Share this page!

Robᵉʳᵗ Graham😷, provocateur Profile picture
Twitter logo
5 Jun, 4 tweets, 1 min read
Pffft. A better poll would be which pop culture references would be the best for legal opinions.
Personally, I think the Van Buren decision could've benefited from an analogy with some Tyrion Lannister wisdom.

This judge got it right:
cnn.com/2019/07/10/us/…
Best source of pop culture references for legal opinions:
I mean, everyone knows its Game of Thrones, but some people wanna give wrong answers.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Robᵉʳᵗ Graham😷, provocateur

Robᵉʳᵗ Graham😷, provocateur Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ErrataRob

Robᵉʳᵗ Graham😷, provocateur Profile picture
5 Jun
This is normal NYTimes fair: "My provider of anti-science medical quackery called chiropractics holds anti-science medical quackery opinions about vaccines. Is this unethical?"
The answer should start with the ethics of claiming to provide medical care when, in fact, you are not.
This is a great demonstration of how people confuse ethics with politics. Vaccinations are a political question rather than an ethical question.
Read 4 tweets
Robᵉʳᵗ Graham😷, provocateur Profile picture
4 Jun
So that "9-0 pcap" conspiracy-theory video: I grabbed a screenshot of what they claim to be "pcap of encrypted data", OCRed it, and converted the hex back to ASCII. My guess is that it's a hexdump of an SQL dump. It's certainly neither "encrypted" nor a "pcap".
Fields separated by commands implies CSV format, but when those fields are surrounded by quotes, then many fields surrounded by parentheses, it starts to look at a lot like an SQL dump instead.
Bah, immediately after posting this, I see others have already gone down this route:
Read 8 tweets
Robᵉʳᵗ Graham😷, provocateur Profile picture
3 Jun
So I'm reading the CFAA decision. I want to point out yet again that the "mens rea" requirement in the CFAA is bullshit. It doesn't mean the perp knew they were unauthorized, it means a reasonable person in the perp's place would've known they were unauthorized.
I can appreciate that in most crimes, this is the reasonable approach.

It's just that in computer crimes, it's not. People have wildly different understands how computers work, and thus, different understands about what's authorized.
Most people are unintimidated by the URL bar in the browser and have never edited the URL in their lives. Thus, reasonable people assume that if you couldn't have accessed a resource without editing the URL, then it was unauthorized.
Read 15 tweets
Robᵉʳᵗ Graham😷, provocateur Profile picture
3 Jun
I'm somebody who actually likes the Federalist Society. How can it not vigorously defend the free speech rights of this student for what's obviously satire????? What part of "free speech" are people not understanding any more?
I mean, saner heads eventually prevailed, but still, it's something the Federalist Society should still respond to and admit their error.
FIRE has a better article with links to the original email and the complaint.
thefire.org/law-students-g…
Read 5 tweets
Robᵉʳᵗ Graham😷, provocateur Profile picture
2 Jun
I disagree with the answer.

The correct answer is that THIS IS FREAKIN' KERCKHOFF'S PRINCIPLE FROM 1880!!!!!!! Seriously, at some point we have to point out YOUR CONCERN WAS ADDRESSED OVER 100 YEARS AGO!!!!
Yes, yes, we can't apply this principle has a clichéd response to every question (as some people do). But at the same time, we can apply it where it's clearly appropriate, such as in this case.
The naive believe we need to hide the details of how things work, in the name of security, so that the attacker doesn't know the details.
Read 13 tweets
Robᵉʳᵗ Graham😷, provocateur Profile picture
1 Jun
Ransomware is an 'existential threat' to business. What's your plan to respond to it? Wrong answers include "we are prepared" and "doing better at cybersecurity basics".
I mention this because I read a lot of op-eds by infosec types that claim that ransomware demonstrates the need to for better cybersecurity. I disagree. I think we need to actually pay attention to the specifics how ransomware attacks work, and address those specifics.
Anybody says "we need to take it seriously", about any topic. Here's my take on the Israel-Palestinian crisis: "The recent rocket attacks by Hamas and Israel's response demonstrate how the United States needs to take this conflict more seriously". See how it works?
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @ErrataRob has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @ErrataRob!

Read all threads by @ErrataRob

:(