I love that euphemism. "Legally questionable." In pretty much any other "civilized" nation, or if it involved pretty much any other kind of records, there'd be a much shorter name for it: FRAUD. Where does the whacked-out idea come from that it's a crime to masquerade as somebody else to get their money or their medical records, say, but not their phone records?
A few other news bits for this morning:
- Microsoft says it will release the patch for its now-widely-exploited vgx.dll vulnerability early, if it's ready before the scheduled October 10 release date. Meanwhile, Microsoft recommends people not use the third-party fixes provided by Patchlink and others, because "they haven't been tested by Microsoft". Another security hole, this time related to daxctle.ocx, an ActiveX control, is also being actively exploited and also remains unpatched.
- Wrightspeed, manufacturer of the Wrightspeed X1 concept electric open-wheel sports car, claims the X1 is the most efficient and second fastest sports car in the world, going from 0-60 in three seconds with energy efficiency equivalent to 170mpg. They claim the production car will be "better... much better." So long as its lithium-ion battery pack doesn't catch fire, I suppose....
- Climatologists are saying the Earth may be "close to" the warmest it has been at any time during the last million years. Last winter was the mildest on record in the northeastern and midwestern United States.
- And IBM is putting its patent filings online as part of a policy intended to help curb patent disputes and patent litigation. IBM has also stated a belief that "so-called business methods alone -- broad descriptions of ideas, without technical specifics -- should not be patentable." Go IBM! It's about time a major player said it.
no subject
no subject
"Legally questionable."
Pretexting is federally illegal ... if you're getting someone's financial records. If it's phone records, it's not currently a federal crime. It's also legally not identity theft - which is currently written only to outlaw _using_ someone's identifying info to _commit_ a crime. It's a legal limbo.
And, it's not FRAUD unless there's a law against it - which there isn't.
Is it unethical? YES. immoral? YES. Should it be made illegal? Again, YES.
The laws always lag behind the technology, Alaric. Rather than castigating Congress for not having solved it already, you should be congratulating them on being as on top of things as they are - the committee has been meeting for months on this issue, long before the HP scandal brought the whole hoopla into the news.
Re: "Legally questionable."
.....In the US. Another area in which US law currently falls down.
Well, actually, they pretty much dropped it once when the telcos wanted it swept under the rug. Now that it's been brought to the public eye in a high-profile case, they have little choice but to address it.
no subject
no subject