Yes, but life is never quite that simple is it?
They don't advertise any service level agreements, and explicitly state there are no warranties in the TOC. This is OK, but there is also law regarding the inequity of charging for something and not delivering it, regardless of the terms of the alleged contract. In case you're wondering why anybody signs up to this, it's still better than the alternatives. Our best hope for the future is the local loop unbundling, but BT are either dragging their feet or doing a very good impression - there's a huge row brewing about this and it's not going away. ----
Actually here in the UK ADSL users (the only one sort of DSL most people can get) have NO guarantee of anything. Forget 80% guaranteed bandwith, here BT don't even guarantee to provide a service at all, but they still take your money. This hasn't yet gone to court but I doubt it will take long. BT are still an effective monopoly and are fighting tooth and nail not to play fair with any other telecoms company (or at least that's how they appear to me), and the regulatory body (oftel) seems either unwilling or unable to regulate. The more this country goes to pot the more I like being part of the EU. ----
Exactly, so any encrypted messages that are intercepted are very likely to be concerning illegal activities. Therefore the FBI/CIA/MI5/MI6 etc will waste less time decoding emails from/. reader about a certain Star Wars actress. It would be a net win for the cops because they can waste less resources on trivia - at least that's probably how they would see it. ----
That isn't Christianity - it might be how Christianity has been perverted by some of the 'churches'. Sex is supposed to be something you only do with your spouse but it is also supposed to be joyful - which is much nicer than mere fun! ----
Good points, as I said - I don't know where to draw the line:-( I think that it basically comes down to oversight - who monitors the LEAs. We can't afford to trust them - they're only normal people after all.
I know it's an old chestnut but what about what the US Secret Service did to Steve Jackson Games? Is it OK to for a LEA to (nearly) put a company out of besiness and never say sorry? No charges were ever brought. And it's far from isolated or peculiar to the US. It's the difficult cases that ought to instruct the lawmaking. A lot of the laws where 'take it down because we say so' applies end up both overused and oppresive. On their website Buffnet indicate that they copped a plea because it was too much time and money to fight, even though their previous relations with the police were good - are they going to be cooperative in future or require warrants whenever applicable? And what about the other ISPs in the jurisdiction with news servers, were ANY of them 'required' to take the same action as Buffnet, and if not why not?
As I said I don't know where, or how, to draw the line but I think we need to look at what could happen. ----
There is nothing so dangerous as a man with a little education.
Except, possibly, a person with NO education?:-) (That wasn't aimed at anybody in particular)
Seriously, if a succession of Governments was able to carry off a fake on this scale we'd all be in big trouble. The solipsist and the paranoaic in me take turns in wondering how much of what I know is true, and how much is fiction perpetrated by 'some oppressors'. No, I don't really believe that but it's an interesting premise to think through when depressed. Just because The Matrix and The Truman Show (to mention but 2) used the idea doesn't mean that there is no mileage still in it. ----
Given the differences in attitude between the US an EU regarding privacy etc I can't see this being legal in the EU after the first lawsuit in the European Court of Human Rights. The implication being that it will have to be removed/not present for EU sales. That being so and the internet being global you 'merkins could import some of your goods from the EU to get non-tagged items. ----
This brings a whole new meaning to Neighbourhood Watch! If the range ends up being a bit greater (10 metres say?) I can see crooks 'scanning' an area to see which are the best houses to rob. This makes casing a joint a lot easier - just fit a gps unit, a laptop and a tag scanner into a briefcase and go for a drive. This might be a new 'job' opportunity, is it illegal to sell information obtained in such a manner - after all no law was broken in acquiring it? Let's hope it would be covered by conspiracy but I think it would be hard to convice a jury. My house looks like all the others in my street but I suspect has more high-tech electronics than the rest. If this goes ahead how long before people start making Faraday cages out of their home - that would go nicely with the tin foil hats.... ----
Books are designed for a certain presentation size aren't they? The designer/publisher/layout artist or whoever is doing the work (not sure of the job description) knows the size of paper that the work is going to be presented on. This helps, as does using Pantone if you have colour print requirements. The publisher can have total control of the presentation medium. On the web the 'publishing' site has little control over the presentation of the page. I can turn off, Javascript, turn off images, change the background, overide CSS etc - and that's without going into screen resolution of colour issues. When I had a slow modem I did this to get to the content more quickly. I agree that there are many types of web pages - information pages (linux,/. etc) are more likely to be friendly to older standards (just my observation) while commercial sites which want my money are more likely to have deamnds about the technology I use to view them. Being told I have to use, for example, IE5.5+flash at 800x6000 is a real turn off, and I'll probably go somewhere else instead.
Bottom line: I think too many designers treat web design as if it were print design - even if they use flash they don't know what resolution and colour my monitor will produce. I agree that design is important, but the design should be informed by the nature of the delivery medium. ----
What I mean is use it the other way round - browsers with javascript disabled or older versions would get the text version and only the new browsers (with js on) would be redirected to the fancy pages. In other words reverse the default and code for the advanced browser being the special case. ----
Other of my pet peeves include designers assuming they know the resolution my monitor is currently set to and its colour temperature - and that I have javascript enabled (50/50). I was looking at a sight which maximized its browser and tried to sell me stuff with pictures of its products. My wife understood my point when I changed the monitor colour settings and showed her what it did to the photos. And yes, I hate Flash. And Frames.
It wouldn't solve the problem of ppl with 386s running windows 3.1 or whatever, but really there isn't much of a solution for them.
Errr, well web pages could degrade gracefully on older browsers. Sites could use less Flash and no Panels and remeber that the web is (or rather was) about content and not eye-candy. ----
Warrants and other such legal niceties like the right to silence merely warn off these people. Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette, the eggs being these old fashioned 'rights' and and the omlette being the good of the society
Legal niceties like due process? Why not go the whole hog and scrap trials altogether, after all we trust the government and police unreservedly, so when the bring back capital punishment and start hanging speeding motorists, well that's ok then. After all what's wrong with hanging a few score innocent people solong as you get a few guilty ones, like fuel price protesters.
I really like the provision of the RIP bill which sends you to jail for telling anyone that the police have spoken to you....
Get a clue, if you can, watch the next series of Mark Thomas show and do a few web searches for his investigations (www.mtp2001.co.uk etc) into our oh-so honourable government and grow up. ----
I think that if an ISP is notified of something like this, they should check it out, and if there really is something illegal going on, they should remove it.
This seems reasonable but it's not up to an ISP or a law-enforcement agency(LEA) to decide legality. That's what courts are for. If someone posts something I don't like can I tell the hosting company that it's illegal - or get the police to do it for me? If the matter of legality is decided by the LEAs we have a police state. I know that somethings may be easy to judge as illegal or undesirable and kiddie porn is despicable (to put it mildldy) but while I would censor paedophile porn (if it was up to me) I don't know where or how the line can be drawn between free speech and porn. To me the ISP possibly fouled up by not pulling the posts based on it's AUP - and yes I know it was usenet but their AUP should cover this to, if only to protect themselves from this. ----
I wish I knew how to get legislators (US and EU) to accord common carrier status to ISPs as well as telcos. The telcos aren't required to monitor all telephone conversations so why should ISPs be required to monitor NGs, email etc which is where I fear this is heading.
Why aren't the backbone providers also held liable as their infrastructure has been used to transmit thes postings? ----
The statement that the mark wasn't enforced was the WRONG tack to take.
Why not, it is relevant under US law isn't it?
He didn't send threatening lawyer letters.
Maybe his lawyers have advised that this bird won't fly and he's
trying anyway with an implied threat (which may have no substance)?
And quoting from his email:
Some of the OpenBSD/OpenSSH developers/sponsors have also
received a formal legal notice about the infringement earlier.
Notice something, the original license (..snip..) allowed you to call your application ssh.
That's irrelevant.
HOW? He gave permission to call it ssh and now he wants to change
his mind and that's not relevant?
SAMBA couldn't call itself SMB, confusion reasons,
but the applications use SMB (like, smbd).
No reason they couldnt call it OpenSMB is there?
Samba just sounds better.
However, if the Open Source community insists on
fighting on the Trademark grounds, we're in the wrong.
Oh well, opinions differ - yours and mine in this case:-)
You can't dispute the merits of Trademarks.
I could if I was being awkward but I'm happy with the idea that trademarks
are to protect the consumer, the problems here are detailed elsewhere
in this discussion - lateness, dilution, selective enforcement etc.
I find it interesting to compare an extract from his email with
another from the licence for 1.2.12 which was the basis for OpenSSH:
OpenSSH is also a derivative of my original SSH Secure Shell
product, and it still looks very much like my product
(without my approval for any of it, by the way).
and
As far as I am concerned, the code I have written for this
software can be used freely for any purpose. Any derived
versions of this software must be clearly marked as such,
and if the derived work is incompatible with the protocol
description in the RFC file, it must be called by a name
other than "ssh" or "Secure Shell".
That seems like permission to me, and he appears to be either forgetful or disingenuous.
Given the FUD in the email about protocols.....
----
"Any derived versions of this software must be clearly marked as such"
This would seem to require some sort of name such as SonOfSSH, to me it certainly seems to give a really good defence to accusations of infringment. ----
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but life is never quite that simple is it?
They don't advertise any service level agreements, and explicitly state there are no warranties in the TOC. This is OK, but there is also law regarding the inequity of charging for something and not delivering it, regardless of the terms of the alleged contract.
In case you're wondering why anybody signs up to this, it's still better than the alternatives. Our best hope for the future is the local loop unbundling, but BT are either dragging their feet or doing a very good impression - there's a huge row brewing about this and it's not going away.
----
Actually here in the UK ADSL users (the only one sort of DSL most people can get) have NO guarantee of anything. Forget 80% guaranteed bandwith, here BT don't even guarantee to provide a service at all, but they still take your money. This hasn't yet gone to court but I doubt it will take long.
BT are still an effective monopoly and are fighting tooth and nail not to play fair with any other telecoms company (or at least that's how they appear to me), and the regulatory body (oftel) seems either unwilling or unable to regulate.
The more this country goes to pot the more I like being part of the EU.
----
Exactly, so any encrypted messages that are intercepted are very likely to be concerning illegal activities. Therefore the FBI/CIA/MI5/MI6 etc will waste less time decoding emails from /. reader about a certain Star Wars actress.
It would be a net win for the cops because they can waste less resources on trivia - at least that's probably how they would see it.
----
That isn't Christianity - it might be how Christianity has been perverted by some of the 'churches'. Sex is supposed to be something you only do with your spouse but it is also supposed to be joyful - which is much nicer than mere fun!
----
I think that it basically comes down to oversight - who monitors the LEAs. We can't afford to trust them - they're only normal people after all.
I know it's an old chestnut but what about what the US Secret Service did to Steve Jackson Games?
Is it OK to for a LEA to (nearly) put a company out of besiness and never say sorry? No charges were ever brought. And it's far from isolated or peculiar to the US.
It's the difficult cases that ought to instruct the lawmaking. A lot of the laws where 'take it down because we say so' applies end up both overused and oppresive.
On their website Buffnet indicate that they copped a plea because it was too much time and money to fight, even though their previous relations with the police were good - are they going to be cooperative in future or require warrants whenever applicable? And what about the other ISPs in the jurisdiction with news servers, were ANY of them 'required' to take the same action as Buffnet, and if not why not?
As I said I don't know where, or how, to draw the line but I think we need to look at what could happen.
----
Seriously, if a succession of Governments was able to carry off a fake on this scale we'd all be in big trouble.
The solipsist and the paranoaic in me take turns in wondering how much of what I know is true, and how much is fiction perpetrated by 'some oppressors'. No, I don't really believe that but it's an interesting premise to think through when depressed.
Just because The Matrix and The Truman Show (to mention but 2) used the idea doesn't mean that there is no mileage still in it.
----
Given the differences in attitude between the US an EU regarding privacy etc I can't see this being legal in the EU after the first lawsuit in the European Court of Human Rights.
The implication being that it will have to be removed/not present for EU sales. That being so and the internet being global you 'merkins could import some of your goods from the EU to get non-tagged items.
----
This brings a whole new meaning to Neighbourhood Watch! If the range ends up being a bit greater (10 metres say?) I can see crooks 'scanning' an area to see which are the best houses to rob. This makes casing a joint a lot easier - just fit a gps unit, a laptop and a tag scanner into a briefcase and go for a drive. This might be a new 'job' opportunity, is it illegal to sell information obtained in such a manner - after all no law was broken in acquiring it? Let's hope it would be covered by conspiracy but I think it would be hard to convice a jury.
My house looks like all the others in my street but I suspect has more high-tech electronics than the rest.
If this goes ahead how long before people start making Faraday cages out of their home - that would go nicely with the tin foil hats....
----
On the web the 'publishing' site has little control over the presentation of the page. I can turn off, Javascript, turn off images, change the background, overide CSS etc - and that's without going into screen resolution of colour issues. When I had a slow modem I did this to get to the content more quickly.
I agree that there are many types of web pages - information pages (linux,
Bottom line: I think too many designers treat web design as if it were print design - even if they use flash they don't know what resolution and colour my monitor will produce. I agree that design is important, but the design should be informed by the nature of the delivery medium.
----
I take this to refer to the web site design as garbage - if it was done properly then the page should degrade gracefully.
----
:-)
----
Use javascript to redirect TO the fancy page, not AWAY from it.
----
stick the following in your hosts file or use junkbuster: 127.0.0.1 www.goatse.cx 127.0.0.1 goatse.cx
----
And how does Flash fit in?
----
What I mean is use it the other way round - browsers with javascript disabled or older versions would get the text version and only the new browsers (with js on) would be redirected to the fancy pages.
In other words reverse the default and code for the advanced browser being the special case.
----
And yes, I hate Flash. And Frames.
And yes, these are just my opinons too :-)
----
Sites could use less Flash and no Panels and remeber that the web is (or rather was) about content and not eye-candy.
----
I for instance am in London and I believe that people in other countries have 'net access too....
----
----
After all what's wrong with hanging a few score innocent people solong as you get a few guilty ones, like fuel price protesters.
I really like the provision of the RIP bill which sends you to jail for telling anyone that the police have spoken to you ....
Get a clue, if you can, watch the next series of Mark Thomas show and do a few web searches for his investigations (www.mtp2001.co.uk etc) into our oh-so honourable government and grow up.
----
That's what courts are for.
If someone posts something I don't like can I tell the hosting company that it's illegal - or get the police to do it for me?
If the matter of legality is decided by the LEAs we have a police state.
I know that somethings may be easy to judge as illegal or undesirable and kiddie porn is despicable (to put it mildldy) but while I would censor paedophile porn (if it was up to me) I don't know where or how the line can be drawn between free speech and porn.
To me the ISP possibly fouled up by not pulling the posts based on it's AUP - and yes I know it was usenet but their AUP should cover this to, if only to protect themselves from this.
----
I wish I knew how to get legislators (US and EU) to accord common carrier status to ISPs as well as telcos. The telcos aren't required to monitor all telephone conversations so why should ISPs be required to monitor NGs, email etc which is where I fear this is heading.
Why aren't the backbone providers also held liable as their infrastructure has been used to transmit thes postings?
----
And quoting from his email:
Some of the OpenBSD/OpenSSH developers/sponsors have also received a formal legal notice about the infringement earlier. HOW? He gave permission to call it ssh and now he wants to change his mind and that's not relevant? No reason they couldnt call it OpenSMB is there? Samba just sounds better. Oh well, opinions differ - yours and mine in this case
I find it interesting to compare an extract from his email with another from the licence for 1.2.12 which was the basis for OpenSSH:
andThat seems like permission to me, and he appears to be either forgetful or disingenuous. Given the FUD in the email about protocols.....
----
"Petrol" was once a trademark. So was "fridge" I believe.
----
----