It is a good job that you recognise that your advice is worthless.
Although this is UK law, I'm sure the US has similar legislation, though I don't know what the US laws are called.
Merely writing the script without even running it is enough to break these laws:
An Act to make provision for securing computer material against unauthorised access or modification; and for connected purposes. [29th June 1990] BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-
Computer misuse offences
Unauthorised access to computer material.
1.-
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if-
1. he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
2. the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
3. he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
(2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at-
1. any particular program or data;
2. a program or data of any particular kind; or
3. a program or data held in any particular computer.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
They came for the palmists, but I wasn't a palmist so I did nothing. They came for the bungee jumpers, but I wasn't a bungee jumper so I did nothing. They came for the players' agents, but I wasn't a players' agent so I did nothing. They came for the Charles Manson fans, but I wasn't a Charles Manson fan, so i did nothing. They came for the refloxoligists, but I wasn't a refloxoligist so I did nothing. They came for the camp TV chefs, but I wasn't a camp TV chef so I did nothing They came for the Romos, I laughed. They came for the martial arts enthusiasts, but I wasn't a martial arts enthusiast so I did nothing. They came for Eammon Holmes and I think I'm right in saying I applauded. They came for the Danni Behr I said she's over there behind the wardrobe. Turn a Blind Eye Sometimes it's best to turn a Blind Eye. -- Half Man Half Biscuit
oh, that's interesting. The original Register article I read didn't have that detail.
So if one does not do it dishonestly (i.e. can I have an IP, here's my MAC) and one also is not trying to avoid payment (say I'm in another town and look for an ntl: open AP, considering I'm an ntl: customer) I can wardrive =)
Either way, I won't stop wardriving.
I've made a note not to repeatedly kerb crawl round a residential area looking shifty !
Computer misuse offences Unauthorised access to computer material. 1.-(1) A person is guilty of an offence if-
1. he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
2. the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
3. he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
(2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at-
1. any particular program or data;
2. a program or data of any particular kind; or
3. a program or data held in any particular computer.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
hmm, oh bugger. I'd better not rely on that in court ! (and if I do, I hope I don't get my/. posts used as evidence)
# How can I prevent unauthorized laptops from using a network that uses DHCP for dynamic addressing?
This would have to be done using a mechanism other than DHCP. DHCP does not prevent other clients from using the addresses it is set to hand out nor can it distinguish between a computer's permanent MAC address and one set by the computer's user.
If you posted on/. that spammers should die, I guess you can now consider yourself a suspect.
And if you are a UK resident you can thank your lucky stars that the Extradition Act 2003 means that the Russian Police don't even need to build a strong case:
In Category 2 cases the court may need to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence produced to show a prima facie case. However, many territories, including the US, Russia and Israel, have been designated so that they do not need to provide evidence, but instead only have to give information. It is significant that when the UK requests extradition from the US it is still required to show 'probable cause' - a diplomatic struggle the UK appears to have lost. The basis for this change of status of the US is the extradition treaty signed in March 2003. This generated a large amount of controversy as the treaty was signed without any Parliamentary scrutiny and the text was not even made public until two months after the signing.
Need your ISP's logs, no problem:
The police have acquired additional powers ancillary to extradition requests enabling them to obtain search-and-seizure warrants and production orders. Either of these measures could be used to secure material from third parties including corporations.
Bombs exploding in the transport nodes of my capital city scare me, how is that *not* terror?
I know it sounds like another day in Detroit but we're not used to the police shooting, let alone shooting to kill:
"It was just mayhem. I've never seen people move so fast in all my life, people running in all directions, looks of horror on their faces and screaming. Lots of people were sort of crouched down trying to run, trying to protect their heads, worried about flying bullets."
Once again we have terror on our land. Ironically we wouldn't have it if there wasn't a "War On Terror".
So thank you, Bush & Blair, you've brought war to our streets, just like we said you would before you invaded Iraq.
When one throws stones at The Glass House of Incompetence, it is usually best to know how to spell it first, lest one winds up at the wrong address with the other morons !
All the other posters in the thread seem not to have read the application:
"Methods and devices for creating and transferring custom emoticons allow a user to adopt an arbitrary image as an emoticon, which can then be represented by a character sequence in real-time communication. In one implementation, custom emoticons can be included in a message and transmitted to a receiver in the message. In another implementation, character sequences representing the custom emoticons can be transmitted in the message instead of the custom emoticons in order to preserve performance of text messaging. At the receiving end, the character sequences are replaced by their corresponding custom emoticons, which can be retrieved locally if they have been previously received, or can be retrieved from the sender in a separate communication from the text message if they have not been previously received."
The patent is not for smilies.
It is for having both ends having pre-set images displayed for certain character sequences in text mesages, be they:-) or pwn3df46607
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, let me see, shall I attack the US govt. by using machines from a virtual black hole or not ?
hey uriel
/. parapet !
hope you are okay
not often you stick your head out above the
leave Britney alone
You should listen to goth music if you want to tear your teeth out on the abysmal quality and originality !
I'd hate to think that the $0.40 I'm paying for each 4x6 is actually nothing more then the result of an expensive ink jet printer.
Do you think someone sat in Redmond and said "hmm, we don't have a way to play games, let's make a console"
it's not the 3rd party apps
k ia_6680/
mine does the same, sometimes when I press "Send" on a text message
Other Series60 models suffer from the same problem, the 6630 was particularly prone to this according to the Register review of the subsequent 6680
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/10/review_no
Ask yourself this question : What is the purpose of the XBox ?
my xbox gathers dust, fbsd on it would be a nice toy
> platforms intended for one purpose and one purpose alone (gaming)
do you know what a turing machine is ?
It is a good job that you recognise that your advice is worthless.
:
Although this is UK law, I'm sure the US has similar legislation, though I don't know what the US laws are called.
Merely writing the script without even running it is enough to break these laws
An Act to make provision for securing computer material against unauthorised access or modification; and for connected purposes.
[29th June 1990]
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-
Computer misuse offences
Unauthorised access to computer material.
1.-
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if-
1. he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
2. the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
3. he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
(2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at-
1. any particular program or data;
2. a program or data of any particular kind; or
3. a program or data held in any particular computer.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
They came for the palmists,
but I wasn't a palmist
so I did nothing.
They came for the bungee jumpers,
but I wasn't a bungee jumper
so I did nothing.
They came for the players' agents,
but I wasn't a players' agent
so I did nothing.
They came for the Charles Manson fans,
but I wasn't a Charles Manson fan,
so i did nothing.
They came for the refloxoligists,
but I wasn't a refloxoligist
so I did nothing.
They came for the camp TV chefs,
but I wasn't a camp TV chef
so I did nothing
They came for the Romos,
I laughed.
They came for the martial arts enthusiasts,
but I wasn't a martial arts enthusiast
so I did nothing.
They came for Eammon Holmes
and I think I'm right in saying I applauded.
They came for the Danni Behr
I said she's over there
behind the wardrobe.
Turn a Blind Eye
Sometimes it's best to turn a Blind Eye.
-- Half Man Half Biscuit
oh, that's interesting. The original Register article I read didn't have that detail.
So if one does not do it dishonestly (i.e. can I have an IP, here's my MAC) and one also is not trying to avoid payment (say I'm in another town and look for an ntl: open AP, considering I'm an ntl: customer) I can wardrive =)
Either way, I won't stop wardriving.
I've made a note not to repeatedly kerb crawl round a residential area looking shifty !
because without it one can have < 5 second boots from power to login prompt
During that time, did you eat food containing any of their 2.4 billon eggs?
Those examples are not the same as :
/home/DrSkwid %
Username : DrSkwid
"Hi can I come in?"
"Yeah, sure"
"Can I have the keys to that car outside please"
"There you go, safe journey"
If you get an IP from a DHCP request, as far as I'm concerned that constitutes authorisation. How else am I supposed to know if I am authorised ?
...... sure here's an IP
/. posts used as evidence)
Me : Am I authorised an IP on this network
DHCPD : Lemme check your MAC address
http://www.ja.net/CERT/JANET-CERT/law/cma.html#1
Computer misuse offences
Unauthorised access to computer material.
1.-(1) A person is guilty of an offence if-
1. he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
2. the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
3. he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
(2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at-
1. any particular program or data;
2. a program or data of any particular kind; or
3. a program or data held in any particular computer.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
hmm, oh bugger. I'd better not rely on that in court ! (and if I do, I hope I don't get my
http://www.dhcp-handbook.com/dhcp_faq.html#widpx
# How can I prevent unauthorized laptops from using a network that uses DHCP for dynamic addressing?
This would have to be done using a mechanism other than DHCP. DHCP does not prevent other clients from using the addresses it is set to hand out nor can it distinguish between a computer's permanent MAC address and one set by the computer's user.
Ok it's a PBX, I know that much
The docs etc. mention VoIP but what software clients, if any, can one use on a PC to talk to people behing the PBX - is that even part of it?
I work in a satellite office and am interested in adding some sort of VoIP to our set-up but it's not my area of expertise.
Is Asterisk the sort of solution I should be looking at or am I barking up the wrong telegraph pole?
I'd be interested to hear how they can avoid it !
If you posted on /. that spammers should die, I guess you can now consider yourself a suspect.
:
:
And if you are a UK resident you can thank your lucky stars that the Extradition Act 2003 means that the Russian Police don't even need to build a strong case
In Category 2 cases the court may need to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence produced to show a prima facie case. However, many territories, including the US, Russia and Israel, have been designated so that they do not need to provide evidence, but instead only have to give information. It is significant that when the UK requests extradition from the US it is still required to show 'probable cause' - a diplomatic struggle the UK appears to have lost. The basis for this change of status of the US is the extradition treaty signed in March 2003. This generated a large amount of controversy as the treaty was signed without any Parliamentary scrutiny and the text was not even made public until two months after the signing.
Need your ISP's logs, no problem
The police have acquired additional powers ancillary to extradition requests enabling them to obtain search-and-seizure warrants and production orders. Either of these measures could be used to secure material from third parties including corporations.
http://www.legal500.com/devs/uk/fr/ukfr_018.htm
In Soviet Russia, FreeBSD trolls you !!
"Is it reasonable for an ISP to censor webpages they don't agree with during contract negotiations?"
No.
Bombs exploding in the transport nodes of my capital city scare me, how is that *not* terror?
:
I know it sounds like another day in Detroit but we're not used to the police shooting, let alone shooting to kill
"It was just mayhem. I've never seen people move so fast in all my life, people running in all directions, looks of horror on their faces and screaming. Lots of people were sort of crouched down trying to run, trying to protect their heads, worried about flying bullets."
Once again we have terror on our land. Ironically we wouldn't have it if there wasn't a "War On Terror".
So thank you, Bush & Blair, you've brought war to our streets, just like we said you would before you invaded Iraq.
Cunts
How safe would we be if everyone drove glass cars with a big spike pointing out of the steering wheel toward the driver ?
When one throws stones at The Glass House of Incompetence, it is usually best to know how to spell it first, lest one winds up at the wrong address with the other morons !
All the other posters in the thread seem not to have read the application :
:-) or pwn3df46607
"Methods and devices for creating and transferring custom emoticons allow a user to adopt an arbitrary image as an emoticon, which can then be represented by a character sequence in real-time communication. In one implementation, custom emoticons can be included in a message and transmitted to a receiver in the message. In another implementation, character sequences representing the custom emoticons can be transmitted in the message instead of the custom emoticons in order to preserve performance of text messaging. At the receiving end, the character sequences are replaced by their corresponding custom emoticons, which can be retrieved locally if they have been previously received, or can be retrieved from the sender in a separate communication from the text message if they have not been previously received."
The patent is not for smilies.
It is for having both ends having pre-set images displayed for certain character sequences in text mesages, be they
yay, lets all burn