''
1 )Magic lantern software will take advantage of one of the Windoze flaws.
2 )The flaws are the very kind Microsoft & partners are now trying very hard to keep undisclosed.
3 )The DOJ "threw up their hands" in the DOJ case and gave Microsoft a suprisingly sweet deal.
4 )The DOJ is currently led by the guy also responsible for loosening laws for the police, etc.
Q )Could there be a deal there? I'm a suspicious sort and it looks like the "appearance of a confict of interest."
It also sounds like the makings of a great FOI request to me. Any US citizens up for the challenge?
""
I fear governments more hands down.
Governments kill waaaaaaaay more people than terrorists could ever dream of.
I'm not even a gun toting small town boy from Wisconson either.
Much cooperation exists within capitalisim, and it is primarily within the confines of a company. The amount of cooperation vis competition or size of the companies in an economy is determined by the transaction costs companies face. (Coase, R., 1937, The Nature of the Firm......Everyone cites him. I will too!)
AOL-Time-Warner & Microsoft grow larger because their transaction costs shrink. We in the Open Source Movement cooperate, our transaction costs are very small (I can code, upload it to freshmeat and you can add/customize/whatever to it for nearly $0.00.)
In essense the Open Source movement is quite similar to a large corporate conglomerate. We are large, international in scope, we cooperate with each other, but we for the most part sell products at cost-- which is free. We are also in competition with other companies despite not being profit motivated.
The companies mentioned in the article can be thought of as "partnerships" with the OS conglomerate (sorry, "Movement.") Their OS partner is being dumped due to our negligable margins, but the Open Source Movement is still strong. We code for free and as you say, we'll always have customers because we undercut our competition.
We're *not* that different than the AOL's, in an economic sense. We're definately "corner solution," however.
Alan L. Limbury, Presiding Panelist
Sir Ian Barker, Panelist
David E. Sorkin, Panelist, (Dissenting in this case)
Note that Sorkin doesn't get to arbitrate many cases on his own.
Personally, I'd like better seat belts. The steward[esses] get two shoulder straps + belt, where regular unwashed people get only belts. When pulling lots of Gs like in a crash, I'd prefer to be better strapped in, instead of my head smacking that credit card phone.
By your argument all attorney-client conversations would be fair game for DOJ eavesdropping, because any lawyer could conspire to commit crimes with any client.
How convenient for the DOJ if these lawyers are going to court against your own.
Ask them this: "If all the resources of the US DOJ cannot beat Microsoft in court, how can our company's legal council possibly expect to win should they sell us faulty software?"
I don't think MS had to offer the DOJ anything at all. When mr. Ashcroft announced the settlement, he looked so dis-interested in the whole affair and sounded like he was reading the teleprompter. And one can imagine why: One file is all this terrorism business, and this file which involves endless legal challenges and battling MS's effective PR and spin. Not only is there little political upside, it is obviously boring for him. On top of this, the downside is that a continued court case could be construed by MS & friends to be distracting the DOJ from more pressing priorities like fighting terrorism. Not to mention that MS is on the NASDAQ Index and futureMScompetitor Inc is not. They want to help the economy don't they? (yeah, I know.)
So the DOJ caved and MS walked. Big deal. There are stil the States and the European Union. We (well, *I*) should watch less news and code more anyway.
I still mostly like their hardware, except that they so obviously gouge you. Just try to store.sun.com and buy some RAM and it will cost you *10 commodity prices and ship in 5 days. That is some reliability! Shop for a hard drive too-- allmost as bad.
With Sun boxen, small shops need to keep expensive extra parts around, and can't walk across the street to Joe's computer store and get the parts they need--or an entirely new server and worry about details of what failed later.
One can buy good Intel boxen for 1/10 the price but get only 5. This is more reliable in my book than any single server even if you can hot-swap CPUs. Of course not all applications can distribute, but when they can, is there any reason not to today?
I don't want to see an Intel-Only world, but to me, Sun's hardware is primarily for snooty nosed PHBs. They still sell storage solutions chock full of 36GB and even 18GB drives on lower end storage! Talk about doubling or tripling your MTBF. Was there a big sale on 18GB drives three years ago or something??
Sun will see the light eventually. They have the easily retrained UNIX support staff and they could be lucratively supporting a gazillion low cost Lintel sites. This gives their PHB clients the assurance they require plus a low initial financial outlay for HW/SW. McNealy might be too emotionally tied to Solaris on SPARC, but I believe their next CEO will make the right choice.
Not only is there no justification, but the use of the tragedy to push various un-related (evidently unjustifiable) policy initiatives is really quite tasteless. IMHO.
Continuing from your post, it is interesting to see the differences between CNN's version of Bin Laden's speech and CBC's version.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/us_strikingback/b ac kgrounders/binladen_speech011007.html
And the paragraph that is most striking to me is this one:
CNN: "People -- event of the world -- in Japan, hundreds of thousands of people got killed. This is not a war crime. Or in Iraq, what our -- who are being killed in Iraq. This is not a crime. And those, when they were attacked in my Nairobi, and Dar es Salaam, Afghanistan, and Sudan were attacked."
CBC: "When people at the ends of the earth, Japan, were killed by their hundreds of thousands, young and old, it was not considered a war crime, it is something that has justification. Millions of children in Iraq is something that has justification. But when they lose dozens of people in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam (capitals of Kenya and Tanzania, where U.S. embassies were bombed in 1998), Iraq was struck and Afghanistan was struck. Hypocrisy stood in force behind the head of infidels worldwide, behind the cowards of this age, America and those who are with it."
I can't believe that this is simply the result of some hurried translator working under a deadline. The portions that are most 'altered' and are most central to his argument, and have dashes replacing the text. The rest of the text looks like two different translations, to me.
It is unfortunate not only because Americans should know exactly why they go to war (not just their government's viewpoint), but also because Bin Laden's argument is not convincing--so a strong case for alterations was not required to make the changes.
From the site....
we have therefore decided to extend the period for reply comments for both papers from October 5, 2001 to October 22, 2001. This should allow adequate time for you to provide your reply comments on the submissions.
When you send in your reply comments, please remember to:
- indicate that they are reply comments,
- identify the consultation paper concerned
- identify the specific submission or submissions, if applicable, to which you are replying.
Comments may be sent by e-mail (Text, WordPerfect, Microsoft Word or HTML formats) to:
copyright-droitdauteur@ic.gc.ca
Comments may also be sent by mail or fax to:
Comments - Government of Canada Copyright Reform
c/o Intellectual Property Policy Directorate
Industry Canada
235 Queen Street
5th Floor West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0H5
fax: (613) 941-8151
The article is by the Duncan Campbell, and speaks to this very issue.
"How the plotters slipped US net"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,13 61,558371,00.html
One interesting factoid I had not heard was that in '98, the US tried to kill Bin Laden with a cruise missle, using similar methods as the Russians when they attempted to kill Milosevich-- by tracing the source of a phone.
What about those people which were defacing pro-Taliban web sites? IANAL. Would they get life under this bill? These sites would fall under interstate communication wouldn't they?
The Carnavore boxes are (we understand) to be attached to the ISP's feed. Just get the same ISP! These machines cannot be logging every single packet sent either, because they would rapidly fill up their hard drives.
If you're a Linux guy look at your/sbin/ifconfig and see how fast those packets add up. I rebooted 2 1/2 hours ago (bad 2.4.10 SMP kernel?) and I already have recieved 26K packets and TX'd 32K packets. Multipy by sizeof(source) + sizeof(destination) + sizeof (HW source) + sizeof (packettype) * number of users = a big number real fast.
I understand the UK in it ongoing wisdom is looking at forcing ISPs to log *all* packets. This would mean TBytes of data, even with compression.
So, unless you live on Planet UK, it is not feasible to log everything. A backbone provider would have an even greater problem-- even more data. Carnavore must only target specific individuals.
I guess RIP would also screw you if I registered a public key in your name and used your email address to flag that fact to the authorities. If it came to court, you could not produce the private key, and then you would be in some serious trouble on top of the sending-encrypted-email rap.
If one wanted to screw someone with the legislation mentioned, it would be quite easy. And judging from past UK legislation like RIP, I doubt that that is one of their concerns.
-b
They can't crack large keys:
Why wouldn't one spread rumours to deter encryption use?
They can crack large keys:
Would they utilize this knowledge knowing that if word got out, it would shake all notions of trust to the ground? All major financial transactions would halt. Economies would go into free-fall.
It is just too great of a secret to expose.
So, nothing is proven.
But one should still encrypt with long keys, because even if they know what you say, they cannot act upon it. If they have the ability, then it must be very difficult for them to stay "hands off", especially now.
Morons claim freedom over life?
There are 40,000 vehicular deaths per year in the US, yet we don't ban cars. Why not? Well an economist might say that there is an implicit value for each life and the sum value of the lives lost does not equal the value we place upon all of us driving. In essence, our society has chosen the freedom of driving to work and to 7-11 over the lives of thousands.
Further to this, cars don't have speed limiters, breathalizers, doze alarms in our cars.
We consume alcohol.
We go outside.
We all have made the choice of freedom over safety. We would have as much life as women in Afganistan do without our freedoms. This is, I think, a rational (if cruel) choice.
Read the proposed Measures against Terrorism act @ cryptome, a site which may not withstand some of its articles.
http://cryptome.org/mata.htm
Unfortunately, it is mostly "in paragraph X, replace 'blabla' with 'bla'" so the actual meaing is shrouded without a major cut'n paste job against the original laws. It would have been nicer if they had quoted each original paragraph and the paragraph as revised. Perhaps it is easier to pass this way?
I think that one would agree that the ability to discern who one communicates with is just as important as the contents of the message to police-like authorities.
Carnavor (and ilk) probably store much more of this info than the actual contents of one's emails due to storage constraints.
cheers,
-B
I believe that their strategy is not divide and conquer--it is an "omnibus strategy." They negotiate agreements which are huge-- with all the countries signing, no government wants "to be left behind" so they will sign and the media companies will hijack the procedings to their own ends. Enough about them...
Our response is what is important. The response cannot be focused. The economic argument of the benefits of DMCA-like legislation will overwealm any argument the open source movement or consumers can put forward. Just as the BSA claims that every pirated byte of software would have been purchased, the media owners will claim that every shared or recorded DVD is one that is not purchased. The huge dollar sums thrown around means that our beliefs in the freedoms will not be able to compete as long as these numbers are believed.
Since civil disobediance is no longer legal on the 'net, for the same economic derived reasons as it is no longer legal to link to decss. We must find other ways to get our message across.
I am afraid that our legal rights to reverse-engineer protocols, sell used software/content, and record content will eventually be eroded.
I am at a loss however, for any effective means to counter these trends. Does the EFF have the means to fend off international agrements? Perhaps in the US. Not everywhere. Do the street protesters succeed in changing internationally negotiated policy? Certainly the window dressing changes--- Leaders state "we are meeting to help the poor nations!" But there is no major debt relief for poor nations. So what is a geek to do when media lawyers enter our realm? What legal avenues of attack or protest are there left that are even marginally effective?
Any original suggestions? I mean most geeks don't buy CD's anyways anymore. I sure won't buy any soon, but that won't affect Sony in a material way. I've sent a polite email to my country's representitives at WIPO but never even got a response. Many here could build a DDOS attack system based upon a worm which propagates often but sends only few RND source packets per instance and gets a nightly victim from freenet. Unstoppable, but illegal and it may not have the desired results, besides making our adversaries look like victims. (Albeit extremely wealthy monopolist victims.)
I do not know of an answer to this problem, other than to say "uncle."
-B.
Slashdot Mirror
wasn't the 8088 a ripoff of the z80?
Thats what I heard years ago....
(Never seen the z80 instruction set.)
3 of my email addresses could go poohey.
2 from @home (moved.) and one from my own server when they kick me off this IP.
crap.
''
1 )Magic lantern software will take advantage of one of the Windoze flaws.
2 )The flaws are the very kind Microsoft & partners are now trying very hard to keep undisclosed.
3 )The DOJ "threw up their hands" in the DOJ case and gave Microsoft a suprisingly sweet deal.
4 )The DOJ is currently led by the guy also responsible for loosening laws for the police, etc.
Q )Could there be a deal there? I'm a suspicious sort and it looks like the "appearance of a confict of interest."
It also sounds like the makings of a great FOI request to me. Any US citizens up for the challenge?
""
I fear governments more hands down.
Governments kill waaaaaaaay more people than terrorists could ever dream of.
I'm not even a gun toting small town boy from Wisconson either.
Much cooperation exists within capitalisim, and it is primarily within the confines of a company. The amount of cooperation vis competition or size of the companies in an economy is determined by the transaction costs companies face. (Coase, R., 1937, The Nature of the Firm......Everyone cites him. I will too!)
AOL-Time-Warner & Microsoft grow larger because their transaction costs shrink. We in the Open Source Movement cooperate, our transaction costs are very small (I can code, upload it to freshmeat and you can add/customize/whatever to it for nearly $0.00.)
In essense the Open Source movement is quite similar to a large corporate conglomerate. We are large, international in scope, we cooperate with each other, but we for the most part sell products at cost-- which is free. We are also in competition with other companies despite not being profit motivated.
The companies mentioned in the article can be thought of as "partnerships" with the OS conglomerate (sorry, "Movement.") Their OS partner is being dumped due to our negligable margins, but the Open Source Movement is still strong. We code for free and as you say, we'll always have customers because we undercut our competition.
We're *not* that different than the AOL's, in an economic sense. We're definately "corner solution," however.
http://www.udrpinfo.com/
Use the top right hand drop box.
Alan L. Limbury, Presiding Panelist
Sir Ian Barker, Panelist
David E. Sorkin, Panelist, (Dissenting in this case)
Note that Sorkin doesn't get to arbitrate many cases on his own.
Things that make you go hmmmm.
Personally, I'd like better seat belts. The steward[esses] get two shoulder straps + belt, where regular unwashed people get only belts. When pulling lots of Gs like in a crash, I'd prefer to be better strapped in, instead of my head smacking that credit card phone.
By your argument all attorney-client conversations would be fair game for DOJ eavesdropping, because any lawyer could conspire to commit crimes with any client.
How convenient for the DOJ if these lawyers are going to court against your own.
Justice indeed.
"Russian mafia in PIN-code scam"
http://www.thisismoney.com/19991026/nm8195.html
Ask them this: "If all the resources of the US DOJ cannot beat Microsoft in court, how can our company's legal council possibly expect to win should they sell us faulty software?"
I don't think MS had to offer the DOJ anything at all. When mr. Ashcroft announced the settlement, he looked so dis-interested in the whole affair and sounded like he was reading the teleprompter. And one can imagine why: One file is all this terrorism business, and this file which involves endless legal challenges and battling MS's effective PR and spin. Not only is there little political upside, it is obviously boring for him. On top of this, the downside is that a continued court case could be construed by MS & friends to be distracting the DOJ from more pressing priorities like fighting terrorism. Not to mention that MS is on the NASDAQ Index and futureMScompetitor Inc is not. They want to help the economy don't they? (yeah, I know.)
So the DOJ caved and MS walked. Big deal. There are stil the States and the European Union. We (well, *I*) should watch less news and code more anyway.
I still mostly like their hardware, except that they so obviously gouge you. Just try to store.sun.com and buy some RAM and it will cost you *10 commodity prices and ship in 5 days. That is some reliability! Shop for a hard drive too-- allmost as bad.
With Sun boxen, small shops need to keep expensive extra parts around, and can't walk across the street to Joe's computer store and get the parts they need--or an entirely new server and worry about details of what failed later.
One can buy good Intel boxen for 1/10 the price but get only 5. This is more reliable in my book than any single server even if you can hot-swap CPUs. Of course not all applications can distribute, but when they can, is there any reason not to today?
I don't want to see an Intel-Only world, but to me, Sun's hardware is primarily for snooty nosed PHBs. They still sell storage solutions chock full of 36GB and even 18GB drives on lower end storage! Talk about doubling or tripling your MTBF. Was there a big sale on 18GB drives three years ago or something??
Sun will see the light eventually. They have the easily retrained UNIX support staff and they could be lucratively supporting a gazillion low cost Lintel sites. This gives their PHB clients the assurance they require plus a low initial financial outlay for HW/SW. McNealy might be too emotionally tied to Solaris on SPARC, but I believe their next CEO will make the right choice.
"monopoly", "predatory"
; )
Not only is there no justification, but the use of the tragedy to push various un-related (evidently unjustifiable) policy initiatives is really quite tasteless. IMHO.
+ 5 from me too.
b ac kgrounders/binladen_speech011007.html
0 /0 7/ret.binladen.transcript/
Continuing from your post, it is interesting to see the differences between CNN's version of Bin Laden's speech and CBC's version.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/us_strikingback/
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/1
And the paragraph that is most striking to me is this one:
CNN: "People -- event of the world -- in Japan, hundreds of thousands of people got killed. This is not a war crime. Or in Iraq, what our -- who are being killed in Iraq. This is not a crime. And those, when they were attacked in my Nairobi, and Dar es Salaam, Afghanistan, and Sudan were attacked."
CBC: "When people at the ends of the earth, Japan, were killed by their hundreds of thousands, young and old, it was not considered a war crime, it is something that has justification. Millions of children in Iraq is something that has justification. But when they lose dozens of people in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam (capitals of Kenya and Tanzania, where U.S. embassies were bombed in 1998), Iraq was struck and Afghanistan was struck. Hypocrisy stood in force behind the head of infidels worldwide, behind the cowards of this age, America and those who are with it."
I can't believe that this is simply the result of some hurried translator working under a deadline. The portions that are most 'altered' and are most central to his argument, and have dashes replacing the text. The rest of the text looks like two different translations, to me.
It is unfortunate not only because Americans should know exactly why they go to war (not just their government's viewpoint), but also because Bin Laden's argument is not convincing--so a strong case for alterations was not required to make the changes.
Hope I'm wrong.
-B
From the site....
we have therefore decided to extend the period for reply comments for both papers from October 5, 2001 to October 22, 2001. This should allow adequate time for you to provide your reply comments on the submissions.
When you send in your reply comments, please remember to:
- indicate that they are reply comments,
- identify the consultation paper concerned
- identify the specific submission or submissions, if applicable, to which you are replying.
Comments may be sent by e-mail (Text, WordPerfect, Microsoft Word or HTML formats) to:
copyright-droitdauteur@ic.gc.ca
Comments may also be sent by mail or fax to:
Comments - Government of Canada Copyright Reform
c/o Intellectual Property Policy Directorate
Industry Canada
235 Queen Street
5th Floor West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0H5
fax: (613) 941-8151
The article is by the Duncan Campbell, and speaks to this very issue.
3 61 ,558371,00.html
"How the plotters slipped US net"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1
One interesting factoid I had not heard was that in '98, the US tried to kill Bin Laden with a cruise missle, using similar methods as the Russians when they attempted to kill Milosevich-- by tracing the source of a phone.
Cheers,
-b
The poster forgot: shoes, wristwatches, pens, paper, ideology, spoken conversation.
They are some of the tools used in almost all crimes.
What about those people which were defacing pro-Taliban web sites? IANAL. Would they get life under this bill? These sites would fall under interstate communication wouldn't they?
-b
Yes, you could.
/sbin/ifconfig and see how fast those packets add up. I rebooted 2 1/2 hours ago (bad 2.4.10 SMP kernel?) and I already have recieved 26K packets and TX'd 32K packets. Multipy by sizeof(source) + sizeof(destination) + sizeof (HW source) + sizeof (packettype) * number of users = a big number real fast.
The Carnavore boxes are (we understand) to be attached to the ISP's feed. Just get the same ISP! These machines cannot be logging every single packet sent either, because they would rapidly fill up their hard drives.
If you're a Linux guy look at your
I understand the UK in it ongoing wisdom is looking at forcing ISPs to log *all* packets. This would mean TBytes of data, even with compression.
So, unless you live on Planet UK, it is not feasible to log everything. A backbone provider would have an even greater problem-- even more data. Carnavore must only target specific individuals.
I guess RIP would also screw you if I registered a public key in your name and used your email address to flag that fact to the authorities. If it came to court, you could not produce the private key, and then you would be in some serious trouble on top of the sending-encrypted-email rap.
If one wanted to screw someone with the legislation mentioned, it would be quite easy. And judging from past UK legislation like RIP, I doubt that that is one of their concerns.
-b
Nope, it cannot be enforced.
You can easily send pgp/gpg encrypted email (though not authenticated) with false headers claiming to be someone else.
One might be of the opinion that this would an effective way to point out the weakness in this legislation to politicians advocating this policy.
; )
Two possibilities:
They can't crack large keys:
Why wouldn't one spread rumours to deter encryption use?
They can crack large keys:
Would they utilize this knowledge knowing that if word got out, it would shake all notions of trust to the ground? All major financial transactions would halt. Economies would go into free-fall.
It is just too great of a secret to expose.
So, nothing is proven.
But one should still encrypt with long keys, because even if they know what you say, they cannot act upon it. If they have the ability, then it must be very difficult for them to stay "hands off", especially now.
Cheers!
-B
Morons claim freedom over life?
There are 40,000 vehicular deaths per year in the US, yet we don't ban cars. Why not? Well an economist might say that there is an implicit value for each life and the sum value of the lives lost does not equal the value we place upon all of us driving. In essence, our society has chosen the freedom of driving to work and to 7-11 over the lives of thousands.
Further to this, cars don't have speed limiters, breathalizers, doze alarms in our cars.
We consume alcohol.
We go outside.
We all have made the choice of freedom over safety. We would have as much life as women in Afganistan do without our freedoms. This is, I think, a rational (if cruel) choice.
Read the proposed Measures against Terrorism act @ cryptome, a site which may not withstand some of its articles.
http://cryptome.org/mata.htm
Unfortunately, it is mostly "in paragraph X, replace 'blabla' with 'bla'" so the actual meaing is shrouded without a major cut'n paste job against the original laws. It would have been nicer if they had quoted each original paragraph and the paragraph as revised. Perhaps it is easier to pass this way?
I think that one would agree that the ability to discern who one communicates with is just as important as the contents of the message to police-like authorities.
Carnavor (and ilk) probably store much more of this info than the actual contents of one's emails due to storage constraints.
cheers,
-B
I believe that their strategy is not divide and conquer--it is an "omnibus strategy." They negotiate agreements which are huge-- with all the countries signing, no government wants "to be left behind" so they will sign and the media companies will hijack the procedings to their own ends. Enough about them...
Our response is what is important. The response cannot be focused. The economic argument of the benefits of DMCA-like legislation will overwealm any argument the open source movement or consumers can put forward. Just as the BSA claims that every pirated byte of software would have been purchased, the media owners will claim that every shared or recorded DVD is one that is not purchased. The huge dollar sums thrown around means that our beliefs in the freedoms will not be able to compete as long as these numbers are believed.
Since civil disobediance is no longer legal on the 'net, for the same economic derived reasons as it is no longer legal to link to decss. We must find other ways to get our message across.
I am afraid that our legal rights to reverse-engineer protocols, sell used software/content, and record content will eventually be eroded.
I am at a loss however, for any effective means to counter these trends. Does the EFF have the means to fend off international agrements? Perhaps in the US. Not everywhere. Do the street protesters succeed in changing internationally negotiated policy? Certainly the window dressing changes--- Leaders state "we are meeting to help the poor nations!" But there is no major debt relief for poor nations. So what is a geek to do when media lawyers enter our realm? What legal avenues of attack or protest are there left that are even marginally effective?
Any original suggestions? I mean most geeks don't buy CD's anyways anymore. I sure won't buy any soon, but that won't affect Sony in a material way. I've sent a polite email to my country's representitives at WIPO but never even got a response. Many here could build a DDOS attack system based upon a worm which propagates often but sends only few RND source packets per instance and gets a nightly victim from freenet. Unstoppable, but illegal and it may not have the desired results, besides making our adversaries look like victims. (Albeit extremely wealthy monopolist victims.)
I do not know of an answer to this problem, other than to say "uncle."
-B.