Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
A Nonny Moose

Hackers Reach a New Low.

22 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

  • Original Poster
  • The interesting thing about the incident reported is that the baby is deaf.  Not only is the idea sick, sick, sick, but the horse is on this particular hacker.  He is not only ignorant, cruel, and thoughtless, but stupid as well.  If someone could trace that son of a thousand fathers, I'd like to see him with a little jail time.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    This is another symptom of a problem that most people seem to be blind to: hackers aren't limited to just targeting personal computers. Any device that is connected to the internet can be hacked into - this includes cameras used for various purposes, conference call equipment, printers, fax machines, cable boxes, telephones, thermostats with remote setting capability... all of these devices in order to be secure must be protected with a strong password. The problem then is, most users do not do so, either because they don't know how to, aren't aware they can, or aren't aware it's even necessary. In some cases the device is not even designed for it to be possible for the user to do so. There is a major lack of education among the general public about this issue, and that really needs to be addressed.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
  • Original Poster
  • Oddly enough, I just got a security update for communicating with iPhones.  People are working on this stuff, but if owners of gadgets that are on the net don't do the necessary work to protect them from hackers (if possible), then it is going to be a fun time for the hacking fraternity boys.  Have you got a password on your phone?  Is it a strong one?

     

    One of the most common weak password is some form of the word 'secret'.  Passwords with intermixed numbers, upper and lower case letters are considered strong, but since they are hard to remember, one must be relatively selective.  Never, ever, write a password down, and never tell anyone else what it is.  Two people can only keep a secret if one of them is dead.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
  • Original Poster
  • Well, you can use combinations of numbers and letters that are personal to you.  You can find some way, for example, to include all or part of your birth date.  Another trick is to use a foreign title, somewhat scrambled, for example tr6v16t6 for traviata.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Whatever happened to actually raising your children?  Do we now leave that to the T.V., the cameras, the cell-phones, the government?  My parents did not need a web cam to watch me while I slept, they didn't even need a baby monitor of any kind.  What is wrong with people!  The problem is not the hackers, the problem is too much dependency on electronics.  Imagine if the hacker responsible for this had been lovingly cared for while growing up, you think he/she/it would have done this?  Probably not.  This hacker was probably raised by this same level of indifference that this new kid is now being raised by.  

     

    I am not saying parents do not love their kids, of course they do(I hope they do), but kids need actual human attention to grow up right, that is how we are wired.

     

    Edit:  To further that thought, I will ask a simple question;  What kind of a life must parents live that they can no longer care for their kids without baby monitors and cameras?

     

    And one last note, it is a bit ignorant for this family to think that their device could no be hacked.  There is no electronic device in the world that cannot be hacked.  Given a person with skills and time any system can be hacked, no exceptions.  To say otherwise would be entirely ignorant(not meant as an insult, just that to say otherwise would indicate a lack of knowledge on the subject, hence the ignorance).

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
  • Original Poster
  • Well, I was raised mostly by my mother because my father was overseas in WW II.  I was about 9 when he got back in 1946, and by then the pattern was pretty well set.  Fortunately we had a large extended family scattered around the block where I lived, and lots of other kids in similar circumstances to play with.  We didn't have anything in the way of electronics, only radio.  All the nice toys came out starting with television in the 1950s for us. 

     

    So we made our own fun, and some toys.  You'd die laughing these days at a pistol made of two clothes pins, but we did with what we had.  Played a lot of cops and robbers.  This turned into NAZIs and partisans after 1943 or so.  The tables turned and the partisans usually won.  Later on, when things like Stalag 17 was made, I can assure you we were in a position to enjoy it.

     

    We were a happy bunch, and nobody thought of taking a swipe at others.  All this vicious maliciousness we see these days is clearly a fault in the system somewhere, probably parenting and loss of politesse.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    I don't see how a baby monitor is inconsistent with "actually raising your children". It is a valuable tool for knowing when the baby needs attention.

     

    Although as I recall the primary use of such things was so the baby crying would be able to wake you up in the middle of the night without you needing to be in the same room as him. Don't see how the camera adds much value, nor do I see why it needs to be connected to the internet. I'm guessing the makers decided it was more convenient to hook it up to wifi rather than use shortwave radio as old devices did.

     

    I also find it interesting that the hacker was able to talk to the baby through the thing as the monitor my parents had most certainly did not have that function - it was one way. Baby's end send, your end receive. I suppose a device with two way communication would go against "actually raising your children", then, as it would enable you to be lazy and talk to the baby remotely without getting up to go tend to him directly.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    I am known for being anti-family and anti-human to a large degree however I don't believe in dishonesty and corruption either, i.e hacking.

     

    I think hacking is a very big problem and penalties for the act should be much greater, it should be considered as important as terrorism. People come and go but software and data needs to be protected.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    I don't see how a baby monitor is inconsistent with "actually raising your children". It is a valuable tool for knowing when the baby needs attention.

     

    Although as I recall the primary use of such things was so the baby crying would be able to wake you up in the middle of the night without you needing to be in the same room as him. Don't see how the camera adds much value, nor do I see why it needs to be connected to the internet. I'm guessing the makers decided it was more convenient to hook it up to wifi rather than use shortwave radio as old devices did.

     

    I also find it interesting that the hacker was able to talk to the baby through the thing as the monitor my parents had most certainly did not have that function - it was one way. Baby's end send, your end receive. I suppose a device with two way communication would go against "actually raising your children", then, as it would enable you to be lazy and talk to the baby remotely without getting up to go tend to him directly.

    Indeed, my parents used them in the evening when we were asleep and they were downstairs watching tv or reading a book. This is perfect way of knowing if your child is crying without having to be right next to the child the whole day. It has nothing to do with bad parenting, this just helps people parent their children more effectively. 

     

    As for the camera, well, hearing your child isn't everything. Being able to look on a monitor just to see that your child is still safely asleep is better than just hearing your child. I suppose that also explains why it runs over wifi, as I do not know any other kind of signal that is good enough to relay images without the use of a cable or a some kind of dish or antenna. But I could be wrong about that. 

     

    Still though, just password protect your wifi and you should be fine. 

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
  • Original Poster
  • Mark raises an interesting point comparing hacking to terrorism.  Considering some recent cases of Internet bullying, there is an argument in favour of that.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Mark raises an interesting point comparing hacking to terrorism.  Considering some recent cases of Internet bullying, there is an argument in favour of that.

    Yeah, its called cyber terrorism and its already a thing. Has been for quite a while now. 

     

    Still, terrorism (and therefor cyber terrorism) is politically motivated. Without a political motive, something is simply not terrorism. 

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    If a criminal act is designed to frighten people, politics is irrelevant.  It is terrorism.

    Nope. If the criminal act is designed to frighten people in order to further a political goal or motive, then its terrorism. That is the textbook definition of terrorism. 

     

    If you leave out the political motive you rob terrorism of its meaning and suddenly it becomes a catch all phrase for all kinds of criminal and violent acts, and branding people terrorist when they are not. I mean, it would make a guy who beats up his wife in order to scare her and the rest of his family into submission just as much a terrorist as Bin Laden. And the moment a definition can cover both Bin Laden and an abusive husband the definition is devoid of any real meaning. 

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

     

    If a criminal act is designed to frighten people, politics is irrelevant.  It is terrorism.

    Nope. If the criminal act is designed to frighten people in order to further a political goal or motive, then its terrorism. That is the textbook definition of terrorism. 

     

    If you leave out the political motive you rob terrorism of its meaning and suddenly it becomes a catch all phrase for all kinds of criminal and violent acts, and branding people terrorist when they are not. I mean, it would make a guy who beats up his wife in order to scare her and the rest of his family into submission just as much a terrorist as Bin Laden. And the moment a definition can cover both Bin Laden and an abusive husband the definition is devoid of any real meaning. 

     

     

    So, if a man walks into a building and starts shooting everyone he sees, it is a terrorist act if he is shouting political slogans but, it is not a terrorist act if he happens to be a disgruntled ex-employee?

     

    Same action but his motivation is what determines if it is terrorism or not?

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    So, if a man walks into a building and starts shooting everyone he sees, it is a terrorist act if he is shouting political slogans but, it is not a terrorist act if he happens to be a disgruntled ex-employee?

     

    Same action but his motivation is what determines if it is terrorism or not?

     

    Motivation is important. Someone who hits and kills someone with his car can either be manslaughter (he wasn't paying attention, didn't mean to hit the victim with his car) or a first degree murderer (when he had every intention of hitting his victim with his car, and had been planning to do exactly that for some time). Same action, you hit someone with a car, but your motivation changes context and as a result, the way the judge punishes you. 

     

    Yes, terrorists have a political motive. They want a government to do something, and in order to put pressure on them, they commit acts of terrorism. The IRA who wanted the English out of Northern Ireland. The ETA who wanted the Basque country to separate from the rest of Spain, Al Queda who wants the US to stop interfering in the Middle East. Chechen terrorists who want the Russians to go leave them alone. Hamas who wants Israel to withdraw. The list goes on and on. And the only thing these groups have in common is that they have a political goal they hope to achieve through their actions.

     

    And if every criminal act that causes 'terror' (or extreme amounts of fear) can be labeled as terrorism, then every crime is terrorism and every criminal a terrorist because crime and criminals scare people. A guy that robs someone at gun point is terrifying his victim, probably even more so than the vague threat of a bunch of angry Muslims who want to fly a plane into a big building at the other end of the country. Someone who gets raped gets terrorized by the rapist in an infinitely more horrible way than any suicide bomber can hope to achieve to people other than the people directly hurt in the explosion. And the chance of getting robber or raped is much bigger than the chance of getting killed in a car bomb (at least in the West). Like I said, if you go down this path, every criminal is a terrorist and the label terrorist becomes meaningless.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Splitting hairs.  The reason terrorism is considered political is laws like the U.S. Patriot Act.

    No need to remind you that terrorism has been around for much longer than 9/11. The RAF was from the 70's. The IRA and ETA have been setting off bombs for decades before 9/11. And Palestinian terror groups have also been active ever since the state of Israel was founded. Even Al Queda has been active since the 90's. And all these groups have clear political goals they want to achieve through their acts. 

     

    Its just as much splitting hairs as making a distinction between premeditated murder and manslaughter. Yet that is a pretty important hair to split when you put someone on trial. 

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an Account  

    Sign up to join our friendly community. It's easy!  

    Register a New Account

    Sign In  

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

    Sign in to follow this  

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×

    Help Keep Simtropolis Online, Open & Free!

    stexcollection-header.png

    Would you be able to help us catch up after a bit of a shortfall?

    We had a small shortfall last month. Your donation today would help us catch up for this month.

    Make a Donation, Get a Gift!

    We need to continue to raise enough money each month to pay for expenses which includes hardware, bandwidth, software licenses, support licenses and other necessary 3rd party costs.

    By way of a "Thank You" gift, we'd like to send you our STEX Collector's DVD. It's some of the best buildings, lots, maps and mods collected for you over the years. Check out the STEX Collections for more info.

    Each donation helps keep Simtropolis online, open and free!

    Thank you for reading and enjoy the site!

    More About STEX Collections