This is one of the reasons that double blind reverse engineering is a huge deal.
IANAL:
Way back to the IBM PC days people wondered how to clone something that had restrictive licenses and not get sued (Or at least win in the event). The solution is creating a double blind.
The proccess is simple, but needs two very seperate parts. This is basically how IBM BIOS was originally reverse engineered.
Person A owns the product in question. This person is charged with writing a specification. "When XXXX is sent to the computer YYYYY should respond back based on ZZZZ" This person isn't writing any code. They are simply documenting a specification.
Person A hands the spec to Person B. Person B is a programmer. They create a program based on the Spec that Person A has created. Person B should not touch the product at all. They shouldn't interact. If they need testeding then they need Person C to test the product.
The main goal to all of this is to isolate the programmer from the product you are reverse engineering. This avoids both copyright and License issues at bay.
In this case I think you're screwed. Even if you had a legal chance there hasn't been much throught about how to isolate programmers from liability.
On the plus side, you can't take the pee out of the swimming pool. So even if you cease and disist someone could pick up the code and continue working on it.
In a previous life I was one of the head administrators of a very very large e-mail network for a very very large company. 300+ servers, 60 countries, etc, etc.
E-mail policy was a huge issue for us. The technical team and the legal team looked at it from several sides. First, thing we thought of was the cost of monitoring e-mail and what problems it may cause. The biggest problem was actually monitoring e-mail caused far more issues than not.
It was far more likely that we would be sued for terminating someone over an e-mail rather waiting and responding to a complaint about said e-mail. The biggest factor in this was dealing with low level management. Frankly, the low level is there to watch the clock and fill out reports. The probability that a manager making under 30K a year of correctly handling the situation was quite low as well.
Further more, by opening mail up to be read we risk disclosing information that would break NDA's, and FTC rules. For instance we wouldn't want mail about a merger or sell off to be made public until it was legally correct to do so.
In the end the mail policy was set up so that monitoring of e-mail would only be allowed in the case where a VP level or higher authorized viewing the mail. Any other complaints we be handled via HR channels.
I like anime as much as any geek. Hell, just my Laserdisc collection of Anime is almost 200 Discs. It's very nice to see Anime get some regular TV time slots. However, after watching Tenchi on Cartoon network is became very clear that there is a price we pay. First, Cartoon network does some SERIOUS censoring of all Anime.
Now, even when the shows were originally dubbed there was some artistic rewording. This is typical for most Dubbed Anime. In one case Pioneer reworded a scene where Washu wants to collect a sperm sample from Techi using her mouth. If you watch the LD's with captioning on you'll see the original translation.
At any account, Cartoon Network goes about 20 steps further. Any reference to drinking, sake, or beer has been replaced with TEA. Blood digitally masked out. And some scenes simply cut out.
Now, some people might say they "have" to. However, I submit that all of these episodes have been shown on PBS before, uncut, durning the daytime without any problems. I could see some language changes, but Sake is Sake, let's not be so PC that it has to be Tea.
It's a good thing that they are using more free software, because anyone who's ever had work on DOD stuff knows that a) Copy Controlls are Frowned on and b) your tech support records will show far more users then you actually licensed them for.
Which is why companies like IBM and HP special GSA notices on all of there software.
The problem is most Public Utility Commisions (PUCs) which are charged with keeping the phone company in line really have to look at what the tarrif says. They really aren't charged with looking at marketing.
For instance, U S WEST, now QWEST, originally filed DSL as being 640K down and 256K up (Note, this was at a state level, with the FCC they filed 256K both ways). However, read closely this is an UP TO speed. The actual minium rate is 1K.
The phone company may be able to say these are the public documents defining the service. We fulfilled the tarrif in full.
And even at that, that's still speeds only between the customer and the ISP. Once you're outside the ISP it's hard to sue based on internet speeds. At the very least it's not hard ot confuse the issue.
It seems to me that it's going to come down to laws in the state. For instance, if the PUC already voted against taking action on this issue the laws in the state may allow the case to be thrown out.
Even if they lose the only people who will make anything will be the lawyers.
The problem with this suit is that it doesn't really help consumers. Why? Well, basically all MAP pricing has done is to keep Walmart, and Circuit City and the ilk from closing down smaller stores. These types of retailers sell the CD's under cost. It's a marketing tool to get people into the store to but high buck items.
The record companies sell CD's to Walmart for the Same price they sell to Mucisland or some other smaller chain.
While MAP pricing stinks I think it's really the small part of the puzzle of price fixing. Really, it's icing on the cake. And keeping companies liek Walmart in check isn't that bad of a thing.
The real point is a effort to keep the industry wholesale prices inflated. In order for this case to work out there has to be proof that the music companies have acted together to that ends.
There was a time when a television news had the guts to actually express an opinion. You know editorial. Personal opinions and favoritism do have a place. However, there are rules to this.
First, there is usually a person or persons who are designated to express and opinion, and those who do not. Usually in TV news the Anchor NEVER expresses an opinion. It is there job to provide the news, that's it.
Second, editorials should be clearly marked as such.
Third, there should be equal time provided for the opisition.
So, part of your aurgument I'd agree with. Other parts I would not. At slashdot I think we can agree Katz isn't here to provide unbiased reporting. He's writing an opinion. The question really becomes is CmdTaco really another Katz. If so, then he really shouldn't be posting fact only news stories. And his comments should be marked as editorials.
"Any person or people who acquire a beneficial ownership of more than 5% of a class of equity securities must file a Schedule 13D with the SEC" There is no 13D filed for Tricom (YUM) for Pepsi. Most of the ownership appears to be Mutual and 401K funds, persons on the board of directors, and high level management. Since the stock has tanked since 1997 it's not suprising Pepsi isn't a majority holder anymore.
If you plan on sending a (polite) letter to your elected representive you should refer to H.R. 4577. Specifically the the provisions related to filtering.
I would suggest telling your representive that you oppose filtering on the grounds that, dispite what the marketing departments have said, the filtering is 1) Poorly implimented, and many times restricts access to legitiment information, such as university studies on Health, Sex, and STD's. 2) Filters most sites dealing with legitiment Gay, Lesbian Bi-sexual issues. (Although if you elected a republican into office you may as well leave that part off).
You may also wish to detail that most filtering companies consider the lists of sites they filter to be a trade secret, and that they are slow to fix incorrect filtered sites.
We've got an election comming up people. Let's get moving on this.
The problem with going with a single vendor is are you really getting a single vendor. Outsouring is a major problem in the industry. The quality level of the tech support is pretty much related to the turn-around rate at the centre you get connected to. So even if you were to go with IBM, that doesn't mean you won't get sent over to a support centre run by Stream or some other outsourcer of ill repute.
And even when you do get the actual vendor will they even care. Will they speak f*ck'n english? A former tech support person for a major database company once told me that it was standard practice to blame it on the OS first. If the customer was actually able to prove the problem was with the DB then they'd submit a bug. But the point was it was up to the customer to do all the leg work.
I think we as techs are to blame though. It's our way of doing things in IT. You've seen the SNL skit with the bastard tech support people. Sure they couldn't get the terms right if their life depended on it, but the point is we have huge ego's and little personal responcibility. Even played the blame game inside the company when someone left?
BOSS: "Why isn't this project done?!?!" TECH: "Ahh..yeah..Habib was supposed to do that before he left the company." BOSS: "Damn that Habib!"
At any rate, it's been said before, quality people. Also, if you have the money, go with a vendor that will offer "internal" classes for the product. HP for example has special "Internal Use" classes they will let customers go to. It might cost a little more. Hell, you may have to send your people to the UK for them. But it's well worth it to know what's going on under the hood.
It's a yes and no question. The original release of DeCSS was on Windows, not linux. The reason for this was at the time UDF support in linux was not up to par. So what did DeCSS do? It unlocked the DVD, descripted the contents and copied a VOB onto the hard drive.
Everyone, even Emmanuel Goldstein and Jon Johansen have stated DeCSS copies the VOB to the harddrive in windows. So the Times is correct, the version of DeCSS that Johansen released, a windows Binary, was designed to COPY files from the DVD drive to the hard drive. It is however, a qualified yes because the end intention was to copy the files to Linux and allow them to be played there.
1> In the case there was no proof that DeCSS was actually used. And in all probality one of the faster rippers was used. However, those rippers are based on the same concepts as DeCSS. It may not be apparent to the court that there is a difference. The expert witness for the plantif ripped you've got mail from a DVD and turned it into a DiVX under 640 Megs. They traded it on IRC for The Matrix. It was not taped on the camcorder in a movie theater. It was the real McCoy. This creates a guilt by functionality issue for DeCSS.
Problem on point 2 is that the judge isn't a geek looking for artifacts on the TV screen. On a 13" LCD DiVX looks fairly compelling.
What it comes down to is how the DMCA is written. Since the Judge has pretty much said this case is about DMCA and not fair use. He has constantly ruled that any testimony that may indicate CSS as a content controll system rather than a copy protections system is not relivent. Thus any testimony that reflects that is stricken from the record.
This case is going to lose for one reason. DiVX. DeCSS is no longer the huge issue. It's the use of DiVX in conjunction. The MPAA and TW have already provided proof that movies are being traded on IRC in DiVX format.
One of the original defences was no one had the bandwidth for trading 5 gig files. Getting that down to 640 Megs over a college internet connection gives huge ammounts of ammunition to the MPAA.
In opening Statements Martin Garbus made it clear that this case was not going to be decided here. Instead it is a case for appeals, and probally a case headed for the supreme court.
Reading the court transcripts makes it very clear that the team is concentrating on getting key defence evidence gets in the record. They are also trying very hard to ensure that key items are struck from the record. They are trying very hard to have evidence that's considered here say removed. This is an importent step in the appeals proccess.
As far as the appeal, don't count on much from the U.S. Circuit Court. Posner is a well respected. His views align well with the views of the others on the circuit.
This is going to come down to a supremem court case.
Having worked at a number of ISP's and talking to those in the trade I've found that it's a matter of the SysAdmin. In general ISP's that are Linux or BSD based are far more likley to have the router set up this way already. ISP's that are microsoft based (And there are many) tend to shy away from touching the router more than they need to.
If it was a clean scam though they've already cleared out any logs of what accounts they have. Pay Pal users beware. Some elite kid is probally going to get some free porn off using your account.
If you recall Apex stated they didn't intend to disable the coding. It just happened to be part of the off the shelf menu system chip they used. In fact Apex stated that many other companies used that same chipset and that they have the same loopholes as well.
Well, since you cannot log in wiht out paying $$$ I don't think anyone can really say if it meets specs or not.
In my opinion I would never sign a contract to provide a web app that would work with any AOL browser. Maybe I'd have a page that would display to AOL users telling them to download IE or Netscape. But that's about it. It's not reasonable to specify neat multimedia and glitz that will view on, in my opinion, a substandard product.
Given the fact that the site was designed for a company that consists of agents and marketing people, I wouldn't doubt that the look, feel and specs of the web site was a moving target.
Honda has stated that it intends to convert most of it's cars to hybrid in this decade. Which is a good thing, kinda...
See, even if the car is electric then you still have to take into account that, even with Wind, Water, and Nuke based power the majority of our power is from coal, oil, and other fosil based fuels. The only benifit to electric is there is a single point of emmision. And that point can be controlled and scrubbed.
Getting electricity from the power plant to your home isn't an easy task. It's not really efficient. Much of the energy is lost along the way.
At the time it was a BBS. If I recall they were targeted because of some actions of an employee outside of the company. The secret service thought there might be evidence on the BBS and other office computers.
The odd thing about Steve Jackson Games was the not only was the Secret Service watching them, but the FBI had agents working there on an unrelated case.
Taking a stand with the FBI is a risky position if you are a smaller ( 20,000 users) ISP. Earthlink has the legal and financal means to defend actions it believes are wrong.
A head systems admin at a major University once warned me about crossing the FBI. It's a very quick way of going out of business. He made it very clear that the FBI is aware of the economics of ISP's. If you're down for more then a few minutes you'll start to lose customers. ISPs that go against the feds find out pretty quickly that all they have to do is confiscate all your equiptment as evidence. Maybe after a year or so you'll get your stuff back.
I can picture the feds in front of the judge now: "Well your honor, we wanted to place a monitor on the network but they would not allow us to. The only recourse we have is to take the computers and examine the hard drives."
Bam, Feds come knocking on your door, they leave with a bunch of computers, next week all your customers are gone and you've got bills to pay.
I take issue with Cringley statement that implies that all ISP's are dumb enough to allow co-lo to sniff the network. Some perhaps, but as someone who's worked at a number of ISP's I can say that most co-lo's are segmented into their own network. Usually at the very least by the use of a switching hub. The worst I've seen is some co-lo's sharing the same network, but I've never seen co-lo's allowed on the same network as the production ISP boxes. Give ISP's some credit!
Somehow I doubt it would get down to the small ISP's. If you got the major backbone providers to configure the core routers not to route those addresses you'd do a pretty good job of blocking the addresses.
There have always been interesting laws on the books about gambling. For instance the US requires that no gambling occurs on flights that terminate or originate on US soil. Even if the gambling itself happens in international airspace.
In an opinion written to Cargill Corp (The US's largest private company):
"Private investigators and records search firms that Cargill hires to report on court rec-ords are CRAs under the definition set forth in Section 603(f); individual researchers hired by such firms are not. See the enclosed staff opinion letter (LeBlanc, 6/9/98), where we discuss the status of such parties in detail."
Slashdot Mirror
This is one of the reasons that double blind reverse engineering is a huge deal.
IANAL:
Way back to the IBM PC days people wondered how to clone something that had restrictive licenses and not get sued (Or at least win in the event). The solution is creating a double blind.
The proccess is simple, but needs two very seperate parts. This is basically how IBM BIOS was originally reverse engineered.
Person A owns the product in question. This person is charged with writing a specification. "When XXXX is sent to the computer YYYYY should respond back based on ZZZZ" This person isn't writing any code. They are simply documenting a specification.
Person A hands the spec to Person B. Person B is a programmer. They create a program based on the Spec that Person A has created. Person B should not touch the product at all. They shouldn't interact. If they need testeding then they need Person C to test the product.
The main goal to all of this is to isolate the programmer from the product you are reverse engineering. This avoids both copyright and License issues at bay.
In this case I think you're screwed. Even if you had a legal chance there hasn't been much throught about how to isolate programmers from liability.
On the plus side, you can't take the pee out of the swimming pool. So even if you cease and disist someone could pick up the code and continue working on it.
In a previous life I was one of the head administrators of a very very large e-mail network for a very very large company. 300+ servers, 60 countries, etc, etc.
E-mail policy was a huge issue for us. The technical team and the legal team looked at it from several sides. First, thing we thought of was the cost of monitoring e-mail and what problems it may cause. The biggest problem was actually monitoring e-mail caused far more issues than not.
It was far more likely that we would be sued for terminating someone over an e-mail rather waiting and responding to a complaint about said e-mail. The biggest factor in this was dealing with low level management. Frankly, the low level is there to watch the clock and fill out reports. The probability that a manager making under 30K a year of correctly handling the situation was quite low as well.
Further more, by opening mail up to be read we risk disclosing information that would break NDA's, and FTC rules. For instance we wouldn't want mail about a merger or sell off to be made public until it was legally correct to do so.
In the end the mail policy was set up so that monitoring of e-mail would only be allowed in the case where a VP level or higher authorized viewing the mail. Any other complaints we be handled via HR channels.
I like anime as much as any geek. Hell, just my Laserdisc collection of Anime is almost 200 Discs. It's very nice to see Anime get some regular TV time slots. However, after watching Tenchi on Cartoon network is became very clear that there is a price we pay. First, Cartoon network does some SERIOUS censoring of all Anime.
Now, even when the shows were originally dubbed there was some artistic rewording. This is typical for most Dubbed Anime. In one case Pioneer reworded a scene where Washu wants to collect a sperm sample from Techi using her mouth. If you watch the LD's with captioning on you'll see the original translation.
At any account, Cartoon Network goes about 20 steps further. Any reference to drinking, sake, or beer has been replaced with TEA. Blood digitally masked out. And some scenes simply cut out.
Now, some people might say they "have" to. However, I submit that all of these episodes have been shown on PBS before, uncut, durning the daytime without any problems. I could see some language changes, but Sake is Sake, let's not be so PC that it has to be Tea.
It's a good thing that they are using more free software, because anyone who's ever had work on DOD stuff knows that a) Copy Controlls are Frowned on and b) your tech support records will show far more users then you actually licensed them for.
Which is why companies like IBM and HP special GSA notices on all of there software.
IANAL,
The problem is most Public Utility Commisions (PUCs) which are charged with keeping the phone company in line really have to look at what the tarrif says. They really aren't charged with looking at marketing.
For instance, U S WEST, now QWEST, originally filed DSL as being 640K down and 256K up (Note, this was at a state level, with the FCC they filed 256K both ways). However, read closely this is an UP TO speed. The actual minium rate is 1K.
The phone company may be able to say these are the public documents defining the service. We fulfilled the tarrif in full.
And even at that, that's still speeds only between the customer and the ISP. Once you're outside the ISP it's hard to sue based on internet speeds. At the very least it's not hard ot confuse the issue.
It seems to me that it's going to come down to laws in the state. For instance, if the PUC already voted against taking action on this issue the laws in the state may allow the case to be thrown out.
Even if they lose the only people who will make anything will be the lawyers.
The problem with this suit is that it doesn't really help consumers. Why? Well, basically all MAP pricing has done is to keep Walmart, and Circuit City and the ilk from closing down smaller stores. These types of retailers sell the CD's under cost. It's a marketing tool to get people into the store to but high buck items.
The record companies sell CD's to Walmart for the Same price they sell to Mucisland or some other smaller chain.
While MAP pricing stinks I think it's really the small part of the puzzle of price fixing. Really, it's icing on the cake. And keeping companies liek Walmart in check isn't that bad of a thing.
The real point is a effort to keep the industry wholesale prices inflated. In order for this case to work out there has to be proof that the music companies have acted together to that ends.
There was a time when a television news had the guts to actually express an opinion. You know editorial. Personal opinions and favoritism do have a place. However, there are rules to this.
First, there is usually a person or persons who are designated to express and opinion, and those who do not. Usually in TV news the Anchor NEVER expresses an opinion. It is there job to provide the news, that's it.
Second, editorials should be clearly marked as such.
Third, there should be equal time provided for the opisition.
So, part of your aurgument I'd agree with. Other parts I would not. At slashdot I think we can agree Katz isn't here to provide unbiased reporting. He's writing an opinion. The question really becomes is CmdTaco really another Katz. If so, then he really shouldn't be posting fact only news stories. And his comments should be marked as editorials.
My $.02
"Any person or people who acquire a beneficial ownership of more than 5% of a class of equity securities must file a Schedule 13D with the SEC" There is no 13D filed for Tricom (YUM) for Pepsi. Most of the ownership appears to be Mutual and 401K funds, persons on the board of directors, and high level management. Since the stock has tanked since 1997 it's not suprising Pepsi isn't a majority holder anymore.
If you plan on sending a (polite) letter to your elected representive you should refer to H.R. 4577. Specifically the the provisions related to filtering.
I would suggest telling your representive that you oppose filtering on the grounds that, dispite what the marketing departments have said, the filtering is 1) Poorly implimented, and many times restricts access to legitiment information, such as university studies on Health, Sex, and STD's. 2) Filters most sites dealing with legitiment Gay, Lesbian Bi-sexual issues. (Although if you elected a republican into office you may as well leave that part off).
You may also wish to detail that most filtering companies consider the lists of sites they filter to be a trade secret, and that they are slow to fix incorrect filtered sites.
We've got an election comming up people. Let's get moving on this.
Pepsi sold their holdings in KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut years ago. Get the facts straight.
The problem with going with a single vendor is are you really getting a single vendor. Outsouring is a major problem in the industry. The quality level of the tech support is pretty much related to the turn-around rate at the centre you get connected to. So even if you were to go with IBM, that doesn't mean you won't get sent over to a support centre run by Stream or some other outsourcer of ill repute.
And even when you do get the actual vendor will they even care. Will they speak f*ck'n english? A former tech support person for a major database company once told me that it was standard practice to blame it on the OS first. If the customer was actually able to prove the problem was with the DB then they'd submit a bug. But the point was it was up to the customer to do all the leg work.
I think we as techs are to blame though. It's our way of doing things in IT. You've seen the SNL skit with the bastard tech support people. Sure they couldn't get the terms right if their life depended on it, but the point is we have huge ego's and little personal responcibility. Even played the blame game inside the company when someone left?
BOSS: "Why isn't this project done?!?!"
TECH: "Ahh..yeah..Habib was supposed to do that before he left the company."
BOSS: "Damn that Habib!"
At any rate, it's been said before, quality people. Also, if you have the money, go with a vendor that will offer "internal" classes for the product. HP for example has special "Internal Use" classes they will let customers go to. It might cost a little more. Hell, you may have to send your people to the UK for them. But it's well worth it to know what's going on under the hood.
It's a yes and no question. The original release of DeCSS was on Windows, not linux. The reason for this was at the time UDF support in linux was not up to par. So what did DeCSS do? It unlocked the DVD, descripted the contents and copied a VOB onto the hard drive.
Everyone, even Emmanuel Goldstein and Jon Johansen have stated DeCSS copies the VOB to the harddrive in windows. So the Times is correct, the version of DeCSS that Johansen released, a windows Binary, was designed to COPY files from the DVD drive to the hard drive. It is however, a qualified yes because the end intention was to copy the files to Linux and allow them to be played there.
1> In the case there was no proof that DeCSS was actually used. And in all probality one of the faster rippers was used. However, those rippers are based on the same concepts as DeCSS. It may not be apparent to the court that there is a difference. The expert witness for the plantif ripped you've got mail from a DVD and turned it into a DiVX under 640 Megs. They traded it on IRC for The Matrix. It was not taped on the camcorder in a movie theater. It was the real McCoy. This creates a guilt by functionality issue for DeCSS.
Problem on point 2 is that the judge isn't a geek looking for artifacts on the TV screen. On a 13" LCD DiVX looks fairly compelling.
What it comes down to is how the DMCA is written. Since the Judge has pretty much said this case is about DMCA and not fair use. He has constantly ruled that any testimony that may indicate CSS as a content controll system rather than a copy protections system is not relivent. Thus any testimony that reflects that is stricken from the record.
This is a "Bad Thing" (tm)
This case is going to lose for one reason. DiVX. DeCSS is no longer the huge issue. It's the use of DiVX in conjunction. The MPAA and TW have already provided proof that movies are being traded on IRC in DiVX format.
One of the original defences was no one had the bandwidth for trading 5 gig files. Getting that down to 640 Megs over a college internet connection gives huge ammounts of ammunition to the MPAA.
In opening Statements Martin Garbus made it clear that this case was not going to be decided here. Instead it is a case for appeals, and probally a case headed for the supreme court.
Reading the court transcripts makes it very clear that the team is concentrating on getting key defence evidence gets in the record. They are also trying very hard to ensure that key items are struck from the record. They are trying very hard to have evidence that's considered here say removed. This is an importent step in the appeals proccess.
As far as the appeal, don't count on much from the U.S. Circuit Court. Posner is a well respected. His views align well with the views of the others on the circuit.
This is going to come down to a supremem court case.
Having worked at a number of ISP's and talking to those in the trade I've found that it's a matter of the SysAdmin. In general ISP's that are Linux or BSD based are far more likley to have the router set up this way already. ISP's that are microsoft based (And there are many) tend to shy away from touching the router more than they need to.
Looks like the site has already shut down.
If it was a clean scam though they've already cleared out any logs of what accounts they have. Pay Pal users beware. Some elite kid is probally going to get some free porn off using your account.
If you recall Apex stated they didn't intend to disable the coding. It just happened to be part of the off the shelf menu system chip they used. In fact Apex stated that many other companies used that same chipset and that they have the same loopholes as well.
This shouldn't be a suprise.
Well, since you cannot log in wiht out paying $$$ I don't think anyone can really say if it meets specs or not.
In my opinion I would never sign a contract to provide a web app that would work with any AOL browser. Maybe I'd have a page that would display to AOL users telling them to download IE or Netscape. But that's about it. It's not reasonable to specify neat multimedia and glitz that will view on, in my opinion, a substandard product.
Given the fact that the site was designed for a company that consists of agents and marketing people, I wouldn't doubt that the look, feel and specs of the web site was a moving target.
Honda has stated that it intends to convert most of it's cars to hybrid in this decade. Which is a good thing, kinda...
See, even if the car is electric then you still have to take into account that, even with Wind, Water, and Nuke based power the majority of our power is from coal, oil, and other fosil based fuels. The only benifit to electric is there is a single point of emmision. And that point can be controlled and scrubbed.
Getting electricity from the power plant to your home isn't an easy task. It's not really efficient. Much of the energy is lost along the way.
At the time it was a BBS. If I recall they were targeted because of some actions of an employee outside of the company. The secret service thought there might be evidence on the BBS and other office computers.
The odd thing about Steve Jackson Games was the not only was the Secret Service watching them, but the FBI had agents working there on an unrelated case.
Taking a stand with the FBI is a risky position if you are a smaller ( 20,000 users) ISP. Earthlink has the legal and financal means to defend actions it believes are wrong.
A head systems admin at a major University once warned me about crossing the FBI. It's a very quick way of going out of business. He made it very clear that the FBI is aware of the economics of ISP's. If you're down for more then a few minutes you'll start to lose customers. ISPs that go against the feds find out pretty quickly that all they have to do is confiscate all your equiptment as evidence. Maybe after a year or so you'll get your stuff back.
I can picture the feds in front of the judge now: "Well your honor, we wanted to place a monitor on the network but they would not allow us to. The only recourse we have is to take the computers and examine the hard drives."
Bam, Feds come knocking on your door, they leave with a bunch of computers, next week all your customers are gone and you've got bills to pay.
I take issue with Cringley statement that implies that all ISP's are dumb enough to allow co-lo to sniff the network. Some perhaps, but as someone who's worked at a number of ISP's I can say that most co-lo's are segmented into their own network. Usually at the very least by the use of a switching hub. The worst I've seen is some co-lo's sharing the same network, but I've never seen co-lo's allowed on the same network as the production ISP boxes. Give ISP's some credit!
Somehow I doubt it would get down to the small ISP's. If you got the major backbone providers to configure the core routers not to route those addresses you'd do a pretty good job of blocking the addresses.
There have always been interesting laws on the books about gambling. For instance the US requires that no gambling occurs on flights that terminate or originate on US soil. Even if the gambling itself happens in international airspace.
In an opinion written to Cargill Corp (The US's largest private company):
"Private investigators and records search firms that Cargill hires to report on court rec-ords are CRAs under the definition set forth in Section 603(f); individual researchers hired by such firms are not. See the enclosed staff opinion letter (LeBlanc, 6/9/98), where we discuss the status of such parties in detail."
Source: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/slyter.htm