There's several approaches to combating such "bullshit companies".
In this case, I see e.g. defamation, improper use of a trademark, coercing people into a contract because of not visibly telling them the cost and more Even more, for online contracts people have a right to back off in the first 28 days.
And that's not all, slowly politicians are recognizing that the information provided in registration forms mostly isn't much private anyway, and there's been calls to require a *written* signature (or possibly a cryptographically securely) signature. Of course this won't stop idiots from buying free stuff. While the 'victim' can do whatever he/she likes, why didn't the ask her collegue wether it is free before stupidly buying off a scam.
We have an government institute BSI that takes care of privacy/security concerns of people, mostly because the abuse of expensive phone numbers for scams and trojans. And we have RegTP, an institute specifically for banning abuses phone numbers and that way allowing people to deny the charges for these numbers (I personally had a case on 50EUR).
So... nobody here can claim they didn't know. They can claim they didn't care - nothing more.
This case here is a variation of the above, a company selling services on a product. But depending on the wording of the text on the scammers' site, it's an improper abuse of a trademark, they lacked the *required* cost details.
Ideally Openoffice.org and the victim cooperate on this issue.
Finally a hint for those from Germany who falled for a scam like this and noticed early. If *YOU* made the deal, immediately send them a "Einschreiben", backing of the contract. If if your son/daughter made the deal and is younger than 14, send them a "Einschreiben", too - telling them the contract was void because it would have needed your consent (contracts of value more than their allowance). Finally, with non-signed contracts, there's a chance of calling the contract fake.
This is wrong.
Most p2p software uses UDP for transfers and act as a client and server at the same time.
The definition of server/client is based on old tcp terminology of who initiates the connection.
Since udp is stateless, every paket is on its own and since p2p works on bidirectional flow of pakets, both ends are server and client at the same time.
Yeah,
and spamhaus is a good example how to do things.
But in reality, spamhaus has listed innocent hosts in the past AND wants a fee to delist them regardless the ban was unreasoned in the first place.
Way to go.
Yeah, they've written that and probably are using it, too. But actually this should be struck down soon, because national law (and those things our constitution states) are HIGHER than this piece of paper. Also these measures are especially for this new law - and does not apply to regular raid/search situations. And if they search your rooms without legitimation they'll shoot themselves in their foot. Generally - unless you're a suspectible terrorist (with strong hints) - they cannot simply walk in while you're away. IF they think you're a terrorist, they also can spy on your calls, use a regular search warrant - and in this case they *are* required to tell you afterwards.
For this purpose of installing a trojan on your computers, they are *trying* to circumvent search warrants and the post-search notification requirement.
IANAL, but this document you posted above is currently legally binding in Bavaria - while it violates higher laws. It needs to be struck down.
PS: I prefer to call Schäuble a terrorist, because he stratetigally bombs legal security and privacy better than any other fundamentalist/extremist terrorist. By my definition, terrorists try to render the political system useless for its people, he doesn't seem any different to me.
Yes, the translation is mostly correct, but is missing few details:
The Verfassungsgericht (highest judicial institution over here) stated that this kind of investigation is illegal and put very high barriers on it... for the whole of Germany. AND they put up a new consitutional right on "digital privacy". The barrier is that high that it should be near to impossible to implement the trojan in a way to stay within law.
Now the Bavarians thought they know better and updated their local laws and declared them to be "in accordance" with the new barriers (which they most likely are not and thus are going to get that struck down again).
Also... they are NOT allowed to physically enter the house/rooms/flat/... in order to install the trojan. They have to deploy it remotely by dialup or internet. If that was allowed they could secretly search through your other belongings, which is explicitely forbidden to happen with the owner not being around. People have the right to witness a raid or execution of a search warrant.
And yes, the risk of alteration is real, so the so-called evidence will probably be very weak and should not last very long in court.
Yet, I fear that the "evidence" might be remembered and used to investigate into other activities. Police may use evidence from one case to prove another case. THIS is very dangerous.
I don't see any 'enterprise software' in there.
For example: SAP.
I've been working 2 years in the software development for business customers at a big German Telco and I had to work with SAP and Java on a daily base - I had to WORK with it, not look at it's "nice" results (which we could have cheaper and quicker otherwise, another story).
The SAP suite is built around big interconnected databases with a nice and shiny gui. That's the nice part. For the bad side: Max of 7 windows (regardless of system specs). Slow. Error messages are non-descriptive, the detailed messages a repetition of the error message itself. Sometimes produces non-deteministic (as documented) output. Uses a COBOL like programming language for anything that can't be done by drag & drop, called ABAP. VERY expensive. Needs consultants for maintenance (often because programmers CANNOT guess how to do it right from the docs). Makes dependant (easy to import data, but no way out).
In the place I worked, we had SAP for about anything: bills, salaries, configuration of ports/switches/isdn/dsl.
My favorite error: In december I was 6 days ill, returned the 7th day. My salary report said: 28 days ill and I got a very reduced salary (Hint: there's no 28 days work in December)
My favorite documentation: For OOP there was a section that read like: Abstract Classes and Methods work completely orthogonal. Or very similar.
SAP is being sold to big companies, by seducing managers with lies like it would be complete, needs near to no maintenance,... They do this very tricky so managers don't ever back off until they depend on the software and it's too late. A very successfull concept actually.
Managers, ask your employees before deploying this BS in your company. Will save you big bucks. REALLY big bucks. Or at least make sure you have a contract that lets you back off from it if it doesn't fulfill your requirements. Don't be fools: shiny BS still is BS.
Slashdot Mirror
There's several approaches to combating such "bullshit companies".
In this case, I see e.g. defamation, improper use of a trademark, coercing people into a contract because of not visibly telling them the cost and more
Even more, for online contracts people have a right to back off in the first 28 days.
And that's not all, slowly politicians are recognizing that the information provided in registration forms mostly isn't much private anyway, and there's been calls to require a *written* signature (or possibly a cryptographically securely) signature. Of course this won't stop idiots from buying free stuff. While the 'victim' can do whatever he/she likes, why didn't the ask her collegue wether it is free before stupidly buying off a scam.
We have an government institute BSI that takes care of privacy/security concerns of people, mostly because the abuse of expensive phone numbers for scams and trojans. And we have RegTP, an institute specifically for banning abuses phone numbers and that way allowing people to deny the charges for these numbers (I personally had a case on 50EUR).
So... nobody here can claim they didn't know. They can claim they didn't care - nothing more.
This case here is a variation of the above, a company selling services on a product. But depending on the wording of the text on the scammers' site, it's an improper abuse of a trademark, they lacked the *required* cost details.
Ideally Openoffice.org and the victim cooperate on this issue.
Finally a hint for those from Germany who falled for a scam like this and noticed early. If *YOU* made the deal, immediately send them a "Einschreiben", backing of the contract. If if your son/daughter made the deal and is younger than 14, send them a "Einschreiben", too - telling them the contract was void because it would have needed your consent (contracts of value more than their allowance). Finally, with non-signed contracts, there's a chance of calling the contract fake.
--
satmd
This is wrong. Most p2p software uses UDP for transfers and act as a client and server at the same time. The definition of server/client is based on old tcp terminology of who initiates the connection. Since udp is stateless, every paket is on its own and since p2p works on bidirectional flow of pakets, both ends are server and client at the same time.
Yeah, and spamhaus is a good example how to do things. But in reality, spamhaus has listed innocent hosts in the past AND wants a fee to delist them regardless the ban was unreasoned in the first place. Way to go.
Yeah, they've written that and probably are using it, too. But actually this should be struck down soon, because national law (and those things our constitution states) are HIGHER than this piece of paper. Also these measures are especially for this new law - and does not apply to regular raid/search situations. And if they search your rooms without legitimation they'll shoot themselves in their foot. Generally - unless you're a suspectible terrorist (with strong hints) - they cannot simply walk in while you're away. IF they think you're a terrorist, they also can spy on your calls, use a regular search warrant - and in this case they *are* required to tell you afterwards.
For this purpose of installing a trojan on your computers, they are *trying* to circumvent search warrants and the post-search notification requirement.
IANAL, but this document you posted above is currently legally binding in Bavaria - while it violates higher laws. It needs to be struck down.
PS: I prefer to call Schäuble a terrorist, because he stratetigally bombs legal security and privacy better than any other fundamentalist/extremist terrorist.
By my definition, terrorists try to render the political system useless for its people, he doesn't seem any different to me.
Yes, the translation is mostly correct, but is missing few details: The Verfassungsgericht (highest judicial institution over here) stated that this kind of investigation is illegal and put very high barriers on it... for the whole of Germany. AND they put up a new consitutional right on "digital privacy". The barrier is that high that it should be near to impossible to implement the trojan in a way to stay within law. Now the Bavarians thought they know better and updated their local laws and declared them to be "in accordance" with the new barriers (which they most likely are not and thus are going to get that struck down again). Also... they are NOT allowed to physically enter the house/rooms/flat/... in order to install the trojan. They have to deploy it remotely by dialup or internet. If that was allowed they could secretly search through your other belongings, which is explicitely forbidden to happen with the owner not being around. People have the right to witness a raid or execution of a search warrant. And yes, the risk of alteration is real, so the so-called evidence will probably be very weak and should not last very long in court. Yet, I fear that the "evidence" might be remembered and used to investigate into other activities. Police may use evidence from one case to prove another case. THIS is very dangerous.
I don't see any 'enterprise software' in there. For example: SAP. I've been working 2 years in the software development for business customers at a big German Telco and I had to work with SAP and Java on a daily base - I had to WORK with it, not look at it's "nice" results (which we could have cheaper and quicker otherwise, another story). The SAP suite is built around big interconnected databases with a nice and shiny gui. That's the nice part. For the bad side: Max of 7 windows (regardless of system specs). Slow. Error messages are non-descriptive, the detailed messages a repetition of the error message itself. Sometimes produces non-deteministic (as documented) output. Uses a COBOL like programming language for anything that can't be done by drag & drop, called ABAP. VERY expensive. Needs consultants for maintenance (often because programmers CANNOT guess how to do it right from the docs). Makes dependant (easy to import data, but no way out). In the place I worked, we had SAP for about anything: bills, salaries, configuration of ports/switches/isdn/dsl. My favorite error: In december I was 6 days ill, returned the 7th day. My salary report said: 28 days ill and I got a very reduced salary (Hint: there's no 28 days work in December) My favorite documentation: For OOP there was a section that read like: Abstract Classes and Methods work completely orthogonal. Or very similar. SAP is being sold to big companies, by seducing managers with lies like it would be complete, needs near to no maintenance, ... They do this very tricky so managers don't ever back off until they depend on the software and it's too late. A very successfull concept actually.
Managers, ask your employees before deploying this BS in your company. Will save you big bucks. REALLY big bucks. Or at least make sure you have a contract that lets you back off from it if it doesn't fulfill your requirements. Don't be fools: shiny BS still is BS.