But in general, do UK laws apply outside of the UK?
If the person performs an action which is illegal in his home country, but legal in the country he is in, he is generally not found to be liable in his own country.
In this case, he committed an action while he was in the UK, but the target of his action was in another country. The question of jurisdiction is certainly relevant.
Are there laws against hacking a computer in another country in England?
The fact is, he committed a crime, and some portion of that crime took place on US soil. By convention, that allows for the US to extradite him, even if he never set foot here, himself.
That said, with the fucked up US prison system, I hope (for his sake) that he gets to stay in the UK.
Yes, I'm going to give access to my computer to some random technical support guy. I'm talking phone support, of course. If I was sitting at the console I'd have a pretty good shot of identifying the version of Windows/Window Manager just by looking at the desktop, or worst case scenario, by asking the user to click on a few things.
The common user interface is an issue, like it or not. Users don't want to sit down at an unfamiliar computer and have no idea how to do things since it's a completely new interface--they want to be able to sit down at a computer and use it as though it was their own.
Survival is more important than "winning" a battle or another. If you survive long enough, you won't have any competition because it will all have died.
Windows surely is dying. Man, look at those spasms.
Vista is a snag, a blemish on Microsoft's face, but time will tell whether or not it is successful. Even if it isn't successful, XP certainly is. There is no indication that Microsoft or Windows is going away any time soon. So while Linux might "survive" (and even of this I'm not sure, due to potential patent issues--I'm not buying into the FUD Microsoft spouts, but I'm not discounting it either), I don't see all of its competition as dying out.
Like I said, it depends upon the goals of the community. Some people think that the goal should be to get Linux on every desktop. Some people just want a nice, clean OS that they can feel superior about. "There is always a place for multiple projects" only fits into one of these goals.
I like choice a lot, but I have to wonder if one of the reasons that Linux doesn't have wider acceptance on the desktop is due to the fragmentation. Putting aside the dozens of different distributions, there are so many user-interfaces that there's no way your average computer user could possibly use it reasonably. Having worked at a helpdesk, I can say that it's hard enough supporting Windows versions with these people. The typical call goes something like this:
Me: "Ok, so you're having problems with your computer. What operating system are you running?" Him: "Uh." Me: "Is it Windows?" Him: "Yeah." Me: "Which version of Windows is on your computer?" Him: "Uh, I don't know, it's Windows."
Imagine trying to figure out if the user was using Gnome, KDE, Fluxbox, Blackbox, IceWM, Enlightenment, Windowmaker, or any of the other, more obscure ones I haven't mentioned. Windows monoculture is one part of the formula which has lead it to desktop domination. I'm not saying that desktop domination is necessarily the goal, but certainly the statement that "there is always place for multiple projects"(sic) isn't true for all potential goals of a a community.
Certainly I'm aware that Unix boxes can do this, and very well. Without asinine things like the registry clouding the issue, it's quite easy to have all of your customizations in an NFS-mounted directory.
But it also certainly works with Windows. It requires an image and the domain set up correctly, but it's quite possible. I won't claim that it's easy, as I've not done it, but at my job, this is somewhat routine.
The editors clearly think that it is funny. That's kinda sad. My April 1st is always "Day Without Slashdot Day" brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department. Guess I should have stopped earlier on the 31st.
Can you give me more details on your hardware, then? All my tests have indicated that the bus was our limitation, so if you've overcome that limitation, it would be useful for me to know more.
Lack of obligation for the content holders to check. Obligation? Come on, with the rapid-fire way these suits have to be managed for sites like Youtube, you want them to be obligated to verify the complaint? No chance in Hell. Smaller companies would never have the resources to do this. Youtube would have failed long before the Google purchase.
The fact that there's no compensation for the victim of a takedown if they aren't infringing. I haven't seen anything in the DMCA that prevents the victim from filing a suit.
The fact that there's a viable weaponif you want something taken down for a short time. That's fair, but managing copyright is a difficult problem. I'd say this portion of the DMCA got a lot of things right, overall.
It depends upon the job. If the job is managing a number of remote systems over SSH, I don't understand why the OS on your workstation matters. Is Firefox/IE really so different that you can't use it as effectively as your preferred browser on Linux? Is ssh that different from Putty? The biggest difference I can imagine is e-mail, where Outlook is pretty hard to work with compared to Mutt (IMO), but if you're spending that much time on e-mail, there are probably other problems that your employer should deal with before tackling the OS their system administrators use.
Also, the IT department has a limited budget. Training someone up so they can offer support to the 3 people who want Unix desktops is hard to justify.
The person in question is already a tech, no point in doing such a thing. Uh, how about so that he can do his actual job instead of fixing problems with his workstation when they occur?
The great thing about having centrally managed setups (like you see so often with Windows) is that you can basically swap out workstations and have your complete environment right there. If something breaks on your workstation, you call IT, they bring you a new computer, swap it for your old one, and you continue working.
If you have a different OS, this no longer works. You can either manage it yourself or the company can hire people to manage the tiny percentage of people who don't want Windows in order to achieve the same effect I described above. Managing it yourself takes resources (you) away from the job. Hiring people to manage the systems costs a huge amount of money.
I disagree. This is why the DMCA rocks! This is the only part of the DMCA that I'm actually ok with. It allows copyright holders some means of protecting their content, it allows false claims to be disputed, and it protects content carriers. What exactly is wrong with it?
I hope that you don't actually engage in illegal activities if you do that. Seems likely that your computer equipment could be seized if court proceedings ever began.
The DMCA basically makes it so that sites such as Youtube are not considered to be hosting the content--instead, whoever put it on their servers is. However, because Youtube is hosting the content (and can remove it), the DMCA allows a person to claim ownership and demand that they remove it. If Youtube does anything other than remove it, they become the content hoster in the eyes of the law.
If the actual hoster files a counter-claim under the DMCA, the content goes back up until an injunction brings it down. At least, in theory.
All of this is actually one of the parts of the DMCA that I'm mostly ok with. Yes, it can be abused (like most laws), but before the DMCA, sites like Youtube would have been responsible for their users copyright infringement--and sites like that probably wouldn't exist very long.
Then again, Viacom is claiming that Youtube owes them money from infringements hosted on their site. If the DMCA fails to shield, it will become completely useless in my eyes. We'll see.
The DMCA includes a clause for the submitter of the content to refute the takedown. Once they do, the hosting company puts the material back up and the courts are supposed to take over. In this way, the DMCA should not be abuseable to continuously remove speech that a person doesn't like, but has no ownership over.
I was aware that British copyrights were enforceable--I was not aware that they were enforceable under the specific laws of the US. Seems to me that they would have to send a takedown notice under the Berne convention rather than under the DMCA.
You won't get those kinds of speeds on any PC platform without some sort of dedicated firewall on your NIC (so that you can avoid the PC's BUS.) In practice, you might get as much as 300Mbps.
Basically, once you start getting into those speed ranges, you need an appliance.
I agree 100%. PF is an excellent firewall. Running on commodity PC hardware, however, may not be the way to go (BUS issues).
Force10 is working on a firewall solution which implements PF. They claim line-rate for Gig and 10-Gig, and they also include Snort on the device. It sounds absolutely wonderful..the best of both worlds, basically, since most commercial firewall solutions that I've seen are (in my opinion) fairly unwieldy.
Actually, both of those firewall solutions are based off of FreeBSD (which ported pf from OpenBSD some time ago). FreeBSD is, in my opinion, an easier to manage and slightly more robust OS, though it isn't audited for security quite as much as OpenBSD is.
Most switchers that stick with it will probably be people who are capable of learning new things easily. That is, typically younger people.
I'm pretty set in my ways of using a computer. I like my Linux. I decided to try OS X awhile back, since it was based on BSD and I was in the market for a new Laptop.
Overall, I enjoyed the experience. There was a lot that I had to get used to, though. The lack of sloppy-focus was probably my single biggest beef with the platform. Second (and this shows you just how minor my complaints were) was that the Terminal.app window updates horribly slowly. At the time, I was heavily into MUDs (astaria3.com, for the interested) and Terminal.app really killed my reaction times compared to XTerm on Linux on the same Internet connection.
I ultimately switched back for other reasons--specifically, the notebook was too small and I started having serious pains in my wrists and fingers. After switching back, the pain subsided. I got rid of the notebook and got myself a Dell, instead.
I've since considered switching back back. Those Macbook Pros are about the same size as my current notebook (so I shouldn't have the pain issues). Finding an app to do sloppy focus would probably seal the deal.
In DOS, you could create filenames with any ASCII character in them by holding ALT and typing the ASCII code on the numeric keypad. In this way, you could create "blank" directories/files that few people knew how to access.
Slashdot Mirror
Cool, just need to find that ethernet port on my phone.
The SERVER was on AMERICAN SOIL.
I didn't think it was that hard to understand.
But in general, do UK laws apply outside of the UK?
If the person performs an action which is illegal in his home country, but legal in the country he is in, he is generally not found to be liable in his own country.
In this case, he committed an action while he was in the UK, but the target of his action was in another country. The question of jurisdiction is certainly relevant.
Are there laws against hacking a computer in another country in England?
The fact is, he committed a crime, and some portion of that crime took place on US soil. By convention, that allows for the US to extradite him, even if he never set foot here, himself.
That said, with the fucked up US prison system, I hope (for his sake) that he gets to stay in the UK.
Yes, I'm going to give access to my computer to some random technical support guy. I'm talking phone support, of course. If I was sitting at the console I'd have a pretty good shot of identifying the version of Windows/Window Manager just by looking at the desktop, or worst case scenario, by asking the user to click on a few things.
The common user interface is an issue, like it or not. Users don't want to sit down at an unfamiliar computer and have no idea how to do things since it's a completely new interface--they want to be able to sit down at a computer and use it as though it was their own.
Survival is more important than "winning" a battle or another. If you survive long enough, you won't have any competition because it will all have died.
Windows surely is dying. Man, look at those spasms.
Vista is a snag, a blemish on Microsoft's face, but time will tell whether or not it is successful. Even if it isn't successful, XP certainly is. There is no indication that Microsoft or Windows is going away any time soon. So while Linux might "survive" (and even of this I'm not sure, due to potential patent issues--I'm not buying into the FUD Microsoft spouts, but I'm not discounting it either), I don't see all of its competition as dying out.
Like I said, it depends upon the goals of the community. Some people think that the goal should be to get Linux on every desktop. Some people just want a nice, clean OS that they can feel superior about. "There is always a place for multiple projects" only fits into one of these goals.
I like choice a lot, but I have to wonder if one of the reasons that Linux doesn't have wider acceptance on the desktop is due to the fragmentation. Putting aside the dozens of different distributions, there are so many user-interfaces that there's no way your average computer user could possibly use it reasonably. Having worked at a helpdesk, I can say that it's hard enough supporting Windows versions with these people. The typical call goes something like this:
Me: "Ok, so you're having problems with your computer. What operating system are you running?"
Him: "Uh."
Me: "Is it Windows?"
Him: "Yeah."
Me: "Which version of Windows is on your computer?"
Him: "Uh, I don't know, it's Windows."
Imagine trying to figure out if the user was using Gnome, KDE, Fluxbox, Blackbox, IceWM, Enlightenment, Windowmaker, or any of the other, more obscure ones I haven't mentioned. Windows monoculture is one part of the formula which has lead it to desktop domination. I'm not saying that desktop domination is necessarily the goal, but certainly the statement that "there is always place for multiple projects"(sic) isn't true for all potential goals of a a community.
Sure it isn't. And Gmail wasn't also "launched" on April 1st.
Certainly I'm aware that Unix boxes can do this, and very well. Without asinine things like the registry clouding the issue, it's quite easy to have all of your customizations in an NFS-mounted directory.
But it also certainly works with Windows. It requires an image and the domain set up correctly, but it's quite possible. I won't claim that it's easy, as I've not done it, but at my job, this is somewhat routine.
The editors clearly think that it is funny. That's kinda sad. My April 1st is always "Day Without Slashdot Day" brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department. Guess I should have stopped earlier on the 31st.
But why is he having so much trouble using SSH from Windows? sounds like there may be HR problems here, too.
Can you give me more details on your hardware, then? All my tests have indicated that the bus was our limitation, so if you've overcome that limitation, it would be useful for me to know more.
Also, I assme that is bridging, not routing?
He may not have the means to do this (re: automatic backups that would fail and generate tons of errors, BIOS password, etc)
It depends upon the job. If the job is managing a number of remote systems over SSH, I don't understand why the OS on your workstation matters. Is Firefox/IE really so different that you can't use it as effectively as your preferred browser on Linux? Is ssh that different from Putty? The biggest difference I can imagine is e-mail, where Outlook is pretty hard to work with compared to Mutt (IMO), but if you're spending that much time on e-mail, there are probably other problems that your employer should deal with before tackling the OS their system administrators use.
The great thing about having centrally managed setups (like you see so often with Windows) is that you can basically swap out workstations and have your complete environment right there. If something breaks on your workstation, you call IT, they bring you a new computer, swap it for your old one, and you continue working.
If you have a different OS, this no longer works. You can either manage it yourself or the company can hire people to manage the tiny percentage of people who don't want Windows in order to achieve the same effect I described above. Managing it yourself takes resources (you) away from the job. Hiring people to manage the systems costs a huge amount of money.
I disagree. This is why the DMCA rocks! This is the only part of the DMCA that I'm actually ok with. It allows copyright holders some means of protecting their content, it allows false claims to be disputed, and it protects content carriers. What exactly is wrong with it?
I hope that you don't actually engage in illegal activities if you do that. Seems likely that your computer equipment could be seized if court proceedings ever began.
Nope. That's the fun of the DMCA.
The DMCA basically makes it so that sites such as Youtube are not considered to be hosting the content--instead, whoever put it on their servers is. However, because Youtube is hosting the content (and can remove it), the DMCA allows a person to claim ownership and demand that they remove it. If Youtube does anything other than remove it, they become the content hoster in the eyes of the law.
If the actual hoster files a counter-claim under the DMCA, the content goes back up until an injunction brings it down. At least, in theory.
All of this is actually one of the parts of the DMCA that I'm mostly ok with. Yes, it can be abused (like most laws), but before the DMCA, sites like Youtube would have been responsible for their users copyright infringement--and sites like that probably wouldn't exist very long.
Then again, Viacom is claiming that Youtube owes them money from infringements hosted on their site. If the DMCA fails to shield, it will become completely useless in my eyes. We'll see.
The DMCA includes a clause for the submitter of the content to refute the takedown. Once they do, the hosting company puts the material back up and the courts are supposed to take over. In this way, the DMCA should not be abuseable to continuously remove speech that a person doesn't like, but has no ownership over.
Of course, it doesn't always work out that way.
I was aware that British copyrights were enforceable--I was not aware that they were enforceable under the specific laws of the US. Seems to me that they would have to send a takedown notice under the Berne convention rather than under the DMCA.
You won't get those kinds of speeds on any PC platform without some sort of dedicated firewall on your NIC (so that you can avoid the PC's BUS.) In practice, you might get as much as 300Mbps.
Basically, once you start getting into those speed ranges, you need an appliance.
I agree 100%. PF is an excellent firewall. Running on commodity PC hardware, however, may not be the way to go (BUS issues).
Force10 is working on a firewall solution which implements PF. They claim line-rate for Gig and 10-Gig, and they also include Snort on the device. It sounds absolutely wonderful..the best of both worlds, basically, since most commercial firewall solutions that I've seen are (in my opinion) fairly unwieldy.
Actually, both of those firewall solutions are based off of FreeBSD (which ported pf from OpenBSD some time ago). FreeBSD is, in my opinion, an easier to manage and slightly more robust OS, though it isn't audited for security quite as much as OpenBSD is.
Most switchers that stick with it will probably be people who are capable of learning new things easily. That is, typically younger people.
I'm pretty set in my ways of using a computer. I like my Linux. I decided to try OS X awhile back, since it was based on BSD and I was in the market for a new Laptop.
Overall, I enjoyed the experience. There was a lot that I had to get used to, though. The lack of sloppy-focus was probably my single biggest beef with the platform. Second (and this shows you just how minor my complaints were) was that the Terminal.app window updates horribly slowly. At the time, I was heavily into MUDs (astaria3.com, for the interested) and Terminal.app really killed my reaction times compared to XTerm on Linux on the same Internet connection.
I ultimately switched back for other reasons--specifically, the notebook was too small and I started having serious pains in my wrists and fingers. After switching back, the pain subsided. I got rid of the notebook and got myself a Dell, instead.
I've since considered switching back back. Those Macbook Pros are about the same size as my current notebook (so I shouldn't have the pain issues). Finding an app to do sloppy focus would probably seal the deal.
In DOS, you could create filenames with any ASCII character in them by holding ALT and typing the ASCII code on the numeric keypad. In this way, you could create "blank" directories/files that few people knew how to access.