Heh, I'd rather see it done automaticaly, as well. but I've gotten used to it, its wired into my brain. just "[comment]tab-space-tab-tab-enter" I'd rather see a 'mod up' check instaid if a 'mod down' check. Oh well
Transfer to register.com today! or somewhere else. This company sucks, I hope they die as soon as posible
Re:Seems to be a good tool for internet blackmail
on
Pretty Poor Privacy
·
· Score: 1
What is wrong with companies not knowing who is accessing their site? Public sites should be open to all whether they want to be identified or not. Now companies will be able to deny access to anonymous users on a whim.
Why? If I don't want you to see my site, why should I be forced to show it to you?
If you ask me, personal data that you submit to sites should be covered under copyright, they sell it without your license, you could sue. And no stupid license "agreements" to rob you of your rights ether.
We can't have people thinking about other positions. Everything that slashdot editors "timothy" "emmet" and "michel" think is absolutely correct. Their knee-jerk reactions are perfectly valid. And would remain correct regardless of the amount of research, or even thinking, done. Censorware is always bad, in all cases. Privacy is a fundamental right in all facets of life. I'm glad such dangerous ideas were quieted.
I don't see what's so bad about this, although I don't know the specifics of p3p, I know a lot of commercial sites require you to give them info before you get access (Nytimes, Ebay, etc). Instead of filling out long forms, you'd just have to click "Yes" or "No"
These people own their content, they have no obligation to give it to you in exchange for nothing. If you don't want it, don't give them your info. (There should be some restrictions, though, such as that they can't sell the info, or something like that). A good P3P implementation would allow you to choose witch info to send, or edit an instance of your info for that site. I don't think users would really want to have this happen without their knowledge, though.
Its not like you have any privacy anyway. Most of this info could be gotten by tracking down your IP address anyway, if they really wanted. Besides, you can just fill out the info with bogus data anyway:P
Is that it will probably suck, at least in the begning, compared to java.
Of course, the JDK 1.0.x stuff really seems to suck now.
(ot) Does anyone here happen to know how to get good, timing in java programs? the System.getCurrentTimeMills() or whatever only returns multiples of 50 or 60. It really bites. Is there a better way? (/ot)
. If they don't, and you obtain a copy of the music without obtaining a license, you are stealing
No. No one has been prosecuted for 'theft' involving the copying of copyrighted material. Not one. So please take your misguided opinions and shove them up your ass.
You break the law when you distribute copyrighted material, not when you have it.
Further, you can sue colleges for allowing the students to use Gnutella by not providing blocking software or the like, as it is not a secret that a lot of, if not most, pirates are college students.
Well, you can sue anyone for anything... I have to say I find the idea of a judge holding a school responsible for not actively restricting the rights of the students to make it more difficult for them to possibly pirate stuff disturbing.
And this affects people running the gnutella clones on linux,bsd or mac in what way? God how I wish you so-called "Security Experts" who are only familar with windows,msdos batch files and windows viruses would just shut up.
I never said I was a security exspert, dumbass. all I said was that I found a.vbs file that everyone seemed to have. The virus was obviously spreading, do a search for 'vbs' and see how many instances you find. I don't give a damn if your vulnerable or not. I said it was a Gnutella worm, not a Gnutella clone virus. Not like it couldn't be rewriten to target Linux/mac users. (as a bash or applescript file)
I'd like to, at some point, start a project to create a self-healing mirroring network with crypto support do accomplish the same things GNUella does, but have it rely on multiple protocols and require no special software (ie, web servers, ftp servers, etc) for the clients to use to get information off the servers.
all information transmitted on it is pretty much viewable by everyone
That isn't quite right. First of all, Gnutella uses a 'haphazard' network topology, so you should say 'seen by a great number of people' not 'seen by everyone':P And second of all, While searches are broadcast, file transfers are peer-to-peer. You know you downloaded, and they know you downloaded, but no one else does (unless they tell their lawyers...)
What this software appears to do is do searches for your stuff, and then tell you the IP of who has it up for serve
It's called freenet. There is a solution to freenet, make it illegal. Unfortunately making things illegal does not stop them.
There are only two ways to solve this 'problem'
Give up.
Smash down the internet and move it from a 'peer-to-peer' network, to a monitored, client server, system. The interactive television that was the dream all the media corps in the early 90's. Get your watered down news and ideas from AOL-TW.com every morning.
Honestly, I see number 2, or at least some weaker form of it, coming out of this all. A ban on 'unlicensed' file transfer software?
So is it the case that Media Enforcer can only report searches, and not actual downloads? That doesn't establish copyright infringement any more than you can convict someone of burglary because they were seen walking "suspiciously" around a building at night.
You might not get convicted, but you could get fucked up pretty badly. In the case of the guy who created DeCSS, arrested by the MPAA's corporate goons. In that guy from New York's case, shot 41 times.
I remember a story on the news here about a kid who got shot by a cop outside of a store at night. And, oh yeh, the kids parents owned it. The cop didn't even get fired.
I don't see how you could get convicted by searching for a file, but that doesn't mean you couldn't, say, have all your computer stuff confiscated or something like that...
Legally, you aren't stealing, your infringing copyright. The same laws to not apply. Its perfectly legal to have copyrighted material on your hard drive, the only thing you can't do is copy
Technically, this could include copying the file into ram, and then into the soundcard buffer, but they'd have to catch you doing it:P
Copyright infringement is not theft, its copyright infringement.
Not in the eyes of the law anyway, its copyright infringement. It isn't trafficking in stolen goods, it's trafficking in pirated goods. And there is a pretty big difference.
And anyway, the people who download copyrighted material are never at fault legally, only those that distribute.
Um, if you download boobietraped software, they can do whatever the fuck they want to you. And you can always see the IP address of people who download stuff from you in Gnutella.
I mean this isn't any diffrent then the web, take comet cursors for example. Once they get code running on your system (outside of a sandbox), any pretense of security is gone. (and if your running Linux, you they may not beable to see system files, but they can kill all your 'user' files, witch are probably more imporntant.)
Btw, this is somewhat offtopic, but I found a trogen/worm on Gnutella the other day as a VBS file. (I was looking for Evengelion stuff, honest!). I put the source (It's a Visual Basic Script) on my webserver if you want to check it out.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, I'd rather see it done automaticaly, as well. but I've gotten used to it, its wired into my brain. just "[comment]tab-space-tab-tab-enter" I'd rather see a 'mod up' check instaid if a 'mod down' check. Oh well
Transfer to register.com today! or somewhere else. This company sucks, I hope they die as soon as posible
What is wrong with companies not knowing who is accessing their site? Public sites should be open to all whether they want to be identified or not. Now companies will be able to deny access to anonymous users on a whim.
Why? If I don't want you to see my site, why should I be forced to show it to you?
There were some good things in 1984. Um... I'm sure there were... Government sponsored porn, for example.
If you ask me, personal data that you submit to sites should be covered under copyright, they sell it without your license, you could sue. And no stupid license "agreements" to rob you of your rights ether.
you are however, put on camera, and if you use credit cards, or checks, all your info is reveled.
You can pay in cash, and you could fill p3p with bogus data...
We can't have people thinking about other positions. Everything that slashdot editors "timothy" "emmet" and "michel" think is absolutely correct. Their knee-jerk reactions are perfectly valid. And would remain correct regardless of the amount of research, or even thinking, done. Censorware is always bad, in all cases. Privacy is a fundamental right in all facets of life. I'm glad such dangerous ideas were quieted.
Or you could just search the registry and remove the stuff (or change it) yourself...
I don't see what's so bad about this, although I don't know the specifics of p3p, I know a lot of commercial sites require you to give them info before you get access (Nytimes, Ebay, etc). Instead of filling out long forms, you'd just have to click "Yes" or "No"
:P
These people own their content, they have no obligation to give it to you in exchange for nothing. If you don't want it, don't give them your info. (There should be some restrictions, though, such as that they can't sell the info, or something like that). A good P3P implementation would allow you to choose witch info to send, or edit an instance of your info for that site. I don't think users would really want to have this happen without their knowledge, though.
Its not like you have any privacy anyway. Most of this info could be gotten by tracking down your IP address anyway, if they really wanted. Besides, you can just fill out the info with bogus data anyway
Is that it will probably suck, at least in the begning, compared to java.
Of course, the JDK 1.0.x stuff really seems to suck now.
(ot)
Does anyone here happen to know how to get good, timing in java programs? the System.getCurrentTimeMills() or whatever only returns multiples of 50 or 60. It really bites. Is there a better way?
(/ot)
How is creating a new programming language that's 'similar' to java "embrace & extending" it? Java is similar to C++, did sun "embrace & extend" C++?
. If they don't, and you obtain a copy of the music without obtaining a license, you are stealing
No. No one has been prosecuted for 'theft' involving the copying of copyrighted material. Not one. So please take your misguided opinions and shove them up your ass.
You break the law when you distribute copyrighted material, not when you have it.
Well, no, but then thats not what the software does.
The software looks people who are sharing files, not people who are looking for them.
Further, you can sue colleges for allowing the students to use Gnutella by not providing blocking software or the like, as it is not a secret that a lot of, if not most, pirates are college students.
Well, you can sue anyone for anything... I have to say I find the idea of a judge holding a school responsible for not actively restricting the rights of the students to make it more difficult for them to possibly pirate stuff disturbing.
And this affects people running the gnutella clones on linux,bsd or mac in what way? God how I wish you so-called "Security Experts" who are only familar with windows,msdos batch files and windows viruses would just shut up.
.vbs file that everyone seemed to have. The virus was obviously spreading, do a search for 'vbs' and see how many instances you find. I don't give a damn if your vulnerable or not. I said it was a Gnutella worm, not a Gnutella clone virus. Not like it couldn't be rewriten to target Linux/mac users. (as a bash or applescript file)
I never said I was a security exspert, dumbass. all I said was that I found a
so all they're going to be left with is the knowledge that their music is being pirated.
Well, if its being pirated, then that means people like it... Perhaps they could use it as a barganing chip in record company deals...
I'd like to, at some point, start a project to create a self-healing mirroring network with crypto support do accomplish the same things GNUella does, but have it rely on multiple protocols and require no special software (ie, web servers, ftp servers, etc) for the clients to use to get information off the servers.
Supposedly, freenet does this.
all information transmitted on it is pretty much viewable by everyone
:P And second of all, While searches are broadcast, file transfers are peer-to-peer. You know you downloaded, and they know you downloaded, but no one else does (unless they tell their lawyers...)
That isn't quite right. First of all, Gnutella uses a 'haphazard' network topology, so you should say 'seen by a great number of people' not 'seen by everyone'
What this software appears to do is do searches for your stuff, and then tell you the IP of who has it up for serve
Heh, Someone should con him into giving them the software, then post it on Gnutella. mmm doubly ironic :P
It's called freenet. There is a solution to freenet, make it illegal. Unfortunately making things illegal does not stop them.
There are only two ways to solve this 'problem'
Give up.
Smash down the internet and move it from a 'peer-to-peer' network, to a monitored, client server, system. The interactive television that was the dream all the media corps in the early 90's. Get your watered down news and ideas from AOL-TW.com every morning.
Honestly, I see number 2, or at least some weaker form of it, coming out of this all. A ban on 'unlicensed' file transfer software?
So is it the case that Media Enforcer can only report searches, and not actual downloads? That doesn't establish copyright infringement any more than you can convict someone of burglary because they were seen walking "suspiciously" around a building at night.
You might not get convicted, but you could get fucked up pretty badly. In the case of the guy who created DeCSS, arrested by the MPAA's corporate goons. In that guy from New York's case, shot 41 times.
I remember a story on the news here about a kid who got shot by a cop outside of a store at night. And, oh yeh, the kids parents owned it. The cop didn't even get fired.
I don't see how you could get convicted by searching for a file, but that doesn't mean you couldn't, say, have all your computer stuff confiscated or something like that...
[see subject]
Legally, you aren't stealing, your infringing copyright. The same laws to not apply. Its perfectly legal to have copyrighted material on your hard drive, the only thing you can't do is copy
:P
Technically, this could include copying the file into ram, and then into the soundcard buffer, but they'd have to catch you doing it
Copyright infringement is not theft, its copyright infringement.
Not in the eyes of the law anyway, its copyright infringement. It isn't trafficking in stolen goods, it's trafficking in pirated goods. And there is a pretty big difference.
And anyway, the people who download copyrighted material are never at fault legally, only those that distribute.
Um, if you download boobietraped software, they can do whatever the fuck they want to you. And you can always see the IP address of people who download stuff from you in Gnutella.
I mean this isn't any diffrent then the web, take comet cursors for example. Once they get code running on your system (outside of a sandbox), any pretense of security is gone. (and if your running Linux, you they may not beable to see system files, but they can kill all your 'user' files, witch are probably more imporntant.)
Btw, this is somewhat offtopic, but I found a trogen/worm on Gnutella the other day as a VBS file. (I was looking for Evengelion stuff, honest!). I put the source (It's a Visual Basic Script) on my webserver if you want to check it out.