Man Jailed After Using LimeWire For ID Theft 241
angry tapir sends along this excerpt from PC World:
"A Seattle man has been sentenced to more than three years in prison for using the LimeWire file-sharing service to lift personal information from computers across the US. The man, Frederick Wood, typed words like 'tax return' and 'account' into the LimeWire search box. That allowed him to find and access computers on the LimeWire network with shared folders that contained tax returns and bank account information. ... He used the information to open accounts, create identification cards and make purchases. 'Many of the victims are parents who don't realize that LimeWire is on their home computer,' [said Kathryn Warma of the US Attorney's Office]."
Remove the buzzwords (Score:5, Insightful)
Man jailed for ID theft. This is a good outcome, I'd say.
The Limewire connection is only interesting because it shows social vulnerabilities inherent in the filesharing mechanism. As long as you make it simple to share files and folders, people are going to be lazy and end up sharing files that they never meant to share.
Re:Remove the buzzwords (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Their kids account should not have read access to important financial records in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Your average parent who doesn't work in a technical field is unlikely to even know what tiered access levels are, much less how to set them up.
When we first setup Windows 2000 on campus when I was doing IT work for my college, 75% or more of the professors bitched and moaned that they had to now LOG IN to their computers and remember a password. Sure different services around campus had always needed them, but not the computer itself. Just the password seemed too much for them. The concept of multiple user
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that's the better approach, since it makes it harder for the kid to accidentally delete/corrupt/read your files.
Not impossible of course - since they have physical access to the computer.
Re:Remove the buzzwords (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have a kid, you should NEVER SHARE A COMPUTER with it. It is not practical to expect parents to monitor everything a kid does on a computer, or to ensure any level of security on a computer used by a kid.
Get your kids their own computers and assume they are sharing that computer with a hacker and all of 4chan. Prohibit the use of the computer for any financial transaction. A kid's computer is only "safe" if there is nothing worth stealing on that computer.
Re:Remove the buzzwords (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe thats what separate user accounts are for.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...and that's what privilege escalation exploits are for. Seriously, with a "regular user" account, there are a hundred and eleventy ways to get root. Fake login screen, anyone?
On top of that, are you 100% sure you will log out when you step away from your computer? Are you 100% sure your kids won't just hop on face-space while you're logged in?
Your "solution" falls way short of the mark. In the era of $200 netbooks, only a reckless parent would share a PC with a child.
Re: (Score:2)
You're only partly right. To non-experts, the Internet is like Tijuana. When you visit, you will likely be walking down the main tourist strip, with its lighting, and police. You will shop only at the mainstream shops which can afford the prime real estate. Still, it's not as safe as your home in the 'burbs, because you don't speak the language and the rule of law is rather limited.
When your kids visit Tijuana, however, they absolutely do not stick to the tourist strip. They go running down the side-alleys,
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, I'm a security expert (which is relevant), not a parent (which is not so relevant). Furthermore, I am not responsible for the fact that English has no gender-neutral, singular personal pronoun. Take that issue up with the British, if you're concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
I addressed the fallacy of limited user accounts stopping malware here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1333999&cid=29042757 [slashdot.org]
You are correct that it isn't 100% secure. It's a speed bump, at best.
Re: (Score:2)
> for example asking you to select/confirm which folders you share every time you open it up
So you want Limewire to have it's own form of UAC? Or do you think that if you make it scary enough that the majority of users wont just click yes anyway?
Got to agree (Score:4, Interesting)
the guy's sentence had nothing to do with limewire or even downloading. If he had downloaded said tax records for just a laugh, he would be free. He has been jailed for fraud pure and simple.
Don't we hate "X but on the internet" patent claims? Then why are "X with a very loose connection the internet" stories okay?
I didn't mean any harm, it was all in fun. (Score:2)
If he had downloaded said tax records for just a laugh, he would be free.
I've heard this argument on Slashdot before.
Like every time a geek is sentenced to do hard time after being caught poking his nose into somewhere it didn't belong.
There are a bare handful of reasons why you could claim to be legally in possession of a someone else's tax records - and none of them are likely to involve a download over the P2P nets.
Another entrepreneur... (Score:5, Funny)
Crime was not accessing the data (Score:5, Insightful)
The crime was using it.
Here's a moral equivalent:
Imagine of lots of people left the same forms on their car dashboard for all to see and parked their cars on the public streets. Then I walk along and write that info down in my notebook. So far, I haven't done anything illegal. Or I should say, if I have broken a law, then the laws are broken.
But once I use this information, particularly if I use it fraudulently, then I've committed a crime.
Re:Crime was not accessing the data (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently the prosecutor did not agree:
* Wood was sentenced Tuesday to 39 months in prison and three years of supervised release for wire fraud, accessing a protected computer without authorization
* to commit fraud, and aggravated identity theft. He was tried in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Key word is "protected computer". Not sure how something sharing *.* on limewire is considered "protected". Guy needed a better lawyer.
Re:Crime was not accessing the data (Score:5, Insightful)
But he -did- have permission. They have given permission by having limewire share their computer's contents.
If I put a sign in my front yard next to my lawn chairs that says 'Free chairs', even if I can't read the sign myself, I can't blame anyone for taking the chairs. I did give them permission, even if I didn't know I was doing it.
And as far as 'protected computer' ... Leaving filesharing open to the world is the opposite of 'protected'. Having a bulldog in your front yard and leaving your front door open does not mean your house is protected.
Re:Crime was not accessing the data (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is why we have age-of-consent laws, and laws regarding the validity of contracts, and laws concerning disclosures and waivers... Because the (US at least) legal system does not believe that one can give uninformed permission or consent. (Not to mention that what you are doing here is blaming the victim.)
Re:Crime was not accessing the data (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, not really. He took this information and conducted fraud. It doesn't matter whether they literally told it to him or he found it in their dumpster or whatever. Fraud is fraud, plain and simple. You don't get away with giving a false driver license to a cop even if the driver gave it to you to use.
But, I totally agree on the protected computer part from the practical standpoint. It wasn't protected. However, if the law lets them in based on any loophole, it'll be exploited a massive amount. I don't want someone getting into my files because "Windows was already programmed to let them" or some shit like that, and being stuck with no recourse because of it.
Re:Crime was not accessing the data (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dont like the characterization as these added charges as being superfluous or some kind of anti-justic conspiracy. Of course, all legislation can be abused but here in Illinois we tack on charges if you commit robbery with a gun as opposed to strong arm. Or if you beat someone half to death. Or whatever. It actually helps sentencing make more sense when applied correctly. The kid who ran into the Quickie-mart and stole a snickers bar after telling Apu he'll beat him up if he tried to stop him shouldnt do
Re: (Score:2)
BS.
It's not a loophole and anyone who understands how computers communicate recognizes the fact that this person was invited on to the computer.
The only thing that happens is people get into truble for doing something they have been authorized to do. You or I, or anyone can't be standing around second guessing what people mean. In reality what would happen is people woudl step up and figure out how to not share there computer.
To use a broken house analogy:
If you put a big sign on your house that says come o
Re: (Score:2)
To use a broken house analogy:
If you put a big sign on your house that says come on in, and your door is unlocked, you can't claim I was trespassing because you didn't know someone would actually come in.
So by that logic a welcome mat at your door is a legal open invitation to strangers.
Re:Crime was not accessing the data (Score:4, Interesting)
Just because I leave my car unlocked with the keys in them doesn't mean you have been given permission to drive the car away. Now if someone naughty then puts a sign saying "free car" on it, and someone else drives it off, it should be a lesser charge (one should realize that to get the free car, some paperwork needs to done to transfer the ownership).
If I give you my credit card info it doesn't mean you can go around using it to do your online shopping.
I don't have the full details but another possibility is the "protected computer" is not necessarily the computer with limewire, it could be the _other_ computers (in banks etc) the guy accessed to commit fraud.
Re:Crime was not accessing the data (Score:5, Interesting)
Not always. Rural residents of the Dakotas will often winter in town. When they leave the country place, they may leave their house and cars unlocked and leave the keys in the car. The thought process is: Anybody who knocks on the door of this place in the middle of winter is in mortal danger. They certainly need shelter. They may need transportation.
Of course, over the last couple of decades with the rise of the cell phone, this sort of behavior has become far more rare. But back in the day, it was pretty common.
"And that concludes your trivia moment for today. Join us tomorrow for..."
Re: (Score:2)
Which for the intelligent also includes wanting others to use their brains to understand that people have different tastes (not everyone is a masochist who likes being whipped).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Protected", in this context, probably means "within the scope of protection of the particular law under which he was charged", not "protected by technical security measures."
Re: (Score:2)
Outrageous! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is outrageous! Our rights have been trampled on for the last time! We must rise up and fi....
Wait, wait, wait... are we /.ers for or against doing illegal stuff on P2P networks this week?
Sorry, between defending one illegal P2P activity (music "sharing") and condemning another (ID theft), it's hard to know what's what...
Tip: The mod point you're looking for is "-1 offtopic"
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, wait, wait... are we /.ers for or against doing illegal stuff on P2P networks this week?
I think it depends on whether or not we would like to be able to do said illegal stuff. If we think we'd like to be able to do it, we fight for said illegal stuff. If we think it's stupid or really TOO illegal for us, then we agree that it should be illegal.
It appears to really all come down to whether or not we see any value in the "illegal stuff." Apparently, most /.ers see value for themselves in being able to download music free, but don't feel the need to commit ID theft/fraud on P2P networks.
In oth
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Outrageous! (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, wait, wait... are we /.ers for or against doing illegal stuff on P2P networks this week?
Some perfectly moral actions are illegal (e.g. smoking marijuana). Some abhorently immoral actions are perfectly legal (e.g. adultery). Sharing copyright files is illegal, but its morality is debatable. Defrauding someone of their hard earned cash is illegal, and its immorality is not debatable.
But I'm sure someone here will try to debate it anyway. :/
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You just proved my point. Those two things are essentially the same thing.
The only difference is that you justify one and not the other by claiming it's alright to steal from a large company but not an individual. It's a Robin Hood mentality that, while romantic and popular, is still wrong. You're basically confusing "moral" with "popular".
You might feel better about stealing music from RIAA-affiliated labels, bu
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Let's get our terminology straight. It's not identity theft, since nobody is being denied use of their own identity.
How about calling it identity infringement, which may be legal in some countries...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What I said was it is debatable. Personally, I think infringing a copyright is wrong to a certain extent. IMO Infringing a ten year old copyright is wrong, enforcing a fifty year old copyright is just as wrong. Enforcing a dead person's copyright is even worse.
Nowhere did I say or even imply that it's ok to steal from a corporation. Don't go putting words in my mouth, mr strawman.
If you're not American your mileage will probably vary, but my concept of what copyright should be is based on the US Constitutio
Re: (Score:2)
If anything it is current copyright and patents that are immoral. In the case of patents, they have been used to justify the deaths of huge amounts of people in the name of profit of the few. There is nothing moral in restricting the spread of information that can improve the quality of life for millions upon millions of people.
Current copyright and patents laws are among the most immoral laws on the books. Few other laws can compete with their destructive tendencies. Copyright and patents are about as prod
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal does not necessarily mean "wrong"
However, this guy was doing something that was both wrong and illegal
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So maybe go with your own opinion and worry less about what other people think?
Sorry, between defending one illegal P2P activity (music "sharing") and condemning another (ID theft), it's hard to know what's what...
You've lumped violating copyright in with identity theft. In my view they're not even in the same ballpark, even though I do not personally participate in trafficking of files online.
You can say 'the law is the law' if you'd like, but if that's the case I'd like to know where my legal right to own slaves went. Unless of course it is possible for some laws to be right and some to be wrong.
But then, that would require taking a po
Re: (Score:2)
Which is fine. They both involve the deliberate act of ripping someone off. Same ethical bucket, same direction on the moral compass.
Only where 'ripping someone off' is highly flexible.
Depriving someone of a potential song sale may or may not have the same value as taking out credit in someone else's name.
What if the copyright violation was over a product already purchased by the violator, just not in the format they wanted?
Likewise, what if the credit card is taken out, yet never used?
This only the 'same direction on the moral compass' if you mean an entire hemisphere is the 'same direction - e.g no difference between 91 degrees and 269
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Although technically what you present as an average slashdotter's mindset is true, it's an oversimplification. Music piracy is condoned or at least given more leeway because it's largely the symptom of a bigger problem, that being copyright and DRM asshattery where a user who pays for music ends up unable to use it for whatever reason.
ID theft, though, is simply theft and exploitation of others for profit.
At least, that's how I see it.
Re:Outrageous! (Score:5, Insightful)
The mod point I'm looking to give you is "-1 Flamebait." Since when is destorying someone's personal life akin to stealing an album? Get some perspective on life, please. Laws do not define right and wrong! Sorry for the flame, /., but people that are blind enough to believe laws are some sort of unchangeable and divine Truth need be burned.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm not putting music theft and ID theft on par with each other, merely comparing our culture's attitudes towards each. My point is that we justify one thing which is clearly wrong (stealing music) and condemn another that is clearly wrong (ID theft). In no way did I trivialize ID theft or claim that it isn't a big deal.
And just for future reference, you lose all credibility with reasonable people when you call for the burning of an individual with a differing opinion. Grow. Up.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me get this straight: You're equating improperly labeling copyright infringement to saying someone should be burned alive? Both cause one to lose the same amount of credibility? Sorry, that's a bit... ludicrous.
Re: (Score:2)
Replace "P2P" with "shotguns", "music sharing" with "illegal hunting" and "ID theft" with "homicide" and you get yourself a good firearms analogy showing how it's different.
Good but not Great (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean the guy should go for jail for it, no doubts there - but the fact that it can happen is the real issue that needs to be addressed.
I mean it's not the victim's fault, they probably don't even know what Limewire is, let alone how to use it or how it can be dangerous. It's not Limewire's fault, I mean any method they put in to prevent this will either detract from their service or will just spawn more problems.
And little Billy Downloady just put My Docs as the shared folder so his music goes into the music folder and the movies go into the movies folder. Having no idea that his parents happened to keep sensitive info in there.
I Guess the solution... Encrypt your Data regardless your situation?
Re: (Score:2)
Encrypt your Data regardless your situation?
I wonder how many people, if they don't know that LimeWire is installed and running, are going to know how to encrypt their data....
Re: (Score:2)
I sure do have some real blonde moments sometimes...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I still blame the parents for not creating a decent separation of their data vs. their kids. Why does little Billy Downloady have the equivalent of root access, so he can install the software to begin with? Why does he have access to the tax records in the first place?
You don't need to resort to hard core encryption. Simple user separation would have prevented this sort of thing. Heck, even Windows rather lame user system would work just fine to prevent this.
Family members should have separate accounts on t
Re: (Score:2)
It's the victims fault that they had a system that specifically gave permission for people to connect to their system.
The parents are responsible for the kids action.
They aren't at fault for the misuse of the gathered information.
You aren't a victim of trespass if you tell people there allowed onto your property.
The solution is to understand what goes on with your computer.
Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly using the information is wrong.
I don't think getting data from a folder someone has publicly shared is wrong.
And before someone uses that lame ass house analogy, it doesn't apply becasue that's not how computer communicate.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think getting data from a folder someone has publicly shared is wrong.
Around here, if you get an email by mistake (e.g. the wrong address was entered, or someone sent a private email to a work account which you are legally monitoring), you have no right to read it. You have to stop reading as soon as you realize that the email isn't for your eyes, and you have no right to share or use the information you received by mistake.
I think that analogy is quite close to the case of opening someone's Quicken file.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cripes, with some of the crazy emails around here, I -have- to read the entire email to be absolutely sure it wasn't for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Cripes, with some of the crazy emails around here, I -have- to read the entire email to be absolutely sure it wasn't for me.
Well, you aren't obligated beyond your abilities...
Re: (Score:2)
There's a subtlety in that the mistake isn't on the part of the email or the receiver, it's that the sender addressed the email to someone other than the intended party. While it's lame and unethical to exploit such a mistake, I doubt there would be any legal recourse if that person were to do anything they wanted with the information they received. The sender could be penalized for disclosing information to an unauthorized party, but there's no obligation on the part of the receiver of the email.
The lega
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you cite the law?
I know a lot of people put those disclaimers at the bottom of their emails, but I don't think they have any real legal weight.
Protected!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wood was sentenced Tuesday to 39 months in prison and three years of supervised release for wire fraud, accessing a protected computer without authorization to commit fraud, and aggravated identity theft.
What chain of idiocy determined the computers he accessed to be "protected"?
Wood: Hey, do you have any files with names like this?
Computer: Yeah, I do.
Wood: Can I have them plz?
Computer: No problem - here they are for you.
Re:Protected!? (Score:5, Informative)
The U.S. Congress -- More specifically, the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act expanded the definition of "protected computer" to include basically any computer with a network connection. More information is available at:
Re: (Score:2)
Is it a bad-faith argument? That the LimeWire users only intended to share media, and not sensitive data?
IANAL, but it seems possible that Wood knew what he was doing was not the intended purpose of the product, and thus is culpable for any damage caused through his own actions.
It would be morally, if not legally, similar to exploiting a vulnerability in Windows to gain the files. I mean, the user CHOSE to run Windows, and they CHOSE not to patch it, so they should expect to get breached, right?
No, probab
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is from the The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act [wikipedia.org] that states it is a criminal offense when: "Knowingly accessing a protected computer with the intent to defraud and there by obtaining anything of value."
Poorly written law if you ask me. What if the computer is protected but some of the files are not? How do you define a "protected" computer anyway? What if it is locked in a safe, but connected to the internet with no safeguards? By definition of this law, if I retrieve national security info
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This law actually states it is a crime when "Knowingly accessing a computer without authorization in order to obtain national security data". So even if the computer is not protected, it is a crime if you access it knowingly without authorization to to retrieve national security information. That part's not so bad.
It does state though that "Knowingly accessing a protected computer with the intent to defraud and there by obtaining anything of value" is a crime. So using a computer to
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A protected computer is defined very precisely in the law:
(2) the term "protected computer" means a computer-
(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communicat
Re: (Score:2)
Ouch (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody in this article has any common sense (Score:3, Insightful)
First craigslist victim: you wrote a check without checking the product?
Prosecutor: what 'protected computer' was accessed? Do you have a different definition of protected?
ID theft Victims: what are you thinking putting sensitive information on a computer used by teenagers?
Not Surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm still amazed how many people think it's a great idea to have their resume on their personal website, along with their date of birth, address and believe it or not I've actually seen people put their SSN on their resumes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't put my address, date of birth, or SSN even on my resume. Just because these types of things is needed information at the end of the day doesn't mean that they need to be put on something as obviously publi
I Blame the System Tray (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:how dumb (Score:5, Informative)
'Many of the victims are parents who don't realize that LimeWire is on their home computer,' [said Kathryn Warma of the US Attorney's Office]."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know how they couldn't. The thing is so bloated and slow, and degrades system resources so much, you'd think people would go "Hey, WTF is going on here?" Unless of course they already have tons of malware, and their private info has been lifted by half a dozen botnets already, in which case Limewire is probably the most secure network app they're running.
Re:how dumb (Score:5, Informative)
Many people from older generations that have not had the time to learn how to use the computer aside from e-mail and online news have no clue. And computers aren't as static as we geeks like to think they are, and they slow down or speed up occasionally, install updates, etc.
For someone who has really no clue how it works and isn't even used to using it, it's very easy to see how they could not notice.
Re:how dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why are these idiots letting their kids use their computer?.........No wait.......
That would be a very large debate. But hey, if "parenting" consists of "taking kids to daycare" and when they are older "taking kids to school" and when they are older "buying kids a car," it's no wonder they let their kids use "their" computer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most parents know that being computer literate is an important part of their childrens' education. They probably bought the computer in the first place for their kids to use so they would learn more about computers than their forebears.
Re:how dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
For a bunch of techies on Slashdot it's hard to understand. It's like a car mechanic saying, "How could you not know your valves needed adjusting by how the engine was running? Now your motor is destroyed" and the customer's answer is "What's a valve?" I bet the auto mechanic web forums are full of people laughing at the "dumb" end users of expensive, ruined machines.
There are a whole combination of technical details to know with file sharing - Windows shares, file system permissions, why you shouldn't run applications as admin by default, IP, port address translation (if you have a typical NATing home router). Even if you think you understand the software, how can you be sure you're 100% safe when you install software that's DESIGNED to open up your computer to the world?
Re:how dumb (Score:4, Funny)
Re:how dumb (Score:4, Interesting)
You may have a point, but i still don't see how they could get their bank records , because , by default Limewire only shares the 'Shared folder' .
So , they either put their bank records in the Shared folder , or they changed the settings to include other folders.
What i mean to say is : Limewire already put effort into making sure you don't accidentally share files .
That being said , considering the amount of junk you get when typing 'tax return' , i must admire the persistence of the identity thief.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Along your theme, it's amazing how many cars have been brought to me in the last year by friends where a professional mechanic said it wasn't safe to drive, and presented with a quote of over $1,000 USD, just to find out that it was perfectly safe.
One in particular, I went item by item down the list of "repairs" only to find that it needed new spark plugs. The shop had completely overlooked the rack and pinion being worn beyond use (i.e., unsafe to drive), and the brakes leaki
Re:how dumb (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually it is usually the children that install Limewire to get free music and video games. Most parents don't know what Limewire is, and share the computer with their children. When they notice a slow down on the Internet they think it is a virus or just Windows as usual. Not knowing that Limewire is sharing their "MyDocuments" folder including all of their personal documents and files in that folder.
My son, for example, uses a PC different from mine. So mine does not get infected with viruses or get all of the files shared via Limewire or some other program. But then I am Tech Savvy enough to know what Limewire and other file sharing programs are, and take them off of my system.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it is usually the children that install Limewire to get free music and video games. Most parents don't know what Limewire is, and share the computer with their children. When they notice a slow down on the Internet they think it is a virus or just Windows as usual.
No, it's even worse than that. Some parents, as the article explains, don't even know that it's *there.* While some see the program glaringly in front of them and ignore it as fodder, there are kids that install it *against* their parent's will. While they might not know *exactly* what it is, they do know about the illegality of downloading media from the Internet.
Frankly, I don't even tell the clients I've worked with that this is an option. I'd rather not promote software I'm vehemently against. Not that
Re: (Score:2)
Which I monitor and use OpenDNS to block the bad web sites he shouldn't go to either.
From time to time he'll click on an ad, and then I have to remove the adware or spyware that it installed. He uses Opera instead of Firefox, and it still gets exploited.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be surprised the number of places I've seen Limewire up and running, where it shouldn't have been. I picked up a little work in a small office, and their manager's desktop was also the server for a few other things. They said "Oh, it's always a little slow", and it had been like that for years. Turns out a few years ago, Limewire had been installed and had been running ever since. They attributed it to someone who used to work nights, and downloaded music all night.
Lu
Re: (Score:2)
NOTE: If that PC is a Pentium IV, it should run extremely well with those specs...unless their applications are somewhat resource-intensive. I used Photoshop on a machine spec'ed out like that with no problems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you'd best lock up Bill Gates and the Windows 95 development team, because it did pretty much the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how they couldn't. The thing is so bloated and slow, and degrades system resources so much, you'd think people would go "Hey, WTF is going on here?"
No, they won't LimeWire hardly uses any significant system resources unless your computer is from the 90s.
Re:how dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Do people not understand how file-sharing works?
Correct
Re:how dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
You're confusing ignorance with stupidity. Everyone is ignorant, nobody knows everything. Anyone who assails the intelligence of someone because they don't posess a certain bit of knowledge that they do is stupid.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't slashdot great? You never know what you'll learn.
Re:how dumb (Score:5, Interesting)
Additionally, many households only have one computer. Mom and Dad use the computer sometimes, then little Susie gets on and installs Limewire, accepts all the defaults, and next thing you know, Mom and Dad's files are being shared with the world.
Or maybe the person is just clueless, and doesn't understand the concept of folders and directories. They want to share their music, their music is on the hard drive, they know the hard drive is C:, so that's what they share.
Really there are any number of reasons this could happen, either from sheer idiocy, to ignorance, to total accident. Back in the the day, 2001 or so, I used to search for things like "resume.doc", or random Windows DLLs, in Kazaa, then I knew who was sharing things they probably shouldn't. Then you could do "More files from this user," or whatever the option was, and come up with all kinds of interesting stuff. Never occured to me to search for tax returns, but then, I wasn't really trying to do anything malicious either. The point is that people sharing practically their entire hard drive, without even realising it, has been going on a long, long time.
Re:how dumb (Score:5, Interesting)
I've posted on here a few times on this very topic, although I'm probably preaching to the choir. People are stupid like you wouldn't believe.
I've done this before, not for nefarious reasons but more as a proof-of-concept to convince myself that people really are this stupid.
Obviously I never did anything illegal – merely downloading the sensitive files isn't illegal AFAIK, since they're publicly sharing them (even if unknowingly). Attempting to log into someone's PayPal account (to see if the password had been changed or the account locked out) was probably somewhat borderline; I never tried to log into any of the credit or banking accounts. Most of the login details were no good, but I was able to log into people's e-mail accounts, several different instant messenger accounts, even a couple of RapidShare Premium accounts. (One e-mail account even appeared to be actively used – recent dates on messages, which I didn't read although I saw the subjects. As a gesture of helpfulness I sent an e-mail from the account to itself in which I informed them that their login details were being shared on LimeWire!)
So yes, this doesn't surprise me in the least.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
People are not stupid, they are ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think that people are "stupid" because they don't know how to effectively secure their digital assets? This is akin to a security analyst calling you stupid for lacking knowledge of 0-day vuln's...and then rooting your box to exploit that lack of knowledge. (Maybe you do, but there are plenty of tech professionals that don't.)
i.e. the script kiddies (or criminals) that drop trojans and other nefarious oddities and do massive damage to people's computers daily.
Just sayin'.
Re:how dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they do not. Many people think that they are searching some sort of repository of files that was set up specifically to be searched. They do not realize that they are searching other people's hard drives, and other people are searching theirs. Even when they realize that people are downloading from them many people think that the downloading is restricted to music files. The idea that their entire hard drive may be open for searching is alien to some people.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people have one directory (perhaps called My Documents) that they use for everything. The files that they download are mixed in with their bank statements, Christmas card lists, and everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
...he still didn't want to give him his name.
Wha?
Re: (Score:2)
Man, that should really be a huge black mark against someone's credit rating.
Free penis enlargement tease. (Score:2, Funny)