I think a problem will arise as the media attempts to classify all "black hat" hackers by the actions of these "script kiddies." Even though the vast majority of "damage" is caused by people with little or no computer knowledge just for the "thrill," the script kiddies really pose little significant threat to organizations.
The real danger is those people who have a clearly defined agenda/ideology in mind when the crack/write viruses. After the outbreak of the "ILOVEYOU" virus, I began thinking about a virus that targets a particular organization and compromises *only* their systems (and copies internal documents, deletes files, etc.). Even though it could replicate with each machine it infects, it would seem completely innocuous until it finds computers that identify themselves within the target domain. It could target particular classes of domains (in the case of worms, for example) that would be more likely to be within fewer degrees of separation from the target--preventing widespread outbreak and collateral damage so as to avoid attention and publicity.
Threats like the above are what should frighten corporations and the government. After Oracle's recent attempt to purchase MS trash, the proliferation of corporate espionage has really been brought to the forefront by the media. The damage that could result from the release of proprietary information is far greater than what results when a web server is cracked or an e-mail server taken down. Nonetheless, most organizations have no infrastructure in place to deal with this type of threat. This is where the *real* danger lies.
All Intel has to do is cut prices to squeeze transmeta out of the market."
And all SGI needs to do is cut prices on their Origin supercomputers in order to place Intel out of the home-PC market! The fact is that Transmeta is targetting a very specific market segment--people interested in fully functional low-power notebooks/Internet appliances who are willing to incur a performance penalty. These are the low-end, low-margin, customers that Intel wants to avoid, for the most part. Mobile Celerons are low-margin and only make up a miniscule portion of Intel's sales.
Astronaut Michael Foale, who was part of the 1997 mission, told the BBC he was not informed of the problems at the time but found the revelations intriguing.
You would think that the astronauts would be notified if there were sudden anomalies with their vital signs. At least an inquiry as to their status and a mention of the bad readings would be expected. I wonder if this is not just more PR designed to encourage stricter computer crime legislation and get NASA more funding for IT security.
DoubleClick must be the stupidest company on Earth. After they announced their intention to merge personal information with surfing habits, the backlash shaved 25% of their market cap--before the March downturn. Consequently, they placed a representative on a consumer privacy board and extolled the benefits of self-regulation while offering their assurances that the consumer would be protected.
Their continuing abuse only brings Internet privacy issues to the forefront, and the data they collect is not even that useful to advertisers! The benefits of ads targetted using this type of data is constanly coming under scrutiny. The only thing DoubleClick will accomplish is showing self-regulation to be the farce that it is and forcing the government to intervene.
Note that this doesn't mean that any piece of software running on a GNU/Linux machine is considered linked to the GPL-protected kernel. If the software can be moved to a different OS, then it doesn't depend on the kernel. ------------------------------------ This will discourage people from writing software for the Linux platform. Virtually all programs contain some system-level function calls, and some of them are Linux specific. No company can remain in business if they are forced to give the source code of their primary product away for free; none of the companies selling Linux distributions are even remotely profitable, even though they do sell media and service.
This clause, alone, will discourage people from supporting the Linux platform. Let's say a company wants to release one of its own products under the GPL and sign the copyright over to the FSF. If they have other software that interoperates in any way with the portion they want to open source, they cannot sell it, and must OS those code-bases as well!
The GPL should allow a company the flexibility of developing proprietary software that interoperates with free software. Otherwise the GNU/Linux platform will stop receiving the corporate support that it has in recent months.
Distributed Hosting Problem
on
Publius
·
· Score: 2
While I think that the distributed hosting concept could theoretically work, I am scared to set up a server because of the legal ramifications. Even though I have no idea what the system stores on my machine, one of the files could contain copyrighted material or child pornography, and I could theoretically be held responsible.
In order to fully protect the hosts, the system would need to perform some form of redundant striping across the entire network. That way, I would only have a useless portion of a file along with symbolic links to the locations where the remainder of the file could be downloaded. If I only have part of a file, that is useless without the other portions, then I am doing nothing illegal.
It seems that you cannot expect good customer service from a computer company. After Intel offered to foot the bill for the Rambus DRAM because its motherboard would not take SDRAM as advertisers, its stock dipped significantly. I guess this has scared these companies out of recalling the faulty units and replacing them free of charge.
In my mind, corporate responsibility is as important as the bottom line. When JNJ realized that it was shipping bad pharmecuticals in the 1980s, it immediately recalled all shipments that could have tainted units at great expense to itself, earning reams of positive publicity and attention from consumer rights advocates. Now, I am a proud JNJ shareholder. Companies that take full responsibility for their actions and sacrifice profits in the interest of customer satisfaction will be rewarded in the end.
Of course, the expo is Microsoft-centric; it is dealing with technologies of interest to end-users! The average end-user does not know what Linux is, because it was not designed for him. Two summers ago, I did some customer support, and I can only imagine how users who call the help-desk with questions like "how do I double-click" would react to Linux. In its complete form, Linux and UNIX only appeal to technophiles with either servers or high-end workstations.
That being said, I think that many more embedded devices over the next few years will be designed around Linux. Since the source is available, the Linux kernel can be optimized for the device being designed, and there are no licensing fees. So, it is far more likely that Linux would show up all over Comdex, rather than PC Expo
Politicians and exultant scientists were quick to sound caveats and talk about the need for safeguards and ethical standards, but the fact is there aren't any. ------------------------ Part of the federal funding that was devoted to the HGP went towards the study of the ethical question that would be raised by the genome's completion. Personally, I'm sorry that funding which could have been given to stimulate progress was instead put into the coffers of men who seek to bring "traditional values and ethics" into a world where genetic engineering and gene therapy is commonplace. --------------------------------------- Unlike Jon, I believe that man will not use the genome to create a "mass-produced" society. Genetic diversity is a key component of a "perfect humanity" that will allow it to adapt to changing environments. I believe that the first phase of genetic research will involve discovering genes reponsible for common diseases or conditions that are either fatal or severely detrimental to one's lifestyle. The next phase will encourage cosmetic and mental "enhancement" in the same way that plastic surgery has emerged from modern medicine.
Eliminating baldness, specifying gender, increasing intelligence etc, will be the closest that the marketplace will allow to complete genetic enhancement. How many parents would pay $1000 or more to determine a child's hair color, eye color, or other frivalous changes. We will be able to evolve ourselves increase our ability to survive rather than relying on nature to do this for us. We can finally take control of our own evolution.
Ordering babies to order is not necessarily a bad thing. Universal generic enhancements such as increasing intelligence and strength could create a level playing field for all, where equal opportunity is no longer a myth. Each set of parents has a very different idea of what constitutes the "ideal child" that is only partially rooted in social doctrine. Genetically engineered chlidren can be free or the diseases and disabling conditions that plague us; every parent wants his child to be able to live a better life than himself, wouldn't this be the ultimate expression of this desire?
Or maybe he'll end up like Lawn Chair Man except floating at 30+ miles up instead of merely 16,000 feet. Let's hope he calculates the amount of fuel he needs, successfully. And, at least he is seekng FAA approval first.
I disagree. The most popular web server is Apache, which can easily be extended to support new protocols because it is a popular open source project. The question is not whether the capability to serve BXXP is available on the server side, but whether anybody takes advantage of it. Unless there is support on the client side (which is, of course, transparent to the end user), there will be no reason to expend the additional effort to code for it on the server side.
The difficult part of phasing BXXP in will not be supporting it in popular web servers/browsers, but rather programming for the protocol itself. It only takes two companies/organizations--Apache and either Netscape or MS--to allow the protocol to be used on the Internet, on many machines. However, the development of useful content on the server side requires each we publisher to incur an additional expense. As such, there must already be a critical mass of supported clients available for it to be cost effective for them to rewrite existing applications.
HTTP is a universally accepted legacy protocol. Unles BXXP is adopted by MS and Netscape for inclusion in their latest browser releases, the average Internet user will probably not have the opportunity to even see it in action. It is nice to think that technically superior methodologies/products will ultimately render older, less efficient, ones obsolete; but look at how long it's taking for HDTV or IPv6 to be adopted! Moving from a legacy communications protocol will probably take at least 5-10 years in a best case scenario.
If a service provider's network produces a large volume of SPAM, no other providers will be willing to peer with them. As a result, they will effectively be removed from the Internet at-large.
This is already happening with SPAM. If a large volume of SPAM is coming from a particular domain or service provider, other networks will refuse to peer with that service provider or accept mail from that domain. There is already precendent for locking people out of the Internet if the violate the prevailing standard of Internet ethics, and thus removing the offending content from the public Internet.
Allowing pop-up ads is part of the AOL ToS. If people do not want pop-up ads, they should find a real ISP. I think I'm going to sue FreeWWWeb because of that annoying sound that the modem makes every time it connects:-)
The problem with the HGP is that raw data is being generated faster than anybody can analyze it. Already, numerous microbial genomes and the fruit fly genome have been sequenced, but mining the data for useful information is an extremely time consuming and difficult process. Even with the human genome sequence complete, it will probably be many years before genetic treatments are offered.
In order to create genetic treatments, scientists must determine the location of genes that produce groups of proteins that are contributing factors to disease. Dividing the genome into functional subunits, individual genes, can be a long an error-prone process. Even after a gene is discovered (and likely patented--unless we stop Congress from allowing gene-patents), an effective treatment must be developed. Then, the treatment must be tested to comply FDA regulations--another long and expensive process.
Between this and the reivew of all televised broadcasts to reward producers for including anti-drug messages, it seems that the independence of our media and the privacy of our citizens are the primaty casualties in our national "war on drugs." Of course 1% of the population is imprisoned for drug-based offenses, so many people's liberty has also fallen victim to our national crusade.
Both presidential candidates have not denied that they have used drugs in the past. Yet, they both advocate harsher sentences for convicted drug offenders. Since possession of a large enough quantity of drugs is considered a felony in many jurisdictions, if they were arrested, they would be convicted felons and unable to vote, let alone hold public office.
I have to reluctantly agree. Even if the official release of a given OS project could be certified, the fact that anybody can download the current code and insert back doors before compiling makes it impossible to determine whether the version of XXX that *you have* is actually secure. In addition, somebody could introduce security holes in a new feature that they develop and, unless somebody else is able to discover them before updating the CVS tree, somebody could download it along with the "current development release."
The only advantage I see to commercial software is that the releases are controlled. The code is not released to the public outside of clearly defined production releases. This ensures that interim security problems are repaired before anybody encounters them. In addition, binaries can only be obtained from one set of source code and from one trusted source. With OSS, anybody can download the current source, insert malicious code, compile, and then distribute their version as if it were the official release.
Any company that would certify OSS risks damaging their reputation should a version of the code they certified surface with a back door. Of course, that was not the code they reviewed, but the bad press they risk receiving would inhibit any desire to certify the security of OSS.
While not an academic journal, TechLawJournal is a news site that focuses on legal developments that will effect the technological community. It is a great resource that is constantly updated.
Just automatically reveal false data to all sites that you visit. If a group of people get together and all identify themselves as Jesus Christ or Linus Torvalds, then the data will be as worthless as if it were never collected. Your "identity" will not even function as a unique identifier as everybody in the group is identifying themselves as the same individual.
Parody is considered one of the fair use exemption to copyright law and I see no reason why trademark parodies should not be subject to the same protection. Trademark protections exist for a couple of reasons: to prevent consumer confusion, and to protect the value of the company's trademark. In the case of this parody, there is no confusion, and the PETA trademark is not diminished. I think there is a decent chance that peta.org would win on appeal.
I wonder whether any developments from Amiga will be designed only to appeal to the Amiga fanatacs, or whether their effects will trickle down to the rest of the industry. The most interesting aspects of the original Amigas were that they were the first PCs to focus on multimedia support. Now, multimedia is everywhere. I'm just curious as to what niche Amiga will now target and whether it can live up to the name.
Slashdot Mirror
I think a problem will arise as the media attempts to classify all "black hat" hackers by the actions of these "script kiddies." Even though the vast majority of "damage" is caused by people with little or no computer knowledge just for the "thrill," the script kiddies really pose little significant threat to organizations.
The real danger is those people who have a clearly defined agenda/ideology in mind when the crack/write viruses. After the outbreak of the "ILOVEYOU" virus, I began thinking about a virus that targets a particular organization and compromises *only* their systems (and copies internal documents, deletes files, etc.). Even though it could replicate with each machine it infects, it would seem completely innocuous until it finds computers that identify themselves within the target domain. It could target particular classes of domains (in the case of worms, for example) that would be more likely to be within fewer degrees of separation from the target--preventing widespread outbreak and collateral damage so as to avoid attention and publicity.
Threats like the above are what should frighten corporations and the government. After Oracle's recent attempt to purchase MS trash, the proliferation of corporate espionage has really been brought to the forefront by the media. The damage that could result from the release of proprietary information is far greater than what results when a web server is cracked or an e-mail server taken down. Nonetheless, most organizations have no infrastructure in place to deal with this type of threat. This is where the *real* danger lies.
All Intel has to do is cut prices to squeeze transmeta out of the market."
And all SGI needs to do is cut prices on their Origin supercomputers in order to place Intel out of the home-PC market! The fact is that Transmeta is targetting a very specific market segment--people interested in fully functional low-power notebooks/Internet appliances who are willing to incur a performance penalty. These are the low-end, low-margin, customers that Intel wants to avoid, for the most part. Mobile Celerons are low-margin and only make up a miniscule portion of Intel's sales.
Astronaut Michael Foale, who was part of the 1997 mission, told the BBC he was not informed of the problems at the time but found the revelations intriguing.
You would think that the astronauts would be notified if there were sudden anomalies with their vital signs. At least an inquiry as to their status and a mention of the bad readings would be expected. I wonder if this is not just more PR designed to encourage stricter computer crime legislation and get NASA more funding for IT security.
DoubleClick must be the stupidest company on Earth. After they announced their intention to merge personal information with surfing habits, the backlash shaved 25% of their market cap--before the March downturn. Consequently, they placed a representative on a consumer privacy board and extolled the benefits of self-regulation while offering their assurances that the consumer would be protected.
Their continuing abuse only brings Internet privacy issues to the forefront, and the data they collect is not even that useful to advertisers! The benefits of ads targetted using this type of data is constanly coming under scrutiny. The only thing DoubleClick will accomplish is showing self-regulation to be the farce that it is and forcing the government to intervene.
Note that this doesn't mean that any piece of software running on a GNU/Linux machine is considered linked to the GPL-protected kernel. If the software can be moved to a different OS, then it doesn't depend on the kernel.
------------------------------------
This will discourage people from writing software for the Linux platform. Virtually all programs contain some system-level function calls, and some of them are Linux specific. No company can remain in business if they are forced to give the source code of their primary product away for free; none of the companies selling Linux distributions are even remotely profitable, even though they do sell media and service.
This clause, alone, will discourage people from supporting the Linux platform. Let's say a company wants to release one of its own products under the GPL and sign the copyright over to the FSF. If they have other software that interoperates in any way with the portion they want to open source, they cannot sell it, and must OS those code-bases as well!
The GPL should allow a company the flexibility of developing proprietary software that interoperates with free software. Otherwise the GNU/Linux platform will stop receiving the corporate support that it has in recent months.
While I think that the distributed hosting concept could theoretically work, I am scared to set up a server because of the legal ramifications. Even though I have no idea what the system stores on my machine, one of the files could contain copyrighted material or child pornography, and I could theoretically be held responsible.
In order to fully protect the hosts, the system would need to perform some form of redundant striping across the entire network. That way, I would only have a useless portion of a file along with symbolic links to the locations where the remainder of the file could be downloaded. If I only have part of a file, that is useless without the other portions, then I am doing nothing illegal.
It seems that you cannot expect good customer service from a computer company. After Intel offered to foot the bill for the Rambus DRAM because its motherboard would not take SDRAM as advertisers, its stock dipped significantly. I guess this has scared these companies out of recalling the faulty units and replacing them free of charge.
In my mind, corporate responsibility is as important as the bottom line. When JNJ realized that it was shipping bad pharmecuticals in the 1980s, it immediately recalled all shipments that could have tainted units at great expense to itself, earning reams of positive publicity and attention from consumer rights advocates. Now, I am a proud JNJ shareholder. Companies that take full responsibility for their actions and sacrifice profits in the interest of customer satisfaction will be rewarded in the end.
Of course, the expo is Microsoft-centric; it is dealing with technologies of interest to end-users! The average end-user does not know what Linux is, because it was not designed for him. Two summers ago, I did some customer support, and I can only imagine how users who call the help-desk with questions like "how do I double-click" would react to Linux. In its complete form, Linux and UNIX only appeal to technophiles with either servers or high-end workstations.
That being said, I think that many more embedded devices over the next few years will be designed around Linux. Since the source is available, the Linux kernel can be optimized for the device being designed, and there are no licensing fees. So, it is far more likely that Linux would show up all over Comdex, rather than PC Expo
Politicians and exultant scientists were quick to sound caveats and talk about the need for safeguards and ethical standards, but the fact is there aren't any.
------------------------
Part of the federal funding that was devoted to the HGP went towards the study of the ethical question that would be raised by the genome's completion. Personally, I'm sorry that funding which could have been given to stimulate progress was instead put into the coffers of men who seek to bring "traditional values and ethics" into a world where genetic engineering and gene therapy is commonplace.
---------------------------------------
Unlike Jon, I believe that man will not use the genome to create a "mass-produced" society. Genetic diversity is a key component of a "perfect humanity" that will allow it to adapt to changing environments. I believe that the first phase of genetic research will involve discovering genes reponsible for common diseases or conditions that are either fatal or severely detrimental to one's lifestyle. The next phase will encourage cosmetic and mental "enhancement" in the same way that plastic surgery has emerged from modern medicine.
Eliminating baldness, specifying gender, increasing intelligence etc, will be the closest that the marketplace will allow to complete genetic enhancement. How many parents would pay $1000 or more to determine a child's hair color, eye color, or other frivalous changes. We will be able to evolve ourselves increase our ability to survive rather than relying on nature to do this for us. We can finally take control of our own evolution.
Ordering babies to order is not necessarily a bad thing. Universal generic enhancements such as increasing intelligence and strength could create a level playing field for all, where equal opportunity is no longer a myth. Each set of parents has a very different idea of what constitutes the "ideal child" that is only partially rooted in social doctrine. Genetically engineered chlidren can be free or the diseases and disabling conditions that plague us; every parent wants his child to be able to live a better life than himself, wouldn't this be the ultimate expression of this desire?
I cannot wait to see the Jar Jar death scene :-)! I'd buy the VHS/DVD just for that! What do you think would be the best way to kill him off?
Or maybe he'll end up like Lawn Chair Man except floating at 30+ miles up instead of merely 16,000 feet. Let's hope he calculates the amount of fuel he needs, successfully. And, at least he is seekng FAA approval first.
I disagree. The most popular web server is Apache, which can easily be extended to support new protocols because it is a popular open source project. The question is not whether the capability to serve BXXP is available on the server side, but whether anybody takes advantage of it. Unless there is support on the client side (which is, of course, transparent to the end user), there will be no reason to expend the additional effort to code for it on the server side.
The difficult part of phasing BXXP in will not be supporting it in popular web servers/browsers, but rather programming for the protocol itself. It only takes two companies/organizations--Apache and either Netscape or MS--to allow the protocol to be used on the Internet, on many machines. However, the development of useful content on the server side requires each we publisher to incur an additional expense. As such, there must already be a critical mass of supported clients available for it to be cost effective for them to rewrite existing applications.
HTTP is a universally accepted legacy protocol. Unles BXXP is adopted by MS and Netscape for inclusion in their latest browser releases, the average Internet user will probably not have the opportunity to even see it in action. It is nice to think that technically superior methodologies/products will ultimately render older, less efficient, ones obsolete; but look at how long it's taking for HDTV or IPv6 to be adopted! Moving from a legacy communications protocol will probably take at least 5-10 years in a best case scenario.
If a service provider's network produces a large volume of SPAM, no other providers will be willing to peer with them. As a result, they will effectively be removed from the Internet at-large.
This is already happening with SPAM. If a large volume of SPAM is coming from a particular domain or service provider, other networks will refuse to peer with that service provider or accept mail from that domain. There is already precendent for locking people out of the Internet if the violate the prevailing standard of Internet ethics, and thus removing the offending content from the public Internet.
Lenny
That site would just keep returning 404: Not Found errors :-)
Allowing pop-up ads is part of the AOL ToS. If people do not want pop-up ads, they should find a real ISP. I think I'm going to sue FreeWWWeb because of that annoying sound that the modem makes every time it connects :-)
The problem with the HGP is that raw data is being generated faster than anybody can analyze it. Already, numerous microbial genomes and the fruit fly genome have been sequenced, but mining the data for useful information is an extremely time consuming and difficult process. Even with the human genome sequence complete, it will probably be many years before genetic treatments are offered.
In order to create genetic treatments, scientists must determine the location of genes that produce groups of proteins that are contributing factors to disease. Dividing the genome into functional subunits, individual genes, can be a long an error-prone process. Even after a gene is discovered (and likely patented--unless we stop Congress from allowing gene-patents), an effective treatment must be developed. Then, the treatment must be tested to comply FDA regulations--another long and expensive process.
Everybody's personal preferences stored on a central server, by Microsoft...Am I the only one concerned by this?
Between this and the reivew of all televised broadcasts to reward producers for including anti-drug messages, it seems that the independence of our media and the privacy of our citizens are the primaty casualties in our national "war on drugs." Of course 1% of the population is imprisoned for drug-based offenses, so many people's liberty has also fallen victim to our national crusade.
Both presidential candidates have not denied that they have used drugs in the past. Yet, they both advocate harsher sentences for convicted drug offenders. Since possession of a large enough quantity of drugs is considered a felony in many jurisdictions, if they were arrested, they would be convicted felons and unable to vote, let alone hold public office.
Go figure.
I have to reluctantly agree. Even if the official release of a given OS project could be certified, the fact that anybody can download the current code and insert back doors before compiling makes it impossible to determine whether the version of XXX that *you have* is actually secure. In addition, somebody could introduce security holes in a new feature that they develop and, unless somebody else is able to discover them before updating the CVS tree, somebody could download it along with the "current development release."
The only advantage I see to commercial software is that the releases are controlled. The code is not released to the public outside of clearly defined production releases. This ensures that interim security problems are repaired before anybody encounters them. In addition, binaries can only be obtained from one set of source code and from one trusted source. With OSS, anybody can download the current source, insert malicious code, compile, and then distribute their version as if it were the official release.
Any company that would certify OSS risks damaging their reputation should a version of the code they certified surface with a back door. Of course, that was not the code they reviewed, but the bad press they risk receiving would inhibit any desire to certify the security of OSS.
While not an academic journal, TechLawJournal is a news site that focuses on legal developments that will effect the technological community. It is a great resource that is constantly updated.
Just automatically reveal false data to all sites that you visit. If a group of people get together and all identify themselves as Jesus Christ or Linus Torvalds, then the data will be as worthless as if it were never collected. Your "identity" will not even function as a unique identifier as everybody in the group is identifying themselves as the same individual.
Parody is considered one of the fair use exemption to copyright law and I see no reason why trademark parodies should not be subject to the same protection. Trademark protections exist for a couple of reasons: to prevent consumer confusion, and to protect the value of the company's trademark. In the case of this parody, there is no confusion, and the PETA trademark is not diminished. I think there is a decent chance that peta.org would win on appeal.
I wonder whether any developments from Amiga will be designed only to appeal to the Amiga fanatacs, or whether their effects will trickle down to the rest of the industry. The most interesting aspects of the original Amigas were that they were the first PCs to focus on multimedia support. Now, multimedia is everywhere. I'm just curious as to what niche Amiga will now target and whether it can live up to the name.