The Secret to not having to log into news sites: Don't go to them.
The Secret to not being eye scanned in a store: Don't go to that store.
I have the right to say you must let me video tape you if you want the priveledge of entering my store.
Purely public places are a different matter, (i.e., public property like streets and parks, not just "public" places like privately owned stores and malls,) but I'm sure the laws can be easily written so that you implicitly agree to whatever the govt wants in exchange for the "priveledge" of being there. (Like, for example, giving "implied consent" to taking a breathalizer test in the future when applying for a driver's liscence.)
I'll go out on an unpopular limb and defend the frowny.
Although it is a very common emoticon, it was completely neutral commercially. Despair claims the:( (tm) as their trademark. Unlike naming a game SimSuburbia*, there's no chance that anyone seeing a:( will mentally link it to another company or product. They may not know of Despair.com, but please - how many unheard-of trademarks are out there? For most people, the vast majority of them.
(SimAnything is tm Maxis., IIRC.)
Look at their site.:( (tm) is a very distinct and very well fitting mark for the company.
... Now, those cease-and-desist letters are good satirical entertainment, but please realize that is a completely different issue. 8-]
Around here, the actual cable "backbone" runs at around 40MB. Each user is throttled to less then 800kb or so. i.e. if I were to get more than one cable modem, they would each get their own 800kb.
(assuming the congested backbone isn't the limiting factor... it depends on how popular they are in your area...)
But I gotta ask, considering the 800kb limit is only an artificial limit, can't you just ask the cable company for more bandwidth through the single modem?
It's actually irrelevant whether or not the data is widely known, or "discovered by an innocent."
The case is against distributing info which the distributors should have known was obtained illegally. Ok, reverse engineering isn't illegal in Norway. But the judge's preliminary injunction should make you think twice. After all this, I doubt you can claim you didn't know where it came from...
Anyhow, the order wasn't limited to the internet (I think... IANAL), so this would be a clear violation. (Or is it limited to only defendants?? oh well, they'll just add you to the list...)
I don't mean to put you all down, but if we are going to win, we'll have to play by the rules. 8-)
IANAL, (even though I hate to say it) but, I think most eula's say that the liscence is non-transferable, or if transfered to someone else, they must accept the eula. This is why I think EULA's are generally flawed -- under most of them, using your friends software is illegal! 8-)
The point I'm trying to make (or rather, explore) is, that if the whole linchpin of the case is reverse-engineering == bad because of EULA, then the DVD CCA is already fighting an uphill battle. 8-)
If someone can post Xing's EULA and/or better explain how legal it is in Norway, I would be grateful.
The only reason the DVD people can maintain that CSS is still a trade secret is the info was inappropriately obtained. i.e. reverse engineered.
But, reverse engineering of Xing's software is "wrong" because the EULA said it was a no-no... after windows refund day, I have to wonder: What can the hackers do *without* agreeing to the EULA?
Obviously they can't *run* the program, but can they still *reverse-engineer* it?
Also, I doubt the Xing *installer* had an eula, although it contained all the data of the program -- could decompiling-decompressing-and-decompiling the installer binary be a work around for the EULA??
IIRC, you can produce an unecrypted DVD and it'll play anywhere -- no CSS needed.
But, CSS'less DVDs will lead to completely-CSS'less DVD-players. And last time I checked, the industry doesn't want that to happen. After all, if people stopped needing CSS decryption ability, then the DVD consortium wouldn't be getting their fees from members.
Obviously they have no legal standing for that though...
But, back on topic -- it seems like the DVD people are saying the hackers improperly got their IP. Why is reverse engineering imporper? Because Xing's EULA said so... but what makes them think the hackers agreed to the EULA??
If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to *run* the software, but does it say anything about not reverse-engineering it??
Or more generally, what happens when you don't agree to an EULA??
That is true, however, (in the US atleast) it is illegal to have needles without a prescription for them. This is because the legal uses of needles require a prescription.
Perhaps a better analogy would be "Pot is illegal, but rolling papers aren't." (because there are legal uses for rolling papers, ie rolling cigars)
If they ONLY give a phone number, then I can only think of two things:
1. Try to find a reverse look-up type of phone directory, and then hunt down the company... not very practical.
2. Try to identify which mail server was exploited to obscure the source, and have them fix their problem... it's not direct, but it would keep the spammers running.
I haven't had to deal with sourceless spam myself, but I think I can help anyways. The important thing to remember is that spam is for profit, and therefore they will give you some sort of contact info. If they give you an email address, use tools like dig, nslookup, and whois to find out what ISP hosts that email address. If they give a web address, find out what ISP owns the ip address given. (sometimes they try to hide thier address by putting it as a long decimal number i.e. http://3213213213... convert this to base 256 (I know... painfull...) and that'll be the dotted ip address)
This may not help you find the source of the email, but you can attack the spammers in these other places.
BTW, spamcop.net is great at doing all of this automagically, although I don't know good it would be with "sourceless" email.
An "opt-in" filter wouldn't work at the ISP (or school district) level...
But it seems reasonable when you are restricting a computer to be an "infomation appliance". In this case you would only care about definate certain areas... (like the library of congress, or other one stop resource)... for example in my school library, there is a computer labeled "online card catalog". It's just like any other computer, but pointed to a school district web site.
At home, a parent can choose a suitable site and restrict a child to that one site... or if the child wants to link, the parent can come over to the computer, and unlock the site the child wants to go to.
The thing we have to realize is the censors can only read over a fraction of the web. What do we do with the rest? Assume it's good, or assume it's bad?... you can probably see where I am going...
But If there isn't a parent there to check out and unlock a site a kid wants to go to, this becomes A Bad Thing(tm)...
well, seriously, the reason why is because coporations and other places are using the same censorware that was intended to "protect the average 12 year old"...
Now, lets stop talking about this before we give the Evil Censorware People a new product idea 8-)
I wish someone would stand up and tell the schools government, and parents that even with software, the www isn't a babysitter.
Now, having said that, considering how people use it as a baby sitter, maybe filtering software isn't going in the right direction...
When I was learning to ride my bike, I was only allowed to ride on certain streets. My parents simply told me what streets I *could* ride on, they didn't try to list every street that I *couldn't* ride on. If filtering software worked this way, it would IMHO be better for corporations and libraries that want their net connected computers to be information appliances (no need to go to most sites)... also parents would be able to set up their kids on a certain for-kids site and know they can't wander off...
I realize that this leaves most of the net unaccessable, but for the 12 year olds, and the libraries that want online news access, book reviews, etc. wouldn't this be "better"?
Personally I believe that everyone should grow up and learn to live without censorware, but that isn't going to happen any time soon... 8-(
Considering how CP is made to block things unacceptable for a 12 year old, why don't they come out with a separate product, with a separate black list, just for corporate use?
The problem is they could also then block other (non-porno, non-evil) sites like a certain "News for Nerds" site I know of, just because it takes up so much employee time.... 8-)
If you have an ISP that is blocked, it is probably a wise idea to either switch to a more fascist ISP (with a non-porn, non-interesting, non-anything policy) or pick up a free homepage (eg: one from hotbot.com or geocities.com)
Wait a minute... if the censorship software can only hack away whole servers at a time, what makes you thing geocities wouldn't be the top one on thier list?
It is a bad thing when a corporate head hunter can't see your resume because of censorship, but we must realize that it is the end user doing the censoring.
In other words, why was this corporate guy using net nanny?! I would be more concerned about this if he was blocked because his ISP was censoring content. This is rarely the case...
Slashdot Mirror
I, for one, clicked "Add to Cart" for the full text, and am quite satisfied that I did.
....
...
Well, not that I got anything, information not existing and all, but just like religion and time, I prefer living by the old fallacies
PS: Lord Helmet?? Is that you? It's been a long time
I found such a component on digikey yesterday acutally. I haven't had a chance to use it yet, but it seems quite nice.
"QProx(tm) QT110/QT110H Charge-Transfer Touch Sensor"
datasheet
related products
Digi-Key part number 427-1006-ND. Available in single units for 2.53USD. 8-]
The Secret to not having to log into news sites:
Don't go to them.
The Secret to not being eye scanned in a store:
Don't go to that store.
I have the right to say you must let me video tape you if you want the priveledge of entering my store.
Purely public places are a different matter, (i.e., public property like streets and parks, not just "public" places like privately owned stores and malls,) but I'm sure the laws can be easily written so that you implicitly agree to whatever the govt wants in exchange for the "priveledge" of being there. (Like, for example, giving "implied consent" to taking a breathalizer test in the future when applying for a driver's liscence.)
-- W
I'll go out on an unpopular limb and defend the frowny.
:( (tm) as their trademark. Unlike naming a game SimSuburbia*, there's no chance that anyone seeing a :( will mentally link it to another company or product. They may not know of Despair.com, but please - how many unheard-of trademarks are out there? For most people, the vast majority of them.
:( (tm) is a very distinct and very well fitting mark for the company.
Although it is a very common emoticon, it was completely neutral commercially. Despair claims the
(SimAnything is tm Maxis., IIRC.)
Look at their site.
... Now, those cease-and-desist letters are good satirical entertainment, but please realize that is a completely different issue. 8-]
Around here, the actual cable "backbone" runs at around 40MB. Each user is throttled to less then 800kb or so. i.e. if I were to get more than one cable modem, they would each get their own 800kb.
... it depends on how popular they are in your area...)
(assuming the congested backbone isn't the limiting factor
But I gotta ask, considering the 800kb limit is only an artificial limit, can't you just ask the cable company for more bandwidth through the single modem?
It's actually irrelevant whether or not the data is widely known, or "discovered by an innocent."
...
... IANAL), so this would be a clear violation. (Or is it limited to only defendants?? oh well, they'll just add you to the list ...)
The case is against distributing info which the distributors should have known was obtained illegally. Ok, reverse engineering isn't illegal in Norway. But the judge's preliminary injunction should make you think twice. After all this, I doubt you can claim you didn't know where it came from
Anyhow, the order wasn't limited to the internet (I think
I don't mean to put you all down, but if we are going to win, we'll have to play by the rules. 8-)
IANAL, (even though I hate to say it)
but, I think most eula's say that the liscence is non-transferable, or if transfered to someone else, they must accept the eula. This is why I think EULA's are generally flawed -- under most of them, using your friends software is illegal! 8-)
The point I'm trying to make (or rather, explore) is, that if the whole linchpin of the case is reverse-engineering == bad because of EULA, then the DVD CCA is already fighting an uphill battle. 8-)
If someone can post Xing's EULA and/or better explain how legal it is in Norway, I would be grateful.
The fact that an entire contract (EULA) is void because of a single illegal clause (no reverse engineering) opens up many opportunities. 8-)
...
...
For example, without a EULA, I can legally copy and resell the software
But, as someone said, "void where prohibited"
The only reason the DVD people can maintain that CSS is still a trade secret is the info was inappropriately obtained. i.e. reverse engineered.
... after windows refund day, I have to wonder: What can the hackers do *without* agreeing to the EULA?
But, reverse engineering of Xing's software is "wrong" because the EULA said it was a no-no
Obviously they can't *run* the program, but can they still *reverse-engineer* it?
Also, I doubt the Xing *installer* had an eula, although it contained all the data of the program -- could decompiling-decompressing-and-decompiling the installer binary be a work around for the EULA??
I appreciate anyones input. 8-)
IIRC, you can produce an unecrypted DVD and it'll play anywhere -- no CSS needed.
...
... but what makes them think the hackers agreed to the EULA??
But, CSS'less DVDs will lead to completely-CSS'less DVD-players. And last time I checked, the industry doesn't want that to happen. After all, if people stopped needing CSS decryption ability, then the DVD consortium wouldn't be getting their fees from members.
Obviously they have no legal standing for that though
But, back on topic -- it seems like the DVD people are saying the hackers improperly got their IP. Why is reverse engineering imporper? Because Xing's EULA said so
If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to *run* the software, but does it say anything about not reverse-engineering it??
Or more generally, what happens when you don't agree to an EULA??
quite sorry. I don't smoke... and I didn't think many people roll their own cigarettes. (Although some people do, for various reasons)
That is true, however, (in the US atleast) it is illegal to have needles without a prescription for them. This is because the legal uses of needles require a prescription.
Perhaps a better analogy would be "Pot is illegal, but rolling papers aren't."
(because there are legal uses for rolling papers, ie rolling cigars)
I guess I read that question a little too fast.
... not very practical.
... it's not direct, but it would keep the spammers running.
If they ONLY give a phone number, then I can only think of two things:
1. Try to find a reverse look-up type of phone directory, and then hunt down the company
2. Try to identify which mail server was exploited to obscure the source, and have them fix their problem
I haven't had to deal with sourceless spam myself, but I think I can help anyways. The important thing to remember is that spam is for profit, and therefore they will give you some sort of contact info. If they give you an email address, use tools like dig, nslookup, and whois to find out what ISP hosts that email address. If they give a web address, find out what ISP owns the ip address given. (sometimes they try to hide thier address by putting it as a long decimal number i.e. http://3213213213 ... convert this to base 256 (I know ... painfull ...) and that'll be the dotted ip address)
This may not help you find the source of the email, but you can attack the spammers in these other places.
BTW, spamcop.net is great at doing all of this automagically, although I don't know good it would be with "sourceless" email.
An "opt-in" filter wouldn't work at the ISP (or school district) level ...
... (like the library of congress, or other one stop resource) ... for example in my school library, there is a computer labeled "online card catalog". It's just like any other computer, but pointed to a school district web site.
... or if the child wants to link, the parent can come over to the computer, and unlock the site the child wants to go to.
... you can probably see where I am going ...
...
But it seems reasonable when you are restricting a computer to be an "infomation appliance". In this case you would only care about definate certain areas
At home, a parent can choose a suitable site and restrict a child to that one site
The thing we have to realize is the censors can only read over a fraction of the web. What do we do with the rest? Assume it's good, or assume it's bad?
But If there isn't a parent there to check out and unlock a site a kid wants to go to, this becomes A Bad Thing(tm)
...
Like I said before, censorship is bad.
well, seriously, the reason why is because coporations and other places are using the same censorware that was intended to "protect the average 12 year old" ...
Now, lets stop talking about this before we give the Evil Censorware People a new product idea 8-)
I wish someone would stand up and tell the schools government, and parents that even with software, the www isn't a babysitter.
...
... also parents would be able to set up their kids on a certain for-kids site and know they can't wander off ...
... 8-(
Now, having said that, considering how people use it as a baby sitter, maybe filtering software isn't going in the right direction
When I was learning to ride my bike, I was only allowed to ride on certain streets. My parents simply told me what streets I *could* ride on, they didn't try to list every street that I *couldn't* ride on. If filtering software worked this way, it would IMHO be better for corporations and libraries that want their net connected computers to be information appliances (no need to go to most sites)
I realize that this leaves most of the net unaccessable, but for the 12 year olds, and the libraries that want online news access, book reviews, etc. wouldn't this be "better"?
Personally I believe that everyone should grow up and learn to live without censorware, but that isn't going to happen any time soon
Considering how CP is made to block things unacceptable for a 12 year old, why don't they come out with a separate product, with a separate black list, just for corporate use?
.... 8-)
The problem is they could also then block other (non-porno, non-evil) sites like a certain "News for Nerds" site I know of, just because it takes up so much employee time
If you have an ISP that is blocked, it is probably a wise idea to either switch to a more fascist ISP (with a non-porn, non-interesting, non-anything policy) or pick up a free homepage (eg: one from hotbot.com or geocities.com)
... if the censorship software can only hack away whole servers at a time, what makes you thing geocities wouldn't be the top one on thier list?
Wait a minute
It is a bad thing when a corporate head hunter can't see your resume because of censorship, but we must realize that it is the end user doing the censoring.
...
... what am I babbling about?
In other words, why was this corporate guy using net nanny?! I would be more concerned about this if he was blocked because his ISP was censoring content. This is rarely the case
Blarg
-- Wuzoe