Most of these nonlethal systems can be countered with something else. Sonic weapons and microwave devices can be defeated with other technology.
So how about a MAKE Magazine article on thwarting nonlethal technology weapons? After all, if the government believes it's safe to use on us (I am an American,) shouldn't it be safe to cancel out their effects?
You do know that SMTP isn't a guaranteed message delivery mechanism?
I assume your business relies on a large volume of low-cost transactions, where the loss of one or two periodically won't sink the business or the client relationship. If not, I strongly recommend that you rework your business process to involve a confirmation step before you depend on the "message in a bottle" approach to communications.
Most mail handlers will attempt a best-effort delivery confirmation. As spam filters and self-righteous ISPs have proven, however, you can't be certain that the next hop of your mail will not delete the message silently.
If you're dealing with a high-value client relationship, the risk your taking on email is uncool.
I strongly believe that Linden will become profitable soon by reaping money from what amounts to a foreign money exchange tax. What I'm not sure about is whether they'll be able to balance what makes Second Life compelling against the requirements of external shareholders.
SL is very much an idealist playground. Even without external forces calling for profitability, there will be many challenges to maintaining a thriving community.
However, whether SL ultimately becomes profitable without losing appeal - or whether it sinks, the lessons learned will be worth it.
I also work for a Fortune 500 firm, in the security department. I don't have any particular problem with Skype as a product, but we opted to advise our userbase against it. The lack of control is the #1 reason, since we can't ensure confidentiality (not that the probability of eavesdropping is worth discussing, but risk management demands a level of due diligence here,) and bandwidth was another concern, not because of the supernode issue, our network would wreck that, but rather because we have enough crap to deal with and didn't need another "free product" to muck up our works with issues of code validation, accountability, confidentiality and service availability.
I don't like the way things have gone, but at least in Corporate America, I don't have enough peers to cover all the bases and management above me is expecting risks to be minimized, and even that is a huge challenge with just the stuff we paid for.
Most people do not take the time to thoroughly understand the challenges before their society.
Arguably this is because they are too busy with immediate gratification, but it is also a byproduct of being worked too hard to worry about anything else. The average joe spends the majority of his time working, raising a family, and trying to enjoy his life.
Studying issues does not often contribute to an enjoyment of life, and I believe our education system does not adequately teach the rights granted to American citizens. Not knowing what you're entitled to in concrete terms makes it more difficult to be upset when your entitlements are endangered.
I prefer to sue over tea myself. But will Rockstar be able to recover damages if they can prove that the city attorney is filing a frivolous lawsuit?
On technological merits, as has been discussed before, being able to manipulate the game engine into performing activity that was not originally intended seems out of scope of liability for the manufacturer. It's a bit like suing gun manufacturers for vicarious liability. I understand that this code exists in the product, but I do not understand to what lengths the users had to go through to expose it. Which would seem to be the crux of the argument against Rockstar.
Recent revelations of the President's authorization of illegal wiretapping activity do not put credibility on the side of any Federal agency. One case of the illegal detention of a bus rider in Colorado which the ACLU is working on, a German citizen who was illegally imprisioned by the CIA and flown out of his country, and Cheney's attempts to thwart McCain's efforts to limit torture all combine to demolish any credibility on the part of the government enforcement agencies.
Given the events of the past few years, I would tend to accept any story coming from a professor over basic skepticism. We know that the Patriot Act authorized library record snooping, and we know that the government has been exercising their new power tens of thousands of times (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti cle/2005/12/17/AR2005121701233.html) At this point, even if the government isn't being run by a bunch of evil-doers, at the very least, there is rampant incompetence wielding dangerous power over your life, and it goes beyond just avoiding a car accident with a sleeping semi-truck driver (an example of common incompetent power abuse,) it goes into the long term of you and your family's ability to make a life for yourself free of criminal record or suspicion.
I work for a company based in Westchester County, New York (USA). One of my coworkers is Arabic. While we were working on a charity project (painting a house, specifically,) we were talking about vacations.
I told him I enjoyed SCUBA diving.
He told me that he had enrolled in a SCUBA course somewhere in the area, and after the first class, had received a visit from government goons. Not sure if it was DHS or SS goons, but while they did not tell him NOT to continue with the classes, he dropped the classes because he did not want any additional scrutiny from the government. He was insulted, hurt, and scared.
It goes beyond just the initial act of having a goon come visit you, which is intimidating enough to decide to stay home and never leave; it is a sense of being threatened by the people who reported you to the government, and a sense of indignity with being considered a threat.
It also applies to other causes, like civil liberties. You must be willing to allocate time and money to support the causes you believe in.
It is especially important to keep your money away from those who would fight your cause. Obviously we don't have a choice when it comes to government taxation - but on the topics of supporting (or not supporting) monopolies, use your dollars. Where you can't choose, write your government officials.
Speakeasy outshines any service provider of any type I have ever dealt with. They are the standard by which all customer service operations should be measured.
No need for PPoE, a static IP, no need for telephone service, a usage policy that doesn't get in my way and no need to waste my life with incompetent and unhelpful service techs.
If you're not using Speakeasy for your Internet service but have the option to, then you are a moron.
"Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?"
No.
"Supply and Demand"
Clearly, at some juncture, things will evolve past the point where "free as in beer" is the norm, but as long as one of your competitors offers the same service for free, unless you have something people are willing to pay for, you're cannot easily compete with the guy down the street offering an open keg tap.
So far, I've paid for a Salon subscription (no longer,) and a Slashdot subscription (awhile back) because I wanted to support both enterprises. I also tend to pay PBS and a small radio station (WCPE) which provide material I enjoy with good quality or ideals that I wish to further in the world.
You may remember, CNN and Fox News get their revenue on the television by selling advertisements. Why would online be any different?
What you really should be asking yourself is: Is the future of computer network media *sales* in the hands of the podcaster? And if so, will micropayments finally succeed? Visa, Mastercard, Amex? Are you listening? And, oh, by the way, have you had enough ID theft to start using those smart-chip equipped cards yet? I am tired of waiting!
The anonymizing network which allows for pretty strong anonimity and the hosting of "hidden" websites within the TOR net. Put up a mirror site there and stick items such as this on a TOR-only website.
Until someone comes along that has the power to challenge the legitimacy of these statues in the various lands that we live in, your only option is to do the work in countries that are not wrecked.
I find it hard to believe that there isn't another side to this tale.
That said, if the company *IS* prosecuting on those grounds, an out of court settlement involving some guys named Vinny is probably at least as effective.
I refuse to pay ROYALTIES on HARDWARE and INTERNET SERVICE simply because the equipment is capable of rendering music and movies. It's as silly as being forced to buy "music" branded CD-R media to run in a dedicated audio CD recorder simply because the machine is capable of recording something that I may not have original rights to.
We should be turning our attention instead to finding ways to reverse the legislative abuses placed by the industry. The greater issue is how the Industry is abusing society with unreasonable copyright and distribution dominance.
Not only are theoretical and applied research being destroyed in the name of profit, but also our creativity in art. This is not a legacy that will perpetuate society over the long term.
Time for all you poor folk in oppressive countries, yes, especially you in the USA) to remember the old mantra, "Route around it." Just because something is "illegal" doesn't mean you can't do it. One bit can look very like another.
The Internet was our great hope for freedom and equality and stability, and we knew back in the day that it would challenge governments in ways they would fight. They cannot simultaneously provide general network access and complete control of it. As long as you can place arbitrary patterns of bits into the payload of a plain old IP packet, you'll be able to do whatever you want.
Now go, and fight the terrorists infesting your governments.
You will find that business professionals like lawyers and accountants generally exchange services. Look for barter opportunities, they are more plentiful especially with family and friends.
John, I expect you're just trolling. But since I wanted to post something along these lines anyway, thanks for the opening.
To rebut your post - using the real world example of homes with locks does not validate your point that someone should not distribute software that causes your computer to misbehave.
First, computers on a network are communicating. That they sometimes blindly accept instructions that we don't like is not the same action as someone using their knowledge of lockpicking against your Schlage deadbolt and ripping off your stuff.
It is more as though you were brainwashed by someone to accept certain instructions from anyone if they happen to fit a particular sentence. So you happen by someone who knows about this brainwashing and tells you to jump off a cliff - to which you promptly obey. Is it the fault of the speaker, of you or the brainwashing agent? Perhaps the agent has no idea that their brainwashing is the side effect of some sort of fancy treatment? Ethically, the guy telling you to leap is wrong - ethically because he knows better. Legally, he shouldn't be culpable in this instance because he would normally be protected by freedom of speech laws. In this case, the blame would fall on you if you were generally aware that you *might* be vulnerable to brainwashing and that there was both a method to detect and treat it.
I think we can argue that *all* computer owners with Internet connections are generally aware of computer software viruses. *ALL* businesses operating networked computers are aware of computer software viruses. Therefore any business who's computers become infected by computer software viruses are to blame for any software their computer executes even if that software is not desirable. They are more to blame than non-business owners because they have more capital and more to lose by having their computer systems malfunction. *ALL* home computer owners with Internet connections are to blame if they do not take steps to protect their computer from computer software viruses AND take the time to remain educated about steps they need to take. By now, everyone who owns a computer knows that their computer requires certain maintenance to continue operating normally in a networked environment. The failure to take steps to either educate themselves in protecting the computer OR enlist the help of someone who DOES know how to protect the computer means the home computer user has only themselves to blame for a malfunctioning computer. Finally, the computer industry is somewhat to blame for presenting computer networking as a "safe" place to do business, banking and for babysitting your kids. The industry also knowingly produces products which are incomplete at the time of sale. Fortunately, people know that automobiles have intrinsic dangers. Microwave ovens are dangerous too, but have sufficient limitations to prevent MOST accidents - yet accidents can still occur. But the general purpose home computer represents a new area of risk that should be recognized and treated with similar efforts. Just as a microwave oven manual includes a prominent warning against using metal utensils or containers - so should a computer manual include prominent warnings about risks in a networked environment.
From both a logical and physical perspective, networked computers are simply responding to patterns of electrical signals. That the law has been interpreted to believe that certain sequences of signaling constitute a criminal act is a SERIOUS misapplication of criminal law. Much as though restrictions exist on "practicing medicine" or "legal advice" when someone who is not accredited by the Bar Association or Board of Medical Examiners decides to give you advice seem reasonable - the truth is that certification programs exist and the consumer of that advice should be burdened with the requirement to verify the adviser's credentials before accepting the information - and the same should hold true in the Computer world.
If you don't like the way the product works, you don't buy it. You'll note the class action case against Verizon or Motorola regarding the crippled Bluetooth functionality in their latest CDMA phone, maybe they should have returned them instead. Don't like them? Don't use Verizon! Companies like Speakeasy fill a void for those of us who don't like the restrictive use policies of the common carriers. Remember all that noise a few years back about how the ATA hard-disk consortium were going to build in all this disk-level encryption to enable DRM at the hardware level? Where is it? DRM is a moving target, but no one is forcing you to buy the crap on offer.
We all scream about oligopoly and monopolies, but in the end we're still making choices with our dollars. Don't buy Microsoft products. Don't buy computers from Vendors who won't sell you computers without Microsoft OS'es loaded.
Should spend more time reminding your legislators about who they're supposed to represent.
This just highlights the need for corporate IT personnel to secure their open Wireless Access Points. Because, as you know - with the cheap cost of portable computers and old hardware - someone might end up leaving a Peer-to-Peer node running over an open AP and shift the liability to the AP owner. Think of the real risk given the amount of bandwidth available to most corporations and how long a rogue node could go undetected.
It is clear that those motivated to seed the BT networks of the world could very well end up costing your company in legal fees. So you better set that MAC filtering up right now.
Events as astounding as these deserve more than simple "Thanks." These teams of people, overcoming bureaucratic and technological challenges - have managed to achieve something incredible. It gives me great hope.
Those of you in the systems administration field at American corporations know something of how amazing it is.
I'd certainly like to see the official line on this one. Probably a bit like Cisco - "Hey, anything to make a buck, right? We don't have no scruples."
Similar issues appeared with web censorware which were illuminated by the organization, PeaceFire a few years back. Not only were the censorware lists blocking "legitimate" websites but also blocked sites that could (without imagination) be construed as agendas beyond the scope of "protecting children" against sex.
Outsourcing your software increases the risk of being subjugated by others. It is unfortunate that we need so dearly the protection that antivirus software provides - but we're putting our trust in corporations that do not hold honor over profit (few do, nothing special about this one.) The same struggle with subjugation appears in the Digital Rights Manglement issues, where Microsoft chooses what you do with your computer.
Fortunately as we've seen with the adware war, Freegate and friends will continue to evolve. Let us hope that the antivirus vendors have as much trouble blocking Freegate as they do catching legitimate malware!
Bill
Are you willing to bet your life on the goodwill of someone who has demonstrated that they have no goodwill towards you by breaking into your home?
Did you think about it before you posted that? Have you thought about the possibility before you concluded "which is the greater evil?"
I have. I will not leave to chance the disposition of someone who enters my home uninvited. It would be a failure of my responsibility to myself and my family if I did not exercise the means to eliminate a threat to them within my own home.
Where will those statistics be when that person is standing in the door of your bedroom at night?
Slashdot Mirror
Most of these nonlethal systems can be countered with something else. Sonic weapons and microwave devices can be defeated with other technology.
So how about a MAKE Magazine article on thwarting nonlethal technology weapons? After all, if the government believes it's safe to use on us (I am an American,) shouldn't it be safe to cancel out their effects?
W
You do know that SMTP isn't a guaranteed message delivery mechanism?
I assume your business relies on a large volume of low-cost transactions, where the loss of one or two periodically won't sink the business or the client relationship. If not, I strongly recommend that you rework your business process to involve a confirmation step before you depend on the "message in a bottle" approach to communications.
Most mail handlers will attempt a best-effort delivery confirmation. As spam filters and self-righteous ISPs have proven, however, you can't be certain that the next hop of your mail will not delete the message silently.
If you're dealing with a high-value client relationship, the risk your taking on email is uncool.
W
I strongly believe that Linden will become profitable soon by reaping money from what amounts to a foreign money exchange tax. What I'm not sure about is whether they'll be able to balance what makes Second Life compelling against the requirements of external shareholders.
SL is very much an idealist playground. Even without external forces calling for profitability, there will be many challenges to maintaining a thriving community.
However, whether SL ultimately becomes profitable without losing appeal - or whether it sinks, the lessons learned will be worth it.
Swearing, like many "vices" will likely diminish in frequency and severity once society stops glorifying it as a taboo.
It won't go away, but it will likely become less prevalent.
W
I also work for a Fortune 500 firm, in the security department. I don't have any particular problem with Skype as a product, but we opted to advise our userbase against it.
The lack of control is the #1 reason, since we can't ensure confidentiality (not that the probability of eavesdropping is worth discussing, but risk management demands a level of due diligence here,) and bandwidth was another concern, not because of the supernode issue, our network would wreck that, but rather because we have enough crap to deal with and didn't need another "free product" to muck up our works with issues of code validation, accountability, confidentiality and service availability.
I don't like the way things have gone, but at least in Corporate America, I don't have enough peers to cover all the bases and management above me is expecting risks to be minimized, and even that is a huge challenge with just the stuff we paid for.
Hey, at least you have IM!
... rather than a direct democracy.
Most people do not take the time to thoroughly understand the challenges before their society.
Arguably this is because they are too busy with immediate gratification, but it is also a byproduct of being worked too hard to worry about anything else. The average joe spends the majority of his time working, raising a family, and trying to enjoy his life.
Studying issues does not often contribute to an enjoyment of life, and I believe our education system does not adequately teach the rights granted to American citizens. Not knowing what you're entitled to in concrete terms makes it more difficult to be upset when your entitlements are endangered.
I prefer to sue over tea myself.
But will Rockstar be able to recover damages if they can prove that the city attorney is filing a frivolous lawsuit?
On technological merits, as has been discussed before, being able to manipulate the game engine into performing activity that was not originally intended seems out of scope of liability for the manufacturer. It's a bit like suing gun manufacturers for vicarious liability. I understand that this code exists in the product, but I do not understand to what lengths the users had to go through to expose it. Which would seem to be the crux of the argument against Rockstar.
Recent revelations of the President's authorization of illegal wiretapping activity do not put credibility on the side of any Federal agency.
i cle/2005/12/17/AR2005121701233.html) At this point, even if the government isn't being run by a bunch of evil-doers, at the very least, there is rampant incompetence wielding dangerous power over your life, and it goes beyond just avoiding a car accident with a sleeping semi-truck driver (an example of common incompetent power abuse,) it goes into the long term of you and your family's ability to make a life for yourself free of criminal record or suspicion.
One case of the illegal detention of a bus rider in Colorado which the ACLU is working on, a German citizen who was illegally imprisioned by the CIA and flown out of his country, and Cheney's attempts to thwart McCain's efforts to limit torture all combine to demolish any credibility on the part of the government enforcement agencies.
Given the events of the past few years, I would tend to accept any story coming from a professor over basic skepticism. We know that the Patriot Act authorized library record snooping, and we know that the government has been exercising their new power tens of thousands of times (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/art
I work for a company based in Westchester County, New York (USA). One of my coworkers is Arabic. While we were working on a charity project (painting a house, specifically,) we were talking about vacations.
I told him I enjoyed SCUBA diving.
He told me that he had enrolled in a SCUBA course somewhere in the area, and after the first class, had received a visit from government goons. Not sure if it was DHS or SS goons, but while they did not tell him NOT to continue with the classes, he dropped the classes because he did not want any additional scrutiny from the government. He was insulted, hurt, and scared.
It goes beyond just the initial act of having a goon come visit you, which is intimidating enough to decide to stay home and never leave; it is a sense of being threatened by the people who reported you to the government, and a sense of indignity with being considered a threat.
Yours is really an excellent point.
It also applies to other causes, like civil liberties. You must be willing to allocate time and money to support the causes you believe in.
It is especially important to keep your money away from those who would fight your cause. Obviously we don't have a choice when it comes to government taxation - but on the topics of supporting (or not supporting) monopolies, use your dollars. Where you can't choose, write your government officials.
W
I am a Speakeasy customer as of August 1st.
Speakeasy outshines any service provider of any type I have ever dealt with. They are the standard by which all customer service operations should be measured.
No need for PPoE, a static IP, no need for telephone service, a usage policy that doesn't get in my way and no need to waste my life with incompetent and unhelpful service techs.
If you're not using Speakeasy for your Internet service but have the option to, then you are a moron.
W
"Is this another nail in the coffin of paid content on the internet?"
No.
"Supply and Demand"
Clearly, at some juncture, things will evolve past the point where "free as in beer" is the norm, but as long as one of your competitors offers the same service for free, unless you have something people are willing to pay for, you're cannot easily compete with the guy down the street offering an open keg tap.
So far, I've paid for a Salon subscription (no longer,) and a Slashdot subscription (awhile back) because I wanted to support both enterprises. I also tend to pay PBS and a small radio station (WCPE) which provide material I enjoy with good quality or ideals that I wish to further in the world.
You may remember, CNN and Fox News get their revenue on the television by selling advertisements. Why would online be any different?
What you really should be asking yourself is: Is the future of computer network media *sales* in the hands of the podcaster? And if so, will micropayments finally succeed? Visa, Mastercard, Amex? Are you listening? And, oh, by the way, have you had enough ID theft to start using those smart-chip equipped cards yet? I am tired of waiting!
W
Ah, yes, Risk and Development.
If you can't beat them, then use TOR. http://tor.eff.net/
The anonymizing network which allows for pretty strong anonimity and the hosting of "hidden" websites within the TOR net. Put up a mirror site there and stick items such as this on a TOR-only website.
Until someone comes along that has the power to challenge the legitimacy of these statues in the various lands that we live in, your only option is to do the work in countries that are not wrecked.
W
I find it hard to believe that there isn't another side to this tale.
That said, if the company *IS* prosecuting on those grounds, an out of court settlement involving some guys named Vinny is probably at least as effective.
W
I refuse to pay ROYALTIES on HARDWARE and INTERNET SERVICE simply because the equipment is capable of rendering music and movies. It's as silly as being forced to buy "music" branded CD-R media to run in a dedicated audio CD recorder simply because the machine is capable of recording something that I may not have original rights to.
We should be turning our attention instead to finding ways to reverse the legislative abuses placed by the industry. The greater issue is how the Industry is abusing society with unreasonable copyright and distribution dominance.
Not only are theoretical and applied research being destroyed in the name of profit, but also our creativity in art. This is not a legacy that will perpetuate society over the long term.
These laws are, quite simply unsustainable.
Time for all you poor folk in oppressive countries, yes, especially you in the USA) to remember the old mantra, "Route around it." Just because something is "illegal" doesn't mean you can't do it. One bit can look very like another.
The Internet was our great hope for freedom and equality and stability, and we knew back in the day that it would challenge governments in ways they would fight. They cannot simultaneously provide general network access and complete control of it. As long as you can place arbitrary patterns of bits into the payload of a plain old IP packet, you'll be able to do whatever you want.
Now go, and fight the terrorists infesting your governments.
Well, because "land of the fee" is trademarked.
But hey, I'll accept payment with PayPal(tm)!
You will find that business professionals like lawyers and accountants generally exchange services. Look for barter opportunities, they are more plentiful especially with family and friends.
John, I expect you're just trolling. But since I wanted to post something along these lines anyway, thanks for the opening.
To rebut your post - using the real world example of homes with locks does not validate your point that someone should not distribute software that causes your computer to misbehave.
First, computers on a network are communicating. That they sometimes blindly accept instructions that we don't like is not the same action as someone using their knowledge of lockpicking against your Schlage deadbolt and ripping off your stuff.
It is more as though you were brainwashed by someone to accept certain instructions from anyone if they happen to fit a particular sentence. So you happen by someone who knows about this brainwashing and tells you to jump off a cliff - to which you promptly obey. Is it the fault of the speaker, of you or the brainwashing agent? Perhaps the agent has no idea that their brainwashing is the side effect of some sort of fancy treatment? Ethically, the guy telling you to leap is wrong - ethically because he knows better. Legally, he shouldn't be culpable in this instance because he would normally be protected by freedom of speech laws. In this case, the blame would fall on you if you were generally aware that you *might* be vulnerable to brainwashing and that there was both a method to detect and treat it.
I think we can argue that *all* computer owners with Internet connections are generally aware of computer software viruses. *ALL* businesses operating networked computers are aware of computer software viruses. Therefore any business who's computers become infected by computer software viruses are to blame for any software their computer executes even if that software is not desirable. They are more to blame than non-business owners because they have more capital and more to lose by having their computer systems malfunction. *ALL* home computer owners with Internet connections are to blame if they do not take steps to protect their computer from computer software viruses AND take the time to remain educated about steps they need to take. By now, everyone who owns a computer knows that their computer requires certain maintenance to continue operating normally in a networked environment. The failure to take steps to either educate themselves in protecting the computer OR enlist the help of someone who DOES know how to protect the computer means the home computer user has only themselves to blame for a malfunctioning computer. Finally, the computer industry is somewhat to blame for presenting computer networking as a "safe" place to do business, banking and for babysitting your kids. The industry also knowingly produces products which are incomplete at the time of sale. Fortunately, people know that automobiles have intrinsic dangers. Microwave ovens are dangerous too, but have sufficient limitations to prevent MOST accidents - yet accidents can still occur. But the general purpose home computer represents a new area of risk that should be recognized and treated with similar efforts. Just as a microwave oven manual includes a prominent warning against using metal utensils or containers - so should a computer manual include prominent warnings about risks in a networked environment.
From both a logical and physical perspective, networked computers are simply responding to patterns of electrical signals. That the law has been interpreted to believe that certain sequences of signaling constitute a criminal act is a SERIOUS misapplication of criminal law. Much as though restrictions exist on "practicing medicine" or "legal advice" when someone who is not accredited by the Bar Association or Board of Medical Examiners decides to give you advice seem reasonable - the truth is that certification programs exist and the consumer of that advice should be burdened with the requirement to verify the adviser's credentials before accepting the information - and the same should hold true in the Computer world.
In sum, your laziness i
Capitalist Society
Market Demand = Product Supply
If you don't like the way the product works, you don't buy it.
You'll note the class action case against Verizon or Motorola regarding the crippled Bluetooth functionality in their latest CDMA phone, maybe they should have returned them instead. Don't like them? Don't use Verizon! Companies like Speakeasy fill a void for those of us who don't like the restrictive use policies of the common carriers. Remember all that noise a few years back about how the ATA hard-disk consortium were going to build in all this disk-level encryption to enable DRM at the hardware level? Where is it? DRM is a moving target, but no one is forcing you to buy the crap on offer.
We all scream about oligopoly and monopolies, but in the end we're still making choices with our dollars. Don't buy Microsoft products. Don't buy computers from Vendors who won't sell you computers without Microsoft OS'es loaded.
Should spend more time reminding your legislators about who they're supposed to represent.
This just highlights the need for corporate IT personnel to secure their open Wireless Access Points. Because, as you know - with the cheap cost of portable computers and old hardware - someone might end up leaving a Peer-to-Peer node running over an open AP and shift the liability to the AP owner. Think of the real risk given the amount of bandwidth available to most corporations and how long a rogue node could go undetected.
It is clear that those motivated to seed the BT networks of the world could very well end up costing your company in legal fees. So you better set that MAC filtering up right now.
Events as astounding as these deserve more than simple "Thanks." These teams of people, overcoming bureaucratic and technological challenges - have managed to achieve something incredible. It gives me great hope.
Those of you in the systems administration field at American corporations know something of how amazing it is.
- Bill
I'd certainly like to see the official line on this one. Probably a bit like Cisco - "Hey, anything to make a buck, right? We don't have no scruples." Similar issues appeared with web censorware which were illuminated by the organization, PeaceFire a few years back. Not only were the censorware lists blocking "legitimate" websites but also blocked sites that could (without imagination) be construed as agendas beyond the scope of "protecting children" against sex. Outsourcing your software increases the risk of being subjugated by others. It is unfortunate that we need so dearly the protection that antivirus software provides - but we're putting our trust in corporations that do not hold honor over profit (few do, nothing special about this one.) The same struggle with subjugation appears in the Digital Rights Manglement issues, where Microsoft chooses what you do with your computer. Fortunately as we've seen with the adware war, Freegate and friends will continue to evolve. Let us hope that the antivirus vendors have as much trouble blocking Freegate as they do catching legitimate malware! Bill
Are you willing to bet your life on the goodwill of someone who has demonstrated that they have no goodwill towards you by breaking into your home?
Did you think about it before you posted that? Have you thought about the possibility before you concluded "which is the greater evil?"
I have. I will not leave to chance the disposition of someone who enters my home uninvited. It would be a failure of my responsibility to myself and my family if I did not exercise the means to eliminate a threat to them within my own home.
Where will those statistics be when that person is standing in the door of your bedroom at night?
Bill