The file is on my computer. It's a school computer, but I'm under my rights to host a server so long as it's not warez or mp3s. I think the real question is, how will your school's staff react when Mattel sends them a "take it down or else" letter? --
I work for a large corporation that does use content blocking. This is mostly to prevent later claims of institutional sexual harassment. (No flames, please -- it's been made quite clear within the organization that I, personally, am opposed to this, for a number of reasons, only some of which are related to censorship/freedom of speech issues.) In the future, if/when we decide to revisit the content blocking service provider (I believe we currently use CyberNOT), at least egregious handling like this will help me keep CyberPatrol from being used. I'm not a fan of CyberNOT, either, but the contract's been signed, so I'm stuck for a while. Hmmm. I found the best way to strike THIS one down was that, if you censor or otherwise filter the feed, you are exercising editorial control - therefore, are directly responsible (and legally liable) for anything that gets through the filter...... --
HOWEVER, why is there in each article like this also an "open source advocate" who claims that "patches from Microsoft take months to appear!", which is simply not true either! It's a mild exaggeration, but is probably pretty close - have a read though the BugTraq archives - it is often two to three weeks after a report is handed to them before they acknowledge a problem exists, and another few weeks before a patch is released - and even then, they often seem to have "phone support for this patch as it is not regression tested" on it...... --
They got quotes from a strategy analyst and a business development manager. Not entirely sure if this applies to Intergralis, but I just checked with OUR personnel department, and "business development manager" is one of the things our cold-call salespeople are allowed to call themselves on their business cards. The vast majority are issued with company car, laptop and sales brochures, and given a half day "induction" before they go out on the road.... --
Yes, security through obscurity DOES work! Chanting that it doesn't work doesn't make it so and doesn't help. It's a debatable option - in the short term, Security Through Obscurity DOES work, provided
Black Hats can't get hold of a working copy to test against
The vendors are committed to expansive testing and getting the patches out into the field fast and
Known exploits against similar systems don't work on this one
If ANY of the above aren't true, then StO fails; if the system actually DOES have good enough security to survive a failure of one of the above three points, than it has good enough security to be open source (or at least peer reviewed) in the first place.
Out of interest, does anyone know
If any of these three are particularly tied to a closed source & StO product and
who Phil Roberts (the main source in the piece, apparently) is and who he works for?
First of all, Silicon.com isn't any place to be getting good opinions about technical stuff. It's a overview-style PHB rag. Too bad they don't recognise this. Unfortunately, this is EXACTLY the sort of rag we need to keep FUD down in - we don't need our PHB's taking every word as gospel, as we could find yet another "use only microsoft, only microsoft can be trusted" Corporate Strategy Decision handed down from on high and enforced, purely on gossip and heresay. I am going to have a go at tracking down the authors of these quotes on the offchance they have been taken out of context; I am not familiar with the Strategy Partners, but I know many at Integralis Group would be horrified that they had given a press release / quote stating they believed in security though obscurity....
BTW, did anyone else visit the registration screen and read their blatant attempts to build a headhunter-register? "how soon do you plan to change jobs" as a mandatory field....:+) --
Well, one that springs immediately to mind was the Lotus email product "secure encryption" that leaked most of the secret key in a form the american NSA could read - and was used by some government departments overseas as a secure communication medium. They weren't really that pleased when they found out - example of the conversations of the time can be found here, and a suitable websearch should find you hundreds more:+) --
17 fucking percent. So one in six teens thought partying and dating were "out". Hey, when *I* was a teen, I didn't do parties (too young for the nightclubs, non-standard tastes in music, total inability to dance:+) but I *did* date. There was also the "jock" and "prom queen" types that did the party thing continuously - but didn't date as they considered that tying themselves down to one person when they could have a whole crowd of admirers. I doubt you could get teenagers to have a 100% consensus on ANYTHING though, so it is par for the course:+) --
Umm... it's an expansion PC ROM like any other. It doesn't need to be "downloaded" to the CPU. It simply exists in memory space. Yes, I know that - but as far as I know, the part of the flash upgrade that gives you Raid rather than standard SCSI is running on the onboard processor, not the host machine - after all, this is the whole point of having SCSI in the first place - to offload disk I/O from the host CPU to the Card.
However, I was more interested in where you got your analyis from - do you have the source to the thing someplace on the web? I don't have one of these cards, so can't really check locally.... --
NW5 has been out since Fall 98, and you have until Aug 2000 to recertify. This requires 1 test for 4.x CNEs. Yes, I know - I am STILL trying to get my boss to fund it for me...
W2K has been out since Feb 2000, and you have until Dec 2000 to recertify. This requires 2 or 3 tests IIRC. Which do you think is a bigger rip off? Well, Apparently the fast-track exam is just that - a single exam, and free. Of course, if you fail you have to take the full thing, and The OS isn't even stable yet, but still. For non-US CNEs, many of who are fighting to keep their networks Novell rather than Microsoft, the difficultly of getting your company to fund additional training for you is a real one - if the additional skillset isn't needed, why should you be forced to upgrade your certification by EITHER company? --
As someone already noted, NetWare 5 has been around quite some time now. Actually, it came out in september 1998, a few weeks before the actual schedule. You could immediately toy around with a free double CD package, containing NetWare 5, the clients, the Internet services etc, and a 3-user license. So, you could hook up 3 client machines to your NetWare 5 server, and all this was given away for free. Current CNEs also received a Student Kit and an exam voucher (for the NetWare 4.x to 5 Update) for free! The Student Kit alone is worth at least 500US$. So, I believe these are pretty favorable conditions for passing an exam. I am forced to assume you are one of the lucky CNEs that live in america then - English CNEs didn't (and don't) get any of that, we have to fund our own way through the program........ --
On the other hand, CyberPatrol were sure you couldn't reach their encrypted files either. I suspect a few people will be playing with the code in a suitable environment already.... --
If your child is bright enough to find the crack to cyber patrol on the web, download/run it, and beat your pathetic attempt at stopping that child from seeing whats really out there then you have little to worry about. You kid is smart, able to think for themself, aware of political censorship (you) and somewhat rebellious. All are admirable qualities!! Unfortunately, you are overlooking the "script kiddie" (no, that wasn't an intentional pun) effect - Cut-down "find admin password only" copies of this code will already be being passed from hand to hand in schools - as the geekier kids that ARE capable of finding, downloading and so altering this code experiment with buying a bit of peer-group respect with their talents. --
Patents are dead and useless... who cares if Amazon patents the one-click shopping model? I'll just use java-script to create a hover-over-this-button shopping setup. Somebody patents the knife and fork? I'll use chopsticks then. Somebody patents the CPU? I'll grab my soldering gun and make an analog computer out of op amps and transistors with a level of parallelism unknown previous to this. The point is that we can move so fast and so far forward that by the time they can say a program this community created is in violation of patent X we've already likely devised a completely new system that makes that system antiquidated! I think you fail to get the point - innovation is a path to find the BEST way to do something, not just the latest and greatest. If the "best" way suddenly becomes the private property of one commercial company, then even if you find something almost as good, you are still at a disadvantage. Amazon's "one click" patent isn't just for "one click" - they claim that ANY shopping cart method that stores the customer's details so the user can just commit their order, regardless of if they click a button, ring a bell or use voice recognition to shout "make it so!" from the other side of the room. Overturning a patent once granted is a slow, expensive process with courts automagically giving patent-owners restraining orders on request that could completely destroy your income just when you need it to PAY the lawyers you have to hire...
What it comes down to is that patents, particularly software patents, are being given out by people with insufficient time to evaluate them, even if they HAD the skills to do so, which they don't. --
Hmm. Much though I dislike this tactic in Microsoft, it is probably worth pointing out that Novell, M$'s biggest competitor in the network server market, are doing almost exactly the same thing to their CNEs - "upgrade to a Netware 5 CNE, or lose it"
For that matter, a LOT of companies refused to certify, or actually WITHDREW Y2K certification to try and force companies to buy their latest and greatest - so M$oft is at least in company. --
If by poorly written code, you mean code that isn't as optimized as it can be, then yes, by all means. This is not the 70s anymore. Any software engineer will tell you that writing software is always a compromise between many goals. Speed is nowhere near as important as it was say 10-30 years ago. Neither is size. The software industry seems to understand this, and you do not. This is a borderline subject - you have to balance a lot of things to produce a successful product; Speed *is* important, but (apart from in games) not as important as other factors such as reliability, ease of use and maintainability of code (and if you *don't* think this last one is important, you haven't ever developed anything past the hand-in-to-tutor stage; if you are lucky, it is some other fool cursing your name. If you are unlucky, it is you at 2am scratching your head and wondering why altering A stops B from working)
That said, there is little or no justification for sloppy programming in the "if it doesn't work, buy a faster computer" style - it is a marketing issue, rather than a technical one; back in the 80s, software that wouldn't run on the "base" machine just didn't sell - you couldn't rely on your customer base having the expensive upgrades and gadgets that would make your program shine above it's competition without effort; you had to do it the hard way, by writing better code..... --
Or to compare apples to apples, a movie collector's collection consisted solely of bootlegs? Never, a true movie collector has a virtual library of DVDs, Laserdiscs and *gasp* tapes. Indeed so - but I doubt there are many movie fans that don't have at least ONE film recorded from broadcast TV - and don't feel the slightest guilt about it. Similarly, When I was younger and couldn't afford all the latest releases, I used to record them from the radio chart shows Pause while the moral majority gasp at my criminal past!
I didn't (and still don't!) see anything morally wrong in doing this; It wasn't as if I was depriving them of a sale, and if I liked the music, I was more likely to go out and buy a copy for my singles collection. in any case, it would be taped over a week or so later.
If one truly has a passion for music, shouldn't they be out supporting the artists they like by actually purchasing their CDs, going to concert, etc? Yes, of course they should - and as far as we can tell, the MP3 revolution has Increased rather than decreased sales - which must be a terrible dissapointment for you. Many of these increased sales could well be credited to mp3 distribution - listeners actively seeking out Albums from bands they have enjoyed individual songs from. --
Hey folks, the FastTrack66 is not a raid at all. It is a software raid card, but implemented in the ON BOARD BIOS. For the uninitiated, just because software is stored on a chip (in this case the card bios) rather than a disk, does not make it "hardware". This is commonly referred to as "firmware" but in reality is software that runs on the host CPU just like any piece of software. I'd be interested to see where you get this information from - as far as I can tell, the flashable bios on the card is run ONLY by the onboard controller; it is not downloaded to the CPU at all...... --
Hmmm. It's nice to see that the americans are starting to come to their senses about the web - it is good, it is big, but it is essentially another form of communication, like telephones and post, and can be dealt with accordingly. I *would* question their assumption that all web-criminals are also likely to be american though - not only is it insulting to americans, but may lead law enforcement into a false sense of security - give it to the FBI, they will track down the varmit no matter which state he hides in:+) --
Funny, IE for the Mac is a/totally/ superior product to Navigator, and there's no OS bundling going on there. Microsoft has (finally?) produced a quality product, in IE 4.5 for the Mac, and this should be the baseline for Mozilla to shoot at. Painful as it is for non-M$oft fans to admit (and yes, it stabs me too:+) IE5 is overwhelmingly superior in most respects to NS4.x - it is more stable, comes bundled with more plugins, loads faster and loads *pages* faster. If there was an IE5 for linux, I suspect there would be an eager user base.
Perhaps this is a good thing, perhaps bad - but it gives the Mozilla team a hard target to reach. --
Clearly the solution to this is to begin a widely publicized campaign of expiring your keys at regular intervals so that it would be extremely suspicious not to do it. Even go so far as to state that the only reason that you would refrain from expiring a key after 3 months (or choose your one lifetime for it) would be if your are served with a legal order not to do it. Hmm. If I am reading this correctly, the prosecution only need prove you HAVE HAD the key, not that you currently still have it - that burden of proof thing. therefore, if you expire the key, you may be in the position of not being able to hand over your key to them and find yourself imprisoned for that..... --
That's because this is a troll. The Slashdot sense of the word troll should be the same as the Usenet sense of the word. I'd call the others spammers. It's a point of discussion, I suppose. I base my opinion that mods on/. are more likely to mark this sort of thing as flamebait than trollishness.
Also, one correction -- a troll does not just make patently wrong and uninformed statements. So do genuine idiots / morons / etc. A troll makes them for the express purpose of getting a rise out of people. This is also true - it's implicit that a troll KNOWS he is Trolling; this was sufficiently borderline it could just have been the more common September-style idiot.
What puzzles me is how you knew all this and _still_ managed to get trolled. This is because plausable-sounding trolls on/. have one advantage that trolls on usenet tend not to have - the bulk of the readership may not know enough about the subject to tell the difference. *I* read stories I don't have any real knowledge of, in the hope I can somehow acquire $CLUE from the nature of the discussion; Unless Flamebait is marked as such, or is answered, how am I to tell good from bad? --
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a majority of internet users are connecting via modem over POTS lines. So, can law enforcement just run over to the local telephone company, demand a tap on a line, and get the evidence they need as the data passes through a current telcom provider? In theory, yes. In practice, you are not obliged to use any given telephone line to access your account - you can usually access via hotel lines, mobile phones and if a friend also has a modem, you can either ride his connection or borrow his pc to log in. However, there *is* one bottleneck - the ISPs. No matter where you connect from, you have to log into the internet somewhere, and many ISPs still do not allow you to even READ your email from outside their own dialup service. It's a lot easier to trap the traffic at one or more ISPs than to do so at the telephone stage, and the signal is "cleaner".
Granted, they still may need a decryption key. But come on! You mean to tell me that a government doesn't have the resources to crack an encryption key? I mean to tell you that a government doesn't have the resources to crack an encryption key! Cryptography freely available on the internet, such as PGP and Scramdisk, can take a budget of millions of dollars and an acre or so of computers to break *one* key a century - if you are lucky.
Hey if a "cyber-crime" is so serious, you should be able to afford the technology and intelligence to solve it. If cyber crime was, then they would. The technology is already there - good policework, informants, tempest, keyloggers... But this is *expensive* - far too expensive to waste on "subversives" or "activists" - you would have to reserve it for those genuinely a danger to society
They just want things to be easy. Don't we all?
The end result? The internet will be crowded with "cops" that have nothing to do. The day will come when we get "speeding tickets" online for using too much bandwidth. Hey, is donutshop.com still available?? More likely, the door of every ISP will be held permanently open by the stream of unaccountable, unidentifiable but authorised "statutory bodies" coming to check every email you ever sent on the basis that your dog licence is out of date... and it will only be a matter of time before key escrow is re-launched, not as a legal requirement, but as a convenience to stop you being dragged out of bed at 3am each day in order to hand over yet another set of session keys... --
Not to contradict you, but, I think in Britain you are guilty until proven innocent in all crimes, so the burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the defendant. It varies (the english like to think they invented the "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but I doubt they could prove that). In some cases such as the requirement to have insurance documents for motor vehicles, and certain statutory books such as the income tax ledgers, it is a requirement for the defendant to produce them; however, this is usually reserved for cases where it is an offence for the defendent not to have them, and where if the defendant has complied with this law, producing the required proof (either the documents, or the name of the agency/accountants they are lodged with) is relatively easy. Where *this* bill falls down is that the reversal of proof is usually only done where the task is difficult for the prosecution, easy for the defense, and there exists a statutory duty to possess the item (i.e. a positive proof). This bill imposes a negative proof on the defence - they must prove, not that the defendent doesn't have a key (a pretty impossible task) but that the defendent has NEVER HAD the key..... So, this would not exactly be a big step, just applying the same law standards they've used before on the internet. Of course, that doesn't make it right, but, from a legal perspective, this isn't anything too radical on the part of Britain. I'm not sure of this, however, could anyone from Britain verify this or deny it? --
Please think before going into a standard rant about how our freedoms are being eroded. It is obvious to anyone even from a cursory glance at the proposed legislation, that this will affect only those who are attempting to hide some nefarious activities. Or those subversives who would threaten the national security interests of the United Kingdom. Do you have any idea how PK cryptography works? the majority of these warrants are not going to be served on the suspected criminals - otherwise why are there such draconian punishments for the "Tipping Off" offence? They are going to be served on innocents who have more to lose by serving the two years than from any "criminal" information they reveal by doing so. It's a part of technology swinging back - Improvements in digital exchanges and computer analysis have made interception and monitoring possible to a degree that would have been unthinkable a mere twenty years ago, back in the days of mechanical switches. Now, encryption is threatening to take the new-found powers away from them, and then some - in the old mechanical days, you could at least rely on that, when a given pair was croc-clipped to a recorder, that you would be able to understand what you heard (they may use a codebook approach, and talk about candy rather than cocane, but you could probably figure it out in time). They would have to go back to physically sneaking into places and planting bugs! Gosh, how terrible.
This is not a "troll" (whatever that is) It isn't in the usual/. sense (you havent' mentioned stone females or hot grits) but in Usenet, someone that makes patently wrong and uninformed statements that get a "flamebait" rating here on/. are trolls..
, I am simply pointing out that other countries have different standards of privacy & freedom. Hmm. I *am* english, and I am disgusted at this - it violates MY standards of privacy and freedom, and I suspect no polititian would consider signing it for a minute if he thought it applied to him. --
Slashdot Mirror
The file is on my computer. It's a school computer, but I'm under my rights to host a server so long as it's not warez or mp3s.
I think the real question is, how will your school's staff react when Mattel sends them a "take it down or else" letter?
--
I work for a large corporation that does use content blocking. This is mostly to prevent later claims of institutional sexual harassment. (No flames, please -- it's been made quite clear within the organization that I, personally, am opposed to this, for a number of reasons, only some of which are related to censorship/freedom of speech issues.) In the future, if/when we decide to revisit the content blocking service provider (I believe we currently use CyberNOT), at least egregious handling like this will help me keep CyberPatrol from being used. I'm not a fan of CyberNOT, either, but the contract's been signed, so I'm stuck for a while. .....
Hmmm. I found the best way to strike THIS one down was that, if you censor or otherwise filter the feed, you are exercising editorial control - therefore, are directly responsible (and legally liable) for anything that gets through the filter.
--
HOWEVER, why is there in each article like this also an "open source advocate" who claims that "patches from Microsoft take months to appear!", which is simply not true either!
It's a mild exaggeration, but is probably pretty close - have a read though the BugTraq archives - it is often two to three weeks after a report is handed to them before they acknowledge a problem exists, and another few weeks before a patch is released - and even then, they often seem to have "phone support for this patch as it is not regression tested" on it......
--
They got quotes from a strategy analyst and a business development manager.
Not entirely sure if this applies to Intergralis, but I just checked with OUR personnel department, and "business development manager" is one of the things our cold-call salespeople are allowed to call themselves on their business cards. The vast majority are issued with company car, laptop and sales brochures, and given a half day "induction" before they go out on the road....
--
Chanting that it doesn't work doesn't make it so and doesn't help.
It's a debatable option - in the short term, Security Through Obscurity DOES work, provided
- Black Hats can't get hold of a working copy to test against
- The vendors are committed to expansive testing and getting the patches out into the field fast and
- Known exploits against similar systems don't work on this one
If ANY of the above aren't true, then StO fails; if the system actually DOES have good enough security to survive a failure of one of the above three points, than it has good enough security to be open source (or at least peer reviewed) in the first place.Out of interest, does anyone know
--
Unfortunately, this is EXACTLY the sort of rag we need to keep FUD down in - we don't need our PHB's taking every word as gospel, as we could find yet another "use only microsoft, only microsoft can be trusted" Corporate Strategy Decision handed down from on high and enforced, purely on gossip and heresay.
I am going to have a go at tracking down the authors of these quotes on the offchance they have been taken out of context; I am not familiar with the Strategy Partners, but I know many at Integralis Group would be horrified that they had given a press release / quote stating they believed in security though obscurity....
BTW, did anyone else visit the registration screen and read their blatant attempts to build a headhunter-register? "how soon do you plan to change jobs" as a mandatory field.... :+)
--
Well, one that springs immediately to mind was the Lotus email product "secure encryption" that leaked most of the secret key in a form the american NSA could read - and was used by some government departments overseas as a secure communication medium. They weren't really that pleased when they found out - example of the conversations of the time can be found here, and a suitable websearch should find you hundreds more :+)
--
17 fucking percent. So one in six teens thought partying and dating were "out". :+) but I *did* date. There was also the "jock" and "prom queen" types that did the party thing continuously - but didn't date as they considered that tying themselves down to one person when they could have a whole crowd of admirers. I doubt you could get teenagers to have a 100% consensus on ANYTHING though, so it is par for the course :+)
Hey, when *I* was a teen, I didn't do parties (too young for the nightclubs, non-standard tastes in music, total inability to dance
--
It doesn't need to be "downloaded" to the CPU. It simply exists in memory space. Yes, I know that - but as far as I know, the part of the flash upgrade that gives you Raid rather than standard SCSI is running on the onboard processor, not the host machine - after all, this is the whole point of having SCSI in the first place - to offload disk I/O from the host CPU to the Card.
However, I was more interested in where you got your analyis from - do you have the source to the thing someplace on the web? I don't have one of these cards, so can't really check locally....
--
Yes, I know - I am STILL trying to get my boss to fund it for me...
W2K has been out since Feb 2000, and you have until Dec 2000 to recertify. This requires 2 or 3 tests IIRC.
Which do you think is a bigger rip off?
Well, Apparently the fast-track exam is just that - a single exam, and free. Of course, if you fail you have to take the full thing, and The OS isn't even stable yet, but still. For non-US CNEs, many of who are fighting to keep their networks Novell rather than Microsoft, the difficultly of getting your company to fund additional training for you is a real one - if the additional skillset isn't needed, why should you be forced to upgrade your certification by EITHER company?
--
As someone already noted, NetWare 5 has been around quite some time now. Actually, it came out in september 1998, a few weeks before the actual schedule. You could immediately toy around with a free double CD package, containing NetWare 5, the clients, the Internet services etc, and a 3-user license. So, you could hook up 3 client machines to your NetWare 5 server, and all this was given away for free. Current CNEs also received a Student Kit and an exam voucher (for the NetWare 4.x to 5 Update) for free! The Student Kit alone is worth at least 500US$. So, I believe these are pretty favorable conditions for passing an exam.
I am forced to assume you are one of the lucky CNEs that live in america then - English CNEs didn't (and don't) get any of that, we have to fund our own way through the program........
--
On the other hand, CyberPatrol were sure you couldn't reach their encrypted files either. I suspect a few people will be playing with the code in a suitable environment already....
--
If your child is bright enough to find the crack to cyber patrol on the web, download/run it, and beat your pathetic attempt at stopping that child from seeing whats really out there then you have little to worry about. You kid is smart, able to think for themself, aware of political censorship (you) and somewhat rebellious. All are admirable qualities!!
Unfortunately, you are overlooking the "script kiddie" (no, that wasn't an intentional pun) effect - Cut-down "find admin password only" copies of this code will already be being passed from hand to hand in schools - as the geekier kids that ARE capable of finding, downloading and so altering this code experiment with buying a bit of peer-group respect with their talents.
--
I think you fail to get the point - innovation is a path to find the BEST way to do something, not just the latest and greatest. If the "best" way suddenly becomes the private property of one commercial company, then even if you find something almost as good, you are still at a disadvantage. Amazon's "one click" patent isn't just for "one click" - they claim that ANY shopping cart method that stores the customer's details so the user can just commit their order, regardless of if they click a button, ring a bell or use voice recognition to shout "make it so!" from the other side of the room.
Overturning a patent once granted is a slow, expensive process with courts automagically giving patent-owners restraining orders on request that could completely destroy your income just when you need it to PAY the lawyers you have to hire...
What it comes down to is that patents, particularly software patents, are being given out by people with insufficient time to evaluate them, even if they HAD the skills to do so, which they don't.
--
For that matter, a LOT of companies refused to certify, or actually WITHDREW Y2K certification to try and force companies to buy their latest and greatest - so M$oft is at least in company.
--
This is a borderline subject - you have to balance a lot of things to produce a successful product; Speed *is* important, but (apart from in games) not as important as other factors such as reliability, ease of use and maintainability of code (and if you *don't* think this last one is important, you haven't ever developed anything past the hand-in-to-tutor stage; if you are lucky, it is some other fool cursing your name. If you are unlucky, it is you at 2am scratching your head and wondering why altering A stops B from working)
That said, there is little or no justification for sloppy programming in the "if it doesn't work, buy a faster computer" style - it is a marketing issue, rather than a technical one; back in the 80s, software that wouldn't run on the "base" machine just didn't sell - you couldn't rely on your customer base having the expensive upgrades and gadgets that would make your program shine above it's competition without effort; you had to do it the hard way, by writing better code.....
--
Indeed so - but I doubt there are many movie fans that don't have at least ONE film recorded from broadcast TV - and don't feel the slightest guilt about it. Similarly, When I was younger and couldn't afford all the latest releases, I used to record them from the radio chart shows
Pause while the moral majority gasp at my criminal past!
I didn't (and still don't!) see anything morally wrong in doing this; It wasn't as if I was depriving them of a sale, and if I liked the music, I was more likely to go out and buy a copy for my singles collection. in any case, it would be taped over a week or so later.
If one truly has a passion for music, shouldn't they be out supporting the artists they like by actually purchasing their CDs, going to concert, etc?
Yes, of course they should - and as far as we can tell, the MP3 revolution has Increased rather than decreased sales - which must be a terrible dissapointment for you. Many of these increased sales could well be credited to mp3 distribution - listeners actively seeking out Albums from bands they have enjoyed individual songs from.
--
Hey folks, the FastTrack66 is not a raid at all. It is a software raid card, but implemented in the ON BOARD BIOS.
For the uninitiated, just because software is stored on a chip (in this case the card bios) rather than a disk, does not make it "hardware". This is commonly referred to as "firmware" but in reality is software that runs on the host CPU just like any piece of software.
I'd be interested to see where you get this information from - as far as I can tell, the flashable bios on the card is run ONLY by the onboard controller; it is not downloaded to the CPU at all......
--
Hmmm. It's nice to see that the americans are starting to come to their senses about the web - it is good, it is big, but it is essentially another form of communication, like telephones and post, and can be dealt with accordingly. :+)
I *would* question their assumption that all web-criminals are also likely to be american though - not only is it insulting to americans, but may lead law enforcement into a false sense of security - give it to the FBI, they will track down the varmit no matter which state he hides in
--
Painful as it is for non-M$oft fans to admit (and yes, it stabs me too
Perhaps this is a good thing, perhaps bad - but it gives the Mozilla team a hard target to reach.
--
Clearly the solution to this is to begin a widely publicized campaign of expiring your keys at regular intervals so that it would be extremely suspicious not to do it. Even go so far as to state that the only reason that you would refrain from expiring a key after 3 months (or choose your one lifetime for it) would be if your are served with a legal order not to do it.
Hmm. If I am reading this correctly, the prosecution only need prove you HAVE HAD the key, not that you currently still have it - that burden of proof thing. therefore, if you expire the key, you may be in the position of not being able to hand over your key to them and find yourself imprisoned for that.....
--
It's a point of discussion, I suppose. I base my opinion that mods on
Also, one correction -- a troll does not just make patently wrong and uninformed statements. So do genuine idiots / morons / etc. A troll makes them for the express purpose of getting a rise out of people.
This is also true - it's implicit that a troll KNOWS he is Trolling; this was sufficiently borderline it could just have been the more common September-style idiot.
What puzzles me is how you knew all this and _still_ managed to get trolled. /. have one advantage that trolls on usenet tend not to have - the bulk of the readership may not know enough about the subject to tell the difference. *I* read stories I don't have any real knowledge of, in the hope I can somehow acquire $CLUE from the nature of the discussion; Unless Flamebait is marked as such, or is answered, how am I to tell good from bad?
This is because plausable-sounding trolls on
--
In theory, yes. In practice, you are not obliged to use any given telephone line to access your account - you can usually access via hotel lines, mobile phones and if a friend also has a modem, you can either ride his connection or borrow his pc to log in. However, there *is* one bottleneck - the ISPs. No matter where you connect from, you have to log into the internet somewhere, and many ISPs still do not allow you to even READ your email from outside their own dialup service. It's a lot easier to trap the traffic at one or more ISPs than to do so at the telephone stage, and the signal is "cleaner".
Granted, they still may need a decryption key. But come on! You mean to tell me that a government doesn't have the resources to crack an encryption key?
I mean to tell you that a government doesn't have the resources to crack an encryption key! Cryptography freely available on the internet, such as PGP and Scramdisk, can take a budget of millions of dollars and an acre or so of computers to break *one* key a century - if you are lucky.
Hey if a "cyber-crime" is so serious, you should be able to afford the technology and intelligence to solve it.
If cyber crime was, then they would. The technology is already there - good policework, informants, tempest, keyloggers... But this is *expensive* - far too expensive to waste on "subversives" or "activists" - you would have to reserve it for those genuinely a danger to society
They just want things to be easy.
Don't we all?
The end result? The internet will be crowded with "cops" that have nothing to do. The day will come when we get "speeding tickets" online for using too much bandwidth. Hey, is donutshop.com still available??
More likely, the door of every ISP will be held permanently open by the stream of unaccountable, unidentifiable but authorised "statutory bodies" coming to check every email you ever sent on the basis that your dog licence is out of date... and it will only be a matter of time before key escrow is re-launched, not as a legal requirement, but as a convenience to stop you being dragged out of bed at 3am each day in order to hand over yet another set of session keys...
--
Not to contradict you, but, I think in Britain you are guilty until proven innocent in all crimes, so the burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the defendant.
It varies (the english like to think they invented the "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but I doubt they could prove that). In some cases such as the requirement to have insurance documents for motor vehicles, and certain statutory books such as the income tax ledgers, it is a requirement for the defendant to produce them; however, this is usually reserved for cases where it is an offence for the defendent not to have them, and where if the defendant has complied with this law, producing the required proof (either the documents, or the name of the agency/accountants they are lodged with) is relatively easy.
Where *this* bill falls down is that the reversal of proof is usually only done where the task is difficult for the prosecution, easy for the defense, and there exists a statutory duty to possess the item (i.e. a positive proof). This bill imposes a negative proof on the defence - they must prove, not that the defendent doesn't have a key (a pretty impossible task) but that the defendent has NEVER HAD the key..... So, this would not exactly be a big step, just applying the same law standards they've used before on the internet. Of course, that doesn't make it right, but, from a legal perspective, this isn't anything too radical on the part of Britain. I'm not sure of this, however, could anyone from Britain verify this or deny it?
--
Do you have any idea how PK cryptography works? the majority of these warrants are not going to be served on the suspected criminals - otherwise why are there such draconian punishments for the "Tipping Off" offence? They are going to be served on innocents who have more to lose by serving the two years than from any "criminal" information they reveal by doing so. It's a part of technology swinging back - Improvements in digital exchanges and computer analysis have made interception and monitoring possible to a degree that would have been unthinkable a mere twenty years ago, back in the days of mechanical switches. Now, encryption is threatening to take the new-found powers away from them, and then some - in the old mechanical days, you could at least rely on that, when a given pair was croc-clipped to a recorder, that you would be able to understand what you heard (they may use a codebook approach, and talk about candy rather than cocane, but you could probably figure it out in time). They would have to go back to physically sneaking into places and planting bugs! Gosh, how terrible.
This is not a "troll" (whatever that is) /. sense (you havent' mentioned stone females or hot grits) but in Usenet, someone that makes patently wrong and uninformed statements that get a "flamebait" rating here on /. are trolls..
It isn't in the usual
, I am simply pointing out that other countries have different standards of privacy & freedom.
Hmm. I *am* english, and I am disgusted at this - it violates MY standards of privacy and freedom, and I suspect no polititian would consider signing it for a minute if he thought it applied to him.
--