Simply being connected to the Internet does not make a system fair game for any and all activity.
That's where you and I disagree.
The government is not deciding which emails are accptable and which are not.
They are deciding which emails require opt-in, and which do not.
What the government is (would be) saying is that the sender of a certain type of message has to have the recipient's permission before sending that message.
So what if the government said that the sender of government criticisms has to have the recipient's permission before sending that message? Would that be constitutional?
Your first analogy I just don't buy, because it's talking about physical trespassing, which is inherently different.
However, the fact that I don't own or directly control the equipment on which the message is left does not circumvent the law(s) that say someone can not leave a message threatening my life.
The supreme court has interpreted an exception to the first ammendment for "fighting words". They haven't yet done so for spam.
Simply put, requiring opt-in for spam is not prior restraint. Prohibiting all spam under all circumstances would be.
Prohibiting unsolicited email would not be prior restraint. Prohibiting only certain content in unsolicited email is.
The government can ban all unsolicited email, and because that is not based on content it is okay (since unsolicited email can have any content).
Then it wouldn't be a violation of the first ammendment, since it doesn't regulate speech, it regulates actions. But all laws I have seen only ban unsolicited commercial email.
"Face it, by installing a telephone, you are consenting to receive obscene phone calls at 3:00AM."
Yep.
"Face it, by putting up a pool, you are consenting to let random strangers hop in and piss in it."
No. I don't really see the similarity at all actually.
"Face it, by storing your lawn mower outdoors, you are consenting to let your neighbors use it whenever they want to."
Again, I don't see the similarity. Storing your lawn mower outdoors is not the same as storing it in front of a sign which says "free lawn mower rental" (and having the government pass a law saying that companies must get permission before using free lawn mower rentals to mow the lawns of commercial properties).
SPAM is messages sent TO you, whereas you go to slashdot to read messages.
All my spam is downloaded. None of it is sent to my computer directly. If you happen to own your own mail server, then you are accepting mail just as slashdot accepts posts.
If you want to get people to agree to a contract before sending you mail, fine. If you tell someone who is bothering you to stop sending you mail, fine. But the government does not have the power to decide for all of us which emails are acceptable and which are not, based on content. That is prior restraint of free speech.
So why did they explicitly set up a place for people to post stuff and why did they explicitly accept my account?
Same reason that you put up an email server.
I have NOT put up an email server, and I am continually spammed.
You authorized someone else to put up one for you.
Does the fact that I have a house ever allow you to enter it?
Does the fact that slashdot put up a server allow you to post on it?
So why does the fact that I have an email account ever allow you to message me?
Because that's the whole purpose of setting up an email account.
If some guy banged on my door 10 times a day after I repeatedly shouted "DO NOT BANG ON MY FUCKING DOOR!!" it would be considered harassment and I could call the cops on him.
If someone sends you emails 10 times a day after you repeatedly ask them to stop it is harassment. This law says they can't even knock on your door the first time.
To tell you the truth I think it is my ISP (!!!) giving out my adress.
Then it's most certainly within the spammer's rights to send you the email.
Of course webmail companies usually do exactly the same to you so I can't really get an email adress elsewhere and I'm stuck with getting spammed.
I'll give you an account @inbox.org for a $5 deposit. I'll give you your $5 back whenever you cancel, and you can switch email addresses whenever you want (but I need up to a few days notice). You agree that if you ever send spam I can cancel your account and keep the $5.
If putting up a publicly accessible server, offering user accounts to anyone who signs up, and even allowing people who have no account to post as Anonymous Coward, does not constitute Slashdot's consent to undertake the burden of allowing someone's post, then what does?
Sendmail is a publically accessible service, and it allows people who have no account to post using any arbitrary psudonym they want. That also constitutes consent to undertake the burden of allowing someone's email.
It seems like you're merely making minor improvements to something that's already out there. That rarely works, and I highly doubt it will work in this case. Your network is not anonymous, and you threaten to report IP addresses to the police. So basically your network is only for legal files. That's a fine niche, but what advantage do you offer over http and ftp? Probably not very much.
It is very small (less than floppy size), is a standalone executable so it doesn't touch your registry, and it handles YAST just fine.
As was mentioned by someone else, it does touch your registry, but only if it can. What I like about it most is I can put it in my network drive at school and use it from all the computer labs without installing anything. Before I found putty I had to resort to a slow, ugly, broken java applet.
Just remember, unless you memorize the fingerprint, ssh doesn't protect against man-in-the-middle attacks when you switch client computers.
The article doesn't mention that the "7,000 macro viruses" attack Microsoft products (leaving uses of a Mac only as a web server completely protected from them), nor does it quote any statistics about how many Mac vs. Windows viruses exist, and it doesn't address the real- world fact that Macs are hit with viruses far less often than Windows machines.
Because none of those are relevant to the question at hand. Honda Accords are stolen way more often than VW Beetles, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that the canvas sunroofs are the reason why.
Does anyone know of a way to use a one way cable connection with a router?
A one-way cablemodem is a router. If you want to hook up another one, hook it up. Anything more requires you telling us why exactly you're trying to hook up a router in the first place.
That's essentially what I said. The only hosts which should have wireless ethernet cards should be those which allow (or could allow) public access. An exception could be made for well secured machines with competent admins, but that pretty much rules out machines running a consumer version of windows.
User loggin on from the wireless net should use VPN. That way you're safe.
Safe is an overstatement. It depends on the level of security you need. VPNs from untrusted hosts are inherently unsafe because you can place a keycapture or other trojan on the untrusted host and steal the key(s). If a user's access through the VPN is limited to that user's data, then you haven't opened up too big a hole, but I've seen companies give companywide access to the entire private network from home. So now you've limited the entire network's security to the security of a home machine, probably running windows, IE, kazaa, and outlook. That's not very smart.
So, if you buy a game for your computer and want to make a copy, the hardware will prevent you, by law. This would occur even though "fair use" would allow you to make copies. That's one reason why the SSSCA goes too far.
I just don't buy it. That argument failed for the DMCA, and it'll fail for the SSSCA all over again. Fair use is about the right to make copies. It's not about the right to buy and sell devices which facilitate making those copies.
My problem with the SSSCA has very little to do with any perceived rights to make copies of copyrighted works. It has to do with my right to make and sell computer hardware and software without worrying about implementing some harebrained technology. Ensure to me that x86 compatibles running open source software and connecting to each other all over the world using TCP/IP will be legal to make, use, sell, etc., and I don't give a shit what Microsoft and Adobe and Disney and VA Software do.
If software companies want to take away my ability to make backup copies, let 'em. If musicians want to take away my ability to listen to mp3s in my car, go ahead. I'll find alternatives. But when the federal government threatens to come into my house and tell me what I can and cannot make and sell. Well, that I have a problem with.
The DMCA does that to some extent, but the DMCA only applies to hardware and software designed specifically to facilitate copyright infringement. I really don't have any desire to design such things, and I don't see any reason why anyone else should have a right to either.
My question is what exactly can be done to ensure that wireless networks are secure? They will never be 100% but can they be made good enough for reasonably sensitive data?
Not really. If you put up a wireless network you are effectively opening up your network to the public. Now if the network is already essentially public (say an intracampus network), that isn't really a problem, but if your data is at all sensitive, it shouldn't be hooked up to a public network.
the employees of the taco bell next door can do it too!
Only if they have the decryption key - which isn't totally out of the question.
Depends on how much security you really need. If there's nothing proprietary on the WiFi connected computers, then it might be a good idea. OTOH, if there is anything you don't want available to the public on those computers, you're probably better going with the most secure method of protection - physical security.
Slashdot Mirror
If you couldn't refuse a collect call, you bet it would be illegal.
I guess in the case of phone calls we made the right decision - technology, not laws.
The effect is that once you initiate the VPN connection, you can't even ping a device on your local segment, or on the Internet.
That doesn't stop a virus/trojan which was placed on your system before you initiated the VPN connection.
At any rate, the problem you describe has long been solved.
I think you misunderstood the problem I described.
Yeah, this always happens when I make a post about spam.
Simply being connected to the Internet does not make a system fair game for any and all activity.
That's where you and I disagree.
The government is not deciding which emails are accptable and which are not.
They are deciding which emails require opt-in, and which do not.
What the government is (would be) saying is that the sender of a certain type of message has to have the recipient's permission before sending that message.
So what if the government said that the sender of government criticisms has to have the recipient's permission before sending that message? Would that be constitutional?
Your first analogy I just don't buy, because it's talking about physical trespassing, which is inherently different.
However, the fact that I don't own or directly control the equipment on which the message is left does not circumvent the law(s) that say someone can not leave a message threatening my life.
The supreme court has interpreted an exception to the first ammendment for "fighting words". They haven't yet done so for spam.
Simply put, requiring opt-in for spam is not prior restraint. Prohibiting all spam under all circumstances would be.
Prohibiting unsolicited email would not be prior restraint. Prohibiting only certain content in unsolicited email is.
but did you request the post? Did your computer send a request to /. saying "Hey, I want that post"?
Don't you send a request to your POP/IMAP server saying "Hey, I want that email"?
You could just as well say that by havkng your phone number listed you are consenting to receive collect calls.
You are, aren't you? Are you suggesting that it should be illegal to make collect calls?
The government can ban all unsolicited email, and because that is not based on content it is okay (since unsolicited email can have any content).
Then it wouldn't be a violation of the first ammendment, since it doesn't regulate speech, it regulates actions. But all laws I have seen only ban unsolicited commercial email.
"Face it, by installing a telephone, you are consenting to receive obscene phone calls at 3:00AM."
Yep.
"Face it, by putting up a pool, you are consenting to let random strangers hop in and piss in it."
No. I don't really see the similarity at all actually.
"Face it, by storing your lawn mower outdoors, you are consenting to let your neighbors use it whenever they want to."
Again, I don't see the similarity. Storing your lawn mower outdoors is not the same as storing it in front of a sign which says "free lawn mower rental" (and having the government pass a law saying that companies must get permission before using free lawn mower rentals to mow the lawns of commercial properties).
Except for the fact that you and everyone who is reading this voluntarily came to this site and clicked on this article to read it.
And everyone who reads mail clicks on the "Receive Mail" button.
And /. has consented by 1) allowing, even encouraging, people to post replies; and 2) visitor's [sic] now see ads, or pay to not see them.
And your ISP has consented by allowing and even encouraging people to send email to their servers.
And I don't recall that creating an email account somehow made me liable for all unsolicitated email that I receive.
Liable? You're not liable for anything.
Did your computer download that post?
Did you download your spam?
SPAM is messages sent TO you, whereas you go to slashdot to read messages.
All my spam is downloaded. None of it is sent to my computer directly. If you happen to own your own mail server, then you are accepting mail just as slashdot accepts posts.
If you want to get people to agree to a contract before sending you mail, fine. If you tell someone who is bothering you to stop sending you mail, fine. But the government does not have the power to decide for all of us which emails are acceptable and which are not, based on content. That is prior restraint of free speech.
What exactly is a private email account? Where can I get one? All the email accounts I've seen allow just about anyone to send to them.
So why did they explicitly set up a place for people to post stuff and why did they explicitly accept my account?
Same reason that you put up an email server.
I have NOT put up an email server, and I am continually spammed.
You authorized someone else to put up one for you.
Does the fact that I have a house ever allow you to enter it?
Does the fact that slashdot put up a server allow you to post on it?
So why does the fact that I have an email account ever allow you to message me?
Because that's the whole purpose of setting up an email account.
If some guy banged on my door 10 times a day after I repeatedly shouted "DO NOT BANG ON MY FUCKING DOOR!!" it would be considered harassment and I could call the cops on him.
If someone sends you emails 10 times a day after you repeatedly ask them to stop it is harassment. This law says they can't even knock on your door the first time.
To tell you the truth I think it is my ISP (!!!) giving out my adress.
Then it's most certainly within the spammer's rights to send you the email.
Of course webmail companies usually do exactly the same to you so I can't really get an email adress elsewhere and I'm stuck with getting spammed.
I'll give you an account @inbox.org for a $5 deposit. I'll give you your $5 back whenever you cancel, and you can switch email addresses whenever you want (but I need up to a few days notice). You agree that if you ever send spam I can cancel your account and keep the $5.
Yeah, and she dressed like a slut, too.
Yeah, and you violated me by responding to my post.
If putting up a publicly accessible server, offering user accounts to anyone who signs up, and even allowing people who have no account to post as Anonymous Coward, does not constitute Slashdot's consent to undertake the burden of allowing someone's post, then what does?
Sendmail is a publically accessible service, and it allows people who have no account to post using any arbitrary psudonym they want. That also constitutes consent to undertake the burden of allowing someone's email.
unsolicitied commercial email places a financial burdern upon the recipient, where the recipient has NOT consented to undertake that burden.
No more than your post on slashdot places a financial burden upon slashdot, where slashdot has NOT consented to undertake that burden.
Face it, by putting up an email server, you are consenting to receive email.
It seems like you're merely making minor improvements to something that's already out there. That rarely works, and I highly doubt it will work in this case. Your network is not anonymous, and you threaten to report IP addresses to the police. So basically your network is only for legal files. That's a fine niche, but what advantage do you offer over http and ftp? Probably not very much.
I'm going to have to forget to renew my domain name so I can get slashdotted too!
It is very small (less than floppy size), is a standalone executable so it doesn't touch your registry, and it handles YAST just fine.
As was mentioned by someone else, it does touch your registry, but only if it can. What I like about it most is I can put it in my network drive at school and use it from all the computer labs without installing anything. Before I found putty I had to resort to a slow, ugly, broken java applet.
Just remember, unless you memorize the fingerprint, ssh doesn't protect against man-in-the-middle attacks when you switch client computers.
The article doesn't mention that the "7,000 macro viruses" attack Microsoft products (leaving uses of a Mac only as a web server completely protected from them), nor does it quote any statistics about how many Mac vs. Windows viruses exist, and it doesn't address the real- world fact that Macs are hit with viruses far less often than Windows machines.
Because none of those are relevant to the question at hand. Honda Accords are stolen way more often than VW Beetles, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that the canvas sunroofs are the reason why.
Does anyone know of a way to use a one way cable connection with a router?
A one-way cablemodem is a router. If you want to hook up another one, hook it up. Anything more requires you telling us why exactly you're trying to hook up a router in the first place.
That's essentially what I said. The only hosts which should have wireless ethernet cards should be those which allow (or could allow) public access. An exception could be made for well secured machines with competent admins, but that pretty much rules out machines running a consumer version of windows.
User loggin on from the wireless net should use VPN. That way you're safe.
Safe is an overstatement. It depends on the level of security you need. VPNs from untrusted hosts are inherently unsafe because you can place a keycapture or other trojan on the untrusted host and steal the key(s). If a user's access through the VPN is limited to that user's data, then you haven't opened up too big a hole, but I've seen companies give companywide access to the entire private network from home. So now you've limited the entire network's security to the security of a home machine, probably running windows, IE, kazaa, and outlook. That's not very smart.
So, if you buy a game for your computer and want to make a copy, the hardware will prevent you, by law. This would occur even though "fair use" would allow you to make copies. That's one reason why the SSSCA goes too far.
I just don't buy it. That argument failed for the DMCA, and it'll fail for the SSSCA all over again. Fair use is about the right to make copies. It's not about the right to buy and sell devices which facilitate making those copies.
My problem with the SSSCA has very little to do with any perceived rights to make copies of copyrighted works. It has to do with my right to make and sell computer hardware and software without worrying about implementing some harebrained technology. Ensure to me that x86 compatibles running open source software and connecting to each other all over the world using TCP/IP will be legal to make, use, sell, etc., and I don't give a shit what Microsoft and Adobe and Disney and VA Software do.
If software companies want to take away my ability to make backup copies, let 'em. If musicians want to take away my ability to listen to mp3s in my car, go ahead. I'll find alternatives. But when the federal government threatens to come into my house and tell me what I can and cannot make and sell. Well, that I have a problem with.
The DMCA does that to some extent, but the DMCA only applies to hardware and software designed specifically to facilitate copyright infringement. I really don't have any desire to design such things, and I don't see any reason why anyone else should have a right to either.
My question is what exactly can be done to ensure that wireless networks are secure? They will never be 100% but can they be made good enough for reasonably sensitive data?
Not really. If you put up a wireless network you are effectively opening up your network to the public. Now if the network is already essentially public (say an intracampus network), that isn't really a problem, but if your data is at all sensitive, it shouldn't be hooked up to a public network.
the employees of the taco bell next door can do it too!
Only if they have the decryption key - which isn't totally out of the question.
Depends on how much security you really need. If there's nothing proprietary on the WiFi connected computers, then it might be a good idea. OTOH, if there is anything you don't want available to the public on those computers, you're probably better going with the most secure method of protection - physical security.
Can the Slashdot crowd help me come up with more selling points for WiFi (beyond the obvious) before I make my formal proposal?
Management can set up a single computer which monitors all traffic on the network without buying expensive chained managed switches.