Microsoft Blocks FSF Donation Website As a 'Gambling Site'

Stay grounded by meekg · 2012-06-24 01:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

Hysterics and hyperbole do not serve us well.
IF MS ignores the correction, sure. But that hasn't happened, has it?

Re:Stay grounded by Arancaytar · 2012-06-24 01:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Frankly, the idea that this could be accidental in the first place is ludicrous.
Antivirus vendors classifying the competition as malware is an easy mistake due to antivirus software employing similar methods to viruses in examining memory. Classifying a non-profit organization as a gambling site? Not an easy mistake. Doing it to a site belonging to a rival organization? Yeah, no.
Re:Stay grounded by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-24 01:51 · Score: 1

Hysterics and hyperbole do not serve us well.
I'm an advertiser you insensitive clod!
Re:Stay grounded by beelsebob · 2012-06-24 02:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Frankly, the idea that this could be accidental in the first place is ludicrous.
Frankly, the idea that it wasn't accidental is ludicrous, I would doubt very highly that MS has humans categorising sites, instead it's probably all automated based on roughly the same tech as email spam filters.
Re:Stay grounded by NotBorg · 2012-06-24 02:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Hysterics and hyperbole do not serve us well.
You must be new here. What have you done with 30651? Is he ok? What are your demands?

--
I want this account deleted.
Re:Stay grounded by elrous0 · 2012-06-24 03:41 · Score: 1

You, sir, win the internet today.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Stay grounded by 1u3hr · 2012-06-24 04:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

Frankly, the idea that this could be accidental in the first place is ludicrous.
No, MS aren't stupid. They would know such a block could not stand for long and would generate much bad publicity for them. They'd much rather just ignore the FSF. Now they'll probably have to apologise to them. Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity.
More likely the FSF home page, with all of its talk about "free software" was classified by MS's filters as a warez site.
Re:Stay grounded by beelsebob · 2012-06-24 04:13 · Score: 2

All it takes is a simple whitelist to prevent this kind of idiotic mistake.
A simple white list that has to be built somehow... The traditional way of building this white list, is wait and see what gets blocked that shouldn't, and white list it when someone complains. Someone has complained now, so I'd expect a white listing within the next day or two >.
Re:Stay grounded by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-24 04:34 · Score: 3, Informative

Frankly, the idea that it wasn't accidental is ludicrous, I would doubt very highly that MS has humans categorising sites, instead it's probably all automated based on roughly the same tech as email spam filters.
Here's an idea: Then don't filter our shit! Let me decide where I want to visit.
-Mac user, so I don't really care
That is funny, the single largest malware infection in modern times, as percentage of user base infected, was the Mac Flashback malware infecting 1% of OSX user base. The biggest Windows epidemic, Conficker, infected 0.7% of Windows machines. (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/253403/mac_malware_outbreak_is_bigger_than_conficker.html)
Re:Stay grounded by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-24 05:04 · Score: 1

"-Mac user, so I don't really care"
"Do not fear your enemies. The worst they can do is kill you. Do not fear your friends. At worst, they may betray you. Fear those who do not care; they neither kill nor betray, but betrayal and murder exist because of their silent consent." ~ Bruno Jasienski
Re:Stay grounded by Xtifr · 2012-06-24 05:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, MS aren't stupid.
Citation needed. Bringing obviously-faked evidence into a courtroom seems like a strong counter-example to this claim.

Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

Wait, now you're saying they are stupid? :)

More likely the FSF home page, with all of its talk about "free software" was classified by MS's filters as a warez site.
That might make sense if it had been classified as a warez site. But it wasn't. If I had to make an honest guess, mine would be an in-house joke used during testing that got left in when they went live.
That's assuming they do fix it and apologize. Otherwise, I think we're back to malice. ;)
Re:Stay grounded by hendridm · 2012-06-24 05:49 · Score: 1

So you're saying that I should care? What do you suggest I do? Vote with my dollars? I've already done that.
Maybe write a strongly worded letter to Redmond? Maybe rage on forums about it until Microsoft folds?
I'm open to ideas.
Re:Stay grounded by kefkahax · 2012-06-24 05:53 · Score: 1

"No, MS aren't stupid." [...] "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity." OK, I am confused.

--
Easy BitCoins
Re:Stay grounded by h4z3 · 2012-06-24 06:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

Any chance you write for Fox news? I'm sure 0.7% of 75~80% of the pc market is bigger than 1% of 7~15%.
Re:Stay grounded by hairyfeet · 2012-06-24 07:14 · Score: 1

Yeah this should be listed under "shit happens" as its no different than that time somebody at AVG fucked up and had svchost listed as malware, or that time one of them labeled Steam as a bug.
Its security folks, shit happens, things go wrong, mistakes are made. if MSFT refuses to correct? Sure you have every right to call them to the carpet. But as long as they have it fixed within say the next 48 hours (giving them extra time because naturally shit screwing up on a weekend is usually a bigger PITA) then i see no reason to get upset, anymore than i would at any other security company that screws up and lists my fav site as a bug, shit happens.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Stay grounded by X0563511 · 2012-06-24 08:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

You could start by leaving little comments like "I don't care, I use a mac" out of your post, because while you might have intended it to have no harm, that transforms the rest of your post into flamebait. Don't bitch when your kindling catches fire.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Stay grounded by Antique+Geekmeister · 2012-06-24 08:52 · Score: 1

fsf.org is not a Microsoft partner, and does not have contract relationship with Microsoft. Expect whitelisting to be slow and require excessive steps of confirmation through an outsourced support line where "your call is very important to us", they insist on having the registration number of your copies of Windo2ws software, and they are unable to spell "fsf.".
Re:Stay grounded by Kalriath · 2012-06-24 11:38 · Score: 1

If you're running their security software, you've already decided (or the owner of the computer has decided) to allow them to decide whether such sites could be accessed. That's not Microsoft's fault, so what the fuck does your post have to do with anything?

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Re:Stay grounded by 1u3hr · 2012-06-24 16:14 · Score: 1

"No, MS aren't stupid." [...] "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity." OK, I am confused.
Yeah, that was contradictory. I meant that they didn't decide/plot to do it, where "they" is someone like Ballmer, because anyone thinking about it would realise that it would rebound. But it could well have happened by some mistake by a flunky, or an automated process designed to block warez, defined carelessly enough to block any "free" software.
Re:Stay grounded by Arancaytar · 2012-06-26 15:56 · Score: 1

That is completely nonsensical. The option to override the process manually must exist simply to correct mistakes like this. That same option can therefore also be used to introduce mistakes.
Therefore, the only question is how likely it is that the heuristic algorithm could have determined this category, and how likely it is that a human could have done it. The keywords found on the FSF site has no overlap with the keywords on common gambling sites, so the first is unlikely. A human who does not like the FSF has a motive to do this, so the second is not unlikely.
People act as if this were moon-landing type conspiracy theory stuff; as though it required nefarious dealings at the highest level and everything you ever believed would have to be wrong. It's not as if Bill Gates has to personally sign off secret orders to sabotage the competition, just like the Google board of directors likely didn't authorize the sabotage of OpenStreetMaps. It'd just be a bit of opportunistic trickery, maybe done by an overly enthusiastic employee or to get back at a personal rivalry with a GNU-evangelizing acquaintance. As such, it's not an extraordinary claim. No extraordinary evidence required.

donate.fsf.org is just a redirect by xiando · 2012-06-24 01:33 · Score: 5, Informative

You can go directly to http://my.fsf.org/donate/ if donate.fsf.org is blocked by your local friendly firewall. You can also use Tor to bypass blocks like these.

--
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation

Re:donate.fsf.org is just a redirect by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-24 01:42 · Score: 4, Informative

You can also use Tor to bypass blocks like these.
Eh....

It is not impossible to block Tor. A standard approach is to have the firewall block all Tor entry nodes, which forces people to use bridge nodes instead. Increasingly, though, there is an approach that is much harder to evade: blocking of connections that match Tor's "fingerprint" i.e. because Tor uses OpenSSL in a way that can be distinguished from Firefox+NSS etc.

Of course, there is a bright side if you are dealing with a school or corporate firewall: you can always set up a system at your house that you SSH to, and use as a proxy server. That was something friends of mine used to do in high school.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:donate.fsf.org is just a redirect by heypete · 2012-06-24 02:44 · Score: 1

Evidently one can also try connecting to the suspected Tor node in question and seeing if it "speaks Tor" -- this utility appears to use that method.
My understanding is that's what the Chinese are doing to detect bridge nodes, though I very well could be wrong.
Re:donate.fsf.org is just a redirect by jez9999 · 2012-06-24 04:55 · Score: 2

So they're blocking Tor, but allowing SSH connections?

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:donate.fsf.org is just a redirect by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-24 05:36 · Score: 1

Well, that's how China does things. It is reasonable to think that a school or corporation might allow SSH but not Tor, since there are more obvious "legitimate" uses for SSH.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:donate.fsf.org is just a redirect by Kalriath · 2012-06-24 12:53 · Score: 1

Of course, there is a bright side if you are dealing with a school or corporate firewall: you can always set up a system at your house that you SSH to, and use as a proxy server. That was something friends of mine used to do in high school.
Or, you know, you could just actually work/study and stop misusing someone else's resources.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Re:donate.fsf.org is just a redirect by jaymemaurice · 2012-06-24 16:24 · Score: 1

Of course, there is a bright side if you are dealing with a school or corporate firewall: you can always set up a system at your house that you SSH to, and use as a proxy server. That was something friends of mine used to do in high school.

That is so 1990's .. ssh proxy, you're showing your age. Today you just jump on a 4g/lte hotspot and away you go... :)
I moved out young so I didn't have a printer. I discovered the schools windows 98 machines with netware would let you into the winhelp application where you could "print" a help section and the schools print drivers would allow you to visit the manufactures website to order supplies. From IE you could open a shell or just fire up mindterm java ssh applet. I'd often connect to a linux box and open a reverse tunnel to the printer so that way I could print my homework from home and pick it up in the morning.

--
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
Re:donate.fsf.org is just a redirect by jaymemaurice · 2012-06-24 16:30 · Score: 1

Back in my day, our school did not have the ability to detect the difference between SSH on port 443 and SSL. Now, I think many schools can/do and may even man-in-the middle the SSL with their own trusted CA cert in all their client machines.

--
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone

malice or incompetence? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-24 01:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

what's that old saying "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence" or whatever? I mean this is MS we're talking about...

Re:malice or incompetence? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-24 01:47 · Score: 1

Surely just incompetence. Perhaps the fact that FSF accepts Bitcoin caused the block.
Re:malice or incompetence? by AliasMarlowe · 2012-06-24 02:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

what's that old saying "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence" or whatever? I mean this is MS we're talking about...
Which makes malice in the guise of incompetence particularly insidious and effective.
In the absence of clear evidence one way or the other, it's best to reserve judgment regarding malice vs incompetence where a recidivist company notorious for its dirty tricks is concerned. The aphorism you quoted (especially the "never" bit) is overridden in this case by Microsoft's track record of cunning malice, mind-boggling incompetence, incompetent malice, and malicious incompetence. It could be any of them.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Re:malice or incompetence? by arobatino · 2012-06-24 02:13 · Score: 2

Especially since the number of people who want to donate to the FSF while using Microsoft's software is approximately zero.
Re:malice or incompetence? by gbjbaanb · 2012-06-24 02:21 · Score: 1

yeah, they should sue microsoft for defamation and ... effectively get a large donation.
Re:malice or incompetence? by Hentes · 2012-06-24 02:22 · Score: 1

In any case, the damage done is the same. Saying "I didn't mean to!" is not an acceptable defence for a bug.
Re:malice or incompetence? by Mabhatter · 2012-06-24 02:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

The most obvious answer is that a handful of Microsoft fanboy admins submitted the site just to mess with FSF fanboys. These things have all been crowd sourced for years.
Most of these tools us a proprietary list that takes an unknown number of input votes to block something. Then you have to ask very nicely to get off the list that gets published to the masses. It's censorship by the noisiest submitters. It's much like how big websites like yahoo or Engadget keep getting their emails "automatically" blocked by spam filters. A few high influence admins just keep hitting the Spam button on work accounts and 1000 users have to unblock to get it off the spam list.
There IS a process at most of these filter agencies if you grease the right palms, you will get on the mythical "white" list. Whether you are big name sites like Amazon that can bully to keep your name off, or the list runner has a sweet spot for Equestria Daily... But that's a "private list decision"
Re:malice or incompetence? by k(wi)r(kipedia) · 2012-06-24 02:31 · Score: 1

The 21st century version: Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to automation.
It would be extremely tempting to attribute stupidity and incompetence on Microsoft's part. Stupider than that however is not knowing up to what point you should trust a system. Example: GPS. If your GPS shows there's supposed to be a bridge in front of you, but all you see is a ditch, do you drive on, confident that the GPS is never wrong, or do you trust the evidence of your eyes?
Re:malice or incompetence? by beelsebob · 2012-06-24 02:33 · Score: 1

I would struggle to even call it incompetence, I would bet the lists are made up by web crawlers applying roughly the same algorithm as email filtering... Quite frankly, it's not incompetence if your bot hits the occasional false positive.
Re:malice or incompetence? by kvvbassboy · 2012-06-24 02:38 · Score: 2

Automation is supposed to be smart enough to detect edge cases. If not it's just buggy software. Saying that something is automated, is not an excuse for it to make wrong decisions.
Re:malice or incompetence? by houstonbofh · 2012-06-24 02:56 · Score: 4, Informative

You realise that this is not Microsoft Security Essentials, but the network security product, right? So anyone behind it on the network... Like at a company, or corporate guest network, or school, or very badly designed hotel wifi?
Re:malice or incompetence? by oakgrove · 2012-06-24 03:00 · Score: 1

Actually, I would think that would be the best time to get'em, e.g., while the pain is still fresh in their minds.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:malice or incompetence? by kvvbassboy · 2012-06-24 03:11 · Score: 1

I am sorry, but using a bitcoins as a single factor to rule out a site as legitimate is a bug in the design of the filtering machine. There needs to be different levels of severity based on a set of features. It is not 100% effective, but if MS labels it as being "not a bug but a feature", it just means they are being lazy (which is okay, maybe they don't have time to make it better).
Re:malice or incompetence? by PNutts · 2012-06-24 03:20 · Score: 1

Agreed. Norton just started blocking my mom's blog site because Google made a minor change (blogspot.com). Stuff happens.
Re:malice or incompetence? by Kalriath · 2012-06-24 12:55 · Score: 1

There are people crazy enough to punch in their credit card number on a work computer? With the dodgy BlueCoat peering over their shoulder?

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Re:malice or incompetence? by Kalriath · 2012-06-24 12:57 · Score: 1

No-one knows if it's anything to do with Bitcoin. You might want to wait for evidence rather than going on a rampage over an unknown.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly? by Crasoose · 2012-06-24 01:34 · Score: 1

"FSF has submitted a correction to Microsoft and they are now waiting for a response."

So there was a problem with their website that caused it to be blocked automatically by their web filtering software, how is this news? Why is everyone so paranoid and not even waiting for Microsoft to reply or give them an exception? Even if they don't allow it, maybe they would rather their employees donated in their own free time and not on their network?

Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly? by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-24 01:45 · Score: 5, Informative

Why is everyone so paranoid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents

Even if they don't allow it, maybe they would rather their employees donated in their own free time and not on their network?
You could at least read and understand the summary (RAUTFS?). It is not just Microsoft's own network; this is something a Microsoft product that is used on numerous corporate networks is doing.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly? by xaoslaad · 2012-06-24 01:47 · Score: 1

Stupid much? Most likely it was no problem with the fsf website and the correction was a form with a details section that said d.f.o is a domation site not a gambling site. Has it been adequately spelled out for you now?

And that being said I doubt MS did this out of malice. I had seen in websense false positives because one ip address shared multiple named vhosts, with one being porn or something else unsavory. There is probably an equally mundane explanation here. Hell maybe they got their hands on a block of addresses that used to belong to a gambling site. I can come up with more possibilities just brainstorming if you like...
Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly? by Crasoose · 2012-06-24 02:00 · Score: 1

This comment accuses me of not knowing things I was already assuming in my original post, nonetheless, thank you and everyone else replying to me for posting your ideas on the matter.
Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly? by Chris+Mattern · 2012-06-24 02:10 · Score: 2

They didn't submit a correction of a faulty website. They submitted a correction of a faulty website classification. FSF has done nothing wrong; the only problem here is Microsofts amazingly self-serving mistake.
Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly? by Mabhatter · 2012-06-24 02:36 · Score: 1

Because if I labeled every Microsoft email "spam" in my Gmail would they get blocked for EVERYBODY on Gmail? Obviously each filter list has a SECRET way of keeping high profile organizations from being put on Filter lists no matter how many Slashdot admins try to get Microsoft.com blocked.
So WHO decides to put the Big Guys on that "untouchable" list that are known honest sites? This is the "secret censorship" of the modern corporate-run world. Just find a label like "Gambling" and you shame people from even REPORTING there is an error. The list is private so "facts" have nothing to do with said rating.
Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly? by squiggleslash · 2012-06-24 04:39 · Score: 1

You know who else didn't assume that Microsoft was doing something malicious and when expressing this view used a somewhat ambiguous, albeit still obvious, form of wording (the word "their" used twice in the same sentence to mean two different entities) just to add insult to injury?
Hitler! That's who!
Thank God we have Slashdot's legion of anti-Microsoft grammar pedants to save us from the evils of, uh, something!

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly? by Coeurderoy · 2012-06-24 07:18 · Score: 1

Well, either Microsoft decided to block FSF just because they do not like them, and that would be "evil", not because blocking the FSF is "bad" but because it's not what they sell to their customers.
Or, microsoft deceided that anybody accepting bitcoins is "evil" and necessarily a gambling provider, and then it's even worse, because it's censoring an alternative payment method under false pretence (it would not be the same if they would block saying "we block bitcoin because of ...." then the issue would be the ... not the lie that puts gambling and bitcoin together.
And even if they correct the situation for the FSF it shows that the implementation model is bad, I do hope that large corporation will think twice before trusting Microsoft on anything...
Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly? by Kalriath · 2012-06-24 12:59 · Score: 1

Your exhaustive list appears to be missing numerous, more plausible, options. Your bias isn't showing at all.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Re:Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly? by Lisias · 2012-06-24 14:31 · Score: 1

Microsoft is the bad guy, how exactly?
In what planet were you living in the past 25 years?

--
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org

It's like this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-24 01:39 · Score: 1

The situation is sort of like this:

"Crasoose is a bunny licking spoon bender!"

If you don't agree, you are free to submit a correction which may or may not result in correcting the classification.

Re:It's like this by PNutts · 2012-06-24 03:22 · Score: 1

Your argument is invalid. There is no spoon.

Re:MS by xiando · 2012-06-24 01:40 · Score: 1, Informative

> Calm your tits, it was likely a mistake, seeing how its obviously not a gambling website.

How do you explain that a "mistake" was made when the site is so "obviously not a gambling website", eh?

Someone put that "gambling" tag on that site, eh? Is it likely that the person who put that tag on donate.fsf.org did it purely by mistake when it is so obviously not a gambling site?

--
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation

Non-proprietary options? by elrous0 · 2012-06-24 01:50 · Score: 1

John Sullivan warned corporate about Microsoft's proprietary network security programs.

Are there any non-proprietary corporate network security options?

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Re:Non-proprietary options? by betterunixthanunix · 2012-06-24 01:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

First result on Google:

http://www.csoonline.com/article/597063/network-security-three-open-source-options

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Non-proprietary options? by houstonbofh · 2012-06-24 03:01 · Score: 1

I used to do some work with Untangle. And it is MUCH easier to set up than and Microsoft product...
Re:Non-proprietary options? by theshowmecanuck · 2012-06-24 06:32 · Score: 1

Proprietary security software is an oxymoron -- if the user is not fundamentally in control of the software, the user has no security.
99.999% of the users out there don't know jack shit about how to create a security application. Myself included. (Not the same as at least trying to write an application to prevent security leaks like buffer overflow etc). That said, if the user is fundamentally in control of the software, they are pretty much guaranteed to have no security. I would much rather pay money for a proprietary system written by people who know and understand security and how to create useful security apps.
If free software advocates want to be taken with any sort of credibility they need to stop with this "you can modify the code yourself" claptrap. Almost nobody does this. And nobody who isn't a real and true expert on security should ever do security software on their own. But here we are yet again, another ridiculous espousing that free software is better because you can change it yourself. When in fact, 99.999% of the people can't since they are not programmers and have no intention of being programmers. If this was so important almost every computer using person on the planet would have taken enough programming courses to become competent programmers, they would all be using Linux which would have a 99% market share, and it would run flawlessly because all these amateur programmers would have contributed to make it iron tight.
But surprise surprise, none of that is true. Proprietary systems thrive because people have other things to do than program. They work their own professions and leave programming up to people who have made programming their profession. And they are smart enough to know that they would be very stupid if they tried to program or control their own security programs. So they buy the software from people who know what they're doing. They don't use the free software because it is just too much of a pain in the ass to set up and use. ClamAV? No on access scans or malware detection. And no useful GUI. People don't want to fuck around with stuff to get it to work... they just want it to work.
If you know anything about software you will know that if people can't get a piece of software to easily... EASILY... do the things they need it to, they will use another piece of software or do it by hand. You will notice that most businesses and private users don't use Linux or BSD (aside from the Mac variant). And when they want support they don't want some guy telling them they should modify the program or control it themselves. Or being told by some wet behind the ears barely out of college never mind high school asperger tech wiz that they are lame because they didn't spend 20 hours scouring the internet and screwing with trial and error solutions to solve a problem that doesn't happen on other systems... meanwhile losing 20 hours of the time they needed to do their own job which they are paid for which is not tech support... and having to spend the weekend catching up.
And for the record, I'm writing this on a Firefox web browser, running on Kubuntu 11.10. And this is my primary machine. I keep one Windows 7 Pro box for software that won't run on this one and remote desktop to it (it doesn't even have a monitor attached). So if you want to, like a schmuck, label me some "Windoze" user, go ahead, since you'll be the schmuck. But yes, I am only on this system because my work relates more to server side systems and working on a similar (if aggravating for personal work) system makes sense.

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.

Legal Response by sociocapitalist · 2012-06-24 01:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

The FSF should sue Microsoft for loss of donations and ask for punitive damages for monopolistic anti-competitive behavior.

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial

Re:Legal Response by Ambiguous+Puzuma · 2012-06-24 03:30 · Score: 1

Yet I wouldn't be surprised if the FSF saw a small increase in donations due to this story bringing the FSF to the front of people's minds. How many readers here are thinking right now, "Oh yeah, I haven't donated to the FSF in a while, maybe I should go do that"?
Re:Legal Response by kyrio · 2012-06-24 04:20 · Score: 1

Right on. I hope they win too! They'll get that whole dollar in donations they lost and the other dollar in punitive damages! Who the fuck is donating to the FSF on company time and why can't he do it at home after work?
Re:Legal Response by sociocapitalist · 2012-06-24 04:46 · Score: 1

The point isn't work vs. home but that Microsoft is using it's power to block competition. They're not leaving it up to their customer to decide if they want to block access, but instead are miis-classifying that competitors site as a gambling site so that the customer is likely to block it as most customers are going to block gambling sites.

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:Legal Response by westlake · 2012-06-24 05:51 · Score: 1

The FSF should sue Microsoft for loss of donations and ask for punitive damages for monopolistic anti-competitive behavior.
Because the ever-paranoid geek couldn't wait to make his charitable donation from home after working hours?
But was more than willing to risk a donation to the EFF being exposed to his employer?
Re:Legal Response by LurkerXXX · 2012-06-24 06:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Or...
The FSF should realize that twdx.net, their provider, also hosts gambling sites such as http://www.poker-tester.com/ etc, and that their IP may have either been previously used by a gambling site, or was blacklisted in a block along with other gambling sites hosted at that provider.
It's nice out today and doesn't look like rain. You can take off the tin-foil hat.
Re:Legal Response by Citizen+of+Earth · 2012-06-24 07:13 · Score: 1

Illegal restraint of trade.
Re:Legal Response by sociocapitalist · 2012-06-25 19:18 · Score: 1

Doesn't work that way. The customer buys a product from Microsoft (or any other vendor who sells such, as there are several) and as part of the setup / configuration, the customer chooses which categories of site to allow and which to block. Most customers will block the category of gambling sites but will not block the categories of software development sites or the donation mechanisms attached to them. It is not Microsoft who chooses the categories.
Microsoft has, perhaps deliberately, mis-catagorized the FSF site as a gambling site perhaps in order to block it from receiving donations. This is, arguably, anti-competitive behavior that has a negative financial impact on the target organization that Microsoft should be held accountable for as they have the responsibility of accurately categorizing the sites to start with.

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial

Re:MS by jellomizer · 2012-06-24 01:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

You think there is a person in Microsoft who tags every web page out there?

The list is made by a computer to try to catagorize them based on words in the page and other links. Sometimes software makes odd mistakes.

Oh there is an exception then they fixed it.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

Are they using IE ? by phonewebcam · 2012-06-24 01:52 · Score: 1

All's fine until you try that. Like this guy, he can browse smoothly, usi .. see ... right pages using cleartype ...
oh, wait... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1zxDa3t0fg

Re:Are they using IE ? by unixisc · 2012-06-24 07:19 · Score: 1

People who want to donate to FSF on company time should BYOD to work, and then have those devices loaded up w/ GNU Hurd. Then there will be no MS firewall to go through.

Re:MS by Dan541 · 2012-06-24 01:52 · Score: 1

How do you explain that a "mistake" was made when the site is so "obviously not a gambling website", eh?

Someone put that "gambling" tag on that site, eh? Is it likely that the person who put that tag on donate.fsf.org did it purely by mistake when it is so obviously not a gambling site?

Oh, so you're one of these people who think malware, spam and virus filters are edited exclusively by humans?

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"

Never attribute to malice... by vanDrunen · 2012-06-24 01:53 · Score: 2

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Or incompetence in this case.

Re:MS by Dan541 · 2012-06-24 01:53 · Score: 1

What a load of anti microsoft tripe.

Pretty much sums it up.

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"

Re:Why is this news? by genjix · 2012-06-24 01:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

There's speculation that their accepting of Bitcoin inadvertantly categorised them as a gambling website. Bitcoin is popular for gambling sites now because of the lack of restrictions for such sites to exist compared with normal gambling sites which can take days to deposit and many hoops to jump through. It does not seem malicious or incompetent that this mistake happened.

Re:MS by Haxagon · 2012-06-24 01:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

Yes, that's pretty likely.
If Norton can mark critical system files as collections of viruses and delete them, I believe that someone at MS can mark a website incorrectly. This doesn't seem deliberate at all, given the gambling tag. It might have even been an automatic move, if MS is too cheap to hire someone to do the work.

Re:MS by BasilBrush · 2012-06-24 01:54 · Score: 2

How do you explain that a "mistake" was made when the site is so "obviously not a gambling website", eh?

Because it's using an IP address (or is within a range) that is/was also used by a gambling site?

Legal issues? by SlashRAH · 2012-06-24 01:55 · Score: 1

It seems that this could be considered an anti-competitive practice that might have some legal consequences for Microsoft. They are basically using their privileged position to prevent their own clients from donating funds to an open source 'competitor'.

Re:Legal issues? by kyrio · 2012-06-24 04:22 · Score: 1

Who, exactly, is donating to the FSF on company time, and can't make his donation after work at home, instead? Stop making idiotic comments.
Re:Legal issues? by kyrio · 2012-06-24 18:05 · Score: 1

You aren't, though. You're just mentally challenged and a liar.

Re:Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-24 01:55 · Score: 1

Because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and this is yet another example of them trying to extend their monopoly. Perhaps it is time for their corporate charter to be revoked so they do not do any more damage to the economy or to their competitors.

breast cancer web sites some times get flagged by Joe_Dragon · 2012-06-24 02:01 · Score: 1

breast cancer web sites some times get flagged as sex / pron sites.

maybe some thing on the site trigger a bot to flag it.

Re:Why is this news? by robthebloke · 2012-06-24 02:07 · Score: 5, Funny

I don't know why you say that, Microsoft have had an extremely good record supporting the installation of free software on their systems. Just look back at how easy they made it to install such common packages as the blaster virus, the chernobyl virus, conflicker, et al. Anyone who claims microsoft tries to stifle free software, hasn't really been looking at the facts.....

Re:Why is this news? by Rei · 2012-06-24 02:18 · Score: 5, Funny

I don't know who makes the ban list that my company uses, but fedora's site is blocked, classified in the category "Tasteless". Other Linux distros' sites are fine.

I think someone has a sense of humor ;)

--
Rhetorical questions suck. Why ask a question if you don't want an answer?

Who edited this article? by mpbrede · 2012-06-24 02:27 · Score: 1

The last sentence doesn't even make sense - apart from the random closing quote.

However, John Sullivan warned corporate about Microsoft's proprietary network security programs."

Re:Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-24 02:28 · Score: 5, Funny

Hi, I'm on the Microsoft firewall team. I'll explain what's going on.

First off I should say that the Free Software Foundation is in fact a type of gambling site seeing as how it can cause people to lose their sense of free market capitalism. Having free software means that for-profit software industries are losing money that would otherwise be spent on expensive and high quality software systems like Microsoft Windows. So yes the economy is losing money to free software just like gambler's lose money to the casino.

Microsoft also endeavors to protect children from obscene and immoral ideas that are related to socialism, like the free software movement. So yes, "free software" is among the words on our block list. Other dangerous words that we will protect children from are:

gun control
global warming
evolution
Noam Chomsky
Canada
medical marijuana
Green Peace
Al Jazeera
Julian Assange
Israeli Apartheid
corporate welfare
union
taxation
Digital Restrictions Management
public school teacher
anal probe

Re:MS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-24 02:34 · Score: 1

Sometimes software makes odd mistakes.

Especially when that software is written by... Microsoft.

Abusing their monopoly??? by jmac_the_man · 2012-06-24 02:34 · Score: 1

Way too many people are hung up on the idea of Microsoft "abusing its monopoly" by accidentally blocking the FSF's donation page. Let's pretend Microsoft had a monopoly on web filters or something. Does preventing people from donating to the FSF make it more likely that people will donate to Microsoft's Open Source charity? Since Microsoft doesn't have an Open Source charity, I'd guess no.

Re:Abusing their monopoly??? by kyrio · 2012-06-24 04:25 · Score: 1

Oh, of course, the employee who scans millions of websites a day and adds the "bad" ones to a list did it. Your comment was so insightful.
Re:Abusing their monopoly??? by Kalriath · 2012-06-24 16:22 · Score: 1

Well, maybe it does make people more likely to donate to Microsoft's Open Source charity, the Codeplex Foundation. But I strongly doubt this is the case.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Re:Abusing their monopoly??? by jaymemaurice · 2012-06-25 15:58 · Score: 1

Maybe a FSF web developer added PICS-Label meta tag before a crawl and the MS Software picked it up... why do we always blame/assume Microsoft?!
I highly doubt they do not outsource their content rating to websense or some other
<HEAD>
<META http-equiv="PICS-Label" content='(PICS-1.1 "http://www.icra.org"
labels on "1970.01.01T00:00-0000"
until "2036.01.19T23:59-0000"
for "http://www.fsf.org"
by "IRAN"
rating (gambling 2 language 0 nudity 0 violence 0))'>
</HEAD>

--
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone

Rocky's Response by archer,+the · 2012-06-24 02:36 · Score: 3, Funny

Ah, Bullwinkle, that trick never works.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-06-24 02:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Shocked?? by Yew2 · 2012-06-24 02:41 · Score: 2

Microsoft has ALWAYS behaved this way. How many 3rd party applications or features have /.ers discovered dont work properly in Windows when there is anything remotely resembling a competitive product offered by Microsoft...anyone ever try to use hotmail in non-IE browsers or chat on msn via trillian? Browsers in general for those of us that remember the big IE integrated with windows debate/doj case and the resulting minor concession MS was forced to make. I am not just talking about when MS updates Windows and your display drivers start causing bsods and you grab a vendor update and its fixed, I mean real anti-competitive practices in Microsoft's consumer and enterprise products... If I sat here and thought about it I know I would have a long list - what about u? How many times have you all looked straight up and raged GAAAAAAAATES!!

--
will work for dragon quest localization

Re:Shocked?? by heypete · 2012-06-24 02:50 · Score: 1

anyone ever try to use hotmail in non-IE browsers or chat on msn via trillian?
Er, yes. It works fine.
I don't think I've ever had problems with Hotmail and non-IE browsers since the service was founded. Of course, I usually just use Hotmail for throwaway junk accounts but I've never had any issues.
I don't use Trillian, but Pidgin works fine with MSN chat.
Microsoft has done some shady things in the past, but it'd seem rather foolish for them to screw around with their major services like Hotmail and MSN Chat...
Re:Shocked?? by elrous0 · 2012-06-24 03:46 · Score: 1

I've never once had any trouble running any 3rd-party software on Windows. Apple's walled garden worries me WAY more than anything MS has ever done.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Shocked?? by im_thatoneguy · 2012-06-24 11:31 · Score: 1

If software not working properly is evidence that someone is blocking it in order to further their own gains... then a lot of the software I try to run on linux must be competing with an open source offering that greased the Kernel dev's palms. :P
Either that or the obvious truth is that shit doesn't always work perfectly because platforms have bugs. But there's nooooo way that's the case. Clearly it's a conspiracy!

Re:Why is this news? by houstonbofh · 2012-06-24 02:50 · Score: 1

Bitcoin is popular for gambling sites now because of the lack of restrictions for such sites to exist compared with normal gambling sites which can take days to deposit and many hoops to jump through.

Bitcoin is getting more popular with everyone as PayPal continues to strive for new levels of asshatery. Unfortunately, I see this happening more. I also see myself looking more into bitcoin...

Re:Why is this news? by marcello_dl · 2012-06-24 02:50 · Score: 1

There's speculation that a security program that ends up classifying sites featuring bitcoin as gambling, sucks.
What is the reason behind this mistake/sabotage/whatever? who cares.

--
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol

Microsoft network security tools by 1s44c · 2012-06-24 02:50 · Score: 1

Microsoft have a terrifying security history, who is using their network security tools?

Can someone give me a list of those companies so I can make sure I don't deal with them?

Re:Microsoft network security tools by mystikkman · 2012-06-24 05:57 · Score: 1

Here are some:
Not network security but built on .NET.
StackOverflow.
Newegg.
Plentyoffish.
Geico.
Re:Microsoft network security tools by 1s44c · 2012-06-24 08:30 · Score: 2

Here are some:
Not network security but built on .NET.
Here is a list of fish:
cod
salmon
place
haddock
What was your point again?

Re:share/freeware by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-24 02:52 · Score: 3, Funny

Well Ubuntu is the Fisher Price of Linux.

Re:Why is this news? by jrumney · 2012-06-24 03:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

There's speculation that their accepting of Bitcoin inadvertantly categorised them as a gambling website. ... It does not seem malicious or incompetent that this mistake happened.

That looks pretty incompetent to me.

Re:Why is this news? by elrous0 · 2012-06-24 03:38 · Score: 4, Funny

I concur that we should do everything in our power to protect our children from anal probe.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Re:MS by ericloewe · 2012-06-24 03:42 · Score: 1

Anyone is "too cheap" to hire people to do the work. You just write the bot and have a small team or two go over the reported false-positives and such

Re:Antivirus vendors & false positives... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-24 03:45 · Score: 1

If you'll excuse me AC'ing on this,
the most amusing thing here, from my point of view, is that only last week I pulled the corporate edition of the AV suite from 'Macdubhsith' from a client's machine as it had allowed 20 different Trojans to infect it (Infections spotted by the four other virus scanners I have, mbam and spybot, and confirmed by submitting a sample infected file to virustotal).

Somehow, the fact that their software flags a non-trojan application as a Trojan does not surprise me in the least.

Agreed by Weezul · 2012-06-24 03:53 · Score: 1

I'd agree that fsf.org was almost surely miss-categorized by a filtering algorithm.

In particular, Microsoft has surely added filters that reduce the possibility that Windows users happen upon software that directly competes with Microsoft's offerings.

In principle, they'd avoid blocking important sites like fsf.org, but presumably they block less important stuff. It's simply that fsf.org fell through the cracks.

--
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell

Re:Agreed by icebraining · 2012-06-24 04:26 · Score: 2

FSF.org doesn't offer software. You'd have a point if they had blocked Gnu.org.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Agreed by davester666 · 2012-06-24 05:09 · Score: 1

They offer gambling licenses.
As in, in Microsoft's opinion, it's a gamble for any business to include code that's licensed using the GPL, because you might have to open-source all code that business has ever developed.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Agreed by RobbieThe1st · 2012-06-24 05:44 · Score: 1

FUD, as I'm sure you know(I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, so I'll assume not). Worst thing that can happen is you'll not be able to sell your product again and you may be open to a copyright-related lawsuit resulting in some money lost, but noone can force you to open your code.
Re:Agreed by maxwell+demon · 2012-06-24 06:21 · Score: 1

Well, he explicitly qualified it as "in Microsoft's opinion".

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

Windows users are gamblers in themselves by GoodNewsJimDotCom · 2012-06-24 04:11 · Score: 1

Since Microsoft has no desire to secure its OS, you can get a virus at the slightest thing. It wouldn't be difficult to secure Windows OS. Just secure it so things can't be installed outside the directory you put them in, and can't affect things outside that directory. Leave a backwards compatibility mode for those who's systems rely on legacy software.

--
God spoke to me

Re:share/freeware by Ash-Fox · 2012-06-24 04:15 · Score: 1

Well Ubuntu is the Fisher Price of Linux.

Pretty sure Xandros fits that description better.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

Re:Why is this news? by mister_playboy · 2012-06-24 04:15 · Score: 2

I think someone has a sense of humor ;)

Maybe they don't like systemd...

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will

Re:Why is this news? by joetainment · 2012-06-24 04:29 · Score: 2

I'm Canadian, and upon reading that part I burst into laughter loud enough that people are now asking me what was so funny.

Re:Well, here's what happens in those cases... by icebraining · 2012-06-24 04:32 · Score: 1

Go away, APK, and stop shilling your software.

--
Dilbert RSS feed

Re:MS by squiggleslash · 2012-06-24 04:40 · Score: 1

How do you explain that a "mistake" was made when the site is so "obviously not a gambling website", eh?

You're right! A mistake is when someone classifies something CORRECTLY! If the FSF site clearly WAS a gambling site, it would have obviously been a mistake, but because the FSF's site WASN'T, it clearly was ON PURPOSE!!!?!

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Re:Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-24 04:43 · Score: 5, Funny

"Whatcha ya laughin' aboot, eh?"

"You'll love this, someone mentioned Canada, eh."

"Ooh, ya, that's a good one, eh!"

Corporate structure = cover for the perfect crime by bussdriver · 2012-06-24 04:49 · Score: 1

Some employee could be acting alone to do such things; but then the lack of documentation allows for the perfect cover. Unless required to keep emails and memos for every action and a policy or law to retain those in a secure fashion you can't be sure of WHO is behind many actions performed.

Obviously, SOMEBODY does it but with a chain of command it is so much easier to spread, dilute, and HIDE blame.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news

Re:Why is this news? by TheMMaster · 2012-06-24 05:05 · Score: 5, Funny

Yes! Don't let children near priests!

--
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity

Re:Why is this news? by xigxag · 2012-06-24 05:20 · Score: 1

Your parent is agreeing that it's a mistake. But probably a mistake due to a slightly overzealous filter as opposed to gross incompetence. Even highly competent individuals/organizations make mistakes.

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.

Summer Slashdotter, or what? by Qubit · 2012-06-24 05:23 · Score: 1

Who is John Sullivan? What "corporate" did he warn about Microsoft's propietary network security programs? Is with [sic] the FSF?

Where have you been? Sullivan's been with the FSF for about a decade.

--

coding is life /* the rest is */

Re:Failure to notice where you are. by Xtifr · 2012-06-24 05:44 · Score: 1

What if trying to donate on behalf of your company, which still uses MS on the desktop, but has a server room filled with FSF software (in other words, if you're a typical modern company).

Re:Why is this news? by beltsbear · 2012-06-24 05:57 · Score: 1

I would say it is just speculation. The biggest Bitcoin sites are NOT blocked by microsoft such as bitcointalk.org and mtgox.com. Microsoft is not scanning for bitcoin or bitcoin addresses alone to make this (wrong) call. There has to be something more to it.

Re:Why is this news? by Angeret · 2012-06-24 06:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

While I think that both sides in this debate/war are behaving like asshats, I do believe that you are tarring a whole nation with a rather broad brush here. The fact that a certain number of stupid people from either side wish to keep on killing doesn't justify the current Israeli policy (quietly supported by the US) of starving the population out of existence. And if you're looking for citations & quotes, fuck off, I really cannot be bothered today.

Re:Why is this news? by fritsd · 2012-06-24 06:12 · Score: 2

Well, I don't mean to complain, but they DO use those RPM packages instead of the blessèd tasty .deb packages.

Besides, have you ever tried to eat a fedora hat? Well then.

--
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?

Re:Why is this news? by flyingfsck · 2012-06-24 06:13 · Score: 4, Funny

Yankee go home, eh? Don't come over here just fer cheap shoppin, meds and weed and then poke fun at us, eh? Lest we thump yer ass and burn the white house down agin, eh?

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!

Re:Why is this news? by flyingfsck · 2012-06-24 06:15 · Score: 1

"It does not seem malicious or incompetent" I guess it must be religion then...

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!

BS Legal Response by xigxag · 2012-06-24 06:16 · Score: 3, Informative

FSF has no grounds to sue Microsoft, even if this is deliberate. Microsoft has no monopoly or close to it in the webfilter arena. Microsoft isn't secretly mucking with dns or some other blatantly illegal action. Client corporations voluntarily elect to use Microsoft's security software to control their own traffic. MS makes no claims that it is 100% accurate. Additionally, MS has procedures in place to correct a misclassification. And even if they didn't, there's no standard by which third-party private web filters are actionable, other than say, breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. But in that case, the proper plaintiff would be Microsoft's customer, not FSF.

Oh, FSF might lose some donations? How is that MS's problem? FSF's suing Microsoft is like advertisers suing the makers of NoScript and Adblock for depriving them of eyeballs.

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.

Re:BS Legal Response by theCoder · 2012-06-24 08:07 · Score: 1

The FSF could conceivably bring a slander (or in this case, libel) case against MS. After all, MS is telling a third party (their customers) something false about the FSF that could conceivably cause damages. It's that last part that's tricky though. It would be tricky to prove any actual damages.
It's probably worth more to the FSF as PR to get people sympathetic to their cause to donate more money. It's kind of like how political party X likes the most extreme member of party Y because they can use what that person says and does to raise money from their own members.

--
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
Re:BS Legal Response by bmo · 2012-06-24 18:45 · Score: 1

>FSF has no grounds to sue Microsoft, even if this is deliberate. Microsoft has no monopoly or close to it in the webfilter arena.
Lanham act.

(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which --
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities,
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
(2) As used in this subsection, the term "any person" includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
(3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this chapter for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.

In other words, if you slander or libel a trademark holder and do economic damage to the good name of the trademark holder, you are liable for damages.
--
BMO
Re:BS Legal Response by jpvlsmv · 2012-06-25 07:45 · Score: 1

FSF has no grounds to sue Microsoft, even if this is deliberate. Microsoft has no monopoly or close to it in the webfilter arena.

Yet another person who doesn't understand antitrust law.
A party that has monopoly power in one market MUST NOT take actions (even in another market) that unfairly sustain that monopoly, or extend that monopoly to other competitive markets.
--Joe
Re:BS Legal Response by bmo · 2012-06-25 08:38 · Score: 1

Totally ignoring the Sherman Antitrust act, the FSF has an open-and-shut case using the Lanham Act. Really, there isn't any debating about it. Microsoft spread the lie that the FSF is a gambling site and impacted the FSF monetarily. That's just as much libel as if I took out an ad in the newspaper calling you a criminal with no basis in fact.
And that guy gets modded up, which is fucking ridiculous.
--
BMO
Re:BS Legal Response by xigxag · 2012-06-25 13:52 · Score: 1

Lol, "that guy."
If you are so sure that FSF has an "open and shut" case why don't you offer to represent them on contingency? Easy money, right?

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Re:BS Legal Response by bmo · 2012-06-25 14:14 · Score: 1

>get proven wrong by the actual text of the law.
>attempt to ridicule
Yup.
Meet your new status.
--
BMO
Re:BS Legal Response by xigxag · 2012-06-25 15:03 · Score: 1

Laws don't "prove" anything. Winning a case in court proves something. If Lanham applied here, and if this was a slam-dunk, then FSF would be litigating right now, especially given Stallman's antipathy toward Microsoft. The fact that they aren't should tell you something. If at some point they change their minds, and take MS to court, and prevail, I'll happily eat crow.

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Re:BS Legal Response by bmo · 2012-06-25 15:10 · Score: 1

>The fact that they aren't should tell you something.
This *just happened* and you expect them to file a lawsuit without doing any research first? Without trying other solutions first, In the first week? You are what, 12 years old?
I merely countered your assertion that Microsoft was not in the wrong, legally, which you still haven't even provided a link to back up anything you've said. I've cited the law. Your move.
--
BMO
Re:BS Legal Response by xigxag · 2012-06-25 17:58 · Score: 1

It seems to me that since you're now admitting that other solutions rather than litigation might be preferable, in other words, that it's not an "open and shut case" as you previously asserted, then we're done. But, regarding the statutory issue you raised, I'd suggest taking a look at this article, where it points out that the provision of the Lanham Act which you cited, S 43(a)(1)(B) contains the requirement

that the challenged description or representation be made “in commercial advertising
or promotion.” That provision was added to address First
Amendment concerns by excluding from the reach of
Section 43(a)(1)(B) “political promotion” and “‘consumer or
editorial content, parodies, satires, or other constitutionally
protected material.’”...Perhaps for this reason, the courts—to the extent they
consider the statutory language at all—frequently focus on
whether a defendant is engaged in advertising or promotion,
rather than on whether the challenged description or
representation is commercial speech.

In other words, there's only a violation under sub(B) of this statute when "advertising or promotion" is taking place. MS Forefront Threat Management Gateway isn't for the purpose of advertising or promotion; it's arguably a type of editorial service. And sub(A) doesn't really apply here, it's more concerning a situation where say hypothetically Microsoft had started referring to itself as the "Fun Software Foundation" so they could start saying "Richard Stallman loves us. We're the FSF, after all."
As well, see here. I still contend that none of this stuff has anything to do with making a mistake in rating a website.

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Re:BS Legal Response by bmo · 2012-06-25 18:42 · Score: 1

There is a logical OR between parts A and B.
If you read 1 and A, Microsoft is hosed. B can be ignored because it's an OR dependency, not an AND.
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which --
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person
Try reading again.
--
BMO
Re:BS Legal Response by bmo · 2012-06-25 18:47 · Score: 1

And to follow up, I anticipate that you are going to say that I am arguing semantics.
Logical operators in laws mean the same thing in language as they do in math and symbolic logic (also math).
--
BMO
Re:BS Legal Response by xigxag · 2012-06-25 20:00 · Score: 1

The part that you highlighted, "approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person" is regarding third party endorsements. In other words, the statute is referring to when, for example, a celebrity is made to look like they endorse a particular product when in fact they do not. Which, as I explained earlier, is why sub(A) is not pertinent to this discussion. Here's a 9th circuit decision mentioning this matter. It says, in part:

Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), prohibits the use of false designations of origin, false descriptions, and false representations in the advertising and sale of goods and services. Waits' claim under section 43(a) is premised on the theory that by using an imitation of his distinctive voice in an admitted parody of a Tom Waits song, the defendants misrepresented his association with and endorsement of SalsaRio Doritos.
At this point, if you still care about this matter, I can only suggest that you research the subject on your own or find an attorney who will be willing to look up further case law.

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Re:BS Legal Response by xigxag · 2012-06-25 20:01 · Score: 1

I agree with you here. But see my above as to why sub(A) is not germane to this topic.

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Re:BS Legal Response by bmo · 2012-06-25 20:32 · Score: 1

Each of those things under B are connected by OR statements.
What you cited doesn't have to be tied to the last bit that I bolded.
>whether I care
At this point, I don't any more. You're not a lawyer even though you are trying to pretend to be one. I'm not a lawyer, but I can logic and I can read. The cases you are citing are not applicable to this situation because they are about different parts of that stuff between the ORs.
I would be more inclined to agree with your side if you actually cited cases that were applicable.
--
BMO
Re:BS Legal Response by bmo · 2012-06-25 20:34 · Score: 1

I goofed the first sentence. It should read:
Each of those things under B and A are connected by OR statements.
--
BMO
Re:BS Legal Response by bmo · 2012-06-25 20:39 · Score: 1

Incidentally, I removed the foe status, because I set it in a fit of pique.
--
BMO

Re:It's a Win32/64 app's why most likely by BronsCon · 2012-06-24 06:37 · Score: 1

of course, from experience here? Anyone posting AC is usually a troll also!

There, fixed that for ya

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.

Re:MS by djmurdoch · 2012-06-24 06:40 · Score: 1

At least if you're paying Microsoft for the service, they're obliged to fix it.

Can you show me where they guarantee to fix bugs? All I've ever seen is a denial of liability. They'll say it performs "substantially as advertised" for 90 days, but no more than that.

On the other hand, most open source software explicitly denies all warranty, but is still more responsive to bug reports.

Re:Don't forget teen prostitutes... by gmack · 2012-06-24 07:43 · Score: 1

Strangely enough that same story ran in Canada about teens in the midwest united states.

The movie you are referring to is "Canadian Bacon", a film written by John Candy and Michael Moore.

Re:Don't forget teen prostitutes... by mhotchin · 2012-06-24 08:08 · Score: 1

Perhaps 'Canadian Bacon'?

MS Artificial Unintelligence by cpghost · 2012-06-24 09:27 · Score: 2

In all likelihood, this will prove to be a false positive generated by some poorly engineered classification algorithm at Microsoft. I dislike Microsoft as much as everyone else, but c'mon guys, this is so obviously bogus that it can't be malice. Even if it is Microsoft we're talking about here. IMHO, it's a clear case of MSAU (MS Artificial Unintelligence) at work.

--
cpghost at Cordula's Web.

What element is spoon? by tepples · 2012-06-24 09:58 · Score: 1

Crasoose is a bunny licking spoon bender!

"Bunny licking" I get: helping a rabbit with its hygiene. As for the rest, I know of air bending, water bending, fire bending, and earth bending, but what traditional element is "spoon"?

Re:Antivirus vendors & false positives... apk by marcosdumay · 2012-06-24 10:03 · Score: 2

So, you wrote a self modifying .exe that writtes on the hosts file, and you didn't imagine it would be tagged as a trojan?

I'd advice you to not compress the next version of your software, or if you really must, use a normal zip algorithm, using mainstream lib.

--
Rethinking email

Thanks Microsoft by boxfetish · 2012-06-24 10:16 · Score: 1

For convincing me to become a contributing member of the FSF today.

Re:Why is this news? by marcosdumay · 2012-06-24 10:27 · Score: 1

Debian.org is classified with "Tecnical Information" that is good, and "Shareware/Freeware" that MS classify as bad. I don't know if it is enough to block the site.

--
Rethinking email

Re:Why is this news? by gmhowell · 2012-06-24 11:10 · Score: 1

Debian.org is classified with "Tecnical Information" that is good, and "Shareware/Freeware" that MS classify as bad. I don't know if it is enough to block the site.

Does Microsoft classify as good vs. bad, or do they just categorize and leave it to users to set up local policies for which they block?

I know which way it is for the site blocking software where I work...

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

Re:Why is this news? by Falconhell · 2012-06-24 11:14 · Score: 1

Well said sir, but truth like this is sure to be modded down.

Re:Why is this news? by Kalriath · 2012-06-24 11:33 · Score: 1

"Tasteless"? Sounds like it could be Websense.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

Re:Do you OWN /., boy? No... by icebraining · 2012-06-24 12:04 · Score: 1

Nobody cares what you've done. We just don't want to get hit by you constantly self-masturbating over your own stuff. If you're a great programmer and you have nothing to prove, why do you insist on doing so? It's just sad.

--
Dilbert RSS feed

Indeed by Burz · 2012-06-24 12:17 · Score: 1

Never trust people who wish you to hold two mutually-exclusive things to be 'true'. We need to come up with a name for people like that. I don't think 'fanboy' does it justice.

Re:MS by wrook · 2012-06-24 12:37 · Score: 1

You think there is a person in Microsoft who tags every web page out there?

You think there isn't a person in microsoft who tags some web pages out there? It's not an all or nothing situation. It is certainly possible (even overwhelmingly likely, IMHO) that the list is made by a computer and then modified by humans. A human certainly could block a handful of sites that Microsoft doesn't like. They almost certainly do this for sites that don't get picked up by their heuristics. There aren't going to be that many you would want to block.

Does that mean it is not a mistake? No, but I would very much like to hear what criteria made their filter identify the FSF donation page as a gambling site. The fact that it accepts BitCoin has been brought up as a possibility. If this were the only criteria, then I think it would indicate that their filtering is very poor. Other explanations are more likely, IMHO (including the possibility of some employee or group of employees overreaching their authority).

Entirely co-incidental .. by dgharmon · 2012-06-24 12:53 · Score: 1

"This is of course entirely co-incidental. Microsoft is an ethical company that would never stoop to breaking its own software in order to defeat a competitor.

Net greeting card company alleges Microsoft is trying to destroy them

--
AccountKiller

Re:MS by Kalriath · 2012-06-24 13:00 · Score: 1

For average customers no. But if you're an enterprise customer, by dammit you can expect that fix.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

One gigantic strawman .. by dgharmon · 2012-06-24 13:10 · Score: 1

He said control - not write your own code. The rest of your piece is just one gigantic strawman.

--
AccountKiller

Re:One gigantic strawman .. by theshowmecanuck · 2012-06-24 13:50 · Score: 1

Did you learn the expression 'strawman' on slashdot? What the fuck do you think he meant by control? He meant all aspects. Another super literal nitwit heard from.

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.

Re:Corporate structure = cover for the perfect cri by jmac_the_man · 2012-06-24 13:13 · Score: 1

Your reply has nothing to do with monopoly abuse. If you want to post about some crazy conspiracy, write your own post. Don't piggyback off of mine.

Speculation over mistake? by dgharmon · 2012-06-24 13:19 · Score: 1

"There's speculation that their accepting of Bitcoin inadvertantly categorised them as a gambling website"

Does the speculation have any idea why no other site using bitcoin were equally labeled?

--
AccountKiller

For your protection by Waccoon · 2012-06-24 13:46 · Score: 1

Given that this software is designed for corporate networks, I don't see this as bad as all the "safe browsing" stuff that's being put into web browsers these days. Automated blocking isn't really something we should be pushing with regards to things like gambling. Save the blocking (with overrides) for malware sites.

Also, do corporations have to use Microsoft's Reputation Service, or are they able to add/remove sites themselves? The comment from the FSF about the proprietary nature of Microsoft's software make it sound like any level of manual control is impossible. Is it?

One thing that isn't mentioned in the article is whether this security suite is meant for use by ISPs. Does it only work on corporate servers on their own intranet, or is this something that could potentially block people's home computers from accessing the FSF donation site? If it only affects corporate networks, claiming it could prevent people from making donations to the FSF is unnecessary and sounds like attention whoring to me.

I hate to sound like a devil's advocate, but I'd like more facts and less bashing.

Correction submitted by PPH · 2012-06-24 13:55 · Score: 1

Anyone know the odds on Microsoft fixing this is?

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Gambling...... by InspectorGadget1964 · 2012-06-24 13:56 · Score: 1

Well, I guess M$ is taking a gamble at trying not reduce the money goint to FSF.....

Re:Why is this news? by dakohli · 2012-06-24 14:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Of course the panel front and center which reads:

Stand up for your freedom to install free software
!
Join 30,000 people in opposing Microsoft's Restricted Boot by signing this statement

Has nothing to do with it.

Re:Why is this news? by xigxag · 2012-06-24 15:21 · Score: 1

That theory fails to account for one thing: Cui bono?

How does Microsoft possibly stand to gain by effectively drawing more attention to FSF's campaign? Because that's the only conceiveable outcome to such a ham-fisted method of thwarting an opponent. Well that and destroying their clients' trust in their security suite. All to stop a minuscule percentage of the Internet (the small group consisting of the intersection of MS Forefront users and free-software enthusiasts) from looking at a homepage panel.

Or do people think that MS somehow thought they could squash the FSF's website with nobody in the tech world noticing it was off the Internet, and mua-ha-ha mission accomplished; now there's no one to stand in the way of Secure Boot!

Like most conspiracy theories, this requires the evil villain to have wickedly schemed 20 steps ahead of everyone else (step one, plant a birth announcement in a Seattle newspaper in 1955) yet somehow incapable of seeing the simple obvious flaws in the master plan.

I'm gonna make up a theory that Stallman sabotaged MS's security himself in order to cleverly mock the notion of Microsoft "secure"-ing anything, boot or otherwise. And to remind people that FSF still exists.

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.

Re:It's a Win32/64 app's why most likely by jaymemaurice · 2012-06-24 16:11 · Score: 1

*wooosssshhhhh*

Maybe AC was trying to be Funny and posted AC in fears the humor would be missed and modded down. I mean, this is slashdot, the home of linux geeks and the thread is about the FSF. I don't think he downloaded your software, or wants to try it, or is running Slackware or deserves the negative connotation of "troll" with such obvious dry humor.

--
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone

Re:Why is this news? by Maritz · 2012-06-24 17:24 · Score: 1

anal probe

And vagina, surely.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.

Re:Why is this news? by Maritz · 2012-06-24 17:25 · Score: 1

That should've been 'or' probably. Shouldn't post when up to 6am I guess.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.

Fuck you Microsoft by diego.viola · 2012-06-24 18:34 · Score: 1

Fuck off.

Re:Why is this news? by dakohli · 2012-06-24 21:55 · Score: 1

Nicely stated.

Of course, as with all gaffes, whether it was:

A) Malicious/Overzealous employee

B) Innocent Mistake

C) Nefarious Plot

The most important thing will be how it is dealt with after the fact. If it takes too long to fix, or if there is an overly complex explanation, there will be Streisand Effect and the optics will be murky. Any time Corporations use filters that someone else maintains, this sort of thing is bound to happen. Look at the debates that rage over filters in use at schools and homes.

You can't really win, because there are too many folks ready to jump on these mistakes and use them to beat the drum of self righteousness.

Re:Why is this news? by petman · 2012-06-24 22:24 · Score: 1

fedora.org has a picture of a dog in hot dog buns.
The web site of the Linux distro is fedoraproject.org.

--
Dropbox drops it like it's hot.

Re:Why is this news? by petman · 2012-06-24 22:29 · Score: 1

Are you sure you got the right site for fedora? Did you type in fedora.org? In which case, tasteless is correct, unless you like the taste of puppies.
Try http://fedoraproject.org.

--
Dropbox drops it like it's hot.

Re:MS by Dan541 · 2012-06-25 01:50 · Score: 1

Except Microsoft is rotten to the core.

How? Oh.... they charge for their product.

MS sure has engaged the wrath of the hippies.

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"

Re:Why is this news? by Krojack · 2012-06-25 03:25 · Score: 1

And keep an eye on those assistant football coaches!

Re:Why is this news? by marcosdumay · 2012-06-25 05:38 · Score: 1

They have a red icon with an "x", and a green icon with a check. I think that is calling things good or bad, altough somebody may disagree.

--
Rethinking email

Re:Wrong on ALL counts on your part... apk by marcosdumay · 2012-06-25 05:47 · Score: 1

I didn't say your program was malicius, and the anti-virus was right tagging it. All I said is that it does some things that normaly raise the suspicion of anti-virus (because lots of virus do them), and one should expect some of them to tag you because of that. Yes, they are wrong, but one could easily immagine that they'd be wrong and protect oneself beforehand, avoiding all the trouble.

--
Rethinking email

Re:No, I asked what YOU have done (zero) by icebraining · 2012-06-25 07:40 · Score: 1

No, I asked what YOU have done

Yes, I know, but I have nothing to prove to you, unlike you who apparently are in need of social validation.

And if you want to take this as an admission of my "worthlessness", be my guest, I literally couldn't care less. I know the programmers I admire and they ain't the authors of Shareware #4352 on some god-awful Windows 'zine. And they certainly don't have such a low self-esteem to be constantly showing how big their balls are.

But I see my case is hopeless, so I'll stop wasting my time with it. And you can stop wasting yours too, since your posts will be invisible to me from now on.

Take care.

--
Dilbert RSS feed

Stop. Stop. Stop. by Benfea · 2012-06-25 07:42 · Score: 1

Look, I'm a liberal, and I found this to be funny. He was pretending to be from Microsoft and was pretending to be a FOX News zombie, and in that character he listed off a bunch of phrases that any conservolibertarian might want to block for fear that any site using such a phrase might also contain information contrary to the usual right wing propaganda. I do not believe the author's intent was to offer any actual commentary on any of the phrases nor was there any intent in trivializing any of the issues associated with those phrases. It was simply a list of phrases likely to make a right wingnut fearful and/or angry.

The target of this humor was Microsoft and to a lesser extent conservolibertarians. I do not think any slight to the severity of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was intended.

Hyperbole? Maybe. by Benfea · 2012-06-25 07:46 · Score: 1

But the reason this has traction is that Microsoft has a long history of doing sleazy things to undermine those it considers competition. I do think Microsoft has improved in this regard and finally understands how it hurts their public perception when they do underhanded things to competitors, but the public still remembers how Microsoft used to be, and you can't really blame people for jumping to these particular conclusions. If Microsoft hasn't done so many things like this in the past, then stories like this wouldn't gain traction without firmer evidence to back it up.

Re:You're off topic ac troll by BronsCon · 2012-06-25 18:37 · Score: 1

Well, to be an "off topic ac troll", I'd have to post AC. Since I, unlike you, APK, am still allowed to log in and have plenty of karma to burn, I don't bother with that checkbox. I just post as I see fit and let the banned trolls like yourself hide behind the AC badge. You do realize you're only still here because Slashdot *chooses* to allow anon posting without requiring a login first, and not because you've figured out some genius way around the system, right? You're just as much within the system as you were when you were actually allowed to log in.

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.

Re:Wrong again (you're on a roll, lol)... apk by BronsCon · 2012-06-26 06:14 · Score: 1

Hahahaha you're so full of yourself. It's funny that you state that you can't trust someone else's word because they posted AC, but you insist on posting AC and think anyone really cares that you were able to spend hours compiling a list of every post you've ever made that was modded up. Some of us have better things to do; that's why I'm only dropping by to point this out, rather than spending way too much time to tear down every aspect of your flawed logic. Yes, it would be easy, but it would be too time consuming to cover all the bases and, as I've already stated, I have better things to do.

More to the point, you can state that you've only had one account and that you no longer log in to it because you don't know the password, but you can't prove either of thise things. Perhaps you have multiple accounts, you can't prove you don't, just like I can't prove that you do. Perhaps you simply don't use the one you admit to having anymore because of, well, any number of reasons not relating to forgetting a password. Nobody can prove either way, and there's no sense bickering about it when there's code to be written and a wife to fuck.

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.

Re:Why is this news? by shentino · 2012-06-26 06:50 · Score: 1

These are the same guys that made Windows Vista after all.

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft Blocks FSF Donation Website As a 'Gambling Site'

190 of 301 comments (clear)