Slashdot Mirror
ISPs Warn Europe — Website Blocks Don't Work
Mark.JUK writes "The European Internet Services Providers Association has today warned the European Union that plans aimed at tackling online child sexual abuse content, which propose to force ISPs into adopting mandatory website blocking (censorship) technology, will not work because such methods are easy to circumvent; an ISP might cover your eyes but anybody can still take the blindfold off. Instead the EuroISPA has called for members of Parliament to consider permanently removing Internet-based child sexual abuse content at source, although this also runs into problems when the servers are based outside of your jurisdiction."
EU: You say it's impossible? Pick one: do it anyway, stop being an ISP, or go to jail. Also, you get to work out the implementation and we get to determine if you're doing it right.
No one proposes banning pawn shops and second hand shops just because these are used by the criminal element to fence stolen goods. Legitimate businesses or structures are sadly used to illicit ends. You deal with crimes as they happen, not try all manner of questionable laws that infringe on civil liberties in the vain hope that somehow you can prevent crimes from happening.
The only thing filtering will do is catch the more inept child porn producers and consumers. The smart ones have a command of the technical aspects of the networks they swap their foul evil on. The best we can hope to do with child porn, like any criminal act, is create savvy enough investigators to catch and prosecute them.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Like requiring their domestic ISPs to null-route IP addresses instead of just blocking DNS.
"Lame" - Galaxar
Except you internet perverts.. You need to stop thinking about the children.. You sick bastards.
Surely the only answer is for ISPs to simply flag-up a warning with a 'Do you wish to Continue' button when someone tries to access a child-porn site, but do not block them. The Police know where these sites are, and can presumably log who goes there, with the assistance of the ISPs. This way, innocent surfers will be able to avoid these sites, but the visitors would be logged, and can face the consequences.
Smivs on the intertubes!
I call this bullshit.
Look at banks. When a fake bank site goes up, it only takes hours sometimes a few days for it to be taken down after it was asked. Anywhere in the world.
But it is probably better not to take the site down, but to collect IP-addresses and so on anyway.
New things are always on the horizon
is astounding.
Read radical news here
Most of the blocked sites are hosted in EU or USA, so the issue of jurisdiction is a moot point. Most of the blocked sites also use fairly common domain names, whose owners should be easily reachable or the domains themselves could be revoked instead of blocking them. The only argument for blocking is that it "gives a message" that this is important, which is bullshit since it eats resources that could be used to REALLY do something about the problem...
any sex blocking must pass the breast cancer test or it will fail big time.
Anybody with sufficient technical knowledge has been saying this all along. The other concern from anybody with non-infantile understanding of the issues is that blocking will be abused to cover any content deemed problematic to governments of EU member states.
There are some questionable propenents of such censorship. Presumably their zeal for social conservatism blinds them to the inevitable calls for censoring religious texts once a system is in place.
We have implemented a filter. If someone goes around it - too bad, but we have done what we can.
It's nothing new, channels for illegal and immoral information will find new ways all the time. It's like trying to block wasps entering a beehive.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
How about you clarify yourself as to what that is. Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2? Monastrol sensitivity? Whether or not you can feel a lump while in the shower?
..when it comes to "Mein Kampf" ?
Mundus Vult Decipi
Instead the EuroISPA has called for MEP's to consider permanently removing internet based child sexual abuse content at source
...there seems to be a sudden outbreak of common sense.
pull out the weed WITH its root! ...
just clipping the top won't kill it.
for example, in some countries children are a source of income
again i laud the internet for bringing the "taboo" into the limelight.
sure just remove the light-bulb and say:"problem, be gone!"
I probably deserve a "whoosh" for pointing this out. In case you were really asking, by "breast cancer test" the parent means that the filtering software should not block sites that provide information about breast cancer.
I wish these governments would apply all the resources they spend on supressing the EVIDENCE of child abuse, on supressing the abuse itself. Instead, posession of the evidence of the crime seems to be considered the crime itself. I have to wonder what caused this state of affairs to arise and why we don't have rules criminalizing the posession of evidence of other wrongdoing.
"Bypassing any blocks by an ISP can easily be bypassed." - by Pharmboy (216950) on Tuesday January 11, @12:57PM (#34837734)
Per my subject-line: A little bit of work with arp @ the ISP/BSP end can do wonders here, & send requests for "objectionable content bearing" IP Addresses to a NULL destination, easily enough (& yes, @ the ISP/BSP level).
(The use of routing tables, in combination with DNSBL, really SHOULD "do the trick" for PROPER BLOCKING!)
APK
P.S.=> I do this here @ home with:
---
1.) A custom HOSTS file (works @ browser level) .pac file (works @ browser/JIT engine level) .css file (works @ browser level)
2.) A
3.) A custom
4.) Hardware/Router FIREWALL rules tables (works at hardware routing level)
5.) Software FIREWALL rules tables (works @ near ISP stack level (via filtering drivers)).
6.) Browser addons like WOT or NoScript & Adblock (all in combination)
---
(To block out any "objectionable" or outright DANGEROUS content - & the ONLY thing that "gets around it" isn't something I generally use - anonymous proxies like TOR, or others (they slow you down all to hell is why))
apk
Most highschool students just run a site they want to go to that's blocked through Google Translate and oh my now I can access the blocked content! Find the people who are manufacturing the content instead of trying to block the content.
That way nobody is outside your jurisdiction... Seems simple enough to me
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I think he means that if the "solution" blocks access to sites about "breast cancer" (Shades of Websense...), it's wrong.
Perhaps you are trolling, but for clarity's sake...
He's referring to the test as to whether the method of censorship will prevent discussions of breast cancer (including images, text and videos on the subject) to pass through a filter without being censored.
It is a valuable test because it makes clear that most methods of censorship operate based on words, phrases, or presence of body parts, not on subject matter. Most laws are actually concerned with subject matter, so the disconnect is a critical legal problem.
Or breastfeeding information either.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
age factor eh ...
Read radical news here
No, any ISP-level sex blocking should pass the legal porn test. Which also means it's almost impossible to block it automatically, that's why these filters are planned to use manually updated (and probably secret) blacklists.
Dilbert RSS feed
Good thing we Europeans were warned before one of our member countries did something stupid...
Oh wait...
Suprise! It doesn't work. Everybody would be better off if the ISPs just gave the IP information of the DNS searches directly to authorities. I mean, who goes to childpron.xxx for legimate purposes? Just keep a database of those, hire a talented analyst (like me) and I'll have a list of perverts in no time.
Thing is, I am opposed to goverment and/or authorities having the power to block websites. Forcing ISPs to obey their rules gives them a TOOL to control web content. Today it is child porn and sexual abuse stuff. You cannot disagree with that, because then you are automaticly labeled as a supporter for that kind of stuff. But if you think - where will they go next? How about banning tobacco and alcohol websites. Oh well, I can live with that. How about.. banning a web site with different political views than the current goverment? If you let them to advance to a position where they can actually do that, they will most certainly do it. One baby step at a time, all leading to totalitarian society.
Just sayin'
I don't think he was asking what the "breast cancer test" is. He was merely pointing out that the person who first mentioned it could have elaborated, even a little, to explain what it is - for those of us who haven't heard the term before in this context.
You know, it's probably easier to just ban porn, then you don't have to worry about that. Won't happen because despite all the prudish social expressions, Americans like us some porn. It's been a real problem for people that want it banned, but I'd hazard a guess that only a fraction of the people who claim to hate porn in public aren't secretly sneaking a pick in the privacy of their own home.
"Child Pornography" is the old buzzword. Afther this only terrorism remains: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7qTBkA8X_E
Surely they can simply declare child porn a "crime against humanity" and therefor subject to "universal jursidiction".
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
permanently removing internet based child sexual abuse content at source, although this also runs into problems when the servers are based outside of your jurisdiction."
No, it doesn't. This is the argument the proponents of filters are putting forward all the time. They've smartened up since we sunk their ship last, and are now claiming their goal is to "only block where we can not delete".
Well, that would be nowhere because for a year now we've been asking them the same question, and they still haven't provided an answer: "Where in the world would that be?" It turns out that child pornography is illegal in every country on earth that has any Internet infrastructure worth mentioning. An especially naive and dumb politician here in Germany threw out a few country names when the debate started, and was quickly proven wrong in addition to receiving angry comments from those countries ambassadors. Then she tried a stupid trick, claiming that in some countries (again, names were named) there was no law against child pornography. She was technically correct - the muslim countries she had mentioned consider all pornography to illegal, punishable by death, so there is no specific law mentioning children.
This whole campaign has been lies and bullshit on the side of the proponents from the start. I have yet to hear one argument from their side that is not a lie. However, they aren't dumb. They know how to play the public. They tested the waters and found them hotter than they had anticipated. But their current campaign is lot more "reasonable". In a debate, they stand a great chance of being able to convince Joe Public that they have a moderate POV that takes all eventualities into account and only wants to reserve the most drastic measure for the exceptional cases, but those freedom hippies they are the extremists and refuse to consider the possibility of evil, evil people abusing children by the thousands.
So, remember, even the "block what we can not delete" is not a balanced position, it is a strawman. The only reason that the police here in Germany does not currently contact providers outside of Germany with a simple notice "hey, you are hosting child pornography, did you know that?" - which according to tests done by an NGO last year leads to a 95% takedown rate within a week, and a 100% takedown rate within a month - is that they are not allowed to do so. Not allowed by whom? Take a guess. Yes, that is right, the same people that need their "inability" to act so they can push for "block where we can not delete".
They are lying bastards, and children are the least thing they worry about.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Here's the problem I see -- it's not that blocking sites is infeasible and ineffective, and it's not that an ISP can't do it anyways, because they can. The problem I see is that when/if an ISP does implement a censor, no matter how ineffective, it will be abused and legitimate content will be blocked for legitimate users. Child porn will still be out there, and the people who participate in that industry will at best be inconvenienced -- it's the legitimate content that accidentally or maliciously gets caught in the crossfire that concerns me. The potential for good approaches zero, and the possible harm is non-negligable. This is why it shouldn't be implemented.
hmm, why not just make them block the entire ISP of the porn site? If an ISP finds they are being blocked from reaching large portions of the population due to a single customer who is providing porn on their network, they will shut em
If viewing child porn doesn't have the power to convert ordinary people to paedophiles, I don't see why it needs to be filtered.
There are a LOT of men and some women out there who but for social rules and the morality their parents ingrained in them growing up would think nothing of molesting their own 14 year old girl or maybe their own 8 year old boy.
The availability of child porn and pedophile-apologist material online can have a corrosive effect on such people, removing their inhibitions.
This can turn someone who "by nature" is a mix of pedophile and non-pedophile but who "by nurture" is an upstanding citizen who would cringe at the idea of molesting children into someone who might consider or even do such an act, ruining many lives including their own in the process.
By far most people do not have a "latent pedophile" side to them so they are not harmed by exposure to such material other than needing a new keyboard after they vomit, but a significant number of people are. Even if it's only 0.5-2% of men and say 0.1-0.4% of women who are vulnerable in this way but who aren't "100% pedophiles" already, that's a still a big number in a country the size of the United States or for that matter worldwide.
This is the same reason that in some countries alcohol, tobacco, and adult-entertainment products are not allowed to be advertised even to adults or their advertising is limited to groups that that have already made the decision to buy those types of products. It's also the reason in some countries such products are not allowed to be marketed to children or adolescents.
Here are some examples of what can happen if you have a society where such behavior is tolerated:
*Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004
*Official response to Aboriginal child sexual abuse in Australia: more law and order
*The whole Roman Catholic and other clergy abuses of the last half-century or more that were made worse by official tolerance or official downplaying of the seriousness of the crimes.
*The "peer culture" among teenagers and preteens in Rockdale County, Georgia in the 1990s that led to promiscuity and a syphilis epidemic. See Frontline: The Lost Children of Rockdale County
Granted, none of these directly touch on the question of "does child porn create pedophiles" but they all show the influence a person's contacts have on his willingness to engage in behavior that the larger society condemns.
For some specific cases of child porn creating or awakening a pedophile in a previously-law-abiding person, go through the many court cases of people charged with child porn or child molestation crimes. Many will claim "I was curious and got addicted." Some of these criminals are lying and just looking for sympathy from a jury but some really are who they say they are: People who but for that initial exposure would have remained happy law-abiding responsible adults and who are now paying the price for satisfying their curiosity and the resulting addiction.
By the way, this argument has been used by anti-gay forces to suppress homosexuals. While the argument has merit for "true 50/50 bisexuals" and even the "90/10" "bi-curious" group in that they may be tempted to "try it out" if they live in a gay-tolerant or gay-affirming culture, there is one key difference: It's not child abuse. The "queers recruit" anti-gay argument is about as valid and about as silly as "McDonalds recruits kids to eat unhealthy high-fat foods" - yes, but so what? The "if child porn is widely available you will have more [active, or at least child-porn-viewing] pedophiles" argument, on the other hand, must be taken seriously if it is real, and the evidence I've seen and my general knowledge of human behavior leads me to conclude that it is very real.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"...although this also runs into problems when the servers are based outside of your jurisdiction."
No, it doesn't.
[End Of Line]
90% of my spam folder contains of spammers using domains/ips/AS hosted in the USA and yet they continue unabated
it would be trivial (for the FBI/LEO) to catch and prosecute them or remove the domain names but they dont
and so my account continues to be innundated with creditcard offers and MLM scams
I believe Russia and the Ukraine are the countries known for such problems, and they're not in the EU...
You have advocated a
(x) technical (x) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting online child porn (and/or pedophilia in general). Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from country to country before a bad international agreement was made.)
(x) Pedophiles can easily use it to harvest URLs of sites containing child porn
( ) Family photo albums with bathtub photos ( ) legitimate porn sites would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or arrest him
(x) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(x) It will stop child porn for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) Internet users will not put up with it
( ) ISPs will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(x) Requires too much cooperation from pedophiles
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many internet users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Pedophiles don't care about innocent people who get caught in FBI honeypots
(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career, business, or entire life
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(x) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for the internet
(x) Open relays in foreign countries
(x) Ease of bypassing security measures
( ) Asshats
(x) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) Huge existing software investment in (x) HTTP (x) DNS
(x) Availability of protocols other than (x) HTTP[S] (x) FTP to access the internet
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(x) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of "18-year-old" porn
(x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(x) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who download child porn
( ) Dishonesty on the part of pedophiles
(x) Exploitation of children which is unaffected by ISPs filtering the web
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
(x) HTTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
(x) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(x) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Visiting a web site should be free
(x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatibility with open source or open source licenses
(x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
(x) I don't want the government reading my internet logs
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
well considering that there are multiple generations of the "sex is evil" crowd i think we can safely conclude that there's some level of hypocrisy going on here.
The EuroISPA is only partially right. The determined people will find a way around it, but even if you stop 50% of it, then it's worth it. How hard is it for each ISP to run DNS servers like OpenDNS and by default block out pornography unless the subscriber otherwise enables it.
I know the European governments in question are in fact working hard to stop exactly the crimes you described. I don't know what "governments" you had in mind.
The European Union, EUROPOL and national police forces collaborate, and have shut down several such criminal networks each year. They have a permanent task force, CIRCAMP, dedicated to this.
In 2010 the European Union even updated and increased the powers of the police to respond to online grooming, the absence of positive identification of child victims, criminalizing offences committed abroad, protecting victims by giving them further legal protections and creating prevention programmes for past offenders.
I remember learning in school that the only effective way to stop the production and distribution [of drugs] was to target the market.
If you attack the producers, someone will replace them soon enough. However if you remove the market, reducing the demand, production and profits will naturally stop.
Of course that doesn't mean it won't still happen, but at least there won't be "inspiration" available.
Correct. If you're too lazy to bother explaining what a fairly obscure term is in your post, you may as well not use it because I'm going to be too lazy to google it.
Last I checked, breast cancer was fairly rare in 9 year old girls.
Well, in this case we're talking about European governments and our [European] jurisdictions.
The problem is that the majority of such crimes now happen in poor Asian countries, Africa, Russia or the Ukraine. None of which are subject to European Union laws.
This has been addressed by the EU and partially solved in terms of prosecution. European citizens can be charged and sentenced according to European laws despite the crime occuring in a foreign jurisdiction.
While the DHS case you cited appears to run foul of US jurisdiction it's not actually the case in my opinion. In some sense jurisdiction is a question of what effective power you have over the area in question. While it technically should be outside the US' power to take down foreign operated websites it's not actually the case for now. There are always other TLDs they can move to.
This will be posted 2000 times but they do not care the SLIGHTEST about "child porn" and "terrorism" or what-not. We already don't see that on the net anyway, they're already taken down at the source.
So it does not matter if the blocking is easy to circumvent for computer educated people.
What they care about is being able to use it to block regular content, China-firewall-like from the average Joe. While their method is totally cliché it's entirely the case here. Using dumb "think of the children" excuse to actually do EVIL themselves.
China.
Unfortunately in the US there is no mens rea requirement for child porn charges, you're equally guilty if you solicit such images as if somebody emails them to you or you randomly encounter one that you can't tell the age of the people in the photos.
Warning to Americans: Here are a couple of so-hot-they-must-be-pron babes who if they "act their age" are both way south of 18!
One and two.
Tell us what you want us to do (and how to do it) & we'll do it, it's not our problem if it's a stupid idea!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
The second one is NOT hot. She is somewhat less insane than the first, however.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
I wonder how long it took them to actually figure this out? I wonder how much money was spent trying to figure it out. If only the people upstairs would listen to the lower down experts for a change instead of wasting everyone's time!
It's not the only one. I've seen a site on gardening classified as drugs advocacy because it contained such words as 'pot' and 'weed.'
Probably secret? It's a list of the top child porn sites on the internet. Of course it'll be secret. Plus that means that any embarassing mistakes will never come to light, too. Espicially if the filter works by returning a false 404 error or just dropping packets, so it isn't readily apparent that the site was deliberatly blocked at all. The most effective censorship is the type that is never even discovered.
Did you miss the last sentence? I said it won't stop all abuse, but it is in fact an organized industry! Did you perhaps not know this? It's not just the lone man taking photos at home.
Russian and Ukrainian criminals are unfortunately involved in most forms of exploitation and abuse of women and children. There is a clear link, as proven by research, between trafficking and abuse.
I did some studies of this in Law school here in Europe, perhaps you don't read the same research materials and law journals as me?
The same people that organize the sex industry trafficking also have a hand in this part of the pornographic industry. I'm not talking about American main stream pornography here.
It is in fact all about the money because there's a market for it all over the world. From deviant Japanese to Americans/Europeans. The Internet created a new and larger market due to the anonymity.
Now, I did say that it won't stop all abuse, far from it, but I'm sure that it's a very good idea to at least remove the profitable and low risk[from the] market that leads to organized child abuse.
I'm ending this thread here.
The UK child porn block has been in place for a few years, and is not as simplistic as just DNS, nor is it just null routing. It's still pretty trivial to come up with ways to circumvent it, though, so the only real net effect has been the collateral damage.
The (rightful in my opinion) worry for UK ISPs is that this has always been intended to be the thin edge of the wedge. There's been talk even before it was introduced that the scope should be expanded to include other categories, including those that could be considered political. However, the main worry for the ISPs is as always money - increasing the capacity of the system to cope beyond the relatively small blocklist it was intended for would require a major outlay of equipment and a fundamental (and expensive) redesign of the technologies involved.
So yes, sorry, censorship has already snuck in while you were busy looking the other way. This is old, old news that the general public are only now (hopefully) waking up to.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE
I wrote it, it works. I can say this safely: Simply because of what's written above, & I apply it (along with probably 1 million others by now)? You're NOT getting into this system, no way, no how & I don't care WHO you are, or what you *THINK* you know, you're not even going to get close.
APK
P.S.=> That's in regards to your statement here, quoted again, for your reference:
"Again, bypassed in less than one minute. Your system works only because you are voluntarily using it. If I was on your network, it would be trivial to bypass your "protections", as long as I have control over the computer that I am using. ISPs won't be able to force any of your browser level addons listed. All you have is firewall and blacklists left, which is a joke to work around. I could list all the ways to bypass these blocks, but it would be redundant for half the users here.
Even if you block every port except 80, and deny all protocols except TCP, it can be worked around in short order with just a little help on the outside, which would be flooding in." - by Pharmboy (216950) on Tuesday January 11, @03:33PM (#34839472)
Well, all I can tell you, again, is refer to the above, & then? Then, this:
"Nobody Touches, My Hurricane..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apOdWOK5Rh8
apk
You are a fucking idiot.
I don't trust any claims you make about securing your system considering how terrible your reading comprehension is.
Nobody wants to break into your system.
The point was that were he on your network bypassing your filters to access online content would be almost trivial.
That has nothing to do with breaking into your system at all.
Not really. The focus should be on dismantling organized criminal networks. They cause far more damage in terms of numbers of victims.
You are obviously referring to American laws on the subject, we don't have the same laws. It's perfectly legal in the Netherlands for example for the mentioned 17 year old. Commercial production and distribution is actually subject to different laws here. You really should think about the context of this discussion.
Do you even know what trafficking means? The same people that trade in people for prostitution are involved in other forms of organized crime.
There are three primary, interrelated forms of commercial sexual exploitation that comprise the sex trade: prostitution, pornography, and trafficking for sexual purposes.
It's why it's so important to take down the networks. They're far more dangerous than the person simply motivated by personal preferences. This is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Well, I did want to work for the computer crimes division of the public prosecutor. I read more than my fair share of books on the matter, but I ended up doing commercial work instead.
Well, there are actually a number of studies from various sources including the EU, UN, WHO etc. There's also the horrible facts of the matter on the ground in countries such as Thailand, Gambia, Cambodia and so on. This rather short report is a very informative summary.
The anonymity I referred to did not involve commercial transactions, however it made it possible for like minded people to meet. Of course transactions were harder to track in the early days of the Internet, now it's easy for the police to track and monitor payments. It doesn't mean there's no money being exchanged.
I've read studies that suggested that the availability in itself created a larger market. They basically suggest that the Internet itself lead to higher recruitment.
I can't be bothered to reply beyond this, I find your attitude rather puzzling and irreverent.
Wow, you're a real idiot. I have mod points, and I'd love to rate you troll but instead I am going to comment (more the fool me, because you clearly have shown you have no comprehension skills).
The nice people talking to you above are trying to help you understand that your method for preventing browsing of censored websites only works because you voluntarily allow it to. You seem to be switching between talking about protecting your machine from inbound connections one minute and outbound, the next?
Your method may be u83r l337 for preventing people from finding you (it's not, btw and I will explain why to you in a second) but it does nothing to enforce censorship of the net, which is what you originally seemed to be claiming it does because, as Pharmboy pointed out, anyone who has permission to change the modified files can circumvent your censorship, which is basically anyone who either has admin access or a Linux boot disk with NTFS write permissions (like, I don't know... all of them).
Now, as to why your method above does not prevent people finding you online, perhaps you've heard of switches and routers? How the fck do you think they can get your packets to you, if they can't find you, pray tell? Any network admin on his first day on the job is going to be able to tell you what devices are plugged into his switches. You do understand that simply closing off SMB services does nothing to secure anything other than SMB, right?
Finally: I read that first link on your "Bing" link above. Firstly, the fact that you even use Bing calls deeply into question any IT credentials you claim to have. All I see there is a complete novice refusing to listen to other people's advice and throwing a tantrum about being the most l337 person on the planet and insinuating everyone else is dumb - pretty much exactly like you've done here. You then bang on about how a single downloadable app, which you did not write, fixes every single security problem on every computer and this somehow makes you an expert. You even claim your mate "Jack" got infected with a virus because he "ignored your advice" and used YouTube.
Well, the thing is, he, as you yourself admitted, wanted to use YouTube. He, being the user, had a requirements. You, being the know-it-all-idiot, tried to simply ban him from them, in a misguided belief that YouTube infects computers and you somehow own his computer. That's not the behaviour of an IT expert. That's not the behaviour of a security expert. That's the behaviour of a control freak moron. Try to remember it's his computer and he wants it to do what he wants it to do. If you can't help him do whatever that is securely, then you're no expert and best leave it to people who can.
goggle anything to do with pictures of kiddies in the buff and you get sent to a seemly good site offering you all to full-fill your desires, so long as you down load a little app or run a java app or whatever.
That app then get's your real IP no one that your using via a VPN or something and pops up a message saying, search for something like that another two times and we'll be banging on your door.
Can't resist, well hand yourself in, we can give you some stuff to repress your sexual or other urges, tag you oh and make sure you don't get attacked by the mobs who have been thus far doing little more than driving you underground and making you obsession feel even more 'dirty' and 'naughty'.
If you search for it, is it entrapment, especially if what your searching for is the porn equivalent of a hit man. They also send kids into shops to see if they get severed under-age so some types of entrapment are allowed.
Stop it at source, stop it when it's being sort out and cut off the sexual urges, but also accept that it's a fight that can only go the way of prohibition if dealt with like some kind of war.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Why does the article repeatedly use the phrase 'child sexual abuse content'? Is this some advanced way of writing 'pr0n'?
See my subject-line & realize that "Pharmboy" is SUCH AN AMBIGUOUS BULLSHITTER, it's not even funny... he won't go into details, because I strongly suspect he HAS NONE! That's for starters, & he couldn't even SEE my system even IF we were on the same network as he said (I know, I've had that much tested before as I noted)... this is now directly to you, point by point:
You fail on STEP #1!
"Pharmboy pointed out, anyone who has permission to change the modified files can circumvent your censorship, which is basically anyone who either has admin access or a Linux boot disk with NTFS write permissions" - by Gumbercules!! (1158841) on Wednesday January 12, @02:10AM (#34845354) Homepage
Nobody has that permission, except myself, & he certainly does NOT!, So, that being said, what's YOUR (or HIS) point?
(You guys are hilarious: You "make up" these "PhaNtaSy SCeNaRiOs", like this is that b.s. t.v. series "24" or something! Heh, I could do that too, & say "IF I WAS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES" (but, I am not). Same idea.
APK
P.S.=>
"All I see there is a complete novice refusing to listen to other people's advice and throwing a tantrum about being the most l337 person on the planet and insinuating everyone else is dumb - pretty much exactly like you've done here." - by Gumbercules!! (1158841) on Wednesday January 12, @02:10AM (#34845354) Homepage
Why on EARTH should I listen to a pack of "wannabe's" for? None of you are noted for a DAMNED THING in the computer sciences, so what makes you such "experts"??
Nothing!
(Nothing I can see @ least... & I can nearly guarantee that I have done quite a lot, especially by way of comparison, to a pack of little NOBODIES like yourselves in this art & science of computing... Especially those trying to "tell me how it is", & what you make up in your "phantasyland-scenarios"? Pure b.s.!)... apk
"You then bang on about how a single downloadable app, which you did not write, fixes every single security problem on every computer and this somehow makes you an expert." - by Gumbercules!! (1158841) on Wednesday January 12, @02:10AM (#34845354) Homepage
First of all: It's NOT AN APP, dumbo. It's a file, called HOSTS. By the way, the one I use here (largest & most comprehensive in existence because it's formed from ALL OF THE OTHERS, de-duplicated/normalized)? I did "write myself" or rather, put together, & WITH AN APPLICATION I WROTE MYSELF THAT DOES IT!
---
"You even claim your mate "Jack" got infected with a virus because he "ignored your advice" and used YouTube." - by Gumbercules!! (1158841) on Wednesday January 12, @02:10AM (#34845354) Homepage
He did, he admitted it to me in fact: He likes his Pr0n. It wasn't YouTube. He removed SOME of the sites that were blocked in his HOSTS file I gave he, & he pretty much figured that was it. So did I, because for 1 yr. or more prior to his doing that??
He showed ZERO infestations!
It gets better!
(He was running was Windows 2000, no service packs OR patches even, & only a HOSTS file & port filtering (no 'software firewall' other than that, often called "the poor man's firewall" in fact))...
APK
P.S.=>
"That's not the behaviour of an IT expert. That's not the behaviour of a security expert. That's the behaviour of a control freak moron" - by Gumbercules!! (1158841) on Wednesday January 12, @02:10AM (#34845354) Homepage
Again/For starters: It wasn't YouTube, dolt - it was Porno sites online that did him in... & he knows it (they're notorious for malware)... we simply removed the offending malware using process explorer iirc, & he went about his merry way for another yr. or so without mishap/infestation, once he "reblocked" the sites he removed from the HOSTS file I gave him.
Secondly, the day you have done ALL OF THIS, or more, & especially BEFORE I DID in the realm of the computer sciences:
---
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3
Lastly, lately (this year)?
It's simple. It is a 'feel good' law that they know they can pass, which does nothing to reduce or eliminate the original crime, but makes it look like they are working for their extravagant pay.
Kind of like trying to ban guns after someone gets shot.
When was the last time a politician tried to ban cars when some 9-year old was killed in a DWI event?
You are a fucking idiot Pseudonym Authority. You should call yourself Dr. Wannabe.
"I could list all the ways to bypass these blocks, but it would be redundant for half the users here." - by Pharmboy (216950) on Tuesday January 11, @03:33PM (#34839472) Journal
FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1945994&cid=34839472
Come back over there then, to that URL above!
(I'd like to see your SPECIFICS: NOT your "ambiguous bullshit"/lack of specifics from you, as noted/quoted, above!)
APK
P.S.=> Then, we'll see how much you know about the subject @ hand there, instead of your AMBIGUOUS BULLSHIT... anyone can "talk a big game" with "phantasyland scenarios" as you have! apk
"I could list all the ways to bypass these blocks, but it would be redundant for half the users here." - by Pharmboy (216950) on Tuesday January 11, @03:33PM (#34839472) Journal
FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1945994&cid=34839472
Come back over there then, to that URL above... you ambiguous b.s. artist.
(I'd like to see your SPECIFICS: NOT your "ambiguous bullshit"/lack of specifics from you, as noted/quoted, above!)
APK
P.S.=> Then, we'll see how much you know about the subject @ hand there, instead of your AMBIGUOUS BULLSHIT... anyone can "talk a big game" with "phantasyland scenarios" as you have! apk
"I could list all the ways to bypass these blocks, but it would be redundant for half the users here." - by Pharmboy (216950) on Tuesday January 11, @03:33PM (#34839472) Journal
FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1945994&cid=34839472
Come back over there then, to that URL above!
(I'd like to see your SPECIFICS: NOT your "ambiguous bullshit"/lack of specifics from you, as noted/quoted, above!)
APK
P.S.=> Then? Then we'll see how much you know about the subject @ hand there, instead of your AMBIGUOUS BULLSHIT... Because, after all: Anyone can "talk a big game" with "phantasyland scenarios" as you have! apk
""Jack" = apk, anonymously reviewing his own software. That's just typical dishonest behavior when it comes to apk." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 12, @08:33AM (#34847220)
Care to show us your proof of that? No?? I didn't THINK so... no, if all you little wannabe's have is your "I know more than you" vs. myself?? Beg to differ. I'd especially like to see PharmBoy's methods for circumventing my defenses here, per this quote from him:
"I could list all the ways to bypass these blocks, but it would be redundant for half the users here." - by Pharmboy (216950) on Tuesday January 11, @03:33PM (#34839472) Journal
FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1945994&cid=34839472
Because ANYONE can make up a "phantasyland" scenario, & state AMBIGUOUS tenuous b.s. (not specifics), and "get away with it"... not here you don't!
APK
P.S.=> I am going to tear you little wannabe's up here, and I look forward to it... apk
Nah, We're quite willing to stipulate that our mothers might remark that, through your own hand, you have amazing knowledge about your penis. Most people would call you a wanker though.
oh my god. you really are that thick.
I'm going to bold it this time in the hope you'll read it.
how secure your system is has nothing to do with anything, nothing at all.
Nobody cares about your system.
Nobody here wants to break into your system.
Nobody cares about finding you.
What they're talking about is accessing content when you're on a particular network and the network owner/admin doesn't want you to but when you contol the machine you're accessing the network with.
The security of your system, how easy it is to find with wireshark and how many ports you have enabled have nothing to do with the problem.
yes we know you're very very proud of having closed all ports on your box.
Yes we know you're a big boy who knows how to turn off unneeded services.
however,that has nothing to do with the problem in question.
"There's a difference between stopping other people from taking over your own system and stopping other people from accessing content from a network." - by HungryHobo (1314109) on Wednesday January 12, @11:12AM (#34849236)
Again, how are you going to DO that, when you cannot identify which "network node" I am on in the first place?
Nope, I am now waiting for the BIG BULLSHIT ARTIST, "PharmBoy" to show up, & tell us his EXACT METHODS for circumventing security measures I have in place... this is going to be hilarious - because I am going to "park his car", permanently...
(As I don't like "Ambiguous 'Big Talkers'" like Pharmboy... anyone can say "OH, I can bypass this measure of yours & that one, in seconds"... but HOW is the question!)
APK
P.S.=> We'll see if he shows up to "back up his bluster"... & the funniest part is, I will show you all how much of a damned blowhard he is... apk
"What they're talking about is accessing content when you're on a particular network and the network owner/admin doesn't want you to but when you contol the machine you're accessing the network with." - by HungryHobo (1314109) on Wednesday January 12, @10:54AM (#34848956)
Uhm, dimwit? First of all, per "PharmBoy" the bullshitter's AMBIGUOUS b.s. of "I could bypass any of your protections" etc./et al directed MY way??
I BLOW HIS B.S. AWAY ON THE 1st STEP: We are NOT on the same network, period. He has no means of controlling what I do, or where I go, etc.!
(Hell - HE can't even SEE ME to do any of that, even IF he was on the same local LAN I was, & he's FAR FROM THAT... Yes, even though he left his reply "ambiguous" & a LOT of "big talk" but no details/actions he would take! That's COMPLETE bullshit, anyone can do THAT!)
---
"yes we know you're very very proud of having closed all ports on your box.
Yes we know you're a big boy who knows how to turn off unneeded services." - by HungryHobo (1314109) on Wednesday January 12, @10:54AM (#34848956)
Please - DON'T try to play "smart" or "condescending" to me, you undereducated, & unaccomplished little "anonymous/handle/nick" using dolt...
You? Heh - You're NOTHING/NOBODY in this art & science, period... & I know it!
(So: Care to prove otherwise by showing me you've done more than I have that was well noted in this field (while you were probably STILL IN DIAPERS I wager))?
See my ps on that account below...
APK
P.S.=> Show us you've done anything like this list below, & before I have:
---
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3
Lastly, lately (this year)?
It's also been myself helping out the folks at the UltraDefrag64 project (a 64-bit defragger for Windows), in showing them code for how to do Process Priority Control @ the GUI usermode/ring 3/rpl 3 level in their program (good one too), & being credited for it by their lead dev & his team... see here -> http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/handbook/Credits.html
---
"Who's this "martin.lawrence" person who posts your e-mail address and says it belongs to him, apk?" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 12, @01:06PM (#34850990)
See my subject line first... & then, this: I checked that post, & he merely quoted materials from my other posts here... that's all.
In fact, I even checked his profile, he doesn't use my email or anything, so... what's your point?
(Other than attempting to WEAKLY troll me here, you pitiful bastard, lol!)
APK
P.S.=>
"Because everyone here thinks it's you, using fraudulent IDs to "review" your own software. Too bad you forgot you shouldn't drop your primary e-mail address when you're doing that." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 12, @01:06PM (#34850990)
Again, are you high or something? See the above...
---
"Also it says that the thread got closed/locked, I guess the forum admins reviewed those posts and verified that the IP addresses proved that it was really you posting those things." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 12, @01:06PM (#34850990)
Ok then: Write Kevin Hazard @ ThePlanet.com then (he & I have spoken before, he KNOWS who I am & what my security guide there is about too, he liked it in fact)!
---
"Also it says that the thread got closed/locked, I guess the forum admins reviewed those posts and verified that the IP addresses proved that it was really you posting those things" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 12, @01:06PM (#34850990)
Their forums gets "victimized" by board spammers all the time, & their network also gets its share of "wrongdoers"/malwaremakers & the like too, so I can see them 'freezing' things @ times!
Also - Sorry, I have NO NEED to pull shit like that, never have... though it's "quite telling" that YOU yourself, do, since you accuse others of it with such LAME "proofs" (easily disproven ones on your part).
Go on now: WRITE Mr. Kevin Hazard of the PLANET, & see if that account of "martin.lawrence" is myself...
(That ought to put you RIGHT where you belong troll - in the garbage, easily!)... apk
True, true, that's what I am, but you are nothing more than an off-topic, HOSTS file fanatic troll yourself, so we should be friends.
"True, true, that's what I am" - by Pseudonym Authority (1591027) on Wednesday January 12, @03:06PM (#34852974)
Now you are aware of the fact you are a troll, a self-acknowledged one? See below:
---
"so we should be friends" - by Pseudonym Authority (1591027) on Wednesday January 12, @03:06PM (#34852974)
No, I choose not to hang around trolls.
APK
P.S.=> Now leave me alone, & try to post constructively + on topic, for once... That might actually do you some good! apk
.... and again.
Locating you does not matter.
Nobody wants to locate you.
you're not important enough for that.
Lets try laying it out in small words.
lets imagine you're a network admin at an ISP(god forbid).
Now lets imagine that you want to block the people using your network from accessing the site www.badcontent.net.
Almost the entire system you laid out was based on the user voluntarily installing a load of crap on their machine and altering their own system which isn't a good starting point as you will not be the admin on every customers PC.
The rest including the BGP and firewall setup is trivially bypassed by using a vpn which is cheap cheap cheap nowdays.
the only way to block this is to lock down the network to the point that you can't use VPN's or almost any other useful protocol which will piss off any users who want to connect to their office VPN's or anything else.
nobody cares about how you think you're a ghost in the network.
Take 1000 law-abiding men with no sexually deviant behavior who live in a country where adult porn is legal:
Some of them will see the porn and eventually engage in sexually deviant, possibly illegal behavior that they otherwise would not have. This is the group I'm referring to.
Take 1000 men in those same countries who do not use porn but who do engage in sexually deviant behavior, legal or otherwise:
Some of them will decide that porn is a more socially acceptable outlet for their desires and switch to it, thereby removing themselves from the count of people who engage in sexually deviant or possibly illegal behavior.
Apparently, based on your research, the 2nd group outnumbers the first when it comes to adult porn.
Before we use this logic to legalize child porn, we have to address one more issue:
Consent to be photographed for sexual purposes. A minor by legal definition can't consent to the release of an explicit photograph until she is 18, and she by definition can't consent to even being photographed actually having sex. In practice this limits "ethical to legalize" (well, as ethical as porn gets anyways) child porn to porn which is completely synthetic i.e. CGI or hand-drawn, or is made up of non-porn photographs of actual children who AFTER REACHING THE AGE OF 18 consent to the use of their image in porn.
Personally, I think the only responsible use of porn is 1) as part of a marriage or similar relationship where the actors intend their product to benefit a healthy sexual relationship, 2) as part of a medically- or therapist-monitored or -prescribed regimen to help your mental health, or 3) as a do-it-yourself self-medication of #2. Purely recreational use of porn outside of maintaining a healthy sexual relationship pretty much turns the people on the screen into objects not people. Having said that, my morals are no reason to outlaw adult porn - I'll stand behind any adult bookstore fighting for its first amendment rights on this one. However, I won't shop there and I will discourage others from doing the same.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"Now lets imagine that you want to block the people using your network from accessing the site www.badcontent.net." - by HungryHobo (1314109) on Wednesday January 12, @05:59PM (#34855354)
I'd layer in HOSTS files on each network workstation & server node (updates via logon scripts for example), DNS Block Lists, & the routing of requests I didn't think we're appropriate for the job @ hand or dangerous to null destinations (as I noted in my init. post) or via firewall rules tables (software or hardware, preferably both), & do DNS request logs (as well as monitoring IP logs) to see where people are going.
E.G.-> For example, IF I were to see requests going to an anonymous proxy server? I'd block it off (either at router level or software firewall levels, etc./et al).
Vs. VPN, the only thing you COULD do is what you noted, so you make exceptions by group, if need be. It's why you get paid sometimes.
APK
P.S.=> Still, doesn't matter: You'd have to be on MY NETWORK to be able to do that to me. You are not. Neither is PharmBoy.
So, I'd like to see him back up his statements, & give me my IPAddress (lol, "such as it is at the time" currently that is) as proof thereof that he can indeed, act on my system or network this way! apk
I'd layer in HOSTS files on each network workstation & server node (updates via logon scripts for example), DNS Block Lists, & the routing of requests I didn't think we're appropriate for the job @ hand or dangerous to null destinations (as I noted in my init. post) or via firewall rules tables (software or hardware, preferably both), & do DNS request logs (as well as monitoring IP logs) to see where people are going.
Now pretend you're an ISP and you can't do any of that, because nobody is going to let you install APK-shitware on their home PC.
AH hahahahaha. APK the network admin for an ISP? Sorry, I couldn't even keep a straight face when I said that.
"and for being the most toxic to any project you join ." - by HungryHobo (1314109) on Wednesday January 12, @06:14PM (#34855528)
That's funny - These sources say QUITE otherwise:
---
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3
Lastly, lately (this year)?
It's also been myself helping out the folks at the UltraDefrag64 project (a 64-bit defragger for Windows), in showing them code for how to do Process Priority Control @ the GUI usermode/ring 3/rpl 3 level in their program (good one too), & being credited for it by their lead dev & his team... see here -> http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/handbook/Credits.html
---
(Do YOU have anything like THAT to YOUR credit? Of course not! That's simply because you're a nothing/nobody/ne're-do-well!)
---
"great reputation there." - by HungryHobo (1314109) on Wednesday January 12, @06:14PM (#34855528)
Thank you, but I know that already per the list above... So, by way of comparison? What do you have to your credit/name like that list above & before I ever did any of it also/as well? Nothing... why?? Because you're a ne'er-do-well troll!
---
"So that would make you "Alexander Peter Kowalski". - by HungryHobo (1314109) on Wednesday January 12, @06:14PM (#34855528)
It does, and you're still a nothing/nobody who hasn't accomplished SQUAT in the computer sciences of any good note (where I put up a list of them I probably did while you were still in diapers in respected written publications or commercial wares in this field)... or, care to show us differently on YOUR end? No?? I didn't THINK so.
---
"From a quick search the only reputation you appear to have in the field is for writing malware". - by HungryHobo (1314109) on Wednesday January 12, @06:14PM (#34855528)
That's not true, & that comes from COMPUTER ASSOCIATES, & my story on how they were CAUGHT FOR ACCOUNTING FRAUD SCANDALS as well as libelling myself:
"nobody is going to let you install APK-shitware on their home PC" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 13, @11:06AM (#34862780)
These 2 softwares I wrote say differently (note their download counts - which are on a broken counter (for 4 yrs. now)):
---
APK Matrix ScreenSaver:
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/390/APK_Matrix_ScreenSaver.html
&
APK Registry Cleaning Engine 2002++ SR-7:
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/389/APK_Registry_Cleaning_Engine_2002++_SR-7_.html
---
(Facts put away trolling clowns like you, everytime, & easily!)
DO you have any wares out there? No?? I didn't THINK so... you're too busy trolling others to be a productive citizen!
---
"AH hahahahaha. APK the network admin for an ISP? Sorry, I couldn't even keep a straight face when I said that." - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 13, @11:06AM (#34862780)
I have education around this science in the form of 2 degrees, 17 yrs. of professional hands-on "experience in the trenches" as both a network administrator AND software engineer, as well as a list of accomplishments noted well in respected written publications (see list below in my p.s.) in the art & science of computing dating back 1996-2009...
By the way: I also worked for CableVision of NYC for a year in the very capacity you try to mock me on too, no less (they're a big ISP/BSP) & on other jobs I was on I had to be a network administrator (even coding ones, because it helps you stay out of the fulltime network admin's hair once you show them you know what you're doing).
So - do you have the same, on either account (education, experience, or being well noted in publications of good note)?
DO YOU HAVE YOUR NAME/CODE IN COMMERCIALLY OFFERED SOFTWARES AS I DO?
Somehow?? I rather STRONGLY doubt it, on all accounts above...
APK
P.S.=> FOR YOUR REFERENCE AND SHOW US ALL READING HERE THAT YOU HAVE DONE MORE THAN THIS LIST OF MINE TO MY CREDIT, & EARLIER THAN I HAVE AS WELL AS MORE OF THEM:
---
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here ->