Slashdot Mirror

Here are instructions for removing ads from AIM that seem to match my rough memory of how I did so myself when I used it.

Ultima Online had a similar system to what you describe. Players of exceptional ability in roleplaying with good interpersonal skills were tapped to act as Seers, who led small-scale events within the gameworld. The problem was that these events were too small-scale- the game designers would trust them with no more than that- which caused significant animosity among the playerbase for not having had a chance to participate.

The makers of UO were also unprepared to pay their Seers anything at all, so when the AOL volunteer lawsuit came around, UO dumped its entire volunteer program out of concern for such a situation.

It was badly handled. I would have paid a few players to perform interest work, and actually given them real jobs. Then, I would have given other players the opportunity to take lesser positions more or less free from responsibility (and therefore unpaid) to supplement the paid personnel- one major issue was that players were being made to keep hours and be reliable without being compensated (see here)- and thus fill monster or minor character openings. Such players would not really be required to show up at all, but could be dismissed from the program at any time for being irritating or whatever.

Players badly want to make the gameworld larger and more involved, but no game wishes to support them.

Is that ICQ running in the background of this screenshot?

Cause these weren't taken by an AOL employee

I'm glad this story is getting picked up in so many places, but I do want to clarify a few things for those who either don't believe this attack is possible, who think I simply wrote it based on a few script kiddies' comments, or who simply don't understand how journalism works.

Yes, I was given substantial proof of the attacks. But my job as a journalist is not necessarily to PROVE that anything happened (that is what lawyers do) -- you'll note perhaps that Woodward & Bernstein's takedown of Nixon was initially based entirely on one man's tip in a Beltway parking garage. It all has to start somewhere.

So I merely collect evidence and present what I have. It was completely credible in this case. In fact, I called AOL five times to get their side of the story. They refused to call me back. But YES, the proof does exist. In fact, observers.net posted some of it here. You can dig around to find their full story on the subject, which goes into greater depth than I had the luxury for at Wired -- which is a general tech news site, not a how-to site for hackers and wannabes. In any event, you will notice that AOL has not refuted the claims in any forum. I honestly have no doubt about the authenticity of these claims after seeing the information provided to me. It's now AOL's turn to either come clean about the attacks or say they didn't happen. Since AOL is afraid of negative publicity, they are trying to keep things quiet. This is not apparently working...

Originally I had hoped to interview the unnamed 14-year-old hacker for my story (which was intended to be mostly about the Merlin break-in) but he balked out of fear of prosecution (he was later interviewed for Observers.net and privately apologized to me for not doing the interview). Hence I focused on the myriad other recent hacks (Japan Webmail, the mumble method, screen name thefts) that AOL has been hit with as well.

Regarding the breaking of SecurID -- if a hacker can call up a rep on the phone and get him to reveal his name and password, it seems pretty plausible that you could get the SecurID code as well. Disgruntled insiders also provide this information readily to their pals on the outside. Of course that's all in the story...

Anyway, if any AOL users are convinced their data is secure I'll be happy to pass along your screen name to the people in question...

Cheers.

Actually, if you continued reading, there's a link to screenshots... Looks like this claim may not be as unsubstantiated as was thought.

Hi,

You all wanted proof that the hack was done. We're carrying that proof on Observers.net. Check out the first story and that will give you all the proof you need that the hack was done.

The other news places (The Register, The Inquirer, and Wired) were not able to provide the proof that we have.

Jacob
Observers.net

Hmmm... Good point.
From this AOL suit back in 2000 (from a different firm), I notice much more detail in the threat, including legal references. In particular, it seems strange that a reputable firm would simply use "Re:AOL" as the subject of the corresponence.

Quite some time ago, there were many reports of an AOL client for Linux being leaked to the net, even on /.. I have tried and used this AOL client, it was an internal build that only worked on their networks, so it was really pointless, but yes it did run, and just sat there. So, it's probably not running on Wine at all, though there was one comment from a guy that WINE CVS does run AOL7. We'll have to wait and see. There's also this application for Linux users Logik

I see lots of people posting comments like "I can't wait until there's AOL for Linux". Well, there was an internal AOL project called Gamera which was a Linux-based AOL client (for Gateway's branded "Instant AOL" internet appliance). The program was leaked, and copies are floating around. Here's some info on Gamera: http://www.observers.net/gamera/

Some programs are rather tenacious with their associations. If you have trouble maintaining a different program's association, try adding an additional association in the right click menu. Simple instructions are found here:

http://tech.observers.net/article.php?sid=26

While I can't speak on behalf of slashdot, I can speak in my own experiance with observers.net RMS himself, as well as Brad asked us to make modifications to a PUBLISHED story before they would make an offical comment on it... the end result: We made the changes, and they still declined to make a statement. They are extreamly pushy, and dificult to work with, one of the reasons were still dealing with the AOL/GPL violation issues, insted of having it well behind us...

-Michael Haisley
Staff Writer, Observers.net

But they don't even give a list of the software that they found. How are the copyright holders suposed to know if /their/ code was stolen and put inside this box.

You mean this link from the list of links at the bottom of the article?

The exact violations

Spring Comdex was great this year, while the overall show was slightly smaller than years past, GNU-Linux made a great appearance. With a new release by Agenda Computing of their Linux PDA As well as a booth by the Free Software Foundation Net BSD also made an appearance, with a rather informative booth. Caldera was putting on linux user classes.

Biometrics and security were hot topics with finger print scanners, retina scanners, and voice print authentifacation were being displayed. Aladdin displayed their eTokens. Firewalls were in the mass, with 7 distributers bringing products.

Among other tech interests were the Koolance systems. They had several displays of liquid cooling, including one system running submerged in some type of a liquid. X-Gaming also displayed lcd shuttter glasses which made a computer image appear 3dimenisonal.

VIENNA, April 1, 2001 - Observers.Net (http://www.observers.net) announced today that it has been sold to internet giant America Online (http://www.aol.com) for an undisclosed amount of money. America Online, one of the worlds largest international internet service providers has been negotiating with the Observers.Net for over 8 months

AOL is offering DSL in some areas, i dont have the specifics but this site does
--Semi-----------------------
|semi@nix.org
|#resistance irc.otherside.com

Seriously, he is the epitome of everything that is wrong with ICANN. Every day, the AOL servers are either hacked or tampered with by the resident L337 H4X0Rs lurking on the AOL network. AOL is the official laughing stock of the Internet; in "Weird" Al Yankovic's song, "All about the Pentiums," there's a line which says something like "...and you go and post me like some brain-dead AOL'er." IMHO, AOL should be shut down and replaced with a standardized dial-up ISP.

Seriously, how many legitimate ICANN members can honestly say that they condone (or even support) Case's actions? He has corrupted the Internet by his very existence (just look at the daily hacks into AOL's central server, causing the dissemination of member account data).

And the fact that America Online owns ICQ means that by extention (embrace and extend?) they were the first, yes?

Also, America Onlines' internal communication system, and the AIM system, are totally seperate, joined by some snazzy gateway software. So when they spew numbers, they, in theory, are just spewing their AIM connects, not their paying memberbase.

I'd be very dissapointed if they did block out 3rd party clients, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. If all esle fails, there is IRC. Let me clarify this for my own understanding.. because there is an option, there is no monopoly.

The sheer existance of Linux on the i386 platform invalidates the DoJ case against Microsoft? (There is an alternative, so no monopoly)

AIM stands in the same position as Microsoft.. a full scale revolt is needed, else there will be someone who won't switch to another client, and can't afford the system resources to run two clients. I'm a little tired of loosing "instant communication" ability with people, because of this. My option? Run AIM. Doesn't give me much *choice*, does it?

--- Do YOU own a domain? You thought NSI was bad? Think again.

The key point in the AOL suit is that AOL's reliance on volunteers was essentially a substitute for hiring paid employees.

Here is a more detailed list of pertinent criteria from the plaintiffs' site. If you look at it, you'll see that Open Source projects match all 4 of the listed criteria.

I can see how this could derail many open source projects which have a company's backing., especially when the company employs one or more of the project leaders, as is the case with GNOME, MySQL, PHP, Abiword and dozens of others.

So while this may be a concern for outfits like RedHat or Andover, it's a non-issue for non-profits and real volunteers.

Should it matter if someone else wants to volunteer for a profit-making entity? Should there even be such a distinction?

I'm reminded of the Cluetrain Manifesto, which urges companies to get closer to their customers, understand them, and get involved with them. One way a company can do this is by forming a community around its product, which some enthusiastic users might volunteer to be involved with (just like we are with Slashdot).

The Cluetrain Manifesto tells us to 'tear down the walls'. I think that's a damn fine idea. Unfortunately it sounds like we're already busy erecting new ones.

This is a very perceptive, succinct write up by Gartner, and Rob got it right when he said this one would make a good executive summary.

My question is how sustainable this is. I worry just a little that OSS business model/business culture is a bubble that could burst (especially after enough IPOs and mergers etc etc). Look at Mozilla... what if Netscape programmers were suddenly reassigned to work on AOL 7 (seeing as AOL 6 is already out ;)? ATW doesn't strike me as anything less than a cold-hearted capitalist corporation bent on world domination. RH is a more encouraging example of an OSS business culture that I would expect to survive.

We can't deny that Linux has fueled a lot of the interest in OSS as a business model. If Linux ever stagnates or reaches a development plateau (gasp-shudder-perish-the-thought), and there isn't another project with it's momentum to "lead the charge", could OSS businesses fade? Or is it here to stay? (I personally feel that OSS business is more long-term profitable than closed-source, but IANAE).

If anyone has any links to research or projected growth models, I would appreciate it, particular ones with positive expectations for OSS business ;) Ethan