"RIAA reports loss of $5B last year, says mostly attributed to CD burning piracy"
Generally, when a copyright holder blames piracy for their loses, they claim to lose the retail price for each copy. So, if 1000 people copy a $20 Britney Spears CD, the RIAA will claim $20,000 in loses. That's how the Recording Industry Association of Korea can claim $154 million in loses when they their sales increase from $29.2 million to $31.5 million.
A typical domain name is not 80 characters long! Also, storing it in/etc/hosts probably isn't the most efficient approach either.
Look at it this way, each record needs four bytes for the IP number, one byte to mark the end of the line, and the rest is the second level domain. Each top level domain would have its own file.
So, with 10 million records, and a mean name length of 15 characters, you would need 15+4+1=20 characters per record, or about 200MB. If you compressed the data, it would be a whole lot smaller.
Putting it in/etc/hosts, you would need at most 16 characters for the IP number (trailing space), the domain name, a top level domain name, and \r\n. So you get 16+15+4+2=37, or about 370MB.
Of course, each domain also has meta data, such as IPs for backup name servers, name and address for the contact person, date the registration expires, etc.
ACLU doesn't have a problem with government financing anti-religious activities ( NY "art" exhibit paid for with my taxes etc....)
Do you have a reference for the ACLU being involved in that case? Do you have a reference of the ACLU opposing art which clearly has pro-Christian content?
Attorney-client privilege exists so that defendents can have a fair trial, and so they can communicate openly with their attorney. As with all government powers, Ashcroft's rule will be abused.
Imagine you're charged with some crime, of which, you are innocent. Your lawyer shows you a list of potential witnesses, which include your old friend Bob. You tell your lawyer,
Bob is an idiot! Last month, he walked in on me and his wife. She had her hands down my pants. She told Bob her hand slipped, and he believed her. He apologized, walked out to his truck, and carted his six point buck to the garage. He didn't even know hunting season was over. What a numbskull.
The eavesdroppers use the recording to arrest Bob for hunting out of season. When Bob hears the recording, he suddenly 'remembers' you talking about the crime you're accused of.
From another perspective, suppose a prosecuter suspects you are somehow involved in a criminal conspiracy. He doesn't have sufficient evidence, so he tells the attorney general who brings you in on some bogus charge. He then listens in while you talk to your attorney, hoping to learn something about your ciminal organization.
When writing about the settlement, it would be a great idea to include examples of microsoft's previous and current monopoly abuses. We can illustrate how Microsoft could continue to exploit those abuses even with this settlement. What we need is a well written history of those abuses. The findings of fact cover part of it, but nowhere near all of it.
The advertisers did it to themselves. They tried to force more upon us than they did with newspapers. They tried to gather much more information about us than they could with newspapers.
This is exactly why I started blocking ads (only from certain companies though). I also never click on an ad for the same reason.
Let the officer quickly check the real person against a mug shot, and most false positives won't even be noticed by the passenger falsely matched.
Human face recognition is horribly unreliable. We are much worse than the machines. It may be easy for you to recognize your family members in a photograph, but trying to determine if a stranger matches a mug shot is no easy task. Making the task more difficult, the mug shot will resemble the stranger. The machine wouldn't have flagged them otherwise.
Furthermore, what do you do when you find a match? Do you turn the person away just because some government agent labelled them a terrorist? This seems to fly in the face of due process. If you only apply the system to convicted felons, then what good would it do? Most terrorists do not have criminal records. At the same time, I am not aware of a single incident in which a convicted felon has run off and hijacked a plane.
authorizing the installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device
Pen registers and trap and trace devices are used to find out who you are communicating with. They do not disclose the contents of your communications. I don't know when the law changed, but a few years ago, law enforcement didn't even need a warrant to use these. Law enforcement simply relied on the Supreme Courts 1979 decision in Smith v. Maryland.
If a language is posted for standardization that means anyone can write their own compiler and distribute it without paying royalties.
The royalties aren't for the language, it is for the patents associated with the language. The ECMA doesn't require MS to disclose its patents until two weeks before it goes to a final vote.
Just because MS submitted it to the ECMA doesn't mean that they won't withdraw their submission (Sun did it twice with Java). Even if MS doesn't withdraw the submission, the ECMA could still reject it.
The ECMA is completely irrelavent unless and until they accept C# as a standard and the world knows about all the related patents.
Yep. Let's put face recognition cameras in all airports and log activity of anyone who enters or leaves an airport. We all know it wouldn't stop the attack, but hey, it will help us correlate who boarded the planes with their respective political associations.
So the OAL probably isn't the best choice if what you want to do is sell CDs and make money
On the contrary, the OAL is an excellent advertising mechanism. An author can license two or three songs under the OAL and sell CDs with those songs along with seven to ten other songs. Section three of the license states:
Agree Not to Limit Others' Use. Any new work that in whole or in part contains or is derived from a work (or part thereof) made available under this license, must itself be licensed as a whole under the terms of this license.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, mere aggregation on a volume of a storage or distribution medium of an independently created work with one that is made available under this license does not bring the other work under the scope of this license. It is not the intent of this section to contest the rights of others in works created entirely by them; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based upon a work subject to this license.
In an anarcho-capitalist society (as an example), if everyone started broadcasting on whatever frequency seemed most convenient at the time, very shortly all of the broadcasters would agree on certain rules of the road, and enforce them through contracts. In an anarcho-socialist society (to take another example), individuals and companies could not own property, but syndicates and collectives would manage the unowned resources (they would "own" those resources in all but name) and they would make similar agreements with each other regarding the airwaves.
You are assuming that all involved parties want the bandwidth to be useful. What happens when a Ted Kaczinski type decides to put a stop to the brain-washing television stations; and starts broadcasting his own message across the entire spectrum? Are we to believe that he will confine himself to his own section of bandwidth on the condition that no one disrupt his message?
What happens when 10,000 different people all want to broadcast at the same time? Are we going to work out contracts for all 10,000 of these people?
Of course the broadcasters will get their cake and eat it too (selling spectrum they were given for free) since they only have to funnel a small % of the proceeds to suddenly supportive senators.
Why do people keep saying things like this? The broadcasters do not need to funnel a penny to supportive senators. The broadcasters can dictate who wins or loses an election.
The broadcasters can decide if they will publish good news or bad news about a political candidate. Inflame 5% of the voters and the election will shift from one candidate to another. Congress knows this, and that is why they will do anything the broadcasters ask.
USB 2.0 is a bad hack. If you don't use a USB 2.0 hub, then any USB 1 device (which keyboards, mice, scanners, etc., should always remain) drops the whole thing to USB 1. In addition, the bus is split up, so the 480 MB theoretical is a real joke. The bus uses time slices, not bandwidth slices. So when the keyboard and mouse grab their fractions of a second, they take bandwidth that could go to the video camera.
Furthermore, Firewire 2.0 brings Firewire up to 800 MB, and its reality is much closer to the theory.
This reminds me of the Token Ring vs. Ethernet battle. Token Ring was an elegant protocol which provided nearly 100% efficiency. Ethernet was a sloppy protocol which provided about 40% efficiency.
There is a lesson in this. In a mass market, the cheap product always wins.
If you want domain names regulated in some fashion, pick a single top-level domain and choose that one domain to be regulated! It would be nice if the governments would get together and say: ".biz will be regulated, all other domains are Free." Then set rules about using trademarks or deceptive content in the.biz domain. If nothing else, at least set aside ".fcfs" for First Come, First Served.
They only store the suspect's data? That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Your post is an obvious troll, but I still feel a need to respond. You start off saying:
Look folks, I have some friends who work at the FBI - not agents, but the guys who actually setup and maintain the carnivore system, go on raids WITH the agents to make sure the computers are handled successfully, and parse through 100's of GB of data after a raid to determine what is of and what isn't. (this goes against common misconception #1 that the agents actually sort through the data - they do not - they have a computer guy do it). Emphasis added.
Later, you say:
It does not capture and save every packet going across the wire - that would be illegal.
And finally, you say:
Also, they would have to go through 100's of GB of data if they captured EVERY packet at a standard ISP.
The above contradiction does not leave me feeling warm and fuzzy. The evidence suggests that the FBI does capture data outisde the scope of their warrents. This makes me feel downright cold and prickly.
Carnivore is a very simple system - TCPDump, a filter, and a sort utility. It is a black box administered from remote, setup at their office.
And this simple system is what the FBI outsourced the development on? This is the system which they refuse to comply with FOIA requests on?
If the system were what you claim it is, the FBI would have no reason to keep it a secret.
Virtually all software has wierd, obscure bugs. For all we know, Carnivoure has a bug which causes the software to record data from a different IP number, but only when the word "bomb" shows up in the message.
My hope, is that the first time a Carnivoure case goes to trial, the judge will throw out the evidence on the grounds that it does not meet general acceptance from the scientific community.
Thats what these guys are doing - they set out to compromise a commercial system belonging to a private company with the aim of exploiting that system for their gain (fame, notoriety etc etc) - this is a crime no matter what they claim. They then spread the information in a way designed to allow people to gain access that system thus allowing them to cmmit the same crime - in effect making them accomplices.
First of all, who are 'these guys'? The guys that found the exploit and the guys that posted it to Slashdot are not necessarily the same; but let's just assume that they are.
From their actions, this is what I see:
Some guys hate Microsoft, and thus want to make Microsoft look bad. These guys also worry that Microsoft's Passport system will create a pandora's box of privacy violations and security holes. These issues have been popularily discussed, but few people care until an actual exploit has been discovered.
The guys seek out an example to illustrate the problems with their arch-enemy's plans. They discover a security hole, and promptly inform Microsoft (to look good) and Bugtraq. Keeping the news inside Microsoft and on Bugtraq does not serve their agenda.
The guys then post details for the rest of the world; not to gain notoriety or fame, but rather to educate the public about a serious fundamental problem in Microsoft's proposed Passport system.
The guys have no intention of compromising the system. They do not want to read a bunch of get-rich-quick scams. They do not want other people to compromise the system. Instead, they want other people to see how simple this exploit is. Hopefully, when people see the simplicity of this exploit, the message will hit home. These guys have an agenda to spread truthful information about an issue which deeply concerns them. This is protected speech.
I have personally read about many, many security exploits in the news. In most cases, I simply assume that only a security expert could actually apply the exploit. Having read directions on how this exploit works, I now know that Hotmail is not only insecure, but so insecure that my next door neighbor could break in.
One final thing, black hats do not tell the world about security exploits. They keep the exploit a secret and use it for their own selfish motives. By telling the world, the vendor fixes the exploit, thus making it worthless for criminal activity. Except for the vendor, this is in everyone's best interest.
If the ISPs can't or won't notify these users, is there some legal and moral middle ground others could take?
I would like to see a law specifically permitting a response to virus and worm attacks. We could have an agency which identifies ligitimate attacks and grants the world an authorized response to the attack.
For example, the agency (let's call it the Internet Defense Agency) would identify the Code Red worm as a ligitimate problem. The IDA would define an HTTP request of "GET default.ida..." as an attack event. Any time someone detects the attack event, they would have permission to respond in a certain way (like plugging the hole or notifying the machine's owner). The response would depend on the situation.
Obviously, this agency would have to follow guidelines (they could not permit someone to erase the attacker's hard drive).
I would much rather see the IDA than have congress do something totally stupid and ineffective, like requiring all web servers to have a license.
It's a great anonymous platform for introducing worms and viruses into the wild, and a nice way to control a zombie army without worrying at all about being traced to your home IP.
This has been said a million times before, and I'll say it again:
He who would give up a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security will lose both and deserve neither.
If someone wants to introduce worms and viruses into the wild, they will always find a way to do it without being traced. They could go to a library, internet cafe, college; or if desperate enough, break into someone's home and force an innocent person to assist them. The simple fact is, creating a surveillance society will not stop crime.
With that said, I think you're right. Opponents of a free internet will characterize it as a tool of crime.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this legal? If a third party contributes to the LGPL code, don't you have to get their permission before you change the license?
Generally, when a copyright holder blames piracy for their loses, they claim to lose the retail price for each copy. So, if 1000 people copy a $20 Britney Spears CD, the RIAA will claim $20,000 in loses. That's how the Recording Industry Association of Korea can claim $154 million in loses when they their sales increase from $29.2 million to $31.5 million.
Look at it this way, each record needs four bytes for the IP number, one byte to mark the end of the line, and the rest is the second level domain. Each top level domain would have its own file.
So, with 10 million records, and a mean name length of 15 characters, you would need 15+4+1=20 characters per record, or about 200MB. If you compressed the data, it would be a whole lot smaller.
Putting it in /etc/hosts, you would need at most 16 characters for the IP number (trailing space), the domain name, a top level domain name, and \r\n. So you get 16+15+4+2=37, or about 370MB.
Of course, each domain also has meta data, such as IPs for backup name servers, name and address for the contact person, date the registration expires, etc.
Do you have a reference for the ACLU being involved in that case? Do you have a reference of the ACLU opposing art which clearly has pro-Christian content?
Imagine you're charged with some crime, of which, you are innocent. Your lawyer shows you a list of potential witnesses, which include your old friend Bob. You tell your lawyer,
The eavesdroppers use the recording to arrest Bob for hunting out of season. When Bob hears the recording, he suddenly 'remembers' you talking about the crime you're accused of.
From another perspective, suppose a prosecuter suspects you are somehow involved in a criminal conspiracy. He doesn't have sufficient evidence, so he tells the attorney general who brings you in on some bogus charge. He then listens in while you talk to your attorney, hoping to learn something about your ciminal organization.
A simple solution to this, is to recognize that a card belongs to a blind person, and to have standard procedures for working with the machine.
Has anyone written such a history?
I wonder how many patents NASA violated with this code.
Go to sourceforge.com. Pick an interesting project. See if they need anyone with your skills. If they do, offer to volunteer.
Terrorism is designed to strike fear in its victims. The DDoS that you describe is nothing more than blackmail.
This is exactly why I started blocking ads (only from certain companies though). I also never click on an ad for the same reason.
Human face recognition is horribly unreliable. We are much worse than the machines. It may be easy for you to recognize your family members in a photograph, but trying to determine if a stranger matches a mug shot is no easy task. Making the task more difficult, the mug shot will resemble the stranger. The machine wouldn't have flagged them otherwise.
Furthermore, what do you do when you find a match? Do you turn the person away just because some government agent labelled them a terrorist? This seems to fly in the face of due process. If you only apply the system to convicted felons, then what good would it do? Most terrorists do not have criminal records. At the same time, I am not aware of a single incident in which a convicted felon has run off and hijacked a plane.
Pen registers and trap and trace devices are used to find out who you are communicating with. They do not disclose the contents of your communications. I don't know when the law changed, but a few years ago, law enforcement didn't even need a warrant to use these. Law enforcement simply relied on the Supreme Courts 1979 decision in Smith v. Maryland.
The royalties aren't for the language, it is for the patents associated with the language. The ECMA doesn't require MS to disclose its patents until two weeks before it goes to a final vote.
Just because MS submitted it to the ECMA doesn't mean that they won't withdraw their submission (Sun did it twice with Java). Even if MS doesn't withdraw the submission, the ECMA could still reject it.
The ECMA is completely irrelavent unless and until they accept C# as a standard and the world knows about all the related patents.
Constitution.
Yep. Let's put face recognition cameras in all airports and log activity of anyone who enters or leaves an airport. We all know it wouldn't stop the attack, but hey, it will help us correlate who boarded the planes with their respective political associations.
On the contrary, the OAL is an excellent advertising mechanism. An author can license two or three songs under the OAL and sell CDs with those songs along with seven to ten other songs. Section three of the license states:
You are assuming that all involved parties want the bandwidth to be useful. What happens when a Ted Kaczinski type decides to put a stop to the brain-washing television stations; and starts broadcasting his own message across the entire spectrum? Are we to believe that he will confine himself to his own section of bandwidth on the condition that no one disrupt his message?
What happens when 10,000 different people all want to broadcast at the same time? Are we going to work out contracts for all 10,000 of these people?
Why do people keep saying things like this? The broadcasters do not need to funnel a penny to supportive senators. The broadcasters can dictate who wins or loses an election.
The broadcasters can decide if they will publish good news or bad news about a political candidate. Inflame 5% of the voters and the election will shift from one candidate to another. Congress knows this, and that is why they will do anything the broadcasters ask.
Furthermore, Firewire 2.0 brings Firewire up to 800 MB, and its reality is much closer to the theory.
This reminds me of the Token Ring vs. Ethernet battle. Token Ring was an elegant protocol which provided nearly 100% efficiency. Ethernet was a sloppy protocol which provided about 40% efficiency.
There is a lesson in this. In a mass market, the cheap product always wins.
If you want domain names regulated in some fashion, pick a single top-level domain and choose that one domain to be regulated! It would be nice if the governments would get together and say: ".biz will be regulated, all other domains are Free." Then set rules about using trademarks or deceptive content in the .biz domain. If nothing else, at least set aside ".fcfs" for First Come, First Served.
Your post is an obvious troll, but I still feel a need to respond. You start off saying:
Look folks, I have some friends who work at the FBI - not agents, but the guys who actually setup and maintain the carnivore system, go on raids WITH the agents to make sure the computers are handled successfully, and parse through 100's of GB of data after a raid to determine what is of and what isn't. (this goes against common misconception #1 that the agents actually sort through the data - they do not - they have a computer guy do it). Emphasis added.
Later, you say:
It does not capture and save every packet going across the wire - that would be illegal.
And finally, you say:
Also, they would have to go through 100's of GB of data if they captured EVERY packet at a standard ISP.
The above contradiction does not leave me feeling warm and fuzzy. The evidence suggests that the FBI does capture data outisde the scope of their warrents. This makes me feel downright cold and prickly.
Carnivore is a very simple system - TCPDump, a filter, and a sort utility. It is a black box administered from remote, setup at their office.
And this simple system is what the FBI outsourced the development on? This is the system which they refuse to comply with FOIA requests on?
If the system were what you claim it is, the FBI would have no reason to keep it a secret.
Virtually all software has wierd, obscure bugs. For all we know, Carnivoure has a bug which causes the software to record data from a different IP number, but only when the word "bomb" shows up in the message.
My hope, is that the first time a Carnivoure case goes to trial, the judge will throw out the evidence on the grounds that it does not meet general acceptance from the scientific community.
Are you saying Libararies should be held liable if someone rips one of their CDs and posts it to Napster?
First of all, who are 'these guys'? The guys that found the exploit and the guys that posted it to Slashdot are not necessarily the same; but let's just assume that they are.
From their actions, this is what I see:
The guys have no intention of compromising the system. They do not want to read a bunch of get-rich-quick scams. They do not want other people to compromise the system. Instead, they want other people to see how simple this exploit is. Hopefully, when people see the simplicity of this exploit, the message will hit home. These guys have an agenda to spread truthful information about an issue which deeply concerns them. This is protected speech.
I have personally read about many, many security exploits in the news. In most cases, I simply assume that only a security expert could actually apply the exploit. Having read directions on how this exploit works, I now know that Hotmail is not only insecure, but so insecure that my next door neighbor could break in.
One final thing, black hats do not tell the world about security exploits. They keep the exploit a secret and use it for their own selfish motives. By telling the world, the vendor fixes the exploit, thus making it worthless for criminal activity. Except for the vendor, this is in everyone's best interest.
I would like to see a law specifically permitting a response to virus and worm attacks. We could have an agency which identifies ligitimate attacks and grants the world an authorized response to the attack.
For example, the agency (let's call it the Internet Defense Agency) would identify the Code Red worm as a ligitimate problem. The IDA would define an HTTP request of "GET default.ida..." as an attack event. Any time someone detects the attack event, they would have permission to respond in a certain way (like plugging the hole or notifying the machine's owner). The response would depend on the situation.
Obviously, this agency would have to follow guidelines (they could not permit someone to erase the attacker's hard drive).
I would much rather see the IDA than have congress do something totally stupid and ineffective, like requiring all web servers to have a license.
This has been said a million times before, and I'll say it again:
If someone wants to introduce worms and viruses into the wild, they will always find a way to do it without being traced. They could go to a library, internet cafe, college; or if desperate enough, break into someone's home and force an innocent person to assist them. The simple fact is, creating a surveillance society will not stop crime.
With that said, I think you're right. Opponents of a free internet will characterize it as a tool of crime.