Slashdot Mirror
European Police Plan to Remote-Search Hard Drives
Smivs points out a blandly-worded story from the BBC with scary implications, excerpting "Remote searches of suspect computers will form part of an EU plan to tackle hi-tech crime. The five-year action plan will take steps to combat the growth in cyber theft and the machines used to spread spam and other malicious programs. It will also encourage better sharing of data among European police forces to track down and prosecute criminals. Europol will co-ordinate the investigative work and also issue alerts about cyber crime sprees."
Wow, good thing I have a firewall, built right into my router.
...to roll-your-own OS. Or use one that's been built by and for the community with all the source code visible for all to see. Proprietary binaries? You don't know what's squirrelled away in there...
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Not my drive, you won't!
In a statement outlining the strategy the EU claimed "half of all internet crime involves the production, distribution and sale of child pornography".
And the other half is copyright infringement?
Can you repeat after me?
When this is implemented, it will be....
duh du duhnnn
Wait for it.....
"The year of Linux on the desktop"!
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Search my /dev/random file and the 137 symlinks I have pointing to it. I don't mind.
you frequently here discussions on slashdot about grey hat activities: going to computers hosting worms, and shutting down the worm remotely, for example. and you hear many people here supporting that
now in europe, this is exactly what they are going to do: shut down zombies, shut down spam relays, and everyone on slashdot babbles incoherently about teh ev1l gubmint invading our computers. when such european effort sprobably sprang directly from the kind of strategizing peopl ehere on slashdot frequnetly engage in enthusiastically
its like the propaganda and hysteria over the lori drew case, which carries no precedent because it is such an extreme outlier
so:
do you care about rights and freedoms?
you do?
then react to REAL and GENUINE threats to them
if you instead spastically flail out everytime someone words an article in a propagandistic manner, you are no defender of rights and freedoms, you are merely a manipulated hysterical fool. and, in fact, someone useful for the suppression of our rights, by proving to those who wish to restrict our rights that people don't even understand what their rights are
defend your rights and freedoms
against genuine threats
not smoke and mirrors... thereby demonstrating you are a spastic twit who doesn't even know what your rights and freedoms are
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What it sounds like to me is that police departments will be able to search other police departments' computers. Not police searching civilian computers. The whole article is vague by using the term "remote searches" and not giving any more explanation.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
how would this work? since to access my hard drive to search it, they would need.
1. me to be on the internet at the time they want to search my drive.
2. my to give them access to my machine via a remote desktop style connection, which would involve me giving them a username and password to my machine.
or
1. me to be on the internet at some point
2. mandating that EVERYONE in the EU runs an application that indexes the entire of all the hard drives connected to a machine, and transmits the index to a central location whenever an internet connection is made.
unless they are simply on about remote searching of their own networks, and their own drives... which they can already do...
portfolio
You know, it's awfully hard to not be yet again reminded of Orwell here. Constant surveillance and no privacy from the government so they can monitor everything you do.
But, of course, if your machine is behind a firewall, they'll just outlaw having firewall because it impedes their ability to investigate you for crimes. At which point if you need to be insecure enough to ensure that law enforcement can get in and do this, your machine will be hosed within the hour as the actual bad people break through as well.
This will either fall apart as un-doable, or spark some absurd laws to enforce it.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Unfortunately, the article cited is maddeningly vague as to how this initiative will be implemented. A little digging turns up this Register article on the subject, which contains slightly more info.
From the Register article:
So, in short, here's just one more compelling argument for ditching Windows for Linux...
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I would be worried that this would be badly worded and over-broad.
But, being a citizen of the UK, I know that even if legislation were made like this, then Her Majesty's Government would never abuse its powers and apply it to situations which were not originally intended.
Just like the anti-terrorism legislation.
Oh, hang on...
Sean Ellis
Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.
But evidently all of you did. Could you point it out? Because really what they seem to have made legal is accessing "cloud data" (thanks, google!) without giving customer nor the managing company notification of any kind.
as I sit here in a cafe, my laptop connected to some unsecured AP far awqay with a biquad wifi antenna, I say go right ahead, search my hard-drive, but don't forget to bring a good map and a gonio antenna to find me in case you realize I'm not the poor guy whose house you're about to raid.
This will never work, there are way too many anonymous internet connections around for this 1984 scheme to work, and people who have something to hide usually don't leave stuff hanging around unencrypted on their hard disks.
I have a great idea for new security software... "Guaranteed to keep out those nosy government agents!"
All I am saying is that if this in anyway steals resources from my computer while I am playing computer games there will be hell to pay!
The Long Now Foundation
No, not to the US - the EU :p
The EU said controls were in place to ensure that data protection laws were not breached as this information was gathered and shared.
I'll go out on a limb here and say the controls aren't going to ensure this.
EU data protection laws
Given recent government activities I know that they would like to do this, but I just hope that they can't. If this is serious -- back to compiling everything from trusted sources.
or
1. search your computer through backdoor built into closed-source operating system.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
Maybe it's because I'd rather trust some random Grey Hat with my data then my government?
Just a thought...
In a statement outlining the strategy the EU claimed "half of all internet crime involves the production, distribution and sale of child pornography".
And the other half is copyright infringement?
Nonono, 50% child porn, the rest is adult porn, and all that porn is bootleg.
Except for a few small non-porn sites like Slashdot, that's all the net is, porn, porn, porn.
Oh wait, nevermind, it's ALL porn.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I can believe they missed the most popular one: "To save the children"
If the police are planning to "remote search" hard drives, they'll need something on the client that lets them do so, along with some sort of command and control/results reporting channel between the client and the (totally secure and definitely not going to get breached in an embarrassing display of incompetence that will go utterly unpunished) police HQ.
In the short term, that means some flavor of spyware. The disconcerting bit, though, is that said spyware would look and act like normal spyware; but be part of a police investigation. Generally, interfering with those is a crime. Will removing that spyware be considered obstruction of justice? Will blocking its operations or reporting be considered obstruction of justice? "Your honor, the defendant did maliciously configure his router to drop outbound justice on port 315..." In order to be effective, spyware has to be covert and subtle, so it will be damn difficult to distinguish fedware from ordinary spyware.
Worse, of course, is the medium to long term: if "remote search" is the law of the land, it will soon enough seem like a good idea to mandate a few features from hardware and software manufacturers to make it easier. Make an antivirus program? Well, you'd better be sure that it ignores the activities of any app signed by $AUTHORITY, if you want to stay out of jail. OSes could easily do similar things with process listings, priviledge escalations and the like. Even hardware could get in on the act. In principle, you could build obedience to cryptographically signed orders into all sorts of devices. This would be bad in all the ways that DRM usually is, only worse.
Unfortunately, this sort of turn doesn't seem entirely unlikely. Digital surveillance is all the rage these days, and unlikely to get any less popular, and there are few jurisdictions that have any terribly encouraging history of resisting it. Specifically, the EU has comparatively strong privacy legislation; but it is written from the basic philosophy that privacy is having the state control other's access to the data it collects, rather than privacy being having those data never collected. The US is stronger on that score(at least in theory, and as long as drugs, kiddie porn, and terrorism aren't involved); but the state of private sector privacy is absolutely miserable and there is nothing stopping the state from simply buying surveillance from said private sector(which it indeed does, on a fairly massive scale).
EU iz in ur hard drivez, searchin' 4 warez!
In all seriousness, this is Orwellian in nature. Part of me is terrified that we're heading down this road in the US as well.
Remote search people's minds already.
I CAN HAS FYRWALL PLZ?
Don't worry, a data-sharing agreement will fix that.
so what if you run Linux, how long before you legislate so they can get the router/ISP?
yeah. it might hit botnets, spam, copy-right infringement (guess who will fund it) and other nefarious stuff - but the public will never allow it off the ground.
The person whose data are processed - the data subject - enjoys a number of enforceable rights. This includes, for instance, the right to be informed about the processing and the right to correct data.
Now how do you apply that to remote searches? Will they inform people they mistakenly "search" due to incorrect information?
Isn't this a way to claim to the brainless masses that they should dump all their computers and buy ones with the "trusted computing" platform? THEN the sh*t really would begin. Digitally signed and trusted trojans you can't to anything about.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Load up your computer with files named "LondonBombingPlans05May2009.doc" or "HOT13YOPUSSY!!!!.JPG" and have them be copies of George Orwell's books.
Then leave your computer "vulnerable" on the Internet, er, I mean, leave it running Microsoft Windows without a hardware firewall, and leak it somewhere that your computer may be up to no good.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"Remote searches" eh?
I think some politicians have seen too many episodes of CSI or NCIS where you have one person who "just hacks" into everything in minutes (that's when they aren't sharpening blurry images until they are crystal clear - maybe that's on the agenda too!)
Either way, this is why I've already switched all my important data over to linux machines. Linux used to just be for NAT and firewall duties, but I just can't trust opaque operating systems with my private data anymore. Slackware for the win.
There's too much money and too many parking lot / under the table deals done between governments and corporations for my liking. It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that Vista has some kind of backdoor in place. Thanks, but no thanks.
Linux 4 life.
I mean like, come on?
Copied information vs stolen property, personal assault, rape, murder, ?
However, because the press usually get wrong any story on a subject that I know something about, I have a feeling they've got this wrong too. I wonder what is *really* being planned.
I piss off bigots.
dont worry 56k line and Rijndael encryption should sort out those buggers
Indeed...one need only look at the last eight years in the U.S. for the proof of this statement.
Oh, wait...
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I think we need to look at this from a lawyer's perspective. IANAL, but I think it might be easier to get a conviction on something like kiddie porn than on something like trafficking in stolen goods or illegally downloading 1000 songs.
Think Al Capone. Murder? Smuggling? Racketeering? Naw, just get him on income tax evasion.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
I find it interesting that you are complaining about the last eight years in the US, yet the article is about Europe...
IMO, it shows the anti-US sentiment, apparently because of the US's more or less high position in the world, as opposed to many European countries that are trying to rival it with the EU, etc., but failing.
And yet, The UK and Europe have far worse "wire-tapping" sorts of things than the US. But it's not in vogue to complain about it anywhere but in the US, it seems.
Get through my firewall, through my self-compiled kernel and into debian repositories and you're done.
slashwhat?
So, rather than the relatively harmless grey hat whom you can sue into oblivion poking around your files, you'd rather have a bureaucracy which can imprison you for life and against whom you have very limited recourse poking around instead.
Yeah, I totally see the wisdom in that.
They'll have to arrest themselves, it's called "breaking into a computer without the permission of the computer owner"! If they can do this, I can metasploit.
"remote searches" of course being just a lame analogy to something that just happens to be legal and reliable. Its hardly an accurate description of the process of sending someone a windows only trojan and praying you get accurate data. Maybe you get a faked "nothing suspicious here" report or a big list of falsified evidence.
This isn`t like showing up at someones door with a warrant. This is like showing up at someones door in a water company uniform and then searching every nook and cranny of the home. Its like searching the pockets of everyone who visited the home at one time. Think about the years of "deleted" e-mails. Most would have come from people who at the time didn`t think they were talking to someone who may be searched one day.
Its also interesting to note that this is not the first time one of these insane ideas is dreamed up at the national level, quickly identified as legally and politically unfeasable, and then is passed as mandatory across the EU. Its almost as if people think there is less meaningful oversight and public debate on international level policy or something.
Everyone remembers the idea of storing at least Telephone, HTTP and email traffic data on everyone in the UK. In 2000 British police figured this was in conflict with the reasonableness requirement of article eight of the European human right treaty and UK privacy law they gave up in the UK... and then pushed the same thing across the EU. The only thing that held this back was ISP lobbyist that managed to cut out the costliest bits.
This "trojans for cops" plan sold under the name "remote hd search" came from Germany where there wasn`t just debate, but huge protests in the streets. I love those "freedom not fear" banners.
There was also:
In every case the EU system provided the ideal place to take a long time to do nothing useful with nobody really caring.
So thats why I voted against the EU constitutional treaty. Fat lot of good that warning did.
because with the government there is accountablity, responsilibty, a paper trail, transparency
You have obviously never been fucked over by government. This means you are a) not rich and/or b) have never been in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The government's JOB is to screw you. How else do you think they make money?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Fuckin' A right.
God bless the U.S. of A and all of the rest of the Old World's former colonies that exist today because our ancestors had the smarts to get out when the getting was good.
I'm referencing the U.S. because I'm a resident of the U.S., and have more knowledge of the U.S. government's various malfeasances than I do of the U.K.'s.
And no one was "complaining". I was merely pointing out that the OP's claim that a government is somehow more trustworthy than a "grey hat" is patently absurd.
IMO, you're reading way too much into my remarks, Sparky.
Could you please explain your point, seeing as how you have seemed to have made mine for me at this juncture?
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
i wont allow it. and thats final.
Read radical news here
my ass.
It's real easy for them to do.
Step 1 : Hand out free or discounted internet access. This may include higher than average datarates or fiber access making it really attractive to the end user. The caviout is that you must also run a software package on the machine or the connection is revoked. Said software includes the drive scanner and identification credentials.
Step 2 : Pass regulation that makes traditional anonymous internet access prohibitivly expensive for the individual user.
Ta da! The net is no longer anonymous and big brother is watching.
The summary takes the decision somewhat out of context.
They're not planning to remotely connect to any old joes computer they can and search it, they're planning to connect to zombie computers that have been hijacked by criminals to try and trace back where the criminals are coming from.
Apparently, there will be strict rules on what they can do on said machine too, that is, they're not allowed to start rummaging through people's personal data. Don't think I'm naive by saying that- I'm just repeating what I read on the issue, I don't believe for a minute those rules will be enforceable and I truly think as soon as they have access to these machines and their boss aint looking they're going to start rummaging like crazy.
I'm not sure how I feel about the general idea, if a machine has a backdoor and they can manage to connect to it also then in a way I feel they should just temporarily patch it for the user and inform the user at absolute worse although I'm not sure this is ideal- what if they patch some security researcher's honey pot for instance!
It certainly concerned me a bit when I read it but it's certainly not a plan to just use 0-day exploits to connect to everyone and anyone's PC or anything.
A grey hat in his basement can give me a trojan, perhaps fuck up my computer. The government can send hordes of armed men round to my house and lock me up for the rest of my life. Although I do probably trust the government more than some random, I know which one I am more scared of.
Just reread his post. Then kick yourself.
Ahh... Do you remember accusations about Poland participating in US 'rendition flights'?
I fail to see how Europe is inherently more human-rights safe.
That's because if you complain about it in the UK they slap an ASBO on you.
We can't even control/circumvent the people who are now deluging the internet with trojans/malware/spyware/etc. Then my question becomes what incompetent fuck do they think they are going to hire to do the same thing. Hell, the criminals will have taken it over in the first week.
TFA just refers to "remote searches" without defining them. This kind of vagueness should not prompt overly-specific conclusions like the hypothetical outlawing of firewalls or the imminent passage of laws to make you leave a back door open for John Law. I hate to say it, but this looks like typical wild /. hysteria, particularized into untenable conclusions asserted as fact, from a much more general article implying nothing of the kind.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Because the minix kernel doesn't do squat useful. So you need an application to do that. And the application will need to be bigger, more monolothic and easier to pwn like this because you haven't got the capability in the kernel.
Nice job.
"I don't believe for a minute those rules will be enforceable and I truly think as soon as they have access to these machines and their boss aint looking they're going to start rummaging like crazy."
So now, when someone gets a virus, then this EU plan means their machine is then wide open to be scanned by police and/or their *contractor companies*. The potential for contractors (and their staff) to misuse (and even sometimes sell) what they find, is vast.
Everything from Identity Theft, all the way up to Industrial Espionage, if its a company computer with a virus back door.
Also this is before we even get into the scary idea of some countries police forces, being then able to carry out automated political descent detection, of whatever documents they find on the machine. (This EU plan is a dream come true for people working in the political area of Opposition Research. They could start building vastly more detailed profiles on people they find. (Although I suspect the ISP/Phorm style data capture, would be most likey for their purpose, then they will be able to profile everyone in the country).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_research
Also even some police, have at times, been found to be criminals. So this kind of person, would totally abuse whatever new power, they had available to them, for their own gain.
Plus even from a practical point of view, given the amount of data on people some countries leak (e.g. UK government), then this EU plan opens up even more ways to loose data.
Plus I thought police need a search warrant, to enter and search? ... looks like that idea has been thrown away as well.
Another day, another step towards Big Brother. Turn up the heat on that boiled frog. Looks like we are on course to repeat the mistakes of the past, but this time, with vastly greater state powers, to overlook anyone who dares to question state views. But then, its all done to protect us... problem is, who is there to watch and protect us, from these ever more powerful implied protectors!
and yet the government still has more integrity than some yahoo in his parent's basement, which was my whole point
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
After all, if a burgular isn't being watched, it doesn't matter if the light goes on. In fact the burgular gets to see what they're doing.
Yes this, simpe and easy to pick locks, windows that can be "opened" with a brick are all considered adequate to secure homes.
Why?
If there isn't anyone watching the house, there's NOTHING that stops the burgular from getting in. Even alarms may not work, since the police will take some time to get there, if they bother at all.
Shall I tell you why? Because there has to be a confluence of things that happen for a sufficiently long time to make the burgular safe from capture.
Likewise, anyone modding open source has to hope that it becomes popular enough to give enough people to have the plan work yet nobody who understands the code anywhere near as well as the nefarious one. And as soon as they ARE found out, their avenue is closed and the damage done cleared quickly.
Whereas for a closed OS or app, if the manufacturer don't see the nefarious program result (e.g. it doesn't activate on an MS IP addressed machine), then they have better things to do then look for the problem. They have MONEY to earn with something productive. And the manufacturer is the only one who can fix it.
Besides, what kind of "evidence" could you trust in a machine that's been well and truly owned, especially if it's playing puppet to a criminal botnet?
Having worked somewhere where a server (not one of mine, but one setup by a contractor) was owned in short order, I can attest to the fact that once that happens you have very little ownership or control of the content on that box. That particular one (a WinNT box) couldn't even *delete* the files that had been uploaded due to issues with the character-set used in filenames, and some of the filenames were very disturbing as to what content they might have had...
I'd say that arresting somebody based on files on a box they *know* somebody else likely had control of is a pretty weak case.
why the various world governments have not killed or illegalized Linux and Open Source operating systems. One might wonder whether msoft has even got a hand in saying whether or not the Linux Kernel gets "rooted", since, after all, ms willingly or begrudgingly supports NSA intrusion into the kernel to nail the truly deserving, and to spy on anyone deemed a "person of interest"....
But, it's still to early to dance a jig over ms going down to 90%. When the windoze-only apps get native counterparts in Linux AND Mac, and THESE two both/each have 12% of the market, then it's time to arrange dancing dates, and maybe warm up for the dance-a-thon.
But, really, that will have to start with defibullating (sp?) Korea, Japan, and Asia to ween them a few percentages down from addiction to windows. If South America and MORE of Europe legitimize their distrust of an "American-based company" having and providing access to not only the local but to the US government, then they can try to politically shift their efforts even MORE into Linux (and Mac?) just to at least rid themselves of ms.
There will still be backdoors, but then staying off line as much as possible, and booby-trapping (with finger-wrecking charges, or just (legally and more safe) intrusion detection means to punish snoops who snoop on non-criminals.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
In a statement outlining the strategy the EU claimed "half of all internet crime involves the production, distribution and sale of child pornography".
Either they're using a really broad definition of 'involves' or a narrow definition of 'internet crime', or I'm on a lot more target lists than I'd have thought. Given how much of the mail that gets through my server-side spam filters is even illegal in Nigeria, I'd really have thought the plain old confidence game was #1.
Slashdot will NEVER be considered a legitimate source of "journalism", and why reputable news reporting outlets will regard /. as a nerd/geek/weirdo tecchie haven not to be confused with, say, other tech coverage outlets.
Shouldn't it be infuriating, outrageous for reports to be willfully or negligently taken out of context? Or, is this, alas, what it takes to lure readers, so that VA or /. can garner ad revenue?
I wonder if the incoming administration will -- while not addressing the content of readers -- impose upon site administrators who repost or repurpose non-original material to not use free speech to jingoistically or confusingly restate news. It shouldn't *take* a tech-savvy White House to impose such "suggestions". Hell, VA (not Langley, but the site holders, lest there be confusion, hehehe) should impose it.
Me, i find there to be a woeful lacking in the vetting of posts that get "outed".
(Speaking out to damage my Karma a little more every time...)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
From TFA: "In a statement outlining the strategy the EU claimed "half of all internet crime involves the production, distribution and sale of child pornography"
What? Half of all internet crime??
Hmmm. Bullshit detector's gone off the scale on this one. I think this is the work of industry lobbyists playing the child porn card to sell snakeoil to clueless, greedy politicians.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
Slashdot will NEVER be considered a legitimate source of "journalism"
Hahahahahaha you're killing me, legitimate source of journalism. What's next? Bigfoot gets raped by Godzilla and gives birth to the toothfairy? Come on, we all know there's no such thing as "legitimate source of journalism", but legitimate source of income does though, not to be confused.
I am the lawn!
The UK is a far more repressive a regime than the US despite it being considered a democracy. So is Germany for that matter. The US, despite turning facist over the past 8 years, still allows for more freedoms even if only in name, than most of the EU.
I think the point is, if it can happen in the US, the supposed bastion of freedom and democracy, it can happen anywhere else.
No, butt, King Kong might be outed after having her annual anu-brasion treatment.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
So, in short, here's just one more compelling argument for ditching Windows for Linux...
With more and more Linux users running proprietary binary blobs for convenience reasons or just out of pure laziness (video drivers, flash players and what not), it would be rather easy for $GOVERNMENT to remotely substitute one of those blobs with a "policeware"-augmented one with a classic man-in-the-middle attack. How could you check the code of those binary blobs to be sure that $THEY aren't already listening in when there is no source code to check?
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Will it be illegal to circumvent remote searches?
It may very well happen some day, if the paranoia continues. But nothing prevents you for setting up a nice little honeypot for outsiders to play with.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
So far in the UK anti-terrorism legislation has been used to:
1. Spy on parents suspected of gaming the system in order to get their child into their preferred school.
2. Prevent Iclandic banks moving money around after they had collapsed.
3. Spy on a disabled couple in bed because social workers thought they might, possibly, perhaps, harm their child (for no better reason than that they are disabled).
So you'll understand if I don't believe any assurance that these powers won't be abused as well.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
I'd be more worried about off-the-shelf adapters' firmware and even hardware. How long until a government makes it mandatory for all network adapter manufacturers to include a Trojan into their silicon and they want a license to sell their products in a specific country? Add to this a mandatory Trojan in the silicon of your SATA adapter, and both can communicate via DMA, maybe even circumventing the kernel altogether (oh, did I mention the mandatory BIOS changes to enable this DMA transfer?).
Then police will talk to your network adapter, which in turn will transmit its commands to the SATA adapter, and voila, life access to your hard drives, bypassing any kernel security layer.
Of course, that's a huge risk to security as well: as soon as the police master key is compromised (and it inevitably will, sooner or later), there'll be millions of freely accessible computers hard drives.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Slashdot is a discussion forum and has nothing to do with either journalism or "journalism".
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Well, given some of the handling of scoring, it feels like a cross between The Jerry Springer Show and some puppeteers...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
What do you mean, "The slashdot community never takes anything"? The slashdot community takes lots of things! They take money from the bank, they take lunch breaks, they take a long time to find software bugs ...
Oh, yeah, and what do you mean, "out of context"?
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]