Somewhat OT.....
Just to play devil's advocate here and not to sound contrary to popular opinion in matters of personal privacy but in this context, I'm somewhat glad to see that ANY agency was able to track down the virus "originator".
Let's face it, a virus has no other use in life than to disrupt and destroy. When part of my job description entails securing the network, I'm all for this type of "tracking". In my estimation, I spent 4 hours of my time taking extra precautions (downloading anti-virus patches [twice], resetting workstation policies and file attributes in most cases, setting proxy filters and packet filtering on firewall etc).
That's money out of my company's pocket for what? At best, a "friendly prank" someone dreamed up one night because he was bored with computer programming 101? And let's not even explore the fact that I'm a "lazy network admin" who doesn't have a clue about protecting an ant hill let alone a network. I take network security VERY seriously (that's why we have NDS and BorderManager just for starters).
I have my own opinions about using common sense when deciding just what actions constitute "legal precedent" in areas of civil liberties but not to go too far off topic, I'll just stick with the essence of our personal privacy discussions.
digitalme will allow me to have the control I need over my personal information but, and here's the kicker, IF I'm alleged to have broken the law, why can't an agency use this identity tool against me? Of course I demand that there be a check and balance in play (stricter search warrants or a hearing before a judge?).
If people know that the information held within one's digital identity is "fair game" (with sufficient cause), it will deter some of the wildly inane things I see today on the internet. Let's face it, on the internet, you can be ANYTHING and ANYBODY without the immediate consequences of common sense (IE, SPAM! and network intrusions) or the laws of any country (or even civility!).
Just ranting....
Peter Strifas |
