Spamming isn't a DDOS attack on the mail server. That would be counter-productive, if your customers can't read about your $afe 0nline ph@rmacy, then you aren't going to sell much ci@1is. You could consider it a DDOS attack on the recipient, as their mailbox might get so full of spam that they can't find their real emails, but that doesn't concern MS or Google in this case.
Controlling machines without permission? Against the computer misuse act.
Correct.
They used the botnet to spam two email accounts, one at gmail and one at hotmail. That's against the computer misuse act.
Not if it's their own hotmail and gmail accounts or if they have permission, I can spam myself if I want to, and you could spam me as well if I gave you permission.
Their "justification" doesn't fly; not having criminal intent is not a defence against the law.
Journalists have a high degree of freedom in this respect, there are plenty of cases of journalists smuggling guns past airport or other border security as a demonstration.
It seems you are going according to the article, and the industry spin in that article, and I'm going according to what the law actually says.
True, I'm just going by what I read in the few minutes that I've spent on this. I still thing that "guilt upon accusation" is a little strong, you aren't found guilty of a crime on accusation, but your internet can be disconnected. There's a big difference there, although losing your internet is becoming more inconvenient.
It seems exceedingly odd that issuing a write for a non-zero-sized file and having it delayed causes the file to become zero-size before the new data is written.
But you never create and write to a file as a single operation, there's always one function call to create the file and return a handle to it, and then another function call to write the data using the handle. The first operation writes data to the directory, which is itself a file that already exists, the second allocates some space for the file, writes to it, and updates the directory. Having the file system spot what your application is trying to do and reversing the order of the operations would be... tricky.
Well, he also wrote "Company Man", one of the better Heroes episodes. Some bits of Voyager were good, maybe he was responsible for some of that as well.
When you are discussing law, please don't go around making random shit up just because that is how you'd like to presume it should work.
I'm not making anything up. Intent has always been important in law, and fair use is a long-established principle that big content owners have long tried to attack, mostly unsuccessfully. This law doesn't change that.
It's not even guilty until proven innocent. It's guilt upon accusation. You get accused, you are guilty. Period.
Now you're making things up, or quoting made-up things. The accuser has to provide a case to the ISP, who is only supposed to act if the information checks out, and they have to inform you first. I'm not saying it's a good law, but you're attacking straw men and that's no way to win.
What I meant to say is, there are ways of making folders not appear to the user other than rootkits so the original report may be misleading depending on how dilligent the user was in checking. The precise location of Application Data (which I picked purely as an example, and I don't think is related to this problem at all) is entirely irrelevant to this point.
The file was shown to be located in a non-existent folder inside the Symantec LiveUpdate folder.
An application that exists in a folder not accessible by the underlying operating system? Sounds suspiciously like a rootkit to me.
Well, that depends on how hard they looked to find the folder. "My Documents" contains a directory called "Application Data" that is hidden from the user, it could just be a directory with the "hidden" or "system" flag set so Explorer doesn't show it.
It isn't codified in law, of course. And you don't need a licence to make reasonable use of a copyrighted work. Viewing a web page with an image on it is reasonable use. Downloading a torrent file to your computer and seeding it for others is reasonable use. These are not hard-coded in law, it's just fucking obvious.
Doesn't make a difference to their status under copyright law if i 'make them available' or not.
There's a huge contextual difference between including an image on your web page and hosting a torrent to it, an implied permission in the latter that is not there in the former.
How are you going to detect that they forwarded it? The ISP is only going to take action if you provide something substantial such as an IP address attached to a torrent. Yes, technically you can make a complaint, but it would be treated with the contempt that it obviously deserves.
Darknets are less efficent and harder to use than open file sharing systems, so most people won't use them and therefore it will be hard to find content if you do limit yourself to darknets.
So you would look at Mr. Smith's torrents and claim that they were your content? I guess the ISP would want to take a look at the file, but that would involve them risking violating your copyright... I guess you have to provide evidence of guilt, and I guess that (as with the DMCA and other such laws) there are penalties for lying about that kind of thing. So, you'd probably end up in jail.
... we see that Ozymandias really, actually can catch a bullet in his bare hand; it's no parlor trick.
Gloved hand.
Re:Faithful representation of source material
on
Watchmen Watched
·
· Score: 1
I thought Ozymandias and Rorschach were both equally brilliant, Dr. Manhattan was "good enough", the other characters could have been played by anyone.
[blockquote]Of course, if you're defending his action then it's actually you who is effectively saying your opinion is more important than anyone who disagrees[/blockquote]Not at all. I'm not arguing for an unprecedented release of what has always been confidential and secret information. If you want to change something in our democracy, then vote for it. You are welcome to express your opinions about what should be done, and persuade others to take it seriously enough to sway their vote, and perhaps be persuasive enough to change the minds of the politicians, that's all fair game in a free speech democracy. I'm just saying that it isn't necessarily un-democratic for cabinet meeting discussions to stay secret until all those involved have left office, and that there are other opinions that are to be taken into account than those that loudly protest. There was a cabinet discussion in 1940 as to whether we should make peace with Germany. Those discussions were kept secret, rightly so, until long after the war was over.
"There is a balance to be struck between openness and maintaining aspects of our structure of democratic government,"
Sorry, I thought the whole point of democracy was that we get to decide that balance, not those in power? His decision flies in the very face of democracy.
Er, so, what if I disagree with you about how that balance should be struck? You want these documents to be released, but I don't. Why does your opinion outweigh mine, if you are so keen on democracy?
I think that statement is being widely misinterpreted. I interpret the rules like this:
1. Use whichever is most cost-effective (presumably including re-training costs for switching away from MS products) 2. Where there isn't a major difference in cost-effectiveness, prefer OSS anyway due to inherent flexibility
I strongly disagree with this. How are we specialized? Intelligence, best all around trait ever. Frankly, I don't see any of the major extinction events of the geological past being something the human race couldn't survive.
Okay, lets say the Yellowstone National Park erupts and covers the entirety of North America in lava. Over the course of a year, the sky is rendered entirely opaque, and all plant life bigger than moss dies. How would our amazing intelligence cope with that?
Slashdot Mirror
Spamming isn't a DDOS attack on the mail server. That would be counter-productive, if your customers can't read about your $afe 0nline ph@rmacy, then you aren't going to sell much ci@1is. You could consider it a DDOS attack on the recipient, as their mailbox might get so full of spam that they can't find their real emails, but that doesn't concern MS or Google in this case.
So is there a limit to the number of emails that I am allowed to send to my gmail account?
Journalists have a much higher degree of discretion when following legitimate investigations.
Controlling machines without permission? Against the computer misuse act.
Correct.
They used the botnet to spam two email accounts, one at gmail and one at hotmail. That's against the computer misuse act.
Not if it's their own hotmail and gmail accounts or if they have permission, I can spam myself if I want to, and you could spam me as well if I gave you permission.
Their "justification" doesn't fly; not having criminal intent is not a defence against the law.
Journalists have a high degree of freedom in this respect, there are plenty of cases of journalists smuggling guns past airport or other border security as a demonstration.
No, it's more like if your door is already busted wide open and burglars are coming in and out, and a reporter wanders in.
It seems you are going according to the article, and the industry spin in that article, and I'm going according to what the law actually says.
True, I'm just going by what I read in the few minutes that I've spent on this. I still thing that "guilt upon accusation" is a little strong, you aren't found guilty of a crime on accusation, but your internet can be disconnected. There's a big difference there, although losing your internet is becoming more inconvenient.
It seems exceedingly odd that issuing a write for a non-zero-sized file and having it delayed causes the file to become zero-size before the new data is written.
But you never create and write to a file as a single operation, there's always one function call to create the file and return a handle to it, and then another function call to write the data using the handle. The first operation writes data to the directory, which is itself a file that already exists, the second allocates some space for the file, writes to it, and updates the directory. Having the file system spot what your application is trying to do and reversing the order of the operations would be... tricky.
Well, he also wrote "Company Man", one of the better Heroes episodes. Some bits of Voyager were good, maybe he was responsible for some of that as well.
When you are discussing law, please don't go around making random shit up just because that is how you'd like to presume it should work.
I'm not making anything up. Intent has always been important in law, and fair use is a long-established principle that big content owners have long tried to attack, mostly unsuccessfully. This law doesn't change that.
It's not even guilty until proven innocent.
It's guilt upon accusation.
You get accused, you are guilty. Period.
Now you're making things up, or quoting made-up things. The accuser has to provide a case to the ISP, who is only supposed to act if the information checks out, and they have to inform you first. I'm not saying it's a good law, but you're attacking straw men and that's no way to win.
What I meant to say is, there are ways of making folders not appear to the user other than rootkits so the original report may be misleading depending on how dilligent the user was in checking. The precise location of Application Data (which I picked purely as an example, and I don't think is related to this problem at all) is entirely irrelevant to this point.
You are correct - not an important distinction, though.
An application that exists in a folder not accessible by the underlying operating system? Sounds suspiciously like a rootkit to me.
Well, that depends on how hard they looked to find the folder. "My Documents" contains a directory called "Application Data" that is hidden from the user, it could just be a directory with the "hidden" or "system" flag set so Explorer doesn't show it.
It isn't codified in law, of course. And you don't need a licence to make reasonable use of a copyrighted work. Viewing a web page with an image on it is reasonable use. Downloading a torrent file to your computer and seeding it for others is reasonable use. These are not hard-coded in law, it's just fucking obvious.
There's a huge contextual difference between including an image on your web page and hosting a torrent to it, an implied permission in the latter that is not there in the former.
How are you going to detect that they forwarded it? The ISP is only going to take action if you provide something substantial such as an IP address attached to a torrent. Yes, technically you can make a complaint, but it would be treated with the contempt that it obviously deserves.
This laws does not target downloaders. And both those cases are against the law anyway.
If you are sharing your own content, how could you complain that someone downloaded it? I don't think you'd have any case at all.
Darknets are less efficent and harder to use than open file sharing systems, so most people won't use them and therefore it will be hard to find content if you do limit yourself to darknets.
So you would look at Mr. Smith's torrents and claim that they were your content? I guess the ISP would want to take a look at the file, but that would involve them risking violating your copyright... I guess you have to provide evidence of guilt, and I guess that (as with the DMCA and other such laws) there are penalties for lying about that kind of thing. So, you'd probably end up in jail.
... we see that Ozymandias really, actually can catch a bullet in his bare hand; it's no parlor trick.
Gloved hand.
I thought Ozymandias and Rorschach were both equally brilliant, Dr. Manhattan was "good enough", the other characters could have been played by anyone.
[blockquote]Of course, if you're defending his action then it's actually you who is effectively saying your opinion is more important than anyone who disagrees[/blockquote]Not at all. I'm not arguing for an unprecedented release of what has always been confidential and secret information. If you want to change something in our democracy, then vote for it. You are welcome to express your opinions about what should be done, and persuade others to take it seriously enough to sway their vote, and perhaps be persuasive enough to change the minds of the politicians, that's all fair game in a free speech democracy. I'm just saying that it isn't necessarily un-democratic for cabinet meeting discussions to stay secret until all those involved have left office, and that there are other opinions that are to be taken into account than those that loudly protest. There was a cabinet discussion in 1940 as to whether we should make peace with Germany. Those discussions were kept secret, rightly so, until long after the war was over.
"There is a balance to be struck between openness and maintaining aspects of our structure of democratic government,"
Sorry, I thought the whole point of democracy was that we get to decide that balance, not those in power? His decision flies in the very face of democracy.
Er, so, what if I disagree with you about how that balance should be struck? You want these documents to be released, but I don't. Why does your opinion outweigh mine, if you are so keen on democracy?
I think that statement is being widely misinterpreted. I interpret the rules like this:
1. Use whichever is most cost-effective (presumably including re-training costs for switching away from MS products)
2. Where there isn't a major difference in cost-effectiveness, prefer OSS anyway due to inherent flexibility
I strongly disagree with this. How are we specialized? Intelligence, best all around trait ever. Frankly, I don't see any of the major extinction events of the geological past being something the human race couldn't survive.
Okay, lets say the Yellowstone National Park erupts and covers the entirety of North America in lava. Over the course of a year, the sky is rendered entirely opaque, and all plant life bigger than moss dies. How would our amazing intelligence cope with that?