By Soulskill from Slashdot's my-days-of-not-taking-you-seriously-are-certainly-coming-to-a-middle department
An anonymous reader writes: It's no secret that prosecutors usually throw every charge they can at an alleged criminal, but the case of Aaron Swartz brought to light how poorly-written computer abuse laws lend themselves to this practice. Now, another perfect example has resolved itself: a hacker with ties to Anonymous was recently threatened with 44 felony counts of computer fraud and cyberstalking, each with its own 10-year maximum sentence. If the charges stuck, the man was facing multiple lifetimes worth of imprisonment.
But, of course, they didn't. Prosecutors struck a deal to get him to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor charge, which carried only a $10,000 fine. The man's attorney, Tor Eklund, said, "The more I looked at this, the more it seemed like an archetypal example of the Department of Justice's prosecutorial abuse when it comes to computer crime. It shows how aggressive they are, and how they seek to destroy your reputation in the press even when the charges are complete, fricking garbage."Read Replies (0)
By Soulskill from Slashdot's petaflops-for-megabucks department
writes: As supercomputing becomes central to the work and progress of researchers in all fields, new kinds of computing resources and more inclusive modes of interaction are required. The National Science Foundation announced $16M in awards to support two new supercomputing acquisitions for the open science community. The systems — "Bridges" at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center and "Jetstream," co-located at the Indiana University Pervasive Technology Institute and The University of Texas at Austin's Texas Advanced Computing Center — respond to the needs of the scientific computing community for more high-end, large-scale computing resources while helping to create a more inclusive computing environment for science and engineering.
Reader 1sockchuck adds this article about why funding for the development of supercomputers is more important than ever:
< article continued at Slashdot
>Read Replies (0)
By Soulskill from Slashdot's it's-marketing-all-the-way-down department
points out a story at ZDNet about how the naming of security vulnerabilities and exploits has evolved
into branding and awareness campaigns. Heartbleed set the trend early this year, having a distinct name and logo to represent a serious security problem. It seemed to work; the underlying bug got massive exposure, even in the mainstream media. This raises a new set of issues — should the response to the disclosure of a vulnerability be dependent on how catchy its name is? No, but it probably will be.Heartbleed charmed the public, and in a way, it was designed to do so. By comparison Shellshock, POODLE (aka clumsy "Poodlebleed"), Sandworm, the secretively named Rootpipe, Winshock, and other vulns seem like proverbial "red headed stepchildren" — despite the fact that each of these vulns are critical issues, some are worse than Heartbleed, and all of which needed fast responses. The next "big bug" after Heartbleed was Shellshock — real name CVE-2014-6271. Shellshock didn't have a company's pocketbook or marketing team behind it. So, despite the fact that many said Shellshock was worse than Heartbleed (rated high on severity but low on complexity, making it easy for attackers), creating a celebrity out of Shellshock faced an uphill climb.Read Replies (0)