Pecision in a court order is essential. A judge cannot afford to grant a warrant to seize information from the wrong source.
However, the circumstances of the case and the kind of error in question are such that the intent of the order is beyond doubt.
You've still missed the point of my post. My point was not really a legal one, but a *journalistic* one-- the IMC *lied* in their press release, and gratuituously implied in a public statement that the FBI's error was orders of magnitude beyond what it really was. I don't see what they gain *legally* by telling the whole world "The FBI requested the wrong IP", and leaving out the crucial detail, "because they made a simple typo".
And, more importantly, what they do in their press releases can be orthogonal to whatever they do in court. They could just have stayed quiet about the typo in public and bring it up in court.
The order demanded info for an IP that does not belong to IMC. Period. It is not for IMC to second guess the order. The order is defective.
The IMC reported that the FBI (presumably out of incompetence) requested logs from an IP that's not theirs. Well, in one level it is right, but crucially, in another level, both the intent of the FBI's request and the minimal nature of the mistake were obvious. The IMC, by sunbird's own admission in this thread, were aware of this, which makes their public statement about it a clear lie by omission.
The rational thing to do would have been *not* to report it, and to try to make use of the mistake in court.
I wonder what the future of microbroadcasting would be like were this to happen. What would you do if you could buy a little slice of your local spectrum?
What most people would do is figure out they could sell it to the big players for big bucks, thus killing off microbroadcasting. Hell, the corps could even buy the spectrum just to remove competition.
Anyway, the US gov is slowly selling off more and more of the public good to big corporations to make a profit. The communications corporations were licensed the spectrum in order to serve the public good, not themselves.
Yeah, but thats where the idea of "getting off on a technicality" comes from. It's up to the government to sweat the details, and it's certainly not IMC's responsibility to fix a typo in the court order they were given.
Still, they could just have not pointed that out in the press release. Their release just makes it sound like the FBI was not competent enough to know that some IP number was not the IMC's. When in fact, they just made a simple typo. So it is a lie by omission.
This post is/wrong/... why has it been mod'ed up so high?
Oh no. That post asked very good questions. The fact is that the IP on the order was not connected at all to the IMC, as their press release was very eager to point out. And despite sounding very specific wrt technical details, the request nowhere explicitly mentions httpd logs.
It's very clear, if you had only read the material, that the FBI is asking for/everything/ in spite of the basis of their attack, two posts of 'stolen' information.
I read all the material. The FBI request did not seem quite to match what the IMC was reporting. Though now, after doing some research, I'm satisfied with the IMC's version, save for their insistence that the IP requested was not theirs (surely they should have noticed it was a typo... see my other post in this thread).
I cannot see how you can say they are not asking for pages visited... they asked for http logs (and a whole lot more!)
The request is very specific for some records which don't seem relevant at all, SLIP and PPP connections; presumably the IMC webserver doesn't serve as a dialup server, right? Given that the IP didn't match, and that they were asking very specifically for some information that didn't seem to correspond to what that server should have, it seemed reasonable to suspect some different story.
The answer, of course, is that it must be a boilerplate document, and that it has a typo in the IP. *yawn*
Again, this doesn't look like they're going after server logs at all, but rather they're
trying to track people who used the IP in question (216.213.32.98) as a dialup
connection point.
Looks like the order simply has a typo ("213" instead of "231"), and that they are going after the IMC web server indeed.
The weird requests (SLIP, PPP, etc.) could be explained away by just assuming the FBI has some boilerplate host logs request document. Somebody just grabbed that, plugged in a mistyped IP, and sent it off.
Which makes the part in the IMC press release which goes
the court order contained a non-working IP address, rather than an address assigned to any of the IMC sites.
to be just wrong. Presumably, if the IMC people are knowledgeable enough to do a nslookup on this IP, then they should also be capable of noticing how similar it is to their own server's, right?
Your post assumes that the IMC handed out the logs. They haven't. Nor have they admitted to there having ever been such a post as the Secret Service and the FBI claimed, that is, a post containing classified info on President Bush's travel itinerary.
The BSD stuff given rebuilds *the whole system*. The *kernel-only* process is much simpler than Linux, once you have the kernel configuration file done. There are no separate steps for making and installing modules, and setting up the kernel to boot-- there's only a dependency step, a build step, and an install step.
Actually, why does Linux have so many required Makefile targets for this? Why does one need at all to invoke separate targets for kernel and modules?
Another objection to the Linux approach: the commands you give above don't set up a lilo boot option in case the new kernel is bad, right? (I could have this wrong, but I don't remember it being the case.) With BSD, this is not an issue-- the bootloader can load *any* kernel you have in your file system; there's no need for making entries as in lilo.
The only serious objection I can imagine is that it's easier to configure the Linux kernel, since there are graphical tools to do it, while with BSD, you need to edit a config file. If you're serious about Unix, however, this is not a serious objection. Anyway, the Linux kernel configuration frontends throw *tons* of options at you, which you need to provide an answer for. It can be confusing. In BSD, there are plenty of reasonable defaults in the build, so you need to specify less stuff to get a reasonable system. E.g., the module options for Linux-- it's not obvious which is the right thing to pick. In BSD, if you say nothing, you'll get precisely the reasonable thing, which allows you to use 3rd party modules easily.
Oh, if you never read a handbook on installing the kernel, where did you get all those commands from>
You need also to rebuild the kernel. Otherwise, when you reboot, some utilities like ps and top will fail. Not a fatal error, though-- your system *will* reboot.
Anyway, assuming your kernel is configured already, the commands are:
make buildworld
make buildkernel
make installworld
make installkernel
mergemaster
You know, back in my day, when we wanted to make up a false conspiracy theory, we did it the hard and right way, and fabricated evidence. Jamie, I'm sorry, but you lose.
Just because they don't come to discuss the material doesn't mean they aren't discussing it. I never once went to a TA, because I had my own group of friends to discuss the class concepts with.
I've been a TA for courses with over a hundred students, so I've observed this. After you've graded a few homeworks, you can see who has worked together-- all sorts of answer idiosyncracies cluster in groups that correspond to study groups; in particular, mistakes and misconceptions that I could have cleared up in 2 minutes if I had been asked.
And it wouldn't even have required coming to my office hours-- email would have been fine.
Far from being irrelevant, it's actually the first step on the road to overcoming that fact.
So, y'alls want to overcome the fact that there is a controversy about the common carrier status for online services. Fine. Now what the fuck does that have to do with me?
Again, all I've done is point out that fact. Yet everybody in this thread insists in using faulty logic and wordplay to make me look like I'm some sort of monster because there is a controversy about the common carrier status for online services.
If you are a subscriber to the OED Online, or belong to a subscribing institution, I can even give you the URL. If not, what are you waiting for? You clearly need it if you intend to play your petty "pull out the dictionary" games. As long as my dictionary is bigger, you lose. And, dude, no dictionary is bigger than OED.
Not obvious enough that the original poster in this thread didn't fail to see them on his own.
your logic IS faulty
Please point out the place where the fault lies. I believe your futile attempts will provide me with much amusement.
and your insults are unoriginal
I don't see how the perceived originality of my insults has anything to do with the validity of my point.
What I find hilarious is that you NEVER answered the question TOT asked. Scared to?
Go back and read my post.
Suppose I told somebody who asked that Dubya is the President of the US, as indeed he is. A third party then comes in, and tells me that he believes Dubya shouldn't be president. He tricked his way into the White House, which is a crime.
Then the third party puts the question to me: since John Doe would be in jail for electionary fraud, why shouldn't Dubya be in jail now?
Of course, such a question is completely irrelevant to my point, which was, from the very beginning, nothing more than pointing out the fact that Dubya is the President of the US!
So, will you people leave me the fuck alone and allow me to fucking just point out that we are in the very middle of a fucking legal controversy about the common carrier status of online services, all which I've ever intended to do in this thread, without bombarding me with self-promotional rhetorical questions that deep down are about what you insist that I am compelled to believe about the whole issue?
So you made a "statement of fact" that there is controversy about whether or not online services are open carriers. I, in return, offer an opinion as to why the controversy should end and online services should be considered open carriers.
Whatever you opinion is on whether anything should or should not be controversial is, trivially, absolutely irrelevant to whether it is controversial or not. Are you trying to imply that, because it is your opinion that this controversy should end, everybody should shut up? I suspect other parties might not be perfectly happy to allow you to be the arbitrer of fact.
You respond to a statement of fact with a statement of how things *should* be? You respond to a statement of fact offered to a question about that precise fact with a statement about how things *should* be?
Are you trying to look smart? You just look like you lack reading comprehension skills.
To facilitate the trade in illegal materials is obviously illegal. To offer illegal materials for sale is illegal.
WTF are you thinking?
I openly admit I may not understand the legal implications of this, but if this person had made the video order through the telephone, would she then sue the phone company for "allowing an illegal transaction to take place on their networks."??
Phone companies are uncontroversially open carriers. Online services aren't.
All kidding aside, why would mother Nature tell us that we don't need to eat meat to get by in life while giving us harpened teeth to eat meat better?
I have some news for you, which you might find somewhat suprising: the Neolithic happened about 10,000 years ago, and we haven't evolved since then. Whatever we are genetically adapted to doesn't matter, since we don't live in an environment remotely close to it. That environment no longer exists.
Paleolithic hunter-gatherers ate meat that they hunted themselves; these were wild animals that had very lean meat. And they ate tons upon tons of wild plants-- and a variety of plants that would absolutely shock you. The diets one might call "natural" are nothing like the dairy, cholesterol-filled, huge hunk of steak carnivor diet that you vegetarian-haters like to call "natural".
Even the Scientology personality test looks scientific in comparison to the Libertarian's little test.
Essentially, they organize it in two axis-- personal and economic "self-governance". They are, not coincidentally, the virtuous maximum point on both scales, according to themselves.
They also come out as being "dead center".
But, since they insist on deregulation, which by removing accountability gives more power to corporations, they are quite simply a rightist party.
Also, note how their diamond graph excludes ideologies from the political landscape. The most blatant exclusions is anarchists, who believe in maximizing personal and economic self-government, but reject capitalism as counter to these goals. Also, the typical progressive answer to the quiz will land you into the "Left Liberal" camp, where they conclude you "prefer [...] central decision-making in economic matters" (a.k.a. the USSR economy) because you think people deserve to make a minimum wage, governments should subsidize basic goods such as food, people might not necessarily be "better off" with free trade, you believe taxing people is better than user fees (which leave the rich free not pay for services they'd have to share with the poor and instead go for private alternatives, with disastrous effects on the quality of services the poor can afford), and finally, you believe the government should give out foreign aid.
This is self-evidently stupid, prejudiced and self-serving.
All this talk about tech companies' campaign contribution overlooks the import of contributions from other sources.
Last I heard, the biggest contributor to GWB's campaign is Enron Corp. This company has been involved in terrible human rights violations in India; essentially, one of their subsidiaries paid the local police directly to abuse protestors and their families. (see also the Human Rights Watch report)
This is one of the most blatant and well-documented current cases of a corporation being involved in human rights abuses.
That proves nothing but apathy. Apathy does not cause change but promotes the status quo. If you want to enact change you must do something.
No. An election boycott does not entail political apathy. If coupled with grassroots political organization, it means a rejection of the corporate-dominated politics in favor of true democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
However, the circumstances of the case and the kind of error in question are such that the intent of the order is beyond doubt.
You've still missed the point of my post. My point was not really a legal one, but a *journalistic* one-- the IMC *lied* in their press release, and gratuituously implied in a public statement that the FBI's error was orders of magnitude beyond what it really was. I don't see what they gain *legally* by telling the whole world "The FBI requested the wrong IP", and leaving out the crucial detail, "because they made a simple typo".
And, more importantly, what they do in their press releases can be orthogonal to whatever they do in court. They could just have stayed quiet about the typo in public and bring it up in court.
The IMC reported that the FBI (presumably out of incompetence) requested logs from an IP that's not theirs. Well, in one level it is right, but crucially, in another level, both the intent of the FBI's request and the minimal nature of the mistake were obvious. The IMC, by sunbird's own admission in this thread, were aware of this, which makes their public statement about it a clear lie by omission.
The rational thing to do would have been *not* to report it, and to try to make use of the mistake in court.
What most people would do is figure out they could sell it to the big players for big bucks, thus killing off microbroadcasting. Hell, the corps could even buy the spectrum just to remove competition.
Anyway, the US gov is slowly selling off more and more of the public good to big corporations to make a profit. The communications corporations were licensed the spectrum in order to serve the public good, not themselves.
Still, they could just have not pointed that out in the press release. Their release just makes it sound like the FBI was not competent enough to know that some IP number was not the IMC's. When in fact, they just made a simple typo. So it is a lie by omission.
Oh no. That post asked very good questions. The fact is that the IP on the order was not connected at all to the IMC, as their press release was very eager to point out. And despite sounding very specific wrt technical details, the request nowhere explicitly mentions httpd logs.
It's very clear, if you had only read the material, that the FBI is asking for /everything/ in spite of the basis of their attack, two posts of 'stolen' information.
I read all the material. The FBI request did not seem quite to match what the IMC was reporting. Though now, after doing some research, I'm satisfied with the IMC's version, save for their insistence that the IP requested was not theirs (surely they should have noticed it was a typo... see my other post in this thread).
I cannot see how you can say they are not asking for pages visited... they asked for http logs (and a whole lot more!)
The request is very specific for some records which don't seem relevant at all, SLIP and PPP connections; presumably the IMC webserver doesn't serve as a dialup server, right? Given that the IP didn't match, and that they were asking very specifically for some information that didn't seem to correspond to what that server should have, it seemed reasonable to suspect some different story.
The answer, of course, is that it must be a boilerplate document, and that it has a typo in the IP. *yawn*
Again, this doesn't look like they're going after server logs at all, but rather they're trying to track people who used the IP in question (216.213.32.98) as a dialup connection point.
$ nslookup www.indymedia.org
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: stallman.indymedia.org
Address: 216.231.32.98
Aliases: www.indymedia.org
Looks like the order simply has a typo ("213" instead of "231"), and that they are going after the IMC web server indeed.
The weird requests (SLIP, PPP, etc.) could be explained away by just assuming the FBI has some boilerplate host logs request document. Somebody just grabbed that, plugged in a mistyped IP, and sent it off.
Which makes the part in the IMC press release which goes
to be just wrong. Presumably, if the IMC people are knowledgeable enough to do a nslookup on this IP, then they should also be capable of noticing how similar it is to their own server's, right?Your post assumes that the IMC handed out the logs. They haven't. Nor have they admitted to there having ever been such a post as the Secret Service and the FBI claimed, that is, a post containing classified info on President Bush's travel itinerary.
Actually, why does Linux have so many required Makefile targets for this? Why does one need at all to invoke separate targets for kernel and modules?
Another objection to the Linux approach: the commands you give above don't set up a lilo boot option in case the new kernel is bad, right? (I could have this wrong, but I don't remember it being the case.) With BSD, this is not an issue-- the bootloader can load *any* kernel you have in your file system; there's no need for making entries as in lilo.
The only serious objection I can imagine is that it's easier to configure the Linux kernel, since there are graphical tools to do it, while with BSD, you need to edit a config file. If you're serious about Unix, however, this is not a serious objection. Anyway, the Linux kernel configuration frontends throw *tons* of options at you, which you need to provide an answer for. It can be confusing. In BSD, there are plenty of reasonable defaults in the build, so you need to specify less stuff to get a reasonable system. E.g., the module options for Linux-- it's not obvious which is the right thing to pick. In BSD, if you say nothing, you'll get precisely the reasonable thing, which allows you to use 3rd party modules easily.
Oh, if you never read a handbook on installing the kernel, where did you get all those commands from>
Anyway, assuming your kernel is configured already, the commands are:
make buildworld
make buildkernel
make installworld
make installkernel
mergemaster
And then you reboot.
You know, back in my day, when we wanted to make up a false conspiracy theory, we did it the hard and right way, and fabricated evidence. Jamie, I'm sorry, but you lose.
Just because they don't come to discuss the material doesn't mean they aren't discussing it. I never once went to a TA, because I had my own group of friends to discuss the class concepts with.
I've been a TA for courses with over a hundred students, so I've observed this. After you've graded a few homeworks, you can see who has worked together-- all sorts of answer idiosyncracies cluster in groups that correspond to study groups; in particular, mistakes and misconceptions that I could have cleared up in 2 minutes if I had been asked.
And it wouldn't even have required coming to my office hours-- email would have been fine.
So, y'alls want to overcome the fact that there is a controversy about the common carrier status for online services. Fine. Now what the fuck does that have to do with me?
Again, all I've done is point out that fact. Yet everybody in this thread insists in using faulty logic and wordplay to make me look like I'm some sort of monster because there is a controversy about the common carrier status for online services.
I see you fail to appreciate sarcasm. And to punctuate your final sentence.
If you are a subscriber to the OED Online, or belong to a subscribing institution, I can even give you the URL. If not, what are you waiting for? You clearly need it if you intend to play your petty "pull out the dictionary" games. As long as my dictionary is bigger, you lose. And, dude, no dictionary is bigger than OED.
Not obvious enough that the original poster in this thread didn't fail to see them on his own.
your logic IS faulty
Please point out the place where the fault lies. I believe your futile attempts will provide me with much amusement.
and your insults are unoriginal
I don't see how the perceived originality of my insults has anything to do with the validity of my point.
What I find hilarious is that you NEVER answered the question TOT asked. Scared to?
Go back and read my post.
Suppose I told somebody who asked that Dubya is the President of the US, as indeed he is. A third party then comes in, and tells me that he believes Dubya shouldn't be president. He tricked his way into the White House, which is a crime.
Then the third party puts the question to me: since John Doe would be in jail for electionary fraud, why shouldn't Dubya be in jail now?
Of course, such a question is completely irrelevant to my point, which was, from the very beginning, nothing more than pointing out the fact that Dubya is the President of the US!
So, will you people leave me the fuck alone and allow me to fucking just point out that we are in the very middle of a fucking legal controversy about the common carrier status of online services, all which I've ever intended to do in this thread, without bombarding me with self-promotional rhetorical questions that deep down are about what you insist that I am compelled to believe about the whole issue?
Arbitrer appears in OED.
And, you, my friend, shall be judged by your punctuation skills.
Because it is irrelevant.
I wouldn't want you in my logic classroom.
Whatever you opinion is on whether anything should or should not be controversial is, trivially, absolutely irrelevant to whether it is controversial or not. Are you trying to imply that, because it is your opinion that this controversy should end, everybody should shut up? I suspect other parties might not be perfectly happy to allow you to be the arbitrer of fact.
Are you trying to look smart? You just look like you lack reading comprehension skills.
WTF are you thinking?
I openly admit I may not understand the legal implications of this, but if this person had made the video order through the telephone, would she then sue the phone company for "allowing an illegal transaction to take place on their networks."??
Phone companies are uncontroversially open carriers. Online services aren't.
I have some news for you, which you might find somewhat suprising: the Neolithic happened about 10,000 years ago, and we haven't evolved since then. Whatever we are genetically adapted to doesn't matter, since we don't live in an environment remotely close to it. That environment no longer exists.
Paleolithic hunter-gatherers ate meat that they hunted themselves; these were wild animals that had very lean meat. And they ate tons upon tons of wild plants-- and a variety of plants that would absolutely shock you. The diets one might call "natural" are nothing like the dairy, cholesterol-filled, huge hunk of steak carnivor diet that you vegetarian-haters like to call "natural".
Essentially, they organize it in two axis-- personal and economic "self-governance". They are, not coincidentally, the virtuous maximum point on both scales, according to themselves.
They also come out as being "dead center". But, since they insist on deregulation, which by removing accountability gives more power to corporations, they are quite simply a rightist party.
Also, note how their diamond graph excludes ideologies from the political landscape. The most blatant exclusions is anarchists, who believe in maximizing personal and economic self-government, but reject capitalism as counter to these goals. Also, the typical progressive answer to the quiz will land you into the "Left Liberal" camp, where they conclude you "prefer [...] central decision-making in economic matters" (a.k.a. the USSR economy) because you think people deserve to make a minimum wage, governments should subsidize basic goods such as food, people might not necessarily be "better off" with free trade, you believe taxing people is better than user fees (which leave the rich free not pay for services they'd have to share with the poor and instead go for private alternatives, with disastrous effects on the quality of services the poor can afford), and finally, you believe the government should give out foreign aid.
This is self-evidently stupid, prejudiced and self-serving.
Last I heard, the biggest contributor to GWB's campaign is Enron Corp. This company has been involved in terrible human rights violations in India; essentially, one of their subsidiaries paid the local police directly to abuse protestors and their families. (see also the Human Rights Watch report)
This is one of the most blatant and well-documented current cases of a corporation being involved in human rights abuses.
More info on GWB's ties to Enron here.
That proves nothing but apathy. Apathy does not cause change but promotes the status quo. If you want to enact change you must do something.
No. An election boycott does not entail political apathy. If coupled with grassroots political organization, it means a rejection of the corporate-dominated politics in favor of true democracy.