Uh, in your pink rosy fantasy world, maybe. In Russia, the police will be more likely shaking down the competition of a gangster that's paid them off than worrying about Adobe violating actual laws.
Don't worry. I thought it was cool to mess with my users and other ISP's when I was 15, too. I'm still only 18, but now that I have a real job and a real life, I grew out of such childish behavior. I'm sure your kids will too.
> I suspect that either software or hardware, it shouldn't be that much of a challenge to port a keystroke recorder to a new architechture. It's just not that complicated.
Of course not, but if it's something arcane like a VAX, it might take them a while. If that time slice saves your ass, it'd be worth it. I'm sure them coming in and searching first would tip you off.
Next time you see one of these BSA ads, or even better, the Microsoft ones, be sure to have a nice permanent marker ready, and make a small but visible note to educate the public about some alternatives that come for Free. Free as in "no cops busting down your door."
If you see any FreeBSD graffiti on the 1-9 trains' ads, well, that wasn't me:)
Actually I suspect if I persuaded PGP to run on an old Mac SE then whatever exciting technology the LEAs use to tap keystrokes might have "problems".
I don't know what a Mac SE is, but if it needs to be "persuaded" to run Unix then a better choice might be to pick one of the 44 architecures supported by NetBSD. Do you think the technology is readily available to KeyGhost a VAX system, one of the many WinCE-based handhelds, or heck, even a good old Sun2/3?
These people rake in lots of dough and perform jobs that require less than high school diploma.
Hey, watch it buddy! Real jobs don't require a H.S. diploma either. Somehow I've managed to hold down a programming position at a major investment bank without one.
However, in their attempt to "not change their business model", they tread on everyone else, by buying their way into Congress and passing the heinous DMCA.
This is... very uncool.
Maybe someone someday will gather enough evidence to push a case of treason against these motherfuckers, and then have them all shot.
When you call into a dialup ISP, you hit a certain port (line/modeo), log in with your username and password, and are assigned an IP address.
When I was a sysadmin at an ISP, we would occasionally get calls about dialup users spamming, or flooding, or whatever. It was extremely easy to track them down - because every dialup session is logged. All the information I needed was in log lines like the following:
Jul 13 1999 12:13PM: Session #X opened for user 'bob' on port Y; IP=aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd.
...
Jul 13 1999 2:57PM: Session #X terminated.
Thus, if I have evidence that spam, or a DoS attack, or a crack attempt came from aaa.bbb.cc.ddd at 1:30PM that day, I know exactly what user to lart.
[Sorry for the dupe posting. Yeah, yeah, I'll
preview first next time. Aside: SHOULDN'T PLAIN
TEXT BE THE FUCKING DEFAULT?]
What if a CD is purchased through a corporate account?
Does anyone have any legalese comments on the
following:
- I use my "RTFM Infosystems, LLC" accounts to buy a CD.
- Since the company owns it, not me personally, any "employee" is allowed to listen (LISTEN, not copy).
- I put up a password-protected web page with access to all the tracks. The instructions clearly state that you can listen ("Open this file from its current location") but not make a local copy or anything.
- Everyone who is given an account on this page is somehow made an unpaid employee of RTFM Infosystems, LLC.
Did I just create a legal filesharing network, or am I smoking crack?
What if a CD is purchased through a corporate account?
Does anyone have any legalese comments on the
following:
- I use my "RTFM Infosystems, LLC" accounts to buy a CD.
- Since the company owns it, not me personally, any "employee" is allowed to listen (LISTEN, not copy).
- I put up a password-protected web page with access to all the tracks. The instructions clearly state that you can listen ("Open this file from its current location") but not make a local copy or anything.
- Everyone who is given an account on this page is somehow made an unpaid employee of RTFM Infosystems, LLC.
Did I just create a legal filesharing network, or am I smoking crack?
-N.
Thanks for painting an accurate picture of the world we're heading towards.
By the way, since the BSA is allowed to conduct "audits" of their customers software, what is to stop the RIAA from barging into my basement with an army of lawyers and checking all of my drives and media for illegally copyrighted files?
I don't break the law. I buy the stuff I want to watch/listen to. Once I shell out my $15 for a CD I may want to make a duplicate copy for my car, mp3 copies for my computer, etc. -- this has all been done to death.
The tools and technology that let me do that, though, also let me sell illegally duplicated discs, upload gigabytes of music to FTP servers in Finland, what have you.
Well, I have yet to be convinced that the mere POSSIBILITY of this happening is cause enough for these money-grubbing fuckwits to come in and start telling me what I am and am not allowed to do with the technology. The profit margins of the media empires are holy enough that it is justifiable to rape anything and everything to keep them astronomical? Well, fuck that! I'll keep my rights, thank you, and if you can't make some money side-by-side with that, then out of business you go.
Of course, all this is moot since they have yet to demonstrate one cent "lost" to all this newly generated interest and traffic in media.
Personally, I think we should worry about *our* interests, not the RIAA's. They have all the opportunity in the world to embrace the new way and allow people to have unprecedented choice, access and volume of media while at the same time, making a fucking killing. Instead, they choose to use gestapo tactics and buy unconstitutional laws into our government to defend their outmoded grip on our society's media. This is a travesty of progress. How the hell can you talk about their interests?! The cash that flows through the streets of DC and corrupts our government into the ground comes from these pockets. These unstoppable conglomerates are likely some of the most dangerous organizations of the upcoming century; we should be scrutinizing them like crazy and PUNISHING THEM for their actions, not defending the stampede across our own heads.
How about big money buying laws? That problem is a hell of a lot fucking bigger than some billionaire losing a couple of pennies at the end of his paycheck to warez kiddies. It's laughable that anyone is even listening to these bastards in light of what they do to the rest of us to make their money and keep their power.
Sorry for the furious rant nature of this post but these issues bring out the worst...
Could you imagine the shit storm that would result if an american businessman was held in russia for [trafficking in an illegal fair-use circumvention device]? It would be an inernational incident. On the cover of every newspaper.
Gee. You don't think that would be the point, do ya? Shucks no...
Uhhhhh...no. You're talking about copyright enforcement, which is nowhere near the topic of this discussion. We're talking about enforcement of technological barriers on copyrighted material.
Mr. Sklyarov isn't accused of distributing material copyrighted by Adobe, he's accused of telling people how to crack Adobe's pathetic encryption system.
Why would you want to do that? Well maybe you want to view your eBook on a Unix box, which might have a PDF viewer but not an "eBook viewer." So he decrypts the book to PDF and does it. Assuming he bought it and paid for it, this is not illegal - it is "fair use", the long-established notion that defines the compromise between owners of copyright material and the consumers who buy it.
Copyright law is nothing new. The DMCA is. It was always illegal to infringe on copyright, but now it is illegal to do anything the publisher tells you is wrong. "Don't look at this data." "Don't try to view this content on that device, only on this kind." "You can only read this book in a Brand Xyzzy chair."
You may not see any harm in allowing corporations to dictate the flow of information in our society, and you'd be in the majority... of idiots. And you're certainly not within real law, as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Bullshit laws pushed through the legislature hastily by corporate dollars and interests do not count.
Uhhhhh...no. You're talking about copyright enforcement, which is nowhere near the topic of this discussion. We're talking about enforcement of technological barriers on copyrighted material.
Mr. Sklyarov isn't accused of distributing material copyrighted by Adobe, he's accused of telling people how to crack Adobe's pathetic encryption system.
Why would you want to do that? Well maybe you want to view your eBook on a Unix box, which might have a PDF viewer but not an "eBook viewer." So he decrypts the book to PDF and does it. Assuming he bought it and paid for it, this is not illegal - it is "fair use", the long-established notion that defines the compromise between owners of copyright material and the consumers who buy it.
Copyright law is nothing new. The DMCA is. It was always illegal to infringe on copyright, but now it is illegal to do anything the publisher tells you is wrong. "Don't look at this data." "Don't try to view this content on that device, only on this kind." "You can only read this book in a Brand Xyzzy chair."
You may not see any harm in allowing corporations to dictate the flow of information in our society, and you'd be in the majority... of idiots. And you're certainly not within real law, as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Bullshit laws pushed through the legislature hastily by corporate dollars and interests do not count.
Or what if MS tries to convince the public that Linux is a primary hacker tool, and gets it declared illegal. They already have been making noises about it being communist and un-American. If you think the notion of the police breaking in your door to confiscate your Linux system is preposterous, try growing a couple pot plants in your living room.
Linux:
decreases interest in other operating systems and motivation to use them
causes the computer to behave in ways that normal users just don't understand
linked in its users to delusions of power and even God-like status (BOW BEFORE ME, FOR I AM ROOT)
Obviously, we are dealing with one dangerous narcotic of an operating system. Deploy the infra-red Linux scanners immediately.
But seriously folks. Since the pot analogy came up, Du Pont and friends did this to the cannabis plant in 1938 and their legacy is still with us and going strong. What's going to stop Microsoft and company from accomplishing the same thing, should they find themselves a modern day Harry Arslinger and give it a good try? Surely today's better, smarter sheople populace will learn the lessons of history and not let that happen...oh wait...this is the SECOND prohibition we're in now...hmmm.
Don't you remember what mommy told you about taking executables from untrusted strangers?
Re:That's like MSFT saying it won't ship free brow
on
Adobe Backs Down
·
· Score: 1
In the U.S., you can be detained (meaning taken by the police and kept in a holding cell with everyone else) for up to 72 hours before you are even charged.
"Maintaining the illusion of freedom for over 200 years!"
Correction: you should not have to recompile..NET is supposed to be like Java - there is a virtual machine architecture, to which you compile all your code, and it will run anywhere where you have a runtime for said VM.
Depending on the mangling algorithm in use, it may not be that hard. add_int_long() isn't so bad, is it? Much better than add_sIsLblahblah.
Even if they're mangled to something like the latter there are plenty of workarounds that could be implemented. Anything from aliases (like convert a call to add_int to add_sIblah) to separate mappings fed to the compiler, whatever.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is this: these kinds of interoperability problems are inevitable. We're talking about any language linking with any other - this is a powerful idea. If you don't want to have problems, either don't use a language w/o overloading, don't use a library that overloads, or stick to a native compiler for your platform and ignore the initiative altogether.
DISCLAIMER: posted drunk, stoned and tired. might not make much sense.
Slashdot Mirror
You've heard of Perl, right?
Heck, netcat should work on Windows. See also CYGWIN.
Uh, in your pink rosy fantasy world, maybe. In Russia, the police will be more likely shaking down the competition of a gangster that's paid them off than worrying about Adobe violating actual laws.
There's been one for a while, why don't you read the FAQ?
Don't worry. I thought it was cool to mess with my users and other ISP's when I was 15, too. I'm still only 18, but now that I have a real job and a real life, I grew out of such childish behavior. I'm sure your kids will too.
Sorry, but when I was 15 I was the admin for a medium-sized ISP, and I always had backups. Never had to use them, either. :-P
> I suspect that either software or hardware, it shouldn't be that much of a challenge to port a keystroke recorder to a new architechture. It's just not that complicated.
Of course not, but if it's something arcane like a VAX, it might take them a while. If that time slice saves your ass, it'd be worth it. I'm sure them coming in and searching first would tip you off.
--
Next time you see one of these BSA ads, or even better, the Microsoft ones, be sure to have a nice permanent marker ready, and make a small but visible note to educate the public about some alternatives that come for Free. Free as in "no cops busting down your door."
:)
If you see any FreeBSD graffiti on the 1-9 trains' ads, well, that wasn't me
--
Actually I suspect if I persuaded PGP to run on an old Mac SE then whatever exciting technology the LEAs use to tap keystrokes might have "problems".
I don't know what a Mac SE is, but if it needs to be "persuaded" to run Unix then a better choice might be to pick one of the 44 architecures supported by NetBSD. Do you think the technology is readily available to KeyGhost a VAX system, one of the many WinCE-based handhelds, or heck, even a good old Sun2/3?
--
These people rake in lots of dough and perform jobs that require less than high school diploma.
Hey, watch it buddy! Real jobs don't require a H.S. diploma either. Somehow I've managed to hold down a programming position at a major investment bank without one.
--
Good for them.
... very uncool.
However, in their attempt to "not change their business model", they tread on everyone else, by buying their way into Congress and passing the heinous DMCA.
This is
Maybe someone someday will gather enough evidence to push a case of treason against these motherfuckers, and then have them all shot.
This is not true.
When you call into a dialup ISP, you hit a certain port (line/modeo), log in with your username and password, and are assigned an IP address.
When I was a sysadmin at an ISP, we would occasionally get calls about dialup users spamming, or flooding, or whatever. It was extremely easy to track them down - because every dialup session is logged. All the information I needed was in log lines like the following:
Jul 13 1999 12:13PM: Session #X opened for user 'bob' on port Y; IP=aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd.
...
Jul 13 1999 2:57PM: Session #X terminated.
Thus, if I have evidence that spam, or a DoS attack, or a crack attempt came from aaa.bbb.cc.ddd at 1:30PM that day, I know exactly what user to lart.
[Sorry for the dupe posting. Yeah, yeah, I'll
preview first next time. Aside: SHOULDN'T PLAIN
TEXT BE THE FUCKING DEFAULT?]
What if a CD is purchased through a corporate account?
Does anyone have any legalese comments on the
following:
- I use my "RTFM Infosystems, LLC" accounts to buy a CD.
- Since the company owns it, not me personally, any "employee" is allowed to listen (LISTEN, not copy).
- I put up a password-protected web page with access to all the tracks. The instructions clearly state that you can listen ("Open this file from its current location") but not make a local copy or anything.
- Everyone who is given an account on this page is somehow made an unpaid employee of RTFM Infosystems, LLC.
Did I just create a legal filesharing network, or am I smoking crack?
-N.
What if a CD is purchased through a corporate account? Does anyone have any legalese comments on the following: - I use my "RTFM Infosystems, LLC" accounts to buy a CD. - Since the company owns it, not me personally, any "employee" is allowed to listen (LISTEN, not copy). - I put up a password-protected web page with access to all the tracks. The instructions clearly state that you can listen ("Open this file from its current location") but not make a local copy or anything. - Everyone who is given an account on this page is somehow made an unpaid employee of RTFM Infosystems, LLC. Did I just create a legal filesharing network, or am I smoking crack? -N.
Thanks for painting an accurate picture of the world we're heading towards.
By the way, since the BSA is allowed to conduct "audits" of their customers software, what is to stop the RIAA from barging into my basement with an army of lawyers and checking all of my drives and media for illegally copyrighted files?
(A: My AR15)
I don't break the law. I buy the stuff I want to watch/listen to. Once I shell out my $15 for a CD I may want to make a duplicate copy for my car, mp3 copies for my computer, etc. -- this has all been done to death.
The tools and technology that let me do that, though, also let me sell illegally duplicated discs, upload gigabytes of music to FTP servers in Finland, what have you.
Well, I have yet to be convinced that the mere POSSIBILITY of this happening is cause enough for these money-grubbing fuckwits to come in and start telling me what I am and am not allowed to do with the technology. The profit margins of the media empires are holy enough that it is justifiable to rape anything and everything to keep them astronomical? Well, fuck that! I'll keep my rights, thank you, and if you can't make some money side-by-side with that, then out of business you go.
Of course, all this is moot since they have yet to demonstrate one cent "lost" to all this newly generated interest and traffic in media.
Personally, I think we should worry about *our* interests, not the RIAA's. They have all the opportunity in the world to embrace the new way and allow people to have unprecedented choice, access and volume of media while at the same time, making a fucking killing. Instead, they choose to use gestapo tactics and buy unconstitutional laws into our government to defend their outmoded grip on our society's media. This is a travesty of progress. How the hell can you talk about their interests?! The cash that flows through the streets of DC and corrupts our government into the ground comes from these pockets. These unstoppable conglomerates are likely some of the most dangerous organizations of the upcoming century; we should be scrutinizing them like crazy and PUNISHING THEM for their actions, not defending the stampede across our own heads.
How about big money buying laws? That problem is a hell of a lot fucking bigger than some billionaire losing a couple of pennies at the end of his paycheck to warez kiddies. It's laughable that anyone is even listening to these bastards in light of what they do to the rest of us to make their money and keep their power.
Sorry for the furious rant nature of this post but these issues bring out the worst...
Could you imagine the shit storm that would result if an american businessman was held in russia for [trafficking in an illegal fair-use circumvention device]? It would be an inernational incident. On the cover of every newspaper.
Gee. You don't think that would be the point, do ya? Shucks no...
Uhhhhh...no. You're talking about copyright enforcement, which is nowhere near the topic of this discussion. We're talking about enforcement of technological barriers on copyrighted material. Mr. Sklyarov isn't accused of distributing material copyrighted by Adobe, he's accused of telling people how to crack Adobe's pathetic encryption system. Why would you want to do that? Well maybe you want to view your eBook on a Unix box, which might have a PDF viewer but not an "eBook viewer." So he decrypts the book to PDF and does it. Assuming he bought it and paid for it, this is not illegal - it is "fair use", the long-established notion that defines the compromise between owners of copyright material and the consumers who buy it. Copyright law is nothing new. The DMCA is. It was always illegal to infringe on copyright, but now it is illegal to do anything the publisher tells you is wrong. "Don't look at this data." "Don't try to view this content on that device, only on this kind." "You can only read this book in a Brand Xyzzy chair." You may not see any harm in allowing corporations to dictate the flow of information in our society, and you'd be in the majority ... of idiots. And you're certainly not within real law, as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Bullshit laws pushed through the legislature hastily by corporate dollars and interests do not count.
Uhhhhh...no. You're talking about copyright enforcement, which is nowhere near the topic of this discussion. We're talking about enforcement of technological barriers on copyrighted material.
... of idiots. And you're certainly not within real law, as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Bullshit laws pushed through the legislature hastily by corporate dollars and interests do not count.
Mr. Sklyarov isn't accused of distributing material copyrighted by Adobe, he's accused of telling people how to crack Adobe's pathetic encryption system.
Why would you want to do that? Well maybe you want to view your eBook on a Unix box, which might have a PDF viewer but not an "eBook viewer." So he decrypts the book to PDF and does it. Assuming he bought it and paid for it, this is not illegal - it is "fair use", the long-established notion that defines the compromise between owners of copyright material and the consumers who buy it.
Copyright law is nothing new. The DMCA is. It was always illegal to infringe on copyright, but now it is illegal to do anything the publisher tells you is wrong. "Don't look at this data." "Don't try to view this content on that device, only on this kind." "You can only read this book in a Brand Xyzzy chair."
You may not see any harm in allowing corporations to dictate the flow of information in our society, and you'd be in the majority
Or what if MS tries to convince the public that Linux is a primary hacker tool, and gets it declared illegal. They already have been making noises about it being communist and un-American. If you think the notion of the police breaking in your door to confiscate your Linux system is preposterous, try growing a couple pot plants in your living room.
Linux:Obviously, we are dealing with one dangerous narcotic of an operating system. Deploy the infra-red Linux scanners immediately.
But seriously folks. Since the pot analogy came up, Du Pont and friends did this to the cannabis plant in 1938 and their legacy is still with us and going strong. What's going to stop Microsoft and company from accomplishing the same thing, should they find themselves a modern day Harry Arslinger and give it a good try? Surely today's better, smarter sheople populace will learn the lessons of history and not let that happen...oh wait...this is the SECOND prohibition we're in now...hmmm.
Don't you remember what mommy told you about taking executables from untrusted strangers?
In the U.S., you can be detained (meaning taken by the police and kept in a holding cell with everyone else) for up to 72 hours before you are even charged.
"Maintaining the illusion of freedom for over 200 years!"
Correction: you should not have to recompile. .NET is supposed to be like Java - there is a virtual machine architecture, to which you compile all your code, and it will run anywhere where you have a runtime for said VM.
www.6bone.net
I invite the craftiest spammer out there to try
and spoof the IPsec authentication header.
AH or something similar could be used to give
precedence to certain organizations at major
routers.
Or maybe I'm just smoking crack. Hell I think
I dreamt this whole IPsec thing up.
Depending on the mangling algorithm in use, it may not be that hard. add_int_long() isn't so bad, is it? Much better than add_sIsLblahblah.
Even if they're mangled to something like the latter there are plenty of workarounds that could be implemented. Anything from aliases (like convert a call to add_int to add_sIblah) to separate mappings fed to the compiler, whatever.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is this: these kinds of interoperability problems are inevitable. We're talking about any language linking with any other - this is a powerful idea. If you don't want to have problems, either don't use a language w/o overloading, don't use a library that overloads, or stick to a native compiler for your platform and ignore the initiative altogether.
DISCLAIMER: posted drunk, stoned and tired. might not make much sense.