Anyway, that important detail - Steve Jackson Games published some kind of H/Cracker game that bore a loose semblance to real life. And of course people discussed it on their Bulletin Boards. And that is one of the things that attracted attention from the FBI.
Actually, they were in the process of developing their GURPS: Cyberpunk book (which bears about as much semblence to cracking/hacking as the Curious George books do to real-life monkey behaviour). The existence of the Cyberpunk book was offered as the reason for the raid at the time; it wasn't until many, many months later when SJG got a copy of the affadavits and warrant that they discovered the true reason for the raid.
Actually, there have been some "experiments" into this (unofficially, of course). There are some rumours about extracurricular activities aboard certain Russian space flights, as well as afterdark in some NASA facilities used to train astronauts for weightlessness.
Among the realizations is that sex in space is difficult. On Earth, you have gravity to keep you anchored - not so in microgravity. Given the types of movements, sex is difficult primarily because you're trying to move and hang on to your partner. One conclusion that has been drawn is that good sex in space requires three people - two people to do the wild thang, and one to help keep the other two together. It's been dubbed the Three Dolphin Method, because dolphins use the same method for procreation in the (relatively) weightless ocean.
The short, abridged, and possibly fact-mangled version is:
SJ Games ran a bulletin board system for their games. One of their employees also ran a personal bulletin board system, of which various types - including crackers - frequented.
Earlier in 1990, somebody had stolen a proprietary document for the 911 system in Texas. After tracing it around a bit, in turned out that one cracker who may have been involved frequented the employee's personal bulletin board system. Now, despite the fact that the bulletin board system was not simply for crackers or hackers, but was rather a geekish type thing, somebody suspected that said 911 document might have been posted on the bulletin board. And, due to the misinterpretation of a login statement on SJG's bulletin board system, somebody thought that SJG was involved in hacking.
Now, when normal people glue an unfounded suspicion to an unfounded suspicion to an unfounded suspicion, they usually get - using technical terms - what is known as crap. Not the FBI. They not only felt that a handful of mights and maybes constituted reasonable suspicion, but managed to get a search warrant by trumping up those suspicions. And, hence, they raided SJG and took numerous computer systems, texts, and materials.
SJG games eventually got some copies of the taken material, and some of the systems were returned, but in the meantime they were very nearly driven out of business (chapter 11 was considered for a while). SJG, with the EFF, sued the FBI for a whole host of things, and wound up getting around $50,000 USD in compensation for lost business, expenses, and so on, in addition to the lawyers fees for SJG being paid by the FBI.
No, it's not the same problem. Saying that the effect is to protect something is not saying that it has to flawlessly protect the content. It simply has to be a reasonable attempt at protection (much like many of the legal standards require the judgement of a reasonable person, not a perfect person).
It isn't reasonable - nor even possible - to have a perfect method of protection of content and still make content viewable. Therefore, the law specifies that the content owner must simply put in a measure to protect content and then lets the law cover the cases where somebody breaks through it.
Now, the issue of effective protection is entirely separate, and one that I do believe should be incorporated into the law somehow. I don't think ROT-13 scrambling should be considered a technological method of protection, no.
the whole exercise was pointless? peacefire won a tremendous victory here!
Congratulations for Peacefire, but it's not really anything to celebrate when taking into account the scope of the loss here.
It's equivalent to finding somebody alive in the ruins of Hiroshima after the atomic bomb was dropped. It's nice, but it doesn't begin to make up the magnitude of devestation.
Um, if it effectively controlled access wouldn't this law be *unnecessary*?
No, because you're using the wrong definition of effectively. In this case, it doesn't refer to the difficulty of circumventing the protection, but rather the scope of the protection.
Perhaps it would be easier to understand if the legislation was rephrased slightly:
(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that, in effect, controls access to a work protected under this title.
It's one thing to know that in the time between the foundation of this country and the time of your birth, freedom was sold off, in the form of preferential laws, to corporations and other governments
It's an entirely different matter to not only see those laws passed in your lifetime, but to see them continually reaffirmed by the only people who have any real power to change them. It makes me very, very sad to see that any sense of fairness and balance in our legislative process has gone out the window in favour of corporate favoritism.
Don't you know? He's still dangerous because he's learned how to manipulate his telpathic powers to hack into computer systems remotely. While he's off at a conference in St. Petersburg, he's using his ESP to compose email for Microsoft employees...
Or, at least, that's the impression the parole board has of his computer abilities. Considering for a long time they wouldn't even let him give lectures about computers, they must believe he's figured out some new non-computer-based way of cracking. --
Arguing with you is amusing. You change the topic of the discussion and then flame for something that have not been said.
That criticism was... random.
Considering the topic of the discussion is Hans Reiser and the inclusion of his journalling file system, I think making the point that, according to those who actually work on the kernel, the kernel isn't ready for a journalling file system somehow does have relevance.
The point is that there *is* money behind journaling on linux, and that it *is* a horse race. And btw, the kernel is ready for it, as it already exists as a patch. The kernel is not ready for the inclusing of a journalling layer, which is a very different matter.
No, it's the same matter. You're simply trying to look at a distant object and focus on the tip of your nose so that it appears as two distinct issues (if you don't know what I'm talking about, try it).
The journalling layer is what makes the kernel ready for journalling, as far as those who work on the kernel go. Therefore, in their opinions, until that journalling layer is ready the kernel is not ready for journalling file systems. That ReiserFS exists now, and works with the current kernel setup, in no way alters the fact that the kernel maintainers don't consider the kernel ready for journalling file systems. That, in the end, is the only point that matters from a technical standpoint. And that's why ReiserFS is not going to end up in the standard kernel source.
At any rate, the existence of a working (and from what I hear, very reliable and stable) ReiserFS indicates that Hans Reiser has already won the journalling file system "race." Business can already use the fruits of his labor. He can already proclaim that his product, and his energies, resulted in the first stable, production-quality journalling file system. He won, over IBM, SGI, Stephen Tweedie, and probably several others. Congratulations to him. Hans Reiser's agenda of being the first to a stable journalled FS has already been fulfilled, and he can get the money, and the accolades, and whatever else is necessary to satisfy his ego. He can already demonstrate it, use it, sell it (or whatever he wants).
This crap, however, about being the "standard" file system is just that: crap. Does he really think journalling file systems are going to be the default file system in the new kernel? (The default is going to be ext2 for a long, long time to come.) Being included in the mainline kernel is nothing more than a timesaver from having to download his patch, and anybody who understands the merits of a journalling file system isn't going to be dissuaded by downloading and patching a kernel (does he really think a competent sysadmin is going to be frightened of obtaining a kernel patch?). As a result, getting his code into the kernel is pretty darn close to being a meaningless accomplishment.
That's why I don't understand why he sees getting into the kernel as such a huge accomplishment, especially at the expense of his reputation (I know I see him as rather juvenile and childish, especially after reading some of his emails on the subject) and his technical understanding (he brushes aside all technical explanations as to why his code should not be included with a, "Yes, yes, but you're full of crap - it's a vendetta against me by IBM and SGI and Linus Torvalds and Stephen Tweedie and the men in black and the grey aliens and Magneto and Kermit the Frog and Big Bird and the Powerpuff Girls and...").
If there is money to be made by having a journalled file system, it can already be made without having his file system in the mainline kernel source. But rather than do that, Reiser spends his time fighting a losing battle for a meaningless accomplishment while losing the respect and credibility of the very people he wants to impress. Rather than defend his product on its technical merits and features, he spends his energies on a battle he very clearly won't win.
It sounds to me like the monetary reward Hans Reiser so clearly expects is not coming because it's his own damn fault, not because his code doesn't get in the standard kernel source. --
Unfortunately yes. There is strong incentive behind the journaling filesystem, as it is a business requisite. Hans Reiser have a commercial buisiness to run, and if rfs is the one true linux journaling system, it would help its aggeda a lot.
And I care about Reiser's agenda how exactly?
I don't care what is best for Reiser, and apparently the maintainers and people actually working on the kernel don't either. They care about what is best for the kernel. Right now, regardless of the status of ReiserFS, the kernel is not ready for a journalling file system in the opinions of the people who work with the kernel.
That's it. End of discussion. Reiser can go off and whine to his hearts content, but that's it. The kernel isn't ready for it so he can STFU.
And not only did they hacked through IIS, the hacker himself admits that the exploit was not an existing, patchable exploit, but one he discovered himself.
Reiser has promised to port his FS to the new API when it is available, but that isn't considered enough. To this end-user, it looks like the VFS guy doesn't want anyone to get a head start in gathering users before EXT3 is ready. Its sad, because in the meantime, end-users have to jump through hoops to get journaling, when it could be so much easier.
The question is, Who gives a shit? This isn't a horse race - the guy with the first journalling file system doesn't get a check for $100,000 USD, the Slashdot PT Cruiser, and a two-week vacation to the South Pacific. There is no benefit to being first aside from bragging rights.
And while I realize ego is an important part of the Open Source/Free Software movement, no ego - no ego - is important enough to preempt doing things correctly. Fixing the VFS layer so that _any_ journalling file system can work is the right way to do things. If ReiserFS works now, swell. But throwing it in the kernel just to soothe Hans' half-a-millimeter-long ego-based temper is not. Frankly, I don't care how good ReiserFS is, at the moment putting it into the kernel is not the Correct Thing. Therefore, Hans can bitch and moan and whine all he wants, and shout that he's being discriminated against - tough darts.
And this is from a layman/end-user, just like yourself. --
To be honest, my observations have been that the "'leet types" tend to be using Debian more than Slackware. I can't count the number of times I've read somebody bashing Red Hat on the basis of RPM, when "apt-get is sooooo much better!"
Frankly, I don't think any distribution is any more backwards-looking, anti-innovative, or caters to the 'leet types more than any other distribution. They all have their design goals. Slackware, even with it's very basic package management and BSD-style scripts, is operating under its design goals, just like Debian does with it's necessity for DFSG-compliant packages.
Frankly, I wish everybody would stop the distribution-bashing altogether. It's very counterproductive.
Rather than having to hire specialists to pore over the OS Carnivore alternative and fix any holes or weaknesses that they find, they can, at no cost, simply use the version that they paid for.
That argument doesn't hold water, because the furor over Carnivore stems not from the fact that it might have flaws or weaknesses, but that nobody quite knows what Carnivore's capabilities are. Are you absolutely sure it's just tapping email? Or maybe there's built-in packet sniffing, as well. Perhaps it maintains its own duplicate cache of every web page you access.
Or, since Carnivore is a black box, perhaps it scans *every* email or web page request and does some fancy pattern matching on it. Under the auspices of looking at Joe Blow's email, the FBI has a tool in which to look for whatever they want: people downloading kiddie porn, people building bombs, people passing military secrets... which they have NO RIGHT to look for beyond look at Joe Blow's email.
Nobody's bitching about Carnivore because it might have a flaw. The big stink is the fact the FBI won't give any more information on Carnivore than sound bites, and people are justifiably worried that Carnivore might do more than just tap one persons emails.
I also don't understand how an alternative that is different in only one respect (open sourced) and supposedly has the exact same functionality is superior to the closed source version. To me, a well-designed program is a well-designed program, whether it was designed in total secrecy or GPLed.
It's not about the design. If this were simply about security flaws you'd be correct.
This is about the capability of software you know nothing about. An open version allows an ISP to make 100% sure that all it does is tap email. With the FBI's black box, you have to take your chances.
Open source, in this instance, provides a much greater level of security and comfort than proprietary software.
The:CueCat reader is only on loan to you from Digital:Convergence and may be recalled at any time. Without limiting the foregoing, your possession or control of the:CueCat reader does not transfer any right, title or interest to you in the:CueCat reader.
Excuse me?
How can you "loan" me something if you a) don't know who I am, b) don't bother to record who I am, c) don't ask for any collateral or specify any terms/conditions/length for the loan, and d) retroactively declare it was a loan?
This sort of seems to me to be equivalent of handing out money on the street one day, and then getting on television the next saying, "Oh, by the way, all those people I gave money to on the street yesterday have to pay me back when I ask for it."
Unfortunately, chances are that the warrant will have something like "we will also decrypt that which is encrypted and check there."
Good for the warrant. It's a shame I "lost" my decryption key. ("Gee, officer, that little piece of paper I wrote it down on has to be around here somewhere...")
One well-designed algorithm and one fairly-long key length later, the FBI starts the process of decrypting the the contents of my hard disk for the next several billion years.
"What's that you have, a warrant? I'm sorry, but the contents of my hard disk are encrypted. And since there's copyrighted material on my hard disk, circumventing the encryption on the disk constitutes a violation under the DMCA with regards to circumventing a technological method that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work or works."
As long as stupid laws are on the books, you might as well make them work for you.
What's this about the Gnome project strong-arming the developers into switching from C++ to C? Leaving aside my religious beliefs in OOP, that doesn't seem in keeping with "open source ideals" at all.
It probably had something to do with the fact that Nautilius was going to be considered a "core" GNOME package. Since GNOME itself is written in C, not C++, I think it's reasonable to want all the core GNOME packages to be written in the same language. Utilities, applications, and what-not can be written in Perl, Scheme, or whatever else has a language binding, but the core program(s) should be developed in the same language.
This has a number of benefits, not the least of which is that the package is easier to integrate into the rest of GNOME, since those working on the other core packages can still read and understand Nautilus. It's difficult to get used to a C-variant language (Java, C++, C#) coming off of C, and it's not an adjustment that takes a couple of hours.
If the MPAA bothers you about distributing the content, ask what proof they have. If they say they decrypted it, you can happily point to the relevant portions of the DMCA and tell them that they illegally circumvented an access control device for copyrighted content, and to expect a letter from your lawyer.
I say turnabout is fair play with regard to the MPAA and the DMCA.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, that important detail - Steve Jackson Games published some kind of H/Cracker game that bore a loose semblance to real life. And of course people discussed it on their Bulletin Boards. And that is one of the things that attracted attention from the FBI.
Actually, they were in the process of developing their GURPS: Cyberpunk book (which bears about as much semblence to cracking/hacking as the Curious George books do to real-life monkey behaviour). The existence of the Cyberpunk book was offered as the reason for the raid at the time; it wasn't until many, many months later when SJG got a copy of the affadavits and warrant that they discovered the true reason for the raid.
--
The prospective of terrific sex
Actually, there have been some "experiments" into this (unofficially, of course). There are some rumours about extracurricular activities aboard certain Russian space flights, as well as afterdark in some NASA facilities used to train astronauts for weightlessness.
Among the realizations is that sex in space is difficult. On Earth, you have gravity to keep you anchored - not so in microgravity. Given the types of movements, sex is difficult primarily because you're trying to move and hang on to your partner. One conclusion that has been drawn is that good sex in space requires three people - two people to do the wild thang, and one to help keep the other two together. It's been dubbed the Three Dolphin Method, because dolphins use the same method for procreation in the (relatively) weightless ocean.
--
The short, abridged, and possibly fact-mangled version is:
SJ Games ran a bulletin board system for their games. One of their employees also ran a personal bulletin board system, of which various types - including crackers - frequented.
Earlier in 1990, somebody had stolen a proprietary document for the 911 system in Texas. After tracing it around a bit, in turned out that one cracker who may have been involved frequented the employee's personal bulletin board system. Now, despite the fact that the bulletin board system was not simply for crackers or hackers, but was rather a geekish type thing, somebody suspected that said 911 document might have been posted on the bulletin board. And, due to the misinterpretation of a login statement on SJG's bulletin board system, somebody thought that SJG was involved in hacking.
Now, when normal people glue an unfounded suspicion to an unfounded suspicion to an unfounded suspicion, they usually get - using technical terms - what is known as crap. Not the FBI. They not only felt that a handful of mights and maybes constituted reasonable suspicion, but managed to get a search warrant by trumping up those suspicions. And, hence, they raided SJG and took numerous computer systems, texts, and materials.
SJG games eventually got some copies of the taken material, and some of the systems were returned, but in the meantime they were very nearly driven out of business (chapter 11 was considered for a while). SJG, with the EFF, sued the FBI for a whole host of things, and wound up getting around $50,000 USD in compensation for lost business, expenses, and so on, in addition to the lawyers fees for SJG being paid by the FBI.
--
No, it's not the same problem. Saying that the effect is to protect something is not saying that it has to flawlessly protect the content. It simply has to be a reasonable attempt at protection (much like many of the legal standards require the judgement of a reasonable person, not a perfect person).
It isn't reasonable - nor even possible - to have a perfect method of protection of content and still make content viewable. Therefore, the law specifies that the content owner must simply put in a measure to protect content and then lets the law cover the cases where somebody breaks through it.
Now, the issue of effective protection is entirely separate, and one that I do believe should be incorporated into the law somehow. I don't think ROT-13 scrambling should be considered a technological method of protection, no.
--
the whole exercise was pointless? peacefire won a tremendous victory here!
Congratulations for Peacefire, but it's not really anything to celebrate when taking into account the scope of the loss here.
It's equivalent to finding somebody alive in the ruins of Hiroshima after the atomic bomb was dropped. It's nice, but it doesn't begin to make up the magnitude of devestation.
--
Um, if it effectively controlled access wouldn't this law be *unnecessary*?
No, because you're using the wrong definition of effectively. In this case, it doesn't refer to the difficulty of circumventing the protection, but rather the scope of the protection.
Perhaps it would be easier to understand if the legislation was rephrased slightly:
(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that, in effect, controls access to a work protected under this title.
--
This almost makes me want to cry.
It's one thing to know that in the time between the foundation of this country and the time of your birth, freedom was sold off, in the form of preferential laws, to corporations and other governments
It's an entirely different matter to not only see those laws passed in your lifetime, but to see them continually reaffirmed by the only people who have any real power to change them. It makes me very, very sad to see that any sense of fairness and balance in our legislative process has gone out the window in favour of corporate favoritism.
--
only a rogue company might knowingly buy stolen software, using it either to improve its own products .....
:)
If that's the case, maybe we need to forward a copy back to Microsoft.
--
Don't you know? He's still dangerous because he's learned how to manipulate his telpathic powers to hack into computer systems remotely. While he's off at a conference in St. Petersburg, he's using his ESP to compose email for Microsoft employees...
Or, at least, that's the impression the parole board has of his computer abilities. Considering for a long time they wouldn't even let him give lectures about computers, they must believe he's figured out some new non-computer-based way of cracking.
--
Maybe because people post inflammatory advocacy messages without bothering to provide any proof for the points they make?
--
we need better parents!
I think the Onion said it best:
FBI to Require Background Checks On Child-Care Providers; Child-Havers Unaffected.
--
Arguing with you is amusing. You change the topic of the discussion and then flame for something that have not been said.
That criticism was... random.
Considering the topic of the discussion is Hans Reiser and the inclusion of his journalling file system, I think making the point that, according to those who actually work on the kernel, the kernel isn't ready for a journalling file system somehow does have relevance.
The point is that there *is* money behind journaling on linux, and that it *is* a horse race. And btw, the kernel is ready for it, as it already exists as a patch. The kernel is not ready for the inclusing of a journalling layer, which is a very different matter.
No, it's the same matter. You're simply trying to look at a distant object and focus on the tip of your nose so that it appears as two distinct issues (if you don't know what I'm talking about, try it).
The journalling layer is what makes the kernel ready for journalling, as far as those who work on the kernel go. Therefore, in their opinions, until that journalling layer is ready the kernel is not ready for journalling file systems. That ReiserFS exists now, and works with the current kernel setup, in no way alters the fact that the kernel maintainers don't consider the kernel ready for journalling file systems. That, in the end, is the only point that matters from a technical standpoint. And that's why ReiserFS is not going to end up in the standard kernel source.
At any rate, the existence of a working (and from what I hear, very reliable and stable) ReiserFS indicates that Hans Reiser has already won the journalling file system "race." Business can already use the fruits of his labor. He can already proclaim that his product, and his energies, resulted in the first stable, production-quality journalling file system. He won, over IBM, SGI, Stephen Tweedie, and probably several others. Congratulations to him. Hans Reiser's agenda of being the first to a stable journalled FS has already been fulfilled, and he can get the money, and the accolades, and whatever else is necessary to satisfy his ego. He can already demonstrate it, use it, sell it (or whatever he wants).
This crap, however, about being the "standard" file system is just that: crap. Does he really think journalling file systems are going to be the default file system in the new kernel? (The default is going to be ext2 for a long, long time to come.) Being included in the mainline kernel is nothing more than a timesaver from having to download his patch, and anybody who understands the merits of a journalling file system isn't going to be dissuaded by downloading and patching a kernel (does he really think a competent sysadmin is going to be frightened of obtaining a kernel patch?). As a result, getting his code into the kernel is pretty darn close to being a meaningless accomplishment.
That's why I don't understand why he sees getting into the kernel as such a huge accomplishment, especially at the expense of his reputation (I know I see him as rather juvenile and childish, especially after reading some of his emails on the subject) and his technical understanding (he brushes aside all technical explanations as to why his code should not be included with a, "Yes, yes, but you're full of crap - it's a vendetta against me by IBM and SGI and Linus Torvalds and Stephen Tweedie and the men in black and the grey aliens and Magneto and Kermit the Frog and Big Bird and the Powerpuff Girls and...").
If there is money to be made by having a journalled file system, it can already be made without having his file system in the mainline kernel source. But rather than do that, Reiser spends his time fighting a losing battle for a meaningless accomplishment while losing the respect and credibility of the very people he wants to impress. Rather than defend his product on its technical merits and features, he spends his energies on a battle he very clearly won't win.
It sounds to me like the monetary reward Hans Reiser so clearly expects is not coming because it's his own damn fault, not because his code doesn't get in the standard kernel source.
--
Unfortunately yes. There is strong incentive behind the journaling filesystem, as it is a business requisite. Hans Reiser have a commercial buisiness to run, and if rfs is the one true linux journaling system, it would help its aggeda a lot.
And I care about Reiser's agenda how exactly?
I don't care what is best for Reiser, and apparently the maintainers and people actually working on the kernel don't either. They care about what is best for the kernel. Right now, regardless of the status of ReiserFS, the kernel is not ready for a journalling file system in the opinions of the people who work with the kernel.
That's it. End of discussion. Reiser can go off and whine to his hearts content, but that's it. The kernel isn't ready for it so he can STFU.
--
Didn't NASDAQ just get hax0red through IIS?
Yup.
And not only did they hacked through IIS, the hacker himself admits that the exploit was not an existing, patchable exploit, but one he discovered himself.
--
Reiser has promised to port his FS to the new API when it is available, but that isn't considered enough. To this end-user, it looks like the VFS guy doesn't want anyone to get a head start in gathering users before EXT3 is ready. Its sad, because in the meantime, end-users have to jump through hoops to get journaling, when it could be so much easier.
The question is, Who gives a shit? This isn't a horse race - the guy with the first journalling file system doesn't get a check for $100,000 USD, the Slashdot PT Cruiser, and a two-week vacation to the South Pacific. There is no benefit to being first aside from bragging rights.
And while I realize ego is an important part of the Open Source/Free Software movement, no ego - no ego - is important enough to preempt doing things correctly. Fixing the VFS layer so that _any_ journalling file system can work is the right way to do things. If ReiserFS works now, swell. But throwing it in the kernel just to soothe Hans' half-a-millimeter-long ego-based temper is not. Frankly, I don't care how good ReiserFS is, at the moment putting it into the kernel is not the Correct Thing. Therefore, Hans can bitch and moan and whine all he wants, and shout that he's being discriminated against - tough darts.
And this is from a layman/end-user, just like yourself.
--
Actually, Linux 7.0 has been out for a while - I dunno why it was big news last week.
:)
--
To be honest, my observations have been that the "'leet types" tend to be using Debian more than Slackware. I can't count the number of times I've read somebody bashing Red Hat on the basis of RPM, when "apt-get is sooooo much better!"
Frankly, I don't think any distribution is any more backwards-looking, anti-innovative, or caters to the 'leet types more than any other distribution. They all have their design goals. Slackware, even with it's very basic package management and BSD-style scripts, is operating under its design goals, just like Debian does with it's necessity for DFSG-compliant packages.
Frankly, I wish everybody would stop the distribution-bashing altogether. It's very counterproductive.
--
At the risk of poking a troll, what's your beef with Slackware?
--
Rather than having to hire specialists to pore over the OS Carnivore alternative and fix any holes or weaknesses that they find, they can, at no cost, simply use the version that they paid for.
That argument doesn't hold water, because the furor over Carnivore stems not from the fact that it might have flaws or weaknesses, but that nobody quite knows what Carnivore's capabilities are. Are you absolutely sure it's just tapping email? Or maybe there's built-in packet sniffing, as well. Perhaps it maintains its own duplicate cache of every web page you access.
Or, since Carnivore is a black box, perhaps it scans *every* email or web page request and does some fancy pattern matching on it. Under the auspices of looking at Joe Blow's email, the FBI has a tool in which to look for whatever they want: people downloading kiddie porn, people building bombs, people passing military secrets... which they have NO RIGHT to look for beyond look at Joe Blow's email.
Nobody's bitching about Carnivore because it might have a flaw. The big stink is the fact the FBI won't give any more information on Carnivore than sound bites, and people are justifiably worried that Carnivore might do more than just tap one persons emails.
I also don't understand how an alternative that is different in only one respect (open sourced) and supposedly has the exact same functionality is superior to the closed source version. To me, a well-designed program is a well-designed program, whether it was designed in total secrecy or GPLed.
It's not about the design. If this were simply about security flaws you'd be correct.
This is about the capability of software you know nothing about. An open version allows an ISP to make 100% sure that all it does is tap email. With the FBI's black box, you have to take your chances.
Open source, in this instance, provides a much greater level of security and comfort than proprietary software.
--
What cracked me up was the statement in the EULA:
:CueCat reader is only on loan to you from Digital:Convergence and may be recalled at any time. Without limiting the foregoing, your possession or control of the :CueCat reader does not transfer any right, title or interest to you in the :CueCat reader.
The
Excuse me?
How can you "loan" me something if you a) don't know who I am, b) don't bother to record who I am, c) don't ask for any collateral or specify any terms/conditions/length for the loan, and d) retroactively declare it was a loan?
This sort of seems to me to be equivalent of handing out money on the street one day, and then getting on television the next saying, "Oh, by the way, all those people I gave money to on the street yesterday have to pay me back when I ask for it."
How absurd.
--
Unfortunately, chances are that the warrant will have something like "we will also decrypt that which is encrypted and check there."
Good for the warrant. It's a shame I "lost" my decryption key. ("Gee, officer, that little piece of paper I wrote it down on has to be around here somewhere...")
One well-designed algorithm and one fairly-long key length later, the FBI starts the process of decrypting the the contents of my hard disk for the next several billion years.
--
No, it's more like:
"What's that you have, a warrant? I'm sorry, but the contents of my hard disk are encrypted. And since there's copyrighted material on my hard disk, circumventing the encryption on the disk constitutes a violation under the DMCA with regards to circumventing a technological method that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work or works."
As long as stupid laws are on the books, you might as well make them work for you.
--
What's this about the Gnome project strong-arming the developers into switching from C++ to C? Leaving aside my religious beliefs in OOP, that doesn't seem in keeping with "open source ideals" at all.
It probably had something to do with the fact that Nautilius was going to be considered a "core" GNOME package. Since GNOME itself is written in C, not C++, I think it's reasonable to want all the core GNOME packages to be written in the same language. Utilities, applications, and what-not can be written in Perl, Scheme, or whatever else has a language binding, but the core program(s) should be developed in the same language.
This has a number of benefits, not the least of which is that the package is easier to integrate into the rest of GNOME, since those working on the other core packages can still read and understand Nautilus. It's difficult to get used to a C-variant language (Java, C++, C#) coming off of C, and it's not an adjustment that takes a couple of hours.
--
Better yet, just encode the DeCSS code with CSS.
If the MPAA bothers you about distributing the content, ask what proof they have. If they say they decrypted it, you can happily point to the relevant portions of the DMCA and tell them that they illegally circumvented an access control device for copyrighted content, and to expect a letter from your lawyer.
I say turnabout is fair play with regard to the MPAA and the DMCA.
--
rumors from my uncle's best friend's wife's grandma's prison buddy McDonald co-worker ex-roomates son
Lone Star: What does that make us?
Dark Helmet: Nothing! Absolutely nothing! Mwu ha ha ha ha!
:)
--