in the normal operating environment for Macs, there's an additional fan he's not seeing.

The person who bought it.

Comment · 5 years ago
US law derived from common law, which recognized a right to self defense. All 50 states, DC, and federal jurisdictions then codified that right as law. While the 2A is not directly about self-defense, it plainly guarantees an individual right to maintain the means for self-defense, which implies a right to self-defense.

There are cases covering a justifiable use of force because intentionally killing or harming a person is illegal, and self-defense is a defense against those charges.

It's normally perfectly legal to pay someone whatever you want. You don't need a defense against something that's not a crime. There's no conflict in paying a ransom, so there's no case law.

Regarding OFAC, as your link points out:

> One issue is that victim organizations are required to check the list of sanctioned entities; however, many times the true identity of the cybercriminals are not known.

I'm guessing there's no case law regarding paying ransoms to SDNs because nobody has an identity they can check.

But do we need case law when OFAC says:

> OFAC will consider a company’s self-initiated, timely and complete report of a ransomware attack to law enforcement to be a significant mitigating factor in determining the enforcement outcome if the situation is determined to have a sanctions nexus.

If someone wanted to make a law against paying ransom, it would be quite novel and courts would have to look for applicable doctrine. I think the doctrine of self-defense would be a roadblock.

Comment · 5 years ago
The relevant blurb seems to be:

> Build it Yourself

> The DIY Edition is the only high-end laptop you can customize and assemble yourself from a kit of modules. Coming in at just 15.85mm thick and 1.3kg, the Framework Laptop delivers the modularity of a desktop in the form factor of a thin and light 13.5” notebook.

Comment · 5 years ago
They probably had to rotate their password three times while writing that memo.
Comment · 5 years ago
Don't rely on technical details from Bloomberg.
Comment · 5 years ago
I don't think people here are considering all forms of ransoms, but you hit on an interesting aspect of it all the same.

It's why, I think, such a law wouldn't pass Constitutional review.

If your person is threatened with imminent danger, you have a right to self-defense, we'll even let you commit intentional homicide if the threat is serious enough.

And self-defense also covers your property and livelihood to a lesser extent.

I think it'd be extremely hard to convince courts that this right to self-defense doesn't include negotiating with an attacker. Imagine if it were a crime to toss some money at a mugger and run away, for instance.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton