The point of ident was *never* to be a form of authentication, it was only a mechanism to find out which user was associated with a network connection, for email, mainly. As you say, if you trust the machine, you can trust ident....
The continual insistence on ident by EFNet is the stupidest thing I've ever seen, it serves absolutely NO purpose whatsoever, yet they insist on it.
Firstly, they shouldn't get all bent out of shape unless they feel something is being done wrong.
Although there is much furor over portscanning, I do NOT have a problem with it. Sure, my sniffers log it, and report it, of course.. it may be important information later.
Sounds like your admins feel like a straight guy in a gay bar... 'Why are all these guys looking at me! Make them stop!'
Admins who get uptight over portscans need to get a life.
Before all you whiners start talking about how unfair this is... is there room for consumer confusion? Yes.
You cannot bring out computer software for illustration and call it 'Illustrator' or anything confusingly similar, because Adobe has it trademarked.
Yes, there have been many good examples of trademark abuse in the past, but this is not one of them. Adobe has a very valid point.
You cannot bring out 'Gnu Windows' as an OS, you cannot bring out 'kleanex' tissues, and you cannot bring out a computer called the 'Makintosh'
Sheesh.
A few discussion points.
on
ORBS Forks
·
· Score: 2
These are all how I feel on the subject... what do y'all think?
1) Spam sucks.
2) Even though it may not cost that much in ISP fees, people argue that TIME=MONEY. I'll grant that.
3) The average anti-spam activist spends far more time whining on the net about spam and/or configuring anti-spam systems than it would to simply delete their spam every day.
If time=money, why not simply take the quick route, delete those spams, and get on with your day?
You twisted the question though.
on
ORBS Forks
·
· Score: 3
I'm saying that, all other things being equal, how do you have more money if you don't get spammed. How does the presence of 'spam' in your inbox cost you money.
Yes, time is money, but please show me how you actually would have earned more money had you not had to delete, let's say, 20 pieces of spam a day.
Now.. a mail relay getting hacked or otherwise used for bulk spamming, THAT Is theft of services, no doubt about it. That's not what I was talking about. I'm saying that, when you, as the end user, get some spam, it is NOT 'theft of service'. You're mixing up two different aspects of it.
I'm not in favor of spammers, I think there are several legal avenues to persue regarding making email sane again, I just don't think end users claiming 'theft' of services is the way to do it.
I understand what unsolicited means.
My time is worth a great deal to me (and those who pay me), but I'm realistic. Most spam whiners spend FAR more time whining about spam and setting up filters than they would simply deleting the spam. I know deleting the 30+ pieces I get a day takes me LESS THAN 2 minutes a day. I spend more time than that going to the watercooler and back. Get real.
Re:I suppose in some idealistic sense,
on
ORBS Forks
·
· Score: 2
Okay. Let me try to put it a different way.. forgive me, I'm having trouble explaining what I mean.
Where is it stated that nobody can send you snail mail without approval?
Where is it stated that nobody can phone you without approval?
All I'm saying is that, yes, in an idealistic sense, they are wasting your resources in a way they should know is unapproved, but realisticly, it's NOT costing you anything appreciable. If it is, please show me how you have more money if you don't get spammed.
If someone were to use the resources your are paying for without your permission, by hooking up to your home network and abusing your connection, that's akin to trespass, I agree.
As for your ISP, they have a server that accepts smtp-compliant email from anywhere else on the internet. When I spam you, I don't send the mail to your house, YOUR COMPUTER goes out and fetches it. It's no more 'theft' of your services than when you go to a web page and it's not what you thought it was, or it's 10x the size you thought it was....
The other thing is, are you paying for bandwidth? What about someone who sends you mail without asking you for permission? If I'm your friend, I still can't break into your house and use your shit, that's illegal.. but it would be okay for me to mail you without asking for permission? Get real.
I suppose in some idealistic sense,
on
ORBS Forks
·
· Score: 2
you might have a point.. however.
SO what if the ISP blocks it? THEY are then eating the cost of that incoming traffic, they just aren't forwarding it on to you, so you pay for it with higher fees.
The reality is, spam doesn't really cost us that much, we just don't like it.
Spam is not Theft of Service, I'm sorry. You have an email box which anyone can send email to, whether you like that mail or not. They have not 'stolen' any service from you by sending you mail, just as when you go to a web page and get a big graphic you didn't expect.
By the super-idealistic mentality people use, I could say that NO service has been stolen from you, because your POP client CHOSE To download those messages from the mail server; you could have left a few out.
This is not someone walking into your house and ransacking it. This is someone leaving junkmail in your mailbox.
Maybe, if you pay per-message for your email, you'd have a point.. similar to why telemarketers can't call cellular phones... because it costs the receiver.. but...
Can you show how an unwanted email address cost you money? Would Your or I have more money to show for it if we didn't get 200 some pieces of spam a week? I doubt it.
Get them for deceptive advertising, fraudulent communications, or harassment... but not for 'theft of service'. By your logic, when the Jehova's Witnesses knock on my door and waste my time, that would be 'kidnapping'.
Good luck with the yagi. I know we've used them lots and they make a huge difference.
ANy place you can borrow a spectrum analyzer? One of the local hammies or a cellular tech will have one in his truck.... maybe for a case of beer a cellular guy will come over and sweep the place?
Goofy. Aside from a bad antennae connection, perhaps you should try replacing one/both units?
It only takes a small nick in the antennae connection to screw things up horribly, though... 2.4ghz is quite sensitive to that.
Time to get out your Rhode & Schwartz spectrum analyzer and check out what's goin down in your airspace;). Maybe a neighbor has his experimental microwave weapon pointed at you.
External 'diversity' antennas? Is that when there are two omni's, one on either side of the unit? Gah.
- 802.11 has specifications for doing exactly this kind of link
- Yes, a customized protocol tuned for exactly the distance you are going would be more efficient, but you'd have to write it, and you wouldn't get that much of an improvement.
- 802.11b does not do collision detection, it does collision avoidance (has to do with timers). You cannot detect a collision reliably in RF, especially at these distances.
- The lack of collision detection is one reason why you need rts/cts and other types of handshaking. The other is radio noise.
- 802.11b doesn't poll (I don't think.)
- Adjustments to the inter-frame gap in 802.11b (if memory serves) to account for increased distance can cut down largely on the # of collisions, but decreases the available slot time, so a transmitter may have to wait longer to transmit, but will transmit faster once it goes.
- This can be extended into 3 node, or other configurations where not all stations can see each other; 802.11b can deal with this as well.
You have an RF problem somwhere.A 20 foot unblocked airspace should provide no discernable difference, at least, not on the software meter they show.
Linksys tends to be reliable.
Do they have internal or external antennae? Do you have any other 2.4Ghz products? Cordless phone? Video transmitter?
Does your microwave leak?
Also, what exact model of card are you using? What's it's output power (not that it'll be the problem)
Also, what's the wall made of? 2.4Ghz doesn't like going through concrete either. It doesn't like going through much of anything, actually. Thin wooden walls in the house will be okay, thin partitions in offices are okay.... thick wooden walls present a large barrier.
If you are in some country with a monopolistic government, some small carribean island, then I might believe this.
As for the US, I doubt it.. I don't believe there are civic laws regarding providing telcommunications.
First, any other info on the man who was arrested many times? What country and where? He could sue for false arrest, no?
Secondly, the man in the lineup. Perhaps with Frances strange laws, that could happen. From what I know, most American police lineups are not used in this fashion. The police put their suspect, and several others in the line, and ask the eyewitness to pick the person out. If they pick the suspect, it adds credibility to the case. If they pick anyone else, they do NOT go and arrest the person they picked; they just send everyone on their way, and the eyewitness is basically no good, as they can't recognize the suspect.
The camera is no different than sending out an APB and asking all the boys in blue to keep a lookout for someone. If they think they see him, they alert HQ. They make mistakes too.
The cop could also be in disguise. There is no reason for the camera to be clearly marked either, you are in a public place, you have no expectation of privacy.
Now, another thing: using directional microphones to pick up conversations, that would probably be a complete violation... you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you are talking quietly to someone on a busy street and there is nobody within obvious earshot.
As for infrared, no, you don't have an expectation that nobody can see your infrared emissions, sorry.
I doubt they would just 'haul him to the station and then check it out' given the chances of being sued for false arrest.
Again, you're making the mistake; being drug tested is more a violation of your privacy; being watched at home is a violation of your privacy.
Being watched in public is something you should EXPECT. You are outdoors, in full view of others, you cannot reasonably expect nobody to look at you. Whether it's a camera or a cop or joe blow on the street who recognizes you, what's the difference.
Now, if they start requiring people to be bare-faced in public... that'd be a different story.
Just because the system alerts them saying "John #34 is on Avenue 1 with an outstanding warrant for triple homicide" and it's really you, Joe.... doesn't mean you are going to get arrested.
In fact, if there's a APB out for someone, and you look like them, the cops will probably stop and ask you for some ID if they see you, I mean, what else can they do?
Was it an 'official' php logo, that you were given permission to link to, or just off some guys site?
Can you demonstrate that the guy who ran the site did this specifically to deface your website? How do you know he wasn't defacing his OWN site, and yours just got defaced inadvertently?
It made perfect sense at the time, as the man says, the banks were hugely responsible for the depression.
Do you realize how banks work? Do you know why they are regulated, what part they play in the economyu? How a bank acts in creating new money and injecting it into society?
I work for someone, sure. I also get paid justly for it. I do not feel that I am in a master/servant relationship, nor am I treated as such. I have the option of going into the bush and fending for myslef, but I choose not to. I pay my taxes willingly, for the most part, because I believe in such things as universal health care, a social safety net, good roads, and organized society. Without taxes, these things don't happen (or at least, you end up paying Guido protection money, same thing).
The anti-corporate argument is not that corporations should not exist, but that corporations are changing laws into their favor, which is NOT in the favor of the citizens themselves, and that's the problem. no matter what, people should be more important than corporations.
I'm sorry.. that's bullshit. Yes, if you made it a mission, and were willing to give up a lot of convenience everyone else has, you COULD get away with cash only. And as a matter of personal philosophy, I've tried this.
I've been: refused admission to a hotel, because I didn't have a credit card (had lots of ID though)
refused a rental car, even though I was willing to put down the entire insurance deposit in cash.
The power company's agent refused to accept my cash payment, she is only authorized to take cheques or credit cards.
Unable to pay my telephone bill at the main telephone office because they no longer accept cash.
Man, we aren't saying the movie place shouldn't know where you live and all... we're saying that, as you need a credit card and bank account in this society, that banks are basically a necessity, so why should they get carte-blanche to do what they want with our personal information?
I'm a consultant.. when I do business with someone, I keep all infromation strictly confidential. Shouldn't the same be expected of a bank? Hell yes.
Don't assume that because it's 'offshore' that it's 'shady', the two are mutually exclusive. Scams happen on and offshore.
Besides, what's 'offshore' to you might be 'onshore' to a lot of other people.
The sites that run gambling transactions tend to license the software from one of the 2 or 3 main developers of gambling software. These developers, most of them, also run the transaction servers themselves (those running the casinos often don't; they just run websites/do marketing).
Trust of the gaming system is an obvious question... so what do they do? Independent audits. You can look at profit margins, randomly test the games, lots of things to see that these casinos are operating according to the book. Folks, they can't afford not to. The margins for a small online casino are small; one or two people running it will make an okay living off it, a few grand profit a month, but that's it. If the word gets out, even once, that your games are rigged, hello lawsuit, goodbye ALL customers. It just doesn't really happen.
Also... a very large part of online gambling is the ever popular sportsbook... it's a little harder to cheat at that...basically impossible.
Basically, you dno't gambe at some little online casino nobody has ever heard of.. you check out who they are, where they are, what systems they use, and who audits them.
*sigh*
As far as I know, even winnings you win in other jurisdictions, trisp to vegas, etc, are not taxable. Yes, our lotteries are run by crown corporations, and casinos locally are taxed heavily.... but *all* game-of-chance winnings are tax free in Canada, regardless of where they come from.
On that note, gambling online via offshore gambling operations is grey-area right now... it may or may not be legal when things are sorted out.
Also, casinos are also operated by private enterprise; they just have to pay large tax. Not all proceeds go to government.
You are correct; that's exactly what the casinos will do if this happens. They will refuse to take payment directly from Australian credit cards.
Payment is also accepted in many other forms, including paypal & western union, and bank wire. These will be more difficult to stop.
This will simply be a waste of time for all involved, and won't really stop online gambling at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting use of ident.
The point of ident was *never* to be a form of authentication, it was only a mechanism to find out which user was associated with a network connection, for email, mainly. As you say, if you trust the machine, you can trust ident....
The continual insistence on ident by EFNet is the stupidest thing I've ever seen, it serves absolutely NO purpose whatsoever, yet they insist on it.
Firstly, they shouldn't get all bent out of shape unless they feel something is being done wrong.
Although there is much furor over portscanning, I do NOT have a problem with it. Sure, my sniffers log it, and report it, of course.. it may be important information later.
Sounds like your admins feel like a straight guy in a gay bar... 'Why are all these guys looking at me! Make them stop!'
Admins who get uptight over portscans need to get a life.
Before all you whiners start talking about how unfair this is... is there room for consumer confusion? Yes.
You cannot bring out computer software for illustration and call it 'Illustrator' or anything confusingly similar, because Adobe has it trademarked.
Yes, there have been many good examples of trademark abuse in the past, but this is not one of them. Adobe has a very valid point.
You cannot bring out 'Gnu Windows' as an OS, you cannot bring out 'kleanex' tissues, and you cannot bring out a computer called the 'Makintosh'
Sheesh.
These are all how I feel on the subject... what do y'all think?
1) Spam sucks.
2) Even though it may not cost that much in ISP fees, people argue that TIME=MONEY. I'll grant that.
3) The average anti-spam activist spends far more time whining on the net about spam and/or configuring anti-spam systems than it would to simply delete their spam every day.
If time=money, why not simply take the quick route, delete those spams, and get on with your day?
I'm saying that, all other things being equal, how do you have more money if you don't get spammed. How does the presence of 'spam' in your inbox cost you money.
Yes, time is money, but please show me how you actually would have earned more money had you not had to delete, let's say, 20 pieces of spam a day.
Now.. a mail relay getting hacked or otherwise used for bulk spamming, THAT Is theft of services, no doubt about it. That's not what I was talking about. I'm saying that, when you, as the end user, get some spam, it is NOT 'theft of service'. You're mixing up two different aspects of it.
I'm not in favor of spammers, I think there are several legal avenues to persue regarding making email sane again, I just don't think end users claiming 'theft' of services is the way to do it.
I understand what unsolicited means.
My time is worth a great deal to me (and those who pay me), but I'm realistic. Most spam whiners spend FAR more time whining about spam and setting up filters than they would simply deleting the spam. I know deleting the 30+ pieces I get a day takes me LESS THAN 2 minutes a day. I spend more time than that going to the watercooler and back. Get real.
Okay. Let me try to put it a different way.. forgive me, I'm having trouble explaining what I mean.
Where is it stated that nobody can send you snail mail without approval?
Where is it stated that nobody can phone you without approval?
All I'm saying is that, yes, in an idealistic sense, they are wasting your resources in a way they should know is unapproved, but realisticly, it's NOT costing you anything appreciable. If it is, please show me how you have more money if you don't get spammed.
If someone were to use the resources your are paying for without your permission, by hooking up to your home network and abusing your connection, that's akin to trespass, I agree.
As for your ISP, they have a server that accepts smtp-compliant email from anywhere else on the internet. When I spam you, I don't send the mail to your house, YOUR COMPUTER goes out and fetches it. It's no more 'theft' of your services than when you go to a web page and it's not what you thought it was, or it's 10x the size you thought it was....
The other thing is, are you paying for bandwidth? What about someone who sends you mail without asking you for permission? If I'm your friend, I still can't break into your house and use your shit, that's illegal.. but it would be okay for me to mail you without asking for permission? Get real.
you might have a point.. however.
SO what if the ISP blocks it? THEY are then eating the cost of that incoming traffic, they just aren't forwarding it on to you, so you pay for it with higher fees.
The reality is, spam doesn't really cost us that much, we just don't like it.
Spam is not Theft of Service, I'm sorry. You have an email box which anyone can send email to, whether you like that mail or not. They have not 'stolen' any service from you by sending you mail, just as when you go to a web page and get a big graphic you didn't expect.
By the super-idealistic mentality people use, I could say that NO service has been stolen from you, because your POP client CHOSE To download those messages from the mail server; you could have left a few out.
This is not someone walking into your house and ransacking it. This is someone leaving junkmail in your mailbox.
Maybe, if you pay per-message for your email, you'd have a point.. similar to why telemarketers can't call cellular phones... because it costs the receiver.. but...
Can you show how an unwanted email address cost you money? Would Your or I have more money to show for it if we didn't get 200 some pieces of spam a week? I doubt it.
Get them for deceptive advertising, fraudulent communications, or harassment... but not for 'theft of service'. By your logic, when the Jehova's Witnesses knock on my door and waste my time, that would be 'kidnapping'.
Cool.
Good luck with the yagi. I know we've used them lots and they make a huge difference.
ANy place you can borrow a spectrum analyzer? One of the local hammies or a cellular tech will have one in his truck.... maybe for a case of beer a cellular guy will come over and sweep the place?
Goofy. Aside from a bad antennae connection, perhaps you should try replacing one/both units?
;). Maybe a neighbor has his experimental microwave weapon pointed at you.
It only takes a small nick in the antennae connection to screw things up horribly, though... 2.4ghz is quite sensitive to that.
Time to get out your Rhode & Schwartz spectrum analyzer and check out what's goin down in your airspace
External 'diversity' antennas? Is that when there are two omni's, one on either side of the unit? Gah.
- 802.11 has specifications for doing exactly this kind of link
- Yes, a customized protocol tuned for exactly the distance you are going would be more efficient, but you'd have to write it, and you wouldn't get that much of an improvement.
- 802.11b does not do collision detection, it does collision avoidance (has to do with timers). You cannot detect a collision reliably in RF, especially at these distances.
- The lack of collision detection is one reason why you need rts/cts and other types of handshaking. The other is radio noise.
- 802.11b doesn't poll (I don't think.)
- Adjustments to the inter-frame gap in 802.11b (if memory serves) to account for increased distance can cut down largely on the # of collisions, but decreases the available slot time, so a transmitter may have to wait longer to transmit, but will transmit faster once it goes.
- This can be extended into 3 node, or other configurations where not all stations can see each other; 802.11b can deal with this as well.
You have an RF problem somwhere.A 20 foot unblocked airspace should provide no discernable difference, at least, not on the software meter they show.
Linksys tends to be reliable.
Do they have internal or external antennae? Do you have any other 2.4Ghz products? Cordless phone? Video transmitter?
Does your microwave leak?
Also, what exact model of card are you using? What's it's output power (not that it'll be the problem)
Also, what's the wall made of? 2.4Ghz doesn't like going through concrete either. It doesn't like going through much of anything, actually. Thin wooden walls in the house will be okay, thin partitions in offices are okay.... thick wooden walls present a large barrier.
If you are in some country with a monopolistic government, some small carribean island, then I might believe this.
As for the US, I doubt it.. I don't believe there are civic laws regarding providing telcommunications.
it's three times the price it should be.
Automatic failsafe? Oh whee, a watchdog card. Those are cheap.
This is a gimmick.. and unless you really really need that rackspace at a huge premium... I'd say you are wasting your money on these.
First, any other info on the man who was arrested many times? What country and where? He could sue for false arrest, no?
Secondly, the man in the lineup. Perhaps with Frances strange laws, that could happen. From what I know, most American police lineups are not used in this fashion. The police put their suspect, and several others in the line, and ask the eyewitness to pick the person out. If they pick the suspect, it adds credibility to the case. If they pick anyone else, they do NOT go and arrest the person they picked; they just send everyone on their way, and the eyewitness is basically no good, as they can't recognize the suspect.
The camera is no different than sending out an APB and asking all the boys in blue to keep a lookout for someone. If they think they see him, they alert HQ. They make mistakes too.
The cop could also be in disguise. There is no reason for the camera to be clearly marked either, you are in a public place, you have no expectation of privacy.
Now, another thing: using directional microphones to pick up conversations, that would probably be a complete violation... you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you are talking quietly to someone on a busy street and there is nobody within obvious earshot.
As for infrared, no, you don't have an expectation that nobody can see your infrared emissions, sorry.
I doubt they would just 'haul him to the station and then check it out' given the chances of being sued for false arrest.
Again, you're making the mistake; being drug tested is more a violation of your privacy; being watched at home is a violation of your privacy.
Being watched in public is something you should EXPECT. You are outdoors, in full view of others, you cannot reasonably expect nobody to look at you. Whether it's a camera or a cop or joe blow on the street who recognizes you, what's the difference.
Now, if they start requiring people to be bare-faced in public... that'd be a different story.
Just because the system alerts them saying "John #34 is on Avenue 1 with an outstanding warrant for triple homicide" and it's really you, Joe.... doesn't mean you are going to get arrested.
In fact, if there's a APB out for someone, and you look like them, the cops will probably stop and ask you for some ID if they see you, I mean, what else can they do?
Was it an 'official' php logo, that you were given permission to link to, or just off some guys site?
Can you demonstrate that the guy who ran the site did this specifically to deface your website? How do you know he wasn't defacing his OWN site, and yours just got defaced inadvertently?
It made perfect sense at the time, as the man says, the banks were hugely responsible for the depression.
Do you realize how banks work? Do you know why they are regulated, what part they play in the economyu? How a bank acts in creating new money and injecting it into society?
I work for someone, sure. I also get paid justly for it. I do not feel that I am in a master/servant relationship, nor am I treated as such. I have the option of going into the bush and fending for myslef, but I choose not to. I pay my taxes willingly, for the most part, because I believe in such things as universal health care, a social safety net, good roads, and organized society. Without taxes, these things don't happen (or at least, you end up paying Guido protection money, same thing).
The anti-corporate argument is not that corporations should not exist, but that corporations are changing laws into their favor, which is NOT in the favor of the citizens themselves, and that's the problem. no matter what, people should be more important than corporations.
I'm sorry.. that's bullshit. Yes, if you made it a mission, and were willing to give up a lot of convenience everyone else has, you COULD get away with cash only. And as a matter of personal philosophy, I've tried this.
I've been: refused admission to a hotel, because I didn't have a credit card (had lots of ID though)
refused a rental car, even though I was willing to put down the entire insurance deposit in cash.
The power company's agent refused to accept my cash payment, she is only authorized to take cheques or credit cards.
Unable to pay my telephone bill at the main telephone office because they no longer accept cash.
Man, we aren't saying the movie place shouldn't know where you live and all... we're saying that, as you need a credit card and bank account in this society, that banks are basically a necessity, so why should they get carte-blanche to do what they want with our personal information?
I'm a consultant.. when I do business with someone, I keep all infromation strictly confidential. Shouldn't the same be expected of a bank? Hell yes.
Don't assume that because it's 'offshore' that it's 'shady', the two are mutually exclusive. Scams happen on and offshore.
Besides, what's 'offshore' to you might be 'onshore' to a lot of other people.
The sites that run gambling transactions tend to license the software from one of the 2 or 3 main developers of gambling software. These developers, most of them, also run the transaction servers themselves (those running the casinos often don't; they just run websites/do marketing).
Trust of the gaming system is an obvious question... so what do they do? Independent audits. You can look at profit margins, randomly test the games, lots of things to see that these casinos are operating according to the book. Folks, they can't afford not to. The margins for a small online casino are small; one or two people running it will make an okay living off it, a few grand profit a month, but that's it. If the word gets out, even once, that your games are rigged, hello lawsuit, goodbye ALL customers. It just doesn't really happen.
Also... a very large part of online gambling is the ever popular sportsbook... it's a little harder to cheat at that...basically impossible.
Basically, you dno't gambe at some little online casino nobody has ever heard of.. you check out who they are, where they are, what systems they use, and who audits them.
No, it's just that it's been quite a while since anyone made any great strides for humanity, so there's a generation gap.
*sigh*
As far as I know, even winnings you win in other jurisdictions, trisp to vegas, etc, are not taxable. Yes, our lotteries are run by crown corporations, and casinos locally are taxed heavily.... but *all* game-of-chance winnings are tax free in Canada, regardless of where they come from.
On that note, gambling online via offshore gambling operations is grey-area right now... it may or may not be legal when things are sorted out.
Also, casinos are also operated by private enterprise; they just have to pay large tax. Not all proceeds go to government.
You are correct; that's exactly what the casinos will do if this happens. They will refuse to take payment directly from Australian credit cards.
Payment is also accepted in many other forms, including paypal & western union, and bank wire. These will be more difficult to stop.
This will simply be a waste of time for all involved, and won't really stop online gambling at all.