4. The Game Laws
Part of the starvation conspiracy was the long series of Game Laws. They all brought more restrictions on the poor, making all game and fish the property of the squire or duke or gentleman who owned the land. One fishing law was simply summarized as preventing the "destruction of pond or stew fish" by anyone except the landowner. One of the new game laws of 1771 was spelled out in great detail in the London Chronicle. Apparently there was a loophole in previous legislation which Parliament moved quickly to plug. Rooks and squirrels had somehow not been specified in previous legislation. The new law declared that only landowners of four acres or more, or certain salaried employees, could be in possession of a rook or squirrel.
If a "poor man" were caught with a rook or a squirrel without a "ticket" of permission from the landowner, he had to pay a £5 fine (more than he could earn in a year) and deliver the game to the landowner if "he lives within twelve miles." If he lived farther away the constable was to deliver the dead rook or squirrel to the landowner.
If there is a possiblity they might fire you for something like that I wouldn't suggest it. But if you can show proof that it is easy to do and that it is not secure that just might get their attention.
There's also the non-zero probability that they'd not only fire you, but prosecute you criminally. Demoing a vulnerability when not working in "security" will at best, make you someone who is considered to "bear watching," and at worst a convicted felon.
This sort of thing is exactly the reason the best advice is to never speak with a member of law enforcement without an attorney present if you even think you are or will be accused of a crime.
Fair enough--but for those without the savvy (or desire to manage yet another box) to run a real, separate firewall, this opens the door to all kinds of abuse.
And we all know that firewalls are best at keeping people out, not keeping sensitive information in. I doubt most firewall rulesets would block a port 80 connection to some innocuous site outside of Phoenix's known IP allocation . ..
True enough, but I have a feeling that the amount of funding those bureaucrats get isn't going to be that high for awhile. So while they're charged with enforcing the law, they won't be able to. Kind of the way the EEOC will be funded.
I work in the medical field, and we're sweating bullets here over HIPPA.
Why? Do you think a Republican administration is actually going to enforce it? I wouldn't worry for at least the next, possible the one after that, election.
CDDB is a pretty lousy example of a case in which users would have a "moral duty" to pay in some way, since CDDB misappropriated the labor of thousands of people by taking a database they got them to create when the program and database were GPLd, then changing the terms later.
Of course, FreeDB works great, and Gracenote can go pack fudge.
Bullshit. The open port and running HTTP server constitute permission to connect. Of course, they have money, and the victim of such a ridiculous prosecution doesn't, so it would probably go the way you describe--but not because that's the law.
Did you ever just try walking past the checkpoint on the way out?
I have. "May I see your receipt, sir?" "No." I pray for the day one of them is fool enough to actually try to restrain me--I need the money!
Should one ever press the issue without attempting to restrain me, I will cheerfully offer to show them my receipt--at the customer service counter, when I return what I just purchased.
Don't forget that they modified POSE, a GPLd program, and distributed it without making source available. When called on it, a Sony employee basically told the author he could fuck himself and sue. Owned the first CLIE' at the time, and haven't bought a Sony product since.
You forgot that the DMCA and the NET Act both provide criminal penalties for copyright violation--that means federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. So you may want to reconsider the "so sue me" approach that was appropriate back before the "content" "industry" bought laws making copyright infringement criminal.
But if they got the money for electronic filing, they got something. By forcing non-licensed users to their competition, they will not only lose the sale they wouldn't have gotten anyway, but the electronic filing fee as well.
So you're implying that it's OK to make me pay for the current year's Turbo Tax in order to be able to re-print a past tax return for which I already paid for the software? I don't think so.
--base3, former Intuit customer, current Kiplinger TaxCut customer.
Interesting. Could this the first instance of software intentionally disabling running under VirtualPC, VMware, or other virtual/emulated environment for digital restrctions purposes?
I attended a presentation about e-government initatives at which an IRS representative spoke about this issue. This was three years ago, but the gentleman said that the IRS had no intention of offering its own electronic filing, primarily because of industry pressure.
I wonder how Wolfram Research (not known for its generosity in licensing arrangements) would feel about Mathematica being used in a remote display environment without the purchase of one copy for every student using such tutoring.
That's the one! Mine has Micro/RSX (no development tools, regrettably). Interesting to see VMS's ancestry in its structure and commands.
Unix should not be a problem--here might be a good place to get started.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking the blurb at the bottom of the iPod ads would read "Don't steal music. We really mean it this time."
. . . you score points with me for not just whacking the user, no questions asked, like the major ISPs seem to be doing.
There's also the non-zero probability that they'd not only fire you, but prosecute you criminally. Demoing a vulnerability when not working in "security" will at best, make you someone who is considered to "bear watching," and at worst a convicted felon.
You'll never guess what's at the foundation of PeopleSoft's core programs. That's right, good old COBOL.
This sort of thing is exactly the reason the best advice is to never speak with a member of law enforcement without an attorney present if you even think you are or will be accused of a crime.
I think it sufficient for you to look around at the half dozen or so examples already given.
When there really is a slippery slope, it isn't a fallacy, despite what a minimal education in logic and argument might have told you.
And we all know that firewalls are best at keeping people out, not keeping sensitive information in. I doubt most firewall rulesets would block a port 80 connection to some innocuous site outside of Phoenix's known IP allocation . . .
True enough, but I have a feeling that the amount of funding those bureaucrats get isn't going to be that high for awhile. So while they're charged with enforcing the law, they won't be able to. Kind of the way the EEOC will be funded.
Why? Do you think a Republican administration is actually going to enforce it? I wouldn't worry for at least the next, possible the one after that, election.
Apple lawyers have sent a cease and desist to the IETF for misappropriation of Apple's i* trademark.
Of course, FreeDB works great, and Gracenote can go pack fudge.
Bullshit. The open port and running HTTP server constitute permission to connect. Of course, they have money, and the victim of such a ridiculous prosecution doesn't, so it would probably go the way you describe--but not because that's the law.
I have. "May I see your receipt, sir?" "No." I pray for the day one of them is fool enough to actually try to restrain me--I need the money!
Should one ever press the issue without attempting to restrain me, I will cheerfully offer to show them my receipt--at the customer service counter, when I return what I just purchased.
Don't forget that they modified POSE, a GPLd program, and distributed it without making source available. When called on it, a Sony employee basically told the author he could fuck himself and sue. Owned the first CLIE' at the time, and haven't bought a Sony product since.
You forgot that the DMCA and the NET Act both provide criminal penalties for copyright violation--that means federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. So you may want to reconsider the "so sue me" approach that was appropriate back before the "content" "industry" bought laws making copyright infringement criminal.
But if they got the money for electronic filing, they got something. By forcing non-licensed users to their competition, they will not only lose the sale they wouldn't have gotten anyway, but the electronic filing fee as well.
--base3, former Intuit customer, current Kiplinger TaxCut customer.
Interesting. Could this the first instance of software intentionally disabling running under VirtualPC, VMware, or other virtual/emulated environment for digital restrctions purposes?
I attended a presentation about e-government initatives at which an IRS representative spoke about this issue. This was three years ago, but the gentleman said that the IRS had no intention of offering its own electronic filing, primarily because of industry pressure.
I wonder how Wolfram Research (not known for its generosity in licensing arrangements) would feel about Mathematica being used in a remote display environment without the purchase of one copy for every student using such tutoring.
I hope that at some point you don't mind if I pick your brain about the Localtalk connections if I get around to giving a try and have trouble.
I think the PDP-11 CPUs are just called "PDP-11/nn," save for the LSI-11's used in Heathkit's and other micros.