Nobody seems to know. As I understand, it passed by a voice vote. This means that the fact that the bill passed was recorded, but the actual votes were not.
Nice way to appease your "financial backer" and dodge the nasty PR, huh?
Of course, everyone and their brother is saying to get the header information from the messages and track down the IP.
I say you contact the police, and (get this) help them find the guy. Generally they are pretty receptive to any help they can get in "busting a perp". An officer was tickled that I was able to produce hard copies of my Caller ID logs when I was getting threatening phone calls.
It could also help to tell them that if they don't find him quick, Radek will.:)
Re:qmail isn't Open Source - Because it's not GPL?
on
New Mail RFCs Released
·
· Score: 1
Please show me the qmail license! Can't? Well, that's because there is none.
Read http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html for DJB's take on licensing and you'll see why there is no license for qmail and determine for yourself what you are able to do with it.
How a license that doesn't exist is bothersome is beyond me.
An R5 client user has the option of reverting to the old Workspace interface if they choose. Other than that, most all of the dialogs, etc work the same as R4.
Sendmail also has a viable alternative in DJB's qmail.
The license is not *that* bad. Sure it's not GPL, but I don't find it particularly restrictive for the average user. Basically DJB wants to ensure that his packages maintain their integrity when redistributed.
If you read up on Dan, you'll see that he firmly believes that software licences and law allow for a user to modify the code as they wish. See http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html.
So you can't bundle up your changes and redistribute - big deal. Just release your patch and let others apply as they wish. Happens all the time with qmail.
You are asking the question that is at the heart of my point. If an examiner of the evidence cannot see the entire context of the user's interaction with the computer, how can they be sure that the evidence is even relevant and not something unrelated? If it is not relevant then it must be minimized.
Setting aside the copyright implications, etc here is an example (albeit not neccesarily the best one):
If I type the words to Body Count's Cop Killer into MS Word, and you can only see my keyboard input, how can you be sure what application received that data and how it will be used. It could have been directives to another person, a recount of my own actions, or merely fiction. Did I enter that information into a word processor, an email, my journal, my to-do list?
If it is not relevant to the case it must be minimized. Same with phone taps. If a person being monitored begins a personal conversation unrelated to the case, then investigators must minimize (not listen to and ignore) that conversation. If that person casually drops information related to the case during that conversation, then it is basically lost. The only way that the information could have been obtained would have been monitoring something that was to be minimized.
Since a keystroke logging device cannot see any screen output or mouse actions, what is captured may not be what it seems.
How can someone reading the keystroke log be sure that it is "criminal data" rather than some really crappy abstract gangster fiction work. Can they be sure that "Whack Vinnie" is going into a to-do list rather than Word?
If that is true, then what bearing does the crappy fictional work have on this case? If what the government suspects to be the passphrase appears in that crappy fictional work, should they have not minimized it? Doesn't that make the passphrase essentially unusable?
I know it's a bit of a stretch, but the gist of what I'm saying is this: If the government sees only half (or less) of the picture, they cannot presume to know that what they are seeing is definately relevant to the case. Taken further, if the government cannot know that the material is relevant, then they cannot attempt to use parts of that material to build their case.
There is just such a store in Dayton, OH. It's called Mendleson's Electronics Co. They also go by MECI. The retail store is two big warehouse floors open to the public. It is a mix of electrical, electronic, store and restaurant fixtures, office furniture, and everything else. You WILL spend all day if you go there.
I'm a bit familiar with the MM act, as I've had to argue it with a certain automobile manufacturer before (Hint: it's common nickname starts with a V and ends with a W).
Here's an example of the where the MM act comes in that folks here can probably relate to:
Say you buy an HP printer and decide that those toner cartridges are too damn expensive from HP. You find a reputable company that offers a low cost alternative that is of equal (or maybe better) quality. A few months later you experience a problem with the printer and take it an HP dealer for service. The dealer immediately refuses to service the printer under the manufacturer's warranty when they see the non-HP toner cartridge in it. This is where the MM act comes in. The manufacturer (or it's agent - the dealer) cannot refuse to honor a warranty simply because it has a non-hp part in it. They do not have to warrant the replacment part, nor do they have to cover any damage that occurs as a result of the non-HP part being installed. The only exception to this is if the manufacuter (HP in our example) were to provide the parts to the owner free of charge (ie: if HP gives you free toner for life and you decide to replace it with non-HP toner, they can refuse coverage).
As I see it, the problem is that she doesn't actually own the copyright to her own music. Record Companies own the copyrights. They didn't actually breach any agreements with her, and since it's not her copyright, she could loose.
Think about it this way:
Ms. Love has a contract with the record company. This contract specifies that the record company gives a certain cut of the profit from the distribution of a recording to the artist.
Ms. Love's record company initiated a suit against mp3.com claiming damages due to the unauthorized distribution of Ms. Love's (among other artists') recordings. They were granted a judgement because they convinced a judge that mp3.com's actions cost them lost sales and that because of that, they are due money.
Legal weaseling aside, the record company has collected money for the distribution of Ms. Love's recordings. In this case from a lawsuit instead of a direct sale. In my mind, Ms. Love is due the proper royalty from the damages collected from the unauthorized distribution of her recordings - no different from the record company collecting money from a regular sale.
Disclaimer: IANACLF (I am not a Courtney Love fan).
I always have things sent to the local UPS customer counter in my name and marked 'HOLD FOR WILL-CALL'. I stroll in and pick it up when the web site tracking indicates it has arrived.
The deal actually is: The producers offered $50k if one (only one) of the contestants left. It was left up to the contestants to decide if and who. The replacement was an averagely cute girl. They all declined.
They actually are considering walking out and had at a point all decided to do it. There has been some reconsideration by some "houseguests", though. I don't think that they are all committed to walking out at this time. They don't seem to care much about the money right now, and seem to think that if they go out with a bang they can get more recognition (and cash for appearances, etc). I think they are just as sick of the stupid game as everyone watching. They are also getting little tidbits of outside information and I think that has an influence, too.
But anyway, back to the real topic.
I use stuff like this all the time. I often have my problems diagnosed before I drive into the dealer. I have a Volkswagen and use the Ross-tech VAG-COM. The now defunct CarComp also had a great tool available for similar purposes. Conveniently, the hardware interface also works for my Dodge truck with different software.
This guy seems to have what the poster is looking for. He covers building your own tools for GM cars.
I have one of the Apex DVD players that was the hot story here and elsewhere months back. It plays all region DVD's and will also let you disable Macrovision.
The new ones supposedly have the loopholes closed, but there are several older ones on ebay that have bids from $90 to $300+.
Be warned that quality is spotty on these. They seem to either be DOA or die soon after, or they are fine. Mine has been flawless, but I know others who had DOA's or warranty repairs after only a month or so. If you buy at auction, make sure that returns are accepted.
OK, breath deeply. Now lets think about this. Why was the fourth ammendment introduced in the first place? There were no phones, there wasn't even much of a postal service yet. But there were homes and doors and people capable of breaking them down to search your home. And there were police who might hear that you were seen leading a little kid into your home just before he was reported missing, and they might want to search your home. So we have the means to search your home and people who would want to. What do we do? We write an ammendment that says they can't do it unreasonably and a bunch of laws laying out a "reasonable" procedure.
Now the present. We have something besides your home, the internet, which people may want to search. We have ways for them to search it. And we still have an ammendment and a bunch of laws that say when and how they can do it. The existance of wiretap orders for other people who have given law enforcement enough justification to get a warrent, has nothing to do with your 4th ammendment rights, because they aren't searching and seizing you! As we understand carnivore and are discussing it, noone is spying on you.
If I may draw further on your analogy...
This Carnivore, at least it seems to me, is the electronic equivalent of the town's locksmith being required to hand over keys to the police so that they can walk through every house in town until they wind up finding the one they were looking for. Certainly that's not a reasonable method to conduct a search.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody seems to know. As I understand, it passed by a voice vote. This means that the fact that the bill passed was recorded, but the actual votes were not.
Nice way to appease your "financial backer" and dodge the nasty PR, huh?
Of course, everyone and their brother is saying to get the header information from the messages and track down the IP.
:)
I say you contact the police, and (get this) help them find the guy. Generally they are pretty receptive to any help they can get in "busting a perp". An officer was tickled that I was able to produce hard copies of my Caller ID logs when I was getting threatening phone calls.
It could also help to tell them that if they don't find him quick, Radek will.
Please show me the qmail license! Can't? Well, that's because there is none.
Read http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html for DJB's take on licensing and you'll see why there is no license for qmail and determine for yourself what you are able to do with it.
How a license that doesn't exist is bothersome is beyond me.
See for yourself at http://nuclearchannel.com.
An R5 client user has the option of reverting to the old Workspace interface if they choose. Other than that, most all of the dialogs, etc work the same as R4.
Sendmail also has a viable alternative in DJB's qmail.
The license is not *that* bad. Sure it's not GPL, but I don't find it particularly restrictive for the average user. Basically DJB wants to ensure that his packages maintain their integrity when redistributed.
If you read up on Dan, you'll see that he firmly believes that software licences and law allow for a user to modify the code as they wish. See http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html.
So you can't bundle up your changes and redistribute - big deal. Just release your patch and let others apply as they wish. Happens all the time with qmail.
You are asking the question that is at the heart of my point. If an examiner of the evidence cannot see the entire context of the user's interaction with the computer, how can they be sure that the evidence is even relevant and not something unrelated? If it is not relevant then it must be minimized.
Setting aside the copyright implications, etc here is an example (albeit not neccesarily the best one):
If I type the words to Body Count's Cop Killer into MS Word, and you can only see my keyboard input, how can you be sure what application received that data and how it will be used. It could have been directives to another person, a recount of my own actions, or merely fiction. Did I enter that information into a word processor, an email, my journal, my to-do list?
If it is not relevant to the case it must be minimized. Same with phone taps. If a person being monitored begins a personal conversation unrelated to the case, then investigators must minimize (not listen to and ignore) that conversation. If that person casually drops information related to the case during that conversation, then it is basically lost. The only way that the information could have been obtained would have been monitoring something that was to be minimized.
Since a keystroke logging device cannot see any screen output or mouse actions, what is captured may not be what it seems.
How can someone reading the keystroke log be sure that it is "criminal data" rather than some really crappy abstract gangster fiction work. Can they be sure that "Whack Vinnie" is going into a to-do list rather than Word?
If that is true, then what bearing does the crappy fictional work have on this case? If what the government suspects to be the passphrase appears in that crappy fictional work, should they have not minimized it? Doesn't that make the passphrase essentially unusable?
I know it's a bit of a stretch, but the gist of what I'm saying is this: If the government sees only half (or less) of the picture, they cannot presume to know that what they are seeing is definately relevant to the case. Taken further, if the government cannot know that the material is relevant, then they cannot attempt to use parts of that material to build their case.
There is just such a store in Dayton, OH. It's called Mendleson's Electronics Co. They also go by MECI. The retail store is two big warehouse floors open to the public. It is a mix of electrical, electronic, store and restaurant fixtures, office furniture, and everything else. You WILL spend all day if you go there.
They also have an online store at http://www.meci.com/.
Josh
At a former employer, I had similar after-hours responsibilities. I was on a pager rotation (1 week every 7). I was paid as follows:
$60 for each complete week on-call
Regular overtime for each phone call fielded, minimum one hour.
Regular overtime for on-site visits, minimum four hours.
Regular overtime means 1.5 regular rate after hours, double between 11pm-7am, double on Sundays and holidays.
Not a bad deal, really.
This could really throw a wrench in my plans to patent and license "93 click" shopping. The 92 and 94 guys are gonna be pissed, too.
xjosh
I'm a bit familiar with the MM act, as I've had to argue it with a certain automobile manufacturer before (Hint: it's common nickname starts with a V and ends with a W).
Here's an example of the where the MM act comes in that folks here can probably relate to:
Say you buy an HP printer and decide that those toner cartridges are too damn expensive from HP. You find a reputable company that offers a low cost alternative that is of equal (or maybe better) quality. A few months later you experience a problem with the printer and take it an HP dealer for service. The dealer immediately refuses to service the printer under the manufacturer's warranty when they see the non-HP toner cartridge in it. This is where the MM act comes in. The manufacturer (or it's agent - the dealer) cannot refuse to honor a warranty simply because it has a non-hp part in it. They do not have to warrant the replacment part, nor do they have to cover any damage that occurs as a result of the non-HP part being installed. The only exception to this is if the manufacuter (HP in our example) were to provide the parts to the owner free of charge (ie: if HP gives you free toner for life and you decide to replace it with non-HP toner, they can refuse coverage).
xjosh
Think about it this way:
Ms. Love has a contract with the record company. This contract specifies that the record company gives a certain cut of the profit from the distribution of a recording to the artist.
Ms. Love's record company initiated a suit against mp3.com claiming damages due to the unauthorized distribution of Ms. Love's (among other artists') recordings. They were granted a judgement because they convinced a judge that mp3.com's actions cost them lost sales and that because of that, they are due money.
Legal weaseling aside, the record company has collected money for the distribution of Ms. Love's recordings. In this case from a lawsuit instead of a direct sale. In my mind, Ms. Love is due the proper royalty from the damages collected from the unauthorized distribution of her recordings - no different from the record company collecting money from a regular sale.
Disclaimer: IANACLF (I am not a Courtney Love fan).
xjoshRegarding picking up UPS shipments:
I always have things sent to the local UPS customer counter in my name and marked 'HOLD FOR WILL-CALL'. I stroll in and pick it up when the web site tracking indicates it has arrived.
xjosh
Try http://crl.research.compaq.com/downloads/download. cgi/postmaster @127.0.0.1/Linux+Jukebox/winjukebox_v1_0.zip
The deal actually is: The producers offered $50k if one (only one) of the contestants left. It was left up to the contestants to decide if and who. The replacement was an averagely cute girl. They all declined.
They actually are considering walking out and had at a point all decided to do it. There has been some reconsideration by some "houseguests", though. I don't think that they are all committed to walking out at this time. They don't seem to care much about the money right now, and seem to think that if they go out with a bang they can get more recognition (and cash for appearances, etc). I think they are just as sick of the stupid game as everyone watching. They are also getting little tidbits of outside information and I think that has an influence, too. But anyway, back to the real topic.
I use stuff like this all the time. I often have my problems diagnosed before I drive into the dealer. I have a Volkswagen and use the Ross-tech VAG-COM. The now defunct CarComp also had a great tool available for similar purposes. Conveniently, the hardware interface also works for my Dodge truck with different software.
This guy seems to have what the poster is looking for. He covers building your own tools for GM cars.
I have one of the Apex DVD players that was the hot story here and elsewhere months back. It plays all region DVD's and will also let you disable Macrovision.
The new ones supposedly have the loopholes closed, but there are several older ones on ebay that have bids from $90 to $300+.
Be warned that quality is spotty on these. They seem to either be DOA or die soon after, or they are fine. Mine has been flawless, but I know others who had DOA's or warranty repairs after only a month or so. If you buy at auction, make sure that returns are accepted.
OK, breath deeply. Now lets think about this. Why was the fourth ammendment introduced in the first place? There were no phones, there wasn't even much of a postal service yet. But there were homes and doors and people capable of breaking them down to search your home. And there were police who might hear that you were seen leading a little kid into your home just before he was reported missing, and they might want to search your home. So we have the means to search your home and people who would want to. What do we do? We write an ammendment that says they can't do it unreasonably and a bunch of laws laying out a "reasonable" procedure.
Now the present. We have something besides your home, the internet, which people may want to search. We have ways for them to search it. And we still have an ammendment and a bunch of laws that say when and how they can do it. The existance of wiretap orders for other people who have given law enforcement enough justification to get a warrent, has nothing to do with your 4th ammendment rights, because they aren't searching and seizing you! As we understand carnivore and are discussing it, noone is spying on you.
If I may draw further on your analogy...
This Carnivore, at least it seems to me, is the electronic equivalent of the town's locksmith being required to hand over keys to the police so that they can walk through every house in town until they wind up finding the one they were looking for. Certainly that's not a reasonable method to conduct a search.
xjosh