Certianly, it might be *possible* for a spammer to use your connection to run their own mail server to spam people, but do you really think that is a reasnable method, especially since there are more effective and simple ways to do it without having to go drive around?
If you don't have knowledge of, or benefit financially from, the illegal activity then it will be pretty hard you to be held liable for the actions of others.
The local coffee shop I visit has there Internet service provided by Air2Lan. Basically, Air2Lan drops a connection to them and they have a 802.11b/g AP on their end, open to anyone wanting to use it.
It's one of the cheap linksys ones. There is no big deal to use it, you just come in and connect, or sit on the patio, or whatnot. They even put a few six-outlet strips around the room.
They now attract many more customers than they did in the past, and for the most part, people don't have to be forced to buy in order to do so. After all, you sort of feel obligated to have a mocha or whatnot on the table next to you.
The only thing they do in the line of security is to cut it off each night when they close. To simplify that, they wired the AP's power to the same switch that controls the "open" sign.
Don't over-think what you're trying to do here. You want it to be easy for new customers to come into your store and enjoy your main product. Drop the obsession with "securing" everything and "limiting" what goes on. It's just a waste of your time.
Actually, there's a legal difference. That's the important part.
And in reality, there is strong evidence to show that file-sharing increases revenue, not decreases it. Unfortunately, since the RIAA member labels have continually released fewer and fewer new albums both by new and established artists over the past few years, the demonstrable boost is hidden in a sales slump created by fewer new titles.
No, I do think Mississippi can be improved, but in order to do so we're going to have to give up a lot of the things we don't carefully examine today.
We need to reduce, at least by half, the number of counties in the state. Such a large number of redundant services stretches our budget too thin. We then need to centralize many of the services we currently provide. We also need to cut back on services. By finding alternatives to some of our programs, privatizing others, and dropping the ones that have outlived their need, we can reduce the burden on the citizens and allow the state to be a welcoming place to business and industrial growth.
I'm working that out now. I've got a call into the geeks at the ABC in order to find out what sort of technical environment this was operating in.
So far, this is the closest thing to a technical rundown as I've found.
But there are pictures of the new line (it was just installed and setup last month) here.
If we called "file sharing" and "file swapping" something more accurate, like File Stealing. Then people couldn't go around pretending to be ignorant of copyright issues.
Using that term would be incorrect. Sharing MP3's may be a violation of copyright, but it is not theft.
Copyright laws have been overextended from their original goal. They were established to provide creators the ability to profit for a limited time. With the changes that have taken place over the years, however, that limited time can now be extended almost indefinitely. It takes away the balancing act of rights of the individual (the copyright holder) and the rights of society to use that product freely.
MP3's and file sharing are going, in the end, to help swing the pendulum back toward society. It will then slowly swing the other way once again.
The problem, however, is that now copyrighted material is being "protected" in such ways that your legal uses under copyright might be blocked. If that happens, then the copyright holder has, in effect, secured permanent exclusive rights, which is not what copyright is designed to provide.
I'm thinking there is going to need to be a verification digit in there as well.
It'd be quite easy for me to accidentally get an invalid character in there, and without a quick way to verify the authenticity of the string, it's likely there will be a lot of misrouted shipments.
And removing any letters that have similar sounds to other letters would be a good idea. And o, so it's not confused with 0.
They have a huge hot lab in California where they have pre-configured switches, routers, ect running and ready to go at a moment's notice. When my ISP went down, they sent (same day) three new racks of modems configured with our last known "good" configuration so all we had to do was unplug, pull, connect.
It would be redundant to have one on each coast, because they were able to get our stuff to us the same day in rural Mississippi.
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, pater@slashdot.org and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
Nope, the value is not what it costs, but the damage. The possible loss is almost impossible to put a finger on, but you're correct that prosecuting this will be quite complicated.
May Edsger Dijkstra take the shortest path to Heaven. It's sad, really, that all the greats of computer science have begun dying off, btu I am excited by the opportunity to be in sich a new field, with the ability to contribute so much to it in the future.
If you had reasonable suspiscion they were holding your copywrighted amterial, then yes, you could attack them after notifying the justice department and waiting the required number of days as specified in the bill.
While I don't approve of the methods RIAA has taken in their attempt at stopping file sharing in the face of alternative and more effective means, I did want to drop you a note to apologize for some of the supporters of file sharing who may have and may continue to cause you a hassle in the future. Their actions, even though they mirror those RIAA seeks to use in reverse, were inappropriate.
Often the defenders of the gates are the first ones who suffer for the actions of those they protect. I don't have any suggestions on how to make it easier for you, and know it will get much worse if RIAA gets the powers they request, but I just wanted to make sure that those on both sides know you and the rest of the IT department there are in a thankless position. I just hate you had to deal with all of this so quickly after Sysadmin Day.
One day this will be settled and there will be reasonable peace once again. Until then, I hope you have a good day and RIAA takes you out for a well-deserved drink.
If this is what it took to make you ashamed of your party, then you've not been paying attention to the rediculous stuff they've been pulling since 9/11.
Granted, the Republicans aren't innocent of stupid crap, but their level of crappage is definately kept at 1/9 of the level of the Dems.
Here is a letter I just sent off you my congressmen. I suggest you do the same. If you'd like to use mine as a template, you are more than welcome to do so.
Dear Congressman:
I am writing you today to voice my concern over Congressman Howard Berman's proposed legislation designed to "foil Peer to Peer Piracy." While well intentioned, this bill will have far-reaching implications that I do not believe have been considered by Congressman Berman. Allowing the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America immunity from laws designed to protect the computer infrastructure of this country would be reckless and threaten the security and availability of the very computer networks we as a society have come to rely on. This bill would allow specific individuals to commit damaging acts against both networks and computers that are not their property - without the threat of reprisal from the individual users, nearby users who would be adversely affected, or the companies that provide the Internet connections.
This legislation is akin to a bill proposing priests receive immunity to child molestation laws or giving corporate executives the ability to ignore the laws protecting shareholders and employees from fraud. Just as we would not grant police the right to batter innocent civilians, we should not give the MPAA and RIAA a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to computer hacking and network abuse. For this reason, I ask that you assist in stopping this legislation.
Congressman Berman would like you to believe that "...the entertainment and technology industries have a symbiotic relationship." Nothing could be further from the truth. The entertainment industry has constantly waged battles against any technology that would remotely jeopardize their position as gatekeepers of music and film. In the past the entertainment industry sought to keep individuals from using VCR's and cassette tapes because they represent a threat to their profits. Most recently, the MPAA and RIAA have sought to place impediments in the distribution of independently produced media. The DVD CCA had a child arrested for helping to create DeCSS, a piece of code that allows users to watch legally purchased DVD movies without the expensive licensing and on operating systems CCA doesn't support. Such actions stifle innovation and produce stagnation within both the technology and entertainment industries alike.
Further, Congressman Berman claims, "The widespread availability of pirate works online makes it difficult for copyright owners to develop viable Internet business models." This proposition is laughable. The entertainment industry has refused to produce a valid model that provides users with the flexibility in choice and cost that consumers seek. Internet users would willingly purchase music online if it was provided to them in a usable manner. The token attempts at doing so by the entertainment industry have produced expensive and inflexible content that users cannot make use of.
Digital rights management (DRM) tools should be produced by the entertainment industry that allows them a fair source of revenue without enforcing prohibitively restrictive licensing upon the users. It simply does not make sense to pay for several copies of the same media so that the same individual can use it in separate places. Copyright is a two-way street, and those who pay for content should be able to use their property in the manner they see fit, as provided by law. The MPAA and RIAA would like for you to do away with user's rights altogether.
Congressman Berman proposes, "Copyright owners could employ a variety of technological tools to prevent the distribution of copyrighted works over a [Peer to Peer] network. Interdiction, decoy, redirection, file-blocking, and spoofing technologies can help prevent unauthorized P2P distribution." He goes on to state, "...such legislation must be narrowly crafted, with strict bounds on acceptable behavior by the copyright owner. Such legislation should not allow a copyright owner to damage the property of a P2P file trader or any intermediaries, including ISPs." The problem with these methods is that as it stands interdiction, decoy, redirection, file blocking, and spoofing technologies are illegal under our criminal laws. Any other citizen who participates in these actions would be arrested and easily convicted for their crimes.
The vigilante mentality inherent in this legislation is supposedly justified by the cost of civil lawsuits by the companies against those who might be sharing copyrighted files. It is tantamount to giving copyright holders the ability to break into your home, and if they find what they seek, burn it down. Allowing the MPAA and RIAA to wreck havoc on a user's machine - up to $249 in damages per file - without any punishment is unconstitutional and morally wrong. The purpose of our law is to prevent that type of activity.
The end effect of this law is to effectively require users and ISP's to develop active countermeasures to defend their networks. There will be no way to detect legal from illegal activity on the Internet. When a hacking attempt is detected there will have to be a volley of attacks in the opposite direction in an effort to cause them to stop. Doing so would also be illegal, and for that reason is not done now, but faced with no other options many ISP's will be faced with that decision.
The technology of today was not designed to handle the burden of the attacks possible under this legislation. These attacks cannot be carried out without affecting other users on the same connection. In order to prevent a user from transferring files it is necessary to flood their connection with more data than it can handle, which will also prevent other, legitimate users, from carrying on about their activities. Just allowing this to take place will cause extreme congestion on the information superhighway, and could threaten to make it unusable for everyone.
There are other traps and threats included in this bill that are equally threatening. In an effort to punish those who might offer a "safe harbor" for file traders, we will unjustly include unknowing software developers and Internet Service Providers. It is not the responsibility of software developers to determine that their products can have no illegal use. I am certain Microsoft Word has been used for illicit activities for quite some time without Microsoft ever fearing the threat of criminal prosecution. Internet Service Providers and owners of backbone networks, such as WorldCom and AT&T, also have much to fear from this legislation because they provide the connection that allows these files to be traded. There is, however, no possible way for them to distinguish legitimate traffic from that which is not. If the backbone providers block the MPAA and RIAA from attacking their networks, then they must fear lawsuits for harboring criminals, and the law provides their overburdened networks no relief.
This bill also serves to protect the entertainment industry by covering up any misdeeds as a result of this legislation. By requiring that any information about the complaints and rulings on those complaints be kept in secret, the American public will not even be aware of any misuse of the powers granted in this proposal.
I do agree, however, with Congressman Berman on his point that "No legislation can eradicate the problem of peer-to-peer piracy." Attempting to legislate a poor business model for the MPAA and RIAA will not serve the American public. Taking away their rights of users to their property, the Internet and their computers will not serve to eliminate the problem either. The only solution is for the entertainment industry to truly embrace the new technology and shape their business model around that change.
Slashdot Mirror
Most laws, such as the DMCA have a "Safe harbor" provision for the access providers for that very reason.
Just because you offer the connection doesn't obligate you to protect it from every possible, or even any, threat.
That's the most rediculous proposition ever.
Certianly, it might be *possible* for a spammer to use your connection to run their own mail server to spam people, but do you really think that is a reasnable method, especially since there are more effective and simple ways to do it without having to go drive around?
If you don't have knowledge of, or benefit financially from, the illegal activity then it will be pretty hard you to be held liable for the actions of others.
The local coffee shop I visit has there Internet service provided by Air2Lan. Basically, Air2Lan drops a connection to them and they have a 802.11b/g AP on their end, open to anyone wanting to use it.
It's one of the cheap linksys ones. There is no big deal to use it, you just come in and connect, or sit on the patio, or whatnot. They even put a few six-outlet strips around the room.
They now attract many more customers than they did in the past, and for the most part, people don't have to be forced to buy in order to do so. After all, you sort of feel obligated to have a mocha or whatnot on the table next to you.
The only thing they do in the line of security is to cut it off each night when they close. To simplify that, they wired the AP's power to the same switch that controls the "open" sign.
Don't over-think what you're trying to do here. You want it to be easy for new customers to come into your store and enjoy your main product. Drop the obsession with "securing" everything and "limiting" what goes on. It's just a waste of your time.
Actually, there's a legal difference. That's the important part.
And in reality, there is strong evidence to show that file-sharing increases revenue, not decreases it. Unfortunately, since the RIAA member labels have continually released fewer and fewer new albums both by new and established artists over the past few years, the demonstrable boost is hidden in a sales slump created by fewer new titles.
Actually, while you do make several good points about rationalizations on your web page, file-sharing is not theft.
No, I do think Mississippi can be improved, but in order to do so we're going to have to give up a lot of the things we don't carefully examine today.
We need to reduce, at least by half, the number of counties in the state. Such a large number of redundant services stretches our budget too thin. We then need to centralize many of the services we currently provide. We also need to cut back on services. By finding alternatives to some of our programs, privatizing others, and dropping the ones that have outlived their need, we can reduce the burden on the citizens and allow the state to be a welcoming place to business and industrial growth.
Well thanks, but I don't really think becoming a primo example of why just-in-time distribution is dangerous is the image we want to get across.
But I did learn we're #1 is something last night. Apparently, California has the 2nd highest taxes on businesses. Mississippi has a lock on 1st place.
I'm working that out now. I've got a call into the geeks at the ABC in order to find out what sort of technical environment this was operating in. So far, this is the closest thing to a technical rundown as I've found. But there are pictures of the new line (it was just installed and setup last month) here.
Using that term would be incorrect. Sharing MP3's may be a violation of copyright, but it is not theft.
Copyright laws have been overextended from their original goal. They were established to provide creators the ability to profit for a limited time. With the changes that have taken place over the years, however, that limited time can now be extended almost indefinitely. It takes away the balancing act of rights of the individual (the copyright holder) and the rights of society to use that product freely.
MP3's and file sharing are going, in the end, to help swing the pendulum back toward society. It will then slowly swing the other way once again.
The problem, however, is that now copyrighted material is being "protected" in such ways that your legal uses under copyright might be blocked. If that happens, then the copyright holder has, in effect, secured permanent exclusive rights, which is not what copyright is designed to provide.
I'm thinking there is going to need to be a verification digit in there as well.
It'd be quite easy for me to accidentally get an invalid character in there, and without a quick way to verify the authenticity of the string, it's likely there will be a lot of misrouted shipments.
And removing any letters that have similar sounds to other letters would be a good idea. And o, so it's not confused with 0.
They have a huge hot lab in California where they have pre-configured switches, routers, ect running and ready to go at a moment's notice. When my ISP went down, they sent (same day) three new racks of modems configured with our last known "good" configuration so all we had to do was unplug, pull, connect.
It would be redundant to have one on each coast, because they were able to get our stuff to us the same day in rural Mississippi.
ArsTechnica has a discussion with the full article as well as a candid photo of Ellen for those of you who just can't get enough.
500 Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, pater@slashdot.org and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
Apache/1.3.26 Server at slashdot.org Port 80
Nope, the value is not what it costs, but the damage. The possible loss is almost impossible to put a finger on, but you're correct that prosecuting this will be quite complicated.
May Edsger Dijkstra take the shortest path to Heaven. It's sad, really, that all the greats of computer science have begun dying off, btu I am excited by the opportunity to be in sich a new field, with the ability to contribute so much to it in the future.
In the factory, I'd look for something along these lines: http://www.industrial-computer-enclosure.co.uk/wat erproof_computer/waterproof_computer.htm
Feel free to use my slightly improved mirror. I don't have the ads and link to the news page so you can keep an eye on their activites.
http://www.marklyon.org/riaa/
If you had reasonable suspiscion they were holding your copywrighted amterial, then yes, you could attack them after notifying the justice department and waiting the required number of days as specified in the bill.
To:
Subject: DoS Attacks
Mr. McCaffrey,
While I don't approve of the methods RIAA has taken in their attempt at stopping file sharing in the face of alternative and more effective means, I did want to drop you a note to apologize for some of the supporters of file sharing who may have and may continue to cause you a hassle in the future. Their actions, even though they mirror those RIAA seeks to use in reverse, were inappropriate.
Often the defenders of the gates are the first ones who suffer for the actions of those they protect. I don't have any suggestions on how to make it easier for you, and know it will get much worse if RIAA gets the powers they request, but I just wanted to make sure that those on both sides know you and the rest of the IT department there are in a thankless position. I just hate you had to deal with all of this so quickly after Sysadmin Day.
One day this will be settled and there will be reasonable peace once again. Until then, I hope you have a good day and RIAA takes you out for a well-deserved drink.
-Mark
If this is what it took to make you ashamed of your party, then you've not been paying attention to the rediculous stuff they've been pulling since 9/11.
Granted, the Republicans aren't innocent of stupid crap, but their level of crappage is definately kept at 1/9 of the level of the Dems.
Here is a letter I just sent off you my congressmen. I suggest you do the same. If you'd like to use mine as a template, you are more than welcome to do so.
Dear Congressman:
I am writing you today to voice my concern over Congressman Howard Berman's proposed legislation designed to "foil Peer to Peer Piracy." While well intentioned, this bill will have far-reaching implications that I do not believe have been considered by Congressman Berman. Allowing the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America immunity from laws designed to protect the computer infrastructure of this country would be reckless and threaten the security and availability of the very computer networks we as a society have come to rely on. This bill would allow specific individuals to commit damaging acts against both networks and computers that are not their property - without the threat of reprisal from the individual users, nearby users who would be adversely affected, or the companies that provide the Internet connections.
This legislation is akin to a bill proposing priests receive immunity to child molestation laws or giving corporate executives the ability to ignore the laws protecting shareholders and employees from fraud. Just as we would not grant police the right to batter innocent civilians, we should not give the MPAA and RIAA a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to computer hacking and network abuse. For this reason, I ask that you assist in stopping this legislation.
Congressman Berman would like you to believe that "...the entertainment and technology industries have a symbiotic relationship." Nothing could be further from the truth. The entertainment industry has constantly waged battles against any technology that would remotely jeopardize their position as gatekeepers of music and film. In the past the entertainment industry sought to keep individuals from using VCR's and cassette tapes because they represent a threat to their profits. Most recently, the MPAA and RIAA have sought to place impediments in the distribution of independently produced media. The DVD CCA had a child arrested for helping to create DeCSS, a piece of code that allows users to watch legally purchased DVD movies without the expensive licensing and on operating systems CCA doesn't support. Such actions stifle innovation and produce stagnation within both the technology and entertainment industries alike.
Further, Congressman Berman claims, "The widespread availability of pirate works online makes it difficult for copyright owners to develop viable Internet business models." This proposition is laughable. The entertainment industry has refused to produce a valid model that provides users with the flexibility in choice and cost that consumers seek. Internet users would willingly purchase music online if it was provided to them in a usable manner. The token attempts at doing so by the entertainment industry have produced expensive and inflexible content that users cannot make use of.
Digital rights management (DRM) tools should be produced by the entertainment industry that allows them a fair source of revenue without enforcing prohibitively restrictive licensing upon the users. It simply does not make sense to pay for several copies of the same media so that the same individual can use it in separate places. Copyright is a two-way street, and those who pay for content should be able to use their property in the manner they see fit, as provided by law. The MPAA and RIAA would like for you to do away with user's rights altogether.
Congressman Berman proposes, "Copyright owners could employ a variety of technological tools to prevent the distribution of copyrighted works over a [Peer to Peer] network. Interdiction, decoy, redirection, file-blocking, and spoofing technologies can help prevent unauthorized P2P distribution." He goes on to state, "...such legislation must be narrowly crafted, with strict bounds on acceptable behavior by the copyright owner. Such legislation should not allow a copyright owner to damage the property of a P2P file trader or any intermediaries, including ISPs." The problem with these methods is that as it stands interdiction, decoy, redirection, file blocking, and spoofing technologies are illegal under our criminal laws. Any other citizen who participates in these actions would be arrested and easily convicted for their crimes.
The vigilante mentality inherent in this legislation is supposedly justified by the cost of civil lawsuits by the companies against those who might be sharing copyrighted files. It is tantamount to giving copyright holders the ability to break into your home, and if they find what they seek, burn it down. Allowing the MPAA and RIAA to wreck havoc on a user's machine - up to $249 in damages per file - without any punishment is unconstitutional and morally wrong. The purpose of our law is to prevent that type of activity.
The end effect of this law is to effectively require users and ISP's to develop active countermeasures to defend their networks. There will be no way to detect legal from illegal activity on the Internet. When a hacking attempt is detected there will have to be a volley of attacks in the opposite direction in an effort to cause them to stop. Doing so would also be illegal, and for that reason is not done now, but faced with no other options many ISP's will be faced with that decision.
The technology of today was not designed to handle the burden of the attacks possible under this legislation. These attacks cannot be carried out without affecting other users on the same connection. In order to prevent a user from transferring files it is necessary to flood their connection with more data than it can handle, which will also prevent other, legitimate users, from carrying on about their activities. Just allowing this to take place will cause extreme congestion on the information superhighway, and could threaten to make it unusable for everyone.
There are other traps and threats included in this bill that are equally threatening. In an effort to punish those who might offer a "safe harbor" for file traders, we will unjustly include unknowing software developers and Internet Service Providers. It is not the responsibility of software developers to determine that their products can have no illegal use. I am certain Microsoft Word has been used for illicit activities for quite some time without Microsoft ever fearing the threat of criminal prosecution. Internet Service Providers and owners of backbone networks, such as WorldCom and AT&T, also have much to fear from this legislation because they provide the connection that allows these files to be traded. There is, however, no possible way for them to distinguish legitimate traffic from that which is not. If the backbone providers block the MPAA and RIAA from attacking their networks, then they must fear lawsuits for harboring criminals, and the law provides their overburdened networks no relief.
This bill also serves to protect the entertainment industry by covering up any misdeeds as a result of this legislation. By requiring that any information about the complaints and rulings on those complaints be kept in secret, the American public will not even be aware of any misuse of the powers granted in this proposal.
I do agree, however, with Congressman Berman on his point that "No legislation can eradicate the problem of peer-to-peer piracy." Attempting to legislate a poor business model for the MPAA and RIAA will not serve the American public. Taking away their rights of users to their property, the Internet and their computers will not serve to eliminate the problem either. The only solution is for the entertainment industry to truly embrace the new technology and shape their business model around that change.