On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:56:29 -0700 Razer wrote:

On 04/12/2017 05:49 PM, juan wrote:

...

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:35:24 -0700 Razer wrote:

...

Bwahahahahahaaahackcoughgasp-wheeeeeze!

...

Bruce Schneier takes to the pages of Technology Review

So are you parroting what the US gov't terrorist schneier says, or rightfully mocking the scumbag?

You have no fucking sense of humor.

you are a psycho

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:56:29 -0700 Razer wrote:

On 04/12/2017 05:49 PM, juan wrote:

...

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:35:24 -0700 Razer wrote:

...

Bwahahahahahaaahackcoughgasp-wheeeeeze!

...

Bruce Schneier takes to the pages of Technology Review

So are you parroting what the US gov't terrorist schneier says, or rightfully mocking the scumbag?

You have no fucking sense of humor.

by the way, looks like you don't have the balls to give a straight answer, so I'll assume you are parroting what your fellow joo criminal vomited

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 18:20:28 -0700 Razer wrote:

On 04/12/2017 06:14 PM, juan wrote:

...

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:56:29 -0700 Razer wrote:

...

On 04/12/2017 05:49 PM, juan wrote:

...

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:35:24 -0700 Razer wrote:

...

Bwahahahahahaaahackcoughgasp-wheeeeeze!

...

Bruce Schneier takes to the pages of Technology Review So are you parroting what the US gov't terrorist schneier says, or rightfully mocking the scumbag?

You have no fucking sense of humor.

by the way, looks like you don't have the balls to give a straight answer, so I'll assume you are parroting what your fellow joo criminal vomited

By the way... It looks like you have no fucking sense of humor

I of course have a sense of humour. And obviously I don't find funny the same things that psychos like you find funny. But that doesn't really matter, since your post is just an example of a joo US gov't agent promoting another joo US gov't agent. So keep 'earning' your pay, shitbag.

I foresee a not-for-profit venture that seeks out any and all devices that aren't protected and seeks to permanently disable them.

Pointless when you can write the maker and get them to pay you in anon VC's to brick the gear of their competitor. While you arrange the same deal with said competitor. Profit x 2.

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:20 PM, grarpamp wrote:

...

I foresee a not-for-profit venture that seeks out any and all devices that aren't protected and seeks to permanently disable them.

Would also break every tort, damaging, conspiracy to commit, and computer crime law on the books, and get itself shutdown, prosecuted, and sued for loss of and so on.

Since when has that stopped those who believe they are the righteous?

On 04/12/2017 11:11 PM, grarpamp wrote:

...

I foresee a not-for-profit venture that seeks out any and all devices that aren't protected and seeks to permanently disable them. Pointless when you can write the maker and get them to pay you in anon VC's to brick the gear of their competitor. While you arrange the same deal with said competitor. Profit x 2.

Some makers don't respond. Notably and recently the people who made the dildo with the camera that 'went live'. People make these things, grab what bucks they can from them, and vanish. Rr

Who said anything about state authorization? On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:32 AM, grarpamp wrote:

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Razer wrote:

...

Some makers don't respond.

Then brick their products till they pay or fix their gear. No need for any state authorized "nonprofit" doing the exact same thing.

On 04/13/2017 10:55 AM, grarpamp wrote:

...

Who said anything about state authorization? As everyone has said, the only way for your "not-for-profit venture" (registered corp or not) to break the law is for it to be a state authorized criminal itself. Otherwise it must operate anonymously, for which

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Kurt Buff wrote: there is zero chance such anons will trend "not-for-profit" when there's clearly profit to be made.

If the device's creator in incommunicado that means avenues of legal redress are gone. If their device is defective... doesn't perform as advertised or violates the law (your right to privacy), you aren't 'breaking the law' by modifying the device because they've voided their own contract with the consumer. Fly-by-nights have no patent (copyright/etc) protection. SOMEONE has to own up to 'proprietorship', and if 'owning up' means they get sued by a million people, or go to prison, or get lynched, they are NOT going to claim any rights. Rr

---------- Forwarded message --------- From: juan Date: Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 06:38 Subject: Re: The Internet of Things will host devastating, unstoppable botnets To: On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 04:18:10 -0600 Mirimir wrote:

On 04/12/2017 06:35 PM, Razer wrote:

...

Bwahahahahahaaahackcoughgasp-wheeeeeze!

| Abstract: Within the next few years, billions of IoT devices | will densely populate our cities. In this paper we describe a | new type of threat in which adjacent IoT devices will infect | each other with a worm that will spread explosively over large | areas in a kind of nuclear chain reaction,

so mirimir posts the same kind of pentagon garbage that rayzer-schneier post. Just what one would expect from tor-bots You're a broken record.