It depends where you're talking. Sure the average home user is going to prefer free programs. However, when you're talking large corporations, as I said, the initial purchase price usually isn't the deciding factor. Regardless of the type of software (closed or open source), one should ALWAYS choose the best software for the job. However, IMHO, open source generally produces better software in the long run than does closed source.
The biggest benefit of open source software is that its, well, open source. Sure, most of it is free to use, commercial or not. However, as this, and other articles point out, purchase price is normally a very small portion of TCO (total cost of ownership).
Yeah, that storm is coming here (Regina) tonight or tomorrow. I'm hoping to get a glimpse of it tonight, but the good news is, its brightness isn't going to peak for a few more days, so this weekend should provide a better opportunity, providing its not cloudy.
This is one of the reasons I stick with FPS. I was into Guild Wars for a while, but with a new born at home (he's 14 months now), I didn't always have time to spend an hour or more running through a quest. With FPS, I can sit down, play for 15 minutes or a few hours without worrying about not being able to save where I am, or find a new party to quest with.
I'm a big HL2 fan (well, DoD and CS:S) though I haven't bought episode 1. More than likely I will, probably about the same time episode 2 comes out. I'm really waiting for episode 2, mostly for TFC, and Portal though.
That was the song that jumped into my head as soon as I saw his name, and the same thought occurred to me... not exactly the kind of guy who's on the cover of magazines at the super market. That being said, the claims they made weren't the worst I've heard, but as the experts point out, there is no evidence to support their viewpoint.
Stars think that because of the fact that they are famous and are seen by millions of people, they have the right to have an opinion about anything.
Not quite. Because they live in a "free" society, they have a right to an opinion on everything. The problem is that the mainstream public believes that if someone famous says something, it must be true.
How about if each of the Wikipedians donates an equivalent percentage of their gross earnings when compared to the Virgin Group's donation and the Virgin Group's gross for a year. Asking an individual to donate as much as a huge corporation is a little unrealistic don't you think?
The question now is, does the script include Indiana's father. If so, will Connery come out of retirement to play the part. That's what I'd like to know.
UNIX passwords are one way hashes. Which means, when I type in my password to log in, the login process takes the password I typed, gets the salt from/etc/passwd and encrypts it. If what is encrypted matches what is in/etc/passwd, then I get logged in. Otherwise I don't. The password is never decrypted.
The problem with this is.... how does the program get the password it needs? If its encrypted with a salt...well, that's one way, so the program would have to do a brute force everytime it wanted to use that password.
There's little point to encrypting a locally stored password, as the decryption technique must be relatively simple to allow the program to access it. The idea is to secure everything around it, including the system that is being connected to. Use host based authentication, firewalls, etc. to reduce the risk.
There are so many other things wrong with your posting I don't even know where to begin. PIPEDA overrides all contracts, TOS, etc. So, if PIPEDA says sharing information about an identifiable individual can't be done, then it can't, regardless of what your TOS says.
Freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to share my information.
The data an ISP has about the sites, email, etc. about an identifiable individual is protected under PIPEDA. Go read it and learn about your rights. Not all rights are in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There is no ruling regarding and ISP transmitting illegal material (for example child porn) so suggesting that it is mandatory that an ISP watch for and block that material is ridiculous. It is NOT mandatory. If it was, everytime there was a pedophile charged, their ISP would be facing charges as well.
Most ISPs let you turn SPAM filtering on and off as you desire. By enabling (or leaving it enabled) you are giving your consent to let them filter it. That does not mean you are giving up any rights to the information about you, regardless of who "owns" it.
The ISP I work for very carefully follows the laws of this country, hence one of the reasons I so familiar with privacy, and how it trumps TOS.
There's a big difference between not looking for crime, and "Willfully turning a blind eye" to it. You're an idiot if you think they are the same thing.
No, it's to catch people in Canada attempting to access child porn illegally, and to alert the police of that crime.
Go read the fucking site I posted. It says right there that the point of cleanfeed is "...intended to make the Internet safer for Canadians and their families by reducing their chances of accidentally coming across images of child sexual exploitation on the Internet."
There will be no tracking of IPs accessing blacklisted URLs. There will be no ISPs reporting to the police. Bell, Telus, Rogers, etc. have already fought for the protection of the privacy of their customers in court before. They're not going to go handing over information now.
Yeah, I'm replying to myself, but anyways...
There's a transcript here of the discussion in Canada regarding MediaSentry. (I'm using MediaSentry as a company below, not as the software)
Some good points from the article:
From page 53.... as MediaSentry's software does put up "junk files", have employees of MediaSentry listened to, or verified the content of the files allegedly downloaded (or shared) by the defendant? If not, how can you be sure its copyrighted material and not "junk"?
From page 59... a user may think they have closed down Kazaa (or other p2p) but in reality it has just been minimized to the taskbar, and given how XP may only show a certain number of applications, the user may have no visual indication at all that it is still running
And from the judgement:
[15] The Motions Judge held that:
a) Rule 233 was not applicable because it presupposes the existence of specified documents. Here, the documents that would reveal the identity of the 29 persons did not pre-exist. Rather, documents containing the information would have to be created by the respondents through the use of existing logs and tapes.
b) The affidavits filed in support of the motion were deficient in that the evidence failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 81 because "major portions of these affidavits are based upon information which Mr. Millin gained from his employees. Accordingly they consist largely of hearsay.... Mr. Millin gives no reason for his beliefs."
c) Because of the conclusions in (a) and (b), there was no clear evidence that the requisite relationship between the IP addresses and the pseudonyms had been established.
Exactly... they looked at the computer, found no evidence at all that it was used for sharing files without permission.
A few other points I see.
What certification does MediaSentry have? Its been dismissed in two other countries as noted in the article, has it ever been challenged in the US? If not, not why not? If so, why was it accepted in the US, and not in Norway or Canada?
How did he determine that the IP address was not assigned to a wireless router? Or, how did he determine that the IP address was not assigned to a device (PC/router) with wireless access behind it? I have a Linux based firewall that gets the IP address from my ISP. I can (and others do) put wireless routers behind such a device, then use something like NAT to allow access through. I would want to know how he determined that one of these scenarios was not the case.
Since the hard drive is apparently not the one being used to share by MediaSentry, what evidence is there to show that the son's computer was the one being used to share files? Is it possible, that another computer, wirelessly, or by some other methods, was connected to the defendant's internet connection at some point, without the defendant's knowledge? (of course it is possible - any "expert" who says otherwise is either lying, or is not an "expert")
This may also be a great case to slam the reliability of MediaSentry in the US. Since MediaSentry and the ISP logs and the expert all agree that this is the computer, but no evidence of file sharing of any kind was done by this PC, there exists the possibility that the reports from MediaSentry are wrong, and that the HD in question was not cleaned or replaced in any way.
1. Not all content on the internet is created in the USA.
2. I shouldn't have said copyrighted, what I should have said was non free to copy material. Generally movie studios and game companies like you to share their trailers.
Well, I'd actually say 2/5ths of a second is a best case scenario. But in any case, its only deficient if, as others have described, a stopped object suddenly appears in front of you. This is rare, but does happen. More likely is the driver in front of you slams on his breaks, which means (assuming relatively similar breaking distances and current speeds), you have 2 seconds to begin breaking before you'll rear end the vehicle in front of you.
Okay, but they did say 10MB or larger. However, the stats they have are pretty useless. They give no indication of how many of those downloads were of copyrighted material. I download trailers of games and movies over P2P all the time.
Do you really think that every lawyer on those highly-paid legal teams is wrong?
They're making a judgment call. They're guessing. There is no legal precedent right now, so they're playing the safer side. Nobody is going to prosecute an ISP for blocking child porn sites. That doesn't make the idea of Cleanfeed right.
Given that her daughter was away from home at the time, the mother was terrified that her child was being kidnapped and sexually abused.So, the mother initiated things, NOT the ISP. I'll ask again, please cite an example where the ISP initiated the investigation.
Had the email come from within Canada, your ISP may have found itself at the wrong end of a lawsuit and privacy audit.
Stop bringing up content hosted within Canada, its irrelevant to this topic. Cleanfeed is about URLs hosted OUTSIDE OF CANADA. See the link below at cybertip.ca. "...sophisticated new fi lters[sic] designed to protect their customers from inadvertently visiting foreign web sites that contain images of children being sexually abused and that are beyond the jurisdiction of Canadian legal authorities" Its not even about catching criminals. The point of the project is to stop ACCIDENTAL access. They know its not going to even really impact a determined pedophile.
As far as comparing an ISP to Fedex, what your suggesting is that either A, the ISP had a tip and thus should investigate a customer, or B, Fedex should open every package (ie: sniff and log all traffic). In the case of A, no ISP should release information to law enforcement without a subpoena. The police have ways of getting subpoenas very quickly in cases such as child endangerment. If such a subpoena is presented, I would expect the ISP to respond as quickly as possible, but only within the limits of the subpoena.
Show me somewhere, something, where an ISP has been prosecuted, fined, slapped on the wrist for content carried over its wires. You can't, because there is no reasonable way an ISP can be expected to track, or log everything its customers are doing. Even if there was a way, such a system would be a violation of our privacy. The police can't bang on your door and look for drugs without cause, why should an ISP be able to judge the legality of what's coming to your IP?
Your under a lot of misconceptions about Cleanfeed. There will be absolutely no tracking of IPs that attempt to access blacklisted URLs. Reread my original comment. No ISP will be reporting anything on the URL lists EXCEPT the number of attempted accesses. No logs will be kept of what IPs tried to access what. While your rereading my original comment, you might want to check where I said it "MIGHT" apply. This issue hasn't come to court yet, so we don't know which way its going to go.
I work for one of the ISPs on the list, and have been involved to some extent with the roll out of Cleanfeed. The ISP I work for does not log anything, never has, never will. It does not filter email (aside from virus and spam). Part of the agreement is that the ISPs will not track IPs that attempt access to the URLs on the list.
I'm not suggesting that you should not try and stop a kid from being raped. Knowledge of a potential crime requires you to report it, and report it you should. The issue is if you (or the ISP) were hunting for that knowledge. That's the issue here. I have a right to privacy. Any business that has information on me, they cannot release, even to law enforcement without a subpoena. Check out the privacy commissioners website (see link below). The ISP I work for repeatedly puts ALL employees on privacy training, with regular refresher web based courses. Maybe yours should do the same.
Tough. They can't demand an ISP to violate the Criminal Code. Because of 161.1(3), (and other sections like it), an ISP must ensure that they do not transmit illegal content. No comission has authority to force a citizen to commit a crime within Canada. If a CRTC policy contravenes the requirements of Canadian law, the CRTC has to change their policies and exemptions: in this case, the CRTC must exempt blocking of child porn sites.
Please site a reference where an ISP has been fined or prosecuted for carrying such content.
Also, please provide a reference where an ISP has turned in a suspected pedophile.
I'm not going to continue a debate where you continually avoid questions and change topics. I am Canadian, proud to be.
Let me put this simply:
Cleanfeed is not about ISPs hosting illegal content within Canada. It is about blocking access to a list of sites. Cybertip would inform authorities if one of the sites turns out to be hosted in Canada, but that is not the topic of this discussion.
Secondly, tracking http requests from specific users could be consider a violation of PIPEDA and I would suggest (if you are still with the ISP) that you recommend to your boss that you stop immediately before one of your customers finds out and you are hauled up in front of the privacy commissioner.
They must, however, block access to illegal content once they've been made aware of it. In this case, the cybertip list is providing that notice.
Since there has been no ruling on ISPs as common carriers, there is no obligation on the part of the ISP to filter, block, or monitor the content of information flowing over their lines. Should such a ruling occur, ISPs would either have to do so, or immediately refrain from doing so, depending on the ruling.
I'll ask again. Give me one source where an ISP turned in a pedophile in Canada. Not a case where the police looked at logs to try and convict a pedophile, a case where the ISP was the one to alert the authorities to the possibility of a pedophile.
It's a basic civic duty to assist police in their efforts, after all.
No actually its not a civic duty. Please show me where that is stated in an official document. If a business I have dealings with were to turn over any information about me to the authorities without a subpoena, not only would the "evidence" never make it to court, the business would probably be either sued out of existence, or find itself without any customers, or both.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends where you're talking. Sure the average home user is going to prefer free programs. However, when you're talking large corporations, as I said, the initial purchase price usually isn't the deciding factor. Regardless of the type of software (closed or open source), one should ALWAYS choose the best software for the job. However, IMHO, open source generally produces better software in the long run than does closed source.
The biggest benefit of open source software is that its, well, open source. Sure, most of it is free to use, commercial or not. However, as this, and other articles point out, purchase price is normally a very small portion of TCO (total cost of ownership).
Yeah, that storm is coming here (Regina) tonight or tomorrow. I'm hoping to get a glimpse of it tonight, but the good news is, its brightness isn't going to peak for a few more days, so this weekend should provide a better opportunity, providing its not cloudy.
This is one of the reasons I stick with FPS. I was into Guild Wars for a while, but with a new born at home (he's 14 months now), I didn't always have time to spend an hour or more running through a quest. With FPS, I can sit down, play for 15 minutes or a few hours without worrying about not being able to save where I am, or find a new party to quest with.
I'm a big HL2 fan (well, DoD and CS:S) though I haven't bought episode 1. More than likely I will, probably about the same time episode 2 comes out. I'm really waiting for episode 2, mostly for TFC, and Portal though.
That was the song that jumped into my head as soon as I saw his name, and the same thought occurred to me... not exactly the kind of guy who's on the cover of magazines at the super market. That being said, the claims they made weren't the worst I've heard, but as the experts point out, there is no evidence to support their viewpoint.
Stars think that because of the fact that they are famous and are seen by millions of people, they have the right to have an opinion about anything.
Not quite. Because they live in a "free" society, they have a right to an opinion on everything. The problem is that the mainstream public believes that if someone famous says something, it must be true.
How about if each of the Wikipedians donates an equivalent percentage of their gross earnings when compared to the Virgin Group's donation and the Virgin Group's gross for a year. Asking an individual to donate as much as a huge corporation is a little unrealistic don't you think?
The question now is, does the script include Indiana's father. If so, will Connery come out of retirement to play the part. That's what I'd like to know.
UNIX passwords are one way hashes. Which means, when I type in my password to log in, the login process takes the password I typed, gets the salt from /etc/passwd and encrypts it. If what is encrypted matches what is in /etc/passwd, then I get logged in. Otherwise I don't. The password is never decrypted.
The problem with this is.... how does the program get the password it needs? If its encrypted with a salt...well, that's one way, so the program would have to do a brute force everytime it wanted to use that password.
There's little point to encrypting a locally stored password, as the decryption technique must be relatively simple to allow the program to access it. The idea is to secure everything around it, including the system that is being connected to. Use host based authentication, firewalls, etc. to reduce the risk.
There are so many other things wrong with your posting I don't even know where to begin. PIPEDA overrides all contracts, TOS, etc. So, if PIPEDA says sharing information about an identifiable individual can't be done, then it can't, regardless of what your TOS says.
Freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to share my information.
The data an ISP has about the sites, email, etc. about an identifiable individual is protected under PIPEDA. Go read it and learn about your rights. Not all rights are in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There is no ruling regarding and ISP transmitting illegal material (for example child porn) so suggesting that it is mandatory that an ISP watch for and block that material is ridiculous. It is NOT mandatory. If it was, everytime there was a pedophile charged, their ISP would be facing charges as well.
Most ISPs let you turn SPAM filtering on and off as you desire. By enabling (or leaving it enabled) you are giving your consent to let them filter it. That does not mean you are giving up any rights to the information about you, regardless of who "owns" it.
The ISP I work for very carefully follows the laws of this country, hence one of the reasons I so familiar with privacy, and how it trumps TOS.
There's a big difference between not looking for crime, and "Willfully turning a blind eye" to it. You're an idiot if you think they are the same thing.
No, it's to catch people in Canada attempting to access child porn illegally, and to alert the police of that crime. Go read the fucking site I posted. It says right there that the point of cleanfeed is "...intended to make the Internet safer for Canadians and their families by reducing their chances of accidentally coming across images of child sexual exploitation on the Internet."
There will be no tracking of IPs accessing blacklisted URLs. There will be no ISPs reporting to the police. Bell, Telus, Rogers, etc. have already fought for the protection of the privacy of their customers in court before. They're not going to go handing over information now.
Perhaps I forward all my email to a gmail account.
Good point. A vaccine is useless once you've contracted the virus.
Sure, but I've never lost all my email... apparently gmail has
Yeah, I'm replying to myself, but anyways...
There's a transcript here of the discussion in Canada regarding MediaSentry. (I'm using MediaSentry as a company below, not as the software)
Some good points from the article:
And from the judgement:
[15] The Motions Judge held that: a) Rule 233 was not applicable because it presupposes the existence of specified documents. Here, the documents that would reveal the identity of the 29 persons did not pre-exist. Rather, documents containing the information would have to be created by the respondents through the use of existing logs and tapes. b) The affidavits filed in support of the motion were deficient in that the evidence failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 81 because "major portions of these affidavits are based upon information which Mr. Millin gained from his employees. Accordingly they consist largely of hearsay.... Mr. Millin gives no reason for his beliefs." c) Because of the conclusions in (a) and (b), there was no clear evidence that the requisite relationship between the IP addresses and the pseudonyms had been established.
Exactly... they looked at the computer, found no evidence at all that it was used for sharing files without permission.
A few other points I see.
This may also be a great case to slam the reliability of MediaSentry in the US. Since MediaSentry and the ISP logs and the expert all agree that this is the computer, but no evidence of file sharing of any kind was done by this PC, there exists the possibility that the reports from MediaSentry are wrong, and that the HD in question was not cleaned or replaced in any way.
1. Not all content on the internet is created in the USA.
2. I shouldn't have said copyrighted, what I should have said was non free to copy material. Generally movie studios and game companies like you to share their trailers.
Well, I'd actually say 2/5ths of a second is a best case scenario. But in any case, its only deficient if, as others have described, a stopped object suddenly appears in front of you. This is rare, but does happen. More likely is the driver in front of you slams on his breaks, which means (assuming relatively similar breaking distances and current speeds), you have 2 seconds to begin breaking before you'll rear end the vehicle in front of you.
Okay, but they did say 10MB or larger. However, the stats they have are pretty useless. They give no indication of how many of those downloads were of copyrighted material. I download trailers of games and movies over P2P all the time.
Yeah, 12 ounces sounds right... I was trying to pull it from memory. Our (Canadian) beers are 12 ounces as well.
When they talk about Blood Alcohol levels and drinks, I've usually seen them define a drink as one of:
So, depending on the percentage of alcohol in the absinthe, you could say a drink is anywhere from about .5 ounces to .75 ounces, give or take.
Do you really think that every lawyer on those highly-paid legal teams is wrong? They're making a judgment call. They're guessing. There is no legal precedent right now, so they're playing the safer side. Nobody is going to prosecute an ISP for blocking child porn sites. That doesn't make the idea of Cleanfeed right.
Given that her daughter was away from home at the time, the mother was terrified that her child was being kidnapped and sexually abused.So, the mother initiated things, NOT the ISP. I'll ask again, please cite an example where the ISP initiated the investigation. Had the email come from within Canada, your ISP may have found itself at the wrong end of a lawsuit and privacy audit.
Stop bringing up content hosted within Canada, its irrelevant to this topic. Cleanfeed is about URLs hosted OUTSIDE OF CANADA. See the link below at cybertip.ca. "...sophisticated new fi lters[sic] designed to protect their customers from inadvertently visiting foreign web sites that contain images of children being sexually abused and that are beyond the jurisdiction of Canadian legal authorities" Its not even about catching criminals. The point of the project is to stop ACCIDENTAL access. They know its not going to even really impact a determined pedophile.
As far as comparing an ISP to Fedex, what your suggesting is that either A, the ISP had a tip and thus should investigate a customer, or B, Fedex should open every package (ie: sniff and log all traffic). In the case of A, no ISP should release information to law enforcement without a subpoena. The police have ways of getting subpoenas very quickly in cases such as child endangerment. If such a subpoena is presented, I would expect the ISP to respond as quickly as possible, but only within the limits of the subpoena.
Show me somewhere, something, where an ISP has been prosecuted, fined, slapped on the wrist for content carried over its wires. You can't, because there is no reasonable way an ISP can be expected to track, or log everything its customers are doing. Even if there was a way, such a system would be a violation of our privacy. The police can't bang on your door and look for drugs without cause, why should an ISP be able to judge the legality of what's coming to your IP?
Your under a lot of misconceptions about Cleanfeed. There will be absolutely no tracking of IPs that attempt to access blacklisted URLs. Reread my original comment. No ISP will be reporting anything on the URL lists EXCEPT the number of attempted accesses. No logs will be kept of what IPs tried to access what. While your rereading my original comment, you might want to check where I said it "MIGHT" apply. This issue hasn't come to court yet, so we don't know which way its going to go.
I work for one of the ISPs on the list, and have been involved to some extent with the roll out of Cleanfeed. The ISP I work for does not log anything, never has, never will. It does not filter email (aside from virus and spam). Part of the agreement is that the ISPs will not track IPs that attempt access to the URLs on the list.
I'm not suggesting that you should not try and stop a kid from being raped. Knowledge of a potential crime requires you to report it, and report it you should. The issue is if you (or the ISP) were hunting for that knowledge. That's the issue here. I have a right to privacy. Any business that has information on me, they cannot release, even to law enforcement without a subpoena. Check out the privacy commissioners website (see link below). The ISP I work for repeatedly puts ALL employees on privacy training, with regular refresher web based courses. Maybe yours should do the same.
Here are some links I suggest you read:
http://www.cybertip.ca/en/cybertip/cleanfeed_canad a
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1560/159/
Tough. They can't demand an ISP to violate the Criminal Code. Because of 161.1(3), (and other sections like it), an ISP must ensure that they do not transmit illegal content. No comission has authority to force a citizen to commit a crime within Canada. If a CRTC policy contravenes the requirements of Canadian law, the CRTC has to change their policies and exemptions: in this case, the CRTC must exempt blocking of child porn sites.
Please site a reference where an ISP has been fined or prosecuted for carrying such content.
Also, please provide a reference where an ISP has turned in a suspected pedophile.
I'm not going to continue a debate where you continually avoid questions and change topics. I am Canadian, proud to be.
Let me put this simply:
Cleanfeed is not about ISPs hosting illegal content within Canada. It is about blocking access to a list of sites. Cybertip would inform authorities if one of the sites turns out to be hosted in Canada, but that is not the topic of this discussion.
Secondly, tracking http requests from specific users could be consider a violation of PIPEDA and I would suggest (if you are still with the ISP) that you recommend to your boss that you stop immediately before one of your customers finds out and you are hauled up in front of the privacy commissioner.
They must, however, block access to illegal content once they've been made aware of it. In this case, the cybertip list is providing that notice.
Since there has been no ruling on ISPs as common carriers, there is no obligation on the part of the ISP to filter, block, or monitor the content of information flowing over their lines. Should such a ruling occur, ISPs would either have to do so, or immediately refrain from doing so, depending on the ruling.
I'll ask again. Give me one source where an ISP turned in a pedophile in Canada. Not a case where the police looked at logs to try and convict a pedophile, a case where the ISP was the one to alert the authorities to the possibility of a pedophile.
It's a basic civic duty to assist police in their efforts, after all.
No actually its not a civic duty. Please show me where that is stated in an official document. If a business I have dealings with were to turn over any information about me to the authorities without a subpoena, not only would the "evidence" never make it to court, the business would probably be either sued out of existence, or find itself without any customers, or both.